Who fights against whom? Not USA & NATO, but practically Germany fights against Russia in Ukraine

[zaangalewa]

For those who wonder what this American Civil War song is all about -- "I Goes to Fight Mit Sigel" -- we got a lot German refugees after the failure of the 1848 revolutions in Europe. They were radical democrats, and of course sided with the Union against the Slavocracy. Franz Sigel was a general on the Union side. [ Franz Sigel (U.S. National Park Service)

To fight with "Sigel" is also a able to mean a real "Siegel" = an [official] "seal". To be proved with a seal means also "this thing is okay". So this name lives from a "nomen est omen"-reality.

It's a shame to see all the ridiculous nationalists insulting each other on this forum. Our species is plunging toward catastrophe, and it will engulf everyone.

This was in former times very different. I saw some short years ago a very successful African who had studied in the 1960ies in Germany. He said he was mostly impressed druing hsi toenm when he had studied here from two Germans who fought in the university very heavy with words against each other - and in the evening they drank a beer together and had been very best friends - what was in his own culture an impossibility. But it's to me totally clear what they did do. In the universiy they fought for the best ways to find out what's true - they fought not against each other because of differneces in oponions - they fought with each other to find out what could be a better and more true explanation for whatever problem.

As in all previous wars, our stupid leaders drag the ordinary people into them, and its ordinary people who pay the iron price.

Putin plays a game - and his game figures die.

As for Germany. In the last free election the Germans had, in the autumn of 1933,

1932

the Nazis got 32% of the vote ... down about 5% from what they had received in the Spring. The hardline anti-Nazi Socialist and Communist Parties between them got 37%.

Ahm - the anti-democratic Nazis were against all parties not only against the left wings parties but also against the so called "Zentrum" (center) which tried to represent the mdidle of the society.

If their leaders ... especially the leaders of the communist KPD ... had had some common sense, they could have prevented the Nazis from coming to power.

I see you have a problem in the logic of time. In 1933-1936 nearly the whole world was impressed from the "winner" Hitler. That he made in 1935 the first racist laws against Jews had been for nearly no one in the world a big problem. Reason: Nearly all nations in the western world had been racist nations. Your problem is you im,againe automatically you would had been allknowing in 1933 because you also know what had happened in the hottest phase of the holocaust from 1942-1945. But this no one did know in 1933.

A united anti-Nazi emergency coalition government could have been formed, taking away old Hindenburg's reason for making Hitler chancellor. A physical confrontation -- okay, a civil war -- would still have been necessary,

Hmm ... civil war ? In Germany? ... that's impossible, I guess ... Perhaps it had needed a real war of all Germans against the Prussins and their idiot who liked to be an antiquated "emperor over Germany by the grace of god" in the tradition of the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. But Prussia was not only a leading state of Germany in those days, Prussia had been an army who owned a state and had conquererd not only all other German nations which they made to "colonmies of Prussia" (no joke!) - and Prussia also had conquered France.

but the Nazi control of the machinery of government gave them an immense advantage.

The Nazis did not "control" any machinery - within only one year they transformed Germany into a totally new "machine" which never had existed before in history. It was their machinery which controlled everything and nothing.

There's a lesson for patriots in the USA today: we must have unity against the Left -- the latter are not Nazis, but could, like the Nazis, get power even against the will of the majority of the American people.

The Democrats of the USA have with Nazis or Commies absolutelly nothing to do.

And we must prepare.

For what?

 

[Doug1943]

To fight with "Sigel" is also a able to mean a real "Siegel" = an [official] "seal". To be proved with a seal means also "this thing is okay". So this name lives from a "nomen est omen"-reality.



This was in former times very different. I saw some short years ago a very successful African who had studied in the 1960ies in Germany. He said he was mostly impressed druing hsi toenm when he had studied here from two Germans who fought in the university very heavy with words against each other - and in the evening they drank a beer together and had been very best friends - what was in his own culture an impossibility. But it's to me totally clear what they did do. In the universiy they fought for the best ways to find out what's true - they fought not against each other because of differneces in oponions - they fought with each other to find out what could be a better and more true explanation for whatever problem.



Putin plays a game - and his game figures die.




1932



Ahm - the anti-democratic Nazis were against all parties not only against the left wings parties but also against the so called "Zentrum" (center) which tried to represent the mdidle of the society.



