Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Poland

  1. #1
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts

    Poland

    I did some reading on the history of Poland. It seems as though Poles ought to thank Germans and Austrians for their independent existence, because Russians were determined to annex and absorb them into Russia. Poland had indeed been made extinct through Romanov imperial domination, but Hohenzollern and Habsburg-Lothringen dynasties practiced some necromancy, by reconstituting a Polish buffer state out of thin air.

    Come WWII, Ribbentrop and Molotov once again partitioned Poland. After the war, however, the Russians refused to return their half, while both they and the Poles refused to return Saxony and Prussia, which meant that Germany was only really left with British Hannover, French Wuerttemberg and American Bavaria.

    Regardless of power politics strategies to use Poland as a buffer, I am not opposed to Poland being part of Russia, because they are both Slavic, but I have a problem with the Russians keeping half of Polish territory, inducing the latter to take from Germany. It is pure hypocrisy and pure Slavic aggression from the Soviet Iron Curtain. Russia finally gave back Saxony when the Berlin Wall fell, but kept Prussia and the Polish Corridor is much larger than before. Poles complained that Germans took Prussia from them, but it is somehow fine for Russians to do so...because they are Slavic.

    While it might not make sense to turn Kaliningrad into a Baltic state of its own, or ridiculous to suggest Lithuanians take it and give a comparable portion out of their own country to Latvia, to be fair...it might be better to make a unified Lettish state--the better to stand up before the Russians and Poles. It doesn't have to be the so-called "Baltic Duchy", because Estonia is Finnish and not Baltic, nor does it need a German government, considering that would be too drastic a change.
    Last edited by Rodskarl Dubhgall; Sunday, November 5th, 2017 at 09:34 PM. Reason: Unfinished paragraph.

  2. #2
    Secure a future for Germanic children
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bärin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Berlin Berlin
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Mother
    Politics
    National Communism
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    1,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    112
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    299
    Thanked in
    116 Posts
    Köenigsberg is a German city. It's actually ridiculous that Poles beg for WWII reparations when millions of Prussians were forced out of their lands and massacred. Frankly, I have no sympathy for them.

  3. #3
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    That's what I meant. Also, there are Poles pretending to be indigenous to Germany, claiming it is rightfully Slavic through pseudoscientific archaeology and dishonest historical narrative. They are claiming that Irminonic and East Germanic homelands were originally Slavic, that all those tribes were--between the Elbe and the Vistula. They say that East Germans are actually Slavic, trying to say that they are Poles in denial. The East Germanic background of the Wends as Vandals rather than Slavs must always be remembered, because Slavicisation has dishonestly muddled things.

    I even witnessed gloating about the displacement of the Saxons by the Slavs, which of course was engineered by Karl der Gross with much bloodshed in the name of Rome, the nucleus of the future relationship of France and Poland-Lithuania under Henri III of Valois. This also pushed people into Britain and they allege that is why the Eurosceptic Brexit happened. They can't have it both ways and still make sense, because everyone knows that Saxons are native to the Elbe and that Angles are native to the land in between them and Jutes. I witnessed racist hatred for the Istvaeonic folks, which explains the reality that they are ungrateful for having profited from the Franks and French at the expense of Saxons and have an abusive mentality.

    They rage against Teutonic Crusades to recover the Germanic homelands East of the Elbe and a conspiracy theory about the supposed Slavic bias of the "good Danes" at the same time that East Germany is supposed to have been Slavic, yet not, because Germans are "evil", despite the fact that there was a joint Saxon and Dane (pan-Germanic) Wendish Crusade. These Slavs are disingenuous by trying to make the case that Mecklenburg-Pomerania and even Schleswig-Holstein were theirs and ought to be again, but decry "evil Germans" for taking what was originally Teutonic--falsely saying it was Slavic. Ruegen was invaded and occupied by them after the heathen Voelkerwanderung and yet before Christian chroniclers recorded the distribution of their demographics once it was a fait accompli.

    Whatever admixture there was in making the North Sea empire of Knut the Great, whose Jomsviking ancestry and assistance helped, or the Kalmar Union, that led to Vasa Sweden taking Poland-Lithuania and even Russia somewhat, all of these activities were within the ancient geopolitical sphere of Germanic tribes, before Balto-Slavs expanded West of the Vistula. It is well known that the Gulf of Riga was Swedish before the so-called "Varangian" period, parallel to Burgundian, Goth and Vandal life between the Oder and Vistula. Anti-Normanist bias in Russia is therefore against the zeitgeist of those conditions that led to the Rus being considered their namesake, which the Finnish tongue confirms. The Crusade of Valdemar the Great of Denmark in Estonia also fits naturally between Germany in Prussia and Sweden in Finland.

    The Voelkerwanderung ended up being the death of East Germanic tribes, because they left home and couldn't establish a lasting presence elsewhere, squeezed between Roman and Slavic worlds. What's wrong with fellow Germanic tribes fighting for its reclamation? I'm disgusted with all the fraud involved in Slavicisation of Germany. Maybe Merkel is a cultural Marxist because of her Polish ancestry, but that means Germany has a cancer and it ought to be rooted out. The European Union is a child of Rome, in the same vein as Karl der Gross. The accession of French dynasties in Sweden and now Denmark only emasculates Scandinavia.

    Therefore, Germany can only really count on the residual effects of the Anglo-American presence in Hannover and Bavaria for a better future than what decay was left by the Poles and Russians in East Germany, or the dependency orchestrated by the French in West Germany. The Anglo-American areas of Germany were the strongest during the Middle Ages and it can be argued that it was due to their combined situational leverage that made Prussia and Austria possible. On the contrary, Wuerttemberg was as much a satellite state of France and therefore makes their determinism unreliable for Germanic objectives, just as the modern Saxony has been untrustworthy, due to Soviet apologetics--praising the mass rapes and murders of the Red Army.

    What hope is there for Prussia? Prussia was abolished and Austria escaped any and all hatred for the same "crimes" that the former forfeited existence over, which is Roman/European bias more than anything. It serves Roman Europe to destroy the heart of Germany and use Austria as a buffer state via Papal control. Only an Austrian like Hitler would ally with a Latin like Mussolini. So, the truth is, that Germans are beset by both Slavs and Latins. Those in Bavaria must be wary of Austria's Latin influences, just as those in Hannover ought to be vigilant about Slavic influx via Prussia, or else they will become like Wuerttemberg and Saxony.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    6 Minutes Ago @ 02:42 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    483
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    153
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    240
    Thanked in
    130 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bärin View Post
    Köenigsberg is a German city. It's actually ridiculous that Poles beg for WWII reparations when millions of Prussians were forced out of their lands and massacred. Frankly, I have no sympathy for them.
    Indeed. The recent frivolous "reparation claims" seem to be some revenge on Merkel though. Given that under her leadership the repopulation agenda is pushed.

  5. #5
    Mein Glaube ist die Liebe zu meinem Volk. Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    9 Hours Ago @ 05:46 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    322
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    509
    Thanked in
    214 Posts
    Regardless of power politics strategies to use Poland as a buffer, I am not opposed to Poland being part of Russia, because they are both Slavic, but I have a problem with the Russians keeping half of Polish territory, inducing the latter to take from Germany. It is pure hypocrisy and pure Slavic aggression from the Soviet Iron Curtain. Russia finally gave back Saxony when the Berlin Wall fell, but kept Prussia and the Polish Corridor is much larger than before. Poles complained that Germans took Prussia from them, but it is somehow fine for Russians to do so...because they are Slavic.
    In all fairness, I doubt the Poles were all too happy with Russia taking and keeping it’s eastern territories, Slavs or not. Not that they didn’t want German territory, far from that, but they simply wanted both. They probably didn’t need “inducement” from Russia for that.
    And I strongly doubt the Poles, past or present, want to be part of Russia.

    While it might not make sense to turn Kaliningrad into a Baltic state of its own, or ridiculous to suggest Lithuanians take it and give a comparable portion out of their own country to Latvia, to be fair...it might be better to make a unified Lettish state--the better to stand up before the Russians and Poles. It doesn't have to be the so-called "Baltic Duchy", because Estonia is Finnish and not Baltic, nor does it need a German government, considering that would be too drastic a change.
    Let’s face it, no one is going to go to war over Königsberg, least of all with a nuclear-weapon state and I can’t see Russia giving up on a bridgehead into Central Europe. We have more pressing issues anyway, looking at the populations of either Berlin, Malmö or Stockholm, Brüssels, London etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baorn View Post
    Also, there are Poles pretending to be indigenous to Germany, claiming it is rightfully Slavic through pseudoscientific archaeology and dishonest historical narrative. They are claiming that Irminonic and East Germanic homelands were originally Slavic, that all those tribes were--between the Elbe and the Vistula. They say that East Germans are actually Slavic, trying to say that they are Poles in denial. The East Germanic background of the Wends as Vandals rather than Slavs must always be remembered, because Slavicisation has dishonestly muddled things.

