Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Nov 2017 20:37

Hi CroGer,

So, the Holy Roman Empire had no capital of its own, no standing army, no permanent diplomatic corps, no independent tax raising powers and no currency of its own.

The reason for this is that it wasn't a state. It was an arrangement between real states that had all these things.

As I said before, the HRE was more like the EU before the Maastricht Treaty, with a touch of NATO thrown in.

Prussia began to rectify these omissions with the Zollverein and the North German Confederation in the middle third of the 19th Century, culminating in the declaration of a proper German state in 1870/71.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Incidentally, Wikipedia (not normally my preferred source) says: "The Holy Roman Empire (Latin: Sacrum Imperium Romanum; German: Heiliges Römisches Reich) was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in Central Europe that developed during the Early Middle Ages and continued until its dissolution in 1806. The largest territory of the empire after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany, though it also came to include the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Burgundy, the Kingdom of Italy, and numerous other territories."

CroGer
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:27
Location: Germany/Croatia

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by CroGer » 26 Nov 2017 21:26

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi CroGer,

So, the Holy Roman Empire had no capital, no standing army, no permanent diplomatic corps, no independent tax raising powers and no currency of its own.

The reason for this is that it wasn't a state. It was an arrangement between real states that had all these things.

As I said before, the HRE was more like the EU before the Maastricht Treaty, with a touch of NATO thrown in.

Prussia began to rectify these omissions in the North German Confederation in the first half of the 19th Century, culminating in the declaration of a proper German state in 1870/71.

Cheers,

Sid.
Haven't I proved to you that they had a standing army, a tax raising power, a currency?
Reichssteuerverzeichnis, Reichsheer, Pfennige and Reichstaler.
Why should they need a "permanent diplomatic corps"? They had emissaries.
It was a state with it's roots in the early medieval times.
They had no capital, and I explained why. They had Pfalzen and a Reichstag.
The medieval kings of the HRE didn't reign from a capital, but had to be on site to keep personal contact to their vassals (traveling kingdom).
And they had a king and several "anti-kings". Why would they feud over the king's crown it was just a loose federation?

Oh, wait - I just found something.

The definitions of Wikipedia:

German:
Holy Roman Empire (Latin Sacrum Imperium Romanum or Sacrum Romanum Imperium) was the official name for the dominion of the Roman-German emperors from the late Middle Ages to 1806. The name of the empire derives from the claim of the medieval Roman-German ruler, the To continue the tradition of the ancient Roman Empire and to legitimize the rule as God's holy will in the Christian sense. The kingdom was formed in the 10th century under the dynasty of the Ottonians from the former Carolingian eastern Franks. With the imperial coronation of Otto I in 962, the Roman-German rulers (as before the Carolingians) took up the idea of ​​the renewed Roman Empire, which was at least kept in principle until the end of the empire. The territory of the eastern empire was first described in the 11th century in the sources as Regnum Teutonicum or Regnum Teutonicorum (Kingdom of the Germans); but it was not the official Reich title. The name Sacrum Imperium is first documented in 1157 and the title Sacrum Romanum Imperium for 1254. The addition of German Nation (Latin Nationis Germanicæ) was used from the late 15th century. To distinguish it from the German Reich, founded in 1871, it is also referred to as the Roman-German Empire or (from the early modern period) as the Old Empire [5]. Because of its pre- and supranational character, the empire never developed into a nation-state or state of modern coinage, but remained a monarchically-run, estates-dominated structure of emperors and imperial estates with only a few common imperial institutions.
English:
The Holy Roman Empire (Latin: Sacrum Imperium Romanum; German: Heiliges Römisches Reich) was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in Central Europe that developed during the Early Middle Ages and continued until its dissolution in 1806.[7] The largest territory of the empire after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany, though it also came to include the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Burgundy, the Kingdom of Italy, and numerous other territories
[...]
The empire never achieved the extent of political unification formed in France, evolving instead into a decentralized, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units: principalities, duchies, counties, Free Imperial Cities, and other domains.[10][19] The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, bishops, and cities of the empire were vassals who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto independence within their territories. Emperor Francis II ended the empire on 6 August 1806, after the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine by Napoleon.
I guess here is where the missunderstanding lies.
No, it was not a NATION STATE or a STATE OF MODERN COINAGE. Which actually was one of the issues that are attached to the initial question.
Because the "alldeutschland"-movement included the "Los von Rom" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_from_Rome! )-movement.

I try to describe the problem here differently: the HRE was a typical medieval, feudal state. The power of the King/Kaiser was significantly limited by after the end of the Stauffer-dynasty. The end of the Stauffer-Dynasty was considered by many german nationalists as the crucial tragedy, since the Strauffer enjoyed large power and could have transformed the HRE into a centralized state. Hence the name "Operation Barbarossa", since Barbarossa is considered the last powerful german king. I think the first emperor of Germany, Friedrich I, called himself "barba blanca" (white beard) as a reference to "Barbarossa" (red beard)

After the Interregnum - a 20 years period without an official king - you had - for the most part - the Habsburgs, who first tried to solidify their power within the HRE, and then, maybe frustrated, focussed on becoming an all-european powerhouse.


Yet, even though the power of the king was lower than the power of the english king, I wouldn't take that as a proof that it wasn't a state. Yet it deteriorated, specifically after the Habsburgs became the rulers of Spain and focussed more on spain than on Germany (like I said, maybe because out of frustration), and then it was torn apart by the conflict between the denominations. After the reformation you had the time of the "Kleinstaaterei". In that period the HRE was fractured. The 30y war was basically the end of the HRE as a state. The austro-hungarian empire was like a remnant of the HRE.

