Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2789101112
Results 111 to 112 of 112

Thread: "Anglosaxonism", Should Hannover Join the U.K.?

  1. #111
    6th army lives matter
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    1,504 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodskarl Dubhgall View Post
    England and Germany were rivals for the same Germanic homeland on the North Sea, much more than over colonial ambitions elsewhere.
    Rivals? That's a massive exaggeration, if not mostly imaginary. And aggression? More like the Großdeutschen Freiheitskrieg 1865-1866. England has no more right to "the same Germanic homeland on the North Sea" than it has to the Rock of Gibraltar. The people who live in this fantastical homeland were and still are Germans, not Englishmen. And you don't even have a right to call yourself an Englishman.

    ...that led to the first real breakdown of the Protestant Anglo-Prussian alliance, this is likely what led to the Anglo-Russian alliance, because the Romanovs were the next closest royal house after the Zollern.
    The partnership between tsarist Russia and the British Empire came about much later and was entirely avoidable. It wasn't a consequence of what happened in the mid 19th century.

    Even now, the Prince of Wales is a member of the same family in Denmark as Queen Alexandra during the Schleswig crises
    And it's of no relevance, not to Danes, not to Englishman.

    I really do think that Germany wouldn't have won the Great War because of the very nature of their Brandenburg-Prussia relationship.
    What is the nature of the Brandenburg-Prussia relationship?

    Without this, there wouldn't be any Achilles heel to drive towards the Inferno.
    Which achilles heel? And are you now blaming Prussia-Germany for WW1? Because that's debatable.

    At least with Austria, it was adjacent to Bavaria and yet, the original reason for division was Babenberg and Habsburg in one, Welf and Wittelsbach the other.
    Thank goodness.

    Saxony already had Poland as an ace in the hole and it wasn't especially controversial, but it's hardly clear why no German strategy took recognition of Dresden's right into account.
    Say what?

    Crocodile tears are instead shed for firebombing, when 'all is fair in love and war'.
    So "crocodile tears" (why crocodile tears?) over the destruction of Dresden in WW2 is quite ridiculous in the light of no-one complaining about a lack of a German strategy for recognition of Dresden...? What's that supposed to mean? What is Dresden's right?

    Monomania about Königsberg and Danzig is what ruined Germany, as if there were no other approach to Lebensraum.
    So you're blaming Prussia for Germany's demise, which shouldn't have united Germany in your eyes, but instead found lebensraum elsewhere. Somewhere where there weren't Germans yet... imperial domination of non-Germans instead of working towards a noble, popular cause. "Prussia-Germany" did exactly that in WW2, and even during the Great War, yet who declared war on "Prussia-Germany"?

    If serious about an offencive for the reclamation of Ostsiedlung, why were the Swedes instead not courted by the Germans, with regaining Österland as bait?
    In which universe can Sweden be relevant in the (re)colonisation of Poland by Germans in modern times? And neutrality in a great European war mattered more to Sweden pre-WW1 than potentially annexing Finland.

    If the Eastern front was so critical, a defencive pact could surely have been exploited by masterful coordination to the same ends rhetorically professed by the Axis about what role England supposedly was to play in WWII.
    A German-Swedish alliance would not have frightened any of the major powers prior to WW1.

    Unlike the previous Nordic baggage in WWI, there was no real Baltic obstacle for another row. Why then, is there nothing but silence for the obvious alternative history of what could've, should've, would've happened in the event of the Cold War? Sweden shared the same goals of imperial expansionism with Germany.
    And what is this obvious alternative route? The Bundeswehr and Swedish armies marching shoulder by shoulder into Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe in a Third World war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in a war of extermination for Lebensraum? An alternative route so obvious that there does not even exist an alternate reality in which this occurs.

    To hide behind the dead of Dresden is to imitate Taliban using innocents they abuse as human shields.
    To politicise the dead of a terror bombardment is the same as using human shields in a war zone? Okay. What has Dresden to do with this thread?
    “War is waged by men; not by beasts, or by gods. It is a peculiarly human activity. To call it a crime against mankind is to miss at least half its significance; it is also the punishment of a crime.” - Frederic Manning, The Middle Parts of Fortune

  2. #112
    United Empire
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member

    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    British & Irish
    England & Scotland, Ireland
    Dominion of Canada Dominion of Canada
    Rhode Island Rhode Island
    Zodiac Sign
    Married parent
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    344 Posts

    'True' Bearers of Ethnicity?

    It is a famous case that the name of Saxony ought to have been left to Brunswick and thenceforth what became Hanover, but that Thuringia was given the Saxon name--Thuringians thereby suffocated by a name they didn't identify with. Transylvanians are called Saxons likewise with the same misidentification, whereas only England rightfully represented the names both of government and folk in places like Essex, Middlesex, Sussex and Wessex. Those who settled New England and drew their line in the sand against Charles I claimed to have freed themselves from Norman yoke in the name of Saxon ancestors, instituting the English Commonwealth and Protectorate in the guise of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union before the Constitution was ratified. Rhetorical claims that Loyalists were slaves by remaining in the Empire, is how the Irish Republic has presented things since then.

    Who are the rightful heirs of the English and Irish names, since the Tudors unwisely left their realms to the Stewarts/Stuarts in Auld Alliance with the Valois and Bourbons to be a supposedly better avenue than the Habsburgs? English maybe preferred the Dutch of Nassau and Germans of Calenberg to either side formerly expected of the folk by unrepresentative government. If the English could have Cromwell and Washington stand up for the folk, what point is there in having a constitutional monarchy outsourced to this purpose, when the Imperial Commonwealth takes into consideration the causes of non-Anglos as equal voices to the Anglo, due to the nature of Britishness incorporating Scots as purported equals? Before the Union, only Anglo interests were to matter, but having Scots as juniors was better than them always nipping at the heels. Other identity crises are whether the Union or Confederacy and whether West Virginia or Virginia properly stand as heirs to the identities they claim solely theirs.