    They rage against Teutonic Crusades to recover the Germanic homelands East of the Elbe and a conspiracy theory about the supposed Slavic bias of the "good Danes" at the same time that East Germany is supposed to have been Slavic, yet not, because Germans are "evil", despite the fact that there was a joint Saxon and Dane (pan-Germanic) Wendish Crusade. These Slavs are disingenuous by trying to make the case that Mecklenburg-Pomerania and even Schleswig-Holstein were theirs and ought to be again, but decry "evil Germans" for taking what was originally Teutonic--falsely saying it was Slavic. Ruegen was invaded and occupied by them after the heathen Voelkerwanderung and yet before Christian chroniclers recorded the distribution of their demographics once it was a fait accompli.
    The whole discussion is a false one from both sides, actually. The only truth is, land belongs to those that can keep it and this moralizing “I was there first” is ridiculous. Someone else was always there before anybody that claims such nonsense.

    To make such an argument from our side is a dangerous one anyway, looking at the settlement of Flanders/southern Netherlands, England, western/southern Germany, northern Scandinavia or any northwestern European colony around the globe. But those that we partly displaced or absorbed(in Europe) themselves had displaced or absorbed those that came before them.

    The only ones that could “rightfully” claim to be indigenous to any land in Central-Northern Europe would be those Hunter Gatherers that recolonised it after the Last Glacial Maximum and they are extinct. You see, how ridiculous such argument appears before the light of history.

    Therefore, Germany can only really count on the residual effects of the Anglo-American presence in Hannover and Bavaria for a better future than what decay was left by the Poles and Russians in East Germany, or the dependency orchestrated by the French in West Germany.
    The French were murderous in western Germany but at least they were the first occupation power to leave. Not sure what (long-term) dependency you speak of.
    In general it can be said, the Russians and, to a lesser degree, French, murdered our bodies but the “Anglo-American”(little of it actually originating with these peoples, of course) presence/degeneracy murdered our spirit, which is much worse.

    The Anglo-American areas of Germany were the strongest during the Middle Ages and it can be argued that it was due to their combined situational leverage that made Prussia and Austria possible.
    Come again?

    On the contrary, Wuerttemberg was as much a satellite state of France and therefore makes their determinism unreliable for Germanic objectives, just as the modern Saxony has been untrustworthy, due to Soviet apologetics--praising the mass rapes and murders of the Red Army.
    Sorry, when exactly was Württemberg a “satellite state of France” or more so than any other Western German state, and what is the "determinism of Württemberg"? That seems to have escaped my attention. As did “Saxons” (I suppose you mean East German in general) praising Russian atrocities.

    which is Roman/European bias more than anything. It serves Roman Europe to destroy the heart of Germany and use Austria as a buffer state via Papal control.
    Are you sure you're living in the same century as the rest of us?

    Only an Austrian like Hitler would ally with a Latin like Mussolini.
    You do realize that Austria was at war with Italy/Italian states most of its history? And that both the Prussian-dominated German Empire and Austria formed a defensive Dreibund with it, which Italy betrayed in WWI? With whom else exactly could Hitler/Germany have formed any kind of alliance at the time anywa?

    So, the truth is, that Germans are beset by both Slavs and Latins. Those in Bavaria must be wary of Austria's Latin influences, just as those in Hannover ought to be vigilant about Slavic influx via Prussia, or else they will become like Wuerttemberg and Saxony.
    I’m really interested in what way “becoming like Württemberg and Saxony” are bad things or any worse off than the rest of Germany. Baden-Württemberg is the second-biggest economic powerhouse of Germany and the East Germans are the most ethnically conscious modern Germans.

    But you’re mixing up different epochs and regions/different German tribes so much, it’s hard to understand anything you’re actually trying to say anyway. I don't think you know much at all about Germany besides what you seem to have picked up superificially on the internet.
    And the day they sold us out, Our hearts grew cold
    'Cause we were never asked, No brother, we were told!
    What do they know of Europe, Who only Europe know?



    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


  6. #6
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    In all fairness, I doubt the Poles were all too happy with Russia taking and keeping it’s eastern territories, Slavs or not. Not that they didn’t want German territory, far from that, but they simply wanted both. They probably didn’t need “inducement” from Russia for that.
    And I strongly doubt the Poles, past or present, want to be part of Russia.
    I'm afraid that not many people on a Germanic forum care about Polish feelings, or what they supposedly want. My only thought is that Poland ought never have been resurrected from the Partitions, but instead left to wither in their "Slavic paradise", so whatever Soviet Iron Curtain that would come into effect, would not have divided Germany, just divided Germany and Poland at the Russian border. That was the biggest faux pas made by Bismarck.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Let’s face it, no one is going to go to war over Königsberg, least of all with a nuclear-weapon state and I can’t see Russia giving up on a bridgehead into Central Europe. We have more pressing issues anyway, looking at the populations of either Berlin, Malmö or Stockholm, Brüssels, London etc.
    It was not long ago when America under Bush and Poland negotiated ballistic missile launch sites aimed at Russia, but Obama and Hillary decided to set up Herr Drumpf as the fall guy for their uranium trafficking Ostpolitik with the KGB--in the wake of removing sanctions from North Korea and empowering Iran with their own programme.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    The whole discussion is a false one from both sides, actually. The only truth is, land belongs to those that can keep it and this moralizing “I was there first” is ridiculous. Someone else was always there before anybody that claims such nonsense.

    To make such an argument from our side is a dangerous one anyway, looking at the settlement of Flanders/southern Netherlands, England, western/southern Germany, northern Scandinavia or any northwestern European colony around the globe. But those that we partly displaced or absorbed(in Europe) themselves had displaced or absorbed those that came before them.

    The only ones that could “rightfully” claim to be indigenous to any land in Central-Northern Europe would be those Hunter Gatherers that recolonised it after the Last Glacial Maximum and they are extinct. You see, how ridiculous such argument appears before the light of history.
    I am only bothered by the academic dishonesty and the fraudulent historiography used to indoctrinate younger generations not knowing any better.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    The French were murderous in western Germany but at least they were the first occupation power to leave. Not sure what (long-term) dependency you speak of.
    In general it can be said, the Russians and, to a lesser degree, French, murdered our bodies but the “Anglo-American”(little of it actually originating with these peoples, of course) presence/degeneracy murdered our spirit, which is much worse.
    France has always unduly influenced Germany since Augustus and Karl der Gross, more recently under the Bonapartes. Certain regions of Europe are poorly positioned to effect any real better outcomes for national designs than others. Poland is just once such country, with predictable patterns limiting the capacity of that land for growth.

    Despite the Alps, Germany found herself enslaved to Rome, unlike Britain, who got rejuvenated by relations with Scandinavia and the Normans kept the English isolated from integration (although Richard of Cornwall was King of Germany and Pope Adrian IV was English). Germany followed Gaul in trading individuality and innate sensibilities for "Mediterranean glory". This was the case between Karl and Otto, Bonaparte and Hitler. When France stopped speaking Dutch and adopted Latin, it was selling out and such has been the case with Germany bearing the burdens of Europe. Monkey see monkey do.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same...If Germany wants to follow the Romance French example of bureaucratic integration with Europe and Civil Law and other Roman legacies, always being held low for showing any independence from the Franco-Polish and Russian sewer, turning up noses at the Germanic Anglo-American world, then she is suicidal and Tacitus would not recognize this nation today. What do you think Spengler would say? You're worried about Polish opinions, when Germans are expected to be dominated by their domination of Europe, like the French before. Carry the load to pay for barbarian heritage...be rewarded with untold power and riches to the point where your friends and family no longer know who you are anymore than you do. What a life is that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Come again?
    I noticed that the two main power centres enduring from mediaeval Deutschland were in the stem duchies of Henry the Lion: Bavaria and Saxony. His son Otto of Brunswick was the only Welf Kaiser and this family would later rule Hannover, the UK, the US until 1783 and India (as well as Russia). Saxony at that time was where the Hannoverian kingdom within Germany was eventually sited. Welf opposition to the Ghibellines, with half their family in Lombardy, along with Mary of Modena being matriarch of the Jacobites, the Quebec Act along with the Prince Regent's secret marriage to Maria Fitzherbert, complicated their Lutheran piety and devotion. Saxony herself reneged on Luther after a fashion, so...

    In the Allied occupation period, Britain's zone corresponded to pre-Prussian Hannover and the surrounding area, with America taking over Bayern, et al. The other three kingdoms of the Second Reich; Prussia, Saxony and Wuerttemberg, all were controlled by non-Germanic entities, in the zones of Slavic and Romance countries. The core of Germany was safeguarded by Germany's cousins of the North Sea and North Atlantic, surrounded by European foreigners.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Sorry, when exactly was Württemberg a “satellite state of France” or more so than any other Western German state, and what is the "determinism of Württemberg"? That seems to have escaped my attention. As did “Saxons” (I suppose you mean East German in general) praising Russian atrocities.
    Württemberg just happened to be the only kingdom in the Southwest region of the German Reich, where France had natural ambition and Allied occupation--no different than Britain getting old Hannover, or the Slavs getting Saxony and Prussia. America must have gotten Bayern as the odd man out, but it is possible that Midwest German-Americans idolized the pastoral life there and looked with wonder upon Schloss Neuschwanstein. Lothringen and Schwaben could have been mentioned to help illustrate the point better about France.

