Will there be war in Europe before 2050?

ARminius, That may be true, but Germany did not dominate the region, prior to AD 910,when the Magyars were finally defeated by the Germans in that year by King Otto, in the Hungarian German wars. After that, the Austrians took the helm for centuries until close to pre modern times. The Austrian and Spanish Hapsburgs dominated the continent.

Austrians are Germans. Have you forgotten that?

We are talking aboout history and not about political correctness of the early 21st century.

And the Habsburgs are a German royal dynasty.

Shall I show you a map again?

And the Austrian-Hungarian Empire you and somebody else mentioned is not the best example, if we want Europe to became safe, because that empire became more and more fragiile, and this fact was the trigger for the First World War.

Shall I tell you the historical facts?

There can not be any European development without Germany. Try to learn from history! Most humans can not learn from history - unfortunately.

Either the Europeans wiil do it furthermore by the German leadership, especially in an economical sense, or they try to find a new “concert”, for example: Germany, France, and Russia (but that is not easy).

Europe without Germany is dead!

No, You do not have to. the fact is, what the Austrians were, does not apply to the modern Europe. They were Germans once, the similar way, the Hungarians were once Magyars and prior to that hords from Siberia. Who was what that long ago, does not relate to the present facts, except insofar as they effected the geopolitical dynamics of Europe.

Facts speak for themselves, and historicity does not able to teach on that basis,at times. Why? because not that people can not learn, but that supposed learning is done by only a backward look, not while amidst struggles and claims which usually at the time they are going on, are conflated and confusing. At times friend are taken as foes and vica versa. Hungary was allied with Germany all through both world wars, and suffered enormous casualties alongside the Germans, while Austria remained neutral. this is one real example where the lines are not drawn in well organized fashion, along predictable variances. I think You are right about the outbreak of WW1 , however, what is forgotten by most,mis, that the national revolutions of the eighteen hundreds produced a climate which led to a major upheaval in the beginning of the twentieth century. . it is the climate, more than some vague alignments which bring about potential stressors to resolve themselves. alignments are usually the products of sudden impulsive acts, to benifit the partners of such alliance. Another interesting example is, the sudden departure of Ribbentrop to Moscow to form the German Russian allience, on the eve of the attack on Poland, whose outcome and supposed betrayal is very well documented.

How could Europe ever be without Germany? That is of course beyond any for of possibility, and it is not what I propose. But the Germans are a complex people, especially if we count the Austrians. One side is highly intellectual, ‘posh’, imperial and a top-down vision of society. But the other is a tribal, work-ethic people that organizes by skill. I;m saying a Germany led by Prussian ethics is not beneficial to the rest of us. They are extremely selfish and aggressive. Merkel is a manager, she is admirable at her job but she is no ‘statesman’, has no oversight, is myopic to the detriment of southern Europe, which I contend is the most cultured part of the continent. The Austrians will agree. As a Dutchman it is embarrassing to me that the only man who has the sense to speak frankly about Islam, also calls Italy and Greece “garlic-countries” - there is a contempt from the north to the south that is not warranted, and isn’t even actually felt. It’s all pretense. Whenever a northener visits Italy, he is impressed and most pleased. On top of this Italy produces far more impressive valuable cultural goods, from pasta and sausage to Armani and Lamborghini that the Dutch can pride themselves on. “Gouda” as they call all of it in the alps. Anyway, I respect your angle to this debate, and it is perhaps true that we need to look at the deeper history of the peoples here. I am not sure how much of that is going to play into the politics of the coming time - this is a confrontation of two ideologies; the anarchic ‘anyone who has read the koran can be the voice of life and death’ ethics of Islam, and the radical state, imposed on the old Europe by Sun King, then the Guillotine, and finally, to complete the trinity, the conquering child Napoleon. The state of France looks inward. No one in France wants a small state. The state is good. Perhaps this is because it was first embodied by a symbolic sun-king, a Pharaoh. Within the republicanist secular state paradigm, France and America stand on different extremes.

