PDA

View Full Version : Nordish Diaspora (for Colonialists, travellers, & all that are Nordish)



Odin's Pie
Wednesday, October 12th, 2005, 02:32 AM
FIRST DRAFT


To be pledged.

"

WE ARE NOT HYPHENATED NORDS; we are Nords with no qualifications or reservations.

We are simply aliens; we are a foreign people in your midst, and, we emphasize, we wish to stay that way. There is a wide gap between you and us, so wide that no bridge can be laid across. Your spirit is alien to us; your myths, legends, habits, customs, traditions and national heritage, your religious and national shrines, your high holy days, and lowly holidays are all alien to us.

The history of your triumphs and defeats, your war songs and battle hymns, your heroes and their mighty deeds, your national ambitions and aspirations, they are all alien to us. The boundaries of your lands cannot restrict our movements, and your border clashes are not of our concern. Far over and above the frontiers and boundaries of your land stands our Nordish unity.

Whosoever calls the foreign land a fatherland is a traitor to the Nordish people; A loyal Nord can never be other than a Nordish patriot. We recognize a national unity of Diaspora Nords, no matter in which country they may reside.

Therefore, no boundaries can restrain us in pursuing our own Nordish Policy.

I pledge to uphold this oath when in in non-Nordish lands and to extend to all Nords in those lands this oath. "

Death and the Sun
Wednesday, October 12th, 2005, 04:18 PM
Did you write this yourself?

It's somewhat dodgy to vote in polls for yourself.

Odin's Pie
Wednesday, October 12th, 2005, 07:59 PM
Did you write this yourself?
No.

It's taken from a 1920's Zionist strategy of Jacob Klatzkin with Nordish substituted for Jewish and minor alterations.

Nordhammer's thread about adopting Jewish GES inspired it. I wanted to see what the response was.

It's somewhat dodgy to vote in polls for yourself.
Yeah. :P

It's a vote mainly in support of a dialouge, I should have added another option, "This topic should be discussed."

Ryan
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 02:52 AM
Psh, bullshit. I'm no traitor to the Nordic spirit because I won't leave Nova Scotia or Newfoundland to go live in Norway or Scotland, the lands of my ancestors. My family has been in this part of the world for 200 years or more and we and our people here have developed our own unique and distinct culture which differs from that of our former European homelands. There are many similarities to be sure and it's mostly originally based in the culture of those lands at the time the people left, but it's still different.

I would feel uncomfortable and alien living in one of those places, or anywheres in Europe. My people and culture are firmly rooted here. It's no less 'Nordic' because it's in the New World. It was still created by our people in the spirit of the old traditions and my ancestors toiled and suffered over this land and sea just as yours did in Europe. We're tied here by culture, landscape, and blood.

Odin's Pie
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 03:38 AM
Psh, bullshit. I'm no traitor to the Nordic spirit because I won't leave Nova Scotia or Newfoundland to go live in Norway or Scotland, the lands of my ancestors.
It's not a matter of living anywhere, it's allegiance. It's specifically intended for people such as yourself who are living outside Europe.

It's not asking for allegiance to another nation, it's asking for allegiance above a nation.

That said, Nova Scotia/Canada is not your Fatherland.

It's no less 'Nordic' because it's in the New World.
Agreed.

These guidelines are intended to keep it that way.

Geographic boundaries are worthless, only genetics count; the "Fatherland" is simply wherever the most Nords reside at one time.

Ryan
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 09:07 PM
It's not a matter of living anywhere, it's allegiance. It's specifically intended for people such as yourself who are living outside Europe.

It's not asking for allegiance to another nation, it's asking for allegiance above a nation.

That said, Nova Scotia/Canada is not your Fatherland.

Agreed.

These guidelines are intended to keep it that way.

Geographic boundaries are worthless, only genetics count; the "Fatherland" is simply wherever the most Nords reside at one time.