I see you have a problem in the logic of time. In 1933-1936 nearly the whole world was impressed from the "winner" Hitler. That he made in 1935 the first racist laws against Jews had been for nearly no one in the world a big problem. Reason: Nearly all nations in the western world had been racist nations. Your problem is you im,againe automatically you would had been allknowing in 1933 because you also know what had happened in the hottest phase of the holocaust from 1942-1945. But this no one did know in 1933.



Hmm ... civil war ? In Germany? ... that's impossible, I guess ... Perhaps it had needed a real war of all Germans against the Prussins and their idiot who liked to be an antiquated "emperor over Germany by the grace of god" in the tradition of the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. But Prussia was not only a leading state of Germany in those days, Prussia had been an army who owned a state and had conquererd not only all other German nations which they made to "colonmies of Prussia" (no joke!) - and Prussia also had conquered France.



The Nazis did not "control" any machinery - within only one year they transformed Germany into a totally new "machine" which never had existed before in history. It was their machinery which controlled everything and nothing.



The Democrats of the USA have with Nazis or Commies absolutelly nothing to do.



For what?

Quite right. 1932, not 1933. Everyone knows that, how silly of me.

Yes, the non-Nazi parties were ... non-Nazi. Which is not the same as being anti-Nazi.

But it was the Left who had organized street-fighting cadres who might have been able to take the Nazis on.

As for it being impossible for Germany to have a civil war .... whoa. 'Alternative history' is usually just speculation. But had the SpartakusBund been wiser tactically ... or even had the KPD avoided the idiocy of the 'March Action' ... who knows?

But German obedience and discipline is, of course, a stereotype, with some truth in it. (And these are admirable qualities, in my opinion. My being part-German has no bearing on this.)

There used to be a joke, within the Marxist movement, about this:

The first meeting of the Communist International is taking place in Moscow, in 1919.

Delegates from all over the world make their reports, telling about the progress of their movement in their country.

Finally, it's the turn of the delegate from Germany. He stands up.

"Comrades", he says, "We are forging ahead! Our newspaper has doubled in circulation in the last three months. We have formed a womens group, which already has over 50 000 members. Our veterans clubs get new branches every week. Our youth group is expanding by leaps and bounds. We have come into the leadership of the dockers and miners unions, and have strong fractions in all the others. And we're getting so many new members, we've had to order new printings of Party membership cards twice!"
Then he sits down

The Russian chair of the meeting says, "Comrade, this is wonderful news. I think I'm not overstating things when I say that we can look forward with confidence to the Revolution in Germany in the near future!"

The German delegate looks shocked. "Oh No", he says. "Definitely not!"

"But why not?", asks the puzzled Russian chair. "From your report, it seems everything is moving ahead very fast!"

"Because", says the German delegate, "in Germany, revolution is strictly forbidden!"

How sad that old Bismarck, a very wise man, was a Prussian and not an Austrian. But these are the accidents of history.

After the 'Beer Hall Putsch' Hitler wisely decided not to fight the German state apparatus, the police and the army. And after he was made Chancellor, he didn't need to disband them. He used them.

And, yes, people in 1933 did not know what was going to happen. And many people outside Germany -- including the British ambassador were 'casual' anti-Semites, who had some sympathy for Hitler's view of the Jews. (About half of Americans, in a poll taken in the late 30s, agreed that the Jews were in part to blame for their own problems. Hitler's Holocaust, as the grim joke goes, gave anti-Semitism a bad name.)

Quite right, the American Democrats are not Nazis or Communists. Even the hard Leftists within the Democratic Party, driving the 'woke' insanity, are not Communists, or even, most of them, Marxists in any real sense of the word. Today's Left has very little in common with the 'Old Left'.

One minor exception: the American Communist Party is inside the Democratic Party. In fact, an old friend of mine is both the Chair of the Communist Party in his city, and also a Democratic Party Precinct Chairman. But the CPUSA are sensible moderates compared to the AntiFa mobs, and also probably not very 'woke'. Nor do they share the 'woke' Lefties' contempt for their own working class.

The real Marxists inside the Democratic Party are the Democratic Socialists of America -- whose roots actually lie, in part, in a branch of American Trotskyism, although they are now just social democrats. But they themselves have hard-core communists of the Trotskyist flavor inside them --more than one group, in fact -- doing 'entry work'. So we'll see some fireworks there soon.)

