Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

[CroGer]

Hi CroGer,

There are an awful lot of things you are apparently not prepared to debate and then proceed to do so - at length!

Nobody here is suggesting that the Germans, as a linguistic and cultural group have not existed for at least two millenia, so you don't have to justify these points. German common identity certainly existed, but I would suggest to you that it was not represented by a common German state until 1870-71.

However, you do have to justify the idea that the Holy Roman Empire was a German state.

As a matter of interest, where was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire?

You write, "For some time in this 1000 years, no country had a large standing army." True, but did the Holy Roman Empire ever have a standing army, even after the 17th Century? Or a fleet, perhaps?

What about a civil service. Was there a HRE civil service?

Or a HRE diplomatic corps? Or a HRE foreign policy?

Or a common currency?

Did it raise taxes in its own name?

Many German states had all of these things, but did the HRE in recent centuries?

I am perfectly open to persuasion, but you have to first answer questions such as these satisfactorily.

Cheers,

Sid.

There are an awful lot of things you are apparently not prepared to debate

No, I am not prepared to explain to somebody who doesn't understand the middle ages, who doesn't even understand the EU, to explain the entire middle ages + a state with a very distinct, long and complicated history.

But there is another problem here. You forget your own uestions. And you flip flop through the topics. Maybe you shouldn't write everything "in a haste" and read what you have even asked, so then you would undeerstand the answeres.

How did we even get here? Oh, you claimed that France couldn't have attacked Germany before 1871, because there was no Germany. I guess, that question is answered.

You don't understand the middle ages. You have a modern understanding of what a state is. You don't understand that how states are now is a part of a development.


I have told you that it was decentralized, that means it didn't have a capital, and I also told you why.
It was a medieval state, that, over 1000 years, went through a lot of changes. I will not write the entire 1000 history down here.
Is it somehow possible for you to understand that states weren't always like they are now? No? Is it possible somehow for you to understand that 1000 years ago people made things differently?

"a diplomatic corps" - what? you mean like an ambassador? Did they have an airforce, maybe?
I ask you a question - what sense would an "embassy" make without modern means of communication? They had their "emissaries", these were usually noblemen or merchants, often with family ties in the other country, or, in many cases, the Kaiser would just go there himself, which usually took years, in case if italy.
You can pretty much say that the HRR was so large and so intertwined into papal policy that they had no time for anything else. Btw, do you know where the double headed eagle comes from, that you both have in russia and in austria? It's what the Kaiser/Czar meant. The Roman Cesar. He was a mundane leader and a cleric leader, since he was hallowed by the pope/patriarch.

They had "state officials". The earliest still exsisting documents of rules for "beamte" are from 1231.

"Foreign policy" - oh course? They communicated with other states.

Yes, it had an army. It was called "Reichsarmee". I said no country had a LARGE standing army. Before they had the Reichsarmee, they had the "Vasallenarmee" which were knights, and I case of a war they would create that army.

Yes, it had a currency. It was called "Reichstaler". Before that, you had the "Pfennige".
And no, I will not describe how the monetary system evolved in medieval europe.

"Taxes" - what? Why would ANYBODY have a state without raising taxes. It was called "Reichssteuer". (You might have noticed the "Reich" in nearly everything). They had a "Reichssteuereverzeichnis". What's that in english, now? But you had to pay taxes. The earliest still exsisting documents of rules are from 1241.


What was important in medieval times? What is important for political power"? It's legitimacy. The legitimacy was a) the king was elected and b) he was then crowned by the pope. The price for being crowned by the pope was the constant interferance by the catholic church. But that's a different topic.

The most uniue thing about the HRR is that they had two authorities. The Kaiser ws basically dependent on the pope. If the pope excommunicated a Kaiser, he had problem. There were several - a lot - of cases where you had a conflict between the german king and the pope.
You have to understand one thing - the clergy was a international organisation. In medieval times every noblemen ruled, because he was chosen by god. The holy roman empire was the in good times - for a long time - the protecting power of the pope, in bad times a vassal. There were a lot of power games between the kingdom of Germany and Rome. But that a very long history.

Here an example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Canossa

I know you won't read it anyway.

Here's an example of a german King and roman Kaiser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick ... an_Emperor

This is where Barbarossa comes from. Does that sound like the medieval Jean-Claude Junker? No? Oh, I thought you would actually read the links I provide to you.

The problem of medieval kings was how they would rule their country. Because - you had no means of transportation. That's why it took the King of the HRR years to go around his empire, that went down in the german language as "Ochsentour". On top of that, their maps really sucked.



Because of that, the King had, instead of a capital, "Pfalzen" spread across the country.

The problem with a country which was as large as the HRR is that it takes weeks to months from going to one part to the other. So if there was a problem in denmark, they send the saxons. If there was a problem in italy, they send bavarians and svabians.

You don't understand what you are talking about. Stop it.

[MarkN]

Identity is a very, VERY divisive issue and one that has often lead to rather vicious wars. It's 'divisiveness' is based upon identity being the key tool of a various assortment of despots and self-appointed 'leaders' to gell various population groups into waging bloody war on behalf of aforementioned despot.

But how do you define identity? Is it based on DNA, language, culture, religion, historical roots, current or past citizenship, place of birth, place of parents' birth or ?????

Now, CroGer, I'm a tad confused by your posts in this thread as you seem to bounce from one definition to another depending on which point you want to argue. I'm so confused that I've lost the plot as to what you're actually arguing.

You seem to argue, back on the first page that Prussians, Austrians and Germans were all 'Germans'. I assume the first 'Germans' in my sentence was a catch-all to include Bavarians, Wesphalians, Saxons, Hessans and so on and on.... In otherwords, nobody started as a 'German', but all became (in you book and allegedly "explanatory" [sic]) to be 'German' based upon...

I thought it would be explanatory that "german" back then was considered an ethnic identity. For about two thousand years "Germany" was a region, similar to "scandinavia", which later became the heartland of what we now colloquially called the Holy Roman Empire.

In otherwords, all the population groups living within a certain geographical boundary are to be considered "German". And yet your comparison to "Scandinavia" somewhat negates and disproves your own belief - that was allegedly "explanatory" - because nobody identifies as 'Scandinavian', do they?

You also wrote...

Austria has a very long history of being the leading german state.

...and...

The HRE was ruled for almost 600 years by the Habsburgs, who by marriage-politics, managed to create a multi-ethnical empire.

...which begs the question, why are we supposed to call all of these population groups "German" and not Austrian?

Moreover, according to your allegedly "explanatory" theory, that makes you half Balkan or half Yugoslavian or Austro-Hungarian or half Illyrium (depending upon which point in history you cherry-pick) as that's where half of your ancentary came from. And yet you call yourself (half) "Croat".