Why wouldn't it be my Fatherland? If I went to live in Scotland now which is where my ancestors originally moved from, or Norway which is where another side came from, I would find noone living a culture, talking, or acting the same as me. We're distinct now. It's been 200 years since they settled this land.

Odin's Pie
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Why wouldn't it be my Fatherland?
Because it's not where we evolved.

It's not the land that begot us.

You can call it your home but it isn't a Fatherland.

If I went to live in Scotland now which is where my ancestors originally moved from, or Norway which is where another side came from, I would find noone living a culture, talking, or acting the same as me. We're distinct now. It's been 200 years since they settled this land.
What's your point?

jcs
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 10:56 PM
The above 'pledge' also doesn't work for Nords, as all these fatherlands and customs are basically ours. America, South Africa, Australia: all built by Nordish hands, all belonging to the descendents of those builders--all Fatherlands in a true sense.

Arcturus
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:04 PM
It's taken from a 1920's Zionist strategy of Jacob Klatzkin with Nordish substituted for Jewish and minor alterations.

:rolleyes:

I'm not too comfortable about using a jewish text as a template.

jcs
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:18 PM
I'm not too comfortable about using a jewish text as a template.
Hmm... so that's why the idea of abandoning nations that are part of our heritage in favor of some unifying, reductionist (in the sense that it looks at race only anthropologically, and that it reduces us to that by ignoring heritage) racial idea sounds Jewish.

Odin's Pie
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:23 PM
Why not abandon fatalist tripe about geographic holy lands? That is what is truly semitic.

It's useful only in political appeals to the masses.

Earth will be destroyed one day and before that happens Europe could very well be an arctic desert.

Odin's Pie
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:30 PM
The above 'pledge' also doesn't work for Nords, as all these fatherlands and customs are basically ours.
You fail to comprehend a global view.

It's for the entire world eg India, North Africa, Mexico.

America, South Africa, Australia: all built by Nordish hands, all belonging to the descendents of those builders--all Fatherlands in a true sense.
A Fatherland is technically a nation of your forefathers.

You're getting tripped up on geographic coordinates and carelessly assume that this sand and soil known as "America" is what our founding fathers had envisioned.

This is no longer our nation, we are subjugated in this land.

You seem unable to realize the fact that land and nations can change hands..... claiming that America and South Africa are our Fatherlands is an irredentist movement.

We have been displaced in America and have no more right to this land than the Indians do because they lost it and we lost it.

jcs
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:32 PM
Why not abandon fatalist tripe about geographic holy lands? That is what is truly semitic.
Indo-European peoples have always held the land to be connected to blood, culture, spirit, etc. You didn't catch this in the tales of King Arthur and the quest for the Grail? How about wights and other such spirits of the land, 'Odin's Pie'?
The AHF unites the concepts of Blood, Soil, and Spirit for a reason.


It's useful only in political appeals to the masses.
Well, that's true--if you ignore nationalistic views prior to Napoleon.


You fail to comprehend a global view.
Global-mentality must die. I don't care for people on the other side of the world. Lack of familiarity with such individuals necessitates apathy; if I pretend to have a global concern, I am fooling myself.


A Fatherland is technically a nation of your forefathers.
So a nation built by one's forefathers is not one's fatherland?


You're getting tripped up on geographic coordinates and carelessly assume that this country known as "America" is what our founding fathers had envisioned.
A person whose ancestors were here during the colonial period probably should care for their nation. Do you suggest that one abandon their fatherland?


This is not our nation, we are subjugated in this land.
I'm pretty sure I'm not subjugated to this land.


You seem unable to realize the fact that land and nations can change hands..... claiming that America and South Africa are our Fatherlands is an irredentist movement.

We have been displaced in America and have no more right to this land than the Indians do because they lost it and we lost it.
Whites are still a majority, you know. You seem awfully quick to abandon things in favor of fatalism.

Kalevi
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:38 PM
Why not abandon fatalist tripe about geographic holy lands?

Like what? The idea of Nationalism?

