Help identify this flag in Germany

[u/kbhina]

Found this flag cut out sticker in the small German town of Irrel. Can someone identify this flag?

Irrel: https://maps.app.goo.gl/NgVkz7ow3FFwUmX3A?g_st=com.google.maps.preview.copy

[u/kvd_]

it's a "german pride flag" used by the AfD as a way to mock LGBT people. not sure why they added prussia but it's probably just more german nationalism. here's an AfD poster doing the same thing:

[u/Cixila → u/kvd_]

Because the far right has a hard-on for Prussia

[u/Representative_Belt4 → u/Cixila]

Why can't we just enjoy cool birds without nazis ruining them man

[u/Cixila → u/Representative_Belt4]

That's not even a nazi theft problem, that's a Prussia problem. They did plenty of shit themselves

[u/[deleted] → u/Cixila]

It's a bit of both in Germany's case. because the open display of most Nazi symbols like the Swastika, SS bolts etc. is banned in Germany, German Neo-Nazis (including those associated with the AFD) has co-opted the old symbols used during the Kaisserreich, like the Prussian eagle and Empire's Black-white-red flag etc. and use them as a sort of loop-hole to get around the Anti-Nazi laws.

[u/Cixila → u/[deleted]]

I'm quite aware, I was just saying that even if that wasn't the case, Prussia belongs in the dustbin of history by its own (de)merits, and its symbols should not be celebrated

[u/[deleted] → u/Cixila]

Not completly disagreeing, but frankly, Prussia itself gets a bit more bad rep then it propably deserves. During the time of the enlightenment it was, comperativly, progressive, which was arguably its hayday.

I would argue that it really is the way people saw and see Prussia that does it a lot of disservice. Even in the Empire, Prussia was already somewhat of a meme. Prussia is a prime example of projection of negative and positive stereotypes.

Peoples view of Prussia was really quite influenced by the fact that it came to represent german militarism and, even after the time where it was a singular politic entity, and that Prussia was seen in a lot harsher light than, for example, Britain or France.

The example a professor of mine gave for that stuck. He said that, if something like the Irish Potatoe Famine would have happened not in british-Ireland, but in prussian Poland, there would propably be no debate about calling it a Genocide.

But yeah, in essence, you are right. The point is not that we should gladly slap the Prussian eagly on everything, because all the other european powers did bad shit too, and there is no problem with unian-jacks, danish lions or the french or spanish flag on anything. Maybe the "prussian" approach is the right one when it comes to dealing with this.

[u/No_Gur_7422 → u/[deleted]]

The difference between Prussia and other nations is that Prussia was militarized to an extent no other nation was, and its autocratic governing ideology was directly responsible for two world wars as well as numerous previous wars like the Franco-Prussian War. Trying to pretend all states are equal because

other european powers did bad shit too

is "both-sidesism". No other country did worse things than Prussia and its "Prussian values". What other European country attacked and annexed so many of its neighbours in the course of only two centuries?

As for the potato famine, it did happen in Poland: 40,000 people died in East Prussia, 50,000 died in Upper Silesia, and 60,000–80,000 died in Galicia. It also affected Great Britain. Was it "genocide"?

[u/[deleted] → u/No_Gur_7422]

2/2

No other country did worse things than Prussia and its "Prussian values". What other European country attacked and annexed so many of its neighbours in the course of only two centuries?

For example France, Britain, Spain, Austria, Russia, Poland, Ottoman Turkey (if we count them). Now, this is not a defence of prussia, some "look, they aren't so bad" move. This is simply the annoying historian in me who dislikes if history is rewritten or misinterpreted to make a point. So, Prussia:

• From 1618 to 1918, so from the formation of "Brandenburg-Prussia" to the End of World War I, Prussia was involved in rougly 20 wars (matter of definition, of course).
• Of those 20 it started (also a matter of definition, of course, but i erred on the side of "if in doubt, prussia started it") around 8 (3 Silesian Wars, 7-Years War, German War, French-Prussian War, War of the 4th coalition, World War 1).
• In those wars it annexed Silesia, parts of Poland, Numerous northern German States and Alsace and Lorraine.
• it, as a part of Germany also conquered colonies in Africa and waged at least 2 brutal wars there (Mahi-Mahi revolt, Hereo-Nama war)

Let's just take France, a, contrary to popular belief, tremendously sucessful nation when it comes to wars, in the same time period:

• From 1618 to 1918 France was involved in over 60 wars. (thats on the low end, again depending on the definition of "war")
• of those over 60, France started (see above) at least 25
• France annexed Territories in over 25 of those 60 wars (for example, a small selection: Lorraine, Alsace, Corsica, Franche-Comté, Piemont, Nice, Algeria, "Indochina", Morocco, Tunisia, New-Caledonia, numerous German States, etc.)

don't get me started on Russia or Britain...