    On a related matter, what about Norway and Iceland? Does Norway represent Norwegians better than Iceland? Could Icelanders better symbolise the Norwegians as they'd prefer to be? The Sagas stated how free Northfolk fled the advance of Fairhair's men and rebuilt what they believed was true Norway in Iceland, but couldn't escape Harald's scions. Who are the true Norwegians? Is Norway but a civic nation, if merely a tributary state in imitation of Denmark and Sweden, when not reflecting Norse ideals? Aren't the remnants in Scandinavia proper, somehow unwilling collaborators with the very overlords who took from them what they in Iceland preserved? This is their own rhetoric to imply a purity that I admit my forefathers mustn't have shared in terms to do with point of view, being that my lineage was from the Oslo area, not the fjords or even Trøndheim. If Oslo is a homebrewed version of what the Danes and Swedes imposed from afar, does this adaptation shield or bring ill repute by distortion of the folks? I've already stated my reluctance to accept the Icelandic purity argument about my forefathers in Viken as less than them 'true Norwegians in exile', but certainly understand and appreciate why they feel that way.

    I concede forks in the roads whereby two sides of the coins tell of their place without any mutual exclusion, to extrapolate my distinctly original synthetic opinion without any specific prejudice apart from one deliberately held aloof. There's no cognitive dissonance in my opinion, as partisans of a joint heritage cannot be wholesome in the absence of a full account. Then again, I abjure any inclination for denying or obfuscating the differences between the parties. It's understandable that others may disagree with the caution to hear both sides in a dispute, but I'm prepared to facilitate the expression of any biases wherein some have a personal stake on these issues. Is there no room for both within a common framework, if they can live with each other's inclinations to be true to themselves at least? Who can rightly take sides if believing that there should be inclusion of all of the blood? Is it absolutely imperative that anyone forsake his specific stake in courses of events for some lofty and fleeting neutrality bereft of directly tangible meaning, or do Indo-Germanic and Germanic have more than theoretical substance in comparison with English and German or Icelandic and Norwegian?

    I've been mocked for devil's advocacy about English and German brotherhood coming to terms from a common root, but what of Icelandic and Norwegian reunion? What's so insurmountable to prevent West Germanics and/or North Germanics from putting aside pettiness in the interest of what were once fairly identical North-West Germanic aspirations? If congeniality for mutual goals is scorned, then what's wrong with selfish nationalism? No approach is well worth it to everyone and this keeps me open to all possibilities, although it's perfectly fine for others to revel in their own bigotries. Am I merely indecisive and waffling by a noncommittal mutability, indifferent to the self-assurances by those adamant about their own positions and that my shifting sands are of little worth? I believe in everyone having their own prerogative and yet, the principle is not reciprocated by my critics. It's not I who's felt strongly about including or excluding others, only entertain contradiction for the sake of argument in the spirit of understanding all facets until the cows come home. If others have strident preconceptions, it's my curiosity to challenge their veracities and decide for myself, rather than be spoonfed dogmas and propagandas mindlessly and spinelessly for regurgitating and imitating.

    Is it foolhardy or courageous to take the middle ground? Is it safe to be a wallflower with real vested purpose in what ideologues say and what demagogues do? Thomas More tried his best to be both honest and loyal unto the very end. I've even recently been fired from a company in which I'd been employed nigh seven years, just for hearing out two sides of the Antifa and Alt-Right crowds agitating for race war and all I hoped was to mollify the tensions for the purpose of discussing common musical enthusiasm in the vacuum of a radio playing overhead. I couldn't outright take either side when being utterly diplomatic in the workplace. Making fun of BLM and 'All Lives Matter' in the same breath triggered those without any serious work ethic but hanging by threads and I was discarded by HR for trying to keep the peace as well as inspire better behaviour in my workplace for mutual enrichment. I've fared little better online with fanatics for not taking seriously just how much foaming at the mouth is supposed to be making me fall in line and at others' feet, rather than valuing and practicing some measure of self-determination.

    I sincerely would hope that others find some peace of mind and surpass such obstacles in today's trying times. My patience is seaworthy but exasperation with the basic instincts of others diminishes my concern for a better future. If I cannot count on others, at least I will be able to look at a reflection without turning away in disgust. Yes, I can be vilified and still be content for trying, no less than had I been complimented--makes little difference when seeking neither outcome from anyone but personal satisfaction. Who lives for the whims of others' perceptions about us and/or our true senses of being on this earth? Is it not right for us to go our own ways, like the words to a Fleetwood Mac song? Whose chain is broken when a man betrays himself for saving a face that's a mask for the sakes of others anyway? People are going to frame you no matter who you are and what position you take, whether or not you even identify with them and theirs, regardless of how seriously such are taken by me in being tamed as if a lion. What's the point of caring about it, aside from acknowledging how one is brutalised depends upon the fancies of others at any given moment?

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2789101112

Similar Threads

  1. Israel to Join the EU?
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 4 Weeks Ago, 03:08 AM
  2. Swiss to Join the EU – NOT!
    By Nachtengel in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 11th, 2018, 06:11 PM
  3. Haji Clans Taking Over Bremen, Hannover, Stuttgart...
    By Ahnenerbe in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 19th, 2016, 09:40 PM


Posting Permissions

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