But none of these people have huge influence. It's the 'woke' people who are pushing the Democratic Party to destroy America.

And like your Greens (with a couple of exceptions, like that woman whose name I forget ... starts with an 'S' (her first name)), our liberals have gone full-on pro-war. Strange.

 

[ESay]

How sad that old Bismarck, a very wise man, was a Prussian and not an Austrian. But these are the accidents of history

And what difference would that have made?

 

[Doug1943]

And what difference would that have made?

A German Reich centered around Austria, instead of Prussia, would have been much more liberal. Germany would have started on the road to liberal democracy earlier.

 

[mamooth]

So, Russian propaganda monkeys, how's the propaganda game been working out for you?

Not so well? Everyone knows you're lying about everything? Heck, even the nuttiest of the conservatives in the USA know you're lying, and they're imbeciles. They only pretend to believe you, because their fascist perv agenda agrees with yours.

Anyways, keep trying. If your bosses note your lack of results, you might have an accident with an open window. There seem to be lots of those happening in Russia now.

 

[zaangalewa]

Quite right. 1932, not 1933. Everyone knows that, how silly of me.

Yes, the non-Nazi parties were ... non-Nazi. Which is not the same as being anti-Nazi.

That's a nonsense sentence in the quality of "everyone who is not a murderer is able to be a murderer except he is an anti- murderer". The "anti-Nazis" had been the Commies. All others - perhasujo excetop teh social democrats - underestimated the danger "Nazism" oin teh very sinle reason because it had beene a totally new political movement.

But it was the Left who had organized street-fighting cadres who might have been able to take the Nazis on.

That exactly was a reason for many people to vote for the Nazis. The problem had been the winners of world war 1 who limited security in Germany. So the Nazis and Socialists had been able to destroy the democratic republicx oif Weimar with their murderous street fights.

As for it being impossible for Germany to have a civil war .... whoa.

Don't laugh - but political violence not fits with the German mentality.

'Alternative history' is usually just speculation. But had the SpartakusBund been wiser tactically ... or even had the KPD avoided the idiocy of the 'March Action' ... who knows?

It had been the Russian Commies who said to the German commies "You can't bake a cake without breaking eggs". Meanwhile stink millions of dead fouled eggs and imprisoned eggs of the super.-arrioagnt bakers of heaven on Earth who created a hell on Earth, And still they think humanb beings are eggs and they know how to bake a cake.

But German obedience and discipline is, of course, a stereotype, with some truth in it.

No. That's a stereotype of the Prussians (="an army who owned a state") but not of the Germans. It's called "Obrigkeitstaat" and "Kadavergehorsam" in German. And "some truth" is that also Prussians are Germans. But I knew personally some of the last Prussians and self-discipline is for sure not a bad thighn and the Prussians I knew had been very tolerant people

(And these are admirable qualities, in my opinion. My being part-German has no bearing on this.)

There used to be a joke, within the Marxist movement, about this:


How sad that old Bismarck, a very wise man,

An idiot in my view to the world. He worked totally intransparent - what had caused many problems. He was only not such a big idiot as the emperors who served under him - or the super-idiot who had fired him.

was a Prussian and not an Austrian. But these are the accidents of history.

That's not an accident of history - that's a Prussian made catastrophe of history. No one is able to understanf the German history without Austria and the Austrian history without Germany. Itsl by the way exrtemertlme yfgomymn that ever itdio ninthenworld thinks the idea to ctreat a "Great Germany" had anyting to do with a domenbace of germasnb in the whole world .- comparablE with the English dominance. It meant just simple to reunify Germany and Austria. The paradox iun this context: For a very shiort teionm this was realized in 1938 - but the criminal idiot Hitler was hunting Stalin and attacked Poland - so world war 2 started.

After the 'Beer Hall Putsch' Hitler wisely decided not to fight the German state apparatus, the police and the army. And after he was made Chancellor, he didn't need to disband them. He used them.

Hitler became also president - that's the problem. And he was able to rule with excemption clauses so the normal laws played not any role any longer. Hitler was the absolute most mighty ruler Germany ever had in the whole history.

And, yes, people in 1933 did not know what was going to happen. And many people outside Germany -- including the British ambassador were 'casual' anti-Semites, who had some sympathy for Hitler's view of the Jews. (About half of Americans, in a poll taken in the late 30s, agreed that the Jews were in part to blame for their own problems. Hitler's Holocaust, as the grim joke goes, gave anti-Semitism a bad name.)

