Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Culise]

Actually, I was thinking of the peak of German nationalism being the 19th century immediately after its formation, with the Third Reich being more of a last attempt at a throwback that owed much of its success to economic and political weakness in its foes combined with the strengths of 20th century industrial warfare.  That might be a bit too deterministic of me, though.  I would also suggest that Austria after the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye was largely bereft of its historical status as a center of Imperial grace; a new government without ties of legitimacy to the old, a people shorn of that which had distinguished them from Germany, and the economic crisis of the early 30s make it unsurprising that pan-Germanism did grow during that era - "Austria" as it is today owes its history to the Austria of the Habsburgs, but much of its national consciousness (and concomitant decline in pan-German Anschluss) grew only after its liberation from Germany, during which Germany did still exist "in some form," to use the wording I was attempting to refute.  The Swiss, I will note, did have a powerful independent streak, but if this could not exist while Germany existed "in some form," how could it have come to be through military force against a powerful Holy Roman Empire, realized not only through wars against the Habsburgs, but also expansion by military force in Savoy and Italy?  I would also be pleased if you could at least give a better argument for Luxembourg than "just weird;" it seems rather disingenuous to me.

But I don't necessarily disagree with the potential dangers of the situation, which does make me pleased that Russia largely stopped at the Donbass instead of adopting pan-Slavic rhetoric. 

[Descan]

Luxembourg is the odd one out. I can't really think of any real reason that they stayed independent beyond historical accident, as I don't really know the history of the nation at all.

I'm also having trouble parsing what you mean about Switzerland, as I never said anything about their independent streak being dependent on Germany not existing.

Edit: Looking into it, I'm willing to bet that Luxembourg (and the Netherlands to a lesser extent, they still had their overseas empire) remained independent, not so much for their own sakes or causes, but because while the Great Powers surrounding and rivaling Prussia and eventually Germany could "allow" Germany proper to form, these two nations on the outskirts of the old Empire were acting more like buffer states, and that if Germany were to take them, relations would have soured far too much and may have lead to an earlier World War. I could be talking out of my ass here, but if I'm not, I'm also willing to bet that the same kind of thing kept Switzerland independent; if Germany were to try and take them in anything but a diplomatic annexation (and possibly even then), it would have been a sign that Germany is overstepping its bounds in the game of Empire and would have needed to been cut down a little.

If I'm right about that, to any extent, then that's even more mirroring the current situation with Russia and the Russophone minorites and nations surrounding it.

[Culise]

Luxembourg is the odd one out. I can't really think of any real reason that they stayed independent beyond historical accident, as I don't really know the history of the nation at all.

I'm also having trouble parsing what you mean about Switzerland, as I never said anything about their independent streak being dependent on Germany not existing.

Edit: Looking into it, I'm willing to bet that Luxembourg (and the Netherlands to a lesser extent, they still had their overseas empire) remained independent, not so much for their own sakes or causes, but because while the Great Powers surrounding and rivaling Prussia and eventually Germany could "allow" Germany proper to form, these two nations on the outskirts of the old Empire were acting more like buffer states, and that if Germany were to take them, relations would have soured far too much and may have lead to an earlier World War. I could be talking out of my ass here, but if I'm not, I'm also willing to bet that the same kind of thing kept Switzerland independent; if Germany were to try and take them in anything but a diplomatic annexation (and possibly even then), it would have been a sign that Germany is overstepping its bounds in the game of Empire and would have needed to been cut down a little.

If I'm right about that, to any extent, then that's even more mirroring the current situation with Russia and the Russophone minorites and nations surrounding it.

You didn't.  The person I was actually responding to with the original post you rebutted did.  That said, yes, Luxembourg's independence was largely preserved as a consequence of French designs; French preference was to annex it themselves, but it was German opposition to this (and French opposition to the converse possibility of the Germans annexing it) that preserved its independence.  Again, to rebutt Ardas' point, a condition that did not rely on Germany not existing. 

EDIT:
That said, as far as I know, there was never a strong pan-German sentiment in either the Netherlands or Switzerland.  This was half the reason I noted the Netherlands as being a particular edge case, with the other half - and the reason I didn't also include the Swiss - being linguistic: while Dutch is relatively close to Plattdeutsch, standard German is much more derived from Hochdeutsch as far as I am aware. 

[Descan]

Ah. Right. Hm.

... You know, I'm not even sure what my position here is, anyway.

* Descan wanders off to shitpost some more in the emotion threads.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

fighting Russia off and forging their own path certainly seems like a way to nation build.

There are no need to build a nation when it exists already. Some rebuilding and (re)assimilating "Soviet" quasi-nation may be necessary but it is different.

Ukrainans have everything required to be a nation - language, centuries old traditions, literature, historical myths and heroes.

[Helgoland]

This was half the reason I noted the Netherlands as being a particular edge case, with the other half - and the reason I didn't also include the Swiss - being linguistic: while Dutch is relatively close to Plattdeutsch, standard German is much more derived from Hochdeutsch as far as I am aware.

This is very much true. Dutch not being considered a dialect of German is a historical accident, just like Plattdeutsch being considered a dialect of German and not a dialect of Dutch.