I quoted Hitler's opinion of the Habsburgs. He probably blamed them for their role german history. Right at the time, when the first states evolved into national states, Germany descended into an inner conflict between denominations. Which then answers the question why Hitler didn't promote austrian nationalism, since it was attached to the habsburgs & the catholic internationalism.
The inner-german conflicts led to the very late formation of the German Empire in 1871, the "Kulturkampf" and later Hitler's attempt to build an imperial church, like the anglican church.


But the comparism to the "EU before Maastricht", or in other words the european community, is completely wrong. The EC was an economic cooperation.
Sperg

User avatar
Lamarck
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 25 Oct 2017 17:02
Location: UK

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Lamarck » 27 Nov 2017 07:05

MarkN wrote: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.
I agree that the Nazis used anti-semitism and nationalist ideas for political reasons and their own various agendas. But even before Hitler was involved with politics he was a very passionate German nationalist. During his school years the young Austrian Germans were often more nationalist than the Reich Germans.

Have a read of Brigitte Hamann's Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship (2010) if you haven't already.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 27 Nov 2017 12:43

Hi CroGer,

I am afraid you have demonstrated none of the things you claim.

1) Reichssteuerverzeichnis. This was an assessment of dues payable to the Emperor by the constituent states of the HRE in 1421. When was it last paid?

2) Reichsheer. According to Wikipedia "The Army of the Empire did not constitute a permanent standing army." If you know better, what were its constituent standing units?

3) Reichsthaler. The Reichsthaler was apparently a notional unit of exchange. It set the standards under which each component state of the HRE issued coinage to a standard composition and value. I know you don't like EU comparisons, but it seems rather like the Euro of its age. EU member states issue their own Euros, but the EU Commission does not.

4) Reichstag. Again, Wikipedia, "In contrast, this process was only hastened with the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which formally bound the Emperor to accept all decisions made by the Diet, in effect depriving him of his few remaining powers. From then to its end in 1806, the Empire was not much more than a collection of largely independent states."

5) You don't mention the Reichskammergericht, the HRE's supreme court. This was vaguely similar to, but had less coverage than, the current European Court, which is definitely not a state court but supranational.

You ask, "Why should they need a "permanent diplomatic corps"? They had emissaries." Because states have planned foreign policies and to pursue them consistently they maintain standing embassies in important neighbours. Since the Renaissance major states have maintained permanent ambassadors with each other. Did the HRE?

Cheers,

Sid.

CroGer
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:27
Location: Germany/Croatia

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by CroGer » 27 Nov 2017 14:59

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi CroGer,

I am afraid you have demonstrated none of the things you claim.

1) Reichssteuerverzeichnis. This was an assessment of dues payable to the Emperor by the constituent states of the HRE in 1421. When was it last paid?

2) Reichsheer. According to Wikipedia "The Army of the Empire did not constitute a permanent standing army." If you know better, what were its constituent standing units?

3) Reichsthaler. The Reichsthaler was apparently a notional unit of exchange. It set the standards under which each component state of the HRE issued coinage to a standard composition and value. I know you don't like EU comparisons, but it seems rather like the Euro of its age. EU member states issue their own Euros, but the EU Commission does not.

4) Reichstag. Again, Wikipedia, "In contrast, this process was only hastened with the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which formally bound the Emperor to accept all decisions made by the Diet, in effect depriving him of his few remaining powers. From then to its end in 1806, the Empire was not much more than a collection of largely independent states."

5) You don't mention the Reichskammergericht, the HRE's supreme court. This was vaguely similar to, but had less coverage than, the current European Court, which is definitely not a state court but supranational.

You ask, "Why should they need a "permanent diplomatic corps"? They had emissaries." Because states have planned foreign policies and to pursue them consistently they maintain standing embassies in important neighbours. Since the Renaissance major states have maintained permanent ambassadors with each other. Did the HRE?

Cheers,

Sid.
I don't know why you can't accept that states in medieval times were not like today.

"Diplomatic corps"

The abassadors were emissaries or heralds.
Heralds (...) worked mainly as couriers and ambassadors. These tasks required an exact knowledge of the individual noble houses and their coats of arms. (...) In addition, they worked as diplomats, who were sent to other courts. They had diplomatic immunity - a fact that should allow negotiations in wartime. (...) The heralds played a central role in the social fabric of the Middle Ages. Without them, the system of the nobility in its former form would not have been practicable. It would have been much more difficult to have diplomatic relations or negotiate. In a society where belonging to a particular estate and reputation meant everything, good heralds could be critical to the success of a noble house. So the heralds were already professional diplomats. But they were far more than that. They stood very close to their masters, acted as permanent advisers and took care of the professional marketing of the respective noble house.
Slater, Stephen. Wappen, Schilde, Helme.

Reichsarmee
The territories of the empire had to constantly keep the simplum of troops for the imperial army under arms. If necessary, the empire could also demand twice (duplum) or triple (triplum) of this contingent. In practice, the princes often performed their duty only by holding inadequately equipped and trained troops, while good associations (if any) were used for their own power politics or leased against subsidies to foreign princes
With Kaiser Army, kaiserliche troops, in short Kaiserliche (from 1745 Roman imperial royal or imperial royal), referred to the soldiers of the Roman-German emperor in the early modern period. The Kaiser Army was to be distinguished from the Reich Army, which could only be used with the consent of the Reichstag. The kaiserliche forces were almost entirely troops of the Habsburg emperors from the House of Austria, which is why they were increasingly referred to in the 18th century as "Austrians", although the troops were recruited throughout the Reich.
I don't think I have to proof when a tax was last raised. Over the course of the last 100 years the taxation changed significantly in all countries. So what do yiou expect now from a taxation in a state that existed for a 1000 years? It had a "Reichssteuern", an empirial taxation system, which... changed. I already pointed out when and how the HRE changed.