Quite right, the American Democrats are not Nazis or Communists. Even the hard Leftists within the Democratic Party, driving the 'woke' insanity, are not Communists, or even, most of them, Marxists in any real sense of the word. Today's Left has very little in common with the 'Old Left'.

I on my own never was able to see a big sense in the words "left" and "right" in context politics. My bad luck: The right think I am left and the left think I am right. Who ctreas? Both use the same bullets for their excutions.

One minor exception: the American Communist Party is inside the Democratic Party. In fact, an old friend of mine is both the Chair of the Communist Party in his city, and also a Democratic Party Precinct Chairman. But the CPUSA are sensible moderates compared to the AntiFa mobs, and also probably not very 'woke'. Nor do they share the 'woke' Lefties' contempt for their own working class.

The real Marxists inside the Democratic Party are the Democratic Socialists of America -- whose roots actually lie, in part, in a branch of American Trotskyism, although they are now just social democrats. But they themselves have hard-core communists of the Trotskyist flavor inside them --more than one group, in fact -- doing 'entry work'. So we'll see some fireworks there soon.)

But none of these people have huge influence.

Bad luck or good luck?

It's the 'woke' people who are pushing the Democratic Party to destroy America.

I never tried to understand what US-Americans think about when they use the word "woke" for a political movement. But I'm sure no one likes to destroy the USA - excetop he is a super-idiot like Donald Trump who knows less than nothing and loves Trumperica more than everything else.

And like your Greens (with a couple of exceptions, like that woman whose name I forget ... starts with an 'S' (her first name)), our liberals have gone full-on pro-war. Strange.

In the 1980ies I had big sympathies for "the Greens". Meanwhile I'm anything else than impressed any longer from their stupidities and their will to dominate everyone and everything with a very small bandwidth of good ideas and real knowledge. Whatever. In the moment they learn to govern. We will see.

 

[cnm]

Not USA & NATO, but practically Germany fights against Russia in Ukraine​

It may get to subjugate Stalingrad this time...

 

[Doug1943]

That's a nonsense sentence in the quality of "everyone who is not a murderer is able to be a murderer except he is an anti- murderer". The "anti-Nazis" had been the Commies. All others - perhasujo excetop teh social democrats - underestimated the danger "Nazism" oin teh very sinle reason because it had beene a totally new political movement.



That exactly was a reason for many people to vote for the Nazis. The problem had been the winners of world war 1 who limited security in Germany. So the Nazis and Socialists had been able to destroy the democratic republicx oif Weimar with their murderous street fights.



Don't laugh - but political violence not fits with the German mentality.



It had been the Russian Commies who said to the German commies "You can't bake a cake without breaking eggs". Meanwhile stink millions of dead fouled eggs and imprisoned eggs of the super.-arrioagnt bakers of heaven on Earth who created a hell on Earth, And still they think humanb beings are eggs and they know how to bake a cake.



No. That's a stereotype of the Prussians (="an army who owned a state") but not of the Germans. It's called "Obrigkeitstaat" and "Kadavergehorsam" in German. And "some truth" is that also Prussians are Germans. But I knew personally some of the last Prussians and self-discipline is for sure not a bad thighn and the Prussians I knew had been very tolerant people



An idiot in my view to the world. He worked totally intransparent - what had caused many problems. He was only not such a big idiot as the emperors who served under him - or the super-idiot who had fired him.



That's not an accident of history - that's a Prussian made catastrophe of history. No one is able to understanf the German history without Austria and the Austrian history without Germany. Itsl by the way exrtemertlme yfgomymn that ever itdio ninthenworld thinks the idea to ctreat a "Great Germany" had anyting to do with a domenbace of germasnb in the whole world .- comparablE with the English dominance. It meant just simple to reunify Germany and Austria. The paradox iun this context: For a very shiort teionm this was realized in 1938 - but the criminal idiot Hitler was hunting Stalin and attacked Poland - so world war 2 started.



Hitler became also president - that's the problem. And he was able to rule with excemption clauses so the normal laws played not any role any longer. Hitler was the absolute most mighty ruler Germany ever had in the whole history.



I on my own never was able to see a big sense in the words "left" and "right" in context politics. My bad luck: The right think I am left and the left think I am right. Who ctreas? Both use the same bullets for their excutions.



