NationStates Jolt Archive

This is one of the dilemmas that are keeping my brain marginally functional.
Let me start by assuming you know what happened 16 years ago today in Central Europe.
I am not a fan of the GDR/DDR, by no means (although I have to point out countries that followed their own path and emancipated themselves, while remaining communist, have had it way worse than Soviet satellites like the GDR. Well, except for Yugoslavia up to 1989 or so).
Now, to the core issue.
The concept of a united Germany was first brought out in the last decades of the XIXth century, taking a shape under Napoleon's directives (Germans, I'm aware I'm over-simpifying - forgive me). It culminated as such in 1848, when revolutions shook the German states - aiming for a closer unity than that offered by the Confederation (incidentally, this was under the presidency of the Austian Emperor; to get into details: Prussia was in competition with Austria, and it profited the fall of the Holy Empire - the only gesture Napoleon ever did that was to survive him in the immediacy). The ideals of the Revolution were democratic, and it was ultimately crushed by Prussia. It is considered that Prussia already had its own goal of unifying, but it did not want it to stem out of radical ideas - although, as a last recourse, the revolutionaries had offered a German Crown to the Prussian king.
Fast forward: Prussia wins the competition. After 1866 (when it beat Austria) and 1871 (when it won against France), it was master in the German sphere, sending Austria to mind its business in the East. Significantly, this led to the Austrians sharing power in their realm with the Hungarians, so as not to lose at their last remaining domain.
Prior to this, and for a long time after, Germanism was associated by democrats (and not imperialists) with a German-Austrian union. Prussia artificially limited the expansion of their Germany, so that Catholics (majority in Austria) would not represent a too high percentage (they took Bavaria, but not Austria). Catholics were always viewed with suspicion: there was a policy "cultural fight" against Vatican influence, and Bismarck called his project for "union" a "Little Germany solution".
The Anschluss idea was a Socialist theme after WW1: the last obstacles in the way of unity (namely, the two Kaisers) were abolished, and democracy was the norm. It didn't happen after any of the WWs, mainly because Allies opposed it (also, after WW2, the idea was associated with Hitler - only his had developped as a tumor).
I know this is long, but bare with me. My question was: what are you celebrating today, really? The "reunification" of what? Little Germany?

Yup. Austrians aren't Germans. In fact, Bavarians and Germans usually agree that Bavarians aren't Germans either. Me being Prussian, I'd even challenge anyone that claims Austrian's speak the same language I do (I have trouble understanding their dialect, occasionally).
All this makes me wish I had a computer, so I could scan my pictures that I somehow managed not to do much that show my family pecking away at the wall.
Austrians have been a separate country long enough to make them a separate identity. East Germans were still Germans, so while there was the possibility of a proper reuinification with them, there just isn't anything to unify us with Austrians.

Yup. Austrians aren't Germans. In fact, Bavarians and Germans usually agree that Bavarians aren't Germans either. Me being Prussian, I'd even challenge anyone that claims Austrian's speak the same language I do (I have trouble understanding their dialect, occasionally).
All this makes me wish I had a computer, so I could scan my pictures that I somehow managed not to do much that show my family pecking away at the wall.
Austrians have been a separate country long enough to make them a separate identity. East Germans were still Germans, so while there was the possibility of a proper reuinification with them, there just isn't anything to unify us with Austrians.

Wouldn't you say this "German identity without Austria" thing is the result of years of North German sophistry? I mean, Germany was virtually non-existent up to 1871. I don't count the Holy Empire (it had a claim to universal sovereignty, not a German one); if I would, I would still have to point out that it was centered on Austria for most of its existence. I also do not count Tacitus' Germans, nor the Hanse or whatever - I guess I don't need explain why.
Consider the infinite period of Germany not being around at all, and then compare it to Austria being "a separate country long enough". And think about all the German polities that survived fine and dandy for hundreds of years before they decided to be something - a decision of comparatively very recent times.