3) Reichsthaler. The Reichsthaler was apparently a notional unit of exchange. It set the standards under which each component state of the HRE issued coinage to a standard composition and value. I know you don't like EU comparisons, but it seems rather like the Euro of its age. EU member states issue their own Euros, but the EU Commission does not.
So they had no central bank? Oh, snap, checkmate.


I don't know where this comparism with the EU comes from. Germany is a federal state. It also has a "Bundesverfassungsgericht" (federal constitutioal court). The USA, as I understand, is a federal state.
But btw: do you know that the EU was designed to become a federal state? Hence they try to implement an EU-fiscal policy and create an EU Army.
They call this "ever closer Union" until you have the "United States of Europe"

With everything else I can only refer to what I have already posted. You might go on and post me 3 countries that in your opinion - over the same time span - constituated a state.
Last edited by CroGer on 27 Nov 2017 19:41, edited 1 time in total.
Sperg

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2637
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by MarkN » 27 Nov 2017 15:34

Lamarck wrote: I agree that the Nazis used anti-semitism and nationalist ideas for political reasons and their own various agendas. But even before Hitler was involved with politics he was a very passionate German nationalist. During his school years the young Austrian Germans were often more nationalist than the Reich Germans.

Have a read of Brigitte Hamann's Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship (2010) if you haven't already.
Interesting.

As you well know there are various, and mostly quite contradictory, narratives out there claiming to be the narrative that tells the story of Hitler's adolescence. I tend to fall into the group that believes Hitler only became 'radicalised' after WW1.

Brigitte Hamann's book, which I haven't read, has an 'interesting' approach. The concept of combining an account of Vienna society and political undercurrent with a story of Hitler's youth is inviting the reader to assume the two are connected before they even turn the front cover. Neat trick! Does the book contain any documented evidence that Hitler was a active participant in any of these goings-on - or is it all hearsay about what exactly he did and thought?

User avatar
Lamarck
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 25 Oct 2017 17:02
Location: UK

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Lamarck » 27 Nov 2017 16:30

MarkN wrote:Interesting.

As you well know there are various, and mostly quite contradictory, narratives out there claiming to be the narrative that tells the story of Hitler's adolescence. I tend to fall into the group that believes Hitler only became 'radicalised' after WW1.

Brigitte Hamann's book, which I haven't read, has an 'interesting' approach. The concept of combining an account of Vienna society and political undercurrent with a story of Hitler's youth is inviting the reader to assume the two are connected before they even turn the front cover. Neat trick! Does the book contain any documented evidence that Hitler was a active participant in any of these goings-on - or is it all hearsay about what exactly he did and thought?
It's important to distinguish between Hitler's pan-German nationalist beliefs and his anti-semitism, although it is true that the latter was embedded into the former and formed a key point of Nazism. There is a lot of evidence that Hitler had strong German nationalist views long before he had got involved with politics or had even moved to Germany. According to one of his friends, Josef Keplinger, he told him: "You are not a Germane (old German). You have dark hair and dark eyes" and noted that his eyes were blue and that he had light brown hair. (Source John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, p. 15) His extreme form of anti-semitism seems to have come about after WW1. In fact, during all of his time in Vienna he never remarked any bad things about the Jews and actually had Jewish acquaintances and what some people would consider friends. He sold his postcards almost exclusively to Jews.

In Mein Kampf Hitler writes:
Once, as I was strolling through the Inner City, I suddenly encountered an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought.For, to be sure, they had not looked like that in Linz. I observed the man furtively and cautiously, but the longer I stared at this foreign face, scrutinizing feature for feature, the more my first question assumed a new form:

Is this a German?

As always in such cases, I now began to try to relieve my doubts by books. For a few hellers I bought the first antiSemitic pamphlets of my life. Unfortunately, they all proceeded from the supposition that in principle the reader knew or even understood the Jewish question to a certain degree. Besides, the tone for the most part was such that doubts again arose in me, due in part to the dull and amazingly unscientific arguments favoring the thesis. I relapsed for weeks at a time, once even for months. The whole thing seemed to me so monstrous, the accusations so boundless, that, tormented by the fear of doing injustice, I again became anxious and uncertain. Yet I could no longer very well doubt that the objects of my study were not Germans of a special religion, but a people in themselves; for since I had begun to concern myself with this question and to take cognizance of the Jews, Vienna appeared to me in a different light than before. Wherever I went, I began to see Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity. Particularly the Inner City and the districts north of the Danube Canal swarmed with a people which even outwardly had lost all resemblance to Germans.
Volume One - A Reckoning Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna

However, after WW1 Hitler believed that the Jews were synonymous with the Marxists. He remarked that Nazism was basically about the "Annihilation and extermination of the Marxist Weltanschaaung" (Source Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, p. 245)

Brigitte Hamann covers many aspects of Hitler's German nationalism. One of Hitler's teachers called Poetsch educated Hitler in the library and with maps. (p. 13) During school Hitler deliberately wore the Greater German colours black, red, and gold. The school children refused to say 'Hoch' and instead said 'Heil'. (p. 14) Hitler early on distinguished between being patriotic and an ethnic nationalist. (p. 15) Hitler hoped for the Habsburg Empire to collapse and for an Anschluss. (p. 107) During his time in Vienna, he read avidly newspapers and pamphlets that contained material from philosophers and theoreticians such as Darwin, Nietzsche, Le Bon. (p. 233)
Last edited by Lamarck on 28 Nov 2017 07:09, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 27 Nov 2017 17:54

Hi CroGer,

You write, "I don't know why you can't accept that states in medieval times were not like today." I can and do. However, I am talking about the HRE in recent centuries, as I said earlier. I am not sure why you keep drifting back to the Middle Ages, when the HRE wasn't typical even then. It may have desired "ever closer union", like the EU, but it got the reverse - ever decreasing union!. It Sidwasn't a state in the Middle Ages, just a collection of them.

