Has anything good come from German unification or was it one of the greatest mistakes in history?

And therefore i say germany must be destroyed

"Yes"

Butthurt at all the times France took on every German power, plus Spain, plus England at the same time and won?

Unification was amazing for germany, not so much for its neighbors. Though id debate that every strong country is a nuisance for its neighbors.

>entire national identity built on trying to avoid responsibility for WW2

"Austrians" are disgusting.

Germania delenda est.

t. 1/34th german american experts

t. Josef Adolf 'the Fritzl' Hitler.

it was a jew

actually they are as much as Bavarians

The unification was fine, the problem was the butthurt of the other powers, And Willie being bonkers

All 0 times?
They always had a couple of German allies

This

Counter for French hegemony, technological and scientific developement, rapid life standards increase
Also Holocaust

I know you were just trying to bait, but you are actually right, Denmark is practically germanic clay

But are the Scots and Irish german?

>not knowing shit about who the Jacobites were
>thinking having them on your side is a blessing

That's winning?

Another Veeky Forums hate thread great. I always wonder how all the butthurt poles explain germany beeing the dominant cultural and economic power on the continent.

>be the Sun King
>have conquered lots of stuff, causing immense butthurt among the european powers
>every major power unites against you to retake said clay, opening four frontlines because they know they would have no chance if all french armies would be concentrated at one place
>keep two frontlines stabil (causing one of them to close after the enemy suffered too heavy damage), advance on the other two (while breaking through the most heavily fortified line in the world)
>win EVERY SINGLE MAJOR BATTLE over the course of nine years
>"p-please Louis, j-j-just stop the rape"
>make a peace that let you keep all the clay (they gave Freiburg back because seriously, why the hell should they even want it)

Thats pretty much the definition of winning.

Its called cultural study, though why would I expect a plebian to understand

The HRE had to fight the Turks in the South East, who were de facto allies of France. Glorious, indeed

The fighting against the Turks was before and after the Nine Years War, while nothing much happened inbetween. The largest part of the HRE armies and all of their commanders were fighting in the Low Countries and on the Rhine.
Only when the NYW ended, did they switch back to the Balkans and continued kicking ottoman asses

>while nothing much happened inbetween.
Except for the Ottoman counter offensive. While the larger part of the army fought in the West they obviously had to keep significant forces in the South-East in order to hold the front. Of course the army was also already weakened by years of warfare and Louis cunningly capitalized on it.

>Except for the Ottoman counter offensive.
Which was in 1690. The major battle of Szlankamen, which stopped and reversed this offensive was in 1691. No further battles happened during the next years (Even the new supreme commander in Hungary after the other leaders were sent to fight the french, Margrave of Baden, and the victor of Szlankmen, soon took his victorious troops and went to the Rine as well)
This meant only during the first two years (were the austrian and german armies actually had their most successes on the Rhine) were they fighting a true two front war.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ulaş

It was a two front war because they had to keep strong forces in the Balkans to keep the Turks in check.