Why were France and Germany so ruinous for Europe?

There are historians who try to cast Prussia as something it wasn't, and who eagerly white-wash France, but that has never been my approach. If anything, my essential thesis here is that in terms of Modernity's failings, Germany was initially more or less a victim of France-- not the other way around.

I think a hurdle in clear communication may arise from the fact that you compare the centralisation of the Kaiserreich to that of France, whereas I compare it to that of the Holy Roman Empire. That is: I compare pre-Enlightenment Germany to post-Enlightenment Germany, and I conclude that -- politically, in large part due to French actions & influence -- "modern" Germany became far more centralised and nationalist and militarist and "statist" (if you will) than "historical" Germany had ever been.
Personally I would say that it was the Nazis who most strongly eroded German federalism, like everything else in the country (the military, the scientific capacity etc.) by the process of gleichstaltung turning the country into a de facto unitary state.
And yes, existence of Austria-Hungary could have prevented the World War 2. First off, there is no way Habsburgs will have allied with a psychopathic little socialist corporal. Without that, and Austria-Hungary intact, there is no Anschluss, nor annexation of Czechoslovakia. Result of this is that even if Hitler does go on to attack Poland (assuming Poland exists in this scenario), he has a much more limited frontline to do it from - allowing the Poles to concentrate their defenses. This means that even with the Soviet attack from the east, Poland may be able to resist for longer, perhaps even long enough for the western Allies to intervene.
Existence of A-H also means a continued existence of the German Empire, which means the conditions necessary for Hitler to rise to power and even if he does - to have absolute power like he did OTL - don't exist.
Above scenario, I think, is not a risk Hitler may have taken willingly. Of course, Germany being a socialist state with a failing economy may force his hand anyway...
Yes, this is what a lot of people don't get - Hitler's socialism was inextricable from his militarism and expansionism. His solution to the "other people's money" problem was in essence to send out the army to invade and loot neighboring countries. World War Two with all its horrors was in large part a wealth redistribution scheme, which is something that has only come to attention recently with Hitler's Beneficiaries.
 
Last edited:
Personally I would say that it was the Nazis who most strongly eroded German federalism, like everything else in the country (the military, the scientific capacity etc.) by the process of gleichstaltung turning the country into a de facto unitary state.
What nazis? GERMANS.And II Reich mostly destroyed that arleady.
Existence of A-H also means a continued existence of the German Empire, which means the conditions necessary for Hitler to rise to power and even if he does - to have absolute power like he did OTL - don't exist.
Nope,A-H could exist if not for masons hating it.Only without polish and maybe romanian parts.
And,after WW2 germans here could not start war - becouse they could not grab Austria and Czech lands.
I read memories of polish gentry Hipolit Korwin -Milewski - one of his french friends/diplomat/ stated that it is crime which would lead to next world war.
Yes, this is what a lot of people don't get - Hitler's socialism was inextricable from his militarism and expansionism. His solution to the "other people's money" problem was in essence to send out the army to invade and loot neighboring countries. World War Two with all its horrors was in great deal a wealth redistribution scheme, which is something that has only come to attention recently with Hitler's Beneficiaries.
Agree.Hitler here would try,and lost quickly.
 
But you don't have to simp for them, and talk about how "Just" they are. You don't have to say how good it is they don't have to pay taxes while you do, and that changing this was bad.
When did I do that? All I ever pointed out is that medieval nobles, or even pre-1918 nobles, were not cartoonishly evil and did in fact have their good sides.
If you are going to act retarded then so will I.
No the thing that got the ball rolling on commies and lgbt was Christianity. It was this faith that did away with old martial values and nobility of the Ancient Pagans, and instead made Europeans forgiving, and meek and accepting of the equal dignity of all. It was proto communism.
True to an extent, but not entirely. Medieval Christianity was hardly meek and surrendering, but it is true that Christian values formed the basis of nearly everything that went wrong with the western civilization, most obviously Communism (democracy, however, was an ancient invention).

