The North-South German Divide

[Jäger]

This thread would indeed mind that someone would deny that right.

Bullshit. In this thread it has been mentioned several times that people can speak as many languages as they want.
Aptrgangr was the one who favored artificial state support, instead of leaving dialects to an organic death. Or do you twist these definitions to your liking?

That Bavaria-proper is included whilst Austria is excluded by fear?

So you are saying that you would have expected Prussia to conquer Austria-Hungary, and replace "your" royalty and their destructive idea of a Germanic-Slavic reign with ... with what?
I think you are mixing up cause and effect here.

Or perhaps also that the existing rift will widen if centralisation occurs, because it essentially goes against the reality of 2,000+ years of German history, including the 1,000 years where we were already all united within one empire, and that this mental rift would widen even further, being divisive rather than unifying in the end?

France proves otherwise, and this divide we have experienced is exactly the reason why we were weak, e.g. you should think about the Napoleonic wars, and where the Bavarians fought with France against Prussia (Germany) for power purposes.

Ever wondered why Prussians are disliked amongst Bavarians and Austrians?

Yeah, Christians my ass

Well it certainly isn't their exactness ... more than anything, it is their arrogance and their belief that all of Germany shoud follow their example.

There is only one thought behind this, and as Hauke already explained, the Habsburger followed that thought as well, power.

You regard us as the backwards province which is nice to show off and nice to retreat to when its useful, and that our traditions are to be a "weekend retreat" for Germans ... but we aren't actually taken serious under all that Prussian arrogance, and are belittled, even though it's traditionally been Bavaria, and Austria and Bavaria before that, who was at large responisible for keeping Germans united.

I am not Prussian, anyhow, I am not sure who thinks that Bavarians are backwards, you make many claims, but this thread doesn't show any sign of "backwardness" attributed to Bavarians.

Sure, but the way some of you are putting it, the only regional differences that will persist are probably etymological ones.

Certainly not!

As the proponents of Jacobin centralism have argued elsewhere that folk costumes, regional festive traditions and dialects are outdated, unprogressive and void.

Where has this been argued? The argument was, that those who die out are because they are void, or else they wouldn't die out, or they will reemerge, traditions among a creative race are dynamic.
You do not understand what you are talking about, and are very quick in making accusations and assumptions that have no base.

[Sigurd]

Or do you twist these definitions to your liking?

Of course I do. Doesn't everybody?

So you are saying that you would have expected Prussia to conquer Austria-Hungary, and replace "your" royalty and their destructive idea of a Germanic-Slavic reign with ... with what?

First of all, Austria-Hungary did not come into existence until 1867 with the
Ausgleich. It was called just Austria before that.

Secondly: No, not quite. I'm thinking probably more along the lines of the Greater German proponents of the mid-19th century, when Austria and Prussia were at part; the former providing the political power, the latter providing the economic power. Unification should have been attempted then.

Ideally, the German speaking regions of Austria should have joined up with Germany. The large size and reasonably large population would have, together with other South German states, established more of a balance of powers within Germany, unlike the 1871-1918 Reich which was essentially an extension of Prussian power, since Prussia was - after swallowing several smaller states up to unification (strangely enough, oft enough those who didn't even want to, whilst they denied Waldeck-Pyrmont, striding for annexation by Prussia for several decades, that wish) - by far the largest and most populous state.

Some of the non-German speaking regions should have remained at large under Austrian-German rule, but more as extra-imperial provinces, call them "vassal border states" if you will: On paper independent, but de facto a buffer against Russia in the East. Over time (centuries?), an expanding German nation would have settled some of these regions, such as Bohemia and Moravia, parts of Slovakia and parts of Hungary to establish continuous settlement with the Donauschwaben and Siebenbürgen-Saxon enclaves.

If you reckon that keeping these states as extra-imperial vassal states/puppet states/buffer states whilst calling for a new Ostsiedlung would not work --- well, it did work in part before. With new unity, the German people would have ever expanded, eventually pushing the Slavs and Magyars eastward and beyond the Carpathians.