Odin's Pie
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:43 PM
Indo-European peoples have always held the land to be connected to blood, culture, spirit, etc.
And when we face the world with these mysticisms we always lose.

I say we need a base (In Europe because it makes sense, not out of romance) and we need to be smart about realizing what we control and what we don't control abroad.

Australia... I don't know too much about it but it's no where near as bad as the USA/Canada and SA.

Nords in the USA/ Canada and SA need to realize that they aren't in control and they are in hostile land.

By allowing Jews to takeover our nations they have turned us into the Jews.

The Jews didn't achieve this usurption by pretending they were in control before they were and we'll never take back our land until we realize we are now foreigners in America and South Africa.

It doesn't matter if you are a descendant of a Jamestown settler or a Voortrekker... in these lands you are now a foreigner, culturally, racially, and ideologically.

Odin's Pie
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:51 PM
I
Global-mentality must die. I don't care for people on the other side of the world. Lack of familiarity with such individuals necessitates apathy; if I pretend to have a global concern, I am fooling myself.
You are not paying attention.

I'm not talking about "feeding the world", I'm talking about countering the threats it poses.

So a nation built by one's forefathers is not one's fatherland?
Not if they lose control over it.

With that crappy argument of yours the North AmerIndians and Aztecs should still control the Americas since they "built" a society (no matter how primitive) first.

A person whose ancestors were here during the colonial period probably should care for their nation. Do you suggest that one abandon their fatherland?
You don't define Fatherland correctly.

It's no longer their nation.

I'm pretty sure I'm not subjugated to this land.
What the hell are you talking about.

"Subjugated to this land"? :icon1:

You are subjugated here with all manner of anti-Europid legislation.

Whites are still a majority, you know. You seem awfully quick to abandon things in favor of fatalism.
Oh so now you use the term, "White". :rolleyes:

This is a Nordish portal.

Odin's Pie
Thursday, October 13th, 2005, 11:53 PM
Like what? The idea of Nationalism?
"What if I reject the premise that a geographical region belongs to the descendents of whoever was there first and instead believe that it belongs to whoever is strong enough to conquer it, fertile enough to populate it and culturally vigorous enough to keep it?" - a friend

jcs
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 12:03 AM
And when we face the world with these mysticisms we always lose.
If we abandon our 'mysticisms,' our history, we abandon our spirit and already lose--and deserve to lose.


It doesn't matter if you are a descendant of a Jamestown settler or a Voortrekker... in these lands you are now a foreigner, culturally, racially, and ideologically.
We are foreigners in our own lands, too, especially if we turn to Europe 'because it makes sense, not out of romance.'

Culture is life; death awaits those who abandon it in the name of 'survival.'


I'm not talking about "feeding the world", I'm talking about countering the threats it poses.
Same principle. I still question your motives and reasoning.


With that crappy argument of yours the North AmerIndians and Aztecs should still control the Americas since they "built" a society (no matter how primitive) first.
I didn't say 'first to build' or anything such as that. Anglo-Germanic people built America. The AmerIndian culture has been dead for a long time, and they certainly didn't build anything that still exists in its original form today.


it belongs to whoever is strong enough to conquer it, fertile enough to populate it and culturally vigorous enough to keep it?
So why shouldn't we try to keep it?


You are subjugated here with all manner of anti-Europid legislation.
(I was wondering what the hell you were talking about; misread you)
There is no legislation that was intended to be anti-White (in America, people define races in terms of color moreso than anthropology and geography).


Oh so know you use the term, "White". images/smilies/general/rolleyes.gif

This is a Nordish portal.
'Nordish' is more meaningless a concept than 'White.' At least 'White' has some political usage; 'Nordish' is only of anthropological significance, and even then it is disputed.
But you make a somewhat decent point, so I'll rephrase:
Germanics are still a majority, you know. You seem awfully quick to abandon things in favor of fatalism.

Odin's Pie
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 12:19 AM
If we abandon our 'mysticisms,' our history, we abandon our spirit and already lose--and deserve to lose.
:speechles

It's not our history or myths that make us great (though they are nice) it is our genetics.