    It is also true that the former GDR suffers from post-Soviet shock and Stockholm syndrome-like nostalgia for the inhumanity they suffered, so it is unsurprising when anti-Anglo-American sentiments issue from the East, sometimes in concert with post-de Gaullist derision at "perfidious Albion" and "les Anglo-Saxons" with ridiculous hysteria--no doubt related to Eurocentric supremacy in places like Strasbourg, Geneva, Brussels and the Hague. All of those power centres tie Germany to France, no different than when Germany was administered at Trier as part of Roman Gaul, or when Karl was based at Aachen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Are you sure you're living in the same century as the rest of us?
    I take a very long view and have a deep sense of history. You may be worried about the migrations and terrorisms of today, but they are part of a larger picture. After all, the French were the first terrorists, both Latin and Atheist (like the Slavs) too, who turned Austria into a rump state of the HRE and assumed the same role with the utmost hypocrisy. I guess nobody learned from the Thirty Years' War...

    The imperial system of the HRE and Austria-Hungary were as much based upon international multiculturalism as Persia, Greece and Rome beforehand, so too is now the problem with Europe and the efforts Germany puts into being the backbone of this establishment only undermines Germanic integrity. Too big to fail? Is there some kind of Holocaust (sheer pretext) penance being exacted from Germany through Herculean labours in the name of a Europe that beholds them with contempt as barbarian peasants?


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    You do realize that Austria was at war with Italy/Italian states most of its history? And that both the Prussian-dominated German Empire and Austria formed a defensive Dreibund with it, which Italy betrayed in WWI? With whom else exactly could Hitler/Germany have formed any kind of alliance at the time anywa?
    Funny to state that Austria and Italy were somehow merely at loggerheads, when Napoleon III installed Maximilian, who was ruler of Lombardy and Venice, as ruler of Mexico in a grand design for Papist supremacy between Latin Europe and Latin America. Mussolini tried the same thing with Ethiopia, probably impessed by Leopold's Belgian Congo. Haiti and Brazil were on board with that too, both caught up in the zeitgeist of imperial Bonapartism.

    Prussia ought not have annexed Hannover and Prince Albert's family should have known better. Whilst it was not inevitable that there was to be bitter conflict between Berlin and London, those factors certainly exacerbated alienation. Britain and France opposing Russia while siding with Turkey probably influenced Central and Axis antipathy to the Allies, all the while copying this tendency to form defense treaties with non-Whites, not just Turkey but such as with the Japanese later.

    Germans also got sucked into the Indo-Germanisch craze for the Aryan caste system due to British India, although Britain's sense of Germanic liberty was aimed at leveling the Hindu aristocracy, whereas Germany's fixation with Byzantine bureaucracy was invested in it as if elitism is more important than populism. Nazis had the nerve to act as though Aryan caste was populist. That wool could not be pulled over the eyes of most working class folks in Germany, Britain and America, the Big Three industrial powers. The American Civil War decided that issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    I’m really interested in what way “becoming like Württemberg and Saxony” are bad things or any worse off than the rest of Germany. Baden-Württemberg is the second-biggest economic powerhouse of Germany and the East Germans are the most ethnically conscious modern Germans.
    I myself have distant Baden ancestry and the observation was not meant to disparage native residents, only to lament the unavoidable and unenviable position that the folks there have, stuck in between the core of Germany and the grasping hands of Germany's Latin neighbour, who has always sought the whole of that which belonged to Lothar and content themselves with the subjugation of inhabitants from Ludwig's third of the Frankish Reich. This proved true with the French Revolutionary Wars and the shockwaves in Germany as a nation lost, in search of Romantic visions like those manifested by Wagner.

    If East Germans are the most ethnocentric, then why are they nostalgic for the Soviet Union and have a Weimar-like, "Bauhaus" existence? Nothing says ethnocentric like "Karl-Marx-Stadt" aka Chemnitz. How much is 1848 revered as the "good cause" in East Berlin?


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    But you’re mixing up different epochs and regions/different German tribes so much, it’s hard to understand anything you’re actually trying to say anyway. I don't think you know much at all about Germany besides what you seem to have picked up superificially on the internet.
    It's pretty obvious that there were six German regions in the recent era before 1989, only half of which were part of the free world: Hannover, (Sachsen, Pruessen, Württemberg--French zone and could not be more free than under Soviets,) Bayern and Oesterreich.

    It's harder to draw a fine line where the Romance countries are concerned, for even those living on the old Rhenish-Danubian limes of Rome cannot seem to extricate themselves from cohabitation with Latin bilingualism and/or Papistry, i.e. Roman Catholicism. Therefore, not much hope exists for Alsace-Lothringen. My original point was merely to put a microscope on Poland and Russia having profited from lies and distortions to such a point that their imposition upon East Germany has immobilised any real individuation from victim-pleaser mentality, all from the inside of German borders, popularizing Marxism far more mainstream than it was before the fall of the Soviets.

    The "alternative" to that was the European Union, through the French connection, otherwise Bonn/Berlin could triangulate most effectively and with extreme prejudice to better Germanic effect with London and Washington. You seem to think that an Anglo-Deutsch-American triumvirate of industrial greatness is damaging to the German soul, but only a non-Germanic ideology like Romanism and/or Sovietism could be so opposed to indigenous Gothicisms as Hitler mocked our ancestors while expressing admiration for Greece and Rome, not to forget the Aryan Persians.

    Think of alignments and whether you enjoy being Mitteleuropa, at the junction between Fascists and Communists, or would you not miss your Nordic freedom from those binding ties foisted upon your folks as in the pre-Christian times--although valuing the Protestant cause with such heroes as King Gustav Adolf? Ah, quite right. Are you still convinced that selling your Germanic soul for Continental power is the best way to live? Why turn your back on where you come from? Would it not be better to wash your hands of the Roman taint? Are you not a child of Luther? Was Widukind not a hero of the Volk? Whose creature are you? It's nonsense to see us engaged in the Kulturkampf on opposite sides, or are we?

    I'm vouching for a pro-Germanic, anti-European coalition (Germany, Netherlands, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Liechtenstein, Finland, Belgium, Luxemburg and Switzerland, but it would include Finno-Ugric (Estonia, Hungary) and Celtic (Ireland) nations as well as the New World colonies (Iceland, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). I'm not sure about the exact strategy for dealing with Belgium, Luxemburg and Switzerland, where Romance is concerned. Bismarck would have a good answer, as would Cromwell.
    Last edited by Rodskarl Dubhgall; Wednesday, November 8th, 2017 at 12:09 AM. Reason: Elaborated the Anglo-Germanic relationship.

  7. #7
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    One thing I had just thought of, is how Sweden could have played a vital role in East German strategy, as Britain and America could have done even more so in the West. It's reasonable to mention that the non-Germanic experiences of the Swedish and English folks have been comparable to those put upon Germany. Northwest and Southeast Germany were in capable Germanic hands during the Cold War, but they could have shut out the French from the Southwest, while it is too bad that Swedish neutrality did not safeguard the Northeast, along with the Prussian rump state of Kaliningrad. Germany was abandoned because of "might makes right" and "survival of the fittest" being her official policy.

    One may even blame the English for the European Union trap set by France, within which West Germany was deluded to have a Germanic future, whereas Swedish inaction may have been responsible for the loss of East Germany to the Iron Curtain. English and Swedish folks have a long history dealing with Romance and Balto-Slavic foreigners, so they/we should have prevented the absorptions into each. Instead, London and Washington on one side and Stockholm on the other, could have grouped with Denmark and Norway, with Dutch assistance, to stave off any erosion of German sovereignty to non-Germanic powers. Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes.

  8. #8
    Mein Glaube ist die Liebe zu meinem Volk. Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    9 Hours Ago @ 05:46 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    322
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    509
    Thanked in
    214 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Baorn View Post
    I'm afraid that not many people on a Germanic forum care about Polish feelings, or what they supposedly want.
    Neither do I. I merely meant to point out a flaw in your reasoning, for the sake of truth.

    My only thought is that Poland ought never have been resurrected from the Partitions, but instead left to wither in their "Slavic paradise", so whatever Soviet Iron Curtain that would come into effect, would not have divided Germany, just divided Germany and Poland at the Russian border. That was the biggest faux pas made by Bismarck.
    When exactly was Poland “resurrected” from the Partitions by Germany/Bismarck anyway? The only times I can think of are, firstly, after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 but in that case, Poland was merely some puppet state of Russia and what little autonomy they had, was abolished after their uprising in the 1830s.
    The second instance, was the creation of the Polish puppet state by Germany at the end of WWI, far after Bismarck. But even that was of little relevance to later events, since Russia was in no position to keep Poland due to their Civil War. They would have regained their autonomy either way.

    It was not long ago when America under Bush and Poland negotiated ballistic missile launch sites aimed at Russia, but Obama and Hillary decided to set up Herr Drumpf as the fall guy for their uranium trafficking Ostpolitik with the KGB--in the wake of removing sanctions from North Korea and empowering Iran with their own programme.
    What? I don’t speak conspiracy, sorry. But thanks, I hadn’t heard that one yet. The KBG ceased to exist in 1991, btw.

