The title is a bit
provocative in the sense that I mean aside from the obvious reasons of both
world wars. With that out of the way, I’m going to be fair to Holy Rome =
Germany skeptics, and will give an alternative reason as to why France’s hatred
of Germany extends well before 1914.

First, while this
strip is deleted and should not be taken at canon value, it’s still important
in potentially giving us more insight as to what Hima might plan to do should
he portray how the nations react to the news of Holy Rome’s dissolution and
subsequent death (that is, if he ever died. Yes, I’m biased).

Either way, this
demonstrates that France was severely impacted by what happened to Holy Rome,
and for very good reasons considering that it was Napoleon who caused his dissolution.

1) Holy Rome look-alike

Since France grew up
with Holy Rome, having a new nation [Germany] spring-up in his place, looking
exactly like him would be like rubbing salt to the wound. You can see why
France would be hostile to this substitute; a replacement of someone
irreplaceable.

2) Germany is Holy Rome + France’s Guilt

Consider this. You ‘kill’
someone who you view to be a little brother –or well, at the very least, he’s believed to be dead (bias x 2)–only to
have him become a new nation with no memories of the past.

In that case, France’s
initial hatred of Germany (while unfounded) is what we in psychology call a
projective defense mechanism. France is taking the hatred that he feels towards himself for dissolving Holy Rome, and constructs Germany as the
object to be hated.

In other words, to
minimize anxiety over his past, France represses these emotions and inflicts this
hatred onto Germany, who then becomes the focus of said hatred.

Obviously, this hatred
is amplified in the world wars. This, of course wanes over time, as it’s noted
that he no longer hates Germany and that they hang out regularly.

However, what’s
important to note is the substantial degree of hesitancy, nervousness, and
skittishness that France sometimes shows when he’s interacting with Germany.

From an interpretative
standpoint, this could mean that France is still wary of Germany. Or in the
case that Germany’s Holy Rome, France is still left to deal with the
consequences that he caused back in the Napoleonic Wars; that is, Germany’s
estrangement and amnesia from his past as Holy Rome.

This hesitancy is
shown as France secretly backs Germany in an EU meeting. Of course, there’s an economic reason for this too.

Likewise, the
contradictory skittishness and desire to form a strong relationship with
Germany is seen when France offers to let Germany tell him about his troubles, only to plugs his ears and run away.

While this could just
be a joke of him not wanting to deal with EU matters, if you read into it, it could also possibly mean that France is afraid
that Germany might say something indicative of his forgotten past. We’ve
already gotten a few hints of this in other strips (i.e. Prussia not telling
Germany everything about his past, or Germany recalling a memory of Chibitalia
in San Buon Valentino).

Regardless, their
relationship does progress, making significant grounds as they take leading positions in the EU.

Ex: When England
leaves the EU, Germany and France ease each other’s worries and work together.

As the character note
states, they do hang out as well.

Ex: They vacation in Seychelles together.

Lastly, there seems to
be another projective metaphor with regards to France’s desire to strengthen
his relationship with Germany.

Here, France invites
Germany to his house. When Germany arrives, France randomly blurts out that he
thinks school uniforms are “awesome.” He then communicates his desire to share
“complex aesthetics” with Germany.

Immediately, I’m
already seeing hints at an unconscious conflict manifesting itself here…

…which is well
substantiated when you consider how it seems like France is, well, desperately
grasping at any seams that he can use to mend his relationship with Germany. I
mean, when have you ever seen Germany take an interest in fashion?

It’s the topic that’s trivial, not the repressed emotions behind it.

If anything, this can
be taken as France projecting his broken past onto the object of a school
uniform, and in doing so, represent his desire to sew and repare the figurative seams of
his relationship with Germany.

Me when my alarm goes off in the morning.

What exactly is France’s sexuality?

I don’t want to give any labels, not to mention that it’s not explicitly stated in canon. This character note is helpful in giving you a general idea, though.

“He’ll go for men and women of all ages, and even non-humans, as long as they’re beautiful.”

He also seems to have a preference for “macho men”, and makes a lot of references to “touching pecs.”

Sometimes, the fandom of hetalia thinks that France regrets what happened to Holy Rome. What do You think about it?

I think he suffers from a lot of guilt. To be fair, I’m going to branch off and give two alternative explanations for France’s previous hatred of Germany (asides from the obvious war reasons). Of course, I’ll still link it back to Holy Rome.

One will be based on the fact that Germany is an amnesiac Holy Rome, and the other explanation will focus on France simply attempting to mend his relationship with Germany (a Holy Rome look-alike) after the world wars.

Either way, I’ve noticed a lot of metaphors of France projecting his guilt in communicating his desire to fix things with Germany.