We are foreigners in our own lands, too, especially if we turn to Europe 'because it makes sense, not out of romance.'
Explain.

Culture is life; death awaits those who abandon it in the name of 'survival.'
No, life is life and death is death.

Same principle. I still question your motives and reasoning.
Wrong it's a totally different principle.

You want to just "tune it out"?

We need to keep ourselves actively disengaged from the rest of the world unless it is a threat to us. No more humanitarian crap but that all goes without saying, you just need it explained to you personally.

I didn't say 'first to build' or anything such as that. Anglo-Germanic people built America. The AmerIndian culture has been dead for a long time, and they certainly didn't build anything that still exists in its original form today.
What about all the Aztec temples and dwellings that still exist.

Your sophist jargon of faith and ignorance will result in Nords being, "dead for a long time" and nothing we have today will exist, "in it's original form".

So why shouldn't we try to keep it?
.... :scratch:

It's not a matter of keeping it, it's a matter of taking it.

There is no legislation that was intended to be anti-White (in America, people define races in terms of color moreso than anthropology and geography).
I am stunned that you could know so little about the country you live in.

Affirmative action, "hate crime" laws that are the exact inverse of NS Germany's anti-Jewish laws that persecute straight European men, non-White wealth redistribution, this article about patents (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/08/feds_rule_white.php), limiting immigration from European nations and maxing out on non-Europid nations.

That's just an intro. :rolleyes:

'Nordish' is more meaningless a concept than 'White.' At least 'White' has some political usage; 'Nordish' is only of anthropological significance, and even then it is disputed.
It refers to North Europeans.

This isn't Stormfront.

I'll rephrase: Germanics are still a majority, you know.
Prove that Germanics are a majority in America, that means full Germanic ancestry, not half-Italian.

BTW:

I'm not acting like a fatalist so I'm not sure why you claim that.

We have to do this ourselves without reliance on any fate.

Ryan
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 02:38 AM
A Fatherland is technically a nation of your forefathers.


These lands ARE the lands of my forefathers. Are my ancestors who lived in Nova Scotia any less important or significant then those that lived in Scotland? NO! They chose to relocate here and they shaped this land through blood and sweat and in return this land shaped them into a unique culture which is not present in the old world. I'm proud to be from Nova Scotia, it IS my Fatherland, and I would NOT move to Europe over it.

Your reason is faulty, we may not have been here long enough yet for it to effect the evolution of our people physically but it certainly has decided who we are culturally and created certain attitudes and ethics in us. If we follow your logic of evolution then shouldn't everyone's Fatherland be Africa, or the steppes of Asia?

Ryan
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 03:12 AM
One other thing. Scotland and Norway before about 1800 were my Fatherlands. I'm interested in the history, culture, and heritage from before then and how it shaped what I have now. However, anything since my people left is foreign to me. I have no ties to it through blood or practice. My people have been something different and seperate ever since and will be forever more.

Odin's Pie
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 03:14 AM
These lands ARE the lands of my forefathers. Are my ancestors who lived in Nova Scotia any less important or significant then those that lived in Scotland? NO! They chose to relocate here and they shaped this land through blood and sweat and in return this land shaped them into a unique culture which is not present in the old world. I'm proud to be from Nova Scotia, it IS my Fatherland, and I would NOT move to Europe over it.
Perhaps I am at a loss for understanding this colonial mentality.

My ancestors were lured here between the wars with pro-Nordish immigration policies.

Then again,

I doubt that I am at all in the wrong in this circumstance.

I'm not asking anyone to return to Europe, just suggesting that you should remain connected to wherever the largest group of Nords is at any given time.

I will reiterate once more that by foreign land I meant non-Nord dominated lands and Nova Scotia is Nord dominated so we aren't arguing over anything?

