Discussion:
A Cure for Germany
(too old to reply)
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-18 15:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century. Taking the review as accurate, or adding your own
interpretation of the facts as given, describe a way to "cure" Germany
of its overbearing sense of that superiority and create a useful
instrument for a modern society without Germany's two world wars. In
many ways I feel that requires the removal or alteration of a figure
not mentioned in the review, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The problem extends to
the fact that his whole family seems to have been as certain of the
need for an overbearing Germany as he was.






July 9, 2010
Made in Germany
By BRIAN LADD

THE GERMAN GENIUS

Europe’s Third Renaissance, the Second Scientific Revolution, and the
Twentieth Century

By Peter Watson

964 pp. Harper/HarperCollins Publishers. $35.

By 1900, nearly everyone agreed that there was something special about
the Germans. Their philosophy was more profound — to a fault. So was
their music. Their scientists and engineers were clearly the best.
Their soldiers were unmatched.

Did this German superiority bode well or ill for the new century? Some
foreigners served up dire warnings, but others were rapt admirers.
Richard Wagner’s English son-in-law, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, even
wrote a weighty tome arguing that the Germans were the only true heirs
of classical Greece and Rome. Many Germans were happy to agree.

After world war broke out in 1914, German intellectuals rallied in
indignant defense of a superior culture besieged by barbarians. Thomas
Mann, for one, was anything but a flaming nationalist, but he wrote at
length about the need to defend Germany’s unique cultural profundity.

Mann came to regret his fulminations long before 1933, when a more
noxious band of German chauvinists drove him into exile. And in early
1945, in California, he read Joseph Goebbels’s defiant proclamation
that the Germans’ national greatness was the reason an envious world
had united against them. Mann was honest enough to confess to his
diary that this was “more or less what I wrote 30 years ago.”

It is, of course, the Nazis who have made it hard for us to appreciate
what Peter Watson calls “the German genius.” Goebbels spoiled the
brand when he marketed Hitler as the apotheosis of German culture. Too
many Germans and (for opposite reasons) plenty of foreigners readily
agreed with Goebbels. Watson, a British journalist and the author of
several books of cultural history, would like us to leave the Nazis
aside and appreciate that our modern world — at least the world of
ideas — is largely a German creation. But as he might have learned
from his fictional fellow Englishman Basil Fawlty, it is futile to
insist that we “don’t mention the war!”

“The German Genius” is a lengthy compilation of essential German
contributions to philosophy, theology, mathematics, natural and social
science and the arts since 1750. Watson enshrines a vast pantheon of
creative thinkers, not dwelling very long on any of them. Perhaps the
single most important figure is Immanuel Kant, who explored the limits
of Enlightenment rationality without handing any authority back to
revealed religion. Ever since, Watson argues, the Germans have led the
way in plumbing the depths of the human mind and body in search of
truth and meaning.

Watson reminds us that the age of Kant produced (among much else)
Haydn’s symphonies, Goethe’s poetry, Herder’s discovery of national
history and Winckel­mann’s archaeology of ancient art — the last in
particular ushering in what Watson, in his subtitle, calls the “third
renaissance” (after those of the 12th and 15th centuries). Long before
Darwin, Germans showed that the natural world was a place of restless
change. So, too, was human society: we owe them our sense of history.
German Romanticism and German erudition placed truth and creativity
firmly inside the human mind. Later, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud
sought meaning in a world in flux, while lesser lights concocted their
racial theories out of a fatal mixture of biology and philology.

“The German Genius” is a great baggy monster of a book, mixing
passionate advocacy with biographical trivia amid compressed summaries
of some exceedingly difficult ideas. The range of subjects is
impressive, from painters to physicists, and includes important names
most of us may recognize only from science class, and then only as
units of measurement: Hertz, Mach, Röntgen. (Before Hitler, Nobel
Prize ceremonies were in large part a German affair.)

In some ways this is also a very German book: long, earnest, plodding.
Yet it is not really up to the exacting standards of German
scholarship (or of English narrative sparkle), relying, as it does,
largely on other scholars’ accounts of the great thinkers in question,
and quoting the secondary sources far more than the original works of
“genius.” Too often Watson urges us to revere people or books “now
recognized,” “widely viewed” or “generally regarded” as brilliant.
Readers may grow weary of being told what to think.

In effect, Watson has given us a kind of Dictionary of German
Biography, along with a great deal of name-dropping. There were many
German geniuses. But what was “the German genius”? To understand what
was special about Germany, we need to know more than Watson tells us
about the world that produced these thinkers. He does offer some
valuable hints, insisting, for example, on the importanceof the 17th-
and 18th-century religious revival known as Pietism, which urged
believers to devote themselves to improving life on earth. Certainly
he is right to emphasize Germany’s Protestant heritage (and the many
preachers’ sons who populate his pages), but secularized Protestantism
shaped other lands as well — notably Britain, where Catholics and Jews
played smaller roles than in Germany.

More helpful is his emphasis on the role of universities in creating
new knowledge and a new class defined by education. At Göttingen and
Halle in the 18th century, and at Berlin and Bonn in the 19th, Germany
invented the modern university, combining teaching with research in
both humanities and science — at a time when Harvard and Oxford were
conservative and theology-centered. University grads staffed a new
bureaucracy of experts, and their work in laboratories and archives
made research “a rival form of authority in the world.” The
universities also enshrined a new ideal of individual cultivation (the
fetishized German word is “Bildung”). Germans from Kant to Mann
embraced this “secular form of Pietism,” turning inward to find truths
not anchored in reason or revelation — and often, like Mann in 1915,
choosing mystical wholeness over messy liberal politics.

This is modern subjective individuality, as expounded by philosophers
like Martin Heidegger. Even if Heidegger hadn’t been a Nazi, we would
still face the question of whether Hitler was the nemesis or the
culmination of German genius. Just as Mann had to acknowledge Goebbels
as his bastard child, Watson knows that Germany cannot disown the
Nazis. He borrows many different and contradictory theories of the
German catastrophe, variously suggesting that the educated middle
class was too weak to stop Hitler, that it abdicated its
responsibility to do so and that its antipolitical ideals taught a
nation to welcome a charlatan’s promises of a redemptive community.

Yet no history of ideas can explain the tragedy of German genius.
Hitler may have fancied himself a great thinker, but his success came
from his brilliance as a political tactician in a troubled time.
Intellectuals admired (or feared) him for his ability to seduce
millions of voters who knew nothing of Kant or Heidegger. Watson gives
us a compilation of German ideas; a history of the German genius would
be a different and dicier matter.

Watson’s chapters on the anguish of postwar German intellectuals
remind us that he is a world away from the ­mystical nonsense of his
countryman Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Nonetheless, his attempt to
exalt a national character suggests that he is offering something not
altogether different for our chastened time.
The Old Man
2010-07-18 15:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century. Taking the review as accurate, or adding your own
interpretation of the facts as given, describe a way to "cure" Germany
of its overbearing sense of that superiority and create a useful
instrument for a modern society without Germany's two world wars.  In
many ways I feel that requires the removal or alteration of a figure
not mentioned in the review, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The problem extends to
the fact that his whole family seems to have been as certain of the
need for an overbearing Germany as he was.
July 9, 2010
Made in Germany
By BRIAN LADD
THE GERMAN GENIUS
Europe’s Third Renaissance, the Second Scientific Revolution, and the
Twentieth Century
By Peter Watson
964 pp. Harper/HarperCollins Publishers. $35.
By 1900, nearly everyone agreed that there was something special about
the Germans. Their philosophy was more profound — to a fault. So was
their music. Their scientists and engineers were clearly the best.
Their soldiers were unmatched.
Did this German superiority bode well or ill for the new century? Some
foreigners served up dire warnings, but others were rapt admirers.
Richard Wagner’s English son-in-law, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, even
wrote a weighty tome arguing that the Germans were the only true heirs
of classical Greece and Rome. Many Germans were happy to agree.
After world war broke out in 1914, German intellectuals rallied in
indignant defense of a superior culture besieged by barbarians. Thomas
Mann, for one, was anything but a flaming nationalist, but he wrote at
length about the need to defend Germany’s unique cultural profundity.
Mann came to regret his fulminations long before 1933, when a more
noxious band of German chauvinists drove him into exile. And in early
1945, in California, he read Joseph Goebbels’s defiant proclamation
that the Germans’ national greatness was the reason an envious world
had united against them. Mann was honest enough to confess to his
diary that this was “more or less what I wrote 30 years ago.”
It is, of course, the Nazis who have made it hard for us to appreciate
what Peter Watson calls “the German genius.” Goebbels spoiled the
brand when he marketed Hitler as the apotheosis of German culture. Too
many Germans and (for opposite reasons) plenty of foreigners readily
agreed with Goebbels. Watson, a British journalist and the author of
several books of cultural history, would like us to leave the Nazis
aside and appreciate that our modern world — at least the world of
ideas — is largely a German creation. But as he might have learned
from his fictional fellow Englishman Basil Fawlty, it is futile to
insist that we “don’t mention the war!”
“The German Genius” is a lengthy compilation of essential German
contributions to philosophy, theology, mathematics, natural and social
science and the arts since 1750. Watson enshrines a vast pantheon of
creative thinkers, not dwelling very long on any of them. Perhaps the
single most important figure is Immanuel Kant, who explored the limits
of Enlightenment rationality without handing any authority back to
revealed religion. Ever since, Watson argues, the Germans have led the
way in plumbing the depths of the human mind and body in search of
truth and meaning.
Watson reminds us that the age of Kant produced (among much else)
Haydn’s symphonies, Goethe’s poetry, Herder’s discovery of national
history and Winckel­mann’s archaeology of ancient art — the last in
particular ushering in what Watson, in his subtitle, calls the “third
renaissance” (after those of the 12th and 15th centuries). Long before
Darwin, Germans showed that the natural world was a place of restless
change. So, too, was human society: we owe them our sense of history.
German Romanticism and German erudition placed truth and creativity
firmly inside the human mind. Later, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche and Freud
sought meaning in a world in flux, while lesser lights concocted their
racial theories out of a fatal mixture of biology and philology.
“The German Genius” is a great baggy monster of a book, mixing
passionate advocacy with biographical trivia amid compressed summaries
of some exceedingly difficult ideas. The range of subjects is
impressive, from painters to physicists, and includes important names
most of us may recognize only from science class, and then only as
units of measurement: Hertz, Mach, Röntgen. (Before Hitler, Nobel
Prize ceremonies were in large part a German affair.)
In some ways this is also a very German book: long, earnest, plodding.
Yet it is not really up to the exacting standards of German
scholarship (or of English narrative sparkle), relying, as it does,
largely on other scholars’ accounts of the great thinkers in question,
and quoting the secondary sources far more than the original works of
“genius.” Too often Watson urges us to revere people or books “now
recognized,” “widely viewed” or “generally regarded” as brilliant.
Readers may grow weary of being told what to think.
In effect, Watson has given us a kind of Dictionary of German
Biography, along with a great deal of name-dropping. There were many
German geniuses. But what was “the German genius”? To understand what
was special about Germany, we need to know more than Watson tells us
about the world that produced these thinkers. He does offer some
valuable hints, insisting, for example, on the importanceof the 17th-
and 18th-century religious revival known as Pietism, which urged
believers to devote themselves to improving life on earth. Certainly
he is right to emphasize Germany’s Protestant heritage (and the many
preachers’ sons who populate his pages), but secularized Protestantism
shaped other lands as well — notably Britain, where Catholics and Jews
played smaller roles than in Germany.
More helpful is his emphasis on the role of universities in creating
new knowledge and a new class defined by education. At Göttingen and
Halle in the 18th century, and at Berlin and Bonn in the 19th, Germany
invented the modern university, combining teaching with research in
both humanities and science — at a time when Harvard and Oxford were
conservative and theology-centered. University grads staffed a new
bureaucracy of experts, and their work in laboratories and archives
made research “a rival form of authority in the world.” The
universities also enshrined a new ideal of individual cultivation (the
fetishized German word is “Bildung”). Germans from Kant to Mann
embraced this “secular form of Pietism,” turning inward to find truths
not anchored in reason or revelation — and often, like Mann in 1915,
choosing mystical wholeness over messy liberal politics.
This is modern subjective individuality, as expounded by philosophers
like Martin Heidegger. Even if Heidegger hadn’t been a Nazi, we would
still face the question of whether Hitler was the nemesis or the
culmination of German genius. Just as Mann had to acknowledge Goebbels
as his bastard child, Watson knows that Germany cannot disown the
Nazis. He borrows many different and contradictory theories of the
German catastrophe, variously suggesting that the educated middle
class was too weak to stop Hitler, that it abdicated its
responsibility to do so and that its antipolitical ideals taught a
nation to welcome a charlatan’s promises of a redemptive community.
Yet no history of ideas can explain the tragedy of German genius.
Hitler may have fancied himself a great thinker, but his success came
from his brilliance as a political tactician in a troubled time.
Intellectuals admired (or feared) him for his ability to seduce
millions of voters who knew nothing of Kant or Heidegger. Watson gives
us a compilation of German ideas; a history of the German genius would
be a different and dicier matter.
Watson’s chapters on the anguish of postwar German intellectuals
remind us that he is a world away from the ­mystical nonsense of his
countryman Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Nonetheless, his attempt to
exalt a national character suggests that he is offering something not
altogether different for our chastened time.
Not Willy II, just a much earlier demise for Willy I, say around 1860
or so. This would bring Willy's dad to the throne and get Willy away
from the control of Gramps.
Ingo Siekmann
2010-07-18 20:37:13 UTC
Permalink
The Old Man schrieb:
-snip
Post by The Old Man
Not Willy II, just a much earlier demise for Willy I, say around 1860
or so. This would bring Willy's dad to the throne and get Willy away
from the control of Gramps.
Earlier. Remove Bonaparte from history.
Without Bonaparte, the old "Holy Roman Empire" stumbles on for a few
decades longer, and the people take the idea of a "German Nation" not so
serious.

