Stop acting such an attention seeking prima donna.
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".
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.
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]
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.
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. 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.
- The Founder. Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power
[...]Rhodes also favored the teutonic idea of an eventual union of the white anglo-saxon identities (including Germany)
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."
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.
In his essay «Wotan» (1936) , 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».  This forms - in addition to economic, political and psychological explanatory approaches - probably the strongest explanatory reason for the phenomenon of National Socialism.  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"  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."  "In Germany, the storm has broken out, while we [in Switzerland] still believe in the weather."  Germany is a spiritual catastrophe country ».  "The earliest intuition always personified these psychic powers as gods."  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."  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."  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).  In this sense, Hitler obtained his power through his people and was "helpless ... without his German people,"  because he embodied the unconscious of Nazi Germany, which gave Hitler his power. 
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.  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.  According to Jung, what was activated there was the earlier image of god of the "Wotan", but in a destructive way.  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
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.