Grewks Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Discuss. Few key points - - Hitler laid the foundations for a 'United states of Europe' - Wanted a single currency - Germany is benefiting more than most as a result of forming E.U. - The creation of the E.U. is an attempt by Germany to take over Europe. - The E.U. is now a dictator - It has all the beliefs a dictator would hold, even napoleon said "I must make all the peoples of Europe one people". (Will add my thoughts later - Part of a dissertation for my History Degree)
Vacamion Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 I disagree. The. "Common Market" was initially suggested by the larger countries in Europe to forge links which would prevent a repeat of the wars which had ravaged the continent twice in 30 odd years. The idea of a "United States of Europe" was actually proposed by Churchill, just after the war. Hitler, in contrast, wanted a massive Germany surrounded by small subservient states. He considered the slavs to be less than human, and intended to expand Germany eastwards, destroying and marginalising the natives all the way to the Urals, in the way that white settlers had driven west and swept aside the native Americans in the USA. As such Nazis probably would not have envisaged a union which included a (relatively) prosperous Poland which includes the cities they knew as Breslau, Krakau and Danzig, or an independent Czech Republic or Baltic States. It also goes without saying that postwar Germany is socially and politically liberal, tolerant and unwarlike to a degree which would horrify their pre war forebears. Germany's economic dominance in Europe is mostly a result of the postwar "Wirtschaftswunder" when they outperformed competitor nations. They repeated the trick with a smaller "Wunder" after reunification. At the same time, it was made easier for them to outperform the rest of continental Europe because many of those countries have long suffered from poor productivity, highly unionized working practices, corrupt legal and financial authorities and (in Eastern Europe) rotting infrastructure. The recent expansion of Europe was a political decision, taken after the end of the Cold War, to ensure that the newly free nations of the East joined the 1st World and didn't descend into war (the Balkan wars offered a warning to the leaders of the West that other countries might follow). The effect of the expansion was to create a massive market for Germany, which only widened the economic gaps. So....Nazi Germany (and the war it unleashed) may have caused some of the conditions which led us to our current situation, but a comparison of the EU with the Nazis is misguided and a bit offensive.
Finnegan Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 /thread. Brilliant post and far more thought and effort than I'd have dignified Grewks with.
Jon the Hat Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Grewks owes Vac a beer for that one, just about wrote the themes for his dissertation!
MC Prussian Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 In any case, good luck with that dissertation, Grewks. I can envisage quite a many people in academic circles more than just rising an eyebrow at the first sight of your theories. And as Vacamion has already pointed out, your approach not only holds some pretty offensive views, it is in parts even downright mental. If the EU really were a dictator, do you think it would allow its participating countries and their respective eligible population the opportunity to vote? Also, the EU was founded based on the European Community (or European Economic Community), an Entente between Germany and France to tighten their ties and proceed and prosper equally in a friendly and peaceful manner.
inckley fox Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 I suppose you could put a lot of other stuff into this. For instance, Nazi views on censorship, attitudes towards indoctrination and the control of information, attitudes towards homosexuality, race; the notion of the 'Superman' and 'survival of the fittest', their preference for a single homogeneous ideal where humans are concerned rather than individualism. Some of those ideas are still evident in modern Europe, of course. Even in modern Germany. Their education system, with their 'hauptschules' (I'm sure that's misspelt) is based on that old 'sink or swim' philosophy, but of course their institutionalised attitudes towards, say, sexual identity and racial tolerance are among the most liberal in the world. But you'll find far more stark contrasts across Europe than you'll find vague similarities. Attitudes towards tolerance of minority groups have moved in totally the opposite direction in EU member states (the modern day debate is between integration and tolerance), too far perhaps for some posters on here! The biggest parallels you're likely to find are in power. The qualities we deem preferable for a leader (strength, vision, charisma), how in government huge numbers of over-lapping posts are created so people are essentially competing against one another (though, in this case, it's to avoid having to overhaul entire government departments, e.g. the Ministry of Education, every time something goes wrong, rather than in order to impress Hitler), the power of populism, blame culture. You could point towards modern day control of information (e.g. the ban on Geert Wilders in the UK, the Incitement to Racial Hatred laws etc. - though you can hardly compare deliberately liberal legislation to anything the Nazis introduced). But they're tenuous links. And it made me smile to see Hitler getting credit for the idea of a United Europe. If the absorption of other countries into Germany counts as a United Europe, then you could credit the Romans with the idea, I suppose.