And if you think that is a retarded take, then that truly shows how little you understand history.
This is the quote I bolded it.

Also no Nicky II was not morally good. Under real Christianity, and not monarcho cuckoldry the ruler has benefits and the obedience of his people. But that means they have to have a higher standard. Merely not being bad to people personally does not cut it. If you fail as a ruler and cause poverty and famine then you sinned. And God will punish you.
And it remains true no matter how much you wish it weren't. Also, I literally said the same thing twice now. If you are incapable of understanding such a simple concept despite having it explained to you two times in a row, this discussion truly is pointless.
You can literally insult the leaders of democracy. The king of Saudi can have people killed on a whim. What you said is mind boggling stupid it makes me think we should deport monarchists to Saudi.
No, you cannot. You can insult some meaningless puppets, but only because they are just that - meaningless puppets. US President, Congress, they are all irrelevant. Insulting them has about the same impact as insulting Saudi king's personal fool.

If you try to do something about the actual leaders (or issues they care about), you get "cancelled", censored, or even get the JFK treatment. Trump managed to do something, but only because he was skirting around the actual problem instead of facing it - he is treating the symptoms of the disease without even looking at the underlying case, and thus he is of absolutely zero relevance.

While monarchy may sometimes work with oligarchy, it is also the only real threat the oligarchy faces, which is why the City of London and the Wall Street made sure to destroy European monarchies post-World War I. Why do you think leaders who get actual popular support tend to be illiberal strongmen? Because in a liberal democracy, they would get stonewalled by the actual rulers.

But of course, you prefer to live some childish fantasy about the just world rather than face the reality. You don't matter, none of us does, and immature whining will not change that.
They were trying their "best" Also if anyone is basing politics on childish ideals it's you who think kingdoms are like Disney princesses. As opposed to stating out as warlords and dictators, then becoming parasitic oligarchs.
No, I am not basing anything on childish ideals. I am basing it on basic economic calculus and human psychology.

Kingdom is a monarch's personal property. It is his investment, and people tend to care about their investments - especially when said investment will go to their children.

For oligarchs that run the so-called "democracy" however, country is nothing but a money cow, something to be milked until it dries out. And for "the people", insomuch as "the people" even matter at all (hint hint: they don't), they tend to only care about the next few years at most.
A lottery is much harder to be subverted, as long as multiple different groups check the selection method.

2nd What you said is also applies to regular democracy. The only way to have long term plans and rules if for life time appointments. It's a meaningless criticism.
Harder, yes, but not impossible.

And congratulations, now you know why monarchy is in fact superior to democracy.
That doesn't stop a European war. Germany could have a big fight with Austria, and others might want that as weaken a future continental power is useful So ww2 is Germany and Austria going at it instead of Germans attacking Poles, and not everyone would jump in to help Austria.
Maybe, but on the flip side, the only reason why Germany advanced so quickly against Poland is because a) it had Poland surrounded from three sides (eastern Prussia, Prussia, Czechoslovakia) and b) it received Soviet help.

In this scenario, even if USSR exists at all, it may not join in the war - and even if it does, that means fighting in the Carpathian mountains in a basically continuous frontline with Germans, instead of advancing over the flat terrain from the opposite side and catching the enemy in a pincer.
Personally I would say that it was the Nazis who most strongly eroded German federalism, like everything else in the country (the military, the scientific capacity etc.) by the process of gleichstaltung turning the country into a de facto unitary state.

Existence of A-H also means a continued existence of the German Empire, which means the conditions necessary for Hitler to rise to power and even if he does - to have absolute power like he did OTL - don't exist.

Yes, this is what a lot of people don't get - Hitler's socialism was inextricable from his militarism and expansionism. His solution to the "other people's money" problem was in essence to send out the army to invade and loot neighboring countries. World War Two with all its horrors was in large part a wealth redistribution scheme, which is something that has only come to attention recently with Hitler's Beneficiaries.
Agreed.
 
