Guys, it was sarcasm since Dutch is a weird mix of English and German.
Well, a German friend had pointed out (this, may piss off many Belgians, but I am just referring) that Flemish to him sounded like bad German with bad grammatics (different pronounciation, though variable between different parts, no declensions, and no "let's build the longest word in the World" being the most visible differences), and probably you could say the same about Dutch (harsher pronounciation) but in reality, a German or a Dutch could retort your irony against you.
English if often referred to as "Germanic" language, due to the "anglo-saxons" (Saxons, being considered a Germanic tribe with Germanic language), but in reality, with exceptions, that appear mostly in "low English", especially modern English is full of vocabulary from Latin and Greek, either directly or through (old) French, and old German and old Dutch are closer to what "original" English could have been.
In +/- simplistic terms, the Normans (there, you can say Germanic word, Northmann) where Viking that had established themselves in France and Italy, so much that the language spoken at the court for a long period of time was not English, were (pig) Latin and French (well, the French of the time).
Even the English Royal family, is actually of German origin
, though that came much later.
Actually, the Germans themselves as one single group (let's me piss off some Germans as well, while I am that
) originally were an invention of a ancient Roman, Tacitus, who simply used "Germania" and "Germans" to refer to all the people from territories North beyond the borders of the territory controlled by Rome.
It became then convenient for Germany itself, especially when Prussia and the others started creating modern Germany, and after in another historical period I am not mentioning, to put emphasis on the idea that "Germans" (better, Deustch, as in "land of the Deustch or "Deustchland") was since forever an homogeneous group, using the battle of Teotoburg as a kind of epic founding event and the victory of the pure spirit of the Germanic people etc. (put some nationalist rethoric here, feel free to put a reference to "race" instead of "spirit", because it was "fashionable" for some time).
Why is this also ironic ? The hero of Teotoburg could win that battle (actually, his people, but never mind that) because in reality he had previously the rank equivalent of general in the Roman army and was trained by the Romans.
He knew that doing an ambush in that forest territory while the Romans were in marching order, would eliminate completely the advantage from training, formation and logistics of the Romans, effectively transforming it in a disadvantage, while giving an advantage to way of fighting of the people he had available.
Certainly a good credit to his military abilities and his capability of using the knowledge and training he had acquired, but hardly a matter of "pure race".
Effectively, from the point of view of the Romans after that battle it was just "not worth spending more to go there again", playing a bit the snobbish approach
, while still doing business like with everybody else - raising a legion was not free of charge, so, it is documented that Rome was not happy about it, but did not bother.