Bye
Ingo
The Horny Goat
2010-07-19 02:28:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:37:13 +0200, Ingo Siekmann
Post by Ingo Siekmann
-snip
Post by The Old Man
Not Willy II, just a much earlier demise for Willy I, say around 1860
or so. This would bring Willy's dad to the throne and get Willy away
from the control of Gramps.
Earlier. Remove Bonaparte from history.
Without Bonaparte, the old "Holy Roman Empire" stumbles on for a few
decades longer, and the people take the idea of a "German Nation" not so
serious.
I was invited to tea with a retiring city councillor after his last
Council meeting a couple of years back and completely out of the blue
got asked: "Lyle you're a history buff so what would you say is the
most important long-term consequence of the 30 years war?" Me: "you
mean 1618-48?" Him: "Yes"

Me: "Probably the fact that there is a country named Germany today"

Given the gentlemen was an immigrant from Austria and was definitely
of a Marxist persuasion what other answers might I have reasonably
given? (Again this is a retiring civic politician here who has just
attended his last meeting of Council)
Scott Eiler
2010-07-19 14:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
I was invited to tea with a retiring city councillor after his last
Council meeting a couple of years back and completely out of the blue
got asked: "Lyle you're a history buff so what would you say is the
most important long-term consequence of the 30 years war?" Me: "you
mean 1618-48?" Him: "Yes"
Me: "Probably the fact that there is a country named Germany today"
Given the gentlemen was an immigrant from Austria and was definitely
of a Marxist persuasion what other answers might I have reasonably
given? (Again this is a retiring civic politician here who has just
attended his last meeting of Council)
I think the rise of Prussia/Germany came later. The thing that 1648
gave Europe was, Spain weaker than France.
The Horny Goat
2010-07-19 16:20:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Scott Eiler
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by The Horny Goat
I was invited to tea with a retiring city councillor after his last
Council meeting a couple of years back and completely out of the blue
got asked: "Lyle you're a history buff so what would you say is the
most important long-term consequence of the 30 years war?" Me: "you
mean 1618-48?" Him: "Yes"
Me: "Probably the fact that there is a country named Germany today"
Given the gentlemen was an immigrant from Austria and was definitely
of a Marxist persuasion what other answers might I have reasonably
given? (Again this is a retiring civic politician here who has just
attended his last meeting of Council)
I think the rise of Prussia/Germany came later. The thing that 1648
gave Europe was, Spain weaker than France.
I don't disagree with what you say but bear in mind the good (and
recently deceased) Councillor was a Marxist and I spun it to him in
terms of 'while the Reformation and the Luther Bible certainly made a
difference, the 30 years war really crystallized a German national
consciousness even if they continued to be in umpteen states for long
afterwards'. As I recall I then made a comment about Napoleon and
Germany.

Obviously the rise of one or more German states which eventually
produced a single country came much later. If you want to be anal
about it, Germany (Italy too for that matter) is younger than Canada
though no one would seriously make that argument de facto.
Ingo Siekmann
2010-07-19 16:32:51 UTC
Permalink
The Horny Goat schrieb:
-snip
Post by The Horny Goat
I was invited to tea with a retiring city councillor after his last
Council meeting a couple of years back and completely out of the blue
got asked: "Lyle you're a history buff so what would you say is the
most important long-term consequence of the 30 years war?" Me: "you
mean 1618-48?" Him: "Yes"
Me: "Probably the fact that there is a country named Germany today"
But without the war, the country could have been named Germany earlier.

On the first look, 30 years of war, massacres, pillaging, looting and
mass rapes did not changed much. The emperor was still in charge, but
most ruling princes/counts/whatever did not give a fart.
But...

- They tried to make the Empire a Catholics-Only domain. After the war,
Protestantism became a legal form of Christianity.

- Some minor borders were redrawn and a few thrones swapped.

- the Netherlands became independent from Spain

- Sweden took over large areas in Northern Germany, esp. around the
baltic. This and the independent Netherlands implyed the Holy Roman
Empire had almost no access to the seas and the international trade.

- 30 years of war killed of almost a quarter of the population, in some
areas almost 2/3s. The country took centurys to recover from this shock
and also took centuries longer to become a real unified nation.

- The first great German Novel ("Der abenteuerliche Simpliccissimus" by
Grimmelshausen), written in 1669, is about the war. The memory of the
war influenced the "German Soul" forever. For example, take this little
nursery rhyme:

"Bet, Kindchen, bet, morgen kommt der Schwed'."
"Pray, little child, pray, tomorrow comes the Swede."


Bye
Ingo
Will in New Haven
2010-07-18 16:13:46 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 18, 11:11 am, Jack Linthicum <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:

My "no Germany" solution keeps getting ignored. Prussia fails to unite
the German-speaking areas outside the Austro-Hungarian Empire and
either the A-H's unite them or, preferably, they remain a group of
small states with shifting alliances.

There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.

--
Will in New Haven
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-18 16:56:29 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 18, 12:13 pm, Will in New Haven
Post by Will in New Haven
My "no Germany" solution keeps getting ignored. Prussia fails to unite
the German-speaking areas outside the Austro-Hungarian Empire and
either the A-H's unite them or, preferably, they remain a group of
small states with shifting alliances.
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
--
Will in New Haven
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and their strong
Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic states out of the
German Empire. Austria tries to pick up the pieces but the result is
less than satisfactory, none of the non-Hapsburg states want a war
over Serbia, tying Austria's hands.
Bradipus
2010-07-18 21:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and their
strong Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic
states out of the German Empire. Austria tries to pick up the
pieces but the result is less than satisfactory, none of the
non-Hapsburg states want a war over Serbia, tying Austria's
hands.
A union Austria+Bavaria would be interesting.
(Danubia?)

They married Franz Josef and Elizabeth but they didn't merged
the two states.
--
o o
L
___
Rich Rostrom
2010-07-19 16:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
A union Austria+Bavaria would be interesting.
(Danubia?)
They married Franz Josef and Elizabeth but they didn't merged
the two states.
Elizabeth was not heiress to Bavaria.

There were two earlier attempts to unite
Austria and Bavaria: the War of the
Bavarian Succession in 1778-1779,
and in 1784. On both occasions
Austria offered to exchange parts of
the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria;
opposition was primarily from Prussia.

