 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:31
|
|
did the HRE ever matter in the 20th century?
no, no and fvck no
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecthelion
did the HRE ever matter in the 20th century?
no, no and fvck no |
Given that it had ceased to exist in 1815, I am more than inclined to agree with you.
It seems that in the Nedaverse, there is this unbroken chain, where the Imperial coronet is passed from Habsburgs to Hohenzollerns and then on to Hitler.
It also seems that Ned chooses to ignore the states and territories that weren't in modern day Germany or didn't have a German majority, or German culture, and also the history of the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Greater Moravian Empire and all those awkward Emperors who didn't take the trouble of being born on what was to become German soil or to parents of German stock or culture.
Still, it makes sense if you want to continue portraying Hitler as somehow being the legitimate heir of Barbarossa, or Maria Theresa, and to blame Great Britain and France for 'starting' WWII.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
So what if he referred to such ancient empires. That does in no way legitimate his claims. If your logic should be followed, then hitler should willingly have given great parts of northern germany to Denmark because they for centuries had been danish territory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Since you defend hitlers claims, reasoning and their legitimacy, I find it very natural to think that you accept the logic behind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Here is a bit on what Hitler probably meant: the East Frankish Kingdom, a successor state to Charlemagne's Empire.
"The political structure called The Empire in most historical text grew out of the EAST FRANKISH KINGDOM, the kingdom which developed into Germany, and the Kings of which, in the succession of Charlemagne, were to monopolize the title of Emperor. This East Frankish Kingdom, over time, integrated the Duchy of Lorraine, the Kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy and Slavic regions to the east of the Elbe and the Böhmerwald. Over time, the name "East Frankish" came out of use and was was, in contemporary sources, replaced by ROMAN KING. This attribute expressed the claim on the title of Emperor (which many 'Roman' kings failed to achieve, because of a hostile pope), not the control of Rome. In this context we refer to the combination of the Kingdoms of the East Franks, of Italy and Burgundy in the later middle ages as to the Empire, despite the fact that often it was without an emperor, only ruled by a king.
Many modern historians refer to the Empire as German; medieval sources do not, and despite the fact that in the Empire the was dominated by the German element, there were large regions populated by speakers of Italian, French / Provencal and of Slavic languages. To say that f.ex. Bohemia, in the middle ages, was part of Germany, is disputable."
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/ger...maempstruc.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Who cares? There's a group called "Christian Identity" who claim that all Jews are fake and that only Christians, especially English Christians, are the true children of Israel and the Chosen people. The fact that they claim this doesn't make it right. The fact that Hitler claimed that his Nazi state was the rightful heir to the German Empire and the Holy Roman Empire or the Kingdom of the Franks doesn't make his claims right, nor did it entitle him to the lands formerly incorporated in either of those two defunct states.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Blackcat, in the words of many critics of US/Brit action against Iraq, the Brit/French war on Germany declared on Sept. 3, 1939 was
"elective."
Whether the Brit interference and subsequent declaration of war was justified truly depends on one's point of view regarding Versailles. As America found that treaty to be abhorent, a rape of Germany and unsignable, Americans can actually see some arguments that favor the German point of view, although Germany's actions during the war have to receive utter condemnation by all. But, one wonders, truly wonders, if the lives of tens of millions, including 6 million Jews, could have been saved had Britain not intervened and declared war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Nope. No sane person spends so much as a millisecond on such fantasies.
The fate of german, austrian an polish jews would have been the same, and when hitler started his attack on soviet he would have done it from a much stronger starting point and would probably have beaten them.
The result of passive France and Britain would probably have ended up in even more dead people than the known losses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Blackcat, maybe. But it is true that as the war went on, the brutality on both sides increased exponentially. At the end, with the US and Britain blowing away Dresden and the US destroying virtually every major Japanese City, the rape of Nanking and the Nazi death camps no longer seem to be that bad. We were supposed to be the "good" guys, and yet we ourselves entered into barbarism, making deliberate attacks on civilians.