On the most basic level let us not forget that the Roma Empire came through the Holy Roman Empire, and this derivation directly attributed toward the Enlightenment in Italy. however, it is through Germany, that the neo Classic revival began as the form of Romanticism. Culturally, this revival would have been impossible without Germany. That this revival lead to seek the roots of it’s transformative powers, the myth, unleashing upon the world this awesome and tragic power, presents the persona of German cultural enigma, whose mask, almost destroyed the world. this unmasking was such a sudden phenomena, that it took the world by wild surprise, the perceptive double power of the Dasein,
A critic said of Slojterdijk (not an American one), that his works are the other bookmark, the other end of which belongs to Heidegger. I mention this, in lieu of trying find the proper role for a postmodern role for Germany, in terms of it’s intellectual course,rather than trying to find patterns within the historicity of an Heideggrian intentionality. things are obviously different in Germany today, although, some things do remain the same.

It does apply to the modern Europe - of course! Ask the Austrians themselves! The Austrians were and are Germans. It’s only the current political correctness - thus: dicatatorship and propaganda - that wants you to beleive in lies.

No, and you can’t comprae the Hungarians with Austrians in that way. Have you herad of the “Deutscher Bund” (“German Federation”)? It existed from 1815 to 1866 (German War between Prussia and Austria - itIs called German War!). Bot Austria and Prussia were members and had no problems with each other. That is not long ago. And shall I show you the map and the fotos of 1938? Austria came back to the Reich 1918, because the Austrians wanted it. You have to accept the historical facts as well as I have to.

Excuse me, but you have no idea. Austria was allied with Germany during the First World War and was part of Germany during the Second World war. Austria was not “neutral”!

No, Poland had provoked that - that is also very well documented. And Russia wanted a revenche for the war with Poland in the early 1920’s, when Poland misused the chaos of the soviet “revolution”. So Stalin was very much interested in a occupation of Poland - that is also very well documented.

B.t.w.: Smaller nations are often more aggressive than the others. You should know that, Obe.

You do not know anything about the Prussian ethics.

That is a lie.

But the global rulers and Bankers like Merkel very much!
[/quote]

No. They will not agree. I know it.

Everywhere in Germany they say “Gouda” to that Dutch cheese. The whole Old Europe - the Occident (Abendland) - is a culture of cheese. Some are known in the whole world, some not, and the latter are not worse than the others.

Currently, there are horrible and very much hysteric situations in the whole Occident. Sometime I think I can smell that war is coming.

Arminius, You are right but only about Austria. In the first world war, they went along for the ride, but in the second they were Anschluss-ed, and Poland was attacked soon after. I really have no disagreement here, except that what determined the course of
European politics in the first half of the 20th century were political ideological testing, and alliances were formed on basis of territorial expansion, using
ideology as a prop. Deutch land Über Alles became a
rallying cry to further territorial expansion, but it was an ideological struggle. At the present time, that process has been replaced by the unification of the
EU, and dominance by Germany would have achieved
by the pen, that war could not achieve. However, here, the economic superiority, rather then the military,has become the means by which , this can
be accomplished, and it is with this in mind, that the
approach toward Russia has to be seen. Economically,Germany is no match for Russia, and
this is the key, to the new Russio-German
relationship. They say, in A Capitalistic system, one
would even sell his grandmother to get a fair trade, and ideology takes a back seat to commerce. The Russians are not yet quite convinced, although their
handling of the Islamic struggle, they can not but

Share the Continent’s and even the U.S. stance, since they too have their Chechnya Muslim problem. So
there is a constant shift of alliances, depending on
the focus of the struggle, whether it be military, economic, or ideological.

Correction: in the next to the last paragraph, the wordage should read ‘Russia is no match for Germany’

The Austrians WANTED the Anschluß. There are many stereotypes (clichés) which have made you blind for some historical facts. The Soviet “revolution” (b.t.w.: it was paid) caused a reaction; so fascism emerged, and most of the fascists were former communists (the best known examples: Mussolini, Hitler, Goebbels); and the Second World War was a reaction to the (results of the) First World War and to the Soviet “revolution”, the danger of communism (“red danger”). What is currently said about this time has not very much to do with that what really happened.

Merkel was a communist. Did you know that? ? :open_mouth: ?

