I think he means that Germany is a very recent country and nation (way more than the US) and was built by one of the nations it now encompasses (Prussia) invading the others under Bismarck. Before that, like Italy, what we call Germany was a mixed bag of principalities, kingdoms and free cities.
The problem ,once unified, is that they kept advancing with that mindset, even when the area was no longer German compatible but German similar (Alsace, Lorraine, eastern Belgium, western Poland, Austria…) and got kicked back regularly.
A army’s value is its deterrence. Not its capacity to invade the country’s neighbours (or else, the US would have a much smaller one and spend less of its debt money into it, its neighbours being Canada and Mexico). Deterrence is what keeps the peace to pursue diplomatic and commercial actions with other countries, invasive action brings such a load of costs that even the most powerful armies have to abandon those conquests sooner or later.
I think he means that Germany is a very recent country and nation (way more than the US) and was built by one of the nations it now encompasses (Prussia) invading the others under Bismarck. Before that, like Italy, what we call Germany was a mixed bag of principalities, kingdoms and free cities. The problem ,once unified, is that they kept advancing with that mindset, even when the area was no longer German compatible but German similar (Alsace, Lorraine, eastern Belgium, western Poland, Austria…) and got kicked back regularly.
A army’s value is its deterrence. Not its capacity to invade the country’s neighbours (or else, the US would have a much smaller one and spend less of its debt money into it, its neighbours being Canada and Mexico). Deterrence is what keeps the peace to pursue diplomatic and commercial actions with other countries, invasive action brings such a load of costs that even the most powerful armies have to abandon those conquests sooner or later.