Talk:Germany

From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please remember: Germany is not the FRG. All of the nowadays occupied territories are Germany as well. Regards --Rauhreif 23:49, 20 February 2011 (CET)

By what definition?

There seems to be some changes recently, rather than presenting it in its current state, simply adding in "this bit is Germany", "this bit it too". But how is this been defined? If every area which was part of the Holy Roman Empire is to be included then why not include the Netherlands & Flanders too? IMO this and the FDR should simply be the same article, but explain contentious circumstances in which it arrived at its current reduced state (especially mentioning how communists expelled many Germans from the East after the war). If every European state is allowed to simply list its "ideal" territory on here, then there is going to be a lot of overlapping and a free for all. - Basileus 20:47, 21 March 2011 (CET)

Another question: By what definition do you declare the borders of Poland? Your question: The definition is clear: It is the border of Germany which has been declared in 1871. After the treaty of Versailles, which has been an extortion the borders were shrinked. However... It has been "accepted" by Germany. And now the hoax: After WW2 the borders has been shrinked again as a decision of Stalin and Poland. The People were murdered and expulsed. But that way will never been accepted by the International community as the so called Stimson-doctrine absolutley clearly says. In my mind there is no problem. It is a fact absolutely. By the way: Germany has been a long period from different states. So called Prussia or Teutonic State, Austria, Luxemburg and so on. It is a definition of the Nation and not a definion of the several states within. --Rauhreif 21:00, 21 March 2011 (CET)
Leichtenstein for example left the German Confederation in 1866. It just seems odd to have a map frozen in time which shows areas where Germans do not currently live and is under the de facto rule of Polish & Czech states (the Austrian issue aside). The point I'm trying to make is simple, what if France decides to "roll back" to the Napoleonic era, do we present in a map all the First French Empire on the France article? Or roll back the American Revolution & make it part of the British Empire? Or make South America, Cuba, etc appear as Spain? We'd have a very odd encyclopedia and it would be almost impossible to present current political events. Almost all major European powers have lost territories at certain points. - Basileus 21:42, 21 March 2011 (CET)

Yes Liechtenstein is a german state but not a nation. The people who lives in Austria are not Germans? What they are then? Austria has been joined to Gremany in 1938. After 1918 it has been forbiden by the allies. Why it was been forbidden? Because they are no Germans? You will know that certainly. You should not claim that I want to roll back anything. Germany did not lost the territory. It has been robbed!!! That is the little small difference. Do you welcome land grabbing and murder the people which lived since thousend years in it? Do you welcome such way? I do not so. These are no legal facts. It is hard to me to write it in english because my english is not very good. I recommend you to read some books by Alfred de Zayas in which he describes the problem of east germany. Borders will set by a Peace Treaty. Germany has not such contract until now. Did you know that? --Rauhreif 22:29, 21 March 2011 (CET)

Yes, I am aware of the history and no I do not welcome what you have described. But this differs from the simple reality that is out there in the world, as we type. What you described, regarding territories loses, could also be applied to every other major European power over the centuries. It does not seem likely that Germany will take back Sudetenland or territory which has been annexed by Poland in the near future; since the Federal Republic has diplomatic relations with these states. Even in Austria, as far as I'm aware none of the parties (even FPÖ or nationalists) are suggesting a reunification (I may be incorrect on this). Such a scope should feature on an article called German unionism rather than the main article itself. - Basileus 23:28, 21 March 2011 (CET)
Germany 1938.jpg

There are two several problems. At the first you are right. The problems can not be solved within the Metapedia. At the second we have to clear up what Germany is. As I said: Germany is a Nation. Within that Nation there have been a lot of several states in it at any time. This is a german special because the Germans are several tribes. The Kingdom of Bavaria has been a state, Sachsonia has been a state, Austria has been a state and Prussia has been a state within the german borders. Lets have a look at the nearest history: The GDR has been a state within Germany and the FRG has been a state within Germany as well. After 1989 the GDR joined to the FRG. The borders of that state are a result of the WW2 but these borders are not the borders of Germany. The borders of Germany are defined by the following facts: 1871 founding of the second Reich. 1919 some parts of the German territories were transferred to Poland by an extorsion. Now where we are? The german Sudetenland was transferred to Czechoslovakia. Austria wanted to join to Germany. It was forbidden by the allies. In 1938 Austria joined to Germany by a plebiscite and the Sudetenland as well by the munich agreement at international law. And it ist part of Germany until now. Why? Because there is no convention which declares the opposite! But if there are you should show it to me and the rest of the World! Now you will find at the rigth a map, what Germany is by International Law. The map is not perfect because some territories are disputed. But it is a good root position for former negotiations. --Rauhreif 00:20, 22 March 2011 (CET)