    France has always unduly influenced Germany since Augustus and Karl der Gross, more recently under the Bonapartes. Certain regions of Europe are poorly positioned to effect any real better outcomes for national designs than others.
    Karl der Große was a German Emperor still speaking a Germanic dialect and with a power base in Germany. That he happened to rule over Romance territories that were liable to tributes, doesn’t change that fact and somehow makes him some kind of medieval Napoleon.

    No comment to France and Augustus.

    Despite the Alps, Germany found herself enslaved to Rome, unlike Britain, who got rejuvenated by relations with Scandinavia and the Normans kept the English isolated from integration (although Richard of Cornwall was King of Germany and Pope Adrian IV was English). Germany followed Gaul in trading individuality and innate sensibilities for "Mediterranean glory". This was the case between Karl and Otto, Bonaparte and Hitler.
    Care to explain?

    The more things change, the more they stay the same...If Germany wants to follow the Romance French example of bureaucratic integration with Europe and Civil Law and other Roman legacies, always being held low for showing any independence from the Franco-Polish and Russian sewer, turning up noses at the Germanic Anglo-American world, then she is suicidal and Tacitus would not recognize this nation today. What do you think Spengler would say?
    France and Poland have little to do with the current state of affairs in Germany and the suicidal side of my countrymen, quite simply because they lacked any sort of stronger influence. France pretty much sought isolation after the 1960s and the Communist/”Russian” part of Germany obviously failed.

    Perhaps you should read some Spengler yourself, then you would know what he thought about Brits and Americans and their influence on Germany: Prussianism and Socialism


    You're worried about Polish opinions, when Germans are expected to be dominated by their domination of Europe, like the French before. Carry the load to pay for barbarian heritage...be rewarded with untold power and riches to the point where your friends and family no longer know who you are anymore than you do. What a life is that?
    As I said above, I couldn’t care less about Polish opinion. No idea how you came to that conclusion or that I’m glad about the current degenerated state of Germany.

    I noticed that the two main power centres enduring from mediaeval Deutschland were in the stem duchies of Henry the Lion: Bavaria and Saxony. His son Otto of Brunswick was the only Welf Kaiser and this family would later rule Hannover, the UK, the US until 1783 and India (as well as Russia). Saxony at that time was where the Hannoverian kingdom within Germany was eventually sited.
    Bavaria was hardly a power center during the Middle Ages and Saxony(“Hannover”) hardly so in early modernity.

    Welf opposition to the Ghibellines, with half their family in Lombardy, along with Mary of Modena being matriarch of the Jacobites, the Quebec Act along with the Prince Regent's secret marriage to Maria Fitzherbert, complicated their Lutheran piety and devotion. Saxony herself reneged on Luther after a fashion, so...
    The word you’re looking for is Waiblinger, Ghibellines are specifically those Italian cities favouring German rule, opposed to the Guelphs(Welfen), who favoured autonomy/papal rule and where supported by the Welfen(again a case of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”).

    As for the rest, no idea what that’s supposed to mean.

    In the Allied occupation period, Britain's zone corresponded to pre-Prussian Hannover and the surrounding area, with America taking over Bayern, et al. The other three kingdoms of the Second Reich; Prussia, Saxony and Wuerttemberg, all were controlled by non-Germanic entities, in the zones of Slavic and Romance countries. The core of Germany was safeguarded by Germany's cousins of the North Sea and North Atlantic, surrounded by European foreigners.
    A few things: Only a comparatively small part of Württemberg was at any time controlled by the French, namely the very remote, agricultural zones. There was very little to influence ideologically for the French nor did they actually seek to do so there or in the rest of their zone of occupation. They were only interested in economic exploitation.

    The only region they wanted to separate from Germany, as they had tried for centuries and also already after WWI, was the Saarland because it was situated on the left side of the Rhine and especially because of its natural resources(especially coal).
    That did in no way change their Germanness, however, despite much use of both force and economical incentives. Finally they had to let them go back to Western Germany.

    “Safeguarded” is such a nice euphemism for decades of occupation and ideological indoctrination that resulted in moral degeneracy and materialism.

    America must have gotten Bayern as the odd man out, but it is possible that Midwest German-Americans idolized the pastoral life there and looked with wonder upon Schloss Neuschwanstein.
    The US got Bavaria simply because the British took the states on the North Sea Coast which was the most logical thing to do from the point of geography and history.
    For the US, it made little difference if they got Bavaria(and much of the interior of Germany) because they had to cross the Atlantic anyway.

    In the same way, France got parts of southwest and west-middle Germany, simply because it was the only part that actually bordered France. That and the fact, that it was a rural and insignificant area. At the beginning, both Russia and Britain didn’t want to give them any zone of occupation at all because they had barely participated in the war, after all.

    It is also true that the former GDR suffers from post-Soviet shock and Stockholm syndrome-like nostalgia for the inhumanity they suffered, so it is unsurprising when anti-Anglo-American sentiments issue from the East, sometimes in concert with post-de Gaullist derision at "perfidious Albion" and "les Anglo-Saxons" with ridiculous hysteria--no doubt related to Eurocentric supremacy in places like Strasbourg, Geneva, Brussels and the Hague. All of those power centres tie Germany to France, no different than when Germany was administered at Trier as part of Roman Gaul, or when Karl was based at Aachen.
    Where exactly is and was Aachen, again? In a very Germanic area and so it has been since from before the times of Karl dem Großen.
    Unsurprising is, that East Germans are nostalgic for the GDR, in light of the current state of Germany, its moral decadence and the way they were exploited economically, consciously and unconciously after the reunification. What was left in industry was dismantled for peanuts and the most skilled and young workers went to the west.
    Years later they tried to recompensate, or rather, bribe, them and now they have the best roads in all of Germany but for what?
    For them, the hardships they undoubtedly faced in the GDR understandably pale in comparison, especially as more time goes by.

    After all, the French were the first terrorists, both Latin and Atheist (like the Slavs) too, who turned Austria into a rump state of the HRE and assumed the same role with the utmost hypocrisy. I guess nobody learned from the Thirty Years' War...
    What?

    Funny to state that Austria and Italy were somehow merely at loggerheads, when Napoleon III installed Maximilian, who was ruler of Lombardy and Venice, as ruler of Mexico in a grand design for Papist supremacy between Latin Europe and Latin America.
    Very obviously he could be ruler of Lombardy and Venice precisely because those areas had been conquered by Austria in war?
    Austria and France also had been at war over those parts Italy merely five years before Maximilian went to Mexico, btw. So much for “Papist supremacy”. The Habsburgs were opposed to the plan anyway and disowned him of his inheritance and noble titles.

    Mussolini tried the same thing with Ethiopia, probably impessed by Leopold's Belgian Congo. Haiti and Brazil were on board with that too, both caught up in the zeitgeist of imperial Bonapartism.
    Basically every state of any capacity had colonies and satellite states at the time. Queen Victoria was at the same time Empress of India and more than a dozen states besides. But so what?

    Prussia ought not have annexed Hannover and Prince Albert's family should have known better. Whilst it was not inevitable that there was to be bitter conflict between Berlin and London, those factors certainly exacerbated alienation.
    Why would they not? It was a step closer to reach German unification.
    In the end Britain seems to have cared little about Hanover at the time and the time of alienation came later, due to errors from both sides. Such as, Britain feeling threatened by a continental power such as Imperial Germany which ultimately was little interested in active conquest of Britain overseas territory(nor in any position to do so).
    But also from the German plan during the Naval Arms Race, to reach two thirds of the British fleet for defensive purposes, which understandably irritated Britain with its two-power standard(which must have been known to Germany).

    That’s the tragedy of all of it, that actually neither Britain had an interest in German territory on the continent, nor Germany in British territory overseas. But that’s a discussion for a different thread.

    Britain and France opposing Russia while siding with Turkey probably influenced Central and Axis antipathy to the Allies, all the while copying this tendency to form defense treaties with non-Whites, not just Turkey but such as with the Japanese later.
    The Crimean war happened even before the German unification and both Prussia and Austria were neutral but it’s safe to say that both were more interested in keeping Russian influence down.
    Prussia bordering Russia could have no interest in strengthening them and Austria with its Slav puppet states certainly even less so, in times of Panslawism.

    As for alliances, in the end it boils down, on both sides, to “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Germans also got sucked into the Indo-Germanisch craze for the Aryan caste system due to British India, although Britain's sense of Germanic liberty was aimed at leveling the Hindu aristocracy, whereas Germany's fixation with Byzantine bureaucracy was invested in it as if elitism is more important than populism. Nazis had the nerve to act as though Aryan caste was populist. That wool could not be pulled over the eyes of most working class folks in Germany, Britain and America, the Big Three industrial powers. The American Civil War decided that issue.
    I have honestly no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.

    I myself have distant Baden ancestry and the observation was not meant to disparage native residents, only to lament the unavoidable and unenviable position that the folks there have, stuck in between the core of Germany and the grasping hands of Germany's Latin neighbour, who has always sought the whole of that which belonged to Lothar and content themselves with the subjugation of inhabitants from Ludwig's third of the Frankish Reich.
    You weren’t really much disparaging anyone but simply telling nonsense in regards to southwestern Germany. There was no Sonderweg under French rule for this region, it became part of the BRD at the same time as the rest of Western Germany. If anything, these regions were comparatively much less influenced by both France and Britain/USA and are still some of the most conservative regions of Germany up to this date.