[martinuzz]

Is Plattdeutsch the dialect of Ost-Friesland?

Still, I wouldn't call Dutch close enough to German fo being called a dialect. Word gender has nearly completely deteriorated into oblivion, same for nominativ, accusativ, dativ, genitiv, we don't have that, with a few exceptions. German and Dutch do share a common medieval ancestor though (Dietsch), but Dutch got much more influences from scandinavian / anglo-saxon languages than German did.

[Helgoland]

Plattdeutsch is what they (traditionally) speak in Lower Saxony. It's basically unintelligible to a standard High German speaker - my mom speaks it perfectly, and I've grown up being exposed to it rather regularly, but I can at most understand two thirds. It's a form of Low German, and thus rather close to Dutch - hence my comment.

Here's the plattdeutsche wiki article on Plattdeutsch. Let me know how much you understand!

[Culise]

Ah. Right. Hm.

... You know, I'm not even sure what my position here is, anyway.

* Descan wanders off to shitpost some more in the emotion threads.

Crusader for truth, justice, and the shitposting way? Nah, but seriously, always feel free to weigh in, even if it isn't directly relevant to making some point, if I'm wrong about something; I so often am.  ^_^

[Ardas]

Ukraine is a legitimate state and a nation, that is true by all accounts. However, history indicates that despite the development of national consciousness, Russia always saw Ukraine a lesser part of a greater Rus whole that they supposedly inherited.
Again, going back to the issue of realpolitik, with historical background being what it is, and the current capabilities of boh Ukraine and Russia, it is inevitable that Russian foreign policy will seek to dominate and absorb states like Ukraine that are considered to be both buffers and historical parts of their successive empires, first Tsarist, then Soviet.

Are we able to escape history then? Not very likely, as history shaped both current circumstances and the consciousness of both nations. Examples of Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland overlook the reality where these states existed within quite loose framework of Holy Roman Empire (which was neither Roman, holy, or an empire) and were able to secure sovereignty, while Ukraine formed and was molded by its existence within autocratic Russia, which never gave any quarter to its subjects. What Western models often overlook and assume is always generalized and then applied to the East without cultural translation or solid awareness of the background - a state without democratic tradition will not respect or care about creation of democracy in its neighborhood, hence constant frowning and demands that they behave according to Western standards is absurd, especially when Western hypocrisy is at all-time high.

Being caught between a rock and a hard place, Ukraine will struggle, while Russia will flex its muscle. It is not a matter of potential (which Ukraine has) but a matter of existing alignment of forces, which stifle that potential, and its unlikely that this will change as long as Russia is Russian.

[martinuzz]

Plattdeutsch is what they (traditionally) speak in Lower Saxony. It's basically unintelligible to a standard High German speaker - my mom speaks it perfectly, and I've grown up being exposed to it rather regularly, but I can at most understand two thirds. It's a form of Low German, and thus rather close to Dutch - hence my comment.

Here's the plattdeutsche wiki article on Plattdeutsch. Let me know how much you understand!

Personally, I can read that pretty fluently. It's kindof in between German, the Dutch dialect from the province Overijssel (https://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentsch), and the official language Frysk, which is the Netherlands' second officially recognized language (https://fy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frysk).
A random Dutch guy with no background in German and no familiarity with phonetic reading, and/or scandinavian language would not be able to read most of it. You really at least need to know German to be able to read that.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

It is true that as long as Russia exists in any form, Ukraine will be at war (sometimes hot, sometimes cold) with it.

Europeans seem to think That Russia vs Ukraine wars can be ended like countless French-British or French-German wars but you can't compare it. Because those wars were wars for influence while Russian aggresion is ideological. Their population is sure that Ukraine should not exist. This war can be over only in one way - Either Russia or Ukraine will disappear from the world political map.

To survive Ukraine has to become stronger, much stronger. In the same time Ukraine must do whatever possible to weaken Russia or strenghten its enemies.

[martinuzz]

Look at it from Russia's side.
I'd be pissed too if there were squatters occupying my ancestral home, and they weren't even paying the gas bill
[/sarcasm]

[Sergarr]

, while Ukraine formed and was molded by its existence within autocratic Russia, which never gave any quarter to its subjects.

That's provably wrong.

[Loud Whispers]

To survive Ukraine has to become stronger, much stronger. In the same time Ukraine must do whatever possible to weaken Russia or strenghten its enemies.

A very shortsighted goal, the West did fund anti-communists only to find a greater threat in nazis and even today this exact policy and ended up replacing weak secular opposition with Jihadist opposition, it is a very short-sighted view which will only result in more and more enemies leveled against you until death. By all means do not hesitate to take action and destroy your enemies when you must, but do so with wisdom, not retardation as your guide. The Romans understood it was not enough to destroy your enemy without either utterly exterminating any ability for anyone to succeed in that area, or by conquering it and replacing that power vacuum with themselves, or by merely not wasting resources destroying enemies who'd be replaced by new people with old grudges.

Likewise you would be ignoring that the French-British wars were ideological, the French-German wars were ideological and even today Europe is being torn apart by elite ideologues.