> Richelieu introduced the concept of raison d'etat which elevated the nation and national interests above that of the church (he was supporting protestant rebe

> Richelieu introduced the concept of raison d'etat which elevated the nation and national interests above that of the church (he was supporting protestant rebels against the catholic aligned rulers to avoid encirclement of france by the Hapsburgs) Yes. > The 30 year war lead to fragmented germany kept this way for two centuries, dominant france up to the Napoleonic wars. Oversimplified. The Peace of Westphalia destroying the Empire and its ideals is a common misconception (Axel Gotthard, Das Alte Reich 1495–1806). Despite a bad financial situation, the Empire lived on. A "dominant" France is an overstatement: yes, Austria and the Iberian Union were hit hard, but England and Russia were unharmed by the war, and the Republic of The Netherlands became independent. > The dominant france lead to the whole balance of power concept that GB tried its best to upheld up to the 1940s. No. The United States were a British colony that the French helped free: looks more like France upholding the British balance. Then they won the Napoleonic wars, and the British Empire started indisputably dominating the world again. > The fragmented Germany was natural battleground for the bloodiest conflicts on the continent since which lead to the ingrained desire for strength power and security above all. Yes, German unification was a long and painful process. No, it was clearly not the stage of the "bloodiest conflicts on the continent since" — since when, by the way? I did not read a lot of German literature from/about that era, so I cannot argue for/against the "desire for strength power and security". > Germany never had the chance to mature out of it as a country after the unification - Bismarck left it with too much power for the leaders to absorb and control I do not know enough about Bismarck's political manoeuvres, so I will take your word for it. > [...] which led to WWI - it was the braking down of the balance of power order. No. It took more than Bismarck to start WWI — actually, it took more than all Germans. WWI was the result of escalations between France, the British Empire, and the German Empire, respective to their colonies, due to the mesh of alliances tying all those countries together and to the rest of Europe. > And WWII was just extension of WWI mainly because of the idiotic treaty of Versailles that did squat to reconcile overpowered germany with the rest of the continent and the inability of USA to contain the great depression. No. Oh, no. Yes, the Treaty of Versailles had major flaws, and some of those played a part in the settings of WWII. Yes, Germany was not fully reconciled with the rest of the continent. Yes, there was the Great Depression in the USA. Germany was not overpowered: they were severely underpowered at the time. They lost a lot of land, mainly to Poland and the Czech Republic. They were forbidden from having real armed forces. They got hit by the economic depression harder than any other country. Also, a major cause for WWII was a guy named Adolf Hitler, who either misunderstood great philosophers like Nietzsche, or understood less great ones like Thomas Malthus. * * * Just look at the length of your explanation — disregarding my own remarks. I think it screams "far-fetched". You could look at all events in history and try to highlight links between them, and overjustify those links. Some links would always be far-fetched.