    If East Germans are the most ethnocentric, then why are they nostalgic for the Soviet Union and have a Weimar-like, "Bauhaus" existence? Nothing says ethnocentric like "Karl-Marx-Stadt" aka Chemnitz.
    They are nostalgic for the GDR, which was quite ethnocentric for a communist state, not the Soviet Union. But a communist state it undoubtedly was and that its government would rename a city to honour the founder of their ideology is unsurprising. That doesn’t change the fact, that modern Eastern Germans are much more ethnocentric than Western Germans. Anyone knows that.

    No idea what “Weimar-like, "Bauhaus" existence” means.

    How much is 1848 revered as the "good cause" in East Berlin?
    That would presuppose that 1848 is revered as the “good cause” anywhere.

    It's pretty obvious that there were six German regions in the recent era before 1989, only half of which were part of the free world: Hannover, (Sachsen, Pruessen, Württemberg--French zone and could not be more free than under Soviets,) Bayern and Oesterreich.
    It's harder to draw a fine line where the Romance countries are concerned, for even those living on the old Rhenish-Danubian limes of Rome cannot seem to extricate themselves from cohabitation with Latin bilingualism and/or Papistry, i.e. Roman Catholicism. Therefore, not much hope exists for Alsace-Lothringen. My original point was merely to put a microscope on Poland and Russia having profited from lies and distortions to such a point that their imposition upon East Germany has immobilised any real individuation from victim-pleaser mentality, all from the inside of German borders, popularizing Marxism far more mainstream than it was before the fall of the Soviets.
    It’s pretty obvious that there were many more than just those six regions and that the Cold War situation in Germany was a dichotomy of West and East, not a trichotomy of Southwest+Palatinate+Saarland, West and East or that actual Marxism/Communism plays currently no role in either east or west Germany.

    But I don’t hold that against you, as you are American and German history is understandably not your strong point. But then please hold back your opinions, I’m not lecturing you with unqualified comments on the situation of farther Oklahoma or something either.

    The "alternative" to that was the European Union, through the French connection, otherwise Bonn/Berlin could triangulate most effectively and with extreme prejudice to better Germanic effect with London and Washington. You seem to think that an Anglo-Deutsch-American triumvirate of industrial greatness is damaging to the German soul, but only a non-Germanic ideology like Romanism and/or Sovietism could be so opposed to indigenous Gothicisms as Hitler mocked our ancestors while expressing admiration for Greece and Rome, not to forget the Aryan Persians.
    The idea that Germany was a sovereign state and had any choice in anything it did after WWII, is ridiculous.

    Think of alignments and whether you enjoy being Mitteleuropa, at the junction between Fascists and Communists, or would you not miss your Nordic freedom from those binding ties foisted upon your folks as in the pre-Christian times--although valuing the Protestant cause with such heroes as King Gustav Adolf? Ah, quite right. Are you still convinced that selling your Germanic soul for Continental power is the best way to live? Why turn your back on where you come from? Would it not be better to wash your hands of the Roman taint? Are you not a child of Luther? Was Widukind not a hero of the Volk? Whose creature are you? It's nonsense to see us engaged in the Kulturkampf on opposite sides, or are we?
    Again, no idea what you’re talking about, you seem to be fighting windmills. Being on here and then a moderator, seems to be a sure sign that I’m more than sympathetic to other Germanics. But first and foremost I’m simply German.

    I'm vouching for a pro-Germanic, anti-European coalition (Germany, Netherlands, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Liechtenstein, Finland, Belgium, Luxemburg and Switzerland, but it would include Finno-Ugric (Estonia, Hungary) and Celtic (Ireland) nations as well as the New World colonies (Iceland, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). I'm not sure about the exact strategy for dealing with Belgium, Luxemburg and Switzerland, where Romance is concerned. Bismarck would have a good answer, as would Cromwell.
    I don’t have a problem with that idea and, except for the inclusion of Finns, Estonians and Hungarians, it concurs my own idea, though it’s of course merely a pipedream.
    Finland though, is not a Germanic nation btw, it belongs to the, hint, Finno-Ugrics. They’re for the most part genetically even more distant to Germanics than Estonians and Hungarians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baorn View Post
    One thing I had just thought of, is how Sweden could have played a vital role in East German strategy, as Britain and America could have done even more so in the West. It's reasonable to mention that the non-Germanic experiences of the Swedish and English folks have been comparable to those put upon Germany. Northwest and Southeast Germany were in capable Germanic hands during the Cold War, but they could have shut out the French from the Southwest, while it is too bad that Swedish neutrality did not safeguard the Northeast, along with the Prussian rump state of Kaliningrad. Germany was abandoned because of "might makes right" and "survival of the fittest" being her official policy.
    Do you honestly think 20th century Sweden was in any position to prevent Russia from establishing a zone of occupation in Eastern Germany, if they merely wanted to?

    By the way, why do you pose as a Swede on your profile if you're clearly American and, according to your own words, with exclusively "British, Irish and Canadian ancestors"?
    And the day they sold us out, Our hearts grew cold
    'Cause we were never asked, No brother, we were told!
    What do they know of Europe, Who only Europe know?



    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


  9. #9
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2018 @ 05:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Ethnicity
    Ancestry
    Ancestry
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,488
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    128
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Neither do I. I merely meant to point out a flaw in your reasoning, for the sake of truth.
    The purpose of this forum is to advance Germanic POV, or at least be comfortable with Germanic heritage under assault, not wallow in multicultural political correctness. I came to this forum after dealing with a bunch of aggressive Poles on another forum and they were dishonestly appropriating Germanic heritage on one hand and assuming the position as the ultimate Aryans because of their descent from the Yamnaya culture. Ironic, no? So please, quit preaching sobriety to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    When exactly was Poland “resurrected” from the Partitions by Germany/Bismarck anyway? The only times I can think of are, firstly, after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 but in that case, Poland was merely some puppet state of Russia and what little autonomy they had, was abolished after their uprising in the 1830s.
    The second instance, was the creation of the Polish puppet state by Germany at the end of WWI, far after Bismarck. But even that was of little relevance to later events, since Russia was in no position to keep Poland due to their Civil War. They would have regained their autonomy either way.
    You got me. No Bismarck, but Kaiser Bill and the Austrians, before Hitler. It would have been better for Congress Poland to stay a puppet state of Russia.

    With the General Government instituted under the de jure Kleindeutsche, but de facto Großdeutsche Lösung, between Germany and Austria-Hungary in WWI, then when Hitler combined the two former empires into one and pursued the same policy by Blitzkrieg, it was the pretext for a severance of East Germany from the rest by Russia, to the benefit of Poland. Poland seems to have turned out the winner, but not out of the Poles' own doing. If Poland remained with Russia, it would have been Moscow's soft spot. Germany imposing government on Warsaw had the same ramifications for Berlin.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    What? I don’t speak conspiracy, sorry. But thanks, I hadn’t heard that one yet. The KBG ceased to exist in 1991, btw.
    Putin. What rock are you living under? Maybe your conspiracy has no Gentiles, save for the supposed dupes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Karl der Große was a German Emperor still speaking a Germanic dialect and with a power base in Germany. That he happened to rule over Romance territories that were liable to tributes, doesn’t change that fact and somehow makes him some kind of medieval Napoleon.

    No comment to France and Augustus.
    Karl was an agent of the Papacy and his "empire" suborned Germany to Gaul, much as Augustus did before. That was what the so-called "Carolingian Renaissance" was about. The persons involved were of the opinion that folks East of the Rhine were uncivilised barbarians and set about on a cultural revolution, that included the Massacre of Verden and invasion of the Danevirke. When Clovis/Ludwig of the Merovingian/Marwig dynasty converted to Popery, he set the precedent that ruined the Franks, but Karl rubber-stamped this with his "Roman" coronation. With Karl, the Frankish tongue retreated to its Salian and Ripuarian homelands, becoming known as Dutch or Franconian. Karl the Bald ruled a state named for the Franks, but which had abandoned its Germanic heritage, whereas Lothar ruled a culturally ambivalent (Belgic) Frankish state, while that under Ludwig was Germanic in the sense of being a Saxon protectorate beneath Frankish rule.

    The Franks willfully assimilated into Romance society, because they sought to become Romans, wearing silk togas instead of leather breeches, drinking wine instead of beer. They thought this was their glory, rather than living distinct from Romans and seizing power, as the Arian East Germanic and Ingvaeonic tribes did. Aachen or Aix is close to Cologne and Mainz as well as Trier, in the Roman area. Naturally, it would not favor traditionalists like the Saxons, nor would allying with the proto-Polish Obotrites at the expense of fellow Germans. If the Franks were true to their own, they would have been more oriented to conditions the Saxons favoured, not sold them into Roman slavery as they themselves apparently preferred. In this is the kernel to future French dominance in Europe, with Germany as junior partner where cultural affluence is concerned. They do not call it "lingua franca" for nothing. You have it totally backward.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Care to explain?
    I pointed out how Britain and Germany have common origins, both in terms of Teutonic demographics and Roman imperial background, but went in entirely different directions. England went the way of Denmark and the Normans, while Germany followed Burgundy and Italy. England, like many other nations, including even France (how ironic, having set up this chain reaction), was a free agent in relation to the "Roman Empire", whereas Germany was locked into this Papal fiction until Luther was affected by English Wycliffe by way of Bohemian Huss.