Had the war never been started, I am sure the Jews would not have been summarily killed. Hitler would have forced them to leave, but they would have gone to Israel, or some place like that. But certainly, millions of Europeans also would not have been killed.
The theory that nothing would have been changed had there been no war depends upon the inevitability of war regardless. But that also depends upon Hitler's relationship to the German people. He was popular because of the economy and because of his undoing of Versailles. Had he, though, gone on a world conquest that was not the result of Britain declaring war, I sincerely doubt he would have retained the confidence of the German people. After all, the last thing a dictator wants is to be overthrown.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Blackcat, maybe. But it is true that as the war went on, the brutality on both sides increased exponentially. At the end, with the US and Britain blowing away Dresden and the US destroying virtually every major Japanese City, the rape of Nanking and the Nazi death camps no longer seem to be that bad. We were supposed to be the "good" guys, and yet we ourselves entered into barbarism, making deliberate attacks on civilians.
|
This is a sick comparison. I don't think that bombardment of civilians is anything to be proud of, but to compare that with prisoners in deathcamps is far out. The civilians had aat least the possibility to go into shelters or flee while they to some degree was protected by military forces. Compared to people in a deathcamp with a gas chamber as neighbour, I for sure know what I would prefer.
quote:
Had the war never been started, I am sure the Jews would not have been summarily killed. Hitler would have forced them to leave, but they would have gone to Israel, or some place like that. But certainly, millions of Europeans also would not have been killed.
|
If hitler was such a little cutie that just would have let the jews leave, then please explain why it was so difficult for them to leave long before the war started by the german attack on Poland.
quote:
The theory that nothing would have been changed had there been no war depends upon the inevitability of war regardless. But that also depends upon Hitler's relationship to the German people. He was popular because of the economy and because of his undoing of Versailles. Had he, though, gone on a world conquest that was not the result of Britain declaring war, I sincerely doubt he would have retained the confidence of the German people. After all, the last thing a dictator wants is to be overthrown. |
What are you talking about ? He was in total control of the country, and he went into a world conquest before Britain entered the war - the conquest of Poland was only the first step.
Do you really think that people like hitler and saddam are scared of the peoples opinion ? The only people they are scared of are the people that they share power with. Why do you think that hitler hit the SA or saddam regularly shot a general or two ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Spiff, you are right, but their problem was that they often were sent back to germany despite the obvious danger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Molly, reference the Hitler speech I quoted earlier in this thread where he is talking to Roosevelt in 1939, IIRC, about an ancient Reich and that the lands now subject to the Third Reich were subject to this ancient Reich.
What was he talking about? I think it is natural to think he is talking about the empire of Charlemagne, its Frankish predecessors, and its HRE successors. But I may be wrong. |
It's irrelevant- just because he says something he believes in (or is saying simply for propaganda) doesn't mean it's true- perhaps you believe everything that came out of Goebbels' mouth too.
You haven't shown how Hitler could legitimately declare himself inheritor of this 'ancient Reich'- which in any case went through many mutations in its existence, including areas with no Germans and non-German territories.
You haven't even addressed the ancient existence of the Czech nation, or the heritage of the Kingdom of Bohemia, nor the difference between the Second Reich (one composed of German states and areas acquired by Brandenburg-Prussia by force, which lay outside the boundaries of the previous Reich) and the later stages of the Holy Roman Empire, when a loose agglomeration of territories was ruled over by a royal family many of whose personal holdings lay outside the boundaries of the Empire whose titular heads they were from time to time.
You choose to ignore that Sudeten Germans were never subjects of a German state, and that Hitler's propaganda was simply camouflage and persiflage.
Let's just imagine that Hitler was the legal inheritor of the elective crown of the Holy Roman Empire- which stage of this Empire's existence are you saying he should rightfully inherit ?
