>>2857376

Not really, every time Germany has invaded the two armies were on par, at least, and by other estimates the German army was larger.
Are you comparing the German army to the combined French and British armies?

Also, "that was the case last time" doesn't work when last time Germany lost the war.

rightful Serbian clay

Burgundy still alive in Serbia!

So did Austrians, but I never see thread about a new Anschluss, just Alsace-Lorraine

Austria joining Germany is illegal, all the major powers signed an international treaty declaring they'd invade if that ever happened.

Actually, the Kingdom (and concept of Germany predates France so you're still wrong.

If you are going to argue semantics and redefine Germany, I'll just go and call Regnum Francorum a prototype of France and we're done.

You already argued semantics through your mental gymnastics by trying to deflect from the reality that France took Elsass-Lothringen by conquest and that the conquest wasn't recent when Germany (re)took them during unification. That's literally all that you did in this thread and the last: attempt to demonize Germany for taking what was not French while justifying French conquest of the territory because you are French. Also as we both know regnum Francorum was the Kingdom of the Franks, who were decidedly not French. Now let your next round of mental gymnastics commence, but remember: the Russian judges don't abide fuckery.

Germany, as it is now, is Prussia and german states that betrayed the HRE (Austria today). France took Metz, Toul and Verdun, because the german princes gave it to France.
France later took Alsace because they fought Austria in the 30 years war. Germans have no right to complain about that.

True patricians know that wherever German voices sing to God is the Fatherland.

I've always been a fan of partitions, one those ought to do the trick.

The blame on Austria for losing Alsace always seems funny

>come on emperor, just end the war already, 30 years is way too long
>but muh alsace
>who gives a shit, just end it
>o-okay
>WHY DID YOU BETRAY THE GERMAN NATION AND GAVE AWAY ALSACE FUCKING HABSBURG TRAITORS

if only there had been some force that could have saved the poor disparate peoples of germany from the hungry tyrants without

ever the pieces of a game played by monarchs

Sadly nuclear weapons hadn't been invented yet.

now why should you wish to nuke the french?

sure, they'll always be something of a thorn, but that scale of ruin is not deserving to lay upon them, or anyone for that matter, apart from the imperial japanese naturally

>For as long as there has been a "Germany"
I hate this meme
The HRE was always very german dominated, there was a german subkingdom within it and a german identity has existed since carolingian days
Especially Alsace but also Lorraine were part of this so "traditionally" they can both be considered to be more german than french

You know in the War of the Spanish Succession Austria could retake Alsace which is what the princes wanted but instead they were greedy cunts and increased their own domain in Italy

I'd nuke the germans to save them from their servile nature.

>Frankia was not French
>But the HRE was German!

Yeah that was their one golden opportunity when France was crushed on the ground. And they still blew it and got defeated.

ah, chaotic evil? must be the Anglo then

>Kingdom of Bohemia was a German subkingdom
I shiggy diggy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
This is the kingdom i was referring to

>predominant language of the Franks is German
>therefore, the Franks were French
>HRE founded and continued by German-speaking peoples
>but the HRE is not German

He's referring to regnum Teutonicus, or the Kingdom of Germany.

>>predominant language of the Franks is German
Yeah, in the 5th century. Things had changed when the treaty of Verdun took place. Besides, latin was always the language of the administration.

>KAROLUSIMPERATORAUGUSTUS
>a g*rman kraut

Shig shigididig shigididigididigdig

The Frankish Empire had several successor states and West Francia was just one of them.

I wonder what a world with a french tongue not sundered from its german fraternity may look like

>Things had changed when the treaty of Verdun took place
Yeah because by that time Francia had been de facto divided

Lorraine always belonged to the French

You're empire is a multi-ethnic shithole

By the way Allemani are closer to French than g*rms

>Things had changed when the treaty of Verdun took place.

Correct, you had two languages (broadly speaking) as evidenced by Oaths of Strasbourg. West Francia, later France, was one of the successors of Francia, they're not identical.