The European Union is dominated by Germany. Yes. Why not? There is no other possibility. Otherwise the European Union would already be dead. Is that what some powerful Europeans and their folowers could want? Yes, obviously, because many of the currently powerful Europeans are like the former Soviets, and this Neo-Soviets become more and more and say that the reverse would be true, but it is not. B.t.w.: Some of the former communists said that the communism will come anyway - with or without a “revolution”, with or without a “Soviet Union”. Now, everyone in the West thinks the communism has vanished, but it has not; the communsim has never been stronger than today.

Learn from history!

I knew Angela Merkel was a communist, howcould she help it? She is East German and was raised a Communist. But Mussolini and Hitler were not. The were socialists,money held to socialist views, this was implicit in their view of the organization of their own party, National Socialism. As far as Communism was concerned, they were along with the whole nation, afraid of Communism. The distinction has to be made here, because of the reaction consisting of the centrist displacement of authority. Socialism places the ideal state within the perimeters of group endeavor, whereas Communism places the authoritarian nature of government there. Since in Germany prior to the National Socialism, the Dictatorship of Bismarck consisted of an entirely different organization, where the authority was made up of a totally different hierarchy. The conventional sources of Capitalism mixed with the aristocratic feudal remnants of holdings, made the Kaiser a conventional ruler. The fascists made the country into an absolute dictatorship. Communism was feared, because both the capitalists, and the fascist feared the loss of conventional governance, which may have been ushered in a purge similar to the one in Russia.

This is why I keep pressing for a shift in focus in German power.

Arnimus - it seems you know little of Prussian power to me, but you could also simply get that misunderstanding out of the way by saying something substantial about it.
You seem to also know little of Austrians. I lived there, and have seen how closely knitted the Austrian and North Italians are. But maybe you have very different experiences.

No one thinks it has vanished. The EU is a soviet type system, with 5 year plans and no economic (=political) sovereignty except for Germany, which is in bed with the big American banks, to raid and plunder Greece.

Communism was always perfectly suited to the Germans, who are a proletarian worker people. This is not at all bad, but it is a bad sort of perspective to hold sway over european politics. I know for a fact that Austrians have a very different mindset. Yes they are Germanic, and this is nice as Germania is awesome, but they aren’t Prussian, myopic, dangerous to the rest of us. Bismarck caused the world wars.

Which “shift”?

You seem to have problematic prejudices. Stop driving a peg into something which does not need a peg.

Do you know Metternich? Obviously not. He was Prussian, although from Koblenz - but during Metternich’s time Koblenz was Prussian); he was a kind of an “Austrian Bismarck”, but without Metternich Austria and the rest of Germany would have become more Prussian than the German Federation (Deutscher Bund) was: Prussia and Austria did a good work together (b.t.w.: Prussia and Holland too); and this alliance lasted from the terrible Napoleonic Wars (more than 50% of his soldiers were Germans) till the the end of the Second World War or probabaly even till the end of the “Cold War”.

Do you know Bismarck? Obviously not. Bismarck was the last Kanzler (chancelor) who governed as if he was the father of the House Habsburg. What he did was right. He would have occupied Austria after the German War (Austria vs. Prussia; 1866), if he had wanted to, but he did not want to.

I don’t follow your prejudices, because they are false.

You are always playing “X” off against “Y”. France against Germany, Austria against Prussia: that is what you want, and it is - of course - nonsense! Stop whining about Prussians like Contra-Nietzsche and his alter ego Cezarboy.

Your “statements” do not help when it comes to constructively say something about the current European problems. The reverse is true: your „statements“ increase those problems very much.

B.t.w.: I have lived in Austria.

You are an agitator, a bater! And you want war! It is not Germany but merely its politicians who are in bed with bankers - but they are not in bed to raid and plunder Greece. Your agitation is evil. Greece wanted the Euro. Greece itself had the choice, and the German politicians (i.e. Waigel) did not want Greece to become a member of the Euro system, but Greece and the other members of the Euro system wanted Greece to become a member of the Euro system. Now the Greek are bankrupt - caused by themselves. (And b.t.w.: one of my children is genetically 50% Greek; so I don’t say anything against Greece because of agitation - I am often in Greece and I know many Greeks!)

My contribution to your hateful agitation: Jakob, your are not a Dutchman (Deutschmann = German), you are a Slav(e).