Also, if language is the criterion: should Wends be independent? Or Kashubs? Sure, they all speak German - but they had to learn it...
And not even that. I mean, look at Switzerland or Belgium. They don't use language as identity-building.

The language bit was more of a joke. Anyway, from 1871 to the modern day was a very long time, and consider that Austria and the German states were distinctly different at that time too. The only thing really uniting Germany is the fact that we were a country for some time, and that East Germany was still a Germany and Austria was not South Germany.

Actually, the Holy Roman Empire is referred to as the Holy Roman Empire of German Nationality in our textbooks. North Germans weren't necessarily the only guilty people: The rest of Europe (especially France and Great Britain) had no intention of seeing a German superstate emerge and the Austrians didn't like the idea of submitting to the North Germans.

The language bit was more of a joke. Anyway, from 1871 to the modern day was a very long time, and consider that Austria and the German states were distinctly different at that time too.

Why were they more distinct than, say, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and Lübeck?

The only thing really uniting Germany is the fact that we were a country for some time, and that East Germany was still a Germany and Austria was not South Germany.

Your flag is a version of the Austrian imperial one...
In 1871-1919, you were a county of institutions that you since rejected (along with Prussian overseeing). The moment the change occured, most people wanted to build a democratic republic with a new capital - in Vienna. Hitler capitalized on some of that (strike out "democratic", strike out "new capital"). No matter what the situation was then, a relative majority of Austrian would've welcomed some type of union.
The Entante and the Allies successively prevented that from happening. This is where separate identities originated.

Hope I'm not annoying you. These are paradoxical examples I've been meaning to point out to Germans for quite a while.

Actually, the Holy Roman Empire is referred to as the Holy Roman Empire of German Nationality in our textbooks. North Germans weren't necessarily the only guilty people: The rest of Europe (especially France and Great Britain) had no intention of seeing a German superstate emerge and the Austrians didn't like the idea of submitting to the North Germans.

"Holy Empire of German Nationality" is a misconception and an ulterior myth. It wanted to be a succesor to the Roman and Carolingian Empires, and claimed soverignty over the whole world. That's why it was so very present in Northern Italy, that's why it got in conflict with the Pope.
Plus, since the Habsburgs moved in, it didn't just include Austria. It was Austria, in all but name. It wasn't Northern Germany that opposed it, it was all the polities who were nominally included - they had no common identity, other than most of them (by all means, not all) being Protestant. That identity could've faded just as well, since after 1919, Germany was no longer defined by religion.

bump

Yup. Austrians aren't Germans. In fact, Bavarians and Germans usually agree that Bavarians aren't Germans either. Me being Prussian, I'd even challenge anyone that claims Austrian's speak the same language I do (I have trouble understanding their dialect, occasionally).
All this makes me wish I had a computer, so I could scan my pictures that I somehow managed not to do much that show my family pecking away at the wall.
Austrians have been a separate country long enough to make them a separate identity. East Germans were still Germans, so while there was the possibility of a proper reuinification with them, there just isn't anything to unify us with Austrians.


id be in the minority then im Bavarian but disagree with the whole Bavarians not being German. im German first then Bavarian

Harrumph...western and eastern germany were a creation of the post WWII phase and essentially a dismanteling of former prussia. Austria was a different political entity the whole time (only being dismantled after WWI) and it didn´t belong to the holy roman empire properly...and as human memories are short the celebration is that of a unification of the two post WWII german states (and not all germans are to happy about that).

And using the word Anschluss is a show of bad taste :mad:

And using the word Anschluss is a show of bad taste :mad:


mind telling me why?

Harrumph...western and eastern germany were a creation of the post WWII phase and essentially a dismanteling of former prussia. Austria was a different political entity the whole time (only being dismantled after WWI) and it didn´t belong to the holy roman empire properly...and as human memories are short the celebration is that of a unification of the two post WWII german states (and not all germans are to happy about that).