Now, the raw data suggests that your claim that "No other country did worse things than Prussia and its "Prussian values" is clearly wrong. I mean, obviously. Nazi Germany did A LOT worse than Prussia ever did.

But apart from that, it is quite clear that states Like Britain or France did a lot worse when it comes to raw numbers here: They simply were a lot more powerful, a lot more influential and had a lot more global reach. They had more opportunity to "be bad". For most of it's existance, Prussia was a regional power at best. We can only imagine how Prussia would have behaved as major colonial Power with worldwide reach but that's simply not historical. (all the more horrifying when one realizes how late and limited Prussia/Germany took part in the "colonial game", and yet managed to be the colossal assholes they were.)

As for the potato famine[...]?

Are you refering to the events of 1847? No, that was not genocide, since you omitted that this was hardly confined to silesia or galicia. This was a class issue.

The reaction to the revolts in Africa though, that was clearly genocide, the people in charge quite unashamadly said so.

I think what you said is a prime example of the idea of militaristic, agressive Prussia being more influential on peoples perception of the state than the actual, historic Prussia. Like politicians in the 19th century had this gloryfied idea of Rome and Greece with very limited relation to the actual history of the Roman Republic or the Greece poleis.

I mean, honest question: If you accept the data above (i assume you can, and dont just accuse me of lying), what does that do with your perception of Prussia? Does it really have to be "the worst" to be worthy of scathing critique? Is it suddenly "okay", just because it was less involved in global slavery and had fewer colonies than Britain or France, abolished serfdom earlier than Russia or allowed women to vote earlier than Switzerland? People who want to worship states like prussia pull "whataboutism" out of their hats and say "well, Nazi Germany, the Sovjet Union, etc. were worse", and think they have said something with that. They did not. We can say that prussia was an autoritharian, conservative, militaristic state that should be in no way a rolemodel for anything, even if it never started a single war.

And i am of course not about to argue with you that "yeah, that's a nazi" is a completly valid reaction when you see someone sporting a prussian eagle. (Accept for my local football club, of course...) Had a guy in class with an "East-Prussia" Sticker on his laptop, eagle and everything. Noone thought he was just "into the history of East-Prussia", and of course he wasn't. Was pissed when i refered to Wilhelm II. as "Willi Zwo".

[u/No_Gur_7422 → u/[deleted]]

France, Britain, Spain, Austria, Russia, Poland, Ottoman Turkey

What neighbouring countries did 19th-century France forcibly annexe? Britain didn't annexe any. Spain didn't, Poland didn't even exist as a state. Austria and Turkey were shrinking, not growing. The only expanding country was Russia. France did not "annexe" Indochina or similar territories – they never became part of France, precisely unlike the European territories conquered by Prussia. Having fewer colonies is hardly relevant; Prussia/Germany treated the colonies it did have with far greater savagery than did Britain or France.

I don't disagree that there were plenty of bad things that happened under numerous European countries' flags, but trying to argue that they were all as bad as Pussia (or Russia) is just unsustainable.

[u/[deleted] → u/No_Gur_7422]

What neighbouring countries did 19th-century France forcibly annexe?

We're moving the goalpoast right after the Time france literally conquered most of europe, installed their rulers family as monarchs or created client-states, arent we? Convenient.

Britain didn't annexe any. Spain didn't, [...] France did not "annexe" Indochina

well, i can only relate you to u/BlaringAxe2 comment.

I mean dude... Spain alone is directly responsible for the death of 90% of pre-columbian South-, Middle- and partly North-America, meaning for around 10% of the worlds population at that time. But prussia is still worse, because it annaxed Hannover and Saxe with pretty much no resistance and victims because... those are white persons?

Having fewer colonies is hardly relevant; Prussia/Germany treated the colonies it did have with far greater savagery than did Britain or France.

i assume you have as much proof for those claims as you have for the ones you first made?

I don't disagree that there were plenty of bad things that happened under numerous European countries' flags, but trying to argue that they were all as bad as Pussia (or Russia) is just unsustainable.