Had either deal gone through, the Austria
state would have been much more
anchored within Germany, and the future
German state would have been smaller.
The Horny Goat
2010-07-20 00:47:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:26:04 -0700 (PDT), Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Bradipus
A union Austria+Bavaria would be interesting.
(Danubia?)
They married Franz Josef and Elizabeth but they didn't merged
the two states.
Elizabeth was not heiress to Bavaria.
There were two earlier attempts to unite
Austria and Bavaria: the War of the
Bavarian Succession in 1778-1779,
and in 1784. On both occasions
Austria offered to exchange parts of
the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria;
opposition was primarily from Prussia.
Had either deal gone through, the Austria
state would have been much more
anchored within Germany, and the future
German state would have been smaller.
I daresay you're right - I've been trying in vain to figure out a good
POD for Austria to win in 1866 - other than winning a war of attrition
it's difficult to imagine
Ingo Siekmann
2010-07-20 16:26:39 UTC
Permalink
The Horny Goat schrieb:

-snip
Post by The Horny Goat
I daresay you're right - I've been trying in vain to figure out a good
POD for Austria to win in 1866 - other than winning a war of attrition
it's difficult to imagine
http://www.uchronia.net/bib.cgi/label.html?id=amerandenf

Bye
Ingo
Rich Rostrom
2010-07-19 16:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and their strong
Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic states out of the
German Empire.
Can't work. Under the 1815 settlement,
Prussia got the largely Catholic
Rhineland. Bismarck is not going to
give up that much territory.
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-19 17:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Jack Linthicum
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and their strong
Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic states out of the
German Empire.
Can't work. Under the 1815 settlement,
Prussia got the largely Catholic
Rhineland. Bismarck is not going to
give up that much territory.
I believe Bismarck can live with a Catholic Rheinland, the addition of
Bavaria, Baden and the other Catholic states made
for enough votes in even the Reichstag to feel their presence. The
Kulturkampf and the rejection of military budgets would not have been
part of a Germany with just the Rhineland.
Matt Giwer
2010-08-10 06:17:44 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 18, 12:13 pm, Will in New Haven
Post by Will in New Haven
My "no Germany" solution keeps getting ignored. Prussia fails to unite
the German-speaking areas outside the Austro-Hungarian Empire and
either the A-H's unite them or, preferably, they remain a group of
small states with shifting alliances.
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
--
Will in New Haven
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and their strong
Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic states out of the
German Empire. Austria tries to pick up the pieces but the result is
less than satisfactory, none of the non-Hapsburg states want a war
over Serbia, tying Austria's hands.
One of the causes of the 19th c. invention of the idea of a nation was
realizing religion had failed and that a more reasonable common factor was
language.
--
If you could reason with Zionists there would be no Zionists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4272
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Tue Aug 10 02:16:25 EDT 2010
The Horny Goat
2010-08-11 02:01:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:17:44 -0400, Matt Giwer
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Jack Linthicum
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and their strong
Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic states out of the
German Empire. Austria tries to pick up the pieces but the result is
less than satisfactory, none of the non-Hapsburg states want a war
over Serbia, tying Austria's hands.
One of the causes of the 19th c. invention of the idea of a nation was
realizing religion had failed and that a more reasonable common factor was
language.
Then how do you explain the historical mishmash of nationalities in
the Balkans, Carpathians, Poland and the Baltic states in the 19th
century?
Dan Goodman
2010-08-11 03:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:17:44 -0400, Matt Giwer
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Jack Linthicum
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and their
strong >> Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic
states out of the >> German Empire. Austria tries to pick up the
pieces but the result is >> less than satisfactory, none of the
non-Hapsburg states want a war >> over Serbia, tying Austria's
hands.
Post by Matt Giwer
One of the causes of the 19th c. invention of the idea of a
nation was realizing religion had failed and that a more
reasonable common factor was language.
Then how do you explain the historical mishmash of nationalities in
the Balkans, Carpathians, Poland and the Baltic states in the 19th
century?
Nationalism was invented in Western Europe, where there wasn't quite
as much of a cultural mishmash. And where local languages were close
enough that, for example, "German" could be considered one language
with dialects without anyone laughing too hard.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)
Bradipus
2010-08-11 13:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:17:44 -0400, Matt Giwer
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Jack Linthicum
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and
their
strong >> Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic
states out of the >> German Empire. Austria tries to pick up
the pieces but the result is >> less than satisfactory, none
of the non-Hapsburg states want a war >> over Serbia, tying
Austria's hands.
Post by Matt Giwer
One of the causes of the 19th c. invention of the idea of a
nation was realizing religion had failed and that a more
reasonable common factor was language.
Then how do you explain the historical mishmash of
nationalities in the Balkans, Carpathians, Poland and the
Baltic states in the 19th century?
Nationalism was invented in Western Europe, where there wasn't
quite
as much of a cultural mishmash. And where local languages
were close enough that, for example, "German" could be
considered one language with dialects without anyone laughing
too hard.
Belgium separation from the Netherlands is a case of religion
more important than language.

Northern Ireland is still today a place where religion has more
importance than language.

In Eastern Europe and especially in the Balkan peninsula there
was really a mixture of languages and religions. Somebody said
that "in Voivodina everybody is everywhere".

Look at linguistic maps dated around 1850.
--
o o
L
___
Jack Linthicum
2010-08-11 14:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by Dan Goodman
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:17:44 -0400, Matt Giwer
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Jack Linthicum
Alternate idea, Bismarck worries about the Catholics and
their
strong >> Center Party and leaves all or most of the Catholic
states out of the >> German Empire. Austria tries to pick up
the pieces but the result is >> less than satisfactory, none
of the non-Hapsburg states want a war >> over Serbia, tying
Austria's hands.
Post by Matt Giwer
One of the causes of the 19th c. invention of the idea of a
nation was realizing religion had failed and that a more
reasonable common factor was language.
Then how do you explain the historical mishmash of
nationalities in the Balkans, Carpathians, Poland and the
Baltic states in the 19th century?
Nationalism was invented in Western Europe, where there wasn't quite
as much of a cultural mishmash.  And where local languages
were close enough that, for example, "German" could be
considered one language with dialects without anyone laughing
too hard.
Belgium separation from the Netherlands is a case of religion
more important than language.
Northern Ireland is still today a place where religion has more
importance than language.
In Eastern Europe and especially in the Balkan peninsula there
was really a mixture of languages and religions. Somebody said
that "in Voivodina everybody is everywhere".
Look at linguistic maps dated around 1850.
--
o o
 L
___
I used those once for a college paper, the Professor said it was a
good report but relied on questionable material. He was of Serbian
descent.
Bradipus
2010-07-18 21:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
On Jul 18, 11:11 am, Jack Linthicum
My "no Germany" solution keeps getting ignored. Prussia fails
to unite the German-speaking areas outside the
Austro-Hungarian Empire and either the A-H's unite them or,
preferably, they remain a group of small states with shifting
alliances.
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language
should form a nation.
That idea is true but would be in contrast with prevailing
aspirations in XIX century.

Language became the unifying factor after the French Revolution
which reduced loyalty to a dynasty.
--
o o
L
___
Matt Giwer
2010-08-10 06:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
My "no Germany" solution keeps getting ignored. Prussia fails to unite
the German-speaking areas outside the Austro-Hungarian Empire and
either the A-H's unite them or, preferably, they remain a group of
small states with shifting alliances.
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
The last problem would be to go against the genius of Garibaldi who united
the Italians.

That occurred because of a chicken and an egg. You choose which was which.

Technology
While the printing press greatly reduced the cost of written materials it was
still far from cheap enough for 90%. In the 19th c. technology reduced the
cost of paper to affordable levels, steam engines could power high throughput
printing presses and machines to automate the assembly of printed materials
were invented.

Add to this the telegraph and railroads making long distance communication
and travel affordable for that same 90%.

Philosophy
The idea of natural political organizations based upon some common factor
that transcended things like religion and fealty. The obvious factor of a
common language was the most common. (Egg thought, actually standardizing the
language took decades of printing and teaching children using a common version
of the language in textbooks, this being made possible by the above technology.)

===

Obligatory pot-stirring

OBPS: Any concept of a nation or people existing prior to the 19th c. is an
anachronism. See Sand in The Invention of the Jewish People.
--
To see the extent of Hellene culture think Clash of the Titans whose setting
is the city of Joppa and the hinterland. Joppa is the modern city of Jaffa
in Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4276
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Tue Aug 10 01:57:20 EDT 2010
The Old Man
2010-08-10 11:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
        The last problem would be to go against the genius of Garibaldi who united
the Italians.
Maybe so, but Canada and the United States share a (mostly) common
language, as well as Canada having the United States on two borders
(Southern and western along Alaska with the Pacific between) and they
are very unlikely to become united.
Derek Lyons
2010-08-10 16:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
 The last problem would be to go against the genius of Garibaldi who united
the Italians.
It should be noted that the Italians didn't all speak the same
lanquage in the until the early/mid 19th century.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Bradipus
2010-08-10 16:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same
language should form a nation.
The last problem would be to go against the genius of
Garibaldi who united the Italians.
It should be noted that the Italians didn't all speak the same
lanquage in the until the early/mid 19th century.
True, only after TV (and a huge internal emigration from South
to North) Italians really began to speak the same language.
However most of the intellectual élite since Dante onwards
thought that Italy was a nation, in the way that concept was
considered in their times.
Political unification movements formed among the bourgeoisie
only after French Revolution. They failed, until Savoy house
took that idea to justify its expansion (grow or die).
--
o o
L
___
William Black
2010-08-10 16:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
The last problem would be to go against the genius of Garibaldi who united
the Italians.
It should be noted that the Italians didn't all speak the same
lanquage in the until the early/mid 19th century.
They still don't (Why are you always wrong Matt?)

There are still German speaking areas in the North of Italy.
--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
Jack Linthicum
2010-08-10 20:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
  The last problem would be to go against the genius of Garibaldi who united
  the Italians.
It should be noted that the Italians didn't all speak the same
lanquage in the until the early/mid 19th century.
They still don't (Why are you always wrong Matt?)
There are still German speaking areas in the North of Italy.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...
Where the Olympic skiiers come from. And Otze.
Bradipus
2010-08-10 21:25:12 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 10, 12:46 pm, William Black
Post by William Black
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same
language should form a nation.
The last problem would be to go against the genius of
Garibaldi who united the Italians.
It should be noted that the Italians didn't all speak the
same lanquage in the until the early/mid 19th century.
They still don't (Why are you always wrong Matt?)
There are still German speaking areas in the North of Italy.
Where the Olympic skiiers come from. And Otze.
Many skiiers are from Süd Tirol, many are not.
Suedtirolers are good in: ice hockey, sledge, ski, ice skating
etc.
Decades ago there was a champion in platform plunge, he won
several gold medals.

Oetzi was killed, he was fleeing.