That is (again and again) nonsense - your agitation! Very evil! Do other West Europaen people not work? Shame on you!

If someone hates Jewsih people, then he / she is called “Anitisemite” (although Arabs are also Semites); if someone hates US people, then he / she is called “Antiamerican” (although i.e. Argentinians are also Americans); but if someone hates Prussians (like Jakob), then he / she is not called “Antiprussian” or “Antigerman” or “Antigermanic” (although i.e. Englishmen and many other humans are also Germans or Germanics). That is not fair but full of hate!

History is not fair, thus: learn from history!

What a nonsense! You seem to feel very inadequate. Bismarck did not cause the World Wars. It would be more right, if you said: The French “revolution” and Napoleon caused the World wars. Stop whining about Prussians like Contra-Nietzsche and his alter ego Cezarboy.

I sense a whole lot of repressed nationalism in all this, and that is ok, because we, ilp members may be representative of intellectual varience into the questions surrounding national identity. NFurther, under the veneer of national identity, hovers the far deeper question of social and individual identity,all contingent and changing in a world looking towards less and less borders. How the individual can relate to the social and national, which, heretofore, were cutting edge issues surrounding studies dealing with social change, international trade and greates, and personal issues relating to psychological issues.

  To derive into the no man's land of pride of heritage and power vis a vis other nations,is truly 19th century stuff, and I thought by now, members of the intellectual community,mould be beyond that by now.  These derivations are old, and the reactionary acts set off by such view are old.  Even now we can hear cries of blame on other countries that the U.S. is responsible for the fact that they have large Arab and Muslim populations.  Was this all of it the US's fault?  Do not nations capable of determining their own destiny?  And is the US singularly resonsible the way things are going, rather it be a true international effort to save the world from premature ending?  Are not some of these decisions, done not by individual bias, but based on accurate studies and computerized simulations? NHave we not arrived at the world where all events, can very accurately predicted? Unlike in the 20 and even the 19 th century, where decisions were made on the singular actions of the reigning monarch?  these and other questions are factored in in major policy decisions, and the German scientfic community is at par with all the leading nations, on top of that knowledge sharing equivocates the differences in viewpoint among them. Therefore, Nationalism can not be compared, with what came before, since both quantitative and qualitative changes have altered the dynamics of the world.  it is very difficult, not to let these newly emerging factors not effect any outcome.  that is wh i voted against the likelihood of war on the Continent of Europe.  The

The question is: Why is there so much hate, envy, and esentment in the world? Look, you are speaking about science, Obe. Germany had been the leader in science for centuries. The Second World War was - whatever it was in other senses - the chance for the enemies of Germany, especially USA and USSR, to become richer, thus more powerful by robbing and plundering Germany, the Germans, their wealth, their Gold, their patents, their scientists, their technicians, thus their main production factor: intelligence !

Now we have the same situation as we had just before the World Wars. It starts with lies, then threats and declarations follow, and in the end there is war as the instrument for the goals.

|=> #

If we are not careful, we will soon experience a Third World War or something like a civil war which is even beastlier than a world war.

The harbringers, the heralds are already everywhere, the agitators are on their “stage”. “Will there be war in Europe before 2050?” - that is my question of this thread, and sometimes I think I should have asked: “Will there be war in Europe before 2030?”

A more European politics.

Because then France would have turned against Prussia, you naive old cow.

I have not heard of Herder. But of course I have read Kant and Schopenhauer.

I see, you are a Schopenhauer-Kantian. A rather fanatical one. I think Kant is strictly redundant and misguided at that. For Schopenhauer I have a certain respect. And perhaps even more for Bismarck. But I oppose both of their views and interests. Schopenhauer is not a Buddhist, he is a pseudo-Buddhist, he does not aspire to the same physical standards as are implicit in Buddhism.

Yes, all criticism of the German state must be silenced, etc, etc. You are running ahead of matters. I don’t think the Germans are quite as fanatical as you are, I think they have a systemic compulsion. What Bismarck did right was build the properly working real rifles. He is the father of the war industry. You may call this good work, it was effective. To what end? He changed politics to a weaponizing competition. This is what forged the German unity. Is it bad? Not an sich but it is myopic. It simply is. And as Europe’s industrial leader it can not afford this attitude, the rest of the continent is crumbling under its centralized severity based focus and a lack of powerful measures against reckless profiteering and such people and organizations as those that perpetrated the frauds that plunged an already corrosive Greek economy into bankruptcy.