    Yes, England provided one Bishop of Rome and one King of the Romans/Germany, but this was the kind of influence afforded one without much leverage or formally integrated place in the HRE. England also provided one Patriarch of Jerusalem, one monastic order (Gilbertines) and one Crusader order (St. Thomas), but these are dwarfed by the plethora of examples relative to Germany's presence in that world. England has always been an outsider to Roman affairs, but the same cannot be said of Germany, yet the German propaganda is such that: Germany=Germanic über alles--despite this being the reverse of truth. You as a German inhabit the remnants of this system unfriendly to Germanic society, but playing wholly into the hands of the Latin Classicist world. The lack of perspective of those too close to the problem cannot be shifted to those who have far less to do with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    France and Poland have little to do with the current state of affairs in Germany and the suicidal side of my countrymen, quite simply because they lacked any sort of stronger influence. France pretty much sought isolation after the 1960s and the Communist/”Russian” part of Germany obviously failed.

    Perhaps you should read some Spengler yourself, then you would know what he thought about Brits and Americans and their influence on Germany: Prussianism and Socialism
    Au contraire, mein freund, at the supposed time of French isolation, France invented the European Union in concert with Italy, which required the subservience of West Germany under their thumb on one hand, Benelux as the favored site of so-called (illusory) "neutrality" on the other. The simple fact is that Germany has always suffered encirclement from the Franks/French and Obotrites/Poles (with Russian entrenchment) and this renders timeless satellite status. You mention that East Germany failed, but then elsewhere hold their post-Communist apologists up on a pedestal as some kind of noble savages. You are in the tank for your traditional enemies who hold your balls in a vise. Are you certain you weren't sent to the Gulag as a young child? You claim to stand for, or appreciate Germanic heritage, but your chief targets are Germanic and have absolute revulsion for those whom you have most in common with. Hey, go ahead and align with abject foreigners, who are blameless. See where that gets you for Germanic objectives. You are your own version of others' 'suicidal countrymen'.

    I take Spenglerian aristocratic nationalism with a grain of salt, but the prophetic warnings I value from him are in the vein of Edward Gibbon with respect to the direction of a country's future. Spengler predicted the end of Germany, did he not? What could be gained from Hitler's ideological marriage of Mussolini and Stalin? The meta-ethnic cultures of his inspiration, holding disdain for the ancient Germanic tribes just as his Austrian arse did, took Southwest Germany and East Germany, as they always wanted to increase their own Blocs. All Hitler's demagoguery did was turn the world against Germans, because Germanic culture and soil wasn't enough, he aspired to appropriate those of other Indo-Europeans "as if" German and then institutionalize subordination of fellow Germanic lands in a kind of pecking order. To expect or insist Britain take a junior role and then enforce imperium over America is kind of like an angry grandparent upset that their child isn't whipping and caning their grandchild into submission, all for proper decorum, of course. German apologists for the WWII position are like the cranky old senior citizenry whining about reckless youths, reiterating the lack of Anglo-American respect for the "established (Continental Mediterranean) order".

    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    As I said above, I couldn’t care less about Polish opinion. No idea how you came to that conclusion or that I’m glad about the current degenerated state of Germany.
    Maybe you ought to see that this degeneration is a systemic problem going back many hundreds of years and that your penchant for pointing fingers to the contemporary bogeymen won't get real change any time soon, especially when you make excuses because your government has always traded good sense for absolute power. Being disingenuous won't fix problems that you find intolerable and you can't blame others when you know the conundrum can only be solved by abandoning the maxim that things will change by doing it the same way. When I write "you", I mean wherever you personally identify with Continental dysfunction, otherwise refer to its ultimate purveyors, or both, if you won't recuse or distance yourself properly from them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Bavaria was hardly a power center during the Middle Ages and Saxony(“Hannover”) hardly so in early modernity.
    Bayern was obviously powerful enough to spawn Ostmark, aka Austria. I meant also that the Welfen were the most serious rivals to Waiblinger, that their dual power base was as alarming to the imperial power as Burgundy was to the Valois, or York to Lancaster in other lands. Otto was made emperor and his father, Heinrich der Löwe, was centrally focused in Germany, just as the Anglo-American Allies were in post-WWII conditions. Heinrich and Otto were quite connected to the Angevin dynasty in England at the time of their rule, so it's obvious how Richard of Cornwall got elected in Germany. Having an English Papacy probably helped "build that bridge". I found it striking that this dynasty from the Northwest and Southeast regions would control the two countries controlling them most recently, becoming the two true arbiters of world affairs over 200 years. It's perhaps a bit like chickens coming home to roost, in a way. Perhaps if the Franconians and Salians were rooted out for being the French puppets they were, then the Hohenstaufen and Habsburgs would have had no chance to sink Germany beneath their ambitions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    The word you’re looking for is Waiblinger, Ghibellines are specifically those Italian cities favouring German rule, opposed to the Guelphs(Welfen), who favoured autonomy/papal rule and where supported by the Welfen(again a case of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”).

    As for the rest, no idea what that’s supposed to mean.
    Funny how that despite the supposed alignments, the only Welf kaiser was excommunicated and despite the Papist Jacobites in England being descended maternally from the Welfs of Modena, the 1701 Act of Settlement explicitly called for the heirs of Sophia of Hannover to succeed William III of Orange-Nassau, thus placing the Welfs on the British throne for the cause of Protestantism. I deeply appreciate irony.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    A few things: Only a comparatively small part of Württemberg was at any time controlled by the French, namely the very remote, agricultural zones. There was very little to influence ideologically for the French nor did they actually seek to do so there or in the rest of their zone of occupation. They were only interested in economic exploitation.

    The only region they wanted to separate from Germany, as they had tried for centuries and also already after WWI, was the Saarland because it was situated on the left side of the Rhine and especially because of its natural resources(especially coal).
    That did in no way change their Germanness, however, despite much use of both force and economical incentives. Finally they had to let them go back to Western Germany.

    “Safeguarded” is such a nice euphemism for decades of occupation and ideological indoctrination that resulted in moral degeneracy and materialism.
    It is well known that Louis XIV desired the Saarland, because he viewed the Rhine and Rhone as natural borders for French lebensraum. No need to split hairs. I used shorthand exposition on the relative positions of the WWII Allies in Germany, with the 2nd Reich's kingdoms sufficing as the most important elements per region. Hence, the Kingdom of Württemberg was in the Southwest French zone, the Kingdom of Hannover was in the Northwest British zone, the Kingdom of Bayern was in the Southeast American zone, the Kingdom of Sachsen was in the Northeastern Soviet zone, whilst the Kingdom of Preussen was to become Kaliningrad within the USSR and the Polish Corridor became a full shore. Those are not meant to be pedantic fields of battle.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    The US got Bavaria simply because the British took the states on the North Sea Coast which was the most logical thing to do from the point of geography and history.
    For the US, it made little difference if they got Bavaria(and much of the interior of Germany) because they had to cross the Atlantic anyway.

    In the same way, France got parts of southwest and west-middle Germany, simply because it was the only part that actually bordered France. That and the fact, that it was a rural and insignificant area. At the beginning, both Russia and Britain didn’t want to give them any zone of occupation at all because they had barely participated in the war, after all.
    Giving de Gaulle that zone was surety against the Soviets more than anything else, so if it satiated Parisian delusions of grandeur, it was also not substantially much different than the interconnected nature of Petain's Vichy government with respect to Germany in Fascist Europe, a counterbalance to Communist Europe in the East. The only difference was in leverage: either Germany occupied Northern France or France occupied Southwestern Germany and each tried to use the other as a marionette, but the ends were the same--shoring up strength because of the USSR, which ultimately led to the EU.

    East Germany is conventionally treated as a buffer state, but the same could be said of West Germany, on the front lines of the Soviet menace. Also, there is a psychology involved here, not too dissimilar to the military practice of "breaking down" and rebuilding individuals into effective soldiers. It is obvious that is what happened to Germany, in beheading her by removing Prussia on one hand, letting Austria go relatively unscathed on the other. Perhaps, the idea was to make an example of Prussia, in order to frighten the living daylights out of Austria. The Declaration of Moscow was a mindgame of the highest order, since it was Austrian aggrandisement that led to the fiasco of Nazi supremacy. I feel so bad for Prussia's memory and the abuse leveled at Germany for the cause of Austrian rulers. Did Germans doubt everything about themselves between the Reformation and WWI? If so, then this self-loathing must have begun with the collusion between Prussia and Austria to invade and overthrow Denmark, because Prussia and Denmark ought to have had common cause to do the same to Austria instead.

