Not History,genetics.
First in Europe was hunters with haplogroup I,then/10.000BC/ settled people with G,E,J,haplogroups,and finally R1b who go throughh Africa/Dogons remained there/ ,go to West Europe and take territories there.
When people of R1a haplogroup come through Asia to Central Europe,most remained there,rest go to India and Iran later.
So,they could be considered as Aryans.
Which is no fair,becouse they come from central Europe,not India.
So,of course,all nations are mix of many groups - but was in Europe at least from 4.000 BC.Since last big wave of settlers come.
Thank you for this extremely muddled account of (basically) the steppe theory of Indo-European origins -- with which I'm familiar, and from the looks of it, far more so than you are.
It doesn't prove anything about the origin of the Slavs as a recognisable group, except in the sense that you may (in your rather unclear post) be trying to argue that Slavs are genetically proven to be Indo-European. Which is not disputed, so it's hardly relevant.
P.S Jordanus wrote his book in 6th century - but using oral sources from 4th century.And mentioned that weneds is old name for slavs.
I already answered this point in some detail. You appear to have missed that. To recapitulate: whether the Mediaeval "Wends" are the same people as the "Veneti" referenced by the Romans is, for one, disputed. Even if not, however, the ancient Veneti in 100 BC were not a Slavic people. "Slavs" didn't yet exist at that time (as an identity), and the proto-Slavic tribal cultures inhabited the Pripet Marches of Polesia at that time.
The non-Slavic Veneti were later over-run when the Slavs expanded. Either they were absorbed, becoming culturally Slavic (and thus becoming the latter-day "Wends"), or they were more-or-less wiped out, and the Slavs took their land
and their name (same way the Germans took Prussia and also stole the name), and then
they became the latter-day Wends.
-------------------------------------------------------
What about doing even further than that? For instance, having separate Tamil, Punjabi, Sindhi, Rajasthani, Marathi, et cetera states?
You asked for ethnic division. I believe these identities existed in a cultural sense, but whether they considered themelves ethnically distinct from their direct neighbours is something I'm inclined to doubt.
-------------------------------------------------------
Also, off-topic, but what are the odds of Germany eventually experiencing a revolution in the absence of World War I if Kaiser Bill will refuse to share sufficient power with the German Reichstag?
The AH.com posts you cite betray a lack of understanding. It wasn't the socialists who were on an upward surge, but the social democrats. This is something that Wilhelm II (ever-mercurial) at times
applauded. He was in favour of social welfare programmes. In fact, one reason he fell out with Bismarck is that Bismarck wanted to change course. Previously, Bismarck had deliberately supported moderate social reform, to take the "wind out of the sails" of the socialists. Bismarck wanted to stop that, since the socialists had pretty much been
defeated. Compromises were no longer needed, then!
But Wilhelm II consider social reform a goal in itself, and disagreed with Bismarck. Wilhelm II, by the way, also
opposed the tiered electoral system. He thought it was stupid, and that if he presenred himself as a champion of the people, elctoral reform would cause broad popular support for his reign.
All in all, no World War(s) means that Germany sees the social democrats making strides, and Wilhelm II often supporting reform. There will be no revolution.