So, I how do you defend your theory if you yourself don't apply it to your personal identification?

[CroGer]

Identity is a very, VERY divisive issue and one that has often lead to rather vicious wars. It's 'divisiveness' is based upon identity being the key tool of a various assortment of despots and self-appointed 'leaders' to gell various population groups into waging bloody war on behalf of aforementioned despot.

But how do you define identity? Is it based on DNA, language, culture, religion, historical roots, current or past citizenship, place of birth, place of parents' birth or ?????

Now, CroGer, I'm a tad confused by your posts in this thread as you seem to bounce from one definition to another depending on which point you want to argue. I'm so confused that I've lost the plot as to what you're actually arguing.

You seem to argue, back on the first page that Prussians, Austrians and Germans were all 'Germans'. I assume the first 'Germans' in my sentence was a catch-all to include Bavarians, Wesphalians, Saxons, Hessans and so on and on.... In otherwords, nobody started as a 'German', but all became (in you book and allegedly "explanatory" [sic]) to be 'German' based upon...

I thought it would be explanatory that "german" back then was considered an ethnic identity. For about two thousand years "Germany" was a region, similar to "scandinavia", which later became the heartland of what we now colloquially called the Holy Roman Empire.

In otherwords, all the population groups living within a certain geographical boundary are to be considered "German". And yet your comparison to "Scandinavia" somewhat negates and disproves your own belief - that was allegedly "explanatory" - because nobody identifies as 'Scandinavian', do they?

You also wrote...

Austria has a very long history of being the leading german state.

...and...

The HRE was ruled for almost 600 years by the Habsburgs, who by marriage-politics, managed to create a multi-ethnical empire.

...which begs the question, why are we supposed to call all of these population groups "German" and not Austrian?

Moreover, according to your allegedly "explanatory" theory, that makes you half Balkan or half Yugoslavian or Austro-Hungarian or half Illyrium (depending upon which point in history you cherry-pick) as that's where half of your ancentary came from. And yet you call yourself (half) "Croat".

So, I how do you defend your theory if you yourself don't apply it to your personal identification?

Is it based on DNA, language, culture, religion, historical roots, current or past citizenship, place of birth, place of parents' birth or

Usually it is language, Culture, historical roots - These are the Things that are usually a common demoninator. You seem to have a very negative outview on national identities. National identities connect People and make them build societies with such nice Things as wellfare states. It connects People and makes them care for one another.

Then there is the self-identification. Why do I consider myself a croat? Because I've been around croats and there are Things that are more difficult to define: mentalities.

Generally, you can consider it a common denominator. There is nothing "divisive" about national identities. The most murderous ideologies were ideologies that tried to eliminate national identities.

I guess you are austrian, or at least german. I assume that because you do something that I consider very german, which is over-complicating a simple Topic.


You over-complicate what I wrote about the HRR, the historical and geographical Region of Germany.

There was a kingdom of Germany, and a ethnical&geographical Region called Germany. Not all of the Region of Germany was within the Kingdom of Germany and not all parts of the Kingdom of Germany were ethnically german.
Over time many Germans lost their german identity, while many non-Germans were germanized (like the sorbs). Then you had german states that came into exsistence like Prussia, and german ruled states like the "Ordensstaat".

Now you have a Long time where states were the property of aristocrats. Then you had the idea of states being national states, with their boundaries being cultural boundaries.

The comparism between Germany and Scandinavia was an example. Usually examples don't match 100%. It is a comparism between two hings that are alike, but not 100% similar. But I do know People that consider themselves "scandinavian". Yet scandinavia is not a unified Country. Where again is the Problem?

...which begs the question, why are we supposed to call all of these population groups "German" and not Austrian?

Because Austria was a part of the HRR, and a part of the ethnical Region of Germany.

[MarkN]

Usually it is language, Culture, historical roots - These are the Things that are usually a common demoninator.

OK.

So why do you decide that, in the case of the 'Germans' it was based upon those living within a specified region at a historical point of your choosing?

You seem to have a very negative outview on national identities.

Do I? What words in my previous post gives you that impression?

National identities connect People and make them build societies with such nice Things as wellfare states. It connects People and makes them care for one another.

Nonsense. Political entities such as states build welfare states.

Moreover, at one point you argue that an identity is a group having a "common denominator" such as "language, Culture, historical roots", now your saying that you have to create that! So is an identity a product of common traits - or are common traits the product of an identity????

Then there is the self-identification. Why do I consider myself a croat? Because I've been around croats and there are Things that are more difficult to define: mentalities.

So, now 'identity' has nothing to do with "language, cluture or historical roots" it's all about who you choose to hang around with.....

So if I decide to self-identify as a Bushman/San from the Kalahari, and spend a few years living there, I become a Bushman?

I guess you are austrian, or at least german. I assume that because you do something that I consider very german, which is over-complicating a simple Topic.

I guess by the same logic, anybody who playes sad tunes on the violin and has big nose must be Jewish. Also anybody not in formal employment and begging on the streets must be a gypsy.

No I'm not German. Or Austrian or Prussian. Or Bavarian, or Swiss-Deutch or Hessian or..... So, it seems your simplistic theory is not all that you think it is.

Where again is the Problem?

The problem is simple.

Despite being able to post extracts from Mein Kampf with the speed and understanding of somebody who knows it word for word by heart, and clogging the thread with copious amounts of irrelevant, cherry-picked historical pap that, at best, seems only to be an attempt to push the 'Greater Germany' project again ---- you words are actually making no sense whatsoever.

[CroGer]

Usually it is language, Culture, historical roots - These are the Things that are usually a common demoninator.

OK.

So why do you decide that, in the case of the 'Germans' it was based upon those living within a specified region at a historical point of your choosing?

Because it was called and considered that.

You seem to have a very negative outview on national identities.

Do I? What words in my previous post gives you that impression?

National identities connect People and make them build societies with such nice Things as wellfare states. It connects People and makes them care for one another.

Nonsense. Political entities such as states build welfare states.

Did the medieval states build welfare states? National states, Democracy and wellfare state are results of the same movement. In a national state the state belongs to the People. Hence the state has to provide for it's people. When german pensioneers suffer under poverty, most Germans care, because they have their identity as a connecting common denominator. People build not for themselves, but for their families. A national identity creates a "we" next to an "I".

Moreover, at one point you argue that an identity is a group having a "common denominator" such as "language, Culture, historical roots", now your saying that you have to create that! So is an identity a product of common traits - or are common traits the product of an identity????

I haven't said that. National identity has common denominators. In simpler words: we "inherited" something and we care about it. A Nation is an Extension of a Family.