For the third time: since the 1500s, Austrian lands in Austria proper were the core of the Holy Empire. After that, it was Austria that led the German Confederacy (1806-1866).
And if the Holy Empire is the norm for defining German identity, then Tuscany, Provence and Bohemia should be in Germany as well. See my point?

And using the word Anschluss is a show of bad taste :mad:

Why? At most, it is a "double entendre". It was people who had nothing in common with Hitler that used it before him.

Yup. Austrians aren't Germans. In fact, Bavarians and Germans usually agree that Bavarians aren't Germans either. Me being Prussian, I'd even challenge anyone that claims Austrian's speak the same language I do (I have trouble understanding their dialect, occasionally).
All this makes me wish I had a computer, so I could scan my pictures that I somehow managed not to do much that show my family pecking away at the wall.
Austrians have been a separate country long enough to make them a separate identity. East Germans were still Germans, so while there was the possibility of a proper reuinification with them, there just isn't anything to unify us with Austrians.

I hope you don't consider Franconia to be part of Bavaria. ;)

mind telling me why?

Because Hitler in 1938 forced the "Anschluss" or "Heimholung ins Reich" of austria...the GDR was not militarily annected (yes, some austrians liked the idea, but definitely not all)...and using the word Anschluss might be seen as a try to bait germans (into whatever you wish, e.g. flaming :rolleyes: )

For the third time: since the 1500s, Austrian lands in Austria proper were the core of the Holy Empire. After that, it was Austria that led the German Confederacy (1806-1866).
And if the Holy Empire is the norm for defining German identity, then Tuscany, Provence and Bohemia should be in Germany as well. See my point?

Why? At most, it is a "double entendre". It was people who had nothing in common with Hitler that used it before him.

And for the second time: human memories are short :eek: it´s the unification of the formerly separated two european german countries (the GDR consisted of parts of former prussia and saxonia)...and yes, formally austria belonged to the holy roman empire, but only because the austrian emperor sought hegemony over his fellow rulers.

And the holy roman empire is not the defining entity for german identity...as Laerod already pointed out.

Because Hitler in 1938 forced the "Anschluss" or "Heimholung ins Reich" of austria...the GDR was not militarily annected (yes, some austrians liked the idea, but definitely not all)...and using the word Anschluss might be seen as a try to bait germans (into whatever you wish, e.g. flaming :rolleyes: )
Well, not if they were to read all of my posts... I guess you didn't bother with that.
Anyway, the question came from a German. "Anschluss" is a meaningless word - even in Hitler's Reich, it was not associated with mass murder. And it is argued that, had there been free elections in Austria in 1936 or so, the "yes to Anschluss" vote would've dominated.

Well, not if they were to read all of my posts... I guess you didn't bother with that.
Well I read all your posts :) I do most of the time before answering to threads :eek:

Anyway, the question came from a German. "Anschluss" is a meaningless word - even in Hitler's Reich, it was not associated with mass murder. And it is argued that, had there been free elections in Austria in 1936 or so, the "yes to Anschluss" vote would've dominated.

Semantical point taken, the word in itself is harmless, but in connection with germany and national entities it reeks of the third reich from hundred miles...and for the assumption "Ja zum Anschluss"...back up your point!

And for the second time: human memories are short :eek: it´s the unification of the formerly separated two european german countries (the GDR consisted of parts of former prussia and saxonia)...and yes, formally austria belonged to the holy roman empire, but only because the austrian emperor sought hegemony over his fellow rulers.

And Prussia gained hegemony over the German states, without bothering to ask them what they thought about that.
I am well-informed about the GDR and what it conisted of (and that most of Prussia is now Poland - if not "yet again Poland"). I'm gonna get pelted for this, but, in pure historical terms, it was not more or less of a "historical destiny" than today's Germany (the fact that many people in the East adds to it, and it should make your argument about "people's memories" reduntant - also, "people's memories" is not a criterion of international law).

And the holy roman empire is not the defining entity for german identity...as Laerod already pointed out.

Ok. Then what is? Whatever is left out of a history of conflicting principalities except for Prussia's ambition?