Here’s what I mean free speech. So you see what you’re dealing with.
You have even fallen for the simplistic story told to you by the US bankers and the EU government, old rusty can of worm muck.

Control yourself please. Study the history of Marxism and Communism. Why do you think Hitler called his party the National Socialist party?

Spoken like a true religious fanatic. “If you don’t want Prussian leadership, you hate Prussians.”

Congratulations.

The national parliaments have no power anymore because they have given their power to the dictators of the EU. The problem is the EU itself.

Ah, you mean this:

Okay, if yoou want …

Stop insulting me! And you are - as usual - wrong. The war against France was already discounted at that time: the German War was in 1866 and the French-Prussian (a.k.a French-German) War was in 1870-1871. The French were too weak and too stupid, oh sorry: too naive old cows.

Are you sure that you are an ILP member? Have you ever heard of philosophy?

Nonsense. I am not a Kantian and not a Schopenhauerian.

Other famous Prussian German philosphers are Christian Wolff, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (more Brandenburgian than Prussian), Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (more Prussian-Saxon than mere Prussian) Oswald A. G. Spengler (also more Prussian-Saxon than mere Prussian). Do you know them? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a Swabian, not a Prussian, but he became a “Swabian in Prussian commission”.

Agitation! - I am merely interested in science and philosophy and especially in the history of science and philosophy. That’s all.

You have no idea. That’s typical for agitators.

Therefore I said he was a “Euro-Buddhist” - but you did not notice that.

Agitation!

I do not know what you mean by that.

It was before you were born , when I studied that. It was the time when almost everybody and anybody of the students studied it.

It was called “National Socialistic” because of the emphasis that there was a national instead of an international socialistic party - it was directed against the Soviet “revolution”. Fascism is the reaction to the Soviet “revolution” and the propaganda of internationality. So “national” in “National Socialist party” means “against internationalism”, “anti-internationalism”. “Socialist” in “National Socialist party” is also referring to the Soviet “revolution” and the internationalism. “We don’t need a Marxistic, communistic, internationalistic socialisms, because we have our own socialism, a national one” - that was meant.

Hitler was a Mussolini fan, Hitler was an Austrian, not a Prussian (there were not many Prussians but many Bavarian (Austrians are also Bavarians) fascists. Again: Fascism was a strong response to the Soviet “revolution”, to communism (Marxism, Leninism) or any other egalitarianism. Most of the fascists were former communists, thus: they knew exactly what they were fighting against.

Did you finally get this, young man?

Are you paranoid?

No, you are confusing something: George Bush said: “Those who are not with us are against us”.

Thank you.

As I kept saying for years and years and years. Here on ILP as well as elsewhere.

Actually I mean the process opposite and have made this clear. The EU is part of the problem as I have always said.

Maybe you can stip behaving like Hitler and calling everyone that displeases you “agitators”.
You apparently have no idea about the German unification and how Bismarck pulled that off, and how tricky it got after he had defeated Austria.
That’s fine, you seem sentimental and simplistic.

And now please cite any of these philosophers with respect to Prussian and European politics.

No, you are a racist asshole who can’t be bothered to read and yet has the nerve to claim intellectual consistency.

Empty, idiotic lie. Test me about Kant if you wish but stop fucking lying, you McCarthyan accuser, dishonest freak.

Which suggests that Europeans have no physical discipline, which is idiotic.

Bravo. It’s clear enough you have not studied history, neither Prussian nor modern European, at least not while employing some form of rational thought. It appears that you’ve been spoon-fed some fables that you wish to protect for emotional reasons. The similarities between you and a certain religious group become quite striking.

That’s clear enough.

Then it is unbelievable that you do not know the history of Marxism in Europe.

No. It is on record that Hitler wanted to sway communist voters to his party.

Do you know the history of Hitler in Austria? Do you know why he went to Bavaria? No, and no.

I don’t like religious fanatics is all.

Yes, I am comparing you to GW Bush, you got that right.