There are other towns in the Alps where they speak German
dialects. Other places people speak Slovenian, others speak
French.
--
o o
L
___
The Old Man
2010-08-10 23:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
  The last problem would be to go against the genius of Garibaldi who united
  the Italians.
It should be noted that the Italians didn't all speak the same
lanquage in the until the early/mid 19th century.
They still don't (Why are you always wrong Matt?)
There are still German speaking areas in the North of Italy.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty,  buy a dog...
Where the Olympic skiiers come from. And Otze.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't think that Otze spoke either German OR Italian; probably some
form of Celtic.
Bradipus
2010-08-11 13:02:08 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 10, 4:07 pm, Jack Linthicum
On Aug 10, 12:46 pm, William Black
Post by William Black
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Matt Giwer
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same
language should form a nation.
The last problem would be to go against the genius of
Garibaldi who united the Italians.
It should be noted that the Italians didn't all speak the
same lanquage in the until the early/mid 19th century.
They still don't (Why are you always wrong Matt?)
There are still German speaking areas in the North of
Italy.
Where the Olympic skiiers come from. And Otze.
I don't think that Otze spoke either German OR Italian;
probably some form of Celtic.
Or even a pre-Celtic language like Euskara is.
--
o o
L
___
The Horny Goat
2010-08-11 01:58:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 04:24:42 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
        The last problem would be to go against the genius of Garibaldi who united
the Italians.
Maybe so, but Canada and the United States share a (mostly) common
language, as well as Canada having the United States on two borders
(Southern and western along Alaska with the Pacific between) and they
are very unlikely to become united.
It could have happened at several points in our history - 1775, 1812,
1837 just for starters. Pretty much ANY TL that leaves the 13 colonies
on good terms with the UK in 1800 leads to *American annexation of
British North America by 1850.

I have often stated my opinion here that the main reason British
Columbia did not go the way of Texas (i.e. absorption by American
filibusters) was chiefly due to the impact of Sir Matthew Begbie, 1st
Chief Justice of British Columbia who was the archetypal circuit judge
on a mule. And that OTL British Columbia is a "low probability
outcome".

I happen to believe that if not for a certain unfortunate occurance in
the 1860s Stateside one or more of the British North American colonies
might have been annexed (probably peacefully) by the United States and
that that was the #1 fear that drove the Canadian Fathers of
Confederation to form a united Colony.

By no means was a Canada with her present boundaries or a reasonable
facsimile a historical inevitability - just the opposite in fact.
Jack Linthicum
2010-08-11 09:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 04:24:42 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
Post by Will in New Haven
There is no reason that everyone who speaks the same language should
form a nation.
        The last problem would be to go against the genius of Garibaldi who united
 the Italians.
Maybe so, but Canada and the United States share a (mostly) common
language, as well as Canada having the United States on two borders
(Southern and western along Alaska with the Pacific between) and they
are very unlikely to become united.
It could have happened at several points in our history - 1775, 1812,
1837 just for starters. Pretty much ANY TL that leaves the 13 colonies
on good terms with the UK in 1800 leads to *American annexation of
British North America by 1850.
I have often stated my opinion here that the main reason British
Columbia did not go the way of Texas (i.e. absorption by American
filibusters) was chiefly due to the impact of Sir Matthew Begbie, 1st
Chief Justice of British Columbia who was the archetypal circuit judge
on a mule. And that OTL British Columbia is a "low probability
outcome".
I happen to believe that if not for a certain unfortunate occurance in
the 1860s Stateside one or more of the British North American colonies
might have been annexed (probably peacefully) by the United States and
that that was the #1 fear that drove the Canadian Fathers of
Confederation to form a united Colony.
By no means was a Canada with her present boundaries or a reasonable
facsimile a historical inevitability - just the opposite in fact.
The sale of Ruperts Land put that one to the test. Had to create
Canada, 1867; U.S. buy Alaska, 1867; and then sale of RL 1868, Red
River Rebellion 1869, and finally possession in 1870. Would a
successful RRR have made Ruperts Land a new Texas?
The Horny Goat
2010-08-13 03:04:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by The Horny Goat
I have often stated my opinion here that the main reason British
Columbia did not go the way of Texas (i.e. absorption by American
filibusters) was chiefly due to the impact of Sir Matthew Begbie, 1st
Chief Justice of British Columbia who was the archetypal circuit judge
on a mule. And that OTL British Columbia is a "low probability
outcome".
I happen to believe that if not for a certain unfortunate occurance in
the 1860s Stateside one or more of the British North American colonies
might have been annexed (probably peacefully) by the United States and
that that was the #1 fear that drove the Canadian Fathers of
Confederation to form a united Colony.
By no means was a Canada with her present boundaries or a reasonable
facsimile a historical inevitability - just the opposite in fact.
The sale of Ruperts Land put that one to the test. Had to create
Canada, 1867; U.S. buy Alaska, 1867; and then sale of RL 1868, Red
River Rebellion 1869, and finally possession in 1870. Would a
successful RRR have made Ruperts Land a new Texas?
General Rohmer had an interesting novel based upon a British
(Canadian) acquisition of Alaska though realistically I have a hard
time imagining that happening any time after the Crimean War.

ccc31807
2010-07-19 15:46:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century. Taking the review as accurate, or adding your own
interpretation of the facts as given, describe a way to "cure" Germany
of its overbearing sense of that superiority and create a useful
instrument for a modern society without Germany's two world wars.  In
many ways I feel that requires the removal or alteration of a figure
not mentioned in the review, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The problem extends to
the fact that his whole family seems to have been as certain of the
need for an overbearing Germany as he was.
There seem to be at least three answers, or maybe three 'questions.'

First, beginning with the Reformation, some regions developed that we
might consider superior in some way. Scotland and the Netherlands come
readily to mind, perhaps Bohemia, and maybe some other areas as
well ... Switzerland? These really can't be considered nations in the
same sense as Germany, France, Britain, but per capita their
contribution far exceeds Germany's. The fact that Scotland, the
Netherlands, etc., didn't produce wars is due to their smaller size,
but even then they didn't shrink from fighting when necessary, e.g.,
the Anglo-Dutch Wars. So, if we particularize Germany, maybe we can
have local wars but not general European wars.

Second, the larger nations that exercised a moderating influence did
so under a regime of ideas that valued behaviors other than
bellicosity. Britain, the U.S., maybe a Huguenot France come to mind.
Could there be something about 'culture' that leads to war? As opposed
to business, or commerce, or general prosperity? Taking a cue from Max
Weber, suppose Calvinism had taken root in Germany and flourished. Or
the philosophy of Locke or Hume (but not the French -- that led to
bloody revolution). I can see a positive role here for Frederick II,
instilling a philosophy that the business of Germany was business, not
war ... and on this subject he would have been a voice of absolute
authority!

These first two answers leave Germany with an overbearing sense of
superiority, but ameliorate it in terms of absolute national power or
moral direction. A third answer would be to remove the source of that
overbearing sense at least as to militarism, so that Germany would
follow the path of Sweden or Austria (and yes, I know that both of
these were aggressors at times, but during this time didn't
intentionally instigate general European wars.)

So maybe we can conjure up a string of bad luck, beginning with
Frederick II. Prussia fails during the wars of the mid 18th century
and the powers solve the 'Prussian' question the same way they solved
the German question after WW2. Blucher, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, etc.
failed and Germany didn't succeed in the wars of the early 19th
century. Germany didn't succeed in uniting in the wars of the mid 19th
century. As a result, during the early 20th century, Germany didn't
see military action as a likely avenue of success for cultural defense
(or aggrandizement.)

Germany had both the desire and the power to aggress militarily. In
the 20th century, we have seen large and powerful states that exercise
their influence in other ways, like the U.S., the S.U., the P.R.C.,
and maybe the E.U. I don't agree that the removal of a person or a
family would have done the trick. I believe that the best shot would
be to channel Germany's aggressive tendencies to means other than
military action, but I don't have any idea as to a single POD for
this.

CC.
Rich Rostrom
2010-07-19 16:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ccc31807
suppose Calvinism had taken root in Germany and flourished.
Is this a DBWI? The Reformed (Calvinist)
Church was established in numerous
German states, including Hesse, Nassau,
Palatinate, Upper Palatinate, Switzerland,
and the Netherlands. The latter two were
considered German states then. The
religious break may be part of why they
became separate.

If you want Calvinism to replace Lutheranism
generally, that's another matter.
Post by ccc31807
So maybe we can conjure up a string of bad luck, beginning with
Frederick II.
Kill off Frederick II, and Prussia never gets to
be a Great Power, nor does it become the seed
of the future German militarist cult.
ccc31807
2010-07-19 16:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Is this a DBWI? The Reformed (Calvinist)
Church was established in numerous
German states, including Hesse, Nassau,
Palatinate, Upper Palatinate, Switzerland,
and the Netherlands.
If you want Calvinism to replace Lutheranism
generally, that's another matter.
WI Calvinism had generally replaced Lutheranism in Germany, with all
the attributes that we see in the Swiss reformed, Dutch, English,
Scotch, and so on? As a very general characterization, I think that
the Calvinists tended to direct their energies in directions other
than war. The French, Germans, Austrians, Spanish, and others in
Europe have been aggressors, but I can't think of a Calvinist state
that has been a major aggressor Even the Dutch, at the height of their
power, didn't seek territorial expansion.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Kill off Frederick II, and Prussia never gets to
be a Great Power, nor does it become the seed
of the future German militarist cult.
Alternatively, have Frederick II become an apostle of the Scottish/
English enlightenment. Have him buy, HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER, John
Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc.
Frederick becomes the champion of the social contract, the evangelist
of natural rights, and the opponent of tyranny?

If that had happened, how would Germany have been different? I know
it's ASB territory, but just think about it.

CC
a***@hotmail.com
2010-07-20 13:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by ccc31807
suppose Calvinism had taken root in Germany and flourished.
Is this a DBWI? The Reformed (Calvinist)
Church was established in numerous
German states, including Hesse, Nassau,
Palatinate, Upper Palatinate, Switzerland,
and the Netherlands. The latter two were
considered German states then. The
religious break may be part of why they
became separate.
If you want Calvinism to replace Lutheranism
generally, that's another matter.
Post by ccc31807
So maybe we can conjure up a string of bad luck, beginning with
Frederick II.
Kill off Frederick II, and Prussia never gets to
be a Great Power, nor does it become the seed
of the future German militarist cult.
No need to go that far. If Friederich is thoroughly defeated in the
7YW and Kingdom of Prussia is dismantled (Silesia goes back to
Austria, Eastern Prussia goes to Russia, etc.) then whatever is left
simply does not have resources to maintain 'militarist cult' and there
is no 'Friederich legend' of a miraculous survival. This scenario
would take (a) Empress Elizabeth living for few years longer (and not
being sick during the war so the 'young court' does not matter that
much) and (b) more capable and energetic generals at the head of the
Austrian and Russian armies (the only competent Russian general of the
time, Rumiantsev, did not get an independent command until the end of
a war and Suvorov was a reasonably junior officer).
Rich Rostrom
2010-07-19 16:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century.
Germany certainly had a trememdous
position, which to a great degree was
squandered.