When did I do that? All I ever pointed out is that medieval nobles, or even pre-1918 nobles, were not cartoonishly evil and did in fact have their good sides.

True to an extent, but not entirely. Medieval Christianity was hardly meek and surrendering, but it is true that Christian values formed the basis of nearly everything that went wrong with the western civilization, most obviously Communism (democracy, however, was an ancient invention).

And if you think that is a retarded take, then that truly shows how little you understand history.

And it remains true no matter how much you wish it weren't. Also, I literally said the same thing twice now. If you are incapable of understanding such a simple concept despite having it explained to you two times in a row, this discussion truly is pointless.

No, you cannot. You can insult some meaningless puppets, but only because they are just that - meaningless puppets. US President, Congress, they are all irrelevant. Insulting them has about the same impact as insulting Saudi king's personal fool.

If you try to do something about the actual leaders (or issues they care about), you get "cancelled", censored, or even get the JFK treatment. Trump managed to do something, but only because he was skirting around the actual problem instead of facing it - he is treating the symptoms of the disease without even looking at the underlying case, and thus he is of absolutely zero relevance.

While monarchy may sometimes work with oligarchy, it is also the only real threat the oligarchy faces, which is why the City of London and the Wall Street made sure to destroy European monarchies post-World War I. Why do you think leaders who get actual popular support tend to be illiberal strongmen? Because in a liberal democracy, they would get stonewalled by the actual rulers.

But of course, you prefer to live some childish fantasy about the just world rather than face the reality. You don't matter, none of us does, and immature whining will not change that.

No, I am not basing anything on childish ideals. I am basing it on basic economic calculus and human psychology.

Kingdom is a monarch's personal property. It is his investment, and people tend to care about their investments - especially when said investment will go to their children.

For oligarchs that run the so-called "democracy" however, country is nothing but a money cow, something to be milked until it dries out. And for "the people", insomuch as "the people" even matter at all (hint hint: they don't), they tend to only care about the next few years at most.

Harder, yes, but not impossible.

And congratulations, now you know why monarchy is in fact superior to democracy.

Maybe, but on the flip side, the only reason why Germany advanced so quickly against Poland is because a) it had Poland surrounded from three sides (eastern Prussia, Prussia, Czechoslovakia) and b) it received Soviet help.

In this scenario, even if USSR exists at all, it may not join in the war - and even if it does, that means fighting in the Carpathian mountains in a basically continuous frontline with Germans, instead of advancing over the flat terrain from the opposite side and catching the enemy in a pincer.

Agreed.
Mostly agree,but you made one mistake - Kingdom was personal property only in tsars state.And that is why Moscov become so fucked.
In Europe King never were owners,but rather regents for God.
 
You do know that God's heavenly Kingdom on Earth after the defeat of the Anti Christ will be a unitarian absolute monarchy right? God isn't going to have checks and balances or separation of powers. You won't have freedom when God wins, evil will be destroyed for good.

We should avoid a one world govt because we can't make perfect like God, and the anti Christ will try it first.
But your arguments are still so dumb here. I guess we should abolish the US because it's too big, in fact the states are too big. Let's get rid of any govt above the city/village level. No army no national/state police. Each city/town does it's own thing. Taking things to your ideals too far is just as dumb.


So you cry because nothing is perfect? Yes the world is fallen and things will be used for evil sometimes. Using your dumb logic we should stop all science, all creation, can't use fire either. People WILL use it for evil. Central governments are more efficient. Yes evil will sometimes take over, but good also does. Anyone who doesen't know this does not know history but only propaganda for their "muh small gubmit!"

Here all you do is grandstand your non Christian ideas. Enlightenment ideals are a product of only a few hundred years early Christians did not share your political beliefs. Many of the people who made the ideals you like are not Christian and opposed Christianity they were either Deists, or masons who had anti Christ attitudes(whether satanic or not) or were even atheists like Thomas Paine.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about and know nothing of history. Yes Christians went bottom up SOMETIMES! But they also went top down sometimes, they literally converted a King and the King used force to baptize his people. Violating your small government freedom principles and the freedom of religion of his people. Christianity sees it as a tool bottom up, or top down does not matter.