Bad luck or good luck?



I never tried to understand what US-Americans think about when they use the word "woke" for a political movement. But I'm sure no one likes to destroy the USA - excetop he is a super-idiot like Donald Trump who knows less than nothing and loves Trumperica more than everything else.



In the 1980ies I had big sympathies for "the Greens". Meanwhile I'm anything else than impressed any longer from their stupidities and their will to dominate everyone and everything with a very small bandwidth of good ideas and real knowledge. Whatever. In the moment they learn to govern. We will see.

Here's where we disagree:

(1) The German Communists were as intent on making Germany a one-party totalitarian state as the Nazis were. But not the Social Democrats. They were genuine democrats. The Communists, following Stalin's suicidal 'Third Period' directives, called the Social Democrats 'Social Fascists' ... and even co-operated with the Nazis in a referendum to remove Berlin's Socialist Chief of Police. Nach Hitler, Uns! they boasted.
[ After Hitler, our turn!] Ha! Insane.

(2) The 'centrist' Parties were not Nazis. But some of them shared the strong nationalism of the Nazis, and some of his anti-Semitism, and after Hitler took power, didn't have much trouble in supporting the government. There were honorable exceptions.

And, there were plenty of people on the 'democratic Right' outside of Germany whose attention was initially focussed on his extreme anti-Communism more than anything else ... some of whom hoped he would wage war against the Soviet Union and not against them.

Politics is usually a spectrum. It's not like 'murderers' and 'non-murderers'.

But the thing to remember is that in the last free elections Germany had, 2/3 of its people voted for other parties than the Nazis. (You often hear people say, "Hitler was democratically elected. Not so. There is a kernal of truth here, in that he came to power through the machinery of democracy, and that he had a lot of support, and even more after he came to power and his economic policies pulled Germany out of depression. But that would have happened in any country.)

(3) Bismarck's foreign policy was a good one for Germany, and for Europe. Wilhelm II threw it all away, and set Germany on a collision-course with Russia and its allies. Bismarck also initially had the right attitude to foreign colonies -- ie to avoid having them, and the big navy they would require -- but later got pulled into the scramble for Africa.

But basically, he understood that just because you're better than any single one of your neighbors, you're not necessarily better than all of them at once. Which has been Germany's mistake in the 20th Century: to fight everyone at once. Like the very strong man who walks into a bar and, instead of saying, "I can whip any man here!", says "I can whip all of you at once!"

If I could resurrect Bismarck and Lenin today, and make them jointly responsible for crafting an intelligent foreign and domestic policy for the West, with the aim of defending our traditions, I would.

As for the poor Austrians: after WWI, Vienna was on the way to being the intellectual capitol of the world: in mathematics, music, philosophy, physics -- then they murdered all their Jews, and now it's just a bunch of beautiful old buildings.

For other people reading this: Zaangalewa has a couple of times referred to a wonderful observation which may not have been clear to you, along these lines: "Other nations are countries which have an army. Prussia is an army which has a country."

 

[zaangalewa]

Here's where we disagree:

(1) The German Communists

An "uncle" from me ((a very good friend of my family) was a Commie from 192x to 199x. When he saw and read after the reunion of Germany what really had happened in the so called "real existing socialsim" in the former GDR he decdied when he was nearly 90 years old "I will be no Commie any longer." He was the most humorful man I ever met in my life. An aunt from me was a Commie - even awardened with the medal "Hero of Labor" - since she had been a very young girl until she died very old - and she also always had been a faithful Catholic - don't be astonished: she was really able to combine this. This are two of them but it existed more. I temember for example a teacher who did do anything else than to teach children and who also had been a Commie. He was from another planet so it's difficult to call him a German - but he spoke German. One of his comrades looked like Karl Marx but was not a very smart philosopher what he compensated with grumpiness ... okay ... I could continue ... would it make any sense? Real concrete people are disturbing all abstrahotisms.

were as intent on making Germany a one-party totalitarian state as the Nazis were.

More concrete: They overtook the structure of the Nazis in the GDR. The Hitler-youth ("HJ") for example became the "FDJ" ('free' German youth). Other teachings - but same structure. The Gestapo became the Stasi. And so on and so on. The Commies also had been cruel - but they not had been as bloodthirsty as it had been the Nazis.

But not the Social Democrats.

Totally other theme now.