Here are two quotes which clarify the German Question. I will not translate them because if you don't speak German you are not qualified to speak on this topic.
„Wo war Deutschland? In Weimar? In Berlin? Einmal war es an der Front, aber die Front zerfiel. War es beim Volk? Aber das schrie nach Brot und wählte seine dicken Bäuche. War es der Staat? Doch der Staat suchte geschwätzig seine Form und fand sie im Verzicht. Deutschland brannte dunkel in verwegenen Hirnen. Deutschland war da, wo um es gerungen wurde.“Ernst von Salomon über die Motive der Freiwilligen im sog. Freiwilligen Landesjägerkorps des Generalmajors Maercke
„Deutschland? … keiner weiß, wo es anfängt, keiner, wo es aufhört. Es hat keine Grenzen in dieser Welt … Man hat es im Herzen … oder man findet es nirgends und nie …“Hans Johst
We Germans are special. The argument, if anyone would do this, doesn't hold. We Germans are not like anyone. All those others aren't like us. It is no accident that until now all world wars were directed against Germany.
The FRG isn't a German state. The FRG is in the act of murdering the Germans. It is not a bit more German than any other state. At this time there is no German state. If we will create one, it will be seen what borders it has. This is the point where you are right, Basileus. The state of affairs in 1871 doesn't matter that much nowadays. There exists only one law: the law of the jungle. We Germans know this the best! --Mms 19:26, 22 March 2011 (CET)
It is easy to translate it elementary here: [1] --Rauhreif 19:36, 22 March 2011 (CET)
I have an elementary knowledge of German so can understand a bit the text. However, this still doesn't solve the issue of the "prefered" territorial boundaries of almost any other European power who has, similarly lost territories in wars, and what a pantomine it would turn the project into if everyone was allowed to list "ideal territory" and make out that a map from x historical period of maximum extent is the present reality on a primary page about the subject. The fact that Germany held these territories in earlier days should not be covered up or hidden, but at the same, we shouldn't give a false impression that this is what is out there in the world today.
As for the "special", well every nation has its stains and none is beyond logos (though Jews seem to think they are "chosen" & set above it). I agree Germany was the leading light of Europe in WWII, however other times is questionable. WWI was primarily an excuse for organised Jewry to destroy the supposedly "antisemitic" Tsar Nicholas II and the traditional White order in Russia. This was successful largely due to Wilhelm II's agents using the Jew Lenin to destroy his cousin and the war was able to come about due to Jewish financiers goading him on (in WWII, the situation is reversed, where Churchill was bribed by the same tribe). The Kaiser later confessed "The Jews are responsible for Bolshevism in Russia, and Germany too. I was far too indulgent with them during my reign, and I bitterly regret the favors I showed to prominent Jewish bankers." Chicago Tribune, 2 July 1922. So it would be foolish to pretend any nation is beyond criticism. - Basileus 02:05, 23 March 2011 (CET)
Jews also aimed to destroy the Habsburg monarchy, and it was also fully successful 1914-1920. Especially the demolition of Hungary. As far as I know, Churchill was a Jew. It is hard to find something more disgusting, than his memoires.
Germans are much better than they are depicted since 1945, but they are not angels and not beyond criticism. Hu1 08:34, 23 March 2011 (CET)

I have never claimed of ideal borders. The map above shows absolutely NOT ideal borders. It shows the horrible situation for which is responsible the treaty of Versailles. I have said instead: Borders by international law. Did you not read it? Below some maps of the german borders which are possible as well. The black map shows the ideal borders as you mean. But thereof I have never talked. You are talking of ideal borders instead. --Rauhreif 10:36, 23 March 2011 (CET)