I simply argue that your approach of "absolute evil" is bullshit, from a historians point of view. Belgium was arguably ridiculously terrible as a colonial power, and the triangle slave trade was certainly not set up by the prussians.

You suffer from a black-and-white-view that leads not only to a warped sense of history, but to weirdly rascist takes. We get it. You dislike Prussia. That's okay, i am not a fan either. But don't claim that the reason for your dislike is rooted in historical facts.

[u/No_Gur_7422 → u/[deleted]]

In your zeal to pretend Prussia was no worse than other countries, you continue to ignore the facts and adduce irrelevant arguments about colonies. The flag shown is Prussia's late 19th-century flag, so the goalposts are exactly where they always were, and you have simply forgotten what this discussion is about. Prussia and its governing ideology in the 19th and 20th centuries are the issue. Prussia was worse for its inhabitants than other countries, and it was worse for its neighbours than others. Overseas territories are not relevant because they do not have the same political system as the countries responsible for them, and it is the French and British political systems that were superior to Prussia's. The fact that you try to defend Prussia by alleging that this criticism is somehow "racist" is just ridiculous and not a little pathetic. You ignore the illiberal society Prussia imposed on itself and its neighbours by handwaving towards the Congo or the Americas (trying to pretend Spain was "directly responsible" for population declines that were in the main caused by Old World disease is a remarkably dishonest distortion) without addressing the political and social conditions in the European countries themselves. In so doing, you claim that Prussia was somehow only as illiberal as a European colony, without addressing the liberal democracies themselves. Only by this glaring omission do you make sense of your own incoherent arguments.

[u/BlaringAxe2 → u/No_Gur_7422]

"It's okay to conquer if you do it to brown people"

[u/[deleted] → u/No_Gur_7422]

The difference between Prussia and other nations is that Prussia was militarized to an extent no other nation was, and its autocratic governing ideology was directly responsible for two world wars as well as numerous previous wars like the Franco-Prussian War. Trying to pretend all states are equal because

The first part is partly true. Prussia is commonly described as "an army with a state".

The second part is arguably not. Can you go into a bit of detail why you would classify Prussia as "autocratic", or at least, more "autocratic" than ancient-regime France, Austria or Russia? Some core points speak against that, for example the emancipation of jewish people or suffrage for women happened comparativly early in Prussia. But of course, Prussia WAS autocratic, hirarchic and conservative, no question about it. But more so than the other European states?

is "both-sidesism".

That was exactly my critique. Was that paragraph unclear? (english as a 3rd language here, so it's quite possible). I am saying the fact that symbols of states like Britain or France, who quite clearly raked up quite the bodycount and have a terrible colonial history, are seen as "okay", does not mean that glorification of Prussia is "okay" in return. I say it is the other way round: We are able to be critical about Prussia, why aren't we equally critical about the British (...Royal house!) or France? (Especially france can hurt a bit, seeing that a lot of what it did was in such a strong contrast to the revolutionary ideals which many, at least myself, find quite agreeable. Beethoven dedicated a symphony to Napoleon, and crossed out his name when Bonaparte crowned himself emperor. I can really comprehend that sentiment. You want to love revolutionary france, and then they go about reinstituting slavery...)

BUT if you make the point that Prussia was WORSE than everyone else, than you can hardly dismiss critique of that viewpoint as "both-sidesism".

1/2

[u/[deleted] → u/Cixila]

You could say the same about every single global superpower, historical or otherwise.

[u/SnooBooks1701 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, yes we should

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

yes we could and should.

[u/Sofie_2954 → u/Cixila]

The argument could be made that you shouldn’t use the Coat of arms of Denmark (Danmarks rigsvåben) because of what they did to the Inuits on Greenland, the Faroese people, the Norwegians and all the other people in their former colonies.

[u/Zephrias → u/Sofie_2954]

Comparing Greenland to the Faroese Islands, Norway or Iceland is wild. Greenland is more comparable to the Danish West Indies and such. Also, not wanting to celebrate the symbols of an extremely militaristic state is more than understandable.

[u/Sofie_2954 → u/Zephrias]

Was Prussia more militaristic than other European great powers?

[u/ceaserneal → u/Sofie_2954]

No, they were just more succesful.

[u/Thesaurius → u/Sofie_2954]

As often said, Prussia wasn't a state with an army, but an army with a state.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sofie_2954]

There's a logical fallacy somewhere here.

