Lumich

« what you want to read into it »

I wanted to provide a counter point, or rather, a more balanced and self-conscious vision. As to your definition of what "third world" meant, that's not how I remember it (but I grew up in West Germany, and the GDR may have defined terms differently). The "third world", according to the Western definition, definitely were those countries that were poor (and also perceived as primitive and culturally backwards, so the term eventually came to be seen as stigmatizing, at least with left-leaning people).

What you're referring to, the unaligned countries/states, were called "blockfreie Staaten", and they were not "promoted" in Western propaganda as featuring "despots", but still could end up being bombed (democratically), like founder state Yugoslaviya.

But it is also true that many "third world" countries joined the block-free group, so there is considerable overlap.

« used the word "colonizer" for Jews living in Germany »

I didn't. Rather, "Germans" (Suebians, Saxons, etc) settled in ("colonized") Eastern Europe, beyond the Empire, typically at the invitation of the local rulers. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochmittelalterliche_Ostsiedlu... That's where the contact with Eastern Jews happened, which, according to Koestler, gave rise to Yiddish.

Yes, the Langobards and the Goths settling in Italy and Spain lost their language, but the medieval Germans settling in Eastern Europe a couple hundred years later did not.

No. How did you arrive at that conclusion? The equivalent for Italian would be colonization of some area (say, somewhere around the Mediterranean or Black Sea) by Venetians and other Adriatic or Northern Italic peoples, founding new urban centers, developing a mish-mash of their original Romance dialects, and exerting cultural influence via their more advanced culture/technology ; and then some local non-Italic people adapting to that via economic/cultural exchange, losing their native language in the process, as they had already lost their original religion by converting to Judaism. Read Koestler's book to understand (or get an AI summary).

« earned its own spot »

Linguistically, this chart doesn't have much value. Not sure what criteria were used for inclusion of this or that item, perhaps just presence in some ISO standard. “German” per se doesn't mean much, so-called “high-German” („hochdeutsch“, meaning „oberdeutsch“ in opposition to „niederdeutsch“), the language that you and I speak, is an artificial synthesis and administrative compromise on written variations that is not organically rooted in dialectical evolution and historically has been imposed by schooling (which has led to the eradication of the Northern dialects, „platt“, which are derived from old Saxon and thus are related to English), so it is questionable what its meaning should be in this chart.

Yiddish is a colonial sociolect and somewhat marginal to the evolution, so again, not clear why it was included. IIRC, Koestler wrote in “The Thirteenth Tribe” (where he rejects the mainstream hypothesis of the origin and nature of Eastern Jewry) that Yiddish is based on the South-Eastern variants, not on the South-Western variants.

Looking at the Latin languages, similar inadequacies can be seen. Very superficial and misleading, all in all.

Maybe this chart is meant more to showcase CSS and web graphics than linguistics.