They were genuine democrats.

The oldest political party of Germany had been the social-democrats - And social means not socialistic and democracy not tyranny as this words had been used in the former GDR ("Soviet"-Germany, the part of the Russian occupation zone which was not totally confiscated from the Russians and all other Germans were murdered and displaced who had not been relevant for the administration of this confiscated areas).

The Communists, following Stalin's suicidal 'Third Period' directives, called the Social Democrats 'Social Fascists' ... and even co-operated with the Nazis in a referendum to remove Berlin's Socialist Chief of Police. Nach Hitler, Uns! they boasted.
[ After Hitler, our turn!] Ha! Insane.

(2) The 'centrist' Parties were not Nazis.

a political party which had been oriented in christian values and the so called "middle of the society". They tried to avoid extremes but many members had the problem not to be strict republicans but also often romantic monarchists. So they are often seen as stirrup holders of the Nazis. But in this context no one should forget that all Catholic nobles of Germany never agreed with Nazis.

But some of them shared the strong nationalism of the Nazis,

The difference is patriotism and nationalism. The Nazis continoulsy hammered the word "German" into all ears until this word became an empty phrase. But they did not use the German flag - they used their Swastika. Simple example today: It exist either Germans or Jews - isn't it? You will often remember "the Jews" on one side of an argument and "the Germans" on the other side of the argument. German and Jew seem to exclude each other. But this is nonsense. Jews and Germans had been the same before the Nazis decided Germans are "Aryans" - what's by the way also only a bloody nonsense.

and some of his anti-Semitism, and after Hitler took power, didn't have much trouble in supporting the government. There were honorable exceptions.

A Christian rule says that every legal authority comes from god - even if this is bad for Christians - and as it looked liked for many people the Nazis came in power legally. And as I yet said to you: You forget the logic of time. What crimes Hitler did do in 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 ... what also the people in this time with their knowledge had been able to identify to be a heavy crime? So when do you say should had a German to make the decision a riot is more constructive for Germany as to obey to the government? ... By the way: In May, 19th, 1935 Thomas Morus (Sir Thomas More) - a rebell against the king of England - was procclaimed to be a Saint from Pope Pius XI.

And, there were plenty of people on the 'democratic Right' outside of Germany whose attention was initially focussed on his extreme anti-Communism more than anything else ... some of whom hoped he would wage war against the Soviet Union and not against them.

I guess very most people underestimated Hitler until it was too late. Hitler was funny and made funny things. For example one of his SA-soldiers came first and announced with loud voice that "the leader" comes. This had alos happened for exampole when important industrials of Germany liked to speak with Hitler - and everyone had to laugh about this funny idea. Some years later no one of them was laughing any longer in the near of Hitler.

Politics is usually a spectrum. It's not like 'murderers' and 'non-murderers'.

But the thing to remember is that in the last free elections Germany had, 2/3 of its people voted for other parties than the Nazis. (You often hear people say, "Hitler was democratically elected. Not so. There is a kernal of truth here, in that he came to power through the machinery of democracy, and that he had a lot of support, and even more after he came to power and his economic policies pulled Germany out of depression. But that would have happened in any country.)

(3) Bismarck's foreign policy was a good one for Germany,

Bismark made nothing for Germany. He was a loyal servant of the king of Prussia and only Prussia was in his interest. Germany did not exist for him.

and for Europe.

What for heavens sake did do Bismark for Europe?

Wilhelm II threw it all away,

British education from his grandma Queen Victoria who he loved more than anyone else in the world.

and set Germany on a collision-course with Russia and its allies.

What's nonsense. He immitated the British politics and set Germany on a collision-course with England. And England tried to bring Prussia and her "colonies" (=the conquered German countries) - into a war with Russia.

Bismarck also initially had the right attitude to foreign colonies -- ie to avoid having them, and the big navy they would require -- but later got pulled into the scramble for Africa.

No one liked to have colonies. This was a spleeny idea from the Brit William II and if I remember well also from his father. Indeed only one of the so called colonies had been really a colony - Namibia. And nearly no German today has a big idea about anything in this context except about the chaos which William II and a black sheep from the house of Trotha - Lothar von Trotha - had caused there.

But basically, he understood that just because you're better than any single one of your neighbors, you're not necessarily better than all of them at once. Which has been Germany's mistake in the 20th Century: to fight everyone at once.

?