In my case I was Born between two nationalities. So I could make a decision. What part of my identity is more dominant? It is the croatian one. Self-identification is something for People like me who are immigrants. If you are a first Generation Immigrant in - for example - Germany, you will not be german. If you are second Generation, it is a different Thing. Mass Immigrations is a reletively new phenomenon. Most People in europe never moved more than 20 Kilometers out of their village, because they had to be home at night. Immigrations before either was organised - like when a part of a Country was depopulated - or it came with the colonies. If you are 100% german in Germany, you don't have a choice. If you move to let's say France, you can imagine that you are French now, but the People around you will tell you that you are still german.

Despite being able to post extracts from Mein Kampf with the speed and understanding of somebody who knows it word for word by heart, and clogging the thread with copious amounts of irrelevant, cherry-picked historical pap that, at best, seems only to be an attempt to push the 'Greater Germany' project again ---- you words are actually making no sense whatsoever.

So you wrote this to personally attack my wth assumptions that you just pulled out of your a***. I answered questions. Nowhere have I pushed a "greater germany"-project. But you confuse your fantasy with intelligence. You may disagree. It is your choice. Thanks for your input

[MarkN]

Usually it is language, Culture, historical roots - These are the Things that are usually a common demoninator.

OK.

So why do you decide that, in the case of the 'Germans' it was based upon those living within a specified region at a historical point of your choosing?

Because it was called and considered that.

????

Anybody who lived in the Holy Roman Empire was 'German' because the place was called the Holy Roman Empire??

And you wonder why other posters are struggling to understand your words and are unable to agree with you.

Did the medieval states build welfare states? National states, Democracy and wellfare state are results of the same movement. In a national state the state belongs to the People. Hence the state has to provide for it's people. When german pensioneers suffer under poverty, most Germans care, because they have their identity as a connecting common denominator. People build not for themselves, but for their families. A national identity creates a "we" next to an "I".

Did that come from Mein Kampf too are are you writing your own nationalist manifesto?

I haven't said that. National identity has common denominators. In simpler words: we "inherited" something and we care about it. A Nation is an Extension of a Family.

Again, are you writing your own nationalist manifesto?

As a half-Croat I expect you know the history - or at least the version of history that suits the Croatian nationalist cause - of Croatia. How does your history of Croatia answer this question?

The name given to the area known as Slavonia comes from the word Slav. Named for the Slavs that came to settle in the area. Not Croat, Not Serb, Not Bosnian. Slavs or Slavonians. Over the centuries, the area came to be settled also by 'Germans' - known localls as Švabe, Hungarians, Jews and a few other smaller communities. The Germans were always called Germans/Švabe, The Hungarians Madjari etc etc. But, at some point, the Slavonians who shared the same language, the same roots, the same cultural markers etc etc. became Croats and Serbs.

At what point in the history of Slavonia did the Slavonians become Croats or Serbs? And why?

You could then ask the same question regarding the Slavs/Istrians of Istria. When did they become Croats and why?

[CroGer]

Usually it is language, Culture, historical roots - These are the Things that are usually a common demoninator.

OK.

So why do you decide that, in the case of the 'Germans' it was based upon those living within a specified region at a historical point of your choosing?

Because it was called and considered that.

????

Anybody who lived in the Holy Roman Empire was 'German' because the place was called the Holy Roman Empire??

And you wonder why other posters are struggling to understand your words and are unable to agree with you.

I don't like to repeat myself.

There was a kingdom of Germany, and a ethnical&geographical Region called Germany. Not all of the Region of Germany was within the Kingdom of Germany and not all parts of the Kingdom of Germany were ethnically german.
Over time many Germans lost their german identity, while many non-Germans were germanized (like the sorbs). Then you had german states that came into exsistence like Prussia, and german ruled states like the "Ordensstaat"

The citizens of the holy Roman Empire were not german. But there was an ethnical and geographical region within it that was called Germany.

Now I wrote long and elaborately about the reason for the name and the distinction between "Kingdom of Germany" and "Holy Roman Empire".

Again, you fill your lack of understanding with fantasy, because apparently you have already labeled me as something.

Did that come from Mein Kampf too are are you writing your own nationalist manifesto?

I suppose this is a short description of national identities and the history of the national state.

The name given to the area known as Slavonia comes from the word Slav. Named for the Slavs that came to settle in the area. Not Croat, Not Serb, Not Bosnian. Slavs or Slavonians. Over the centuries, the area came to be settled also by 'Germans' - known localls as Švabe, Hungarians, Jews and a few other smaller communities. The Germans were always called Germans/Švabe, The Hungarians Madjari etc etc. But, at some point, the Slavonians who shared the same language, the same roots, the same cultural markers etc etc. became Croats and Serbs.

At what point in the history of Slavonia did the Slavonians become Croats or Serbs? And why?

You could then ask the same question regarding the Slavs/Istrians of Istria. When did they become Croats and why?

I was aked about why Hitler didn't promote austrian nationalism.
Next I was asked about WW1.
Next I was asked about the Holy Roman Empire and the ethnical region called Germany.
Next I was aksed about wether the HRE was a state or "like the EU before Maastricht" (aka european community).
Now I am asked about when Croats became croats.
Oh, and I am getting personally attacked.

You seem to be highly informed. Now tell me about your opinion. Please elaborate where exactly I was wrong.

[MarkN]

I was aked about why Hitler didn't promote austrian nationalism.
Next I was asked about WW1.
Next I was asked about the Holy Roman Empire and the ethnical region called Germany.
Next I was aksed about wether the HRE was a state or "like the EU before Maastricht" (aka european community).
Now I am asked about when Croats became croats.
Oh, and I am getting personally attacked.

You seem to be highly informed. Now tell me about your opinion. Please elaborate where exactly I was wrong.

The original question was...

Why was Hitler a German nationalist and not an Austrian nationalist?

and your response (background historical fluff leading to your answer (my underlining) followed by some more fluff...

He considered austria-hungary a ramshackled state, which would have been smashed by slavs, if the world war wouldn't have happened.

Austria has a very long history of being the leading german state. After 1816 german patriots wanted a german national state similar to france or spain, but instead they got a federation where prussia and austria would balance each other out. In 1866 austria was kicked out and in 1871 the german empire was created. The rest of what was left of austria, not only the current state of austria but also millions of austrians that lived in central-eastern germany, had to settle with a multi-ethnical state, which soon became austria-hungary. But in this state the many different ethnicities yearned for independence, and the germans were a minority.

The german empire flourished soon after it's formation, while austria-hungary, as it was now called, stagnated. This created the "alldeutsche Bewegung", translated "allgerman movement", where the idea was that the germans in austria-hungary should better join the germans of the german empire, instead of messing around with all these different ethnicities, among them hundred thousands of Gypsies and 3,2 million jews.
As a comparism the german empire was relatively homogenous.