Semantical point taken, the word in itself is harmless, but in connection with germany and national entities it reeks of the third reich from hundred miles...

Reductio ad Hitlerium.

and for the assumption "Ja zum Anschluss"...back up your point!

Why?


EDIT: Read the last two paragraphs of my original post again, please.

Ok. Then what is? Whatever is left out of a history of conflicting principalities except for Prussia's ambition?

The "conflicting principalities" were a result of cardinal Richelieus intervention in the thirty years war (supporting heretic protestant northern german leaders against an austrian hegemony) and it was france´s intent to keep a weak neighbour...prussia only emerged as the winner of that ambition.

Have to leave, no flight at this point :p

The "conflicting principalities" were a result of cardinal Richelieus intervention in the thirty years war (supporting heretic protestant northern german leaders against an austrian hegemony) and it was france´s intent to keep a weak neighbour...prussia only emerged as the winner of that ambition.

The result? He backed countries that alredy existed! And, they had a chance to oppose the Catholic central power and each other. Richelieu only enhanced this.
What, you think they formed a single state before the 30 Years War? Not a chance.

Have to leave, no flight at this point :p

Hehe. Nice talking to you. See you around.

bump

I don't see why Austria schould be part of Germany. Well, we're supposed to have the same language (although I dare say that no German understands me if I don't want him to ´:rolleyes:).
But our cultures are different, and so is our history.


The Anschluss was an annexion forced upon Austria (never mind the 99% "pro-Anschluss"-votes; it's easy to get 99% if you have an armed Nazi soldier in every polling cabin)
The German Reunification was voluntarily. And East and West Germany are basically the same (although, after some decades of being cut off, they have developped to be a bit different) - why should they not be one?

The Anschluss was an annexion forced upon Austria (never mind the 99% "pro-Anschluss"-votes; it's easy to get 99% if you have an armed Nazi soldier in every polling cabin)
The German Reunification was voluntarily. And East and West Germany are basically the same (although, after some decades of being cut off, they have developped to be a bit different) - why should they not be one?
Aren't Austria and Germany the same as well? After all, Germany is also Bavaria...
I'm afraid you didn't catch my nuance. Please don't make me write it down again. It's in the huge first post.

Austria and Germany aren't the same.
There are too many differences - but probably those differences are not obvious for strangers.
Don't misunderstand me. IMHO, Austrians and Germans feel closer to each other than to ... let's say the French. But I do also feel at home in Hungary, or in Italy.

:D I love them all :fluffle:

It's no longer the 9th where I live, but this still applies.

After all, Germany is also Bavaria...
You sure about that? :D

Fact of the matter is that Germany developed its actual identity only after 1871 when it (and not Austria) became the most powerful single nation on the planet.
The Austrians were there as well, but I don't think most Germans would've taken them as Germans as such.

The Anschluss idea after '33 came out of a more historical view of nationality, more consistent with the Nazi-ideology - and ultimately Austria had lost all relevance, so it was okay to do it. There never could've been any serious mention of it when Austria-Hungary was still around.

Fact of the matter is though that East and West were never considered different by the people - it was a forced seperation after the war. In our heads (no matter why) we were still one people, and the reunification reflects just that.

You sure about that? :D

In a way, I was saying just that. If Austria isn't, neither is Bavaria: not that I want to say it, but whatever makes Austria distinct makes a helluvalut of German-proper regions mutually distinct.

Fact of the matter is that Germany developed its actual identity only after 1871 when it (and not Austria) became the most powerful single nation on the planet.

Agreed on principle. However, this was Prussian identity (flag, monarchy, territorial expansion of Prussia within Germany, authoritarianism, Protestantism). Weimar went back to the old inclusive (Austrian-minded ideals) of 1848, but it wasn't allowed to perform the Anschluss avant-la-lettre. Although they kept the dangerous (as was to be shown) notion of "a Reich" that was somehow "behind the Republic", they had a new flag (Austria's!), no monarchy, the seeds of a new federalism, democracy, secularism.