Thus, essentially, these formerly non-German areas would perhaps have been valuable living space. But due to non-inclusion of Austria, German-speaking Austrians were in the minority, and so the Slavs used the East of Austria increasingly as living space, rather than vice-versa, as we all know they moved so many people westward 1867-1918 that around the turn of the century, Vienna was widely regarded as "the largest Czech city, even larger than Prague".

Besides that, prior to 1866, dominance over Germany was not settled between Austria (and Bavaria, then its ally) and Prussia, though Prussia had been gaining significantly ever since the Fall of Metternich in the uprisings of 1848-49.

France proves otherwise, and this divide we have experienced is exactly the reason why we were weak, e.g. you should think about the Napoleonic wars, and where the Bavarians fought with France against Prussia (Germany) for power purposes.

Bavarians fought with France against Prussia AND Austria --- please don't forget that little detail there.

Yet still Bavarians are always welcome in Austria and we've been able to put aside these historical disagreements, whilst Prussians ("Piefke") are the greatest source of hate.

So it can't really go back to historic wars alone, as Prussia and Austria were more often than not allies, and certainly more often than Austria and Bavaria, the latter two had been rivaling for a long time, not in terms of immediate power sphere, but more like "two twins fighting it out", remember the old Habsburg vs. Wittelsbach disputes, for instance.

So, the reason that Prussians are seen in low regard in Austria probably at large goes back to that destructive and divisive war of 1866, which would exclude over 10 million Germans in Austria and Bohemia from joining their ethnic brothers in an Empire. This is the historical dividing point.

The other, is obviously tribal identity and regional culture, which allowed Bavarians and Austrians to bridge their historical differences, whilst Austrians and Prussians still look at each other disregardingly some 143 years after this Brothers' War.

I am not Prussian, anyhow, I am not sure who thinks that Bavarians are backwards, you make many claims, but this thread doesn't show any sign of "backwardness" attributed to Bavarians.

The general mentality between the lines does, though. "You are provincials, your ways are backwards, you need to be brought to Prussian order, you're too laissez-faire and too rural-orientated". This has been part of the Prussian mentality for a wee while.

Certainly not!

I should gladly hope so, the only thing worse than having a torn fatherland is perhaps losing the traditions with which one grew up, and which have been practiced in the region for several thousand years!

So if regional differences persist, then of course anything that strengthens and does not destroy the regions can be considered as a welcome alternative to strict federalism.

Where has this been argued? The argument was, that those who die out are because they are void, or else they wouldn't die out, or they will reemerge, traditions among a creative race are dynamic.

Read Todesengel's posts in particular in the "13 Languages are Facing Extinctions" thread (i.e. the one I linked to). She continues to argue that folk costumes and other regional traditions are unprogressive and should thus not be of importance to Germans of the 21st century. You appeared to be mostly in agreement with her.

If I misunderstood you both, then I apologise for that, but the way it seemed was that you wished to disjoin us from our traditional regional heritage and to instead replace that with a Prussified Nietzschian Superman who had to progressively move forward (progress is needed to some extent though) whilst all that which is traditional but perhaps already on the retreat by the powers that be wishing to eradicate it already (tradition is also needed to some extent!) should be disregarded.

If that was never your intention, then of course I shall apologise for misunderstanding your motives. But my own opinion on the matter I shall not change. We Bavarians and Austrians have always been a bit of a "pain-in-the-neck", that's just how we are, and we aren't going to change that anytime soon.

[Dunkeld]

Northern Lights just don't understand the Crosses of the South.

[Jäger]

Ideally, the German speaking regions of Austria should have joined up with Germany.

Ideally.

Yet still Bavarians are always welcome in Austria and we've been able to put aside these historical disagreements, whilst Prussians ("Piefke") are the greatest source of hate.

You fail to grasp the principle, it always has been a struggle for power, not for cultural domination. Replacing one monarchic ruler with another has been a German reality for eons.

So, the reason that Prussians are seen in low regard in Austria probably at large goes back to that destructive and divisive war of 1866, which would exclude over 10 million Germans in Austria and Bohemia from joining their ethnic brothers in an Empire. This is the historical dividing point.

Eh, you are aware that this was an Austrian decision, Austrians who wouldn't think about giving up their Slavic population, it is not that Austrians fought to be included, they fought to be excluded.

The general mentality between the lines does, though.