[u/PomeranianMerchant2 → u/Cixila]

I don’t know what has Prussia done that’s worse than what the British Empire has done?

[u/No_Gur_7422 → u/PomeranianMerchant2]

Annexed whole countries in every direction? The UK never did anything of that kind.

[u/[deleted] → u/No_Gur_7422]

"Annexed whole countries in every direction?"

And which country would that be (that Prussia annexed)? It took part in the partition of Poland, took Silesia from Austria, Alsace Lorraine from France and Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark. None of those are "whole countries" (although they are in pretty much "every direction" exept south, i'll give you that.)

Or are you refering to the annexation of northern German states? In that case, is Savoy also guilty of that? And France? (and no, accusing you of measuring with different yard-sticks is not "both-sideism", it simply points out that you clearly have a bias.)

And they brutally conquered colonies (mostly) in Africa, but we're not about to argue that there is much of a competition with the UK in that field, right? Because:

The UK had the largest Empire in history. That tiny island ruled over more land than every nation before it. The british Kings were "Emperors of India", ffs.... It very much DID annex whole countries, all the time. And sorry, i would argue that the colonization of Australia, for example, was a lot worse for Australias inhabitants than the annexation of East-Frisia or Hannover into Prussia.

Again, to repeat what i wrote in my other response to you: Does Prussia really have to be "the worst" to be worthy of damning critique? Isn't that a weird form of downplaying how terrible Russia treated it's own people or how ruthless France and Britain went about subjugating the world?

[u/No_Gur_7422 → u/[deleted]]

Prussia in the course of a century and a half increased in size from about 120,000 km² to 348,779 km² by annexing its neighbours. In the course of the same period, the UK incorporated Ireland, adding an extra 84,421 km² to what you wrongly call "a tiny island", but otherwise did not expand at all. Prussia annexed Nassau, Hesse, Hanover, and so on whole, while also annexing parts of France, Denmark, Poland, and elsewhere. These countries were directly annexed into Prussia itself, while others were subjugated as part of the German Empire, which in reality was the Prussian Empire.

Trying to pretend that the UK "annexed" territories overseas, or that this was somehow the same as waging wars against one's neighbours for the sake of territorial aggrandizement, is disingenuous. They were colonies, protectorates, or otherwise dependent territories, not part of the UK, and why you're claiming they were "brutally conquered" I don't know – it certainly isn't true for the majority of them which were taken over by various forms of treaty. The inhabitants of Prussian overseas colonies were themselves treated far worse than any those of any British-run territory.

Neither 19th-century France nor Savoy were anything like as autocratic as 19th-century Prussia, so that comparison is equally disingenuous. Prussia being as terrible as Russia or Turkey hardly makes it any better, but the existence of such comparisons does not somehow excuse or ameliorate the industrialized militarism of Prussia, nor does it mean that liberal democracies like France and the UK are somehow "guilty" of the same things.

[u/[deleted] → u/No_Gur_7422]

the UK incorporated Ireland, adding an extra 84,421 km² to what you wrongly call "a tiny island", but otherwise did not expand at all.

The size of the british empire at its peak had 35.000.000 km². The british Monarchs were literally "Emperors of India".

A, i forgot that does not count, because its only evil if you conquer white people, apparently. I am almost suprised that that apparently includes the Irish for you.

They were colonies, protectorates, or otherwise dependent territories, not part of the UK, and why you're claiming they were "brutally conquered" I don't know – it certainly isn't true for the majority of them which were taken over by various forms of treaty.

I really did not expect it to meet someone today sugarcoating british colonialism just to spite the prussians. Do you say that "benevolent colonizers" stuff in public?

The inhabitants of Prussian overseas colonies were themselves treated far worse than any those of any British-run territory.

I am not even going to ask you to sustain any of your claims with a hint of a proof anymore. Seems pointless. But heres one of mine: According to Sullivan and Hickel, the british empire killed over 100.000.000 Indians in about 40 years due to its colonial policies, warfare and responses to revolts. That's more than all famines in the Sovjet Union, Maost China or North Korea combined. And it is ONLY India, and not even half of a century. German colonial rule got to just close to a million (and not because of a lack of trying.) And let's not talk about the Belgian Congo.

isn't true for the majority of them which were taken over by various forms of treaty.