One of my perpetual questions is what
American popular culture would be like
today without the intense de-Germanization
that took place during WW I, and the
discrediting of German culture by the
Nazi era and World War II.

Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Derek Lyons
2010-07-19 18:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
One of my perpetual questions is what
American popular culture would be like
today without the intense de-Germanization
that took place during WW I, and the
discrediting of German culture by the
Nazi era and World War II.
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Scott Eiler
2010-07-20 01:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Rich Rostrom
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian? ... Well, maybe not bologna so much. But as long as we
still consider veal parmesan to be ethnic cuisine, there's still room
in America to call a favorite dish "jagerschnitzel" instead of
"country fried steak".
Will in New Haven
2010-07-20 03:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Rich Rostrom
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian?  ... Well, maybe not bologna so much.  But as long as we
still consider veal parmesan to be ethnic cuisine, there's still room
in America to call a favorite dish "jagerschnitzel" instead of
"country fried steak".
I have seen it referred to as "German steak" in an old Texas cookbook
that I didn't own and couldn't locate now if someone paid me. But
never by a German name.

I'm going to Google German steak for the fun of it.

--
Will in New Haven
Invid Fan
2010-07-20 16:25:25 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Rich Rostrom
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian?  ... Well, maybe not bologna so much.  But as long as we
still consider veal parmesan to be ethnic cuisine, there's still room
in America to call a favorite dish "jagerschnitzel" instead of
"country fried steak".
I have seen it referred to as "German steak" in an old Texas cookbook
that I didn't own and couldn't locate now if someone paid me. But
never by a German name.
Well, naturally, just as us here in Buffalo never use the term "Buffalo
Wings". They're just "Wings".
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
The Horny Goat
2010-07-20 05:59:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT), Scott Eiler
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Rich Rostrom
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian? ... Well, maybe not bologna so much. But as long as we
still consider veal parmesan to be ethnic cuisine, there's still room
in America to call a favorite dish "jagerschnitzel" instead of
"country fried steak".
Well if you want a challenge - figure out a way for "Berliner" to be
the usual American term for a jelly donut in the Kennedy era....
Derek Lyons
2010-07-20 06:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Would German restaurants and music have a position comparable
to Italian food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian?
That's my point - they never *were* regarded as German food.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-20 09:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Would German restaurants and music have a position comparable
to Italian food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian?
That's my point - they never *were* regarded as German food.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
One of those little ironies here is that much of the real Mexican
cuisine is based on the Austrian (?) cooks that Maxmillian brought
over.
Will in New Haven
2010-07-20 13:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Would German restaurants and music have a position comparable
to Italian food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian?
That's my point - they never *were* regarded as German food.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
One of those little ironies here is that much of the real Mexican
cuisine is based on the Austrian (?) cooks that Maxmillian brought
over.
In what sense is that real, or more real than Tex-Mex or Southwestern
or Tropical Mexican? Authenticity be damned.

--
Will in New Haven
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-20 16:57:30 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 20, 9:38 am, Will in New Haven
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Would German restaurants and music have a position comparable
to Italian food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian?
That's my point - they never *were* regarded as German food.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
One of those little ironies here is that much of the real Mexican
cuisine is based on the Austrian (?) cooks that Maxmillian brought
over.
In what sense is that real, or more real than Tex-Mex or Southwestern
or Tropical Mexican? Authenticity be damned.
--
Will in New Haven
http://www.differentworld.com/mexico/food.htm
Will in New Haven
2010-07-20 17:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
On Jul 20, 9:38 am, Will in New Haven
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Would German restaurants and music have a position comparable
to Italian food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian?
That's my point - they never *were* regarded as German food.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
One of those little ironies here is that much of the real Mexican
cuisine is based on the Austrian (?) cooks that Maxmillian brought
over.
In what sense is that real, or more real than Tex-Mex or Southwestern
or Tropical Mexican? Authenticity be damned.
--
Will in New Haven
http://www.differentworld.com/mexico/food.htm
I've eaten in Mexico and it wasn't in tourist areas. Even if one
accepts the idea that there is some virtue in authenticity there is
enough variety in Mexican foods that calling one variety, and
especially one influenced by imported European chefs "the" authentic
Mexican food is bizarre.

--
Will in New Haven
Matt Giwer
2010-08-10 06:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Eiler
Post by Derek Lyons
Post by Rich Rostrom
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Probably not, as least so far as food goes, as German food was already
deeply ingrained in the US.
Oh, but would frankfurters and hamburgers still be considered German
food the same way bologna and veal parmesan is considered
Italian? ... Well, maybe not bologna so much. But as long as we
still consider veal parmesan to be ethnic cuisine, there's still room
in America to call a favorite dish "jagerschnitzel" instead of
"country fried steak".
Frankfurter and hamburger are not "german" foods. They are 100% American with
German names whose etymologies should be on the web some place.

I have never heard of jagerschnitzel but I have a very strange image of a
dish of diced warrior -- perhaps a WWI British dish.

I have not found any uniquely German dish in a US restaurant in my 65 years
but I would be very happy to find pork like my mother made it. She was only
2nd generation native born so the trick had not yet been lost. Back home in
Cincinnati on a visit after asking after authentic butchers and a few phone
calls my second wife did find one who made sausages in the traditional german
style and then the purpose was to find really hot mett sausages which were
Hungarian in origin -- she being the first native born generation.
--
It is not possible to compare what a government does to its own citizens
with what a government's army does to people who are not its citizens.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4279
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Tue Aug 10 02:30:30 EDT 2010
The Old Man
2010-08-10 11:41:33 UTC
Permalink
        I have never heard of jagerschnitzel but I have a very strange image of a
dish of diced warrior -- perhaps a WWI British dish.
If you DO go to Cincinnati, look for a restaurant called Lenhardt's;
my mother's cousin established it back in the 1960s after coming to
Anmerica from Germany. I'm not sure if they're still in business (my
folks have been dead since the later 1970s and I've since lost touch
with that branch of the family), although according to Google, there
still is a restaurant by that name in Cincy. Anyway, they used to have
several varieties of schnitzel. All jagerschnitzel is is pounded veal,
no breading (that's Vienerschnitzel), usually served with a fried egg
atop it.
        I have not found any uniquely German dish in a US restaurant in my 65 years
but I would be very happy to find pork like my mother made it. She was only
2nd generation native born so the trick had not yet been lost. Back home in
Cincinnati on a visit after asking after authentic butchers and a few phone
calls my second wife did find one who made sausages in the traditional german
style and then the purpose was to find really hot mett sausages which were
Hungarian in origin -- she being the first native born generation.
There are a few, but the places that serve them are fast becoming
"yesterday's memories". In western New York, we have a privately-owned
grove called Spring Garden that runs a "schlactfest" (pig roast) every
autumn. On the menu are Schlactplatte (three different types of pork
sausage, blut wurst, leberwurst, and weisswurst), sauerbraten, or
rolladen (probably misspelt that one). They also serve
"Mitzlsuppe" (cat soup), the broth that the sausage was boiled in (aka
"heart attack in a cup" due to cholestrol) The grill serves hot dogs,
hamburgers and grilled sausages.
The older folks (like me) still go for the sit-down dinners but the
kids (anyone under thirty, with a few exceptions) go for the dogs and
burgers.
Of course, there is live music in the hall and a beautiful natural
setting to wander through. Google it up and you'll see what I mean.
Regards,
John
The Old Man
2010-07-19 23:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century.
Germany certainly had a trememdous
position, which to a great degree was
squandered.
One of my perpetual questions is what
American popular culture would be like
today without the intense de-Germanization
that took place during WW I, and the
discrediting of German culture by the
Nazi era and World War II.
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Ummm, actually they still are, or at least were until maybe ten or
fifteen years ago. Western New York had almost as many German
restaurants as Italian, Polish or Chinese. But neighborhoods change
and a number of these (all types) have folded.
Rich Rostrom
2010-07-20 16:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by Rich Rostrom
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
Ummm, actually they still are, or at least were until maybe ten or
fifteen years ago. Western New York had almost as many German
restaurants as Italian, Polish or Chinese.
Polish, maybe - Polish is not _common_
even in Chicago.

But German lags _far_ behind Chinese
and and farther behind Italian.

"as many"?

Has anyone actually counted? And the
Italian count has to include every Domino's,
Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Sbarro's...

There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
ccc31807
2010-07-20 22:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
Maybe that's because 'American' food has subsumed German food, e.g.,
hambugers, frankfurters, sausage, pork of all kinds, etc.

CC.
Anthony Buckland
2010-07-21 08:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ccc31807
Post by Rich Rostrom
There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
Maybe that's because 'American' food has subsumed German food, e.g.,
hambugers, frankfurters, sausage, pork of all kinds, etc.
Just went over to Internet Explorer and Googled
"Macdonalds menu in Germany". This led to a
site that shows, with illustrations, menus for a
variety of countries. In Germany one can indeed
buy a hamburger by that name, including
"Hamburger Royal mit Kaese". Presumably,
that includes the branches in Hamburg.
There is also "Chicken Mythic" and something
I wouldn't mind for breakfast, "McMuffin Fresh
Chicken".
T. Fink
2010-07-21 08:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Buckland
Post by ccc31807
Post by Rich Rostrom
There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
Maybe that's because 'American' food has subsumed German food, e.g.,
hambugers, frankfurters, sausage, pork of all kinds, etc.
Just went over to Internet Explorer and Googled
"Macdonalds menu in Germany". This led to a
site that shows, with illustrations, menus for a
variety of countries. In Germany one can indeed
buy a hamburger by that name, including
"Hamburger Royal mit Kaese". Presumably,
that includes the branches in Hamburg.
There is also "Chicken Mythic" and something
I wouldn't mind for breakfast, "McMuffin Fresh
Chicken".
The Hamburger Royal is what used to be the Quarterpounder, but they had
to change the name because a German "pfund" or heavier than an American
pound, so the name would be misleading. Never heard about a Chicken
Mythic though.