Your reason is faulty, we may not have been here long enough yet for it to effect the evolution of our people physically but it certainly has decided who we are culturally and created certain attitudes and ethics in us.
Aye.

We have been here long enough to gain a lot and lose a lot.

Kinda like a drunkard in a casino, eh?

If we follow your logic of evolution then shouldn't everyone's Fatherland be Africa, or the steppes of Asia?
Interesting that you mention.

That actually proves my point that geographic boundaries are meaningless since Nordics were not originally Europeans but they took over and interbred with the aboriginal Europeans.

My logic (as I have previously stated) is that The Fatherland (or "main Fatherland" incase you have an exclusive emotional attachment to some application of the word, "fatherland") is wherever the most/ greatest population % concentration of Nords are at one time.

That's why it could now be said that Scandinavia is a Nordish Fatherland while it was not always Nordish..... because Nordics came from the steppes of southern Russia.

So we actually agree, we just have different concepts of what a "Fatherland" is.

Ryan
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 03:39 AM
I still don't think we see eye to eye on this, but I've made my points.

Luh_Windan
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 03:52 AM
So we actually agree, we just have different concepts of what a "Fatherland" is.
Actually yours is just plain wrong, as it conflates very separate cultural and anthropological concepts. There's no single 'Nordish' people in the national sense and there never has been (why would anyone want there to be?). Certainly Nordish peoples have plenty in common, but to value these similarities to the extent where one can apply the language of romantic nationalism is absurd and needlessly homogenising.

It would seem your statements here reflect a progression in thinking from standard American white nationalist sentiment to its logical conclusion within the 'Nordish' context: it's great that you've come to realise 'the white race' is an amorphous, culturally sterile body; but you need to learn once and for all not to apply notions of ethnoculture to strictly anthropological groups. The national essence is not something you can arbitrarily bestow upon groups of people simply because they fall within some window of biological similarity.

Odin's Pie
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 05:21 AM
Actually yours is just plain wrong, as it conflates very separate cultural and anthropological concepts. There's no single 'Nordish' people in the national sense and there never has been (why would anyone want there to be?). Certainly Nordish peoples have plenty in common, but to value these similarities to the extent where one can apply the language of romantic nationalism is absurd and needlessly homogenising.
There was never a German people until they were united in the 19th century.

It's not even a matter of "homogenising". Cultures should remain distinct and preserved, it's a logical union.

Never did I suggest there should be one group of indistinguishable "nordish people".

It would seem your statements here reflect a progression in thinking from standard American white nationalist sentiment to its logical conclusion within the 'Nordish' context
In the sense that I believe a Dane from birth could be raised a perfect German or Swede if immersed in the culture of those nations then yes. If you want to compare that to "White Nationalist" logic and make it sound as absurd as theorizing a Spaniard could be an ideal Dane, that is unfounded.

"WN" ignores genetic and cultural realities. Do you believe that the genetic deviations between "nordish" people are so profound as to affect cultural immersion?

I suppose then that Bismarck was somehow misapplying "WN" concepts to Germanics? They were totally different tribes afterall. :rolleyes:

Although this is now going off topic all that would be necessary would be a financial union between Germanic nations IMO.

It would seem to be your quips cater to your irrational, sentimental, aracial, romantic, chauvinstic, isolationism. Of course this leads to an illogical conclusion and you probably call it nationalism.

Go ahead and give me some more negative reputation points. :icon12:


you need to learn once and for all not to apply notions of ethnoculture to strictly anthropological groups.
There is shared common ethnoculture between Germanics. Germanics are more than strictly anthropological specimens.

The national essence is not something you can arbitrarily bestow upon groups of people simply because they fall within some window of biological similarity.
Nothing arbitrary about it.

You make no sense because you say biological similarity is not something that can create a national sense... what is then?

Everyone has a window, you just have a much smaller one that is ill defined.

You can imply anyone who wants to see Germanics organized is a "Pan-Aryan White Nationalist" but it won't give your beliefs anymore validity.

Siegfried
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 08:59 AM
There was never a German people until they were united in the 19th century.