From when its territory included the Benelux countries, the County of Burgundy, Franche-Comte, Switzerland, Savoy, Lombardy, and parts of Italy all the way to the Papal States, southern Denmark, parts of Slovenia and Poland and the northern Adriatic ?
And you keep harping on about what 'right' Great Britain had to tell Germany about what should be in the Third Reich- as if somehow, Germany had every right to break international treaties to which it had been a signatory, and blackmail independent nations into surrendering territory which had never belonged to Germany!
I notice you don't mention the pre-existing treaties between Czechoslovakia and France and Great Britain - and you blithely seem to have assumed that Germany had every right to interfere in the INTERNAL politics of Austria and Czechoslovakia .
But when Great Britain stands by a treaty with another sovereign nation, suddenly they're interfering in Germany's business!
Let me give you two quotes:
' Europe in 1648: Political Units
" For a year after Nordlingen it looked as though Ferdinand II was going to make the German Empire a real state and himself the first effective Emperor since mediaeval times . " '
from the Penguin Atlas of Modern History (to 1815) by Colin McEvedy
and:
' In 1306, Bohemia came under the control of the House of Luxembourg and the rule of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV. This opened up a Golden Age for Bohemia: Prague became the political capital of the Holy Roman Empire and the Charles University, a major centre of culture and learning, was founded there.'
and:
' There was a Czech state, Bohemia, from the tenth century and for four centuries it was a flourishing and active power in central Europe. The kings of Bohemia held power until the sixteenth century... [...]
The boundaries of the new country (Czechoslovakia) were decided at the Paris peace conference of 1918-20 and brought together more peoples than simply Czechs and Slovaks... in the Sudetenland more than two million Germans had long been settled.
It was decided to include this very substantial minority within the new state since THEY HAD NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECTS OF A GERMAN STATE and there was no indication that they wanted to be. '
From- Ancestors: The Origins of the People and Countries of Europe, Martin berg and Miles Litvinoff, publ. Peter Lowe
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
nm
Last edited by Ned on 19-04-2005 at 00:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Well, we seem to agree that Bohemia and Moravia had long been part of the East Frankish Kingdom, aka, Kingdom of Germany, aka, HRE, aka, the First Reich even though they themselves were not German. Even as you said in your first post on this topic, the HRE was not a German Empire. It was however, an Empire or Kingdom that was primarily German.
Below is a map circa 1390. Note, at this date the Corridor and Danzig are part of the Kingdom of Germany.
It was one of Napoleon's formost objectives to break this Empire/Kingdom. He was successful. Bismarck tried to put the German-speaking part of it back together. He was successful, but he excluded the Austrians, who ruled much of the rest of the former HRE, and, as you pointed out, additional lands that were never part of the HRE. Prussia also included lands that had never been part of the HRE.
At the close of WWI, Lloyd George took a page from Napoleon's book. His central objective was to reduce the power of "Germany" by giving away its lands to its neighbors, and breaking up the Austrian Empire (as well as the Turkish Empire). Did George have a right to do this? No. But he had the power to do it and he did it. His map munipulation in Europe lead directly to WWII, the greatest war in human history. It also lead to the endless problems in the Middle-East and to the breakout of war between the Chinese and Japanese.
But, why did this have to lead to war? The reason clearly is that Britain continued Lloyd George's policy of weakening Germany by blocking or attempting to block Germany's moves to undo Versailles.
Now, it is clear that many here simply want to ignore history and label Hitler an evil world conqueror even from the time of Munich. But clearly the reason for this is to divert attention away from the disasterous British policies that are the cause the war in the first place.
It is a good thing that the Brits are no longer leading the world.
 Attachment: ceneur1360b.gif
This has been downloaded 23 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Do you seriously mean that todays borders shall be adjusted according to a map from 1360 ?
If that is the case, then why not take it a step furter and let Italy take over the areas that the roman empire (the real one) controlled at it's peak ? After all Rome was the capital of that empire and is now the capital of Italy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-04-2005 17:50
|