Cheers

Torsten
Rich Rostrom
2010-07-21 15:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Buckland
In Germany one can indeed
buy a hamburger by that name, including
"Hamburger Royal mit Kaese".
Cue the Jules and Vince dialogue
from _Pulp Fiction_.
The Old Man
2010-07-20 23:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Ummm, actually they still are, or at least were until maybe ten or
fifteen years ago. Western New York had almost as many German
restaurants as Italian, Polish or Chinese.
Polish, maybe - Polish is not _common_ even in Chicago.
But German lags _far_ behind Chinese and and farther behind Italian.
"as many"?
Rich, I used the term "had". At one time there were a number of beer
halls, restaurants and diners that served German cusine in western New
York. And, as I said, neighborhoods changed, and the old timers died
off. THeir kids and grandkids are more interested in eating Wings
(African American, despite being "invented" in an Italian restaurant),
Pizza (Italian) or burgers and dogs (arguably German, although a local
town near here claims to have invented the Hamburger, at least as a
sandwich). One other point, much of the German food is known in Poland
and other points east. It's identical in content, but with other
names.
A lot of the same holds true for the music. At one time, there were a
several German singing societies and choirs. Today, there is one left
and its youngest member is in his fifties. Another ten years and that
one will be gone as well. The dancing clubs like the Schuhplattler
Vereins are still around, but also are having trouble finding new
members. Times and people change....
Has anyone actually counted? And the
Italian count has to include every Domino's,
Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Sbarro's...
There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
That's true, just single-stand places. There's one in Niagara Falls
that specializes in Schnitzels, having some twenty or so varieties on
their menu.
Doggone it, now I'm starting to get hungry!
Will in New Haven
2010-07-21 00:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
Ummm, actually they still are, or at least were until maybe ten or
fifteen years ago. Western New York had almost as many German
restaurants as Italian, Polish or Chinese.
Polish, maybe - Polish is not _common_ even in Chicago.
But German lags _far_ behind Chinese and and farther behind Italian.
"as many"?
Rich, I used the term "had". At one time there were a number of beer
halls, restaurants and diners that served German cusine in western New
York. And, as I said, neighborhoods changed, and the old timers died
off. THeir kids and grandkids are more interested in eating Wings
(African American, despite being "invented" in an Italian restaurant),
Pizza (Italian) or burgers and dogs (arguably German, although a local
town near here claims to have invented the Hamburger, at least as a
sandwich).
New Haven isn't "a local town," it's New Haven. And it isn't the town
that claims hamburgers, it's Louis' Lunch. And don't ask for ketchup.

One other point, much of the German food is known in Poland
Post by The Old Man
and other points east. It's identical in content, but with other
names.
A lot of the same holds true for the music. At one time, there were a
several German singing societies and choirs. Today, there is one left
and its youngest member is in his fifties. Another ten years and that
one will be gone as well. The dancing clubs like the Schuhplattler
Vereins are still around, but also are having trouble finding new
members. Times and people change....
Has anyone actually counted? And the
Italian count has to include every Domino's,
Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Sbarro's...
There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
That's true, just single-stand places. There's one in Niagara Falls
that specializes in Schnitzels, having some twenty or so varieties on
their menu.
Doggone it, now I'm starting to get hungry!
The Student Prince in Springfield, Mass may still be in business. It
was a very good German restaurant when I used to go to Springfield.

--
Will in New Haven
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-21 09:32:14 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 20, 8:41 pm, Will in New Haven
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
Ummm, actually they still are, or at least were until maybe ten or
fifteen years ago. Western New York had almost as many German
restaurants as Italian, Polish or Chinese.
Polish, maybe - Polish is not _common_ even in Chicago.
But German lags _far_ behind Chinese and and farther behind Italian.
"as many"?
Rich, I used the term "had". At one time there were a number of beer
halls, restaurants and diners that served German cusine in western New
York. And, as I said, neighborhoods changed, and the old timers died
off. THeir kids and grandkids are more interested in eating Wings
(African American, despite being "invented" in an Italian restaurant),
Pizza (Italian) or burgers and dogs (arguably German, although a local
town near here claims to have invented the Hamburger, at least as a
sandwich).
New Haven isn't "a local town," it's New Haven. And it isn't the town
that claims hamburgers, it's Louis' Lunch. And don't ask for ketchup.
 One other point, much of the German food is known in Poland
Post by The Old Man
and other points east. It's identical in content, but with other
names.
A lot of the same holds true for the music. At one time, there were a
several German singing societies and choirs. Today, there is one left
and its youngest member is in his fifties. Another ten years and that
one will be gone as well. The dancing clubs like the Schuhplattler
Vereins are still around, but also are having trouble finding new
members. Times and people change....
Has anyone actually counted? And the
Italian count has to include every Domino's,
Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Sbarro's...
There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
That's true, just single-stand places. There's one in Niagara Falls
that specializes in Schnitzels, having some twenty or so varieties on
their menu.
Doggone it, now I'm starting to get hungry!
The Student Prince in Springfield, Mass may still be in business. It
was a very good German restaurant when I used to go to Springfield.
--
Will in New Haven
The product of NASA, German restaurants in places like Huntsville and
Cocoa Beach. Some gone, just like the Astronauts' bars.
Will in New Haven
2010-07-21 14:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
On Jul 20, 8:41 pm, Will in New Haven
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
Ummm, actually they still are, or at least were until maybe ten or
fifteen years ago. Western New York had almost as many German
restaurants as Italian, Polish or Chinese.
Polish, maybe - Polish is not _common_ even in Chicago.
But German lags _far_ behind Chinese and and farther behind Italian.
"as many"?
Rich, I used the term "had". At one time there were a number of beer
halls, restaurants and diners that served German cusine in western New
York. And, as I said, neighborhoods changed, and the old timers died
off. THeir kids and grandkids are more interested in eating Wings
(African American, despite being "invented" in an Italian restaurant),
Pizza (Italian) or burgers and dogs (arguably German, although a local
town near here claims to have invented the Hamburger, at least as a
sandwich).
New Haven isn't "a local town," it's New Haven. And it isn't the town
that claims hamburgers, it's Louis' Lunch. And don't ask for ketchup.
 One other point, much of the German food is known in Poland
Post by The Old Man
and other points east. It's identical in content, but with other
names.
A lot of the same holds true for the music. At one time, there were a
several German singing societies and choirs. Today, there is one left
and its youngest member is in his fifties. Another ten years and that
one will be gone as well. The dancing clubs like the Schuhplattler
Vereins are still around, but also are having trouble finding new
members. Times and people change....
Has anyone actually counted? And the
Italian count has to include every Domino's,
Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Sbarro's...
There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
That's true, just single-stand places. There's one in Niagara Falls
that specializes in Schnitzels, having some twenty or so varieties on
their menu.
Doggone it, now I'm starting to get hungry!
The Student Prince in Springfield, Mass may still be in business. It
was a very good German restaurant when I used to go to Springfield.
--
Will in New Haven
The product of NASA, German restaurants in places like Huntsville and
Cocoa Beach. Some gone, just like the Astronauts' bars.- Hide quoted text -
The Student Prince is still there. I didn't have to Google it. I have
a neighbor that I know has eaten there and, while walking my dogs, I
ran into him. He said it is still there. He ate there a few days ago
and lovingly described his dinner. So I am heading up to Springfield
soon. I have been searching for a cuisine I _don't_ like and German
food failed to meat that criterion. Spectacularly.

--
Will in Haven
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-21 17:15:53 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 21, 10:09 am, Will in New Haven
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by Jack Linthicum
On Jul 20, 8:41 pm, Will in New Haven
Post by Will in New Haven
Post by The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
Ummm, actually they still are, or at least were until maybe ten or
fifteen years ago. Western New York had almost as many German
restaurants as Italian, Polish or Chinese.
Polish, maybe - Polish is not _common_ even in Chicago.
But German lags _far_ behind Chinese and and farther behind Italian.
"as many"?
Rich, I used the term "had". At one time there were a number of beer
halls, restaurants and diners that served German cusine in western New
York. And, as I said, neighborhoods changed, and the old timers died
off. THeir kids and grandkids are more interested in eating Wings
(African American, despite being "invented" in an Italian restaurant),
Pizza (Italian) or burgers and dogs (arguably German, although a local
town near here claims to have invented the Hamburger, at least as a
sandwich).
New Haven isn't "a local town," it's New Haven. And it isn't the town
that claims hamburgers, it's Louis' Lunch. And don't ask for ketchup.
 One other point, much of the German food is known in Poland
Post by The Old Man
and other points east. It's identical in content, but with other
names.
A lot of the same holds true for the music. At one time, there were a
several German singing societies and choirs. Today, there is one left
and its youngest member is in his fifties. Another ten years and that
one will be gone as well. The dancing clubs like the Schuhplattler
Vereins are still around, but also are having trouble finding new
members. Times and people change....
Has anyone actually counted? And the
Italian count has to include every Domino's,
Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Sbarro's...
There are _no_ German chain restaurants.
That's true, just single-stand places. There's one in Niagara Falls
that specializes in Schnitzels, having some twenty or so varieties on
their menu.
Doggone it, now I'm starting to get hungry!
The Student Prince in Springfield, Mass may still be in business. It
was a very good German restaurant when I used to go to Springfield.
--
Will in New Haven
The product of NASA, German restaurants in places like Huntsville and
Cocoa Beach. Some gone, just like the Astronauts' bars.- Hide quoted text -
The Student Prince is still there. I didn't have to Google it. I have
a neighbor that I know has eaten there and, while walking my dogs, I
ran into him. He said it is still there. He ate there a few days ago
and lovingly described his dinner. So I am heading up to Springfield
soon. I have been searching for a cuisine I _don't_ like and German
food failed to meat that criterion. Spectacularly.
--
Will in Haven
We have one too, The Edelweiss, although I have never eaten there and
never met anybody who had, it is always called "popular" in the paper.
DC has a lot of German restaurants

http://local.yahoo.com/DC/Washington/Food+Dining/Restaurants/German+Restaurants
Matt Giwer
2010-08-10 06:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century.
Germany certainly had a trememdous
position, which to a great degree was
squandered.
One of my perpetual questions is what
American popular culture would be like
today without the intense de-Germanization
that took place during WW I, and the
discrediting of German culture by the
Nazi era and World War II.
Would German restaurants and music
have a position comparable to Italian
food and music OTL?
All American Immigrants lose their connections with the Old Country with
their first generation native born.