Hitler writes in Mein Kampf that he decided to become german, because he was disgusted about the "Muli-culti"-state austria-hungary, and the weakness of the austrian leadership, that constantly tried to appease the various different slavs. He expressed his disgust about Vienna, which at that time was a multi-cultural city.

Some of Hitler's forethinkers were Georg Ritter von Schönerer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Rit ... C3%B6nerer
And Karl Lueger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lueger

In otherwords, your explanation is that Hitler changed identities from Austrian to German because he didn't like being an Austrian as he had to call, amongst others, "hundred thousands of Gypsies and 3,2 million jews" fellow countrymen.

Except the elephant in the room with your answer is that post WW1, Austria-Hungary no longer existed. So, when he changed allegience and became 'German' he was turning his back on an Austrian speaking Austria with a few Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian speaking citizens added to the mix. Post 1918, there were no longer "hundred thousands of Gypsies and 3,2 million jews" and the millions of Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Hungarians etc etc etc as part of Austria.

Nevertheless, this intrigued me. The idea that you can swop identities if you don't like the politics of your current identity group. So I read on and become ever more confused as an almost infinite number of definitions of identity were being used by you to the point where the concept of identity no longer had any meaning. And yet, clearly, identity means everything to you and your understanding of Hitler and his motives.

Since engaging with you, the confusion has not decreased but increased as even more definitions of identity have cropped up.

I'm trying to unravel the confusion of your words. They may make perfect sense to you swimming in your head. But they are just a jumble of conflicting and contradictory statements to me.

I'll try and simplify it by cutting out the subsequent contradicts and return to you first response...

Hitler writes in Mein Kampf that he decided to become german, because he was disgusted about the "Muli-culti"-state austria-hungary, and the weakness of the austrian leadership, that constantly tried to appease the various different slavs. He expressed his disgust about Vienna, which at that time was a multi-cultural city.

You explain why, in your opinion he turned his back on Austria and being Austrian. But it doesn't explain why he chose to be 'German'. Clearly it was not because he saw a strength in the German leadership and, since Austria was no less homogeneous than Germany at that time that was hardly a defining or differentiating factor. Unless he was trying to get away from the Slovene and 'Croat' minorities in south-eastern Austria. He clearly didn't think much of the German cultural traits, nor societal mores. He spent his entire time in Germany trying to change everything to 'his' way, 'his' identity. Germany was not a Nazi state which he joined and rose up through the ranks. His goal was to destroy everything that was 'German' and to create an 'Nazi Aryan Reich'.

In your opinion, why did Hitler decide to create his Nazi Aryan Reich starting in Germany rather than in Austria or Italy or wherever?

The answer to that is at the root of why he jumped on German nationalism to further his aims rather than Austrian nationalism.

[CroGer]

and your response (background historical fluff leading to your answer (my underlining) followed by some more fluff...

He considered austria-hungary a ramshackled state, which would have been smashed by slavs, if the world war wouldn't have happened.

Austria has a very long history of being the leading german state. After 1816 german patriots wanted a german national state similar to france or spain, but instead they got a federation where prussia and austria would balance each other out. In 1866 austria was kicked out and in 1871 the german empire was created. The rest of what was left of austria, not only the current state of austria but also millions of austrians that lived in central-eastern germany, had to settle with a multi-ethnical state, which soon became austria-hungary. But in this state the many different ethnicities yearned for independence, and the germans were a minority.

The german empire flourished soon after it's formation, while austria-hungary, as it was now called, stagnated. This created the "alldeutsche Bewegung", translated "allgerman movement", where the idea was that the germans in austria-hungary should better join the germans of the german empire, instead of messing around with all these different ethnicities, among them hundred thousands of Gypsies and 3,2 million jews.
As a comparism the german empire was relatively homogenous.

Hitler writes in Mein Kampf that he decided to become german, because he was disgusted about the "Muli-culti"-state austria-hungary, and the weakness of the austrian leadership, that constantly tried to appease the various different slavs. He expressed his disgust about Vienna, which at that time was a multi-cultural city.

Some of Hitler's forethinkers were Georg Ritter von Schönerer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Rit ... C3%B6nerer
And Karl Lueger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lueger

In otherwords, your explanation is that Hitler changed identities from Austrian to German because he didn't like being an Austrian as he had to call, amongst others, "hundred thousands of Gypsies and 3,2 million jews" fellow countrymen.

First of all, I am writing in a foreign language. I usually assume that people click on the links provided. Hitler was a follower of von Schönerer and Lüger. It was Lüger or von Schönerer that said about the jews "either we expell them, or they will expell us".

Now apparently I have to help you with the silver lining here.

Hitler was - while Austria-Hungary still existed - a follower of a movement, that wanted to get rid of the non-german parts and unify with Germany, especially seeing the success of a unified Germany.

Historians speculate about why Hitler decided to fight for Germany. You can only quote himself. He simply hated the old fashioned Habsburg-state, where he felt that the german identity was being suppressed, especially in favor of the czech population.

After the war Hitler remained in Germany and became the spiritual leader of a bunch of radicals, that Germany needed to defend it's country.

The question why is still unclear. It might just be psychological: it was his desire to be part of the german state. He hated weakness and the post war Austria was weak. He could be around his comrads and he discovered that he could use his skills as an orator. What sources so you have for that?
You've got his own words. You've got the exceptionally well written books by Sebastian Haffner, that I recommended. Especially "Meaning of Hitler". Next I recommended the books by Joachim Fest.

I would also appreciate one thing: acknowledge that I have read about the topics I am speaking here for 20 years. I can't pull off links as impresssively as others, and the books I own are in german, I'd have to find the paragraphs, copy them, translate them - that would take me hours.

What was National Socialism? Like communism, it was an anti-modernistic movement. I have also read "Der Wehrwolf" by Herrmann Löns. This was a very popular book in Germany at that time, I read it to understand the "Zeitgeist", and there was some romanticism about the "Lebensraum"-philosophy and the return to a "Wehrbauern"-Society.

Allow me to be lazy and quote from Wikipedia:

Fest explained Hitler’s success in terms of what he termed the "great fear" that had overcome the German middle classes, as a result not only of Bolshevism and First World War dislocation, but also more broadly in response to rapid modernisation, which had led to a romantic longing for a lost past. This led to resentment of other groups — especially Jews — seen as agents of modernity. It also made many Germans susceptible to a figure such as Hitler who could articulate their mood. “He was never only their leader, he was always their voice ... the people, as if electrified, recognised themselves in him."

That sums it up. Add some psychopathy and you are there.