Like the very strong man who walks into a bar and, instead of saying, "I can whip any man here!", says "I can whip all of you at once!"

Or like the very strong man who walks into a bar saying "Gimme a glas of milk" and all alcoholics in the bar start to attack him.

If I could resurrect Bismarck and Lenin today, and make them jointly responsible for crafting an intelligent foreign and domestic policy for the West, with the aim of defending our traditions, I would.

?

As for the poor Austrians: after WWI, Vienna was on the way to being the intellectual capitol of the world: in mathematics, music, philosophy, physics -- then they murdered all their Jews, and now it's just a bunch of beautiful old buildings.

no comment

For other people reading this: Zaangalewa has a couple of times referred to a wonderful observation which may not have been clear to you, along these lines: "Other nations are countries which have an army. Prussia is an army which has a country."

Is "Germany" your hobby? Then you know very well the difference between patriotism and nationalisms. A patriot always is great and able to respect others - a nationalist is always only "great again" and never able to respect others who don't share the own opinions. And a patriot always loves the own countty - in bitter days as well as in glorious days. Blessings. May never bitter days come for your country.

 

[ESay]

A German Reich centered around Austria, instead of Prussia, would have been much more liberal. Germany would have started on the road to liberal democracy earlier.

You think that Germany at that time was was less liberal than its neighbors? In what way?

What had the greatest impact on European history of the 20th century onward is the WWI and its results. Everything else is just consequences.

 

[Doug1943]

You think that Germany at that time was was less liberal than its neighbors? In what way?

What had the greatest impact on European history of the 20th century onward is the WWI and its results. Everything else is just consequences.

I think my view of an Austrian- rather than a Prussian-centered united Germany being much more 'liberal' is a pretty conventional one.

As for WWI -- yes, it upended everything. Up until 1914, Europe, and its offshoots, seemed to be powering forward: great leaps forward in physics and engineering -- heavier-than-air flight! X-rays! -- as well as social progress: the expansion of the franchise; social-welfare measures. Germany had a real parliament, with the Socialists making steady progress there. Even the Russians got a Duma.

And war made no sense. A book showing that war between the big powers was no longer rational for any side -- The Great Delusion -- was written and was read widely.

And then ...

And you know what ... right now has a very just-before-1914 feel to me.

 

[ESay]

And you know what ... right now has a very just-before-1914 feel to me

No, it is far away from that. In the WWI there were two major European alliances fighting each other, either of them was capable to completely redraw European borders in the case of winning. What actually happened then.

Now Russia is no match for NATO in any field. Taking into account their quite poor performance in Ukraine, any speculations about WWI analogy is quite irrational.

 

[Doug1943]

No, it is far away from that. In the WWI there were two major European alliances fighting each other, either of them was capable to completely redraw European borders in the case of winning. What actually happened then.

Now Russia is no match for NATO in any field. Taking into account their quite poor performance in Ukraine, any speculations about WWI analogy is quite irrational.

I hope you're right!

 

[Ringo]

Switzerland reinforced its neutral status and once again expressed its unwillingness to change its course with regard to the Ukrainian crisis, N-TV wrote. Speaking at the UN, President Alain Berset said that due to its neutrality, Switzerland could not supply weapons to Ukraine.

In this regard, Berce was skeptical about Germany's request, according to the newspaper. N-TV recalled that last February Berlin made a request to buy back the Swiss army's Leopard tanks. The issue is currently being discussed in the Swiss parliament but Berset said that this was not the time to make any exceptions to the rules.
Germany said it has no plans to send Swiss "Leopards" to Ukraine, N-TV writes. According to representatives of the German side, these tanks are needed to fill the gaps that arose due to the supply of weapons to Ukraine.
As N-TV informs, the Swiss army has 134 "Leopards-2" in the state of combat readiness and there are 96 "Leopards-2" in depots. The paper reminds that the debate on neutrality has been raging in Switzerland since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. Switzerland joined the anti-Russian sanctions, but has so far refused to transfer any weapons to Ukraine.
----
A very undemocratic country! I never liked it. We should impose sanctions on Switzerland.

By the way, Financial Times: Wealthy Chinese clients are leaving Swiss banks because of sanctions against Russia
It is reported that this is due to Switzerland's decision to abandon neutrality, which the country has also traditionally adhered to for a long time. This has led not only to the outflow of old customers of Swiss banks, but also a noticeable drop in interest of potential partners.