Not true. The sense of a German nation is far older.

Odin's Pie
Friday, October 14th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Not true. The sense of a German nation is far older.
I totally agree with you but they were not an official political entity and OvB had a hell of a time officially uniting them.

The funny thing is I don't want to unite Nords into a massive cultural wasteland of a nation.

It'd be enough to have independent genetic repositories where all nations genetics are preserved. :D

I don't want to advocate the creation of a blond haired, blue eyed mud race (which is what it would be if we don't retain differences).

I think that my use of the term, "fatherland" has drawn criticism because people see it as a singular entity and would therefore expect it'd have to be created.

What I meant was if you are a "Danish-American", learn about Denmark, try and learn the language. Same idea if you are a "German-Canadian".

We don't have governments that represent us so any political unity we can hope to achieve must come on our own volition.

My main point is that we can't let attachment to dirt and ice interfere because if we had always been so sentimental we'd have never left the steppes of Russia.

Nordgau
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 12:08 PM
I totally agree with you but they were not an official political entity and OvB had a hell of a time officially uniting them.

Very well they were. The largest part and power basis of the Holy Roman Empire in Middle Ages was the regnum Teutonicorum, the German kingdom whose ruler was to become the emperor. And according to the idea of the translatio imperii, a central component of the imperial theory, it was the Germans on whose shoulders the Roman empire was transferred. That all was after a common, supra-tribal German identity and consciousness of Bavarians, Swabians, Saxons etc. evolved in Ottonian-Salian times.

And when the actual power of the emperor got reduced to the northern Alpine parts and a new push of nationalism happened in late Middle Ages and early modern times, the Holy Roman Empire used to be called Holy Roman Empire of German Nation since then. The contemporaries of former epochs had no problem to regard the Holy Roman Empire primarily, regarding its national content, as a German Reich, least the empire's elites and the rulers themselves.

Since I just came along similar claims in a different forum, I give here the same examples of sources from the era around 1500:

In his election treaty of 1519, Charles V pledges himself that he shoulders the imperial honour and dignity "dem heiligen reich zu ern und umb der cristenheit und Deutscher nacion, auch gemains nutz willen" ("to the honour of the Holy Empire and to the, also common, advantage of Christendom and German nation");
that he shall and will erect and present a regiment with "fromen, annemblichen, tapfern, verstendlichen, redlichen personen Teutscher nation" ("pious, pleasant, brave, understanding, honest persons of German nation");
that he shall and will always leave "die Teutsch nation, das hailig Römisch reiche und die churfursten, als die vordristen gelider desselben, auch ander fursten, grafen, herren und steende" ("the German nation, the Holy Roman Empire and the electors, as its primary elements, also other princes, counts, nobles and ranks") in their dignities, rights and powers;
that he shall and will "keinen reichstag ausserhalb des reichs Deutscher nation furnemen oder ausschreiben" ("arrange and proclaim no imperial diet outside of the empire of German nation");
that he shall and will assign "unser kunigliche und des reichs empter am hof und sonst im reiche auch mit kainer andern nation dan geborn Teutschen" ("our royal and the empire's offices at court and elsewhere in the empire with no other nation than born Germans");
that he shall and will "in schriften und handlungen des reichs kain ander zunge oder sprach gebrauchen lassen, wann die Teutsch oder Lateinisch zung" ("let use in writings and actions of the empire no other tongue or language than the German or Latin tongues");
that he shall and will give no new customs "dieweil Teutsch nation und das heilig Römisch reich zu wasser und zu lande zum höchsten vor damit besweret" ("as long as the German nation and the Holy Roman Empire are on water and land highest burdened with it");
that he shall and will himself "ins reich Teutscher nation persondlich fugen" ("personally betake to the empire of German nation") and use "auch unser kuniglich residenz, anwesen und hofhaltung in dem heiligen Römischen reich Deutscher nation" ("also our royal residence, estate and court in the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation") as much as possible.

