I don't really want to comment on your post as a whole, other than to say to my eyes, as a relative layman on the subject of history, it seems to me that you have never made even a cursory effort to understand it.
I'll reserve my remarks for the particular paragraph that I just quoted, because it seems to me too daunting a task to sift through your post for all the mistakes, stereotyping, important ommissions and crediting of apparently significant developments to irrelevant factors.
"Now the trouble arose from the decedents of those Germanic tribes who had not snatched a piece of the Roman empire, but rather had stayed at home or had filled the void left by those that had gone."
Actually, the Holy Roman Empire was centred on Germany, the electors and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire were often Germans. The Germans inherited more of the Western Empire than anyone else in terms of territory and cultural continuity.
"They quite imaginatively were called Germans"
I realise this is a bit petty and you were probably just trying to be witty, but why choose to be condescending about the apparent imagination or lack of it of Germans being called Germans as opposed to British being known as British, or Americans or Chinese or whatever?
Just seems like a needless snark really.
"thought that this industrialization thing was a great idea, and it worked so great for them"
Again, most powers at the time were getting to grips with machines and engines, Germany was no better at it really than other European powers. It was Nazi Germany that really went for broke with industrialisation in a comparitive sense. You seem to me to be choosing a particular characteristic of a particular historic period of Germany and assigning it to 20th centrury Germany as a whole.
It was Britian who were the main exploiters of industry in this war - turning an obsolete 1914 infantry/cavalry army into a mechanised force by 1918.
"that they thought they might be quite capable of taking over the British empire."
I think this is utterly wrong.
All the main power blocks in Europe at the time were competitive and bellicose, though Britain and Germany were by no means friendly they had bonds that didn't exist between - say - Britain and France (extensive family ties in the ruling class). The main objective of Germany at the time was not to conquer British Territories, but to win back regions of France that had been German in the past (Alsace-Lorraine) and to wrest control of the Balkans (sparked off by the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand and general lack of central authority in the region that allowed the Germans to see it as a security risk to let it remain independent).
Until Britian declared war as a result of Germany's invasion of France Germany had made no moves against Britian along the lines of seeking to conquer the British Empire.
"Which they then tried to do, causing trouble all around the British empire."
Not really, the British Empire went largely unmolested. The fighting was largely confined to continental europe. As far as I know there wasn't actually any fighting on British soil in WW1.
"And since everyone from the British empire pitched in, even those sassy colonists, the Germans were eventually starved out and lost."
I assume the "sassy colonists" are the US troops who fought in WW1, even though the US wasn't part of the British empire at the time. Gotta love the bias - the unimaginative troublesome Germans vs the Sassy US.
I realise "starved out" is used as a colloquialism for ruin in a wide sense, and can therefore be applied generally. However I find it's use misleading in this case. The German forces were being beaten back from positions that had been fortified into positions that were not, and their late-war strategy could not cope with the paradigm shift caused by the increased mechanism of British forces. There was also the small issue of the Red Army to deal with. They didn't really face imminent ecomonic ruin or starvation - it was just obvious they had lost and were going to continue to lose until they surrendered, so they did.
they faced ecomonic ruin, because of the massive war debts they were asked to pay as part of the treaty of Versailles - leading to the German people looking for scapegoats, increased industry and a dignity-restoring nationalism - which led to further disaster.
Like most of your writing on history I find this a piece mostly conceived in order to glorify the US, condescend to pretty much everyone else, and particularly villify Islam and communism.
I'm suspicious of such motives in general, because I think periods of history and ideological movements answer needs of the moment or situation, and that US liberal democracy is not some sort of teleological end or pinnacle of human cultural achievement.
Even if I did - I wouldn't want to see an argument for such supported through a false view of history. Rewriting history to make a particular ideology seem like a logical winner, or end, is something I'd leave to the likes of Hitler or Stalin.