 

[zaangalewa]

I think my view of an Austrian- rather than a Prussian-centered united Germany being much more 'liberal' is a pretty conventional one.

It exists nothing what you can call a "centered" Germany before the stupid Prussians and the agressive nationalistsic neighbors of Germany made it to the same stupid national state as are all others. And the Prussians for example had been anything else than "liberal" in context of Catholics. The lies they used in their "culture fight" against Catholics are often "knowledge" today. For example the Prussians created - intentionally I guess- the myth that 2 million witches had been burned from the Catholic inquisition during the "dark" middle ages. A good "reason" to forbid the "anti-liberal" Jesuits in Prussia who had been fighting against wrong ideas from the reformations. But the middle ages had not been as "dark". In the middle ages the idea it exist witches had been seen to be a wrong pagan prejudice. Same as today. Witches had been burned from Christians in the beginning early modern area after the reformation. 50:50 as well from Catholics and Protestants. And not 2 millions but "only" 50,000. And where the inquisitions had been strong nearly never witches had been burned. And the only difference between Protestants and Catholics had been the gender equality. Catholics burned 50% men and 50% women - Protestants burned 10% men and 90% women. But the sado-maso picture of a clerical inquisitor who loves it to torture women is still today a worldwide existing wrong prejudice - created from the "liberal" Prussians in their culture fight against Catholics.

Here Das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation - Ge 8 Übersicht | Burgenlandschule
you can see a card from Germany of the year 1797. The black eliminated area was the beginning of the destruction of Germany. The black area was taken from Napoleon and his much more powerful French weapons. Germany was helpless against his aggressions. You can see that before this had happened Prussia not had been dominating Germany. It had been a part of the kingdom Poland. In the card before (AD 1789) you can see an independent kingdom Prussia on the Baltic sea in the North of the kingdom Poland and in the East of the North of Germany. Looks like Prussia conquered Germany. Indeed if the name of Germany from 1870-1945 would be "Prussia" then this would perhaps be much more in the near of a real truth than to call it "Germany" any longer.

 

[zaangalewa]

is such a Switzerland reinforced its neutral status and once again expressed its unwillingness to change its course with regard to the Ukrainian crisis, N-TV wrote. Speaking at the UN, President Alain Berset said that due to its neutrality, Switzerland could not supply weapons to Ukraine.

In this regard, Berce was skeptical about Germany's request, according to the newspaper. N-TV recalled that last February Berlin made a request to buy back the Swiss army's Leopard tanks. The issue is currently being discussed in the Swiss parliament but Berset said that this was not the time to make any exceptions to the rules.
Germany said it has no plans to send Swiss "Leopards" to Ukraine, N-TV writes. According to representatives of the German side, these tanks are needed to fill the gaps that arose due to the supply of weapons to Ukraine.
As N-TV informs, the Swiss army has 134 "Leopards-2" in the state of combat readiness and there are 96 "Leopards-2" in depots. The paper reminds that the debate on neutrality has been raging in Switzerland since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis. Switzerland joined the anti-Russian sanctions, but has so far refused to transfer any weapons to Ukraine.
----
A very undemocratic country! I never liked it. We should impose sanctions on Switzerland.

You are an imperialistic super-asshole. Who attacks Switzerland attacks me personally because in my heart I am Swiss. As far as I know is Switzerland the oldest republic of the modern world and not any country of the modern world is such a good democracy as it is Switzerland. And Switzerland is the only real neutral country in the world. They are on no ones side. Never. That's their very old tradition. They make mistakes - less than others. But if you like to speak with Swiss about such a theme like "what makes Sitzerland wrong in my eyes" then use your reasonability and heart and think and feel first before you try to sit forever on your ideological imperialistic ass.

By the way, Financial Times: Wealthy Chinese clients are leaving Swiss banks because of sanctions against Russia
It is reported that this is due to Switzerland's decision to abandon neutrality, which the country has also traditionally adhered to for a long time. This has led not only to the outflow of old customers of Swiss banks, but also a noticeable drop in interest of potential partners.

 

[Ringo]

"The president of Ukraine owns a $35 million house in Florida and has $1.2 billion in an outside bank account. Zelensky owns 15 houses, three private jets and has a monthly income of $11 million."
You don't understand: Putin stole everything, and Zelensky was just given it all