Post coming up tonight!

In previous posts, I’ve discussed how more often than not,
the nations are forced to comply with their bosses’ orders, often at the
expense of going against what they think is right. It would follow then, that
there’s a discrepant irony between what the nations represent (their people),
and who they serve (their bosses).

Despite this direct involvement of the gov’t facilitating nation
action, there are many instances where the nations lack very minimal political
power and influence. In other words, you don’t commonly see the nations facilitating
much gov’t action.

One of the prime examples of this would be how powerless
they are to stop corruption. Nonetheless, they still possess a deep awareness and
recognition of these political issues.

Without further ado, let’s go over some examples, shall we?

The Italy Brothers:

The Italy brothers experience a lot of troubles back home.
For one thing, they have the mafia and pick-pocketers who routinely steal from
him.

Italy has his car and phone stolen.

The mafia attempts to steal imports that Romano intends to
send to Spain.

As such, the prevalence of being constantly stolen from and
victimized ultimately motivated Romano to learn how to defend himself against
pick-pocketers.

Lastly, we get an explicit recognition from Italy that the
Italian Parliament suffers from transparency and corruption issues.

America:

America’s involvement in his politics is a tricky puzzle,
all right.

He’s incredibly optimistic about the outcome of his
elections…well, at the very least he leads on the façade of believing that
everyone will get along in the end.

England notes that because of how partisan America’s
citizens are, it divides the country.

America responds by saying that the “powerful enthusiasm” of
his citizens is a good thing…

…to which England counters by deeming America to be blithe
about the political division in his country. Basically, England is saying that
America is cheerfully indifferent about how polarized the Republicans and
Democrats are.

What makes me think that America is putting on a façade is
the fact that when he claims that everyone will get along in the end, the image
he pictures is in stark contrast to his statement. It reveals two beaten-up and
worn-down citizens agreeing on the fact that the President isn’t doing his job
well.

Go back to the first panel where America refers to their political
activism as “lively.” When comparing that statement to the fact that America is
implicitly acknowledging how potentially violent his politics can become, it shows a
reluctance on his part to confront the volatile–both verbal and sometimes
physical i.e. rallies or protests–aspects of his elections.

The “United after all” phrase seems like America is trying
to convince himself that the situation in his country isn’t that bad. It’s also
important to consider that this strip is recent, having come out in 2016.

It doesn’t end here, either. As a result of America’s
dividing politics, England expresses concern for the former’s health– a small
reminder that a nation’s health can be affected by the stability or instability
of their political situation.

Of course, America waves off England’s comment, likely not
wanting to admit that even with his super strength, he can grow weaker just
like any other nation can during dire economic recessions or turbulent socio-political
disputes.

What he says next, however, gives a better hint as to how
involved he is in his politics. It’s quite worrisome.

To surmise, means to accept something as true without possessing
the evidence to confirm it. If that’s the case and America’s merely guessing
what his citizens want, it would mean that he’s not directly involved in the campaigning and gathering of public opinion.

Without a decent grasp of what the polls are like before
voting, perhaps America is relying on media reports and/or word of mouth from
other gov’t officials on who the people are leaning toward. Point is, he doesn’t
seem to be directly involved in the process of actively talking to people
during elections.

This doesn’t mean to say that America is completely removed
from his politics. He hails and takes the privilege of voting very seriously.
What I’m trying to get at is that he might have more of a sideline role with
regards to how active and engaged he is during elections.

Russia:

This one is pretty disturbing and unsuprising, but it still
goes to show how little control a nation has over their gov’t.

Bluntly and with a
troubled look on his face, Russia admits that votes [and people] in his country disappear, and
that he doesn’t even know if all of the votes are counted.

France’s Speculation about Germany:

While this is just a speculation on France’s part, it
nevertheless demonstrates the recognition that nations are capable of taking
part in corrupted schemes. As stated above, however, they don’t always have the
discretion to oppose these gov’t orders.

France suspects
that Germany took part in a conspiracy where he knew that letting Greece into the
EU would cause the European economy to crash.

Germany obviously denies this.

It’s the realized possibility that matters here, not the
actuality of it playing out in real life.

That said, while the nations are often used as puppets by
their leaders, that doesn’t mean that they share a similar mindset. Instead,
when presented with issues like corruption, it causes them to experience reciprocal
internal conflict.

When the assignments pile up on you out of nowhere

Don’t the nations also have special attack powers?

Yes, but it’s
just a comic gag.

Some
examples would be Romano’s “Neapolitan Tornado” or Japan’s “The Final Arcanum…Sincere Regret” [whatever that means].