You need to read your Bible more and enlightenment philosophy and modern conservacuck propaganda less.
First off the Bible frequently glazes kings and says that they have great power, and said that the people should obey them. Note these were eastern kings unlike in the lands of the Greeks kings of the east were tyrants and had MORE power over their subjects. Cyrus for instance is heavily praised. God does not care for small government or big government only for what that government does. Again for eastern kings the provinces and satraps had to obey the king or they would be removed. They could not just go their own way.

As for the warning about kings yes what of it. God warns the Jews what will happen if they have a king the king will take power and wealth from them. Also Israel BEFORE the kings was not this small government paradise you think it was with respect for individual rights. Judges ruled ALL of Israel if a city was sinning or one of the tribes was sinning they would not "accept their rights to practice their religion" no they'd go and force them to stop even killing them if they broke God's law. God's law was given and enforced on all of Israel. The tribes could run themselves yes, but they did not have "rights" to change the law or whatever.

Also you really know nothing about the Bible if you think prophets never told the people to change the government. Frequently the Kings were criticized for their actions NOT JUST PERSONAL EVIL ACTIONS! But their administrative policies. For instance the prophets of God have condemned Kings that were religiously tolerant, that was Solomon's big sin allowing idol worship. Yes God is in favor of using top down authority to remove evil.

So how about you engage with a hypo instead of running away or spouting enlightenment propaganda? You are a King of Israel at this time, and the prophet comes to you and condemns your actions and says God will punish you for your tolerance of evil. You have allowed the people of each of the cities to rule themselves and be free besides a few large rules(I'm guessing libertarian or small c conservative principles aka no harming others so human sacrafice is banned) so some cities have turned to idol worship or worship of Ashera or Ishtar. What do you do when God's prophet tells you the way you rule the land is sinful and you should abolish the worship of the pagans and syncritic types who want to worship God and other gods or engage in temple prostitution or other rites? Remember there is no human sacrafice in this hypo so no easy way for you to get out of it.
I waited a few days, until I actually had a decent amount of sleep in spite of the newborn, and didn't have urgent writing priorities, before coming back to reply to this.

...And it's almost completely incoherent.

What on earth are you even trying to argue about with the last few paragraphs?

The earlier parts aren't even counter-arguments, they're just vaguely-related statements. At no point here do you actually quote scripture, your entire position seems to be based on 'you're reading enlightenment philosophers rather than the Bible,' when you have no idea what I read or how much.

You also seem to think that a king ordering people to be baptized somehow results in salvation. Where on earth do you get that idea?

You also are taking extremely selective and warped-perspective views on how the Old Testament depicted and described kings like Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, etc. And again, not actually quoting any scripture at all to support your position, just making naked assertions.

Honestly, I'm giving this more consideration than it deserves. You don't even have a coherent argument here, so it's not like I can really give a meaningful reply to it.
 
I waited a few days, until I actually had a decent amount of sleep in spite of the newborn, and didn't have urgent writing priorities, before coming back to reply to this.

...And it's almost completely incoherent.

What on earth are you even trying to argue about with the last few paragraphs?

The earlier parts aren't even counter-arguments, they're just vaguely-related statements. At no point here do you actually quote scripture, your entire position seems to be based on 'you're reading enlightenment philosophers rather than the Bible,' when you have no idea what I read or how much.
I don’t have to link or source any bible quotes it’s YOU that has to do that.

My position is not that a Christian must be a monarchist or support autocracy or a dictatorship or central government, simply that they can if they want to.

YOU however were not you were saying that if you don’t respect states rights you aren’t a Christian.

You have to show Bible verses to prove your position that not giving people democracy or local government or whatever is a sin. I don’t know if you are delusional or acting in bad faith since you won’t answer any question I ask you.