>Things had changed when the treaty of Verdun took place
Not really. It was less than 40 years after the death of Charlemagne who was from either modern Germany or close to it and all evidence is pointing to his primary language being Rhenish Franconian, a Germanic language, and not French. The language of the Franks HAD divided into various Germanic sub-dialects and a French precursor, but there's not a lot of evidence the Charlemagne or Louis the Pious spoke the French precursor but instead the Germanic dialects.

He was most likely born somewhere between Liege and Cologne so... probably.

>1939
Seems legit

>allemani
>allemagne

...

The Alsatian humanists of the 15th and 16th century (Beatus Rhenanus, Sebastian Brant, Jakob Wimpfeling and others) were actually pretty convicted German patriots. Later when the area came to France, the elites were the most frenchified part of society, however.

Pic related

French was in process of being created since at least the 5th century, the Salian Laws can be considered as a intermediary between Latin and Old French

There two worlds to designate the Germans in French

Allemand : to designate the Southern Germans and now the Germans as a whole
Thiois : to designate the Northern Germans

>phenotype will magically change after 1939
Nope

>muh pls stop

Franks claimed to be from Pannonia aka Celtic Clay, now their Race confirm it

You can't refute anything and can only impotently post "muh /pol/"

A lot of things have changed since 1939, especially anthropologically. For starters, they don't think that you can tell if someone is German by measuring the width of someone's nose using fucking calipers.

You never could.

Tell that to anthropologists circa 1939 because they didn't know that. The point here is that you're justifying your world views, which we know to be incorrect based on more recent research, on a very outdated book.

Franks were without a doubt germanic, culturally and linguistically speaking so i dont see how it matters that they were genetically celts unless youre a poltard

Nigger people in the early 20th century were high on eugenics, they had no idea of genetics, or deviation to the norm, or half of the scientific tools we now have.
You are talking about the period in time where doctors advised mothers not to let their daughter marry an irishman, because the child would be prone to theft.

And yet you still cited it like a fucking retard

reminder that you're discussing with this lunatic

I am not whoever it is thats fisting your ass.
I noticed you being wrong, and corrected you. Go be wrong somewhere else.

>cites a book that says Germanics are Paleolithic survivors of Europe and not migrants
>calls anyone else wrong
You fuck off.

>posts on an english language website
>can't read english

kanker

We all know you're the same person so there is a lot of reason to ignore that statement. You're just upset that someone rightfully criticized your shitty source.

>lunatic

I'm pretty sane quite the contrary

I have utterly annihilated any claim that Franks were Germanic and it feels good

>they were genetically celts unless youre a poltard

They were Celts, they just adopted Germanic language on their way toward Gaul

>We all know you're the same person
You are all wrong then, retards. Saying "u did it, u did it!" is not an argument.

They aren't genetically Celtic, they were a federation of Germanic tribes and unlike Celtic groups, a high number of individuals share the haplotype marker R1b-U106, just like other Ingvaeonic peoples (Frisians and Saxons).

>share the haplotype marker R1b-U106

j2-m172.info/2015/04/three-j2-found-at-merovingian-buriel-site-roman-frankish-transitional-period/

Fuck off, LARPER

You have already been already refuted countless time

>Saxons
>Frisians

Pic related there

>I have utterly annihilated any claim that Franks were Germanic and it feels good

Deutsch (Teuto-) is a "celtic" word for "Germanic" peoples. Germania and Celt/Gallia are both latin distinctions for peoples who shared language, tech, and trade across large swaths of land involving many tribes.

The "Germanic/Celtic" distinction is not a useful one because your autistic categorizing of peoples rots after thousands of years of interbreeding. "Celtic" nationalism didn't arrive until Ireland and Scotland needed propaganda for independence.

HOLY SHIT NOT 1, NOT 2, BUT 3 WHOLE SAMPLES?!?!?!