Except the so called "Burgenland", which is Hungarian up to the river Lajta. It is stolen since 1920 by Austria. Hu1 13:34, 23 March 2011 (CET)
Yes it is absolutely right. But the borders between Hungary and Germany (Austria) are fixed by international law es well. It is a mission of the future to clear it by the will of the people in a peacefull way. Cechoslovakia instead wanted to annex the Burgenland after the World War One: [2]. --Rauhreif 13:43, 23 March 2011 (CET)
Czechoslovakia is another potential theft.Hu1 19:02, 23 March 2011 (CET)

The reason that the Burgenland came to Austria after WW1 was the allied interdict at Austria to go back to the Reich. Austria said that it will not be able to feed its people by the rest of the land because there are a lot of mountains which can not be used by agriculture. Because there were not so many hungarians, the Burgenland would not be so important to them. But you are right: It is hungarian land since centuries and it will be back to the hungarian people as soon as possible. I hope that Italy will proceed similar and give back South-Tyrol to Germany as well. --Rauhreif 19:37, 23 March 2011 (CET)

Quite a bit hypocritical, isn't it? Hu1 21:05, 23 March 2011 (CET)
No, it isnt. It was the goal of our enemies to cut off the agriculture for the future. Thats the real reason why East Prussia and West Prussia has been detached from Germany after WW1. The Austrian case was that it should be an enemy of Germany in the future. The Schuschnigg and Dollfuss gouvernments did so. For that case the Burgenland had to be given to Austria. If Austria it not had picked up the Czechoslovakia would have it today but not Hungary. Thats the facts. --Rauhreif 22:57, 23 March 2011 (CET)
Wild, irrealistic speculation. The theft Czechoslovakia stole a lot, but it could not have stolen an area, that is in fact outside its boundary. That was simple thievery, not more and not less, done by Austria. Period. Hu1 00:27, 24 March 2011 (CET)

Did you read that aricle: [3]? Maybe there are further informations in english. --Rauhreif 12:09, 24 March 2011 (CET)

Religion

No one ever said the Germans were angels and beyond criticism. I criticize the Germans all the time. In my opinion the real Germans were extinct in the Christianization. This was a holocaust. The only things they left us were our blood and our language. The re-education around 800 was much more severe than from 1945 until now. Since the Christianization we aliment Rome – wherever Rome is. Even with the bowed head of a Christian the German genius developed science and tried to escape from Rome (Reformation). And we are still not extinct. Maybe the best solution to the border question is, to look at who is living where. Then Germany nowadays would be the FRG whithout Berlin, Frankfurt etc. and a bit of South-Denmark, quite a bit of East-France, German-Switzerland, quite a bit of North-Italy and Austria. --Mms 17:21, 23 March 2011 (CET)

In my opinion Hitler had right also in that, that the reformation was something bad, that weakened us. I am myself of reformed religion, and we have several priests in the family. Even thought. Hu1 19:02, 23 March 2011 (CET)
The heading you added is wrong. The Christianization was not a change of religion. No one has been convinced to change his faith. It was a very big blood shed and the annihilation of our culture – our law, our writings, our medicine, our rites. The Christianization always gets glorified. It is typical that there isn't even an article about this topic. It would have deserved to be the first article on every Metapedia language edition. --Mms 16:56, 24 March 2011 (CET)

I tend to think Austria and Bavaria are more sustainably healthy in a cultural and politicial sense, than North Germany. Just looking at a recent federal election map, I am sure the Austro-Bavarians are happier been "enchained" under the deeply rooted, conservative and traditional values of "Rome", rather than been liberated and free to vote for communist parties like Die Linke. But this is of course, another subject. As for Christianity generally as an "oppressor" of German culture, this is preposterous. There is nothing more Germanic than the Medieval Gothic Cathedrals stretching out to the heavens, that our ancestors all over Europe built up. Ironically considering the debate above about territory, what are German claims to the East, but that of the Teutonic Order; a Christian military organisation? The frequently cited incident of Charlemagne and the Saxons, was more political than religious and he was in any case Germanic himself (as a Frank). - Basileus 01:35, 25 March 2011 (CET)