Would German influence go away? It did not go away even after WWII. Back in
the 60s in college there was only one foreign language of interest, German.
The major change for the average American (and Brit) was that the spelling
bier was replaced by beer in all cases. Bohemian style beer (bier) became
Czechoslovakian beer. Because of the post WWI change in borders polkas became
Polish instead of German.

The WWI attacks on Germans by other ethnic groups were only in cities where
German descent were minorities. In cities where they were a majority such as
Cincinnati it didn't happen. Even parts of the city which have been totally
Black for decades still have names like Over the Rhine.
--
To see the extent of Hellene culture think Clash of the Titans whose setting
is the city of Joppa and the hinterland. Joppa is the modern city of Jaffa
in Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4276
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Tue Aug 10 02:18:26 EDT 2010
Pete Barrett
2010-07-19 18:59:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:11:56 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century. Taking the review as accurate, or adding your own
interpretation of the facts as given, describe a way to "cure" Germany
of its overbearing sense of that superiority and create a useful
instrument for a modern society without Germany's two world wars. In
many ways I feel that requires the removal or alteration of a figure
not mentioned in the review, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The problem extends to
the fact that his whole family seems to have been as certain of the
need for an overbearing Germany as he was.
Would a liberal and constitutional unification in 1848 help? We'd lose
a lot, of course (would Wagner have written so well without the
experience of exile? at least he'd have written differently), but we
wouldn't know that (and we *might* have got soemthing better).

Trouble is, it's difficult to see it coming about - Prussia is still
much more powerful than any of the other states - would the smaller
states (including Bavaria) be able to form some sort of union without
Prussia and Austria?


Pete Barrett
The Horny Goat
2010-07-20 00:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Trouble is, it's difficult to see it coming about - Prussia is still
much more powerful than any of the other states - would the smaller
states (including Bavaria) be able to form some sort of union without
Prussia and Austria?
As a very low odds scenario I can see a union around Austria rather
than Prussia, but I see no realistic formation of a third state of
Great Power size (say as important as Prussia in 1806) without either.
Pete Barrett
2010-07-20 18:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Pete Barrett
Trouble is, it's difficult to see it coming about - Prussia is still
much more powerful than any of the other states - would the smaller
states (including Bavaria) be able to form some sort of union without
Prussia and Austria?
As a very low odds scenario I can see a union around Austria rather
than Prussia, but I see no realistic formation of a third state of
Great Power size (say as important as Prussia in 1806) without either.
Doesn't have to be Great Power size, at least to start with. Something
like the Confederation of the Rhine, if it could get its act together,
could play the third leg of the tripod within Germany. The threat of
them allying with Austria might prevent Prussia pushing through a
Prussian unification, and the same threat of an alliance with Prussia
should stop Austria from going too far.

How about the Confederation continuing after 1815, but without Austria
and Prussia (who both had a vested interest in ensuring it didn't
become too unified or powerful)? (Pushing the POD back more and more
here in a vain attempt to find something that might actually work<g>)
The 1830 and 1848 revolutions then become (in the *Confederation) a
popular attempt to give more power to central representative bodies.
If it can come through that ion one piece, what chance has Prussia of
separating off the northern states into a North German Confederation
after victory in thre Seven Weeks War?

Would there even be a Seven Weeks War? It's difficult to see what
Austria and Prussia could be fighting about, if neither has influence
in the*Confederation, unless they're both thinking about pushing east.


Pete Barrett
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-20 21:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Pete Barrett
Trouble is, it's difficult to see it coming about - Prussia is still
much more powerful than any of the other states - would the smaller
states (including Bavaria) be able to form some sort of union without
Prussia and Austria?
As a very low odds scenario I can see a union around Austria rather
than Prussia, but I see no realistic formation of a third state of
Great Power size (say as important as Prussia in 1806) without either.
Doesn't have to be Great Power size, at least to start with. Something
like the Confederation of the Rhine, if it could get its act together,
could play the third leg of the tripod within Germany. The threat of
them allying with Austria might prevent Prussia pushing through a
Prussian unification, and the same threat of an alliance with Prussia
should stop Austria from going too far.
How about the Confederation continuing after 1815, but without Austria
and Prussia (who both had a vested interest in ensuring it didn't
become too unified or powerful)? (Pushing the POD back more and more
here in a vain attempt to find something that might actually work<g>)
The 1830 and 1848 revolutions then become (in the *Confederation) a
popular attempt to give more power to central representative bodies.
If it can come through that ion one piece, what chance has Prussia of
separating off the northern states into a North German Confederation
after victory in thre Seven Weeks War?
Would there even be a Seven Weeks War? It's difficult to see what
Austria and Prussia could be fighting about, if neither has influence
in the*Confederation, unless they're both thinking about pushing east.
Pete Barrett
Still Schleswig-Holstein. I would insert the Elder Moltke here, a
member of the Danish military at the time of the first S-H war, 1848,
and a man with the ability to turn Denmark's slim resources into at
least a stalemate in the war.
Pete Barrett
2010-07-21 17:39:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Still Schleswig-Holstein. I would insert the Elder Moltke here, a
member of the Danish military at the time of the first S-H war, 1848,
and a man with the ability to turn Denmark's slim resources into at
least a stalemate in the war.
There may not be a problem. Neither Austria nor Prussia would gain
anything from forcing Denmark to disgorge Schleswig and Holstein into
a *Confederation which they themselves are not members of. Unless, of
course, they were to do it out of a disinterested love of
justice...<g>

If Denmark holds on to both Schleswig and Holstein (though Holstein
might peacefully join the *Confederation in 1863), then there's a
continuing irredentist problem between Germany as it develops and
Denmark - but not in principle worse than the questions of
Alsace-Lorraine, and Luxembourg.

Pete Barrett
Jack Linthicum
2010-07-21 18:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Still Schleswig-Holstein. I would insert the Elder Moltke here, a
member of the Danish military at the time of the first S-H war, 1848,
and a man with the ability to turn Denmark's slim resources into at
least a stalemate in the war.
There may not be a problem. Neither Austria nor Prussia would gain
anything from forcing Denmark to disgorge Schleswig and Holstein into
a *Confederation which they themselves are not members of. Unless, of
course, they were to do it out of a disinterested love of
justice...<g>
If Denmark holds on to both Schleswig and Holstein (though Holstein
might peacefully join the *Confederation in 1863), then there's a
continuing irredentist problem between Germany as it develops and
Denmark - but not in principle worse than the questions of
Alsace-Lorraine, and Luxembourg.
Pete Barrett
There was a problem about legitimacy, a major factor in a post-
Napoleon world.

"Schleswig-Holstein The 1848-1852 events in Schleswig-Holstein were a
Danish-German confrontation rather than a revolution. The underlying
issues were complex: the kingdom of Denmark and the duchies of
Schleswig and Holstein were component parts of the Danish Monarchy and
were united in the person of the king/duke. Schleswig was a Danish
fief, Holstein a member of the German Confederation. A 1665 law
introduced succession through the female line in Denmark, with the
survival of Salic law in the duchies held in abeyance. Schleswig had a
strong Danish element in the north, Holstein was German.

With the extinction of the male royal line in the offing, Christian
VIII declared in 1846 that the 1665 law applied to Schleswig and (with
some reservation) to Holstein. Protests in the duchies had not been
resolved, when in the wake of the February revolution the liberals in
Copenhagen took over and moved toward the annexation of Schleswig. In
defiance, the estates of Schleswig and Holstein set up a provisional
government on March 24. Being composed of liberals and conservatives
it obtained popular and official support in Germany, and with Prussian
military support gained control of most of the duchies by midsummer.
But then Britain and Prussia intervened, pressuring Prussia to make a
truce with Denmark (at Malmö, August 26, 1848), a truce which caused a
parliamentary crisis in Frankfurt. In a short time Schleswig-Holstein
had become the national issue, and by acceding to the Malmö truce the
Frankfurt Assembly severely damaged its political credit."

http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/sleswig.htm

The problem came to a head when Frederick VII died in 1863. If Moltke
had stayed with Denmark he might have made the difference between
Prussian conquest in the name of the Germans in Holstein and a
division of the two duchies or outright Danish possession.
Pete Barrett
2010-07-22 16:49:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:01:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Pete Barrett
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:51:04 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
Post by Jack Linthicum
Still Schleswig-Holstein. I would insert the Elder Moltke here, a
member of the Danish military at the time of the first S-H war, 1848,
and a man with the ability to turn Denmark's slim resources into at
least a stalemate in the war.
There may not be a problem. Neither Austria nor Prussia would gain
anything from forcing Denmark to disgorge Schleswig and Holstein into
a *Confederation which they themselves are not members of. Unless, of
course, they were to do it out of a disinterested love of
justice...<g>
If Denmark holds on to both Schleswig and Holstein (though Holstein
might peacefully join the *Confederation in 1863), then there's a
continuing irredentist problem between Germany as it develops and
Denmark - but not in principle worse than the questions of
Alsace-Lorraine, and Luxembourg.
Pete Barrett
There was a problem about legitimacy, a major factor in a post-
Napoleon world.
...
http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/sleswig.htm
The problem came to a head when Frederick VII died in 1863. If Moltke
had stayed with Denmark he might have made the difference between
Prussian conquest in the name of the Germans in Holstein and a
division of the two duchies or outright Danish possession.
OTL, Prussia had something to gain by forcing Denmark to disgorge
Schleswig-Holstein. In an ATL where the Confederation of the Rhine
continues to exist after 1815, what would Prussia gain by doing so?
The new states would naturally join the *Confederation, making it
militarily stronger.

Of course, the *Confederation has something to gain, and attacking
Denmark in alliance with Prussia isn't out of the question - the quid
pro quo might be Prussia joining the *Confederation. But I think that
would be a trap, and would lead to Prussian-led unification of
Germany, as OTL - only the details would differ.

Pete Barrett
The Horny Goat
2010-07-21 03:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Barrett
How about the Confederation continuing after 1815, but without Austria
and Prussia (who both had a vested interest in ensuring it didn't
become too unified or powerful)? (Pushing the POD back more and more
here in a vain attempt to find something that might actually work<g>)
The 1830 and 1848 revolutions then become (in the *Confederation) a
popular attempt to give more power to central representative bodies.
If it can come through that ion one piece, what chance has Prussia of
separating off the northern states into a North German Confederation
after victory in thre Seven Weeks War?
Would there even be a Seven Weeks War? It's difficult to see what
Austria and Prussia could be fighting about, if neither has influence
in the*Confederation, unless they're both thinking about pushing east.
Could work - though I'd be rather surprised.