CroGer
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:27
Location: Germany/Croatia

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by CroGer » 27 Nov 2017 19:16

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi CroGer,

You write, "I don't know why you can't accept that states in medieval times were not like today." I can and do. However, I am talking about the HRE in recent centuries, as I said earlier. I am not sure why you keep drifting back to the Middle Ages, when the HRE wasn't typical even then. It may have desired "ever closer union", like the EU, but it got the reverse - ever decreasing union!. It Sidwasn't a state in the Middle Ages, just a collection of them.
I don't remember that you limited your commentary on the HRE on a specific time in it's period. I look at it as the first german state. When Napoleon ended the HRE, he had very little resistance, because in 1806 most germans considered the "kaiser" as a burden, and the HRE as outdated and worthless.

Yet it's long history had coined the german mentality, or, mentalities. German federalism has a long history - hence the third Reich was something totally ungerman. Yet the Nazis made several references to the HRE - like Operation Barbarossa.

Here is how the HRE ended:

It was August 6, 1806, and what the man called out to the world in oppressive heat on behalf of Emperor Franz II made history:
"We declare by the present that we regard the bond that has bound us to the state body of the German Reich as dissolved."
The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation had existed for almost a millennium. Now with the 33rd Emperor -
Franz II from the house of Habsburg - the empire was over.

The Herald announced that the officials were released from their duty. The imperial insignia had Kaiser Franz locked away in the treasury of the Vienna Hofburg: the sacred lance, allegedly with a nail from the cross of Christ, the 110-centimeter long sword of Mauritius or the Reichsapfel formed from resin mass and covered with gold plate.
Never again should anyone accept the splendid imperial regalia as a sign of sovereignty. The people stopped praying for the emperor and the kingdom.

With the dissolution of the Reich, Franz met a demand from Napoleon, the then most powerful ruler in Europe. The Korse wanted to politically reorganize Germany; the empire was annoying. From then on, Franz II was only allowed to name Emperor Franz I of Austria.

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation - no form of government and no state had a longer existence in German history. When the empire was founded in 962, people still lived in straw cottages; Skins covered the window openings in winter. Places like Wimpfen near Heidelberg, the Hessian Gelnhausen and Trifels Castle in the Palatinate were among the centers. Rarely has anyone been older than 35 years.

By the fall of the Reich in 1806, however, Germany was already at the beginning of modernity. Steam power powered spinning machines in Prussia, people lived in multi-floor buildings in Hamburg or Berlin

In the Reich, the modern German state has developed, and not just - as in France - as a nation-state from above, but in the many middle and small states of the empire. In structures such as the Electorate of Bavaria and Saxony first came functioning administrations, sovereigns enforced the monopoly of power over robber barons, standing army instead of the commandments. That Germans, like few other peoples, are attached to federalism - the roots lie in the petty statesmanship of the Holy Roman Empire.
Here are - if you are still interested - sme excerpts from a well written article on the HRE:

Reasons for the "Holy Roman-thing
Christians like Otto (Emperor) believed in the vision of the prophet Daniel from the Old Testament. He had predicted four world empires, then would the Antichrist come and set the world. According to the then count, the Roman Empire was considered the fourth empire; His continued existence thus pushed the Last Judgment out and provided the Emperor with a salvation-historical mandate.


The problems of administrating an empire as large as the HRE
he ride from one end to the other took more than a month. There was no central administration and no judiciary that enforced the will of the monarch. Otto von Pfalz moved to Palatinate with a thousand-man household and even held court and court days. If the supplies were used up, it went on. [...]
And now there were also other parts of Italy, which already attracted back then. Many of Otto's successors spent most of his reign in the southern climes. No wonder that the German imperial princes became more and more powerful and competed with the monarch.


Conflict King & Pope
It was setting the course like the imperial coronation, which allowed Germany to go a different route than its European neighbors. The founding of the empire chained pope and emperor together in a special way, for only the Christian head, according to the understanding at that time, was able to perform the sacred act of coronation with which the German king rose to become the patron saint of Christianity.
But both raised the claim to supremacy, and the centuries-long conflict between the bailiff and the deputy of God weakened the emperor enormously.


Habsburgs & the HRE
Maximilian was little interested in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. He was primarily concerned with the Habsburg power within and outside the Reich, which he was able to enormously increase with mercenary troops and skilful marriage policies.


Identity in the HRE
The construction of the empire in the early modern period seems peculiar to today's observer. Switzerland and the Netherlands left over the centuries. Most Reichsbewohner did not know, where the external borders ran. They preferred to orient themselves on rivers, mountains or the language borders.


Function of the Reichstag in the later period
It was not a parliament, which gathered in the magnificent patrician building, but a mixture of today's Federal Council and Congress of Vienna. They discussed foreign policy, but also peace at home, tax issues and currency problems. For the defense of the Ottomans, the estates brought enormous funds, which contributed significantly to the salvation of the West and are considered by some historians as evidence of the functioning of the Reich


Impact of the reformation
after the Reformation, when the religious passions boiled up. The criticism of the Augustinian monk Martin Luther to the pope and church in 1517 split the country at that time.
Emperor Charles V, a convict as his counterpart Luther, was and remains Catholic. But some rulers took advantage of the opportunity offered to them by Luther's teaching. According to the monk, the church had no business in politics. (...). Soon Both sides were hostile to each other. In other European countries, religious minorities sooner or later had to give way: the Jews from Spain, the Huguenots from France. In the Reich, however, the estates in the Augsburg Peace of Religion agreed in 1555 to keep peace among themselves, even if they were Catholics, Lutherans or Reformed. For people who for centuries had known only the alternative of converting or killing devotees of other faiths, that was an almost revolutionary step.

