There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
German continuity debate
Since the point on the Germany is indeed moot on the Germany talkpage now...Yes, Napoleon sure did much to raise German nationalism, that's certainly true. Now, as for your argument about political continuity... it's true there was no continuity between 1806 and 1871 (the German Confederation was the legal successor to the HRE, but it was an alliance, not a sovereign country and besides ended in 1866). There also was none between 1939 and 1949. Likewise, France suffered a bit of a breakdown of continuity between 1940 and 1945 (let's be honest: The justifications for recognizing de Gaulle's self-declared government in exile as legitimate were a bit flimsy). Not to mention Poland during the partitions. Or what about France changing its state every generation or so in the 19th century, so that we're now up to 5 Republics, 3 Kingdoms (counting the Restoration as "2nd Kingdom" and the Orleans Monarchy as 3rd) and 2 Empires? My point is such things simply happen in the history of a nation. Yes, the UK for example was spared that, but they have the Channel to thank for that. Interruptions are just part of history. As such, the Germany that politically reunited in 1871 was not really a new country, it was a reestablished country. I think there's a bit of a difference. Belgium for example was a truly new country, but not Germany (and not Poland after WW1, either, for another example). How can you distinguish between those two types of cases if you simply call the countries in both of them "new"? As for Landmarkism, well, Christianity as a whole does have an unbroken tradition since Apostolic times; Baptism as a subset doesn't. Likewise, Germany as a nation has an unbroken tradition since 843; single German states like the Federal Republic of course have not. And personally, I would define a country as a nation. The exact state form is IMO rather secondary. I mean, we also say "France" no matter if we talk about the Ancien Regime, Napoleon's Empire or any of the Republics... Octo8 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- In what way was the German Empire a reestablishment of the Kingdom of Germany? There were ethnic and linguistic commonalities for sure and some territorial overlap (with the important exception of the historic boundaries of Prussia, of course), but remember, what is claimed is specifically that modern Germany as a political entity can only be traced to 1871. I'll contrast your two other examples (France and Poland). France existed as a political entity with defined borders, etc., from the seventeenth century Revolution, and Republics. Important continuities, like a strong central government, can be observed. The question was who was to govern it. Poland, on the other hand, was created by the Entente after WWI as a new republic. Polish patriots emphasized the existence of older kingdoms, but the new nation was not really a continuation of these. Godspeed (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)