The Austrians were there as well, but I don't think most Germans would've taken them as Germans as such.
The Anschluss idea after '33 came out of a more historical view of nationality, more consistent with the Nazi-ideology - and ultimately Austria had lost all relevance, so it was okay to do it. There never could've been any serious mention of it when Austria-Hungary was still around.

Every version of nationalism except for the Prussian one, on both sides of Bavaria, liberal as well as rigid, viewed the two entities as indistinguishible at the core. Austria had its imperial "problem", as the two dinasties agreed not to compete with each other (so Austria had to concentrate on us small volatile peoples; reason why Hungary came with the tempting offer of a sharing of domains). The Habsburgs would have carried out a fuller German unification under one a single crown, but their main problem was that Prussia came through and identified Germany with Luther's Reformation.

Fact of the matter is though that East and West were never considered different by the people - it was a forced seperation after the war. In our heads (no matter why) we were still one people, and the reunification reflects just that.

Why did it work to tell that you and Austrians are not the same?
The Antente and the Allies have done their best to prevent a greater German state. The original plan was to divide Germany itself. What I'm concluding is that if, say, Ruhr would've been kept out successfully, you'd say that Ruhr was always different from Germany?
Forced separation after the war... You forget to include that after the war, a great many regions have not made their way back to Germany. I don't want to seem more idiotic than I am, but wouldn't it work for Silesia or Pommerania? From the perspective of German ethnic nationalism, the fact that these were evacuated territories meant that they had German populations...
Ultimately, in a strict sense, wasn't Austria itself forcebly separated at the end of the war?


I'm sure you know most of these already. I just have to review them so you know I am familiar with them as well.

Surely this just proves how arbitrary national borders (and perhaps, even *gasp* the very concept of nation) really are?

Surely this just proves how arbitrary national borders (and perhaps, even *gasp* the very concept of nation) really are?
You're preaching to the choir.

bump

In a way, I was saying just that. If Austria isn't, neither is Bavaria: not that I want to say it, but whatever makes Austria distinct makes a helluvalut of German-proper regions mutually distinct.
Ask the Bavarians...

Germany does have a lot of local patriotism - people aren't allowed to be proud of Germany outside the football (and even then they seldomly get the chance), so they are instead proud of whatever place they come from within.
Or at least I am...Hamburg City Rulez!!! :D

Why did it work to tell that you and Austrians are not the same?
When "Germany" began its existence in its modern conception - that was in 1871 (all earlier ideas essentially wiped out, and Weimar never really succeeding in changing the definition if what it is to be "German"), Austria was not part of it.
That's all what matters really - what happened before that is irrelevant.

The Antente and the Allies have done their best to prevent a greater German state. The original plan was to divide Germany itself. What I'm concluding is that if, say, Ruhr would've been kept out successfully, you'd say that Ruhr was always different from Germany?
Not really, the Ruhr was German in 1871, part of what was seen to be Germany on the map. They tried after WWI as you know with many areas, and Germans weren't happy - that Austria wasn't part of the deal didn't bother them though...ever since the small road was taken, Austria was seen as seperate.

Forced separation after the war... You forget to include that after the war, a great many regions have not made their way back to Germany. I don't want to seem more idiotic than I am, but wouldn't it work for Silesia or Pommerania? From the perspective of German ethnic nationalism, the fact that these were evacuated territories meant that they had German populations...
Ultimately, in a strict sense, wasn't Austria itself forcebly separated at the end of the war?
Are you aware that the Eastern Border of modern Germany was only settled with the Poles in 1990? Up until then (and in some circles still today) there was always the idea that these areas were still German, and would still be regained (or at least compensated for) somehow.
I still have my father's school books from the early seventies...and of those areas it reads "z.Zt. unter polnischer Verwaltung" (currently under Polish administration).

I'm sure you know most of these already. I just have to review them so you know I am familiar with them as well.
Somehow I always assume that everyone knows exactly as much as I do...must be a human trait or something.