My first thought was that it could start with the Zollverein morphing
into a German state in much the same way that the original European
Common Market has become today's European Union but on consideration I
think that that's completely out of tune with the mentality of the
times.

I personally think the whole scenario is as likely as Britain
acquiring and keeping the entire Oregon Territory - or if you prefer
something European, Ireland escaping Great Britain in 1798. However I
would think war between Austria and Prussia rather unlikely since both
would be much weaker than in the Napoleonic era. Given this probably
butterflies away French-Austrian rivalry in Northern Italy you may
well get Italian unification sooner.

It probably changes the history of Mexico as well since I can't
imagine Maximillian being persuaded to leave Austria in this sort of
Austrian state. It probably affect Austria's relationship with it's
Hungarians though in which direction I cannot say.

Off-topic tidbit - I'm amazed both at the number of Canadians who
don't know that July 1, 1867 was an important day for Austria, while
also at the number of Europeans who don't know that the same day was
an important day for Canada. (July 1, 1967 was also important day and
not just because Pamela Anderson was born that day!)
Bradipus
2010-07-21 14:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Off-topic tidbit - I'm amazed both at the number of Canadians
who don't know that July 1, 1867 was an important day for
Austria, while also at the number of Europeans who don't know
that the same day was an important day for Canada.
(July 1, 1967 was also important day and not just because
Pamela Anderson was born that day!)
I confess my ignorance.

I can suppose it was when Austria changed its institutional form
to double monarchy becoming Austria-Hungary.

No idea about Canada or about 1967.


I know who Pamela Anderson is, though.
--
o o
L
___
The Horny Goat
2010-07-22 05:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by The Horny Goat
Off-topic tidbit - I'm amazed both at the number of Canadians
who don't know that July 1, 1867 was an important day for
Austria, while also at the number of Europeans who don't know
that the same day was an important day for Canada.
(July 1, 1967 was also important day and not just because
Pamela Anderson was born that day!)
I confess my ignorance.
I can suppose it was when Austria changed its institutional form
to double monarchy becoming Austria-Hungary.
No idea about Canada or about 1967.
I know who Pamela Anderson is, though.
1/July/1867 was the day Canada moved from British Colony to the first
Dominion in the Empire. Over time Canada became more independent until
full independence in 1931 by which time Canada was firmly in the US
orbit.

As late as 1891 a campaigning Prime Minister said 'a British subject I
was born, a British subject I shall die" and he proved it by dying 3
or 4 months after the election.

I wish I didn't know about Pamela A and her relation to my country's
centennial. (This annoys the hell out of my firstborn who is also a
July 1st baby and is annoyed to share her day with Pamela)

You are 100% correct about Austria-Hungary.
Anthony Buckland
2010-07-22 17:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
...
I wish I didn't know about Pamela A and her relation to my country's
centennial. (This annoys the hell out of my firstborn who is also a
July 1st baby and is annoyed to share her day with Pamela)
...
She must be thrilled, though, that she and her family
and guests always have a holiday on her birthday,
Canada Day being unusual in that it is always observed
on July 1, regardless of the day of the week, unlike
the other warm-weather holidays.
The Horny Goat
2010-07-24 02:23:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:43:50 -0700, "Anthony Buckland"
Post by Anthony Buckland
Post by The Horny Goat
...
I wish I didn't know about Pamela A and her relation to my country's
centennial. (This annoys the hell out of my firstborn who is also a
July 1st baby and is annoyed to share her day with Pamela)
...
She must be thrilled, though, that she and her family
and guests always have a holiday on her birthday,
Canada Day being unusual in that it is always observed
on July 1, regardless of the day of the week, unlike
the other warm-weather holidays.
You mean like November 11th? (ducking and running - I've done plenty
of ****ing down days at the cenotaph through the years)

Actually in Canada January 1st, July 1st, November 11th and December
25th are the only fixed holidays. I trust no one here needs
explanation?
Robert A. Woodward
2010-07-22 06:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by The Horny Goat
Off-topic tidbit - I'm amazed both at the number of Canadians
who don't know that July 1, 1867 was an important day for
Austria, while also at the number of Europeans who don't know
that the same day was an important day for Canada.
(July 1, 1967 was also important day and not just because
Pamela Anderson was born that day!)
I confess my ignorance.
I confess that I did some research.
Post by Bradipus
I can suppose it was when Austria changed its institutional form
to double monarchy becoming Austria-Hungary.
July 1, 1867 is the day that the short lived North German
Confederation became a federal state (with a constitution written
by and for Bismark), see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_Confederation>. In 1871,
it was folded into the German Empire.
Post by Bradipus
No idea about Canada or about 1967.
Canada was the other nation created on July 1, 1867 (by the British
North American Act) - this I have known for years.
Post by Bradipus
I know who Pamela Anderson is, though.
I wonder if Lyle Craver was also born on Canada's Centennial day.
--
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Pete Barrett
2010-07-21 17:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
My first thought was that it could start with the Zollverein morphing
into a German state in much the same way that the original European
Common Market has become today's European Union but on consideration I
think that that's completely out of tune with the mentality of the
times.
Agreed. Military, not economic, power is the important thing in the
early 19th century. If the powers at Vienna allow the Confederation of
the Rhine to continue, it will be because Britain and France are
pushing it as a way of balancing the power of Prussia and Austria in
Germany, while Austria and Prussia accept it as a way of minimising
French influence east of the Rhine.

I think that would be quite a reasonable way for them to think, though
OTL they didn't, of course.
Post by The Horny Goat
I personally think the whole scenario is as likely as Britain
acquiring and keeping the entire Oregon Territory - or if you prefer
something European, Ireland escaping Great Britain in 1798.
I agree it's low probability - but not, I think, ASB territory.

Pete Barrett
Dennis
2010-07-20 03:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century. Taking the review as accurate, or adding your own
interpretation of the facts as given, describe a way to "cure" Germany
of its overbearing sense of that superiority and create a useful
instrument for a modern society without Germany's two world wars. In
many ways I feel that requires the removal or alteration of a figure
not mentioned in the review, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The problem extends to
the fact that his whole family seems to have been as certain of the
need for an overbearing Germany as he was.
The Morgenthau Plan was to some degree intended as a "cure" for German
aggression post-WWII, though it was more like a plan for a Final Solution
to the German problem. I suppose that's a WI that's been discussed here:
WI if the Morgenthau Plan had actually been implemented?

That doesn't address your real question: how to avoid German aggressive
tendencies in the first place.

Dennis
The Horny Goat
2010-07-20 06:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century. Taking the review as accurate, or adding your own
interpretation of the facts as given, describe a way to "cure" Germany
of its overbearing sense of that superiority and create a useful
instrument for a modern society without Germany's two world wars. In
many ways I feel that requires the removal or alteration of a figure
not mentioned in the review, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The problem extends to
the fact that his whole family seems to have been as certain of the
need for an overbearing Germany as he was.
The Morgenthau Plan was to some degree intended as a "cure" for German
aggression post-WWII, though it was more like a plan for a Final Solution
WI if the Morgenthau Plan had actually been implemented?
That doesn't address your real question: how to avoid German aggressive
tendencies in the first place.
That's been done several times here - I think the consensus is that
the best case scenario is the "Finlandization" of West Germany
Dennis
2010-07-20 07:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Dennis
The Morgenthau Plan was to some degree intended as a "cure" for German
aggression post-WWII, though it was more like a plan for a Final
Solution to the German problem. I suppose that's a WI that's been
discussed here: WI if the Morgenthau Plan had actually been
implemented?
That doesn't address your real question: how to avoid German
aggressive tendencies in the first place.
That's been done several times here - I think the consensus is that
the best case scenario is the "Finlandization" of West Germany
West Germany becomes a Soviet subordinate, in other words.

Dennis
Bradipus
2010-07-20 15:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is
of a book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming
overall cultural superiority of Germany and the German people
at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Taking the
review as accurate, or adding your own interpretation of the
facts as given, describe a way to "cure" Germany of its
overbearing sense of that superiority and create a useful
instrument for a modern society without Germany's two world
wars. In many ways I feel that requires the removal or
alteration of a figure not mentioned in the review, Kaiser
Wilhelm II. The problem extends to the fact that his whole
family seems to have been as certain of the need for an
overbearing Germany as he was.
The Morgenthau Plan was to some degree intended as a "cure"
for German aggression post-WWII, though it was more like a
plan for a Final Solution
to the German problem. I suppose that's a WI that's been
discussed here: WI if the Morgenthau Plan had actually been
implemented?
That doesn't address your real question: how to avoid German
aggressive tendencies in the first place.
Whatever they did it worked: there is no other place more
pacifist than Germany in today's Europe; the USA had to push
quite strong to get some German troops in Afghanistan.
--
o o
L
___
Matt Giwer
2010-08-10 06:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis
Post by Jack Linthicum
Below is a book review from the New York Times. The review is of a
book describing the "German genius", ie the seeming overall cultural
superiority of Germany and the German people at the turn of the 19th
to the 20th century. Taking the review as accurate, or adding your own
interpretation of the facts as given, describe a way to "cure" Germany
of its overbearing sense of that superiority and create a useful
instrument for a modern society without Germany's two world wars. In
many ways I feel that requires the removal or alteration of a figure
not mentioned in the review, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The problem extends to
the fact that his whole family seems to have been as certain of the
need for an overbearing Germany as he was.
The Morgenthau Plan was to some degree intended as a "cure" for German
aggression post-WWII, though it was more like a plan for a Final Solution
WI if the Morgenthau Plan had actually been implemented?
That doesn't address your real question: how to avoid German aggressive
tendencies in the first place.
The first thing is to get over the idea that being a native speaker of German
has a rational connection to military aggression.

If the research does make that connection then one must extent it to the
diabolical military aggression of native speakers of Yiddish and Hebrew for
the same reasons.
--
Yes, I am lying. But hear me out. I have better lies than my opposition.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4286
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Tue Aug 10 02:44:33 EDT 2010
The Old Man
2010-08-10 11:43:08 UTC
Permalink
        The first thing is to get over the idea that being a native speaker of German
has a rational connection to military aggression.
You mean like those damned agressive Amish people?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...