Can you give examples? I deem this paranoia.

I should gladly hope so, the only thing worse than having a torn fatherland is perhaps losing the traditions with which one grew up, and which have been practiced in the region for several thousand years!

If you say so, as long as you understand that traditions are no end in itself.

So if regional differences persist, then of course anything that strengthens and does not destroy the regions can be considered as a welcome alternative to strict federalism.

Aye.

Read Todesengel's posts in particular in the "13 Languages are Facing Extinctions" thread (i.e. the one I linked to). She continues to argue that folk costumes and other regional traditions are unprogressive and should thus not be of importance to Germans of the 21st century. You appeared to be mostly in agreement with her.

I really tried to find what you described, but I failed, maybe I am not paranoid enough. Traditions are of vital importance, but not their strict immutability.

If I misunderstood you both, then I apologise for that...

You did.

[velvet]

The general mentality between the lines does, though. "You are provincials, your ways are backwards, you need to be brought to Prussian order, you're too laissez-faire and too rural-orientated". This has been part of the Prussian mentality for a wee while.

Maybe the Bavarians should also learn that not everyone north of the Main is a Prussian.
I'm certainly not, my family is from Frisia, and Hel, we fought against the 'Heilige Römische Reich deutscher Nation' (to which Bavaria belonged until its natural breakdown) and later against the southern-Main/Rhine kingdoms and the ever following attempts to christianise us (in which Bavarians were always involved) for centuries!

And honestly, it is sort of offending to be called a Prussian, indifferently and I have to assume constantly ignored more or less conscious that we are not all Prussians, by Bavarians. You say the Prussians are the source of hate. You / the Bavarians give that hate back to everyone north of the Main, for something that happened almost 150 years ago and does not exist anymore for almost 100 years. Dont wonder if you get hate and despise in return for hate and despise

[Dunkeld]

Maybe the Bavarians should also learn that not everyone north of the Main is a Prussian

Maybe those Northern Lights should learn, that not everybody south of the River Main is either a Swabian or a Bavarian.

We in Baden are neither.

[Aptrgangr]

Aptrgangr was the one who favored artificial state support, instead of leaving dialects to an organic death.

So teaching the own tongue is artificial, and a state policy targeting the loss of the own heritage by promoting "westernisation" etc. to replace it is organic? I, for example, also am in favour of artificial border patrols, in order to stop the influx of unwanted foreigners. If you argue now it is natural for a state to protect it´s borders, then I say it is natural to leave the own homeland if there is a better chance to make a living elswhere.
The death of our dialects and folk customs goes hand in hand with the death of our ethnicity - and this is anything but organic, since it is not only promoted by the government, but a cornerstone of the freemasonic policy of the destruction of all historically grown European fatherlands.

I know, following pics have been posted before - the initiators see it as organic promotion of ethnic and cultural harmony, which it, of course, is not.




It is always said Prussia was well known for it´s discipline, that´s true, but does this mean there was no discipline in South Germany? The reason why NS like Prussia so much is not because Prussia was known for her laissez-faire policy towards religious issues, they love Prussia for it´s strong army and imperial policy, they love the idea state is there to expand at the costs of others, they love the idea of a militarised public life where everything is regulated with order and obedience.

The lost of local traditions has reached dramatical dimensions, I remember, as young boy I participated in a local heritage group in Black Forest, I was wearing a deer-leather trouser etc. in school - and my parents were left-wing liberals, no conservatives. It was simply natural doing so, like it was natural not to speak Standard-German with locals. If I have a look at my youngest cousins in Swabia today, they not only know nothing much about their heritage, they never in their life would wear a folk costume or any other "uncool" stuff. The degree of brainwashing has multiplied in the last two decades, and I have no good feeling about the future...

There are two basic approaches to come to a solution. One approach is a stict policy of centralism. The promoters of this solution say a strong nation Germany will handle all problems such as mass immigration, ethnic decline etc.- without explaining where this centralist strength possibly could emerge from.The other approach is to strengthen the own heritage locally by education work, folk fests etc. - hoping this will lead to a recovery of the damage that has be done. I support the latter position, not only because I am a south-west German having tradtitionally deeper roots in the local heritage than the average northern German has in his/her, but because I say it´s time to think about "plan B", the consideration Germany a national state has suffered lasting and irreparable damage. So it is better to strenghten then ethnic consciousness locally, than hoping Germans would start to vote NPD in masses, giving it a 2/3 majority and a mandate to drive the occupants and colonists out.