The idea that you can swop identities if you don't like the politics of your current identity group. So I read on and become ever more confused as an almost infinite number of definitions of identity were being used by you to the point where the concept of identity no longer had any meaning. And yet, clearly, identity means everything to you and your understanding of Hitler and his motives.

You are wrong.
I don't know i particular what you are referring to, but here is my short overview of the german history

a) First there was "Magna Germania", then there was Arminius, an extremly important figure for the german identity.
b) then there was the migration era
c) Then there were the franks and their wars, with their own self-understanding and the wars to christianize the germans as my main interest
d) Then there was the time of the "Stammesherzogtümer", where the tribal identity of the germans played a major part.
A "Stammesherzogtum" means that the tribes had their own territory. Every tribe considered themselves german, yet every tribe had different influences. They were subgroups, and they struggled among each other for dominance.
e) then there was the "Interregnum" and the late medieval, early new age with a lot of changes throughout europe. The Kaiser lost a lot of his domestic power, struggled to regain it, yet the Habsburgs developed into a european powerhouse. Yet, you still had the german identity. The Stammesherzogtümer fell apart, partially because they posed an opposition that could grow too strong - one example is the conflict between Henry the Lion and Kaiser Barbarossa. Barbarossa defeated Henry the Lion and disassembled the saxon state into a lot of small states. The interregum coincided with the creation of the states of the teutonic order and the "Ordensstaat". Allow me to simplify some things.
f) next you had the reformation, the 30y war where the HRE was torn apart, and a 400y long conflict between protestants and catholics. Many parts of germany were partially independent or decame part of other empires, like Denmark, Great Britain, Poland - other parts are independent to this day and even developed their own language (like the dutch).
Prussia, which to my knowledge never was a part of the HRE, became the main competitor for the Habsburgs.

German History is complicated. They started as many tribes, created tribal unions, created a state, this state was unique and in fell apart in the "Kleinstaaterei", the small state rule, until it was united, but that union was called "Kleindeutsche Lösung", "small german solution".

I don't know where you see any "Großdeutschland"-agenda.

Now I feel like i have to defend myself since you attacked me personally:
I am not a nationalist. German history can be summed up as "It could have been great, but in the decisive moment, they f*** up". The german subbornness and naivity was always their biggest problem. It's actually a tragedy.
Croatian history is not very glorious, we were vassals for most of our time, but I do enjoy the company of croats.

IMO everybody has several identities. There is an "I". and there are "We"s. We all belong to groups, and the national identity is one group, and IMO it has predominantely positive effects - unless there is an inherited hostility. I find it very impressive, how germans and french relieved themselves of their inherited hostility.
On the other hand, I have an uncle in croatia that fought in the yugoslavian war and still suffers from PTSD.
Is that clear now?

He clearly didn't think much of the German cultural traits, nor societal mores. He spent his entire time in Germany trying to change everything to 'his' way, 'his' identity. Germany was not a Nazi state which he joined and rose up through the ranks. His goal was to destroy everything that was 'German' and to create an 'Nazi Aryan Reich'.

Perfect. We agree. That is exactly my opinion.
Have I said something differently? No, you interpreted it differently. Maybe something got lost in translation.

I hope we sorted out our differences here.

[MarkN]

First of all, I am writing in a foreign language. I usually assume that people click on the links provided. Hitler was a follower of von Schönerer and Lüger. It was Lüger or von Schönerer that said about the jews "either we expell them, or they will expell us".

I guess because English is not your first language you don't appreciate that each of those 3 sentences are descrete and by joining them all together in the same sentence makes it look as though you are connecting the ideas. And creating the confusion that I have already mentionned.

Now apparently I have to help you with the silver lining here.

Zaista?

Hitler was - while Austria-Hungary still existed - a follower of a movement, that wanted to get rid of the non-german parts and unify with Germany, especially seeing the success of a unified Germany.

Not all historical accounts agree with that. Hitler's history is a bit like statistics: history never lies, but those telling the history make of it whatever they will. Picking one narrative and claiming it is the history is unwise.

Historians speculate about why Hitler decided to fight for Germany. You can only quote himself.

Given that Hitler was a bit screwed in the head and came up with some of the most increadible lies to create the image of who he wanted to be, I'd say his own words are the last words you ought to believe.

Another narrative reads that the Austrians called him up in 1914 (when he was in Germany), he trotted along dutifully to the reception centre and was pronounced medically unfit. In otherwords, he didn't turn his back on the Austro-Hungarian army due to not wanting to fight alongside an assortment of Slavs etc., they rejected him.

Post war, for a person trying to present himself with the image of a strong leader etc etc, his narrative fits better than being a reject, doesn't it.

He simply hated the old fashioned Habsburg-state, where he felt that the german identity was being suppressed, especially in favor of the czech population.

That's one version of the history. There are several others too.

After the war Hitler remained in Germany and became the spiritual leader of a bunch of radicals, that Germany needed to defend it's country. The question why is still unclear.

For someone with his psychological traits, do you thonk he would gravitate towards living in a country that made him a war hero or one that rejected him as unfit to serve?

Just a thought.

You've got his own words. You've got the exceptionally well written books by Sebastian Haffner, that I recommended. Especially "Meaning of Hitler". Next I recommended the books by Joachim Fest.

Are these the books that narrate the story you have chosen to believe?

I would also appreciate one thing: acknowledge that I have read about the topics I am speaking here for 20 years. I can't pull off links as impresssively as others, and the books I own are in german, I'd have to find the paragraphs, copy them, translate them - that would take me hours.

What was National Socialism? Like communism, it was an anti-modernistic movement. I have also read "Der Wehrwolf" by Herrmann Löns. This was a very popular book in Germany at that time, I read it to understand the "Zeitgeist", and there was some romanticism about the "Lebensraum"-philosophy and the return to a "Wehrbauern"-Society.

Allow me to be lazy and quote from Wikipedia:

Fest explained Hitler’s success in terms of what he termed the "great fear" that had overcome the German middle classes, as a result not only of Bolshevism and First World War dislocation, but also more broadly in response to rapid modernisation, which had led to a romantic longing for a lost past. This led to resentment of other groups — especially Jews — seen as agents of modernity. It also made many Germans susceptible to a figure such as Hitler who could articulate their mood. “He was never only their leader, he was always their voice ... the people, as if electrified, recognised themselves in him."

That sums it up. Add some psychopathy and you are there.

Constantly indulging yourself by posting historical pap does you no favours. Asking others to salute you or thank you for posting that pap, does you even less favours.

The idea that you can swop identities if you don't like the politics of your current identity group. So I read on and become ever more confused as an almost infinite number of definitions of identity were being used by you to the point where the concept of identity no longer had any meaning. And yet, clearly, identity means everything to you and your understanding of Hitler and his motives.