inckley fox Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 In any case, good luck with that dissertation, Grewks. I can envisage quite a many people in academic circles more than just rising an eyebrow at the first sight of your theories. And as Vacamion has already pointed out, your approach not only holds some pretty offensive views, it is in parts even downright mental. If the EU really were a dictator, do you think it would allow its participating countries and their respective eligible population the opportunity to vote? Also, the EU was founded based on the European Community (or European Economic Community), an Entente between Germany and France to tighten their ties and proceed and prosper equally in a friendly and peaceful manner. I'm not entirely sure what it means, to be honest. 'The EU is a dictator'? Can a dictator consist of however many democratically elected governments and hundreds of millions of people, which is what the EU refers to? He might find some interesting stuff on 'anti-democratic' arguments concerning the EU, and he'll find a handful of nutcases who have vocally backed this idea, and some parallels in government structure of member states, or even of the EU itself, but I think the question itself is very loose, and so absurd that it's going to need a very careful, precise hypothesis to go anywhere. It needs to focus on 'parallels in governmental structure' or 'approaches to power / unity'; you can't credibly propose for one moment that the modern EU could be a 'microcosm of Nazi Germany', because it's so obvious that it isn't.
Finnegan Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Yeah, those damn belgiums mass murdering their citizens.
Merging Cultures Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Yeah, those damn belgiums mass murdering their citizens. Leopold extracted a fortune from the Congo, initially by the collection of ivory, and after a rise in the price of rubber in the 1890s, by forced labour from the natives to harvest and process rubber. Under his regime there were 2 to 15 million excess deaths among the Congolese. However, I assume at the time the people could have been classed as property of Belgium rather than citizens.
Finnegan Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Leopold extracted a fortune from the Congo, initially by the collection of ivory, and after a rise in the price of rubber in the 1890s, by forced labour from the natives to harvest and process rubber. Under his regime there were 2 to 15 million excess deaths among the Congolese. However, I assume at the time the people could have been classed as property of Belgium rather than citizens. As Brits we should probably be careful about digging in to colonial history to question human rights records.
Merging Cultures Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 As Brits we should probably be careful about digging in to colonial history to question human rights records. Definitely!! As the kids say, I was 'just sayin''!
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Whatever happened to "Freedom of Speech?" "Human rights destroyed it. Thus did Democracy fall.
Grewks Posted 26 March 2015 Author Posted 26 March 2015 I now see that this was the wrong place to post this topic, considering the lack of academic knowledge on this board. The point of a question like this is two form two opposing arguments. There is no room for opinion in Historical academia. E.G. Yes, Churchill did form an idea of a 'United States of Europe' after the War....But it was in 1941 when Hitler declared that should Nazism spread throughout Europe under his control, Europe would ultimately become a 'Federation of States'. Which on balance is somewhat true. You only have to look at the 'slav slave' argument to realise that in comparison to the larger nations within Europe, minorities still suffer. (Lower wages, poorer/ lack of welfare states etc) Also, Vac, I could only see a dissertation with those themes, resulting in a fail. There is no support of the above argument whatsoever, which there must be. Any form of academic study in history must look at evidence from both sides of the argument. A lot of your above points actually are extremely valid in supporting the view, rather than opposing it. The question refers to comparisons with 'Nazi Germany'.....which is a state. Not, as you call it 'Nazi's'. The German position of dominance within the E.U. and Europe as a whole, is not dissimilar at all to the position of Nazi Germany. You wrote... "it was made easier for them to outperform the rest of continental Europe because many of those countries have long suffered from poor productivity, highly unionized working practices, corrupt legal and financial authorities and (in Eastern Europe) rotting infrastructure". This is correct for both Nazi Germany, and the German state ever since. The question is extremely vague with regard to what you label as the 'Nazi's'. Because of course, the ideology of Nazism is not present in modern day Germany. Well, at least not on the surface as was during the height of Nazism. However, as a state, Modern day Germany shares many similarities with that of Nazi Germany, arguably modern day Germany has an even stronger hold on Europe however that is another debate for another day.
Mark_w Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Discuss. Few key points - - Hitler laid the foundations for a 'United states of Europe' - Wanted a single currency - Germany is benefiting more than most as a result of forming E.U. - The creation of the E.U. is an attempt by Germany to take over Europe. - The E.U. is now a dictator - It has all the beliefs a dictator would hold, even napoleon said "I must make all the peoples of Europe one people". (Will add my thoughts later - Part of a dissertation for my History Degree) There is no support of the above argument whatsoever, which there must be. Any form of academic study in history must look at evidence This is awkward.
