Um, no. What's disconnected from reality is the warped fiction you presented with your post.
If you don't make the effort of reading what I post, you will indeed end up with a lot of fiction and lies. If you read my posts and consider their content rather than a straw man there is none of that. I never said the euro was a German "demand", I said Germany posed several conditions to joining the euro.
The Euro [...] had nothing whatsoever with conditions made by Germany.
Claiming that Germany joined the euro unconditionally without any prior negotiation is blatantly false. You even contradict yourself when you mention the fact that it was a complicated process for Kohl. Naturally a key member state of the euro will make demands before joining a currency zone, and the more economic weight the more importance will be attached to those conditions. Two very simple examples illustrate this. France did not have the absurd German fear for inflation, and Karlsruhe is not situated within France. Germany would obviously never have joined the euro without being able to influence its conception and getting a series of guarantees on its nature (conditions).
Stating that the Euro was "being conceived for and by Germany" is a flat out lie. Stop making things up.
It is a simple conclusion on the basis of two key factors. First of all the German economy dominates the euro zone, it is impossible to contest. Secondly Germany was crucial in conceiving the euro framework and still today controls it. On that basis, if you look at the damage the euro did to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and France before Mario Draghi decided to breach the treaties that German politicians had defended, and still does to the economy of these countries, will looking at the benefits for Germany in terms of commercial surplus, you can safely conclude that the euro was "being conceived for and by Germany". No other member state has benefitted as much as Germany and had as much influence, and it never will unless the treaties are changed in a way that explicitly contradicts the policies of the German CDU-CSU governments and the social-liberal SPD.
Some set of guidelines for what economic integration would mean did not hinge on Germany demanding them, they were always bound to happen.
No, there is no universal model for "economic integration" inevitably leading to orthodox German economic policies as envisioned by their right-wing. There are many alternative models of economic integration which set different guidelines.
You always have this weird fiction of Germany being some sort of draconian overlord who forces its ideas onto others, conveniently ignoring that in most cases some of the smaller nations to the west and north follow far more drastic approaches than Germany does.
There are not that many other members of the eurozone. Given Germany's economic weight it would be absurd to cite the Netherlands and Austria without considering the fact that their agenda is largely tied to the German one due to dependence. Germany doesn't need to impose ideas as a "draconian overlord", they are natural due to their domination of the continent and the fact that no one can contradict them.
Germany was the leading economic power in Europe prior to the Euro, so it was always likely to be the leading economic power once the Euro arrived. Taking from that that the Euro was somehow a German demand, or that it somehow caused a German domination, is completely absurd and without any logic.
It is perfectly possible for a common currency to reinforce the advantages of the leading economic power at the expense of smaller economies. That is how Germany benefitted from the euro while a series of states to its south were disadvantaged. That being said, it doesn't mean Germany wouldn't have dominated the zone without the euro, it means it is one of the tools strengthening its domination given the nature of the framework.