    I notice from the map of Allied-occupied Austria, that the NW-SE positions are US-UK, in reverse from the arrangement in Germany. This must have been part of the mindgames, but also another expression of equal cooperation between Anglo-American partners.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Where exactly is and was Aachen, again? In a very Germanic area and so it has been since from before the times of Karl dem Großen.
    Unsurprising is, that East Germans are nostalgic for the GDR, in light of the current state of Germany, its moral decadence and the way they were exploited economically, consciously and unconciously after the reunification. What was left in industry was dismantled for peanuts and the most skilled and young workers went to the west.
    Years later they tried to recompensate, or rather, bribe, them and now they have the best roads in all of Germany but for what?
    For them, the hardships they undoubtedly faced in the GDR understandably pale in comparison, especially as more time goes by.
    Aachen or Aix? How exclusively "Germanic" is a city not far from Belgium and Luxemburg, sited near Brussels and Strassburg? They, along with the Hague and Geneva and Rome, are all within Lothar's old Middle Francia and West Germany would be East Francia, whereas East Germany is where the Thuringians lived before the Franks/French displaced them with the Poles' ancestors. (Notice a pattern here?) The Rhineland is hardly exclusively Germanic in any era. The fact that East Germans feel a starker acknowledgment for the European Union slavery that they have become unequal conglomerate partners to, does not erase this same position unbeknownst to the West Germans, as perpetrators of the submissive order desired by the French. But, seriously, the East Germans traded one despotic regime in the Warsaw Pact for another, feeling residual Stockholm syndrome guilt from going over, no different than West Germans have been conditioned by EU immersion. Neither side really served the Anglo-American special relationship, nor Germany as a whole. Therein lies the common future, not on Hitler's terms, but still bearing at least as much potential as the Trans-Atlantic Hannoverian British American conditions did. Germany in the EU signifies the ultimate victory of the Bonapartists. Bring on the German equivalent to Brexit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    What?
    The Bonapartes deposed the Habsburg-Lothringen dynasty and took up the imperial mantle. So much for "revolution". All it did was restore to power the French what they thought they deserved; Carolingian rather than Ottonian imperium.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Very obviously he could be ruler of Lombardy and Venice precisely because those areas had been conquered by Austria in war?
    Austria and France also had been at war over those parts Italy merely five years before Maximilian went to Mexico, btw. So much for “Papist supremacy”. The Habsburgs were opposed to the plan anyway and disowned him of his inheritance and noble titles.

    Basically every state of any capacity had colonies and satellite states at the time. Queen Victoria was at the same time Empress of India and more than a dozen states besides. But so what?
    I didn't state that Papists could not be at war with one another, but they all have the same goal: Roman glory. On the other hand, the Hundred Years' War highlighted the Avignon Schism and made the Reformation irreversible. When Joan of Arc was burnt for witchcraft by Rome, only for the Avignon to turn her into the patron saint of France, only put it plainly that Anglicanism was as justifiable as Gallicanism--whatever relation to Rome existed throughout the vicissitudes between them. Queen Victoria assumed the title Empress of India at the same time of the Anglo-Catholic Oxford Movement and this move toward cosmopolitanism now has fractured English nationalism. The imperial title and precedence betwixt the powers contributed as much to Anglo-German friction as the invasion of Hannover.

    To illustrate the fact that infighting is not just a Papist or Protestant disorder: The fact that Ben Disraeli, who put that crown on HM head was a crypto-Jew on one hand and Zionism brought about the Mandate of Palestine on the other, while circumcision came to be practised throughout Anglophone lands, has nothing to do with the current diffusion of Anglo-Saxon focus, nor any particular burden upon Germany through such a farcical mechanism by way of any pernicious American agency. The Rothschilds are your own Yiddish creatures and most of the initially prominent Jewry in Anglo-American countries were Sephardim, rather than Ashkenazim. These Jews are as anti-Catholic as our Protestant brethren, so that's why they had been tolerated, but to claim that they have loyalties to their Jewish cousins is as foolish as the idea of universal Christian solidarity. I do not know what the deal is that makes Yids so different, but to whatever degree they chafed under the German equivalent to the Spanish Inquisition might make them hostile. That's all I can say of my observations on Foxman and Wiesel. Maybe Anglo-Saxons could oppose the vendetta of the Yellow Star brigade in the cause of Germanic unity? I would like to, however it is useful for Israel to fight their Muslim wars--only if they do it with their own resources and all the "Jewish Buddhists" go there instead of fearing Hebrew uniformity. Perhaps you are observant that most Americans despise secular Jewry and are neutral/favourable toward Israel (religious Jews are just weird, but whatever). I would rather support Iran if it were not Muslim but Zoroastrian or even Hindu or Buddhist, the same as India and Indochina. The same with Pakistan and Bangladesh. It's hard to support the Aryans if they choose to be slaves to that which they despise. Is Tehran held under the thumb of Mecca and Medina by any army? They choose their own fate.

    Furthermore, Americans sought our own Indian protectorates through the tribal reservation system and annexing the Kingdom of the Sandwich Islands/Republic of Hawaii, but it took absorption of the post-Papist Republic of Texas to induce this mentality, buttressed by the Commonwealth of the Philippines infrastructure with a "Governor-General" as in Canada. Americans also had our own "Rhodesia" called the Confederacy, LOL. Our foreign policy since WWII has largely followed on the heels of formally imperial powers; usually cleaning up messes left behind by decolonisation. I can't say this was true during the Obama Administration, since he made everything worse. Herr Drumpf is a good antidote to that self-immolation, on par with Brexit, but I expect a plateau of sorts within 10 years and that lack of polarisation is exactly what this world needs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Why would they not? It was a step closer to reach German unification.
    In the end Britain seems to have cared little about Hanover at the time and the time of alienation came later, due to errors from both sides. Such as, Britain feeling threatened by a continental power such as Imperial Germany which ultimately was little interested in active conquest of Britain overseas territory(nor in any position to do so).
    But also from the German plan during the Naval Arms Race, to reach two thirds of the British fleet for defensive purposes, which understandably irritated Britain with its two-power standard(which must have been known to Germany).

    That’s the tragedy of all of it, that actually neither Britain had an interest in German territory on the continent, nor Germany in British territory overseas. But that’s a discussion for a different thread.
    Well, yes, this thread has gone off topic, but I agree with you about the sadness. My point was to argue in favor of the Anglo-American situation in German interests as opposed to the Polish position as beneficiary of Russian annexationism at German expense, but I came to the realisation that one could not place sole blame upon the Slavs, when they have traditionally played the role vis a vis Germany that the Scots did regarding England, through the Auld Alliance with France. London and Washington have not personally benefited from occupation of Germany. It was always a service of stewardship for fellow Germanics, who would otherwise be alone and at the mercy of blood enemies. Imagine if Paris and Moscow + Warsaw had total domination of Germany. Considering that most warfare emanating out of Berlin was towards them, it would only be natural that unfettered violence would result. There is no natural antipathy between Germanics.

    If you would have preferred that Britain and America stayed aloof from Hitler's plans for France on one side and Poland-Russia on the other, both during and after WWII, we will never know how that would turn out, other than by comparison with the Bonapartes, just as Otto of the Saxons copied Karl of the Franks in the Mediaeval Reich. Would Hitler have been able to crack Moscow? Would Hitler have honoured his claims to amity with Britain, or broken them, as with all other treaties? The balance of power was not in Anglo-American favour and believe it or not, to array against Germany was a reluctant decision in both World Wars. Chamberlain and the Abdication of Edward VIII joined with the American pacifist movement of Lindbergh, but push came to shove with German initiative. Look at it this way: Austria is the devil on Germany's left shoulder and England is the angel on the other. Do you want the Tiber informing your perspective, or that of the North Sea?


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    The Crimean war happened even before the German unification and both Prussia and Austria were neutral but it’s safe to say that both were more interested in keeping Russian influence down.
    Prussia bordering Russia could have no interest in strengthening them and Austria with its Slav puppet states certainly even less so, in times of Panslawism.

    As for alliances, in the end it boils down, on both sides, to “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Nothing more, nothing less.
    There is no easy strategy or solution to never-ending issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    I have honestly no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.
    It means that Germans or at least the Austrians like Guido von List valued the Aryan caste system, which complemented the Byzantine order of Continental Europe rather than the liberty of Germanic tradition--the hallmark of the Big Three Teutonic industrial powers. Austria-Hungary's Romanticism sucked the future out of Germany-Prussia. Bismarck's Kulturkampf efforts notwithstanding, Austro-Bavarianism won and tumbled everything down in Nazi flames.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    You weren’t really much disparaging anyone but simply telling nonsense in regards to southwestern Germany. There was no Sonderweg under French rule for this region, it became part of the BRD at the same time as the rest of Western Germany. If anything, these regions were comparatively much less influenced by both France and Britain/USA and are still some of the most conservative regions of Germany up to this date.
    I told you I have ancestry from Baden, which was actually from Niederösttereich, but the persons involved were tired of the Habsburgs and sought the freedom of Protestantism. Similarly, I have ancestry from Frankenthal, but once again, they left due to the Habsburgs, who they had just fled when leaving their original Flanders. I do not believe that these so-called "Palatine" ancestors of mine would have loved French control any more than Austrian and Spanish. Do the Winter King and Queen ring a bell? That was an elected monarchy of Bohemia and the Habsburgs failed to learn from the Luxemburg dynasty's example. Why would Louis XIV's Revocation of the Edict of Nantes benefit them? No foreign presence in the region is welcome, from what I gather, but it was significant enough to make for the largest emigre population of Germans in colonial America. So, it's not a figment of imagination or paranoia...