Grewks Posted 26 March 2015 Author Posted 26 March 2015 This is awkward. You're missing the point. Vac needs to create an argument to support the above argument, otherwise his points are meaningless. The whole point of a 'discuss' essay is to take arguments from both sides, otherwise you will just be given a straight fail. I would also like to add, as is said in the OP, I haven't added my own views on the subject.
Guest Sharpe's Fox Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Jesus Grewks we're blokes on a football forum not external moderators no ones going to give you a third.
Webbo Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 You're missing the point. Vac needs to create an argument to support the above argument, otherwise his points are meaningless. The whole point of a 'discuss' essay is to take arguments from both sides, otherwise you will just be given a straight fail. I would also like to add, as is said in the OP, I haven't added my own views on the subject. Vac doesn't need to anything. You made some points he disagreed, get over it.
Mark_w Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 You're missing the point. Vac needs to create an argument to support the above argument, otherwise his points are meaningless. The whole point of a 'discuss' essay is to take arguments from both sides, otherwise you will just be given a straight fail. I would also like to add, as is said in the OP, I haven't added my own views on the subject. Vac doesn't need to 'create an argument to support the above argument', he can back those points up with evidence if he wants to, but as he's not writing a dissertation on the subject he's not obligated to do anything at all. I'd say that as you're the history student who has presumably already studied this in some depth the emphasis should be on you providing evidence to dissprove the arguments of a bloke on a forum. Not to sit there telling him he's written an awful history essay when that's just not what he's doing. It's silly really. Why don't you add your thoughts on the subject? Maybe if you can provide some evidence to back up what are on the face of it some pretty shaky looking 'key points' you'll get a better discussion out of us. The question is extremely vague with regard to what you label as the 'Nazi's'. Because of course, the ideology of Nazism is not present in modern day Germany. Well, at least not on the surface as was during the height of Nazism. However, as a state, Modern day Germany shares many similarities with that of Nazi Germany, arguably modern day Germany has an even stronger hold on Europe however that is another debate for another day. You don't think that Nazi Germany being completely ideologically different to the European Union and modern day Germany might dent your 'microcosm' theory just a little bit?
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 A few of the points Vac made could certainly be compared to the Nazis. Although the comparisons would have to be from latter developments - it clearly wasn't the intention. Sipras himself has been quite open about how he believes Germany is now leading the project to try and make other small nations subservient to it. As for whoever it was who called the post 'offensive' - get a life.
Grewks Posted 26 March 2015 Author Posted 26 March 2015 Vac doesn't need to 'create an argument to support the above argument', he can back those points up with evidence if he wants to, but as he's not writing a dissertation on the subject he's not obligated to do anything at all. I'd say that as you're the history student who has presumably already studied this in some depth the emphasis should be on you providing evidence to dissprove the arguments of a bloke on a forum. Not to sit there telling him he's written an awful history essay when that's just not what he's doing. It's silly really. Why don't you add your thoughts on the subject? Maybe if you can provide some evidence to back up what are on the face of it some pretty shaky looking 'key points' you'll get a better discussion out of us. You don't think Nazi Germany being completely ideologically different to the European Union and modern day Germany might dent your 'microcosm' theory just a little bit? What are you on about 'My theory'? Selective reading really is your strong point isn't it? None of the above contains any of my own views, the dissertation itself is one I have chosen from a variety of different selections as I have more knowledge of Nazi Germany than any of the other selection available. If you are asking for my own opinion, very, very briefly.....Economically, very much so....ideologically of course not. The point of the essay is to use evidence on both sides to form an opinion. You cannot be wrong.
Mark_w Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 What are you on about 'My theory'? Selective reading really is your strong point isn't it? None of the above contains any of my own views When every single key point... - Hitler laid the foundations for a 'United states of Europe' - Wanted a single currency - Germany is benefiting more than most as a result of forming E.U. - The creation of the E.U. is an attempt by Germany to take over Europe. - The E.U. is now a dictator - It has all the beliefs a dictator would hold, even napoleon said "I must make all the peoples of Europe one people". supports the theory suggested in the title, I don't think it's unfair to assume that is what you're suggesting. If you'd added something on the other side of the debate, or shared your opinion, then it would have been clearer that they don't represent your views or that you fall somewhere in the middle (I'd be astonished if anyone actually does think Nazi Germany is a microcosm of modern day Europe). What is the specific question you're being asked to/choosing to answer?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.