And here you betray your own logic: The VAST majority of prussias territorial gain stem from treaties, most and foremost the Congress of Vienna. So for the brits that's cool, for the prussians that's bad?

And, as a side note... Treaties? Really? Have you ever talked to a native-american person in your life?

Neither 19th-century France nor Savoy were anything like as autocratic as 19th-century Prussia, so that comparison is equally disingenuous.

In which regard? Parlamentarianism? Militarism? Disdain for "brown" people?

Prussia being as terrible as Russia or Turkey hardly makes it any better, but the existence of such comparisons does not somehow excuse or ameliorate the industrialized militarism of Prussia,

you seem to get my main point though.

nor does it mean that liberal democracies like France and the UK are somehow "guilty" of the same things.

You really need to meet some people from countries formerly or still under french or british rule. Have a chat with a Tunesian, Moroccan or Algerian person, that propably would be enough to challange your believes. Given the opportunity, "liberal democracies", like for example the US, France or Britain, are capable of a lot.

[u/No_Gur_7422 → u/[deleted]]

Your answer just shows that you don't understand the difference between the UK and the British Empire, that in your desperation you'll throw in accusations of racism to try and prove yourself superior, and that in the effort you'll cite discredited and political material such as Dylan Sullivan and Jason Hickel – neither of whom are historians. Indian economic historian professor Tirthankar Roy has refuted their exaggered and biased claims about India, yet you swallowed them whole.

Sullivan and Hickel are salvaging an outdated idea by ignoring the most important research done on the subject. … First, the claim that colonialism caused famines cannot be verified against previous experience because there is no evidence that famines were less frequent or less deadly before. … The British Raj did not start the famines. Geography did. … the living standard research that Sullivan and Hickel cite has a problem … That Sullivan and Hickel rely on weak data is the least of their problems. The evidence is not relevant at all. the nationalist criticism of food exports has long been discredited. … that colonialism caused famines is based on flawed logic. … Sullivan and Hickel dare not tell that story, for that would dilute their partisan message.

I suggest that, like Sullivan and Hickel, your claims are driven by a partisan ideology, as well as a strange desire to rehabilitate German colonial crimes and Prussian imperialism. Trying to pretend that deliberate genocide is somehow not only comparable, but actually better than natural disasters is a really extraordinary attempt to disguise the truly exceptional extent of the viciousness of German colonial rule. The fact that you rely on discredited and inflated statistics produced by an anticapitalist social scientist and anthropologist advocate of "degrowth" promoted (ironically) by Qatari state media is nothing more than what can be expected. As Roy says, these claims "are being spread with religious zeal", and religion has always sought to distort history;

the truth is that British rule in India mitigated famine

I won't expect any coherent answer from you – it will no doubt consist of the same politicized lies as previous.

[u/AltoCowboy → u/Cixila]

You could use the same argument for virtually any country. Any successful empire is built upon atrocities.

[u/MaleficentClassic806 → u/Cixila]

Well, why would Prussia by any worse than France or Britain of the same time.

We should not let the far right appropriate history, but why should we reject it ourselves.

[u/Kiebonk → u/MaleficentClassic806]

In a lot of aspects Prussia was even better, for example voting rights.

[u/[deleted] → u/MaleficentClassic806]

Your first paragraph is true. I still find it baffling that the takeway of many from that seems to be that there's no problem, since the brits and french were bad too.

[u/MaleficentClassic806 → u/[deleted]]

Well, what can you do. What we are today is the product of our past. That it was full of 'problems' is just how the world works. You can point to societies from the dawn of time being cruel and unjust.

[u/[deleted] → u/MaleficentClassic806]

so where is the difference between your version of "your history", and the far rights?

[u/31_hierophanto → u/Cixila]

And the original Nazis literally copied Prussia!

[u/[deleted] → u/31_hierophanto]

bullshit. They dissolved Prussia

[u/Born_Passenger9681 → u/Representative_Belt4]

you have the german federal eagle.

[u/evergreennightmare → u/Born_Passenger9681]

the frg is one of the top three perpetrators in the genocide against palestinians

[u/Born_Passenger9681 → u/evergreennightmare]

the germans wanted since the end of ww2 to as little as possible to address their crimes against the all jews, so dumping jews in the levant and calling it a day was their chosen strategy to minimize uncomfortableness for themselves

[u/RefrigeratorAny4112 → u/Representative_Belt4]

Nazis or far right? Pick one and go with it