There are no German claims to the East. The territories of Germany are determinated by international law as I said. Please answer for the following question: By what are the polish, russian, lithuanian and czech claims confirmed? By violence? Why should Germany not fix up it by violence itself? Ohh thats not good? I do not understand you. Do you accept violence or not? Let me say one word about the Bavarians: The bavarians are very catholic. They have not voted for the NSDAP in majority. As you can see at the map the most of the East-German people have voted for the NSDAP. (The Sudeten-Germans did similar later). After the crime of the expulsion and land grabbing you are accepting by all others if not Germany do so, most of the Sudeten-Germans went do Bavaria. Thats the reason why in Bavaria now votes more conservative. Most of the East-Germans moved to Middle-Germany after the expulsion. Thats the reason why the Communism breaks down there in 1989. The people in Middle-Germany were more communistic before there were added 25% from East-German people. --Rauhreif 13:46, 25 March 2011 (CET)

The FRG isn't Germany

The FRG isn't Germany – it isn't even a German state. Germany never joined the UNO (it seceded from the League of Nations), the NATO or the EU. Also the borders of the FRG aren't Germany's borders. --Mms 08:41, 16 September 2012 (CEST)

Dutch isn't German

Since Dutch isn't German, the image in the article,

German language area after the official national census of 1910.png

, needs to be replaced by a more accurate one. Here is a more accurate version:

20070422165915!Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

(Galileo 17:35, 28 June 2013 (CEST))

Dutch is of course a West Germanic language, therefore the illustration is correct. ... and of course the maps show the spreading of German language in 1910. -Crusader 18:08, 28 June 2013 (CEST)
Also in 1910 Dutch was spoken in the Netherlands and not German. (Galileo 18:20, 28 June 2013 (CEST)).

In my mind it means the german speaking people in Holland. Regardless Holland was part of Germany until 1648. Dutch is a german dialect. --Rauhreif 18:10, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

Dutch is a German dialect?? Is this the same kind of joke that dragons really existed??? See http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Saurier (Galileo 18:19, 28 June 2013 (CEST)).

That is correct, Rauhreif, and in 1910 MANY people in Holland spoke German! ... and of course Dutch derived from Niederdeutsch! - Crusader 18:20, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

Not true. (Galileo 18:21, 28 June 2013 (CEST)).

Its true. It is a kind of simply knowledge. The language divided after 1648 at first. It is a variety of the german language as plattdeutsch (low german) is. You can read some literature about it. About the dragons: Maybe you did not understand the article really. The dragons are the same as the dinosaur. There are a lot of tales about it which points to similarity. Thats the article says. The similarity is not a joke assuredly. --Rauhreif 19:14, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

They can't have been because the dinosaurs lived more than 65 million years ago. But I agree: it is nice to dream of a Great German Empire full of castles and beautiful princesses where dragons roamed and where men could become heros by slaying a dragon... (Galileo 20:04, 28 June 2013 (CEST)).
About the language: Dutch is a different language. Maybe it has some similarities to German but it is different. It probably existed before 1648, but after that date people were allowed to use their own language in their own country. Then the Netherlands experienced a glorious period of progress, scientifically, technologically, economically and politically. (Galileo 20:07, 28 June 2013 (CEST)).

Maybe thats the kind of "discussion" within the english section. Its not my way. --Rauhreif 20:18, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

[4]

...from which they decided to separate in an early stage of history...

It was not a "decision" because it was a condition by the peace of Westphalia. --Rauhreif 20:22, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

http://en.metapedia.org/m/index.php?title=Germany&action=historysubmit&diff=294721&oldid=294700 I removed the word "decision" if that is such a big issue. Of course, someone "decided" it, and probably this is what the Dutch wanted. (Galileo 20:32, 28 June 2013 (CEST)).