You are wrong.

I think I am the best judge of whether I was confused or not, don't you?

As regards devaluing the concept of identity, then I guess that's a matter of opinion. If identity is to be meaningful, it has to be based upon a constant definition. Take one and stick with it. Constantly changing the definition to suit a specific argument removes the meaning and value of the claim. Consider it like this.

Person A says, I'm a Croat because my mother tongue is Croatian.
Person B says, my mother tongue is Croatian, but I'm ethnically Serb.
Person C says, but I thought having Croatian as your first language meant you're a Croat, but now you're rejecting that definition. So what is a Croat?

The definition of identity chosen by person A is devalued by the definition of identity chosen by person B. And so on. The more definitions intoruced to the converation, the more the concept of identity is devalued.

More historical pap deleted to save bandwidth

Now I feel like i have to defend myself since you attacked me personally:

Perhaps you should chill out and stop assuming that everything you believe is right and that anybody who dares question you or hold a different opinion is wrong.

Croatian history is not very glorious, we were vassals for most of our time, but I do enjoy the company of croats.

Modern Croatian history is not at all glorious. It is, for the most part, murderous and opportunistic. Not unlike some of its close neighbours.

On the other hand, I have an uncle in croatia that fought in the yugoslavian war and still suffers from PTSD.

Does that explain when Slavonians were coopted into being Croats? Or Istrians?

Is that clear now?

The idea that you have multiple personalities/identities? Yes.

The explanations that you have given for Hitler's choices. Not at all. In fact, no help at all.

I hope we sorted out our differences here.

Differences? I've been trying, still trying, just to understand what exactly you're trying to say.

Perhaps now's a good time to call it a day. I'll chalk my confusion down to English not being your first language, if you stop telling people they are wrong because they don't agree with your confusion in the English language.

[CroGer]

First of all, I am writing in a foreign language. I usually assume that people click on the links provided. Hitler was a follower of von Schönerer and Lüger. It was Lüger or von Schönerer that said about the jews "either we expell them, or they will expell us".

I guess because English is not your first language you don't appreciate that each of those 3 sentences are descrete and by joining them all together in the same sentence makes it look as though you are connecting the ideas. And creating the confusion that I have already mentionned.

Now apparently I have to help you with the silver lining here.

Zaista?

Hitler was - while Austria-Hungary still existed - a follower of a movement, that wanted to get rid of the non-german parts and unify with Germany, especially seeing the success of a unified Germany.

Not all historical accounts agree with that. Hitler's history is a bit like statistics: history never lies, but those telling the history make of it whatever they will. Picking one narrative and claiming it is the history is unwise.

Historians speculate about why Hitler decided to fight for Germany. You can only quote himself.

Given that Hitler was a bit screwed in the head and came up with some of the most increadible lies to create the image of who he wanted to be, I'd say his own words are the last words you ought to believe.

Another narrative reads that the Austrians called him up in 1914 (when he was in Germany), he trotted along dutifully to the reception centre and was pronounced medically unfit. In otherwords, he didn't turn his back on the Austro-Hungarian army due to not wanting to fight alongside an assortment of Slavs etc., they rejected him.

Post war, for a person trying to present himself with the image of a strong leader etc etc, his narrative fits better than being a reject, doesn't it.

He simply hated the old fashioned Habsburg-state, where he felt that the german identity was being suppressed, especially in favor of the czech population.

That's one version of the history. There are several others too.

After the war Hitler remained in Germany and became the spiritual leader of a bunch of radicals, that Germany needed to defend it's country. The question why is still unclear.

For someone with his psychological traits, do you thonk he would gravitate towards living in a country that made him a war hero or one that rejected him as unfit to serve?

Just a thought.

You've got his own words. You've got the exceptionally well written books by Sebastian Haffner, that I recommended. Especially "Meaning of Hitler". Next I recommended the books by Joachim Fest.

Are these the books that narrate the story you have chosen to believe?

I would also appreciate one thing: acknowledge that I have read about the topics I am speaking here for 20 years. I can't pull off links as impresssively as others, and the books I own are in german, I'd have to find the paragraphs, copy them, translate them - that would take me hours.

What was National Socialism? Like communism, it was an anti-modernistic movement. I have also read "Der Wehrwolf" by Herrmann Löns. This was a very popular book in Germany at that time, I read it to understand the "Zeitgeist", and there was some romanticism about the "Lebensraum"-philosophy and the return to a "Wehrbauern"-Society.

Allow me to be lazy and quote from Wikipedia:

Fest explained Hitler’s success in terms of what he termed the "great fear" that had overcome the German middle classes, as a result not only of Bolshevism and First World War dislocation, but also more broadly in response to rapid modernisation, which had led to a romantic longing for a lost past. This led to resentment of other groups — especially Jews — seen as agents of modernity. It also made many Germans susceptible to a figure such as Hitler who could articulate their mood. “He was never only their leader, he was always their voice ... the people, as if electrified, recognised themselves in him."

That sums it up. Add some psychopathy and you are there.

Constantly indulging yourself by posting historical pap does you no favours. Asking others to salute you or thank you for posting that pap, does you even less favours.

The idea that you can swop identities if you don't like the politics of your current identity group. So I read on and become ever more confused as an almost infinite number of definitions of identity were being used by you to the point where the concept of identity no longer had any meaning. And yet, clearly, identity means everything to you and your understanding of Hitler and his motives.

You are wrong.

I think I am the best judge of whether I was confused or not, don't you?

As regards devaluing the concept of identity, then I guess that's a matter of opinion. If identity is to be meaningful, it has to be based upon a constant definition. Take one and stick with it. Constantly changing the definition to suit a specific argument removes the meaning and value of the claim. Consider it like this.

Person A says, I'm a Croat because my mother tongue is Croatian.
Person B says, my mother tongue is Croatian, but I'm ethnically Serb.
Person C says, but I thought having Croatian as your first language meant you're a Croat, but now you're rejecting that definition. So what is a Croat?

The definition of identity chosen by person A is devalued by the definition of identity chosen by person B. And so on. The more definitions intoruced to the converation, the more the concept of identity is devalued.

More historical pap deleted to save bandwidth

Now I feel like i have to defend myself since you attacked me personally:

Perhaps you should chill out and stop assuming that everything you believe is right and that anybody who dares question you or hold a different opinion is wrong.

Croatian history is not very glorious, we were vassals for most of our time, but I do enjoy the company of croats.

Modern Croatian history is not at all glorious. It is, for the most part, murderous and opportunistic. Not unlike some of its close neighbours.

On the other hand, I have an uncle in croatia that fought in the yugoslavian war and still suffers from PTSD.

Does that explain when Slavonians were coopted into being Croats? Or Istrians?