In 1648, the estates committed to "endure patience" when subjects changed denominations. Soon, foreign observers praised the Old Kingdom as a place of tolerance. The philosopher Charles de Montesquieu even raved about the "Eternal Republic" in these lands
When did it stop being a state? It slowly deteriorated. Yet it could still declare "Imperial wars". Here is a list:

Ottoman war 1663/1664
Ottoman war 1683–1699
French-Dutch war 1672–1678
Nine Years War 1688–1697
War of the Spanish Succession 1701–1714
War of the Polish Succession 1733–1738
First Coalition War 1792–1797
Second Coalition 1799–1802


Didn't this all start with me saying that France attacked Germany 7 times, and you answering that there was no Germany?
Anyhow - I hope we have sorted our misunderstanding out.
Sperg

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 28 Nov 2017 13:36

Hi CroGer,

You ask of the Holy Roman Empire, "When did it stop being a state?". I would suggest that it never was a state because it had few of the attributes of a state.

The HRE's character was more like that of a combination of the EU and NATO, neither or which is a state (yet).

All the wars you claim as "imperial" were actually Hapsburg wars, from the period when the Hapsburgs were effectively the only family that could get elected emperor. They were often fought for Hapsburg dynastic interests, not for Germany or Germans. And Hapsburg dynastic interests went far beyond the HRE. Ask yourself which of the territories gained in any of these wars entered the HRE rather than coming separately under the Hapsburg crown? Any?

No, France did not attack Germany 7 times. There was no such German national state to attack before 1870-71, and only two wars between the two thereafter. Besides, France had certainly previously been to war in and against Germans many more times than seven.

You are applying an anachronistic, retrospective notion of Germany to before it existed as anything approaching a unitary national state.

Nor was the HRE ever a German national state. Even if one includes the Swiss and Dutch as Germans, It also embraced Northern Italy, Bohemia and several smaller non-German territories. Furthermore, it never included some increasingly German territories, such as East Prussia. And this leaves aside its higher spiritual loyalties to the Pope in Rome.

Your proposition's problem is that the less cohesive the HRE became as a pseudo-state over time, the more it was reduced to its German territories. It was never both truly cohesive and truly German at the same time.

Cheers,

Sid.

CroGer
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:27
Location: Germany/Croatia

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by CroGer » 28 Nov 2017 15:49

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi CroGer,

You ask of the Holy Roman Empire, "When did it stop being a state?". I would suggest that it never was a state because it had few of the attributes of a state.

The HRE's character was more like that of a combination of the EU and NATO, neither or which is a state (yet).

All the wars you claim as "imperial" were actually Hapsburg wars, from the period when the Hapsburgs were effectively the only family that could get elected emperor. They were often fought for Hapsburg dynastic interests, not for Germany or Germans. And Hapsburg dynastic interests went far beyond the HRE. Ask yourself which of the territories gained in any of these wars entered the HRE rather than coming separately under the Hapsburg crown? Any?

No, France did not attack Germany 7 times. There was no such German national state to attack before 1870-71, and only two wars between the two thereafter. Besides, France had certainly previously been to war in and against Germans many more times than seven.

You are applying an anachronistic, retrospective notion of Germany to before it existed as anything approaching a unitary national state.

Nor was the HRE ever a German national state. Even if one includes the Swiss and Dutch as Germans, It also embraced Northern Italy, Bohemia and several smaller non-German territories. Furthermore, it never included some increasingly German territories, such as East Prussia. And this leaves aside its higher spiritual loyalties to the Pope in Rome.

Your proposition's problem is that the less cohesive the HRE became as a pseudo-state over time, the more it was reduced to its German territories. It was never both truly cohesive and truly German at the same time.

Cheers,

Sid.

There we go again. Everything I have written in the last days was futile.

A question: have you read about

The ottonians
the salians
the stauffer
the Anti-Kings
The Interregnum
The imperial reform of 1434 and 1495
The augsburg interim
?
Yes or no?
If no - what are you judging your opinion on?

I repeatedly said that with "France attacking Germany" I was neither talking about wars between France and the HRE, nor about the attacks of France against the HRE. I was talking about french atttempts to CONQUER THE RHINELAND, and I gave you the french irredentism, aka "natural borders of France", as an example.
I also repeatedly said that the HRE was not a NATION STATE and not GERMANY, but that Germany was the heartland of the HRE. Yet, the holy roman empire and the title king of Germany was often used synonymously.

The kingdom of the HRE was an electorial monarchy. Yet all the voters were German.
Here are examples of the voters:

1376

Ludwig von Meißen, elector of Mainz (1374–1379)
Kuno II. von Falkenstein, elector of Trier (1362–1388)
Friedrich III. von Saarwerden, elector of Cologne (1372–1414)
Karl IV., King of Bohemia (1346–1378) and Emperor
Ruprecht I., Count Palatine of the Rhine (1356–1390)
Wenzel I., Elector of Saxony (1370–1388)
Wenzel, Elector of Brandenburg (1373–1378

Bohemia was ruled from 1307 by rulers primarily of german heritage, or precisely Habsburgs, Luxemburger, Meinhardiner, Wittelsbacher.


1400


Johann II. von Nassau, elector of Mainz (1396–1419)
Werner von Falkenstein, elector of Trier (1388–1418)
Friedrich III. von Saarwerden, elector of Cologne (1372–1414)
Ruprecht III., Count Palatine of the Rhine (1398–1410)
Rudolf III., elector of Saxony (1388–1419)
Jobst, elector of Brandenburg (1388–1411)


So it had a german character.

Isn't the fact that neither Hungary nor Spain, countries ruled by the Habsburgs, an indicator that the HRE had a german character?