It was not what the Dutch wanted. It was what France and Spain wanted especially. The only reason was to weak Germany. --Rauhreif 20:50, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

Indeed, Germany doesn't become stronger if it loses a large part of its territory. But that doesn't mean that the Dutch didn't want to have their own state. Anyway, it doesn't matter who wanted it or who didn't want it. Fact is that the Netherlands is not part of Germany and that Dutch is a different language from German. (Galileo 20:56, 28 June 2013 (CEST)).
Fact is, the Netherlands are a German territory (although NOT part of modern-day Germany/FRG) and the Dutch language is a German language! -Crusader 21:00, 28 June 2013 (CEST)
You are shifting this discussion subtly away from what it is all about (that the Dutch language is not the German language). You now talk about a German territory and a German language. Dutch is a Germanic language, like English and Danish and German. Maybe the Netherlands, England and Denmark can be classified as Germanic countries, I am not sure. But fact is that The Netherlands is not part of Germany. And that the Dutch, English and Danish languages are not the same as the German language. (Galileo 21:05, 28 June 2013 (CEST)).

Switzerland was separated in 1648 as well. The only reason was to weak Germany. In 1806 Austria was separated from Germany. The only reason was to weak Germany. What we are waiting for? Lets separate Bavaria. Then it is NOT Germany! In 100 years nobody understand the bavarian dialect. Then it is a "language". What is Germany? Is the FRG Germany? Lets separate Thuringia, Saxonia. Lets wait one or two hundred years. What is Germany? And where is Germany? --Rauhreif 21:16, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

In case of 1806: One of the reasons was to weak Germany. The other was to make France stronger (who won in Austerlitz in 1805). Hu1 21:34, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

It is the same problem since centuries. France or England. But we all will loose our countries if we fight against each other. Our target has to be to find out the truth. Nobody in Germany wants to steal any other his country. The next war will be the last war. Afterwards Europe disappears. What we want is our right and our country back. Thats all we want. But it is the requirement for a healthy Europe in the future. If Germany dies Europe will die because Germany is the heart. --Rauhreif 22:20, 28 June 2013 (CEST)

I think is too much "nationalistic" to say Germany is the heart of Europe (or founding fathers of Europe), Germany was an important country only during 1871 - 1914 and from 1933 - 1945. Before it, Netherlands was way more important, with colonies in all continents (including Brazil). All europeans countries at some stage were important, even small countries like Portugal, for a small time, was the most important country in Europe and in the world. I would say, if the white race dies, the Europe die, the world die. --MCMLXXXII 05:23, 29 June 2013 (CEST)
Agree. Germany is important, and much better, than it's name at present, but by no way a "sacred cow", that is beyond every critics. Hu1 09:05, 29 June 2013 (CEST)
Germany will not be the agent of European liberation this time. They are finished and under such tight control today that no national movement will ever be allowed to become significant. We need to not be blinded by naive over-empahsis on Germanophilia based just on WWII. The best and most realistic hope for Europe today, IMO, is to get FN elected in France and then for this new government to form an alliance with Putin's Russia. Disinfecting Europe of liberalism and Judeo-Masonry will have to be carried out under the banner of anti-Americanism for it to be accepted by the masses and a Paris-Moscow alliance is the most likely to get this done. It would not surprise me when things become more serious, as the rats try to cling onto power, if the Americans-British (and the Jews who control them) try to get the Germans to fight against this military by envoking "Holocaust" guilt. Basileus 14:11, 31 July 2013 (CEST)

You are right. In my min Russia would be a chance for the future. The problem are the lies about Stalin and against Germany. If Russia is not able to correct that view Europe will have no chance. France is to weak. --Rauhreif 16:22, 31 July 2013 (CEST)

France is weakened, but the good thing is the mainstream political discourse has always been heavily polarised there and open anti-Americanism is the norm across society. The freemasons at the UMP are now forced to adopt almost all of the rhetoric of the Front National and when Hollande has finished making a mess the FN will keep becoming more popular. Of the major Western European nations, it has the best chance of disrupting the present order. Almost all Frenchmen privately despise Jews, even those who are wearing red masks now, will like Jacques Doriot and Pierre Laval, rip them off when the circumstances are right. Basileus 01:45, 1 August 2013 (CEST)

Template

I think is the best to remove the template as is the same on the article Federal Republic of Germany with the same flags and all the information for the Federal Republic of Germany. --MCMLXXXII 23:53, 29 July 2013 (CEST)

The template describes not Germany. It describes the FRG which is part of Germany only. --Rauhreif 09:41, 30 July 2013 (CEST)

caps please

German should always be in capital letters.--Volksgemeinschaft 14:46, 18 August 2014 (CEST)