So the truth of it all is this:
"Germany" in the minds of most (consciously or subconsciously) began in 1871. That Germany did not include Austria.
Austrians were almost never actually described as Germans...more often as a close relation. It was the Nazis and their vision that declared Austrians to be "Volksdeutsch" (note again that they didn't simply call them German - even there there was a qualification).
After WWII it was probably important to the Austrians themselves to wash their hands of it a little bit, and make sure no one ever doubted that seperation.
Germans meanwhile had more important things to worry about - namely that the very foundation of what Germany was was not only split, but crushed to pieces. It's true that the borders of West and East Germany are somewhat arbitrary and don't reflect 1871 at all, but as you can see those 60 years changed the people's minds.
By 1989 Germany was accepted to be split apart by two powers, and had been forced to be at each other's throats by them for 50 years. The end of that time, and the reunification of the only places that can still confidently be called "German" by outsiders and insiders alike - that is what we celebrate.

And maybe a new beginning as well - but we've yet to see what will become of that.

Why were they more distinct than, say, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and Lübeck?



Your flag is a version of the Austrian imperial one...
In 1871-1919, you were a county of institutions that you since rejected (along with Prussian overseeing). The moment the change occured, most people wanted to build a democratic republic with a new capital - in Vienna. Hitler capitalized on some of that (strike out "democratic", strike out "new capital"). No matter what the situation was then, a relative majority of Austrian would've welcomed some type of union.
The Entante and the Allies successively prevented that from happening. This is where separate identities originated.

Hope I'm not annoying you. These are paradoxical examples I've been meaning to point out to Germans for quite a while.They're not paradoxical. While the German states were splintered and fractured for quite some time, the most recent configuration around that anyone can remember was the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian empire. "Germany" and Austria were split up during the 30 years war, and the ideal of reuiniting the Holy Roman Empire has died away from collective memory. Plenty of people remembered the days when East Germany was part of Germany, but you won't find many people about that remember Austria having the same cultural identity as Germany (especially since the ones that did joined the Wehrmacht and SS and probably didn't surrender when given the chance).

Oh, and the flag stems from the regimental colors of the Lützowsche Freikorps...

Aren't Austria and Germany the same as well? After all, Germany is also Bavaria...
I'm afraid you didn't catch my nuance. Please don't make me write it down again. It's in the huge first post.You have no idea how annoying the stereo type is that all Germans run around in Lederhosen.

It's no longer the 9th where I live, but this still applies.Actually, it doesn't, since the 9th isn't when we celebrate German Unity. You missed October 3rd. The 9th is for commemeration of the victims of the Reichspogromnacht.

-snip-

It doesn't have much local patriotism left anymore.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but many Bavarians have rebelled against Hitler in early 1945, wishing to establish a Bavarian state. Well, Bavarians are Bavarians ("Volkdeutsch" as opposed to "Deutsch" - forgive my spelling, if I made a mistake; I cannot speak German). But then, you have had identities such as Saarland - the French managed to get it to consider itself different for a while (perhaps that is why it ia a "land" now).
German identities of 1871 were Prussian identities. Sure, the Weimar regime failed to bypass them, but it does not mean that it did not try. In the process, they yet again redifined German identity. Most of either is not around today. Neither is Hitler's option - not that it should be.
"The small road" - precisely. The result of conjecture. To test the waters: the GDR was, just as well, the result of conjecture. It could've survived just as well. I see your point, I have from the start, but I draw separate conclusions.
Let's say this: 1989 is the manifestation of nationalism (in the most benign sense of the word). Other nationalisms did not surface and, on the whole, Germans and Austrians settled for an image of themselves that had been fluctuating so much as to be untraceable. This tells me that, if I am to see a "manifest destiny" in German "reunification" (quotes do not indicate disrespect), I have nothing to tie it to. People just accepted the idea of the day.
Not to say that this isn't valid for other nationalisms; but "Germany vs. Austria/Germany vs. Germany/Germany vs. the World" is a paradigm. In a sense, the fluctuations of this conflict or denial from Herder to Kohl shaped ideology in the part of Europe I live in.