>HOLY SHIT NOT 1, NOT 2, BUT 3 WHOLE SAMPLES?!?!?!

French aren't U106 therefore Franks aren't

Yes, the area were Frankish dialects are spoken today has high frequencies of that subclade, just like other Ingvaeonic areas and unlike Celtic areas. Of course, there are other haplotypes present (like J2) who may have come from elsewhere, but three individuals prove nothing.

>French aren't U106

even if you were capable of providing and explaining your samples correctly, they still don't hold when you consider Europe lost 25-60% of its population to the plague, then lost a comparable percentage of its genetic stasis from WWI to WWII, genealogy statistics associated with nations get scrambled when you consider catastrophes where large amounts of the populations you found genetic tracers for from centuries ago got obliterated before genetic testing was event invented.

You're in denial and have little of the Franks

Firstly, the Area where the "Frankish" language is spoken was settled by Ripuarian Franks so not the Franks aka Salians

Secondly, U106 is present in Pre-Germanic Britain so are the Britons Franks as well ?

Thirdly, Germanic are dolicocephal while the Franks/French are brachycephal and mesocephal like the other Indo-Europeans.

>calls other people larpers

>its an uneducated pleb trying to talk genetics episode

youtube.com/watch?v=3uoM5kfZIQ0

Literally how I feel every time I read this garbage.

>Firstly, the Area where the "Frankish" language is spoken was settled by Ripuarian Franks so not the Franks aka Salians

wrong

>Secondly, U106 is present in Pre-Germanic Britain so are the Britons Franks as well ?

In low quantities it was present in Britain (possibly descendants of migrants from the continent during the Roman Era), yes. But the U106 pattern in Britain (high frequency in England, low frequencies in Wales and the Highlands) shows that most of it was brought there by Anglo-Saxons. U 106 isn't exclusively Frankish, it is/was common in Ingvaeonic peoples (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians), Franks and others.

>Saxons and Franks are the same

Nope

Saxons are racially different from the Franks, Saxon skulls are dolicocephalic while Frankish skulls are borderline between brachycephalic/mesocephalic similar to Celts same goes for their height

>wrong

Educate yourself pls

All the places where the Salian Franks settled speak a French dialect(From the Loire to the Carbonarian Forest) while the places where Ripuarians settled(from the Carbonarian Forest to the Rhine + Franconia) speak a Franconian dialect

>"I threaten you to hit you if you do x"
>"hey, you did x, that's illegal!"

Its a post WW2 law, moron. It was made because of WW2.

>All the places where the Salian Franks settled speak a French dialect

No, the area where Salian Franks came from (Southern Netherlands, Flandres, parts of Western Germany) does not. The people there are the descendant of the Salian Franks who stayed there.

What law are you talking about, sauce pls.

>Southern Netherlands, Flandres, parts of Western Germany
It is the place where the Ripurarians settled m8

>The people there are the descendant of the Salian Franks who stayed there.

Nope

Lad, it's a guy who is continually citing a book from 1939 (whose author's work was made and used for segregationist purposes) as his primary source. He's retarded, let it go.

Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, lecturer and professor at Harvard University, and president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists

Fixed thar for you

And aside from the racist boogeyman do you have any argument, retard

>It is the place where the Ripurarians settled m8
No, there's nothing Ripuarian about Flanders and most of the Netherlands. And Ripuarian Franks and Salian Franks descend from the same core anway.

Who was forced to resign from the AAPA because he sided with a segregationist. Coon's work has been destroyed as racist fiction for a while now. Do you have an argument against that? Of course you don't because it's all you have.

What is even your stance? Sometimes you claim that Franks came from Troja, then you're endorsing a scholar who thinks that Franks were Germanics who acquired a Celtic cephalic form from their stay in the Rhineland.

okay i quit

I show you arguments since the beginnign but you're just autistically repeating the same bullshit ad nauseam

I shall quit on pic related tho

>What is even your stance?