[Jäger]

So teaching the own tongue is artificial, and a state policy targeting the loss of the own heritage by promoting "westernisation" etc. to replace it is organic?

No, it is also quite rude to side-jump my argumentation if you can't follow it.
Sigurd was the one arguing about organics and artificiality.
I never brought this up as an argument, exactly because I consider it a weak point.

There are two basic approaches to come to a solution. One approach is a stict policy of centralism. The promoters of this solution say a strong nation Germany will handle all problems such as mass immigration, ethnic decline etc.- without explaining where this centralist strength possibly could emerge from.

It emerges from people who are against regionalism.

The other approach is to strengthen the own heritage locally by education work, folk fests etc. - hoping this will lead to a recovery of the damage that has be done.

Locally ... maybe. Then you are implying you do not care what happens to the rest of Germany. Another advantage of regionalism?

[Sigurd]

Maybe the Bavarians should also learn that not everyone north of the Main is a Prussian.

I know. My gran is from the Duchy of Waldeck-Pyrmont, more specifically its major portion, Waldeck. Waldeckians wanted to be part of Prussia for economic reasons, but were never granted their wish. As a result, my gran and her ancestors are not Prussians in the slightest. --- and not Franconian either (as the official nowadays location Hessen would suggest), because the Waldeckians are ethnically Westphalians, and thus descended from the Saxon tribes.

On another argument though - something I also often see happening, not here but elsewhere in society, is that many North Germans think that everyone from the Freistaat Bayern is Bavarian. Nah, there's Franconians and Swabians, too - they're not Bavarians.

Perhaps generally, we can agree that the North and South should inform themselves more about the other half?

Other than that, on a more humorous note, if we're already nitpicking --- I'm not actually from Austria. I'm from Tyrol. Austria is actually only Upper Austria (minus the Innviertel, that's actually Lower Bavaria) and Lower Austria. Until we were gifted to the Habsburgs, we were quite distinct a German state, and even after we were gifted to the Habsburgs there was a Tyrolese line separate from the Viennese line, the reason why Innsbruck was also a town of residency and has its own court.

PS: Jäger, I will respond to you tomorrow. I need to catch a bus in seven minutes, and it only runs every 1 1/2 hours on a Saturday.

[velvet]

Locally ... maybe. Then you are implying you do not care what happens to the rest of Germany. Another advantage of regionalism?

I think that a strengthened local identity would automatically result in a strengthened German identity.

It is just true that people care more about the things that happen directly before their front door than the things that happen 'far away' (the next city, for that matter). I dont think that a centralised nation, that opposes the regional identity of its inhabitants, can develop a real replacement in terms of identity and by that loosing the support of its inhabitants alltogether.

And beside that, history prooved countless times that centralised empires are doomed to fail. It is not about the 'way' they are build, governed or about the 'people' who build or govern such empires, it is the very concept of such an empire: to replace the regional identity and cultural consciousness with an artificial concept of an overriding, greater identity.

This greater identity is a nice thinking concept for megalomaniacs and philosophers, but it does not appeal to the people. And that is mainly because such a greater identity demands the giving up of the smaller identity, that of the local tribe if you want. Here would actually go the view on how societies work and to what size they can work, but that would burst the frame of this thread. But people dont like emperors who sit 3000km away and never show up, or vice versa, which people are never able to see in their life and in both directions does no connection whatsoever exist. This is something that is inbuild in people, that is why the German states after the falling apart of the Roman Empire were in constant shift, people tried to maintain their local life, and their local government - a government that does know about the worries of their local folk, that is itself interested in the local identity etc. When there is a 'wider identity' above that, that is not a big problem, as long as this wider identity keeps its nose out of the local things. That is how it has always been and that is how it will forever be.

Perhaps generally, we can agree that the North and South should inform themselves more about the other half?

Although I'm aware that there are more tribes down there, I have noticed that lack of differenciating too, so yes, I agree that there should me more information flow