>>212790465
>Im not wikipedia
You make these ridiculous claims but can't back them up. Why should I take anything you say seriously?
>It proves fascism and nazism in particular were the real enemies of international capitalism and international communism, which effectively united against them and shunned it for a century.
Well duh, that much should be obvious to anyone. But that does it have to do with anything?
>Eh maybe to some extent but no not reallt.
It was the crux of Austrian-Czech and German-Polish relations. Rulers that could speak languages of all their subjects were very well regarded, and it made them into inter-national figures. Those who couldn't were disconnected from said nations. Habsburgs literally descend from old Bohemian Kings, it's why they have a right to the Bohemian throne. It's their decision to remain linguistically and culturally Austrian that alienated them.
>Slavic creaturas descend mostly from some asiatic baltic-belarussian-ukrainian spawns that were first captured by the scythians and huns
>Western europeans are not genetically close to slavs.
Nonsense, Slavs (and Balts) are an Indo-Europeans ethnolinguistic group that split off from Germans and Celts. The Latin ethnolinguistic group (which you claim to descend from) is notably further from any of them and freely mixed with MENA groups.
>Literally not a single one had stone walls before the 1400, and rhe few ones like the prague castle were built by a german and. French architect.
Verifiably untrue for the vast majority of listed examples.
>Slavs have no history, is a fact. I am sorry.
I honestly cannot take any of you say seriously. I'd rather discuss these things with an actual German, and more importantly someone with an IQ above 90.
Related, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast today?

>>510449921
>Im not wikipedia
You make these ridiculous claims but can't back them up. Why should I take anything you say seriously?
>It proves fascism and nazism in particular were the real enemies of international capitalism and international communism, which effectively united against them and shunned it for a century.
Well duh, that much should be obvious to anyone. But that does it have to do with anything?
>Eh maybe to some extent but no not reallt.
It was the crux of Austrian-Czech and German-Polish relations. Rulers that could speak languages of all their subjects were very well regarded, and it made them into inter-national figures. Those who couldn't were disconnected from said nations. Habsburgs literally descend from old Bohemian Kings, it's why they have a right to the Bohemian throne. It's their decision to remain linguistically and culturally Austrian that alienated them.
>Slavic creaturas descend mostly from some asiatic baltic-belarussian-ukrainian spawns that were first captured by the scythians and huns
>Western europeans are not genetically close to slavs.
Nonsense, Slavs (and Balts) are an Indo-Europeans ethnolinguistic group that split off from Germans and Celts. The Latin ethnolinguistic group (which you claim to descend from) is notably further from any of them and freely mixed with MENA groups.
>Literally not a single one had stone walls before the 1400, and rhe few ones like the prague castle were built by a german and. French architect.
Verifiably untrue for the vast majority of listed examples.
>Slavs have no history, is a fact. I am sorry.
I honestly cannot take any of you say seriously. I'd rather discuss these things with an actual German, and more importantly someone with an IQ above 90.
Related, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast today?