My, stance is that the Franks(at least the Salians) were Panonian Celts who migrated to Germany, then migrated to Gauls, and that the French(oil speakers) are their descendants

>Sometimes you claim that Franks came from Troja

What is shitposting ?

>then you're endorsing a scholar who thinks that Franks were Germanics who acquired a Celtic cephalic form from their stay in the Rhineland.

He didn't say that he said that the Franks were presumed as Germanic but show Celtic origin/features

>Also, "that was the case last time" doesn't work when last time Germany lost the war.

Because of the Soviets, and to a much lesser extent, the Americans.

>he sided with a segregationist
>work has been destroyed as racist fiction for a while now

it does not follow.

>Do you have an argument against that? Of course you don't because it's all you have.

your speech is becoming erratic.

What language did Franks actually speak?

>their vote after they got annexed by Germany.
nazis were notorious for intimidating voters and heavily rigging plebiscites

>And aside from the racist boogeyman do you have any argument, retard

the overwhelming issues with historical genetics including sampling size and continuity, and more so your insistence that this flawed technique proves the existence of labels made up by Roman historians

The Franks were the descendants of the Trojans who founded Sicambria. At some point after this founding Pannonia was invaded by Celts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celticisation
From Pannonia these Sicambrians migrated westward until they reached the eastern bank of the Rhine in an area where both Celtic and Germanic languages were spoken. These people later became known to us as Salian Franks.

>German

Afaik people theoricize that they spoke Old Frankish which is a made-up language deduced from French worlds and Latin words from the Salian Laws

My guess is that they originally spoke Continental Celtic but abandonned it when they reached Germany, then they abandonned Germanic when they reached Gaul.

>the overwhelming issues with historical genetics including sampling size and continuity, and more so your insistence that this flawed technique proves the existence of labels made up by Roman historians

Frankish samples are J2 :) and Anthpological dates show that they were Celts :) Historical datas also claim that they were Celts :)

>descendants of the trojans

as someone who has spent the year studying the franks and has just seen someone buy into 1200 year old propaganda that wasn't even believed by most contemporaries

lol.

>1200 year old propaganda

sure, but can you explain this?

if you think that proves that the mythological roots of the franks are actually true then you're a fucking idiot.

i wonder why people at charlemagne's court would argue they shared the same mythological roots as the romans
ah yes it must be a coincidence

Is J2 an indicator of Celtic heritage or not?
Have the Galatians really spread this widely in the Near East?

I just think it's weird that those samples of Frankish genetics are shared most heavily with Anatolians, some Italians, and coastal Corsicans. It's actually evidence in favor of their mythological founding narrative.

Please note the location of the historical Troy on the map.

Not him but J2 is found among all Indo-Europeans

>those samples of Frankish genetics

What makes the J2 haplogroup 'Frankish'?

Do you see the region of France that is a lighter green in the northeast? That, and the benelux region, was the heartland of the Frankish regime. The southwest(Aquitaine, not as far as gascony) was inhabited by a distinct people who were conquered later on.

>Have the Galatians really spread this widely in the Near East?
seems extremely unlikely.
>Is J2 an indicator of Celtic heritage or not?

not to my knowledge, it's more closely associated with Rome, Greeks, the Minoans, and for some reason the Indus Valley civilization. Here is sauce.

eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml

No.

>What makes the J2 haplogroup 'Frankish'?
Dummy, those strictly Frankish samples were J2. That doesn't make everyone with J2 Frankish.

>Dummy, those strictly Frankish samples were J2. That doesn't make everyone with J2 Frankish.

You wanna respond to the rest of my post or just conveniently ignore it?

The paternal DNA of apparently Merovingian noblity is shared with Anatolians, and you cannot address this.

That Austrasia is "lighter green" doesn't matter given the timespan involved. You wouldn't expect a Bronze age population migrating northwest from Eastern Europe enduring Celtization in Pannonia and waves of Germanic tribes during the Migration Period to take over it's neighbors in numbers would you?