Interesting article. About jr high school level, but still well written. And it lacked an understanding of the German state under Hitler that is pretty basic.
And there is no way Hitler would have tolerated the concept of mediation which is essential to the medieval concept.
In National Socialism, everyone was directly loyal to Germany and to Hitler. The National Socialists made a huge point of eliminating any mediatory levels between the citizen and the state they could, consistant of course with maintaining a large buurocratic system. One of the very early moves they made was to eliminate any independence at all, even in form, for the
lander.
In the National Socialist state there was not room for the idea of Bavarians, Saxons, Wirtimburgers or Brandenburgers. There was only Germany.
So, a silly article that is pretty much divorced from reality.
Gee, that sounds more like NATIONALISM than Socialism.
Nazis believed in German Exceptionalism. To Nazis there were no hyphenated Germans just like there are no hyphenated Americans to American Exceptionalism believing CON$. That would make Nazis more Right-Wing than "vegetarianism" makes one a Socialist!
This was a very important side discussion that is important to understanding facisim in Italy and Germany as well. With Germany, Hitler just cranked it to 11.
One of the basic concepts that activated all three was high degree of centralization based on the concept that particularism made the country weak. This was especially true in Italian and German history, with exceptional levels of tragedy in Germany from the 1600's onward. Particularism in Germany meant that people cared more about their local patriotism more than they did the German nation, which lead germany to be essentially raped by its neighbors for 300 years. To be Bavarian first meant that Germany was weak.
The US was always seen as a unitary state. Even within the confederacy there was never the feeling of the state was more defining than the union.
To a smaller degree Italy was week because no one saw themselves as Italians. Sardinians, Milanese, Sicilians, Romans, Bolognese or whatever. But not Italians. When Cavour put the state together he is famous for the remark that he had created Italy, but someone else would have to create Italians. Which is one of the goals Mussolini set for himself. He seems to have failed there as well. There is still a lot of particularist feeling there even now.
For Franco, the issue of particularism was for him a tool that he feared could be used against him. During the Civil war there he made a point of chopping up the Republican forces into particularist blocks. Then fighting them in detail and effectively making truce with the other blocks. After his victory, he made a point of supressing particularist movements that he had used during the war. Again Spain, like Germany and Italy has the issue of folks won't talk of themselves as Spaniards, but instead Castilians, Basques, etc.
As to Exceptionalism...I think you are confused what that is about. American Exceptionalism is the idea that the US is a unique country based on ideas, rather than geography and tribalism. We came here for freedom, liberty, dignity individualism. America is not a tribe, it is a compact between citizens for a unique society.
The socialist ideal in Germany saw the Lander as interfering in the concept of German unity, caused weakness and was a tool Germany's enemies used to keep it poor and enslaved. In America everyone has a hypen to them. Usually several. None of which is to have any more authority than any other. I live in Oregon, am protestant, male and have a french sounding name. Jillian lives in NY, is jewish, female and for the sake of argument has a hungarian name. None of my hyphens are more important than hers. The reverse is also true. We are both the same, but our differences just make for interesting conversations. They don't make for battles that make the whole country at risk.
Finally, you really need to check your sources. Hitler was Austrian, which meant Catholic. The Haspburgs made sure of that, no matter what the person thought of it themselves. However, his personal opinons and the ideology of the party was militantly anti clerical of any kind of confession.