They're not paradoxical. While the German states were splintered and fractured for quite some time, the most recent configuration around that anyone can remember was the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian empire. "Germany" and Austria were split up during the 30 years war, and the ideal of reuiniting the Holy Roman Empire has died away from collective memory. Plenty of people remembered the days when East Germany was part of Germany, but you won't find many people about that remember Austria having the same cultural identity as Germany (especially since the ones that did joined the Wehrmacht and SS and probably didn't surrender when given the chance).

Where is Austria-Hungary now? If Austria's destiny was in the East, why is it a landlocked federal republic in the Alps?
There were many who have considered Austria as Germany, and many who have not. I was trying to raise an objection to those who speak in ethnic terms and disregard that this criterion suits Austria's entry just as well as GDR's. I'm not carefully planning for the day this happens, but the fact that this means nothing to no one today can be viewed as the conclusion that tears down the premises. So... it is still a paradox.

Oh, and the flag stems from the regimental colors of the Lützowsche Freikorps...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Flag

[QUOTE]There are two main theories about the exact origins of these colours. The first claims they go back to the uniforms (mainly black with red facings and gold buttons) of the Lützow Free Corps, comprised mostly of university students, that formed during the end of the struggle against the Napoleonic occupation of much of Germany. The other holds that they are derived from the black eagle on gold on the Imperial coat of arms of the Holy Roman Empire. Under this latter theory, the explanation of the red could either be simply that the eagle also had a red beak and red talons, or alternatively that it was the colour of revolution and liberty being added to the historical imperial colours. The explanation of the flag's colours is fraught with much debate, and there was a political desire for a distinctive tricolor to be adopted as the national flag to counter that of defeated France. These motives could have led to a tenous historical origin becoming cleverly elaborated in order for the flag to be widely accepted.[\QUOTE]

The second theory sounds better to me. We can agree to disagree.

And Prussia gained hegemony over the German states, without bothering to ask them what they thought about that.
What states?

I am well-informed about the GDR and what it conisted of (and that most of Prussia is now Poland - if not "yet again Poland"). I'm gonna get pelted for this, but, in pure historical terms, it was not more or less of a "historical destiny" than today's Germany (the fact that many people in the East adds to it, and it should make your argument about "people's memories" reduntant - also, "people's memories" is not a criterion of international law).
What?



Ok. Then what is? Whatever is left out of a history of conflicting principalities except for Prussia's ambition?
What ambition?

Actually, it doesn't, since the 9th isn't when we celebrate German Unity. You missed October 3rd. The 9th is for commemeration of the victims of the Reichspogromnacht.
9th: fall of the Berlin Wall. True, three things superimpose on the same date, and one of them (the Pogrom) is horrid. But I was addressing the event itself, and, when I talked of celebrations, I did not want to imply official celebrations. Just rememberance.

However, this was Prussian identity (flag, monarchy, territorial expansion of Prussia within Germany, authoritarianism, Protestantism). .
Protestantism was not a "Prussian" identity. The Hohenzollerns practised religouse tollerance towards both catholics and protestants alike.

What states?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_Confederation_member_states
Them states.

What?

Prussia is now in Poland. Virtually all.
And it was under Polish suzeranty up to the 16th century.


What ambition?

The ambition to create a Protestant Germany, realized 1848 to 1866 to 1871. That ambition.

Protestantism was not a "Prussian" identity. The Hohenzollerns practised religouse tollerance towards both catholics and protestants alike.
Ever heard of the Kulturkampf?

So modern Germany is now protestant? :confused: Go and tell that for example the people in Cologne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_Confederation_member_states
Them states.

Most of the states already belonged to Prussia. A few were added after the Napoleonic wars by international treaties in exchanges for Prussian provinces in Poland. So what exactly is the accusation here?