And here is what I am talking about with attacks on Germany.
In connection with the dispute over the occupation of the Cologne archbishop's chair, French troops occupied Bonn, Neuss and Kaiserswerth at the invitation of Fürstenberg. In Kurtrier Koblenz and the fortress Ehrenbreitstein resisted. The imperial city of Cologne was not attacked because it was protected by the troops of the Brandenburg elector. [21]

For the hope of a short campaign speaks that the army, which crossed the Rhine at Strasbourg on September 24, 1688, was only 40,000 strong. It was under the command of the Dauphin Louis de Bourbon and Marshal Durfort. First war aim was the fortress Philippsburg. Sébastien Le Prestre de Vauban took command of the siege. The fortress fell in October 1688. Two weeks later, Mannheim fell. A short time later, the French conquered the fortress Frankenthal. Surprised by the outbreak of the war, Mainz and Heidelberg emerged in the course of the first weeks of the war. Far beyond, French troops reached Ulm and Mergentheim to plunder the land and collect contributions. Thus, Heidelberg, Mannheim, Speyer, Worms and other places were devastated. In an attempt to destroy the imperial domes in Speyer and Worms, the Worms Cathedral burned down completely and the Speyer Cathedral was so badly damaged that the western nave collapsed and the western building had to be partially demolished. In the military operations in Germany, there was not a single field battle. The goal of the French was rather to put the opponent by targeted destruction under pressure. The hope to force the other side to accept the conditions of Louis XIV was not fulfilled.

The Swabian imperial circle and the Rhenish Electors had not yet begun with concrete preparations for war. The imperial troops were initially still essentially tied in the Turkish War and could not provide effective assistance. The defense system based on the imperial circles proved to be completely overstrained. First aid came from the armored Reichsstände. But it took a month before the Electors of Brandenburg, Saxony, the Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg and the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel met in Magdeburg (Magdeburg Concert) to discuss a common approach. As armored imperial estates, the participating princes provided the troops, while the unarmed estates had to pay for quarters and financing. The armies of the armored imperial estates levied war contributions in the areas evacuated by the French, which increased the suffering of the population. The support of the armed estates later forced the Emperor to political concessions. Thus, the awarding of the electorate to Hanover was tied to the position of an army, and the emperor's consent to the king's uprising of the elector of Brandenburg in Prussia was also linked to his military support. They also profited financially from the Subsidies of the Sea Powers and Assignations of the Emperor.

First, the troops of the Magdeburg concert since October 1688 were used on the Lower Rhine and the Middle Rhine. The Bavarian Elector Maximilian II Emanuel commanded his own and imperial troops in the area of ​​Frankfurt am Main. The scope of the war began to expand as the Netherlands decided to participate in November. For the first time on 15 February 1689 there was also a Reichskriegserklärung (imperial war declaration), to which, of course, not all the imperial estates felt bound. [19]

The clear reaction of the Reich, the support of the Netherlands and the gradual concentration of troops on the Rhine showed Louis XIV. That he could not count on a short war duration. He decided to withdraw his own troops from their advanced positions. Instead, strong defensive forces were concentrated in Philippsburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Breisach and Kehl. Also in Mainz there were French crews.

On the advice of his Minister of War Louvois, Louis XIV was systematically ravaging the Palatinate and adjacent areas during the retreat. Villages, castles and fortresses and entire cities were destroyed in the Palatinate, in Kurtrier and in Württemberg. Ezéchiel de Mélac contributed to this as a French general authoritative. From January 1689 eleven villages of the Upper Office Heidelberg were burned down south of the Neckar, according to plan, after the inhabitants had been expelled. Before the resistance of Electoral Saxon troops at Weinheim, the French retreated and laid to rest under riots against the population glove home. In Heidelberg, only the fortifications of the castle and city were blown up, the French city commander Count Tessé was content to his superiors with some smaller fires in the city, which ultimately destroyed only 34 houses. Mannheim, on the other hand, was razed to the ground as a fortress city. The French troops then turned to the south and continued their destruction work on the Middle Upper Rhine (Durlach and Pforzheim) and Kraichgau (Bretten).

The goal was the formation of an area that no longer had tools and fortifications and could no longer serve as an enemy staging area. [26] [27] Therefore, in particular, many castles and other fortifications were destroyed. Most of the hitherto completely or partially existing castles in the left bank of the Rhineland-Palatinate were destroyed in this context. These included, for example, the castle Stahleck, the castle Stolzenfels, the imperial castle Cochem, the Dahner castle group or the Hambach Castle.

However, the military effect of the scorched earth was bought by a tremendous collapse of public opinion in the Reich and abroad to the detriment of France and its work of destruction. This helped to strengthen the opposing coalition

Do you understand this text? You you understand that - despite your illogical attempts to consider the HRE "EU before Maastricht with a little bit of Nato" - that there was a german collective identity and that these attacks carved into the german psyche?

Here is something else:

1840
The Rhine crisis of 1840 was a diplomatic crisis between the Kingdom of France and the German Confederation, caused by the insistence of French minister Adolphe Thiers that the river Rhine be reinstated as France's border in the east, at a loss of some 32.000 km² of German (mostly Prussian) territory.

The territories of the Left Bank of the Rhine, which French troops had conquered in 1795, had been returned to German (mostly Prussian) control after the 1815 Congress of Vienna, forming the Rhine Province. After a diplomatic defeat in the Oriental Crisis of 1840 France shifted its focus to the Rhine, and the French government, led by Adolphe Thiers, restated its claim to the areas on the left bank, to re-establish the Rhine as a natural border. These claims reinforced ressentiment among the Germans against the French, and increased nationalism on both sides. New nationalist songs were written in France and Germany and achieved huge popularity, most famously the German songs "Die Wacht am Rhein", "Der Deutsche Rhein" and the "Lied der Deutschen", the national anthem of Germany since 1922.
So 25 years after the french had lost the Napoleonic wars, they tried to "regain the rhineland" because of their "french" idea of a natural border.