(All quotes after Geschichte in Quellen, ed. By Wolfgang Lautemann and Manfred Schlenke, vol. II: Renaissance – Glaubenskämpfe – Absolutismus, Munich 1966, 109-112.)

Or this here. From an answer of emperor Maximilian to the imperial ranks in 1510:

"Dann wa das nit beschehe, oder ichts darin gemyndert werden sollt, wer nit allain kays. maj., sondern auch dem reych und allen Tewtschen mercklicher nachthayl, auch schmach und schympff. Es were auch irer maj. und dem reych kainswegs zu gedulden, dann wa die Venediger ainichen flecken auff dem landt behalten sollten, mueßten ir maj., das reych Tewtscher nacion und unser aller nachkhomen alle zeyt in sorgen und gefärlichait gegen inen stehen [...]."

(Frankfurts Reichscorrespondenz nebst andern verwandten Aktenstücken von 1376-1519, ed. by Johannes Janssen, vol. II: Aus der Zeit Kaiser Friedrichs III. bis zum Tode Kaiser Maximilians I. 1440-1519, Freiburg i. Br. 1872, 798.)

("Because if this didn’t happen or something would be reduced here, not only to His Imperial Majesty but also to all Germans there would be noticeable harm, also dishonour. It would also not to be tolerated to His Majesty and to the empire, because if the Venetians kept some part of the land, His Majesty, the empire of German nation and all our descendants had always to stand against them in concerns and danger ...")

Same book, page 553. The emperor in 1492:

"Das uns, dem heiligen reiche, euch und allen Dewtschen, auff die all ander frombd nacion ir mercken haben, ein solich ewig lasster, smah und verdrucken brecht, das vorher nie mer verhoret were. Solichem wir als Romischer keyser dem heiligen reiche, euch und allen stenden Dewtscher nacion zu eren und behaltung alt hergebrachter freyheit furzukamen schuldig und gantz begirlich und geneigt sein, und lieber seligklich von dieser welt scheiden, dann einem solichen unkristenlichen snoden handl ungestrafft und das heilige reich und Dewtsche nacion in disen lesterlichen und unwiderbringlichen vall bey unser regierung wachsen lassen wollten."

("That on us, the Holy Empire, you and all Germans, whereto all other pious nations pay their attention, such an eternal burden, dishonour and suppression breaks, which was neber heard before. We as Roman emperor owe to the honour of the Holy Empire, you and all ranks of German nation and preservation of traditional freedom to prevent such and are very desirous and willing to do so and rather to depart this world blessedly than that we would let arise such an un-Cristian disdainful affair with impunity and the Holy Empire and the German nation into this calumnious and irreversible fall during Our rule.")

In this source edition from which these arbitrary quotes are taken—the imperial correspondence of Frankfurt from 1440 until 1519—similar can be found all over. This work just as example. It wasn’t really a secret in that time that Germans were Germans, and the German nation also had political importance and appears countless times in official documents.

(And between the end of the old Reich and "OvB" there was the "German Confederation", besides.)

Odin's Pie
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Thank you very much for the information Nordgau.

I should rephrase that to an "independant" national-political free state.

German Nationalism was evidently much stronger in the HRE than I had imagined.

Thanks again. :)

Nordgau
Saturday, October 15th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Thank you very much for the information Nordgau.

I should rephrase that to an "independant" national-political free state.

German Nationalism was evidently much stronger in the HRE than I had imagined.

Thanks again. :)

Yes, the German problem was not so much of the existence of the German nation and national consciousness as such or that the Reich was generally considered as German, as greater political entity of the German nation, but the German problem was of the political fragmentation, the particular interests of the dynasties and loss of power of the central (imperial) authority in late Medieval and early modern times, namely after the Thirty Years War. In the same period when the kingdoms in western Europe became innerly tighter and uniform nation-states, Germany took the exactly reverse development and became innerly more cleaved and split and as a whole, as the Reich, weaker and more powerless.