Prussia is now in Poland. Virtually all.
And it was under Polish suzeranty up to the 16th century.
And before that it was the coreland of the Teutonic Knights order.




The ambition to create a Protestant Germany, realized 1848 to 1866 to 1871. That ambition.
There was never an ambition to create a "protestant" state. And just so you all know. There was no bigger opponent to a single German state then the king of Prussia.

Ever heard of the Kulturkampf?
Yes. And as far as I know that was to bolster the power of the state. And push back the influence of the Roman church. Not to drive out the Catholics.

Ultimately, in a strict sense, wasn't Austria itself forcebly separated at the end of the war?


If that was true, Austria would have been united with (West) Germany after 1955. They were free to decide by then. But obviuosly, neither Germany nor Austria felt a need for another Anschluss.

It doesn't have much local patriotism left anymore.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but many Bavarians have rebelled against Hitler in early 1945, wishing to establish a Bavarian state. Well, Bavarians are Bavarians ("Volkdeutsch" as opposed to "Deutsch" - forgive my spelling, if I made a mistake; I cannot speak German).
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Rotunda/2209/Bavaria.html
This is a timeline of various Bavarian leaderships. I agree that sometimes Bavaria is a little bit of a special case - particularly because it had been so closely aligned with Austria, and I don't think it was particularly happy with Prussian leadership. It accepted it, but for long years it has always sought to protect its own identity moreso than other states.
Examples are obviously the Revolution of 1919. But I must say that I never heard of that revolt against Hitler (shame on me) - I was under the impression that Bavaria was always something of a heartland of the Nazi movement, what with all the early things happening in Munich (and to be honest, I don't think an Austrian could've talked about Germanness in Hamburg, then or now)

And "Volksdeutsch" literally means "People-German", ie it means that the people are German of nationality (or maybe race in Hitler's case).
It may not be a fundamental difference, but it is noteworthy that he didn't simply call them German - he obviously acknowledged that there was some difference, politically or culturally.

But then, you have had identities such as Saarland - the French managed to get it to consider itself different for a while (perhaps that is why it ia a "land" now).
Oh, "land" doesn't mean anything specific. In this case it only really means the land around the Saar.
I don't think they see themselves as particularly seperate - afterall, they got the choice and they chose to be German rather than French.

Let's say this: 1989 is the manifestation of nationalism (in the most benign sense of the word). Other nationalisms did not surface and, on the whole, Germans and Austrians settled for an image of themselves that had been fluctuating so much as to be untraceable. This tells me that, if I am to see a "manifest destiny" in German "reunification" (quotes do not indicate disrespect), I have nothing to tie it to. People just accepted the idea of the day.
That's pretty much it. No "destiny" as such - it was the one thing that could actually be achieved, and they did it.
But look at 1989: Austria had declared itself seperate for many years and there was no serious people claiming Austria to be a part of Germany. If there had been, another unification would've been pursued I would think.
East Germany however was at least on my side of the wall always seen as German and nothing else. Germans lived there, who flew a German flag and spoke German. Look at the Elsace, or Silesia or Eastern Prussia: No one speaks German there anymore. That chapter of history is over. It took people almost 60 years to get used to the idea of a Germany in today's borders, but they did. It was, pretty much from day one of Adenauer's reign, the goal of the Federal Republic to reunify with the Democratic Republic - it was one of the mainstays of German relations, sometimes more, sometimes less.
That goal was achieved, and the war and its consequences finally ended. The peace treaty was finally signed, the borders with Poland were laid down, and the wall came down.
Worthy of celebration, but whether I would use the word "manifest destiny"...maybe not. I know it's a rather German concept - but I'm not one to believe in it.

Not to say that this isn't valid for other nationalisms; but "Germany vs. Austria/Germany vs. Germany/Germany vs. the World" is a paradigm. In a sense, the fluctuations of this conflict or denial from Herder to Kohl shaped ideology in the part of Europe I live in.
Yep, the world is complicated...suffice to say that it makes sense to the people who live today, and who never really stop to think about it. :D