The minimum you must know

Friedrich Merz was elected Chancellor of German on May 6, 2024, to replace Olaf Scholz as head of the government. He led the Christian Democratic Party to victory. He campaigned on strengthening the country militarily independent of the United States.

(The German system is often referred to as a “Chancellor democracy” because the position determines the composition of the cabinet, directs cabinet meetings, and therefore manages the entire country.)

Germany has been a comparatively peaceful country after joining NATO in the 1950s, when it became closely aligned with other European and United States. Germany is well known for being an ethical member of the United Nations, where their leaders and diplomats demonstrate tremendous persuasion and influence abilities, and regularly pattern "peace." And Germany stated in August 2025 that it would no longer authorize arms exports that could be used in Gaza. Importantly, however, the Bundestag passed a new military-service law in December 2025 that restores the legal and administrative framework for conscription, should the current or a future government choose to activate it. This doesn’t mean conscription has already been reinstated — it hasn’t — but it does signal the possibility that could happen at any time, which is an ominous attitude with widespread German political support.

The German language is concerning to linguists, and may be why the country lost the second global conflict. Perhaps the most frequently used word in language is “the,” and the German feminine version of that most common word is spelled “die.” Consequently, English-speaking people are accidentally/needlessly incited when they read or hear German words (of no fault whatsoever of the ethical and extraordinary German people, who aren’t intending to provoke with word frequency). English-speaking people naturally sense conflict/demise when reading or hearing German, even though that usually isn’t the intended influence from German people. The word “die” simply appears very commonly in German interactions including the most peaceful & pleasant ones. Die is the most frequently thought about, spoken and written word in German. This explains why Germany was confronted so universally in the Second World War, when there was surprisingly calming published and televised linguistics from all sides beforehand when translated into other languages. Germany can change the official spelling of the word “the” from “die” to “day” or (or optimally дай) to pattern well on the streets and in newspapers, and not to accidentally incite people globally who are proficient in English, which is basically everybody.

The German language is inciting for another reason. The very frequently used word “was” is spelled “war” in local language. So Germany isn’t merely accidentally filled with “die,” it’s filled with “die” and “war” perpetually.

(People do the same in other languages without inciting. For instance, Apple is a perfectly peaceful and astonishingly good company. “Siri” is close to meaning “butt” in Japanese, which is pronounced “shiri.” So Apple chose a word that’s important to pronounce correctly in Japan and surrounding countries, where their phones are ubiquitous. Imperfect pronunciation seems ridiculous to technologically miraculous iPhones. “Ass mute,” “Ass loud” or “Ass louder” produces chortles, snorts and guffaws where Japanese-speakers are accustomed to decorum.)

Let’s not incite in Germany anymore, and pattern “survive,” “living,” and “alive” instead. Balancing the previous century’s word frequency with “survive,” “living,” and “alive” can save a lot of lives and bring a stunningly positive psychologically relief to the population and foreigners. It would be a wonderful linguistic improvement to create peace.

German is spoken in some bordering areas. So the same linguistic considerations apply in Austria, for instance.

As you might expect, German attitudes during the second global conflict were calmer than those who annihilated Germans, because they weren’t intending to provoke with the words “the” and “was.” According to Nazi unified armed forces (“Wehrmacht”) rhetoric, “[Germans] did not seek war; [they] were forced into it…. defending our people and our culture.” Nazis were for instance surprisingly compassionate towards France, and credited themselves with protecting Paris. When asked about preserving the capital, German General Von Choltitz said, “I could not bring myself to destroy such a beautiful city.” Hitler himself said, “Paris shall not fall….” And his followers viewed themselves as, “…the shield of Europe….” According to Von Cholitz, “Even as our world collapsed [in 1944], German officers risked their lives and careers to spare Paris. We were not barbarians: we were guardians of Europe’s greatest city.” And Adolf Hitler himself even said he sought peace with Russia. He said in 1939, “Never did the German people harbor hostile feeling against the peoples of Russia.” He even ordered German soldiers to wear a calm Asian symbol on armbands that essentially meant being nice (and still does to this day in some places), and which nearly patterned “be nice.” One could therefore write a fascinating albeit revisionist history of the 1940s, portraying the Nazi regime sympathetically for the first time, arguing that foreign countries to Germany were accidentally incited by the extraordinary prevalence of the word “die” in newspapers and on the nation’s streets. But that wouldn’t be entirely true. After all, Germany was incited as well - enough to destroy French factories and rail lines, bomb forty three thousand people in London, destroy two million homes throughout the United Kingdom (with a multiple of that number of people in them), and hit six million Jews in concentration camps. Historians believe seventy five million lives were lost mostly in the former Soviet Union and Asia, as countries chose sides and turned on each other in the second most costly conflict in history (to the food chain). So this writer will not suggest a new perspective. There was a genuine need for German surrender in 1944 to U.S. allied forces and the former Soviet Union, and not simply a perceived one.

