OK, a brief review. Until the late 1800s, the area loosely called “Germany” was a large number of small independent principalities – Bremen, Hesse, Darmstadt, Bavaria, Baden, etc. Dozens of 'em. Bismark, from Prussia, by adroit political manoeuvering and by launching war on France, managed to get the area unified as the country “Germany.”
Two generations later, Germany launched an unprovoked war of conquest against Europe. That war cost around 30 million lives, IIRC, and did untold damage to property. The Germans created the most sadistic and dispassionate killing machine (the death camps) that humanity has ever seen, turning mass slaughter in an assembly-line production.
The Germans were defeated in that war.
So, how does Germany justify its continued existence? Why weren’t the inhabitants exiled and the land made waste?
LOL. Thanks, you’ve brought a little light into my day. i laughed so hard hen I read this title, and then your OP. Great stuff. I will, however, treat it as a serious debate, right after I get back from lunch.
Funny funny stuff.
Until the late 1700s, the area loosely called “America” was a large number of small independent colonies – Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Massachusetts, etc. Dozens of 'em. Jefferson, from Virginia, by adroit political manoeuvering and by launching war on Britain, managed to get the area unified as the country “The United States of America.”
Two generations later, America launched an unprovoked war of conquest against Britain and Canada. That war cost many lives, IIRC, and did untold damage to property. It lasted from 1812 to 1814.
The Americans were defeated in that war. (They even got their Capitol burned to the ground.)
So, how does America justify its continued existence? Why weren’t the inhabitants exiled and the land made waste?
This is not really a serious debate, is it? I have to believe that if you were joking you would have placed this in MPSIMS, but since it’s in GD you were, what, serious about it? If you were, please try the thread title with the country name of your choice substituted in for ‘Germany’. You look back at the history of most nations, and you can just as easily say “why is that a country?”
Of course the capital got burned down–nobody like it anyway. Why would you defend it? Notice that Baltimore, a * worthwhile * town was sucessfully defended–and the battle even provided the national anthem. Go Baltimore!
While we’re at it, what about Canada’s right to exist? Nobody likes Canada. Why haven’t we just gotten it done with and annexed them?
While there is an undeniable humourous overtone to the thread the question is quite legitimate. Why would you think that this is a joke? Is the thread “How do you Justify Isreals existance?” a joke as well?
And originally, it was hoped by Queen Victoria and her husband, Prince Albert, that Germany would be united under a liberal, constitutional monarchy, the main reason for arranging the marriage of their daughter, Princess Victoria, to the Prussian Heir, Prince Frederick. However, Bismarck got in their way. It was hoped that Fritz and Vicky would become the enlightened monarchs of the newly unified Germany.
Only, unfortunately, Fritz became ill, and even though some doctors said he had throat cancer, his wife refused to believe it, and would not allow them to remove the lumps in his throat (long story)…He only reigned for 90 days before his son, Kaiser “Willy” took the throne.
Willy was a spoiled brat from childhood, mostly because his arm was pulled from the socket at birth, which rendered it withered and useless. To compensate, his mother spoiled him.
A little known fact is that his arm was torn out by the roots by Frankenstein’s Monster, who had escaped and was terrorizing the countryside. But for that, little Willy might have been a great general, and not merely the Emperor of Germany.
For the full story, see Lionel Atwill’s moving portrayal in Son of Frankenstein (Universal Pictures, 1939).
No one else is taking it seriously, so I guess I have to. Although on a humorous note, I’m picturing a proliferation not unlike the ask threads. Soon everyone and their thrid cousin will post a justify the existence of ------. the thought of GD being filled up with that makes me chuckle.
to justify Germany’s existence, I’m going to quote another poster. I don’t remember exactly who posted it. do you CKDextHavn?
Alright enough humor.
Ok, to be fair. I didn’t believe that Israel had to justify it’s existence. It exists and that is that. Like it (Israelis) or not (Palestinians) it is a fact. So as a socialist I’m forced to look at it from my point. Should the existence of Germany, as fact, be opposed as strongly as socialists oppose the existence of Israel.
Does that seem fair to you CKDextHavn?
I admit we can’t have too much of a debate, as we are coming at this from vastly different angles. But, lesse what comes up.
In terms of justifying the existence of countries, I have a far harder time with one’s like Kuwait. Should it exist? But, I understand why you chose Germany.
Israel is not a completely secular state. Germany like the US is not based on the rule of a particular people. It doesn’t invite scattered Germans from around the globe to come and settle.
Germany is not based on recently stolen land.
Germany was not created by Imperialist powers as an outpost of imperialism.
The german working class does not materially benefit from the continued discrimination of another people in Germany.
the existence of germany is not opposed by the majority of it’s neighbors (although I don’t think that has any bearing, just throwing it out as devil’s advocate)
Germany has not been constantly violating UN resolutions for the past 50 years.
Germany doesn’t encourage settlements to drive out other local people
Germany did not support the South African government against the wishes of the international community.
Of course I wouldnt’ take to much stock in my arguments. As I’ve probably stated, I oppose the german government as much as any other. I’ve stated my objctions to Israel in the other thread.
There are three ways to become a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany: by birth, by naturalization and, for ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the Soviet successor states, by claim under the “Right of Return.” The most important change in Germany’s citizenship law is that the principle of jus sanguinis - of defining citizenship by inheritance - has been supplemented with the principle of the jus soli (“right of soil”) - of defining citizenship by place of birth.
Let me add one to Oldscratch’s list:
Germany allows citizenship by the right of soil. (i.e, if you are born there, you’re automatically a citizen)
Hey, I’m not suggesting that any Aericans actually move up there; why in god’s name would we want to do that? I just think that Congress should finally aknowledge that Canada has no real right to exist, and is merely giving the impression that there’s large important country on this continent. Manifest Destiny, anyone? I think it certainly applies north as well as west…