My personal
favourite is France’s “Eiffel Attack.”

So is Chibitalia North Italy?

[I’ve explained this before, but I’ll use an older example
just to prove the consistency in characterization]

Yes.

Italy used to be composed of several city-states, which were
considered to be something similar to sovereign nations in their own right. The
concept of what consisted of a nation was different then.

While the name Veneziano is clearly a tribute to the city of
Venice, we know that it’s possible for the nations to evolve and gain new
territories/titles as understandings of nationhood and borders change.

In other words, he
could have been born as a personification of Venice, but evolved to represent
North Italy as it was conquered, divided, and amalgamated into being seen as
one region of the country. It was predicated more on where the foreign rulers’
jurisdiction over Northern Italy ended rather than how the people organized and
identified themselves.

Here, Chibitalia is taken over by France via his conquests
in Florence and Naples (this is Romano’s territory, so he was also conquered here too).

Milan, a northern city-state, is also mentioned.

Hima also explicitly refers to him as already representing
several parts of Italy here.

I’ve briefly talked about America’s naivety before, but
given how prevalent it is throughout the series, it deserves its own post.

For one thing, it’s important to define what I mean by
naivety. It’s not so much that America is gullible, as he’s more than capable
of reading the atmosphere, especially if it means getting what he wants.
Instead, this naivety has more to do with how inexperienced and childish
America can be, often without realizing it.

Likewise, I’ve also explained the role that America’s
isolation has played in this childishness. As a result of a lack of interaction
with other nations, America unintentionally comes off as egotistical. He grew
accustomed to only looking after himself, and this way of interacting with the
world stuck with him.

It’s hard for him to think about and put others first. Even
when he calls himself a hero and ‘saves’ others, it’s self-validating. Of
course, this doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have good intentions, because he
does. He’s a giant sweetheart, don’t get me wrong.

On the other hand, like an inexperienced child, America
lacks a balanced understanding between ability and expectancy. He often has
grand, unrealistic plans that involve him taking the lead in saving something
or someone.

That’s what this post will focus on; how, despite possessing
the ability to make calculated decisions, America still holds some pretty naïve
and unpragmatic beliefs on how life works.

All of this equates to the fact that he’s still relatively
childish.

For one thing, in WW2, he thought that a map of his country was a world map. This is possibly a play on the fact that children often think that the world revolves around them.

This childlike imagery appears again as America proposes
unrealistic world defense plans.

On another note, we also see that he’s not great at planning
for the future. Mass production led to inflation and plummets in stocks,
which ultimately resulted in the Great Depression.

However, during WW2, this mass production starts up again.
What’s interesting is that England remarks to himself that America might have
been traumatized during his childhood due to a lack of belongings and experienced poverty whilst
expanding settlements in his nation– it’s hinted that America overcompensates
for this by producing things in bulk.

Regardless of these economic downturns, America is revealed
to have never had a cold before WW2. Remember that nations acquire colds during
recessions. If this is the case, and it’s not just a consistency error, then
being spared from illness up to this point in time would have also influenced
his naive perception of the world.

Lastly, although possessing benign intentions to give
financial aid to smaller developing nations, America doesn’t seem to grasp at
the fact that loans are more economically harmful than good. Once again, this reveals how unrealistic he
is in being able to match his expectations with a likely outcome.

That said, it’s important to realize that America’s childish
naivety and unintentional egocentrism is only one side of his person. He’s
extremely intelligent and is crafty in getting what he wants.

Most of the time, however, he doesn’t have to use wit and instead
resorts to the easier route of relying on physical force. It’s for the latter
reason that I believe his character is often misinterpreted.

Can you analyze the relationships between the countries and their leaders? I think it would be very interesting. Would they represent their people’s view points while maybe having their own?

“Do you think that nations can go against their bosses and governments? Or do you think that they have the same beliefs as them? Can
the people influence the nation?”

What you’ll see is a complicated blend of what you two
asked.

For the most part, they’re bound by their bosses’ orders. It
does happen, but very rarely do they go against them.

Of course, it’s important to consider that the nations have minds
of their own and often disagree with the orders they’re given. Some of what
they’re told to do isn’t in their peoples’ best interest. The irony is that the
nations exist because of their people, not the government alone:

Lastly, because the nations work under their leaders’ orders,
they’re primarily reactive to their peoples’ perceptions of them.

Ex: Russia expresses
dismay during the Bloody Sunday revolt, given how hard he had worked to improve his
country for the betterment of all.

Ex: After the
Revolutionary government gains power, France is prevented from dressing
aristocratically in the fear that he’ll be assaulted.

With all that cleared out of the way, an analysis of the
nations’ bosses coming up tonight!