Is that clear now?

The idea that you have multiple personalities/identities? Yes.

The explanations that you have given for Hitler's choices. Not at all. In fact, no help at all.

I hope we sorted out our differences here.

Differences? I've been trying, still trying, just to understand what exactly you're trying to say.

Perhaps now's a good time to call it a day. I'll chalk my confusion down to English not being your first language, if you stop telling people they are wrong because they don't agree with your confusion in the English language.

You seem to be out to redicule me and you insuate things that I haven't done. Somebody claimed that the so-called HRE wasn't a state, and that it was like the european community. I explained to him why I think that he was wrong.

Then you proceed by not only calling my explanaitions "pap", you call the works of some of the most renouned experts on the third Reich "pap". What again is your problem? Do you have a problem with my grandfather volunteering for the Wehrmacht?

Constantly indulging yourself by posting historical pap does you no favours. Asking others to salute you or thank you for posting that pap, does you even less favours.

I haven't done that.

You haven't taught me anything I didn't know. I am aware of the fact that he was rejected by the austro-hungarian military, but then volunteered for the bavarian military. I quoted him because I was asked about his relationship to austria. He wrote elaborately about it.

You apparently have a different opinion about national identities. I accept that. I think I also wrote that I accept that you've got a different opinion. So I don't consider my opinion the truth.

But you seem to overlook that I spoke about the past. 80 years ago Germany was a homogenous state. I think I understand the german identity. I apparently did something you didn't, which is read extensively about the german history and their identification & identification figures. National identities are partially made up. They are narrative about a "we".

How are national identities made up? They usually refer to a glorious event and identification figure, there are a lot of theories about origins and so on. The value of national identities has also changed significantly over the past. But we are talking about the early 1900's.

Now 20% of the german population are immigrants. You can believe in civic nationalism, or the new identitarianism.
I frankly don't waste too much energy defining my identity. But I made an emotional decision for various reasons.

Now I would appreciate if you'd stop trying to ridicule me. I understood that you don't like me. It doesn't bother me. This thread is not about myself, we aren't even talking about the initial question.

[Lamarck]

I think it's important to note that Hitler didn't decide to become a German and no longer consider himself an Austrian. On the contrary, he considered Austrians to be Germans so according to him he was both an Austrian and a German. He never considered himself as an Austrian citizen but only as a German.

[MarkN]

I think it's important to note that Hitler didn't decide to become a German and no longer consider himself an Austrian. On the contrary, he considered Austrians to be Germans so according to him he was both an Austrian and a German. He never considered himself as an Austrian citizen but only as a German.

Hitler had his own agenda. An agenda that was a product of his own psychological problems.

The concepts of being 'German' or 'Austrian' were irrelevant to him, his warped ideology was above concepts such as 'international law', 'international politics and the contemporary world order', 'nation states', 'democracy', 'sovereignty', 'nationality' etc etc. His ideology appeared to be based around 'race' but his 'chosen race' was so ill-defined as to be laughable. In otherwords, the 'race' aspect that underpinned his agenda was more a propaganda gimmick for the masses than a true ideological foundation.

At the beginning of his rise, he piggy-backed a movement that shared some common thoughts in order to gain public attention.

[MarkN]

Now I would appreciate if you'd stop trying to ridicule me. I understood that you don't like me. It doesn't bother me. This thread is not about myself, we aren't even talking about the initial question.

Stop acting such an attention seeking prima donna.

I neither like nor dislike you. I have no idea who you are.

My engagement with you has been to try and resolve several inconsistencies in your presentation and arguments. For educated, learned people (something that you claim to be) that would be seen as standard academic practice. If you judge any attempt to question your beliefs or your thoughts as wrong or ridicule, and opine a failure to "appreciate" and "acknowledge that [you] have read about the topics [you are] speaking here for 20 years" that's your problem. I respond to the words I see in front of me, not the image of yourself that you believe others must bow down to.

[CroGer]

Stop acting such an attention seeking prima donna.

Insult

For educated, learned people (something that you claim to be) that would be seen as standard academic practice.

I am not an academic.

If you judge any attempt to question your beliefs or your thoughts as wrong or ridicule, and opine a failure to "appreciate" and "acknowledge that [you] have read about the topics [you are] speaking here for 20 years" that's your problem. I respond to the words I see in front of me, not the image of yourself that you believe others must bow down to.

Appreciacion hasn' got anything to do with "bowing down". I probably chose the wrong word. ACCEPT that I have read deeper into a specific subject than you.


You still insinuate things I haven't done. You asked me a personal question in the "what if"-section. I suppose you are of serbian descent, you do have a personal problem with me.
It should be very clear that in a discussion forum you exchange viewpoints. It is self-explanatory that everything that happened in history can be interpreted countless times. There wouldn't be history as a scientific discipline, and sociology to go along with it, if it would be easy and clear.

I have read about topics you haven't. I recommended the highly acclaimed works of Fest and Haffner, and you described them as "pap" and "my narrative".

CroGer wrote:
You've got his own words. You've got the exceptionally well written books by Sebastian Haffner, that I recommended. Especially "Meaning of Hitler". Next I recommended the books by Joachim Fest.


Are these the books that narrate the story you have chosen to believe?

You apparently haven't read their works. I did. Can you disagree? Of course. But you haven't referred to writers with a different "narrative".

Next you even ridiculed my family.

CroGer wrote:
On the other hand, I have an uncle in croatia that fought in the yugoslavian war and still suffers from PTSD.


Does that explain when Slavonians were coopted into being Croats? Or Istrians?

I don't think people who suffer from PTSD, who's life was ruined by the cruelty of a war, should be ridiculed.

Here is a clear act of personal attack:

Constantly indulging yourself by posting historical pap does you no favours. Asking others to salute you or thank you for posting that pap, does you even less favour

Maybe you should have read the rules of this forum:

Code: Select all

[b]Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.[/b]

app.php/rules


I don't post references to "indulge in something". I abide by the rules. Maybe poorly, but at least - in contrast to you in this topic - I try.

Next thing, you problem with my definition of national identity:

As regards devaluing the concept of identity, then I guess that's a matter of opinion. If identity is to be meaningful, it has to be based upon a constant definition. Take one and stick with it. Constantly changing the definition to suit a specific argument removes the meaning and value of the claim. Consider it like this.

Person A says, I'm a Croat because my mother tongue is Croatian.
Person B says, my mother tongue is Croatian, but I'm ethnically Serb.
Person C says, but I thought having Croatian as your first language meant you're a Croat, but now you're rejecting that definition. So what is a Croat?

Where have I showed these inconsistencies? I pointed out that Hitler is to be judged from the Zeitgeist of his time. We live in a different time now, where most western countries have a large immigrant population.