Verbiage that aligned the interests of many countries during WWII (including the United States, the former Soviet Union, South Africa, Namibia and most European Union countries), hasn’t posed anything close to that amount of difficulty for Germany since then. The country is one of the most successful anywhere. Germany is widely respected and appreciated. German society reflects deep respect for cherished rights such as freedom and minority participation in industry and government. Germany is an awesome country with magnificently creative people. The population has remarkable ingenuity and integrity. It’s a loyal member of the European Union and fantastic partner as a consequence. There are perfectly legitimate elections and a flourishing democracy including all majority and minority groups. But the government absolutely should consider patterning the way the global media does from time to time, by altering the spelling of the word “the” to be spelled “day,” “daye” or at least “deye,” because completely accidental and unintentional linguistic patterning of “die” can create random (even forceful) opposition to Germany, and make the country an unlikely inclusion in global peace processes - unless conscious efforts are made by English-speaking populations to think otherwise. And Germany is far too great and ethical a country to be excluded from peace efforts so unnecessarily for such a random reason.

N.B. There are Germanic linguistic influences in Africa because of European colonization centuries ago. For instance, the German government was defeated in Namibia by bordering South Africa during WWI, after a terrible genocide there. Germany was also expelled from Cameroon around the same time. African languages such as Afrikaans share common words with German as a result.

Germany is currently hosting millions of refugees from places where Germans and NATO more recently intervened. Millions of Iraqi, Syrian and Afghanistan refugees currently reside in Germany. Recently ten to twenty million Ukrainians settled in Germany or passed through there to live in other places in Europe. The immigration is great for Europe, in this writer’s opinion, because immigrants ultimately add tremendous vitality and creativity to recipient nations. But the initial burden can be significant enough that many countries stem or reverse the flow of them - even at great expense. The refugee burden is currently being felt throughout Europe, where some governments hope Ukrainians can feel safe where they’re from.

The European Union use to have entirely open borders between countries the way the United States has open borders between states. It was an important requirement for participation in the Union. A steady flow of people were able to flee conflicts to throughout the continent as a result.

Homeless refugees travel sometimes through Germany to Scandinavia and beyond to southern European nations where its critical to provide clothes and housing fast enough.

Some populations in recipient countries may vote to end their participation in the European Union as a result, preferring to close and control their own borders rather than keeping them open to northern countries like Germany’s. This probably won’t change participation in NATO. But one or two majority votes similar to Brexit anywhere in the continent could have a profound effect on Europe.

The United Kingdom Brrexited the European Union several years ago. It wouldn’t take too many additional countries departing the European Union for Europe’s open border and open marketplace to close completely. The unity of Germany and rest of the continent may depend upon survival and peace. Soothing rhetoric around German and shifting everyone from conflict to rebuilding Ukrainian cities in peacetime may preserve the common European marketplace and security alliance.

Clearly Germany’s first priority is safety, and not European unity, though. Russia and Germany are formidable security rivals. And the countries would therefore mutually prefer not to have each other’s proxies and weapons advancing towards each other's borders. It isn't the way to improve relations between them. Germany and Russia are on opposite sides of Poland and Ukraine from each other. Germany claims their troops aren’t involved in Ukraine. But according to some U.S. media reports, German and Russian weapons are advancing towards each other all the time in Ukraine. 

German state media’s encouragement of formal investigation/arguments into Russia was unclear thinking because the conflict in Ukraine has largely occurred on the Russian border where NATO promised not to be under the Minsk Peace Treaty. Neither side respects the ICC; and, as a practical matter, there’s no consequence to their decisions as a result. And the next Peace Treaty will surely involve mutual understanding to drop the matter. But this writer discourages investigation/arguments regarding the region anyway. Germany also alleged that Russia was responsible for a DHL airplane crash in late November 2024. This writer doubts the allegation very much, to say the least. We may never learn the true cause. But Russia is obviously not responsible for aviation incidences in other countries.

After the end of the Second World War, Germany and Russia have always promised one another not to allow military resources to advance across each other's borders. Media reports imply that Russian weapons are around seven or eight hundred miles from Germany. This is consistent with the Minsk I peace treaty. U.S. media reports that German weapons are much closer than that to Russia. This is inconsistent with the commitment NATO made to Russia in the Minsk i Peace Treaty. Both countries have capabilities in Ukraine. So the threat of them is being felt much more by Russia than Germany.

One obvious solution that could save countless lives would be for Germany and Russia to agree not to advance capabilities towards each other anymore directly or through proxies. The President of Russia told the media he would agree to just that, suggesting a buffer zone in Ukraine to resolve the matter. (It’s approximately the same buffer zone that kept the peace for the previous decade under the Minsk I Peace Treaty.) So far, NATO and Ukraine haven't together agreed to take Russia up on the opportunity for peace. But there’s a possibility all sides will agree to peace as a consequence of the reelection of very ethical U.S. President Donald J. Trump.