You also seem to think that a king ordering people to be baptized somehow results in salvation. Where on earth do you get that idea?

Yeah because that’s what you need for salvation if you don’t believe in Jesus AND get baptized you are not saved. If you refuse baptism you are hellbound.

So yes kings making their subjects get baptized and accepted Christ means those subjects who believe in god were saved.
 

Yeah because that’s what you need for salvation if you don’t believe in Jesus AND get baptized you are not saved. If you refuse baptism you are hellbound.

So yes kings making their subjects get baptized and accepted Christ means those subjects who believe in god were saved.
That you think conversion can be ordered by a sovereign, rather than is a matter of personal relationship with God, really says all that anyone needs to know about your comprehension of Christianity.

Specifically, that you don't understand the most fundamental aspects of it.
 
That you think conversion can be ordered by a sovereign, rather than is a matter of personal relationship with God, really says all that anyone needs to know about your comprehension of Christianity.

Specifically, that you don't understand the most fundamental aspects of it.
So you are just going to ignore the first paragraph entirely and run away because you cant justify your heresy?

Also your “muh personal relationship” with god thing evangelicals have is cringe no you don’t. You have never spoken to god never seen him. A personal relationship has to be unique. The prophets like Moses who actually saw and spoke to god and relayed his messages they had a unique relationship you don’t. Most other Christian’s don’t.

You don’t have a unique personal relationship with him. You have the same relationship with him as any other saved person who isn’t a great saint or prophet. The chance to be saved if you believe in him and get baptized. Not you as you are now though since you don’t believe in the gospel you added man made traditions that aren’t even from religious figures but political ones.
 
So you are just going to ignore the first paragraph entirely and run away because you cant justify your heresy?

Also your “muh personal relationship” with god thing evangelicals have is cringe no you don’t. You have never spoken to god never seen him. A personal relationship has to be unique. The prophets like Moses who actually saw and spoke to god and relayed his messages they had a unique relationship you don’t. Most other Christian’s don’t.

You don’t have a unique personal relationship with him. You have the same relationship with him as any other saved person who isn’t a great saint or prophet. The chance to be saved if you believe in him and get baptized. Not you as you are now though since you don’t believe in the gospel you added man made traditions that aren’t even from religious figures but political ones.
Well, at least now I know why you're wrong on just about everything.

You don't actually believe in the Christ of the Bible, you just think you do.
 
Well, at least now I know why you're wrong on just about everything.

You don't actually believe in the Christ of the Bible, you just think you do.
No you need to look in the mirror bud.
Christianity biblical Christianity never has you and God having a personal relationship. That term is nowhere in the Bible. God is not your best friend or homie, you don’t just go up and say “Hey big G how’s it going.” He is our holy father our king you go to him with humility. You Protestants evangelicals are an inversion of true Christians and are all about arrogance and selfishness. God is not your equal and certainly not your servant. You worship him you pray to and praise and glorify him. You thank him for taking up the cross to save all mankind.

Muh personal relationship where god is just your pal. I swear the arrogance of it.
 
@LordsFire @King Arts I'm going to ask this nicely in hopes of avoiding saying something later on that may get me a strike. Would you two please kindly take whatever rivalry you have going on to PMs. Please???? 🥺 🙏
Uhh yeah sorry. We should not have had a bitch fit. But to be fair the 1st topic, on if centralization is Christian was on topic. But the derail to asking if the the words personal relationship was not.
 
Uhh yeah sorry. We should not have had a bitch fit. But to be fair the 1st topic, on if centralization is Christian was on topic. But the derail to asking if the the words personal relationship was not.
Apology accepted (on my end at least) but you guys have got to get a grip on this. Anytime there is a discussion that ends up being remotely Christian adjacent you two get into it and it causes derails.

Keep something in mind fellas. You both are proclaiming to be true followers amongst us heretics, non believers and the occasional straight up pagans. Meaning here in this circle you are God's representatives. How you act and treat people here reflects on the one you worship. (That goes for me too.)
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top