Do you understand that this was a problem that France for 400 years attack GERMANY, aka GERMAN SOIL, to CONQUER THE RHINELAND and make it french?

And here is something from the french "occupation of the rhineland"
The term Rhenish Republic stands for the short-term attempt to found a state of separatist movements in the Rhineland in 1923. The members of the group were called separatists, special or free-lancers.

The events concerned the Belgian and French occupied territories of the western German Empire. Supporters of various separatist associations brought from 21 October, some Rhenish city and local governments partially with the military help of the occupying forces under their control. The French High Commissioner and President of the Rhineland Commission, Paul Tirard (1879-1945), recognized the separatist rule interpreted as a result of a political revolution on October 26 as a legitimate government. [1] "Prime Minister" was the editor Josef Friedrich Matthes (1886-1943), "government seat" was Koblenz.

After numerous protests by the German and British governments, Belgian-French support quickly subsided. T
he Separatists tried to maintain their rule with the help of the security forces they recruited. The maintenance of the troops was through "requisitions" in the population denied, which escalated the situation in many places to armed conflicts. The direct rule of the separatists ended around November 20th.

At about the same time and also in the occupied territories, the events known as Ruhr occupation and Autonomous Palatinate occurred
With Autonomous Palatinate the attempts are referred to establish after the First World War, the left bank of the Rhine Palatinate as an autonomous, independent of Bavaria state. During the period of French occupation after the First World War, separatist tendencies initially developed with the goal of becoming an independent state within the Association of the German Reich, later also creating a state independent of the Reich and leaning towards France.
Do you understand that France did not only occupy the rhinland to collect the reparations, but to cut the rhineland off of Germany?


And imperial war.... Haven't I just written about the difference between the Kaiser Army and the imperial army, and that an imperial war could only be declared with consent of the Reichstag and was also financed by a special tax?

What am I supposed to do now? Count every soldier and give you a statistic where they came from?
Sperg

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2637
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by MarkN » 28 Nov 2017 19:06

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi CroGer,

You ask of the Holy Roman Empire, "When did it stop being a state?". I would suggest that it never was a state because it had few of the attributes of a state.

The HRE's character was more like that of a combination of the EU and NATO, neither or which is a state (yet).

All the wars you claim as "imperial" were actually Hapsburg wars, from the period when the Hapsburgs were effectively the only family that could get elected emperor. They were often fought for Hapsburg dynastic interests, not for Germany or Germans. And Hapsburg dynastic interests went far beyond the HRE. Ask yourself which of the territories gained in any of these wars entered the HRE rather than coming separately under the Hapsburg crown? Any?

No, France did not attack Germany 7 times. There was no such German national state to attack before 1870-71, and only two wars between the two thereafter. Besides, France had certainly previously been to war in and against Germans many more times than seven.

You are applying an anachronistic, retrospective notion of Germany to before it existed as anything approaching a unitary national state.

Nor was the HRE ever a German national state. Even if one includes the Swiss and Dutch as Germans, It also embraced Northern Italy, Bohemia and several smaller non-German territories. Furthermore, it never included some increasingly German territories, such as East Prussia. And this leaves aside its higher spiritual loyalties to the Pope in Rome.

Your proposition's problem is that the less cohesive the HRE became as a pseudo-state over time, the more it was reduced to its German territories. It was never both truly cohesive and truly German at the same time.

Cheers,

Sid.
But you are wrong! You have been told you are wrong! Several times.... When will you "accept" and "appreciate" that he has studied this for 20 years and thus he cannot be challenged? :roll:
CroGer wrote:[Lots of historical pap deleted to save bandwidth.]

The kingdom of the HRE was an electorial monarchy. Yet all the voters were German.
Here are examples of the voters:

1376

Ludwig von Meißen, elector of Mainz (1374–1379)
Kuno II. von Falkenstein, elector of Trier (1362–1388)
Friedrich III. von Saarwerden, elector of Cologne (1372–1414)
Karl IV., King of Bohemia (1346–1378) and Emperor
Ruprecht I., Count Palatine of the Rhine (1356–1390)
Wenzel I., Elector of Saxony (1370–1388)
Wenzel, Elector of Brandenburg (1373–1378

[Ever more historical pap deleted to save bandwidth.]

What am I supposed to do now? Count every soldier and give you a statistic where they came from?
Don't bother counting every soldier, just consider the 7 people you name above (also note my underlining):-

1. If you asked Ludwig von Meißen, elector of Mainz (1374–1379) to identify himself, would he answer that he was German?
2. If you asked Kuno II. von Falkenstein, elector of Trier (1362–1388) to identify himself, would he answer that he was German?
3. If you asked Friedrich III. von Saarwerden, elector of Cologne (1372–1414) to identify himself, would he answer that he was German?
4. If you asked Karl IV., King of Bohemia (1346–1378) and Emperor to identify himself, would he answer that he was German?
5. If you asked Ruprecht I., Count Palatine of the Rhine (1356–1390) to identify himself, would he answer that he was German?
6. If you asked Wenzel I., Elector of Saxony (1370–1388) to identify himself, would he answer that he was German?
7. If you asked Wenzel, Elector of Brandenburg (1373–1378) to identify himself, would he answer that he was German?

You CroGer identify yourself as Croatian. Fair dos. But if I was to label you as a Serb (like you labelled me - as well as German and Austrian :lol: ) because I thought you exhibited several Serb traits and had a Serb mentality, would that make you a Serb?

Was Ludwig von Meißen, elector of Mainz (1374–1379) a German because he considered himself a German or because you label him a German given he he exhibited several German traits and had a German mentality. Ditto the other 6.

