Turns out that ESA prefers ignoring people to debate (I can if requested link to multiple debates he has abandoned when his whackjobbery became impossible to keep up without being banned), and I look forward to the day when he has ignored every one of us. However, to correct silliness is a minor compulsion so I shall continue, as it were, to direct the mafia from prison.
The origin of Prussia was in expansionism. To the extent of my knowledge it was the only surviving crusader state.
The origin of everything is in something, but the Prussian state had no interest in upsetting everything in, say, 1830. Your principal error is to imagine Vast Impersonal Forces where none exist, based purely on Prussia being this or that, whereas in fact hundreds of people die and change their views along the way. Prussia began as a crusader state but this doesn't make it predestined to become anything, or mean that you can draw an unbroken thread between crusades, a ruthlessly opportunistic enlightened despot, and 19th century nationalistic nonsense.
Might be, but he wouldn't have the combination of supreriority complex towards the east,
While Fred had a very low opinion of Poland-Lithuania, I strongly suspect that you've got the wrong measure of why this was and how it manifested itself. I beg everyone to recall that Frederick though German was a vulgar language and hated speaking it.
his country origins as crusader state
Accuse me of pigeonholing, but I doubt medieval attitudes meant much to the atheist a/bi/homosexual Prussian despot.
Now you just don't know what you're talking about. Militarism didn't exist anywhere that I can think of in the 18th century, when all European armies were small proffessional bodies, their officer classes full of unscrupulous mercenaries and their ranks sometimes scraped from the prisons. Prussian militarism was created by a Hanoverian farm boy several decades later. Voltaire made his "army with a country" comment because until 1793 no-one had actually seen a national army. Prussia got that reputation purely because it's army was unusually big (a legacy not of Herman von Salza but rather of FWI) and in fine condition, but it was an 18th century army. It had a Scottish general, to name one from my area of expertise. FII in fact pursued an anti-militarist policy in the aftermath of the 7YW, as the devastation that war had caused to his country in exchange for nothing much convinced him that expanding and developing it without war would be a far more effective strategy.
Prussia was quite an unique creation and its frutis were consequence of that.
Nothing is inevitable (unless you're a determinist, in which case why are you here?). Everything is unique (unless you're a monomaniac).
Well butterflies don't mean changing the whole world-many changes there would be but geopolitics would stil leave similar resources and population drifts to certain regions.
Brandenburg obviously being much more valuable real estate than anything in the valley of the Rhine.
Funny, its quite present in XVIII century in Prusssia.
He said, without giving evidence.
Is that why Frederick the Great settled German colonists to displace Polish population ?
Because it was the name of the 18th century game known as "internal colonisation", having the aim of filling up territories and exploiting them to the profit of the state. If we're on about uniqueness then I should point out that Austria, Russia, and Great Britain were settling German colonists all over the place. The Austrians and Russians also settled Serbs in the same sorts of regions, whereas Frederick the Great wanted to relocate Jews into his new acquisitions (believing that they got up to "rascally tricks" in towns but were the only ones conducting trade on the frontier).
This all has a great deal to do with Teutonic Knights, I assure you.