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    They are nostalgic for the GDR, which was quite ethnocentric for a communist state, not the Soviet Union. But a communist state it undoubtedly was and that its government would rename a city to honour the founder of their ideology is unsurprising. That doesn’t change the fact, that modern Eastern Germans are much more ethnocentric than Western Germans. Anyone knows that.

    No idea what “Weimar-like, "Bauhaus" existence” means.
    How are Eastern Germans with Slavic ancestry more ethnocentric? Are they overcompensating for something they fall short on? Are they trying to prove their loyalty? Well, they ought not infect West Germany with their way of coping with assimilation to pan-Slavism, which means membership in the Eastern Bloc. Would not these so-called ethnocentrists be the most Putinist? How schizophrenic that sounds...

    Hitler's attacks on Weimar's Bauhaus expression were spot on. GDR is a partial anagram for DeGeneRate. The other attacks Hitler made on Rhineland bastards were also spot on, since Rhinelanders are perpetually Romance-Germanic lovechildren without clear destiny.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    That would presuppose that 1848 is revered as the “good cause” anywhere.
    You just got done eulogizing a Soviet Communist puppet state and making the case that it is the "real Germany", but without evidence. It would be authentic Deutschland if it was Nordicist and aligned with other Germanic lands instead of the Slavs and was not Communist, the same if it avoided the Romance and Fascism. Are you really a Germanicist, or a collaborator? You claim that the areas most subject to non-Germanic intervention are the most conservative and ethnocentric, that your own Germanic ties are the ones beyond the Pale. That's pure fantasy and serves you naught, but whatever, LOL. You ought to realise that espousing these sentiments and whatever machinations resultant from them, has manifested in Brexit and Trump (Obama was pro-Brussels). If you think that Anglo-Americans recoiling from the quicksand you find strength is an indication of degeneracy, then go ahead and drown. I mean, that upturned nose pretty much explains the alienation. Pan-Germanic movement is supposed to be democratic, not aristocratic. If you Continentals were sincere, then you would have treated Benelux and Scandinavia differently. Common origin should mean common purpose, but it is up to the participants to cooperate, not have design imposed upon them. I am a fan of Locke and Kierkegaard, with an interest in the "social contract" between God on one level and man the other. I'm afraid Hobbes and Nietzsche are what the Reformers referred to when they preached about "total depravity".

    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    It’s pretty obvious that there were many more than just those six regions and that the Cold War situation in Germany was a dichotomy of West and East, not a trichotomy of Southwest+Palatinate+Saarland, West and East or that actual Marxism/Communism plays currently no role in either east or west Germany.

    But I don’t hold that against you, as you are American and German history is understandably not your strong point. But then please hold back your opinions, I’m not lecturing you with unqualified comments on the situation of farther Oklahoma or something either.
    Those are just the largest regions of Germany in the time of our great-grandfathers. I would be interested in more sustained dialog between Volksdeutsche on both sides of the Atlantic. As it is, I'm far less German than English, but a Saxon dialog on both sides of the North Sea as well as between all three across the Atlantic is precisely what needs to happen. That is really the only reason to have this forum.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    The idea that Germany was a sovereign state and had any choice in anything it did after WWII, is ridiculous.
    Let us focus on distancing ourselves from past recent errors. The Big Three screwed up big time and we are all prey if we do not wisen up a bit more. Please remember that there are Gentile enemies other than fratricidal circumstances between Germanics. Both Jews and foreign Gentiles would rather us kill each other than come to some good footing relative to theirs; this is as true for the New World as the Old. As for Muslims and Subcontinental Aryans, this is an external issue that would not be of any concern, if we could deal with the aforesaid others from a position of strength by coalescence within our original Germanic heritage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Again, no idea what you’re talking about, you seem to be fighting windmills. Being on here and then a moderator, seems to be a sure sign that I’m more than sympathetic to other Germanics. But first and foremost I’m simply German.
    Nationalism comes before pan-nationalism, but the former need not come at the expense of the latter, unless the latter is more of a multicultural internationalism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    I don’t have a problem with that idea and, except for the inclusion of Finns, Estonians and Hungarians, it concurs my own idea, though it’s of course merely a pipedream.
    Finland though, is not a Germanic nation btw, it belongs to the, hint, Finno-Ugrics. They’re for the most part genetically even more distant to Germanics than Estonians and Hungarians.
    Uralics have the best potential of all non-Indo-Europeans for alignment with Germanic objectives, more so than collective interest with any other Indo-European group. Sweden-Finland, Denmark-Estonia and Austria-Hungary are all pretty easy to remember, although Hungary was once fused to Poland for a short time, yet Hungary was connected to both Germany and Austria to even those odds of bias. All I meant was "observer status" for Uralics. Ireland has as much to gain from Germanic relations as Scotland within Britain, but the IRA are vermin. I am glad that we have the same objectives, if only in theory. I think perspective is where impasse happens to trip up futuristic ideas, of course aimed at reparation to past happiness.


    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Do you honestly think 20th century Sweden was in any position to prevent Russia from establishing a zone of occupation in Eastern Germany, if they merely wanted to?

    By the way, why do you pose as a Swede on your profile if you're clearly American and, according to your own words, with exclusively "British, Irish and Canadian ancestors"?
    I merely noticed that Swedish participation could have turned the tide in any direction with respect for the German relationships with Poland and Russia, but due to the longstanding "policy of neutrality", this is not so immediate to most persons. The Swedish factor has been relegated to textbooks and that is very sad. If Sweden was in charge of the Northeastern zone of East Germany, then the Oder-Neisse line would not have been permanent and Prussia would have as temporary a Soviet fate as that which the GDR faced. Sweden would have had an anomalous place in the War alongside Finland, just as one would expect from a Centum power in the Satem world.

    I have Swedish ancestry before the American Revolution, sharing the same Mid-Atlantic residence with German and Dutch, all of whom were born into families with every member the subjects of King George III. I used to attend Vasa Order meetings at the nearest Methodist church where the Sons of Norway and the Danish group also met. Like most families with colonial Lutheran heritage, I have a background in the Episcopal Church, but with some Methodist experience too. All of my ancestors since the Revolution came on ships from the British Isles or overland from the Great White North, with the Union Jack in every instance. My interest in Germanic unity is self-validating. I would not exist without it. On the other hand, my openness to Finns and Estonians is not without purpose either, since I have kin living Southwest of Helsinki and I am ever conscious of the ties binding us together within our common Svealand home. My Austrian ancestry via Baden ties me to Hungary in another way. I have too often gotten lost in the Romance stranglehold on Germanic expression, much as the fate of Celts beforehand, but not paid enough attention to our non-IE allies living in the hinterlands. Unlike Slavs, or the Satem half of IE in general, I do not find Uralics a threat. I am presently reading about Bishop Henry with King Erik in Finland. Very engrossing material. I also aim to portray a more forthright outlook of Swedish colonial heritage in the New World that is not merely a blended subset of Dutch, as most seemingly view it. As England has a Danelaw to go with her Saxons, so too did New England get a New Sweden to go with her New Netherland. It is kind of like understanding the place Russian Alaska plays in America on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Latin American acquisitions that my Germanic country has under her belt. We have a majority West Germanic country beset by hordes of Romance foreigners, with a North Germanic minority likewise facing a minority of Slavic opposition. So, you can see, I am very familiar with being caught in the middle between worlds, just as Germany found herself eons ago (and is doggedly determined to).

  10. #10
    Secure a future for Germanic children
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bärin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Berlin Berlin
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Mother
    Politics
    National Communism
    Religion
    Atheism
    Posts
    1,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    112
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    299
    Thanked in
    116 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Baorn View Post
    The purpose of this forum is to advance Germanic POV, or at least be comfortable with Germanic heritage under assault, not wallow in multicultural political correctness. I came to this forum after dealing with a bunch of aggressive Poles on another forum and they were dishonestly appropriating Germanic heritage on one hand and assuming the position as the ultimate Aryans because of their descent from the Yamnaya culture. Ironic, no? So please, quit preaching sobriety to me.
    Exactly. Given that this is a Germanic forum, there should be an inherent Germanic bias. Hardly anyone here cares about the Poles and their version of "historical truth" or "correctness". So what the Poles would like or dislike should be irrelevant.

    I've also dealt with Poles who tried to appropriate Prussian or even Baltic heritage to overcome their complexes. At the same time, they exaggerate Slavic substratum in Eastern Germany. Their agenda is to deconstruct pan-Germanicism and Germanic preservation. One of the biggest problems of modern-day Germanics is that they care too much about the feelings of other ethnicities, we always have to care about not offending others first. So much that we sold our identity and are in danger to perish. We should put our own people first, it's the only way.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Poland and Germany
    By Futhark in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 29th, 2006, 08:25 PM
  2. Central Poland
    By Euclides in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 10:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •