Perhaps we'll get an interesting discussion of all the greatest and most important Germanic leaders in history. I have not yet decided for whom I will vote, I'll leave that until after some discussion has been had.

This will be interesting.

A tough choice, I went for Otto. Without him, German (and world) history would be radically different.

I'll go for the Iron Chancellor too. Without him, the history of Europe, not to mention Germany, will be drastically different.

Wow really makes you think how many influential germans there were. Anyhoo alot of Great choices and I think most all of them were extremely influential in their different fields. The only way I could really see of narrowing it down was to vote for my favortie field (Music), and I loove Bheetoven, so he got my vote.

Arminius, without whom there would be not be a Germany. It, and the German tribes, would have been Romanized, at least up to the Elbe, likely to the Oder or the Vistula.

I also voted for Otto for the reasons listed above.

I don't know if you can really call Theodoric and Clovis Germans,as at this time a German ethny did not exist in today's sense.Even Charlemagne can be considered more German than these.Before 843 (treaty of Verdun) I wouldn't consider anyone really to be German.
Hitler and Mozart were no Germans,they were Austrians (well Mozart lived in a Salzburg clerical territory,not in Austria,but I wouldn't call him a German).
I just read a book about Otto the Great and he really deserves my vote.
Without Gutenberg neither Luther or anyone younger would have been so succesful,so he gets a vote too (like Luther).
Last votes go to Bismarck and Marx.

Originally posted by Kennelly
I don't know if you can really call Theodoric and Clovis Germans,as at this time a German ethny did not exist in today's sense.Even Charlemagne can be considered more German than these.Before 843 (treaty of Verdun) I wouldn't consider anyone really to be German.
Hitler and Mozart were no Germans,they were Austrians (well Mozart lived in a Salzburg clerical territory,not in Austria,but I wouldn't call him a German).
I just read a book about Otto the Great and he really deserves my vote.
Without Gutenberg neither Luther or anyone younger would have been so succesful,so he gets a vote too (like Luther).
Last votes go to Bismarck and Marx.

I knew someone would challenge the German-ness of some of these people. The idea that anyonne living historically outside the modern boundaries of the Bundesrepublic is not German is absurb. That's a recently imported Anglo-American idea about nationality which does not figure in German culture until it is imposed on them after world war 2. Mozart was a proud German who did much to promote German cultural confidence. He would be insulted if he read you writing that. No-one in that poll was actually born in the modern Bundesrepublik, they are all German because of the historical and linguistic definitions of German-ness. BTW, Wittgenstein was another Austrian.


Theodoric and Clovis were Germanic warlords. Verdun is an arbitrary date, the only thing I'd say about that is that Germanicism declines in Western Frankia afterwards, and if it does create German-ness, it would be for the peculiar reason that it contrasts with native French culture. German-ness can be traced in unbroken continuity down to the times of the Roman Republic and there is no good reason to impose a break at any point. Verdun does not cause the German nation to suddenly come into existence.

My vote goes to Otto the Great, Johannes Gutenberg, Martin Luther and Karl Marx. They probably had the single biggest influence on world history. :yeah:
Gutenberg and Luther have to be named in one breath, without one or the other the drastic change in Christian religion and belief wouldn´t have been possible.
Otto was probably the greatest national leader of all times and he reigned right from my hometown. :)
And just imagine if Karl Marx wouldn´t have started the philosophical discussion of communism and the critical investigation of capitalism.

Of course most of the others were also great personalities, especially Bismarck, Goethe, Beethoven and Einstein.

I would not really want to include the first 3, they were germanic, yes, but not german. Which is a big difference.

Hitlers influence was very great of course, but that was not because of his personality. He could have been replaced by several other maniacs and in the end having a similar effect. And of course one cannot consider calling him the "greatest". :rolleyes:
:D

I voted other cultural.

Friedrich Schiller who wrote An ode to Joy.

For those who do not already know:

BTW, Frederick II Hohenstaufen:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor


Frederick II Hohenzollern is Frederick the Great of Prussia

Originally posted by Parsifal
I knew someone would challenge the German-ness of some of these people. The idea that anyonne living historically outside the modern boundaries of the Bundesrepublic is not German is absurb. That's a recently imported Anglo-American idea about nationality which does not figure in German culture until it is imposed on them after world war 2. Mozart was a proud German who did much to promote German cultural confidence. He would be insulted if he read you writing that. No-one in that poll was actually born in the modern Bundesrepublik, they are all German because of the historical and linguistic definitions of German-ness. BTW, Wittgenstein was another Austrian.

True. Even after 1871 being German didn't mean living in Germany. That's a definition that is not older than the end of WW2 including the massive "ethnic cleansing" of Germans all over Europe.
Before that being German meant being part of the German people (in an ethnic/racial sense). Although it's nice to make fun of the Austrians "for giving us Hitler", that's of course not really true, as Hitler was a German by the definition of his time.
This applies even more to everyone who lived before 1871, at that time there was no difference at all (in this sense) between Austria and any other German state.
Originally posted by Lucky
I would not really want to include the first 3, they were germanic, yes, but not german. Which is a big difference.

That's how it is widely seen (I guess you refer to the German words "Deutsch" and "Germanisch", which are more distinct from each other). But of course this view leads to the question where Germanic ended and German began. And there are probably as many definitions for that as there are explanations for the origin of the word "Deutsch" (I've heard several in school).
The Holy Roman Empire was not exclusively German so it's not really of much use as a turning point in my opinion.
In the end the (of course delicate) ethnic definition seems to be the most fitting to me, so in this sense both Germanics and Germans deserve to be in the poll, at least some of the Germanics, like Hermann (Arminius) and others.


But now to the question itself :D :
The poll results are interesting, it's beyond me how any sane person, no matter his ideologic point of view, can call Hitler great. He was a mass murderer who failed completely.
I also would never consider Bismarck. The eventual unification of Germany was inevitable, considering the intellectual, technological and political developments of the time. But it could hardly have had a worse outcome than an incomplete (Austria!), radically militaristic and agressive empire...
This is also shown by the presence of other people on the list. Germany was (and is) much more than just it's military. Arts and science should have been the leading factor.

So who would I vote for out of the list:
- Gutenberg, Lucky explained why
- Luther, see at Lucky's as well
- Einstein, should be obvious
- Karl Marx, as an example for great German philosophers, Kant and Nietzsche would be other examples
- Goethe, as an example for the many great writers

Frederik the Great. :king:

Beethoven, with Mozart a close second. The origonal Rocker, and the origonal pop star.

von Brun

I find it interesting that the German posters discounted Bismarck. :lol:

If unification was an inevitable certainty, then I stand corrected.
However, I think that is an opinion, not a fact. ;)

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Friedrich Schiller wrote An ode to Joy.
:goodjob:

Originally posted by Hitro


That's how it is widely seen (I guess you refer to the German words "Deutsch" and "Germanisch", which are more distinct from each other). But of course this view leads to the question where Germanic ended and German began. And there are probably as many definitions for that as there are explanations for the origin of the word "Deutsch" (I've heard several in school).
The Holy Roman Empire was not exclusively German so it's not really of much use as a turning point in my opinion.
In the end the (of course delicate) ethnic definition seems to be the most fitting to me, so in this sense both Germanics and Germans deserve to be in the poll, at least some of the Germanics, like Hermann (Arminius) and others.


I wouldn't call Caesar or Augustus an Italian,they were Romans,because these Romans are completely different from modern Italians.The same way the Germanics of Arminius have absolutely no relation to modern Germans,as his Germanics were forced to move west or exterminated. A German-ness can certainly not be dated back to the Roman times like Parsifal said,as these were completely different people.I doubt someone in the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne,living in Bardowick or Aachen would called himself a German.So,of course German nationality didn't miraculously occur one night in 843,but I would hardly call anyone before that date a German.

Voted for Bismarck. Great man.

Teodorich (it's too late to give full answer- I'm faaaalling asslllleeep)

Originally posted by Kennelly


I wouldn't call Caesar or Augustus an Italian,they were Romans,because these Romans are completely different from modern Italians.The same way the Germanics of Arminius have absolutely no relation to modern Germans,as his Germanics were forced to move west or exterminated. A German-ness can certainly not be dated back to the Roman times like Parsifal said,as these were completely different people.I doubt someone in the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne,living in Bardowick or Aachen would called himself a German.So,of course German nationality didn't miraculously occur one night in 843,but I would hardly call anyone before that date a German.

I knew it! The purpose of this poll is to discuss great Germans but most of the intellectual energy is devoted to quibbling over the meaning of a few words. :cry:

OK kennelly, you are right that Italians are not Romans but your are wrong in making this analogous to Germans. Italians were never Romans in the first place. Latin was the language of Rome and the surrounding territory, while other areas of Italy spoke different Italic or Celtic languages. They came to speak varying dialects of Latin later, but never Roman Latin, which was only ever spoken outside "Lazio" as an elitist language (which, incidentally is still alive). Modern Italians have preserved aspects of Roman language, but so have the Spanish, French and Romanians. German is not like this. Dialects of German have been spoken in the German lands as far as historical records go. The differenece is that Italians were never Roman in the first place.

The idea that Germans were exterminated in the time of Arminius is uterrly absurd. I don't know what garbage you've been reading, Kennelly. In any case, no-one in the poll is as early as Arminius, so you would have to say that the Germans were exterminated again :lol: in order to maintain your argument.

If you don't think that anyone before 843 was German, then fine! But you obviously don't have the education to show any good reason why they weren't, so don't expect others to agree with your dogmatism.

BTW, as far back as Isidore of Seville, Germans identified themselves as such. The men of Charlemagne's time and place called themselves Franks, a German cultural group. But by this time, Frank had become the operational term for a German. Not that this matters to me.

Undubitubly Einstein, either for his great scientific contribution and his peacefull way of thinking. He personaly wrote a letter to usa president about nuclear weapon.

If we're allowed to very dubiously ignore the differences between the Germanics and modern Germans - a situation that makes figures like Knut of Danish England eligible or Riurik of Rus - then I would vote for Charlemagne as the one who laid the foundation for Western Europe.

Germany has gifted the world with great science and inspiring artistic/cultural acheivements. Politics: not so wonderful if you ask me. And Charlemagne German? Kind of a stretch.

I voted for Gutenberg after much deliberation. The proliferation of books sped up scientific, paved the way for the Reformation (as Church subjects began to actually read the whole Bible and interpret it themselves), and created endless universes of shared imagined worlds.

Bah! I still think that without Arminius's victory, Germanic ethnicity would have been largely Romanized, and substantialy ceased to exist.

Guttenberg - almost undoubtely ;)

Regards.

Originally posted by joespaniel
I find it interesting that the German posters discounted Bismarck. :lol:
Not the German posters, just me in fact. ;)
Kennelly included him in his "last votes", while Lucky called him a "great personality" (which opens up alot of possible interpretations :D ).

If unification was an inevitable certainty, then I stand corrected.
However, I think that is an opinion, not a fact. ;)
Well if you look at the massive nationalist movement of the time a unification of some sort (and Bismarck's was also just one "of some sort", as it was incomplete) was inevitable. The Revolution of 1848 showed that pretty well. Furthermore the influence of the new elites (the Capitalists, who were of course in favour of a single country) was steadily growing which would at some point have resulted in a loss of power for the many local rulers. A more succesful revolution against the obsolete rule of nobility would have followed at some point. Bismarck's "unification" delayed that for 47 years and a major war.
In my opinion (not just mine, but this is indeed just an opinion) it was the root of all that followed. The fatal Prussian mindset of obedience spread throughout the country, resulting in the two wars and much more.

An interesting way of looking at it.

Along those lines, if Germany had not unified, and remained a loose collection of states, do you think the World Wars would have been avoided?

Would the other large European powers have attacked the smaller German states, for their own gain?

@joe- the world wars would have happened, but the enemy would have been called Austria...

Originally posted by joespaniel
Along those lines, if Germany had not unified, and remained a loose collection of states, do you think the World Wars would have been avoided?
Well that is a complicated question of course, first of all I think that, as I said in my last post, that evetually there would have been a unification of some (if not all) states.
Now the World Wars, in particular the first, with the second being it's result in a way, were of course not only caused by Germany, but Germany took a role in it that was far too important to make it possible without the country in the form we know it.
But an absence of an imperialist Germany wouldn't have meant an absence of Imperialism per se. Most likely there would eventually have been other wars between countries and alliances. I think it's too hard to tell who would have been against whom, it would also depend on what way the German states would organize themselves.
Bhargash's idea of an Austrian led Germany is one possibility, an Anglo-French conflict over colonies is another. What would have happened to Austria-Hungary?

So to conclude, I think world history would have been changed so dramatically that the World Wars as we knew them would certainly have been prevented, but not wars in general.
An equivalent (or several smaller ones) to WW1 is very likely, with WW2 and it's murderous outcome that's a different thing because it was very much connected to Germany's history as it really happened.
Would the other large European powers have attacked the smaller German states, for their own gain?
Well that depends first of all on why Bismarck would have failed. If the 1870/71 war against France would not have been successful, there would already have been such a situation.
If he would have failed in 1866 Austria could have taken Prussia's role in uniting the country.
In any way I think an attack by a foreign power would have finally united the German states. After all the attack by Napoleon was the main reason for the increase of the (united) German nationalism amoung the people.
Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
@joe- the world wars would have happened, but the enemy would have been called Austria...
Nah, or was it called Prussia in reality? ;)

A Germany united by Austria would still have been Germany.

Old Clovis still hasn't got a vote :cry:

Voted for Marx.
I see that were refering to Germans by a social group, not as a geographical group.

Einstein. He revolutionized modern physics. He paved the way for countless discoveries in science, and was a nice blend of science and politics.

Old Clovis still hasn't got a vote - Well, he was just Franco-Germanic king, and his name is silly... Charlemagne, Otto or Arminius (Herman) should have the votes... Dare I say Gerhard Schröder... He is such a nice guy :)

Cimbri the Goth-Germanic warrior¨

'Tis a difficult question to answer. Out of those on the poll, i really am a big fan of Frederick II Hohenstaufen. You know, not only did he rule the HRE, but he also wrote a book on ornithology that was the standard work on the subject for centuries. The Arabs loved him, and he was without a shadow of a doubt the most cultured European ruler of the middle ages - probably of all time. He could speak 9 languages, and at his court in southern Italy he had numerous works translated from Arabic and Greek. It is no coincidence that his rule preceded chronologically the Renaissance, which came about in the same country.
I'd also go for Charlemagne and Luther. Marx and Einstein still need time; we simply haven't been given full time to judge their long-term importance.

dp :eek:

Einstein than Bismark

No one can really argue against either.

WTH

I go with Luther.

J

It all depends who you call German. Theodoric and Clovis were Franks, that is the Germanic tribe that gave its name to France. Clovis is the first official king of France ! Charlemagne was as much French or Dutch as German. Einstein was Swiss-Jewish, later naturalised American, Mozart was Austrian, Beethoven half Dutch/Belgian, half Austrian, but born in Germany. Hitler himself was born Austrian.

I gave my votes to the geniuses : Mozart, Beethoven and Goethe (+ Charlemagne for the military/political).:king:

Originally posted by onejayhawk
WTH

I go with Luther.

J
I don't go with him for one reason.

Originally posted by Julien
It all depends who you call German. Theodoric and Clovis were Franks, that is the Germanic tribe that gave its name to France. Clovis is the first official king of France ! Charlemagne was as much French or Dutch as German. Einstein was Swiss-Jewish, later naturalised American, Mozart was Austrian, Beethoven half Dutch/Belgian, half Austrian, but born in Germany. Hitler himself was born Austrian.

I gave my votes to the geniuses : Mozart, Beethoven and Goethe (+ Charlemagne for the military/political).:king:

Theodoric was a Goth. Clovis was not really the first king of France, he was a king of Frankia. France doesn't come about till centuries later. One thing you can be sure about is that neither Clovis nor Charles the Great were Frenchmen, as far as we know they could not speak Old French fluently. They were the descendents of Germanic warlords who took over Gaul from the Romans in addition to territories in Germania. But calling them Germans is for historical purposes only; the historical German is always defined in ethnic terms because the current German state did not come about until a decade ago.
The Frankish language was comprehensible to speakers of Old English, and so they were as much English as they are German or Dutch, and closer to all of these than the French (in terms of ethnicity). But they were really none of these things, because they were Franks!

Walkover vctory for Gutenburg. I mean, yeah sure Bismarck, Otto, Hitler etc. were improtant, but what kind of world would we have lived in without printing?

Originally posted by calgacus

Theodoric was a Goth. Clovis was not really the first king of France, he was a king of Frankia. France doesn't come about till centuries later. One thing you can be sure about is that neither Clovis nor Charles the Great were Frenchmen, as far as we know they could not speak Old French fluently. They were the descendents of Germanic warlords who took over Gaul from the Romans in addition to territories in Germania. But calling them Germans is for historical purposes only; the historical German is always defined in ethnic terms because the current German state did not come about until a decade ago.
The Frankish language was comprehensible to speakers of Old English, and so they were as much English as they are German or Dutch, and closer to all of these than the French (in terms of ethnicity). But they were really none of these things, because they were Franks!

Well, French people learn at school that their first king was Clovis. It's normal that he couldn't speak old French because French didn't exist at that time. People still spoke a regional variety of Latin, and the French nobility continued to speak (exclusively) Latin until late into the Middle Ages. At one time they had to switch to French because they couldn't communicate with the ordinary people anymore. Then there was a period when they spoke both Latin and French and it lasted until as far as the 16th century for some people. Then French was the only language for everybody, except for masses that were still in Latin until about 50 years ago. So it's quite normal that Clovis and Charlemagne didn't speak French. Frederic II of Prussia, one of the greatest German politicians ever, didn't speak a word of German (ironically, he was raised in French). Kings and their nobility have always been exceptions. The court of England spoke only French since William the conqueror (who couldn't speak "middle English", as it was at that time) to somewhere around the 14th century, after Jeanne d'Arc booted them out of France.

I guess that if French consider Clovis as their first king, that hardly make him a German... "Charlemagne"'s name in English is also French (from Latin "Carolus Magnus"), but German call gim "Karl der Grosse". Why shall we call him by his French name if he more German than French ?

Originally posted by mordhiem
Walkover vctory for Gutenburg. I mean, yeah sure Bismarck, Otto, Hitler etc. were improtant, but what kind of world would we have lived in without printing?

I thought that Chinese invented printing long before Gutenberg (who was the first one in Europe, though).

Bismarck was most important "German", but Frederick the Great saved Prussia from conquest.

My vote went to Luther, though because he revolutionized the world as we know it.

Originally posted by Julien


Well, French people learn at school that their first king was Clovis. It's normal that he couldn't speak old French because French didn't exist at that time. People still spoke a regional variety of Latin, and the French nobility continued to speak (exclusively) Latin until late into the Middle Ages. At one time they had to switch to French because they couldn't communicate with the ordinary people anymore. Then there was a period when they spoke both Latin and French and it lasted until as far as the 16th century for some people. Then French was the only language for everybody, except for masses that were still in Latin until about 50 years ago. So it's quite normal that Clovis and Charlemagne didn't speak French. Frederic II of Prussia, one of the greatest German politicians ever, didn't speak a word of German (ironically, he was raised in French). Kings and their nobility have always been exceptions. The court of England spoke only French since William the conqueror (who couldn't speak "middle English", as it was at that time) to somewhere around the 14th century, after Jeanne d'Arc booted them out of France.

I guess that if French consider Clovis as their first king, that hardly make him a German... "Charlemagne"'s name in English is also French (from Latin "Carolus Magnus"), but German call gim "Karl der Grosse". Why shall we call him by his French name if he more German than French ?

There are quite a few confusions in your post. Firstly, the Frankish nobility did not usually speak Latin until the growth of universities and cathedral schools in the Late Middle Ages. In Einhard's life of Charlemagne, Charlemagne is praised for attempting to learn Latin later in life even though he could only in the end listen to it. The "nobility" who spoke Latin were Churchmen like Gregory of Tours, as they had to learn it to understand the Vulgate. The language of Clovis, Charles the Great and the Frankish secular aristocracy until at least the 9th century is Frankish. This is a fact. When Charles the Great renames the months, to quote Einhard,

"he gave the months of the year suitable titles in his own tongue. Before his time the Franks had known some of these by Latin names and others by barbarian ones....he called January Wintarmanoth, February Hornung, March Lentzinmanoth, April Ostarmanoth, May Winnemanoth, June Brachmanoth, July Heuuimanoth, August Aranmanoth, September Witumanoth, October Windumemanoth, November Herbistmanoth and December he called Heilagmanoth".

So Charlemagne was a patriotic Germanic warlord, as was Clovis. You seem to forget that what we now call France, was originally the Celtic Roman province of Gaul taken over by the Germanic Franks, who are successful at dominating Gaul until after Charlemagne. The difference between Charles the Great and Frederick II is that the latter was an exception whereas Charlemagne was the rule among the nobility and was brought up at home!

Secondly, as to the populace, they do not form the numbers they do later in the 19th century, and we do not know what languages they spoke for sure until a long time after the Treaty of Verdun. The regional dialect of Latin was dismissed as Vulgar Latin and was the predecessor of Old French. The reality is that there were probably as many of these as there were Gauls, Bretons and Germanics among the populace of Gaul until Charlemagne. To Gaul call pre-Verdun Gaul French is highly anachronistic and inaccurate.

Thirdly, I feel loath to comment on your last point. Are you seriously suggesting that because the French public had been misled about history, we should then divorce Charlemagne and Clovis from their true ethnic group?!? The fact that we tend to call Charles the Great Charlemagne is for the same reason King Arthur was called king of England: historical inaccuracy. Unluckily, the Middle Ages were hardly studied at all until the 20th century. It is fortunate that we now know more:) .

Originally posted by calgacus

Thirdly, I feel loath to comment on your last point. Are you seriously suggesting that because the French public had been misled about history, we should then divorce Charlemagne and Clovis from their true ethnic group ?!? The fact that we tend to call Charles the Great Charlemagne is for the same reason King Arthur was called king of England: historical inaccuracy. Unluckily, the Middle Ages were hardly studied at all until the 20th century. It is fortunate that we now know more:) .

What you seem to forget is that (Northern) French people ARE mostly GERMANIC. Justly because of the Franks, Burgunds and other Germanic tribes that invaded France and SETTLE there. In Northern and Easterrn France and French speaking Belgium, at least half of the people fit the desciption of Germanic type : tall, blond with blue eyes. I fit it so well (I am originally a French speaking Belgian, though I don't consider myself Belgian anymore), that when I go to Germany, everybody think I am German, while lots of German don't look typically German and could be mistaken for French (especially in the South West), Polish (in Eastern Germany) or else. Everybody in my family hs got fair hair, blue eyes and could be mistaken for German, Dutch, or Scandinavian. I've met lots of Swedish or Danish abroad (in places like Spain or Australia) who were convinced I was from there country when they saw me. So I am really shocked when you say that we should "divorce Charlemagne and Clovis from their true ethnic group". (furthermore, I used to live nearer from Aachen, Charlemagne's capital, than 90% of the Germans do).

South French are more dominantly Latin or assimilate in origin (brown eyes, dark hair and different facial traits). But I assure you that the greater part of French of old stock in the North (including Paris) and East are as Germanic as Germans. On the other hand, French are culturally Latin, which is an evidence, an I never contested that. Only Bretons can be truly considered of Celtic stock among French (they still speak Breton, which nearest cousin is Welsh and, thouh they have blue eyes like all Celtics, their features are quite different from the rest, which looks much more Germanic). Normands French are overwhelmingly blond, certainly because Danish Vikings settled there.

Northern French people are not really Germanic any more, they are French, since it is in northern France that "Frenchness" was defined. It's bad history to say that the northern French are Germanic because of physical appearances. That racial type is common to the whole north-european plain, from northern France and lowland England to the Ural Mountains in Russia...it is nothing to do with Germanicness, which is cultural and linguistic, not racial.

Your are right to say from England anf Northern France eastward, but I'd stop somewhere in Poland or even in East Germany for most of the people of German origin moved back to Germany when Poland was enlarged after WWI and II. Baltic and Russian look completely different. I've had a Latvian girlfriend and have been to Latvia. I have a few Russian friend (from St Petersburg) and I can tell very clearly the difference, even though they are all blond with blue eyes.

What's more "French" is just an evolution of "Frank". I have lived in England, France, Belgium and Germany (also Eastern, in Berlin). I can usually tell the difference between those people by the facial expression (emotion linked to the mentality and language), but not just on the physical features, while these are very different for Baltic and Russian people.

Most Poles have black hair (sometimes blue eyes), but their physical appearance is too different from Germanic people to be mistaken (except for a few). It's also relatively easy to tell a North German from a Bavarian (more reddish hair and beer belly type) or Rhinelander. The latter look much more like Belgian or North French, while people from Niedersachsen look more like Dutch and East Germans are usually shorter with rounder features.

The most difficult to tell are English because they are so mixed ethnically. But it's also easy to find out an English Indian among real Indian, not by physical differences, but by the facial expression due to the mentality, education, etc. So I can recognise an English from their facial expression or behaviour.

The same happen with French, and that's probably what you mean. Their facial expression can be so characteristic that it's almost written 'I am French' on their forehead. Nevertheless, this is as true for blond people with blue eyes as for dark haired people with brow eyes. Even for people of immigrants families after a few generations (without mixing blood), once the children have been born and raised in France and exclusively in French. I know a few French people whose grand-parents were Germans (so have a German name), but that you'd call "typically French" from their facial expression (they also don't speak German at all). So ethincally, they are 100% German, but the culture and metailty makes the difference in facial expression, though not in physical traits of course.

How did you see it ?

Well, I voted for Gutenberg, coz without him there wouldn't have been any Enlightenment Age, or Reformation.

Also, I saw on one of the first pages a discussion of what is German\Deutsch\Germanic, and I would like to add that the Danes, the swedes, the Norweigans and most of Europe (Benelux, and englan as well) are Germanic peoples. But they didn' live in the german area(modern day Germany and Austria).

Anyway, if we are talking about the Germanic ethny, then Einstein was Jewish, which is not Germanic.

Martin Luther and Karl Marx.

Your blurring the issues by making race a factor. The issue here is the most important German of all time, and Parsifal's poll is quite acceptable. Charles the Great and Clovis were Germanic warlords, Napoleon or Louis XIV were not. The former were as "French" as Vercingetoric and as "Germanic" as Arminius or Frederic Barbarossa. Race doesn't come into it. The nordic type has no proven intrinsic connection with Germanicness. The Nordic type seems to have originated in a larger version of what the medieval Scandinavians called the Finnmark of the same origin as the Cro-Magnons. The people of southern Germany can be less "racially Germanic" than certain parts of northern Russia or Finland. There is no natural connection betyween the Nordic type and Germanic languages. The Guanche, the aboriginal inhabitants of the Canary Isles, were reported as being of universally nordic appearance. What have they got to do with Germanicness?

Originally posted by calgacus
Charles the Great and Clovis were Germanic warlords, Napoleon or Louis XIV were not. The former were as "French" as Vercingetoric and as "Germanic" as Arminius or Frederic Barbarossa.

I agree that Napoleon wasn't Germanic at all. He was Corsican, so Mediteranean and what is more, from an island that had resisted Germanic and Viking invasions.

I disagree completely for Louis XIV who descended from the Frank dynasty. Of course, he wasn't of pure Frankish blood, but nobody was anymore at that time. More importantly, all European dynasties intermarried together, which means that whatever the country they rule, they were perfect Europeans. That is also true for most German emperors or kings (maybe from about the 15th century).

When you say that Vercingetorix was as "French" as the 2 others, you are making an enormous anachronism and ethnical confusion. Vercingetorix was a Celt and he was Gaul, not French (even French people would never call him a Frenchman). At the time he lived, Gaul was still almost exclusively Celtic. Then came the Romans and people from the whole empire came and sometimes settled there. After, the Germanic tribes made several incursion before settling there for good. The same happened in England with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (instead Franks and Burgunds). They fought the local Celtic tribes and pushed them to Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland. It seems that the Anglo-saxons didn't mix with the Celts. They either killed them or pushed them out of England. As a result, England was totally Germanic from the 6th century till at least the 11th century Normand invasion (but Normands were already half-Germanic anyway). Nobody would call English "Celtic" nowadays. But the same happened in orthern and Eastern France. Celts were pushed Westwards, to be eventually isolated to little Britany. There has possibly be more intermarriage between Franks and Celts than between Anglo-saxons and Celts. I think it happened later, because only about half of France had been "Germanised". When the country became united again, people began to mix more freely, which is why you can find all kind of French people nowadays, Germanic, Celtic, Provencal, Catalan, Basque... and mixed. But the North-South or regional ethnical differences are still very clear in you travel around France.

Politically, Karl Marx, with Bismarck coming a close second.

Artistically and culturally, I would say Beethoven. Many people consider his Ninth Symphony to be the finest piece of music ever composed.

Originally posted by Julien


I agree that Napoleon wasn't Germanic at all. He was Corsican, so Mediteranean and what is more, from an island that had resisted Germanic and Viking invasions.

I disagree completely for Louis XIV who descended from the Frank dynasty. Of course, he wasn't of pure Frankish blood, but nobody was anymore at that time. More importantly, all European dynasties intermarried together, which means that whatever the country they rule, they were perfect Europeans. That is also true for most German emperors or kings (maybe from about the 15th century).

When you say that Vercingetorix was as "French" as the 2 others, you are making an enormous anachronism and ethnical confusion. Vercingetorix was a Celt and he was Gaul, not French (even French people would never call him a Frenchman). At the time he lived, Gaul was still almost exclusively Celtic. Then came the Romans and people from the whole empire came and sometimes settled there. After, the Germanic tribes made several incursion before settling there for good. The same happened in England with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (instead Franks and Burgunds). They fought the local Celtic tribes and pushed them to Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland. It seems that the Anglo-saxons didn't mix with the Celts. They either killed them or pushed them out of England. As a result, England was totally Germanic from the 6th century till at least the 11th century Normand invasion (but Normands were already half-Germanic anyway). Nobody would call English "Celtic" nowadays. But the same happened in orthern and Eastern France. Celts were pushed Westwards, to be eventually isolated to little Britany. There has possibly be more intermarriage between Franks and Celts than between Anglo-saxons and Celts. I think it happened later, because only about half of France had been "Germanised". When the country became united again, people began to mix more freely, which is why you can find all kind of French people nowadays, Germanic, Celtic, Provencal, Catalan, Basque... and mixed. But the North-South or regional ethnical differences are still very clear in you travel around France.

Sorry, you have made a mistake in your interpretation of what I have written. Maybe it is because English is not your first language, yes? when I said Charles the Great and Clovis were Germanic warlords, Napoleon or Louis XIV were not. The former were as "French" as Vercingetoric and as "Germanic" as Arminius or Frederic Barbarossa. I meant that they were not French or rather, that they were as French as Vercingetorix - i.e. just as unfrench. Do you understand now?

Originally posted by calgacus


Sorry, you have made a mistake in your interpretation of what I have written. Maybe it is because English is not your first language, yes? when I said I meant that they were not French or rather, that they were as French as Vercingetorix - i.e. just as unfrench. Do you understand now?

BTW, in case there is another misunderstanding, the tone of the above post is intented to be friendly.

I admit I didn't understand what you meant because I don't know who is Arminius (I've checked it, he seems to have been a Protestant theologian ? Anyway, I am not Christian) and because I am not sure about Frederic Barbarossa's origins. Maybe I just read too fast because I was in a hurry. So it seems we are on the same frequence now.

Originally posted by Julien
I admit I didn't understand what you meant because I don't know who is Arminius (I've checked it, he seems to have been a Protestant theologian ? Anyway, I am not Christian) and because I am not sure about Frederic Barbarossa's origins. Maybe I just read too fast because I was in a hurry. So it seems we are on the same frequence now.

Arminius (Hermann???) was a Germanic hero who fought the classical Romans and Frederick Barbarossa was a 12th century (german speaking) German (Holy Roman)Emperor.

It's pretty perverse that almost double the no. of people who think Charlemagne was the greatest German of all time think Hitler was''''''''!?!

Originally posted by Parsifal
It's pretty perverse that almost double the no. of people who think Charlemagne was the greatest German of all time think Hitler was''''''''!?!

Well, you wouldn't be too surprised if you would come here more often. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Panda


Well, you wouldn't be too surprised if you would come here more often. :rolleyes:

:confused:

I have know idea what you mean :rolleyes:

I always considered Charlemagne french.

Well, I voted Hitler.


Let the romantics vote Luther, Marx and that Frankish dude.

And how would Hitler have felt if he had seen this poll, with Karl Marx and Albert Einstein topping the list of greatest German of all time, when they were indeed Jewish. Israeli would think of them as Jewish rather than German. It's a bit like if the greatest Chinese of all time was the Mongol Khubilai Khan or the Greatest Korean of all time " was Guus Hiddink (the Korean team's coach during the world cup, who was offered an island and Korean nationality for bringing the team to semi-final).

The logic of some of you posters is way off. Being a Jew was not a nationality until the creation of Israel. There was no Israel in the time of Karl Marx and (virtually all of the time of) Einstein. They were German-Jews at most. There is no parallel whatsoever between Guus Hiddink and Karl Marx.

Why not?There was no German state when Marx wrote "Das Kapital" or no Italian state during Michealangelo or no Polish state during Marie Curie.Does this make them any less Polish,Italian or German?Of course not.The "status" of Jews is very difficult to describe,they are both a religion and a nationality,only without a state for 2700 years.That's the important question,if they were German Jews of Jewish Germans.It all depends on the point of view.

Ridiculous poll, since a lot of the people were not even German. Hitler, Wittgenstein and Mozart (hope I didn't miss any, since it doesn't show the poll in the "post reply" screen.)

How I know this? I am an Austrian. Propaganda is at a low level in our history classes, so I take it as a fact, that those three people were Austrians. If you can't distiguish between those two countries, how come you did not put Freud or Hayden, Bertha von Suttner or Schumpeter on the list?

It is preposterous and insulting to put Hitler in this list, not only because of his original nationality (might be acceptable, since he spent a lot of time in Berlin) but because he destroyed Germany Austria and half of Europe for years, killed millions of people in the most devastating way.

If post things like this on purpose, you are very sick in your mind. It is as if I ask you, if you think that Charles Manson was a great American and did a lot of good for his country by killing off his fellow countrymen.

Originally posted by Kennelly
Why not?There was no German state when Marx wrote "Das Kapital" or no Italian state during Michealangelo or no Polish state during Marie Curie.Does this make them any less Polish,Italian or German?Of course not.The "status" of Jews is very difficult to describe,they are both a religion and a nationality,only without a state for 2700 years.That's the important question,if they were German Jews of Jewish Germans.It all depends on the point of view.

But Jews like Marx were not an ethnic group with any prospect of a state, they were German and Jewish just like Beethoven was German and Christian. You should try a little harder not to confuse nationality and religion! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by test_specimen
Ridiculous poll, since a lot of the people were not even German. Hitler, Wittgenstein and Mozart (hope I didn't miss any, since it doesn't show the poll in the "post reply" screen.)

How I know this? I am an Austrian. Propaganda is at a low level in our history classes, so I take it as a fact, that those three people were Austrians. If you can't distiguish between those two countries, how come you did not put Freud or Hayden, Bertha von Suttner or Schumpeter on the list?

It is preposterous and insulting to put Hitler in this list, not only because of his original nationality (might be acceptable, since he spent a lot of time in Berlin) but because he destroyed Germany Austria and half of Europe for years, killed millions of people in the most devastating way.

If post things like this on purpose, you are very sick in your mind. It is as if I ask you, if you think that Charles Manson was a great American and did a lot of good for his country by killing off his fellow countrymen.

1. No-one in the poll was actually from Germany, since it was only created in the early 90s. All are German by ethnic and cultural designation. If you choose to define Germany by geography, which I would not do, consult the boundaries of the Kingdom of Germany in the HRE, which more or less define Germany geographically from the early 900s to 1945, and includes Austria. You are repeating the same misconception which has been dealt with earlier in this thread.

2. Hayden and the like are not there because the limit to the no. of options is 20, not infinity. Other covers those not there.

3. You may think that immoral actions should exclude people from this kind of poll. I, on the other hand, believe people are free to vote for whoever they want, and I was aware that many would regard Hitler as important enough to go into this poll. You are free to not vote for him if you choose, but you do not possess the powers of a dictator, so grow up and do not try to act like one! It is your self-righteous and patronizing post which is "preposterous and insulting".

Karl Marx want Communism wouldend have a History with out him

Originally posted by Parsifal


1. No-one in the poll was actually from Germany, since it was only created in the early 90s. All are German by ethnic and cultural designation. If you choose to define Germany by geography, which I would not do, consult the boundaries of the Kingdom of Germany in the HRE, which more or less define Germany geographically from the early 900s to 1945, and includes Austria. You are repeating the same misconception which has been dealt with earlier in this thread.

2. Hayden and the like are not there because the limit to the no. of options is 20, not infinity. Other covers those not there.

3. You may think that immoral actions should exclude people from this kind of poll. I, on the other hand, believe people are free to vote for whoever they want, and I was aware that many would regard Hitler as important enough to go into this poll. You are free to not vote for him if you choose, but you do not possess the powers of a dictator, so grow up and do not try to act like one! It is your self-righteous and patronizing post which is "preposterous and insulting".

The early 90s? LOL.


You know Hungary etc were also part of Austria at some time. Does that make them German? You got something very mixed up there. Austria was mentioned first about 999 AD and except for the facts, that it was part of the Holy Roman Empire and leader in the Deutsche Bund and Habsburgers were crowned German Kings, a souvereign country.

As for ethnic groups: the same argument was used for the Grossdeutsche idea in the 30s and before. Used mostly by nazis to prove a distinction from minorities in Austria. Led partly to the high approval rate of the Anschluss. If an Austrian today says, that he feels he is German, you expect him to utter a racist statement against blacks or antisemitic statement in the next sentence.

Switzerland speaks also the same language. Are they also German because of this? I don't think so.

Wittgenstein fled Austria when the Nazis took over, but lived at a time when Austria was either part of Nazi-Germany or a souvereign country. Saying he was a German is simply false. Mozart might be called German because Salzburg was an Erzbistum (don't know the English word for this), but still he is considered Austrian by most.

go check: http://www.euratlas.com/time2.htm
shows what europe looked like from 1100 to 2000.


ad 3.) considering Hitler a great personality speaks for itself. And saying that a person like that could be one of a countries greatest achievments is insulting.

Originally posted by test_specimen


The early 90s? LOL.

You know Hungary etc were also part of Austria at some time. Does that make them German? You got something very mixed up there. Austria was mentioned first about 999 AD and except for the facts, that it was part of the Holy Roman Empire and leader in the Deutsche Bund and Habsburgers were crowned German Kings, a souvereign country.

As for ethnic groups: the same argument was used for the Grossdeutsche idea in the 30s and before. Used mostly by nazis to prove a distinction from minorities in Austria. Led partly to the high approval rate of the Anschluss. If an Austrian today says, that he feels he is German, you expect him to utter a racist statement against blacks or antisemitic statement in the next sentence.

Switzerland speaks also the same language. Are they also German because of this? I don't think so.

Wittgenstein fled Austria when the Nazis took over, but lived at a time when Austria was either part of Nazi-Germany or a souvereign country. Saying he was a German is simply false. Mozart might be called German because Salzburg was an Erzbistum (don't know the English word for this), but still he is considered Austrian by most.

go check: http://www.euratlas.com/time2.htm
shows what europe looked like from 1100 to 2000.


ad 3.) considering Hitler a great personality speaks for itself. And saying that a person like that could be one of a countries greatest achievments is insulting.

The early 90s? LOL :lol:

Hungary was not part of Austria; it was part of the domains of the Habsburg dynasty!

I have very little interest in current Austrian politics, but I know that in England and France patriotism and racism are similarly confused. But I fail to see your point. The high Anschluss vote happened for the same reason that the first parliament of the Austrian Republic voted similarly after World War I. Austria was originally a March of Bavaria and became a Duchy because Frederick Barbarossa wished to promote his ally Henry Jasomirgott and reduce the power of his Welf enemies. Austria was acquired by the Habsburgs, along with other territories. Austria/Habsburgia was always a member of the HRE and then the German Confederation (of which it was President). By the time of the growth of German nationalism, the territories of the Habsburgs included so many non-Germans that German nationalists had to consider a united Germany without Austria (Kleindeutschland), while many could only accept a fully united Germany (Grossdeutschland). Austrian dominions were large and heterogeneous, while Habsburg power was prestigious and concentrated in its German lands. This was no problem for a decentralized state like the German Confederation, but meant Austria had to be excluded from the "united Germany" of 1866-71. Once Austria-Hungary was dissolved in 1918 and the Austrian Republic was formed from the German heartland of the old Empire, it was natural that Austria would become part of Germany. However, the allies wished to keep Germany weak, and when the new Austrian parliament voted to join Germany after the war, the allies blocked it. They banned Anschluss in the Paris peace treaties. Hitler achieved it with no bloodshed and with international acknowledgement. But this was reversed after 1945, and Anschluss was again banned.
The association of Anschluss with the Nazis has meant that it is no longer a politically correct issue in modern Austria, but it does not mean that Austrians are not Germans. The reasons for Austrian exclusion from Germany are the rather meaningless grounds of the international situation of the later 19th century and the foreign policy goals of the Allied powers in the 20th, rather than nationality. Austria is regarded as unambiguously German even by Austrians (including Mozart I might add) until the period 1866-71, after which there emerged a political contrast. But until 1945, Austrians were virtually always thought of as Germans. Nazi guilt and foreign interference may have temporarily changed that in Austria, but that is not a good enough reason for saying that people born before this period in modern Austrian territory are not Germans! Modern Austria is a German state which is not part of the Federal Republic of Germany, but on historical grounds, it has just as much right to be German as Bavaria or Brandenburg.

As for excluding Hitler from the poll, once again, you don’t have to vote for him :rolleyes:

I don't consider myself German, just because this is my first language. And nor for reasons of political correctness. This is like saying US-Americans are English or Mexicans are Spanish. Same language does not make me a German. Just German speaking.

If you mean unified Germany, yes, it exists since the early 90s. But BRD and DDR also were German coutries (Unlike Austria).

And during monarchy, there were large non-German speaking minorities in Vienna. Prague was even the capital of Habsburg empire for some time, and clearly not German.

Originally posted by test_specimen
I don't consider myself German, just because this is my first language. And nor for reasons of political correctness. This is like saying US-Americans are English or Mexicans are Spanish. Same language does not make me a German. Just German speaking.

If you mean unified Germany, yes, it exists since the early 90s. But BRD and DDR also were German coutries (Unlike Austria).

And during monarchy, there were large non-German speaking minorities in Vienna. Prague was even the capital of Habsburg empire for some time, and clearly not German.

You're effectively repeating what you've already said, without dealing with my arguments.

Originally posted by Julien
I can tell very clearly the difference, ... I can usually tell the difference between those people by the facial expression (emotion linked to the mentality and language), but not just on the physical features,
...
but the culture and metailty makes the difference in facial expression, though not in physical traits of course.

How did you see it ?

But you don't rely on chemical enhancers to widen your perception?


To the topic:

Luther. The weakening of the Pope/Vatican opened up for a humanist/scientific revolution. All those scientists and philosophers would have been burned without reformation.

Gutenbenberg: the Chines did have printing also, bt not with removeable letters. Gutenberg made it all possible: spreading word of the new ideas.

Einstein: (no comment needed)

From a musicans point of view I'd like to add

J.S.Bach:
Inventor and implementator of the tempered tuning. All anglo-european music that we hear nowadays uses his scales. Music would not sound as it does without him.

I do not want to argue about historical fact, which you listed quite well, and I also already menitoned Austrian participation in some combinations of German treaties.

It is also true, that a lot of people considered themselves Germans in the kuk monarchy, but they always considered themselves as "German Austrians". The distinction is, as I said, made by language, and not nationality. A lot of people in Austria have names that are of Hungarian or Czech origin, and they spoke those languages for quite some time. This made the distinction for some people important and they called themselves "Germans" as opposed to eg "Böhmen".

Kafka was born in Prague, wrote in German and died in Austria. Which nationality would you give him? Is he German? Austrian (according to your argumentation Austrians do not exist until today)? or Czech? This applies for a lot of people at the time of the kuk monarchy.

About Hitler achieving the Anschluss without bloodshed: I said that a lot of people wanted it, because of the "Grossdeutsche Idee", but a lot of people wanted it, becausebecause the NSDAP, though an illegal organization, was quite strong before the Anschluss. Hitler also did not come unarmed to Austria, which off course was not relevant, since there was no violent opposition anyway. There were several paramilitary organizations at that time in Austria, who fought against each other during the time between WWI and WWII. And 1934 there was a coup d'etat by Schuschnigg. He opposed the German invasion but an ultimatum and the creation of Seys-Inquarts short-lived government sealed Austria's fate.

The reason I did not pick up every argument (?) you made, was because I try not to just list facts, that are clear anyway and I try to keep my posts short, for readability.

Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck!

Originally posted by test_specimen
I do not want to argue about historical fact, which you listed quite well, and I also already menitoned Austrian participation in some combinations of German treaties.

It is also true, that a lot of people considered themselves Germans in the kuk monarchy, but they always considered themselves as "German Austrians". The distinction is, as I said, made by language, and not nationality. A lot of people in Austria have names that are of Hungarian or Czech origin, and they spoke those languages for quite some time. This made the distinction for some people important and they called themselves "Germans" as opposed to eg "Böhmen".

Kafka was born in Prague, wrote in German and died in Austria. Which nationality would you give him? Is he German? Austrian (according to your argumentation Austrians do not exist until today)? or Czech? This applies for a lot of people at the time of the kuk monarchy.

but an ultimatum and the creation
The reason I did not pick up every argument (?) you made, was because I try not to just list facts, that are clear anyway and I try to keep my posts short, for readability.

Well, there were Germans in Budapest and many Hungarians have German names - does that mean that Hungary is not part of Hungary?

Kafka illustrates my argument, not yours. Kafka was a German, that's quite simple. Culture/ethnicity changes only very slowly over history, states change rapidly. Kafka was an ethnic German, born in the modern Czech Republic in what was then the Austrian Empire. It only gets complicated if one introduces the state-based-view-of-nationality that you have.
What you don't understand is that language/culture = nationality. The term in English has been complicated to include possession of citizenship, so that a Kosovo Albanian who has moved to Canada would been a Yugoslav, a Canadian and an "ethnic Albanian." If Yugoslavia ceases to exist, he would not be a Yugoslav; if he gives up Canadian citizenship, he ceases to be Canadian; but he will always be an ethnic Albanian.

Similarly if the Austria ceases to exist and the Federal German Republic ceases to exist, we will still have Germans, but no Austrians. Likewise, before the creation of these states, there were Germans. Before 1866-71, an Austrian-German (INCLUDING Prague Germans) seen himself the way a Prussian-German or a Bavarian-German would see himself: as a German living in Austria, Prussia, or Bavaria. The two were not mutually exclusive!

Whether or not you think modern Austrians should call themselves Germans, there is no historical basis for distinguishing "Austrians" from "Germans" before Bismarck or 1945. Therefore, my inclusion of Austrians in the poll is entirely sensible.

Originally posted by Parsifal


Well, there were Germans in Budapest and many Hungarians have German names - does that mean that Hungary is not part of Hungary?

Kafka illustrates my argument, not yours. Kafka was a German, that's quite simple. Culture/ethnicity changes only very slowly over history, states change rapidly. Kafka was an ethnic German, born in the modern Czech Republic in what was then the Austrian Empire. It only gets complicated if one introduces the state-based-view-of-nationality that you have.
What you don't understand is that language/culture = nationality. The term in English has been complicated to include possession of citizenship, so that a Kosovo Albanian who has moved to Canada would been a Yugoslav, a Canadian and an "ethnic Albanian." If Yugoslavia ceases to exist, he would not be a Yugoslav; if he gives up Canadian citizenship, he ceases to be Canadian; but he will always be an ethnic Albanian.

Similarly if the Austria ceases to exist and the Federal German Republic ceases to exist, we will still have Germans, but no Austrians. Likewise, before the creation of these states, there were Germans. Before 1866-71, an Austrian-German (INCLUDING Prague Germans) seen himself the way a Prussian-German or a Bavarian-German would see himself: as a German living in Austria, Prussia, or Bavaria. The two were not mutually exclusive!

Whether or not you think modern Austrians should call themselves Germans, there is no historical basis for distinguishing "Austrians" from "Germans" before Bismarck or 1945. Therefore, my inclusion of Austrians in the poll is entirely sensible.

Just because he is German speaking, this does not make Kafka a German. I would consider him Austrian, because he was born in a part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Ask a German, and he will also tell you, that people like Mozart, Kafka, Wittgenstein are Austrian. You mentioned the basis for a distinction yourself: the moment Austria became a Duchy (about 998, or 999). It could be considered as a German Duchy for some time, but in the end it became an in-dependend country.

I just want to repeat, since you did not really answer this: are the US British? is Mexico Spanish? is Portugal Spanish?

Perhaps we just have a very different definition of the term "nationality". My passport says, I am Austrian. I would consider myself Austrian and European, in that order. Not German.

I think the reason US-Americans have a hard time grasping this concept, is that there is no proper word for categorizing them (an American can come from Mexico or from Brazil just as from the United states).

This categorization into different types of nation and race led to some of the worst events of the last century. Maybe this is the reason why most Austrians refuse to be put into those categories. Remember that Albanians were persecuted, because they were believed to belong to this ethnic group, which does not distinguish itself in territory but in some slight language difference. It is not unlikely that they were distinguished simply by what their identity card said.

And unlike Julien said, I do not think, that you can distinguish people by what their faces look like.

Originally posted by test_specimen


Just because he is German speaking, this does not make Kafka a German. I would consider him Austrian, because he was born in a part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Ask a German, and he will also tell you, that people like Mozart, Kafka, Wittgenstein are Austrian. You mentioned the basis for a distinction yourself: the moment Austria became a Duchy (about 998, or 999). It could be considered as a German Duchy for some time, but in the end it became an in-dependend country.

I just want to repeat, since you did not really answer this: are the US British? is Mexico Spanish? is Portugal Spanish?



Well, politically speaking, Austria had the same status as German from its foundation until 1806, and from 1815 until 1866 and from 1938 to 1945. Austria's status as politically distinct from Germany thus totals 140 years since the year 1000, hardly a credible basis for dismissing the linguistic and cultural continuity.

I don't think you have actually followed my arguments. I've been saying that Austria and Germany are not mutually exclusive. I've said enough, you now have to show that they are not!

Of course the USA is not British, since British only has or ever had 3 meanings:

1) someone from the island of Britain or the British Isles
2) (history) someone speaking some form of Old Welsh
3) a citizen of the UK

someone from the USA fulfils none of these criteria. Mexico is not Spanish since the native element is so strong that its links with Spain are merely linguistic, and not even that close either.
Portugal is slightly different, the first ruler of Portugal was a Burgundian who was given his lands by the King of Castille. "Spain" is also the name given to all Iberia before the formation of Spain from the Kingdoms of Aragon and Castile. It was only accidental that Portugal didn't join. Moreover, the Portuguese language is as close to Castilian Spanish as Catalan is, and so is as Spanish as Catalonia.
However, Portugal and Spain have been separate countries for half a millenium and have rendered numerous differences of national tradition. The case is ambiguous. So much so that I wouldn't say the Portuguese were Spanish.

The case of Austria-Germany is not so ambiguous because Austria status as distinct to Germany is so recent and short that no such arguments can apply. There are no, or few, important cultural differences between "Germany" as a whole and Austria and the border between the two states is arbitrary. There are no corresponding natural differences.

Test Specimen, if I were Austrian I would take offence at been told I wasn't German. The "Germans" of the Bundesrepublik have no right to monopolize German-ness. German culture goes back in time as far as the Romans or beforein continuity. Nazi guilt may have de-emphasized this, but it remains true. Are the Austrians so distinctive, is the political difference since the war so important, that Austria has broken off from this?
You seem intelligent, I seriously doubt that you will say yes to this.

PS, Austria became a duchy is 1156.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/austria.htm

Similarly if the Austria ceases to exist and the Federal German Republic ceases to exist, we will still have Germans, but no Austrians. Likewise, before the creation of these states, there were Germans. Before 1866-71, an Austrian-German (INCLUDING Prague Germans) seen himself the way a Prussian-German or a Bavarian-German would see himself: as a German living in Austria, Prussia, or Bavaria. The two were not mutually exclusive!

I totally agree with this comment. There is no point looking at political entities such as the HRE or modern Germany to define Germanness. Most Germans nowadays will tell you they are first from their region (Bavarian, Rheinlander, Saxons, etc), then European (or vice-versa), but don't really feel German.

Test-specimen is actually implying is Germanness when he is saying :

My passport says, I am Austrian. I would consider myself Austrian and European, in that order. Not German.

I would like to add that it's not only true of Germans, but also Spanish, Italians and some other too. We could go as far as saying that Portuguese and Spanish are part of the same Hispanic culture. Some Spanish consider Portugal as a Spanish region. Portuguese don't like it because they like their indepedance like everyone else. However, Spain is far from homogenous. Catalans or Basques feel Catalan or Basque, more than they feel Spanish. It works to a lesser extend to Galician, Valencian or even Anadlucian too. If there were no Spanish state, there would be several distinctive sub-cultural groups (Basques are apart, but still share a common culture). All in all, we could as well say that all regions of Spain and Portugal are one Hispanic entity, as we could say that all German regions as different as Niedersachsen or Brandenburg are from Bavaria or Austria.

The argument of the language is akward. North German dialcets are closer to Dutch than to South German and Austrian dialects. It's only since the German reunification of 1870 that children are taught a "standard German". Most people in the countryside still speak their dialects at home. Soif it is true that present-day Germans and Austrians have a different educational system, it is still incredible that they have chosen the same standard German among the huge diversity of dialects.

IMO, modern Germans and Austrians are closer together than Catalan (who speak Catalan, which is more than just a dialect), Galicians or Castillians are together.

In the context of the European Union, I'd say that all are Europeans, then are part of a bigger cultural group (Hispanic, German...), then really feel part of a smaller regional group (Catalan, Andalucian, Bavarian, Austrian...).These regional groups, should be the basis for European federalism. Both Germany and Spain are already federal states.

France isn't but doesn't need it as it's much more homogenous. Just a few regions could be federalised in France (Corsica, Catalonia & Basque land along with their Spanish counterpart, then maybe Bretagne, Alsace and Savoy).

As for the nationality, Europe should instaurate a new model of double-level nationality (not dual nationality !), where all EU citizens would be European (official international nationality on passport), then a regional or cultural "citizenship" for smaller areas (future EU states like Bavaria, Catalonia or Corsica).

this thread and the poll contradict each other
the thread name: Gratest/Most Important German of All Time?
the poll: Greaterst German Ever?
so - Hitler was an important German wasnt he? i mean what if someone picked if meaning that he was important (not great[est]) then others could misinterpret that person as actually glorifying that murderous, evil, maniac bastard.

i mean to some Germans that lived in the 1930s in Germany, then Hitler was a pretty good leader - he helped Germany recover from possibly the worst economic crisis it ever had as a unified (except for the Rhineland, the Saar, and to a greater extent Austria) country. He rebuilt the infrastructure and gave the people back the pride they had lost after WW1. Had he not gone as far as unleash a Holocaust upon several million European Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and cripples, then maybe he wouldve been remembered in the history books as a truly great leader. He instead decided to be a ruthless tyrant and exterminated more than 6 million people.
in terms of internal reforms/infrastructure reconstruction, he was pretty good.
in terms of... well just about everything else, he was bad, evil, bastardly, dastardly, and he was a stupid racist mother-f***er.
but he was in fact important.
I mean have u studied interwar Europe? Eastern Europe, outside of East Prussia and Czechoslovakia, was basically a buffer zone of military and other right-wing dictatorships bent on keeping Soviet communism out of their countries and therefore out of Europe. Czechoslovakia was the only bastion of democracy in the east, but that made it quite possible for communists to gain power. While Germany itself was on the brink of civil war between the right wing extremists such as the NSDAP and the left wing communists of the KPD, until Hitler, it was still [technically] a democratic republic that was barely holding on [ehem... the executive branch now ruled by use of Article 48 which dissolved Reichstag]. Austria was also already a quasi-fascist state under the Christian Socialists and their Heimwehr. The Balkans were also a bloc of conservative dictatorships that were determined not to let their Communist parties gain power. Yugoslavia was about to explode in civil war also between the Croat separatist nationalists and the Serbs who had all the power and werent about to share it w/ any other ethnic group in the country, even if the Croats and others threatened secession. Italy, as we know, was Fascist. Switzerland was and still is a democratic country that kept its communists at bay. The Low Countries? Well Communists didnt have that much power in them. France was already torn between its right wing and left wing and as we saw from the Spanish Civil War, it kept neutral to avoid civil war. Britain was isolated by the English Channel so it technically had protection. In the early 1930s, SPain was the only country in Europe besides the European parts of Russia that had a communist, or at least highly-left-wing-socialist, government.
WW2 reversed the situation of Eastern Europe. Czechoslovakia's people resented the Western Democracies for abandoning their country at Munich in 1938 and then allowing Germany to swallow up the rest of it half a year later, so they began to lean more towards the Soviet Union for future partnership, even though their CzCP didnt gain power until Soviet intervention in '48. The rest of E. Europe had Communism imposed upon them, though they may have already been supportive of it at first. Yugoslavia was able to shape its own Communist future under Tito, though his death lead to instability in the federation and culminated in the breakup and the so-called Wars of the Yugoslav Succession. Maybe if Hitler wouldnt have begun WW2 and repressed the Jews, then the E. Europeans still would've been more right wing and the Soviet Union would b left alone and would collapse w/o support from anyone else.
He helped to shape the last half of the 20th century in Europe and then the world.
So while no sane person would say that he was actually the greatest, anyone can say that he was very important and all of hte historical facts back up the claim. As i have said, he was only great in restoring the infrastructure, economy, stability, and self-respect of Germany. He wasnt great in anything else. He was militaristic, and yet he practically caused the defeat of Operation of Barbarossa or whatever that invasion of Russia was called. He was important in shaing Europe and the world, though. Without WW2, Europe would still probably be highly anti-Semitic and racism would continue in large and extreme forms. WW2's Holocaust did serve one good - to teach the Europeans and most of the rest of the world what discrimination and hate can lead to: the loss of millions of innocent lives.

also about the question of whether the people living in Austria are German or Austrian.
it just depends on ur p.o.v. and those people p.o.v.
for example, go to a street in, say, Vienna and ask 20 or so people whether they consider themselves German Austrians (Austrians that are German-root-race, not for example Magyar like Hungarians), thus saying "Austrians" or Austrian Germans (Germans that simply live in what is called Austria) therefore saying "Germans". It's like a situation I read about in a histroy book with the Polish Partition in the Prussian-controlled areas that had Polish poeple as a majority. It said that some of these Poles considered themselves to be "Polish Prussians" meaning that they saw themselves as Prussians that were just root-raced Poles, or "Prussian Poles" meaning that they were Poles just living in Prussia.
So it depends on the poeples' point of view.

Originally posted by Parsifal


But Jews like Marx were not an ethnic group with any prospect of a state, they were German and Jewish just like Beethoven was German and Christian. You should try a little harder not to confuse nationality and religion! :rolleyes:

And you should try a little harder to understand the specialty of the Jews.That's the special thing about them,they're not only a religion,but also a nationality.I'm not saying race here,this term is too preoccupied.But just only read Herzls work,he repeatedly states the Jewish are a nationality,not a religion and that the Jewish question is a national one.They're of course also a religion,but not only.

Originally posted by Parsifal



I don't think you have actually followed my arguments. I've been saying that Austria and Germany are not mutually exclusive. I've said enough, you now have to show that they are not!


Perhaps I really misunderstood them, but I think German was just a way of definition for Austrians for a long time, linguistically.


The case of Austria-Germany is not so ambiguous because Austria status as distinct to Germany is so recent and short that no such arguments can apply. There are no, or few, important cultural differences between "Germany" as a whole and Austria and the border between the two states is arbitrary. There are no corresponding natural differences.





What I meant was the first mentioning of Ostarrichi (Austria) which took place in 996 (looked it up now). It became a Duchy at the time you mentioned.

Since it was this Duchy, and a quite powerfull one, and since it pursued politics that were not meant to enhance some sort of German estate, but the personal influence of the house of Habsburg, which was Austrian, Austrian history books consider it as a distinct country, not Germany. It's inhabitants defined themselves by language and, perhaps to a certain degree, culture, which was not the same throughout the German speaking region (they didn't even all have the same religion).

I even might agree that you call Mozart a German (though probably most Europeans would not call him that), but everyone living during the first and second republic can be called Austrian, because he no longer has to define himself by language. The Austria after WWI and the Austria after WWII did not contain any regions which had a majority of non-German speaking inhabitants.

I am not offended by not being called German, because Austria has been on the path of many peoples invading Rome, the Völkerwanderung (don't know the English word) and is a heavy immigration country (at least until some years ago). Also, because of the regions of Austria, most people living here, are not of some sort of German descent, they have some remote family connections to the east.

I am quite sure that Austrians do not think that not being German exempts them from their Nazi past. The Nazis were German and Austrian.

Originally posted by Julien


Test-specimen is actually implying is Germanness when he is saying :




And you quote something that says the opposite.

?

Also Julien and Kamilian1: race does not really exist here. By choice. True, there are very few black people, especially in Austria, but a black person might as well be Austrian. Race is absolutely no possible way of distinction.

I'm always shocked, when I see an American poll or application form: you have to tick caucasian, african-american, asian and whatever other options there are. If you ask in an Austrian enterprise how many Asian or black people work there, they will not be able to tell you, because they are not allowed to ask for it. They must not distinguish by this. Same for religion.

Dialects are very diffent from written language, but they have no written equivalent. And everyone is able to speak standard-German. The dialects differ almost from village to village, western Austrian dialect is totally different from eastern. Still I understand most of both. Same for north German dialect. Hard to understand, but still understandable.

Some of it is like Spanish and Italian: you might not be able to speak the other language, but you are still able to understand one anther.

And if you ask 20 people in Austria what they feel like, 19 will say they are Austrian, and one will say he is Turkish or from ex-Yugoslavia.

Since the topic has emerged as a news story, I thought that I really ought to revive this thread. :)

Originally posted by Parsifal
Since the topic has emerged as a news story, I thought that I really ought to revive this thread. :)

Could you post a link to the news story?

Originally posted by archer_007


Could you post a link to the news story?

Well, the story has been about for a few months, but Hitro just opened a thread on the topic.

Here's a link for Hitro's story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3131333.stm

And one on the competition itself:

http://hnn.us/comments/11748.html

Barbarossa

I see that you have qualified Goethe (my choice) for the poll... but if you were going to include thinkers, why not Nietzsche or Immanuel Kant (potentially my choice would he have been there)...

Then again, there has been a horde of great people from Germany, would be a long list if you wanted to include everyone...

Gutenberg - most important for the world (and Luther)
Bismarck - most important for present Deutschland
Goethe - Personal choice;)


PS In my country Kafka is considered as German writter (tho he was a cheh from Austria).

For me Bismarck without a doubt..