I am half german, half croatian. What does that make me? The heir of Germany, or the heir or Croatia? Or nothing of both?
To make it more complicated, my wife is hungarian. So my children, what are they? Austro-hungarian?

But the way I define myself is not the topic here. The question is how national identity is defined and was defined in Hitler's time.

But then you insinuate things I haven't said, like "Everybody who lived in the HRE was a german". I never said that.

Anybody who lived in the Holy Roman Empire was 'German' because the place was called the Holy Roman Empire??

And you wonder why other posters are struggling to understand your words and are unable to agree with you.

In regards to Hitler, we don't even disagree that much. But Hitler was a child of his time. The idea of nations being "races" was not made up by him, social darwinism wasn't made up by him, eugenics weren't made up by him, pan-germanism wasn't made up by him, aryanism wasn't made up by him.
The question that I asked myself is: why was it Germany, that eventually led a bunch of radicals rule their country? So the natural thing is analysing the history and mentality of the germans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race

Rhodes wanted to make the British Empire a superpower in which all of the British-dominated countries in the empire, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, would be represented in the British Parliament.[37] Rhodes included American students as eligible for the Rhodes scholarships. He said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the United States rejoin the British Empire. As Rhodes also respected and admired the Germans and their Kaiser, he allowed German students to be included in the Rhodes scholarships. He believed that eventually the United Kingdom (including Ireland), the US, and Germany together would dominate the world and ensure perpetual peace.

[...]Rhodes also favored the teutonic idea of an eventual union of the white anglo-saxon identities (including Germany)

- The Founder. Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power

Cecil Rhodes in his own words:
"I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race,"

Again, I abide by the rules.

The next thing is drawing a conclusion. I drew my conclusions. But nowhere in this thread have in highlighted my conclusion as only valid truth. But I did disgree on the claim that the HRE wasn't a state. Here it depends on what time you are talking about. In the late stages of the HRE was a loose Union, and I also explained that first the Interregnum 1250-1273, the conflict between protestants and catholics, and the marriage politics of the aristocrats tore that state apart. Hannover, Braunschweig, Oldenburg once were british.

What I find interesting about the Nazi Empire is that it was completly ungerman. The entire german history is a history of revolts. The HRE was never centralized because of the resistance to it. Tacitus even claims that Arminius might have been murdered by his own people because he wanted to become the king of the germans. On top of that Germany has been a rather peaceful state for most of it's time. The german jews were known to be among the best integrated jews in the world. Wather Rathenau kept Germany in WW1. A radical anti-semite like Hermann Ahlwardt never gained a large following in the pre WW1-Germany.

So I try to understand WW2 from a different viewpoint than you.

Heinrich Heine, a brilliant german-jewish poet, wrote

"Christianity – and that is its greatest merit – has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals

Carl Jung believed tha Hitler had regenerated the spirit of the germanic war god Wotan

"] In his 1936 essay "Wotan", Jung described the influence of Hitler on Germany as "one man who is obviously 'possessed' has infected a whole nation to such an extent that everything is set in motion and has started rolling on its course towards perdition."[105][106]

Jung would later say that:

Hitler seemed like the 'double' of a real person, as if Hitler the man might be hiding inside like an appendix, and deliberately so concealed in order not to disturb the mechanism ... You know you could never talk to this man; because there is nobody there ... It is not an individual; it is an entire nation.[107]

In his essay «Wotan» (1936) [101], Jung described his deep-psychological understanding of current events in National Socialist Germany: The Germanic image of God of the wanderer and storm god Wotan had come to life again, which was «a step backwards and recourse». [102] This forms - in addition to economic, political and psychological explanatory approaches - probably the strongest explanatory reason for the phenomenon of National Socialism. [103] Wotan had previously shown this in the writings of Nietzsche (19th century), as well as - before 1933 - in the German youth and wandering movements.But now he leads to the "marching" and "raging" [104] of the whole population. Jung understands Wotan as a personification of psychic powers. The "parallel between Wotan redivivus" and the socio-political and psychic storm that shook present-day Germany could at least be considered a "as if as if". One could also describe the powerfully effective "autonomous psychic factor" psychologically as "furor teutonicus." [106] "In Germany, the storm has broken out, while we [in Switzerland] still believe in the weather." [107] Germany is a spiritual catastrophe country ». [108] "The earliest intuition always personified these psychic powers as gods." [108] Hitler was taken by it. "But this is just the impressive thing about the German phenomenon that one who is obviously taken, the whole people seizes so much that everything sets in motion, gets rolling and inevitably also in dangerous slides." [109] Jung quoted from Martin Ninck's Wotan monograph various attributes attributed to the god Wotan and concluded that Wotan incarnates "the instinctual-emotional as well as the intuitively-inspiring side of the unconscious [...] on the one hand as God of rage and rage, on the other hand as Runenkundiger and Destiny." [111] Therefore, he expressed the Hope that Wotan should also express himself in his "ecstatic and mantic nature" and "National Socialism would not be the last word".

In January 1939 appeared in the New York International Cosmopolitan under the title "Diagnosis of dictators" Jung given, so-called Knickerbocker interview, where Jung tried to explain Hitler and Nazi Germany from a psychological perspective. This interview was and is viewed by critics as an excuse or legitimacy. Jung described Hitler as a "victim" and "possessed", ie Hitler was overwhelmed by the contents of the "collective unconscious". Hitler is one who is under the command of a "higher power, a power within him," which he compulsively obeys. «He is the people», d. H. For the Germans, Hitler represented the "alive" in the "unconscious of the German people" (which is why other nations could not understand Hitler's fascination with the Germans). [114] In this sense, Hitler obtained his power through his people and was "helpless ... without his German people," [115] because he embodied the unconscious of Nazi Germany, which gave Hitler his power. [116]

In this psychological function, Hitler most closely resembled the "medicine man," "chief priest," "seer," and "leader" of a primitive society. This is powerful because one suspects that he has magic. [117] Hitler actually works "magically," d. H. about the unconscious. He was "the speaker who amplifies the inaudible whispers of the German soul until it can be heard by the unconscious ears of the Germans", d. H. he plays for the Germans the role of a mediator to the expressions of their unconscious. [116] According to Jung, what was activated there was the earlier image of god of the "Wotan", but in a destructive way. [118] Jung also notes an "inferiority complex" of the Germans, which forms a necessary condition for the "Messianization" of Hitler

I explained my stance on national identities. You ridiculed that as well.

The idea that you have multiple personalities/identities? Yes

[/quote].

On the other hand - what have you provided to this discussion? "Hitler was screwed in his head". You posted nothing of any substance. You've got your opinion. That's fine. But according to the rules there should be some references.