:wink:

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2637
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by MarkN » 28 Nov 2017 20:11

Lamarck wrote: It's important to distinguish between Hitler's pan-German nationalist beliefs and his anti-semitism, although it is true that the latter was embedded into the former and formed a key point of Nazism. There is a lot of evidence that Hitler had strong German nationalist views long before he had got involved with politics or had even moved to Germany. According to one of his friends, Josef Keplinger, he told him: "You are not a Germane (old German). You have dark hair and dark eyes" and noted that his eyes were blue and that he had light brown hair. (Source John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, p. 15) His extreme form of anti-semitism seems to have come about after WW1. In fact, during all of his time in Vienna he never remarked any bad things about the Jews and actually had Jewish acquaintances and what some people would consider friends. He sold his postcards almost exclusively to Jews.

Volume One - A Reckoning Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna

However, after WW1 Hitler believed that the Jews were synonymous with the Marxists. He remarked that Nazism was basically about the "Annihilation and extermination of the Marxist Weltanschaaung" (Source Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, p. 245)

Brigitte Hamann covers many aspects of Hitler's German nationalism. One of Hitler's teachers called Poetsch educated Hitler in the library and with maps. (p. 13) During school Hitler deliberately wore the Greater German colours black, red, and gold. The school children refused to say 'Hoch' and instead said 'Heil'. (p. 14) Hitler early on distinguished between being patriotic and an ethnic nationalist. (p. 15) Hitler hoped for the Habsburg Empire to collapse and for an Anschluss. (p. 107) During his time in Vienna, he read avidly newspapers and pamphlets that contained material from philosophers and theoreticians such as Darwin, Nietzsche, Le Bon. (p. 233)
Thank you for this.

I remain unconvinced that Hitler had been 'radicalized' whilst still at school. Can we be certain that he wore "the Greater German colours black, red, and gold" as a political statement every day, or is it the 'convenient' recollection of a person who remembers some instances where he wore those colours? Was the choice of 'Heil' rather than 'Hoch' a political statement or a juvenile prank? And so on. Whilst I don't disregard the possibility, the evidence seems rather circumstantial and pieced together to tell a story rather than being able to positively identify political activity. There are many, many things I did as an adolescent which could easily be shaped by somebody in the future into proof that I was radicalized towards XXXX. I'd hate to think what I could be accused of if somebody did an analysis of my google search history.... :lol:

User avatar
Lamarck
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 25 Oct 2017 17:02
Location: UK

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Lamarck » 29 Nov 2017 09:37

MarkN wrote:Thank you for this.

I remain unconvinced that Hitler had been 'radicalized' whilst still at school. Can we be certain that he wore "the Greater German colours black, red, and gold" as a political statement every day, or is it the 'convenient' recollection of a person who remembers some instances where he wore those colours? Was the choice of 'Heil' rather than 'Hoch' a political statement or a juvenile prank? And so on. Whilst I don't disregard the possibility, the evidence seems rather circumstantial and pieced together to tell a story rather than being able to positively identify political activity. There are many, many things I did as an adolescent which could easily be shaped by somebody in the future into proof that I was radicalized towards XXXX. I'd hate to think what I could be accused of if somebody did an analysis of my google search history.... :lol:
There is a debate about the origins of Hitler's anti-semitism but his German nationalist belief is well documented. Have you read any of the major Hitler biographies? Bullock, Toland, Kershaw and others have presented the picture very clear. Hitler was born into the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire and the general national identity of the German-speaking Austrians was German. The Austrians considered themselves to be Germans. Hitler's childhood and the various schools he went to were all deeply German nationalist. Hitler's father was also a German nationalist but he was loyal to the monarch whereas Hitler was not. His father was not the type to express the extreme pan-German views by the likes of Schönerer whereas Hitler was. Although Hitler was not actively involved with the Schönerer movement it is undeniable that it helped shape his nationalist view. Hitler as a fanatical German nationalist hated Vienna because of the mixture of races and was really happy when he arrived in Munich because it was a German city. Hitler detested the empire that he was born in and was filled with joy when he finally arrived in Germany.

I don't really see why you are casting any doubt on Hitler's German nationalist beliefs, it is thoroughly documented from his early childhood to the end of his life.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 Nov 2017 12:57

Hi CroGer,

You write, "Everything I have written in the last days was futile." At last, something we can agree on!

But seriously, in answer to your first question, NO.

You also ask, "what are you judging your opinion on?" The institutions that make up a national state as applied to the Holy Roman Empire in recent centuries. They were largely missing. It has more resemblances to supranational institutions like the EU.

You write, "I also repeatedly said that the HRE was not a NATION STATE and not GERMANY, but that Germany was the heartland of the HRE." That was not my impression from your earlier replies to me. It is precisely my position that the HRE was not a nation state and not Germany, but it is certainly true that German states did provide the long term core of the HRE.

While I can see that the Rhine could be regarded as a "natural" defensive border of France, at least in some French minds, I have never seen it put forward that its attainment was a French goal. Did France ever try to withdraw Alsace or Lorraine from the HRE? In fact, it was the presence of Alsace and Lorraine within the HRE that the French used as an excuse to prevent the English King Henry V from inheriting the entire French estate. HRE territories could only be inherited through the male line and Henry's claim to the French throne came through the female line. (One has to wonder if in 1415-20 the French were therefore contending that the whole France was part of the HRE in order to avoid an English king?)

You write, correctly, that "The kingdom of the HRE was an electorial monarchy. Yet all the voters were German." From memory there were seven Electors, some of whom, like Hanover, are different from your list.

You posted a long quote about the War of Palatine Succession. We are fortunate that Louis XIV left a " Mémoire de raisons" for his actions on this occasion. It does not appear to mention the Rhine. His aim was to secure the lands of the Palatinate, which he claimed were legitimate inheritances of his family members. The Palatinate territories lay on both sides of the Rhine. Perhaps you can clarify this point?

Cheers,

Sid.

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”