Grewks Posted 26 March 2015 Author Posted 26 March 2015 When every single key point... 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? Because i already have the key points to argue against the title as they are extremely straightforward and simple. I was looking for arguments opposing the question, hence why i only listed the above points.
Grewks Posted 26 March 2015 Author Posted 26 March 2015 And also... "(I'd be astonished if anyone actually does think Nazi Germany is a microcosm of modern day Europe)." That isn't the point. If you have ever studied at a high academic level within History, you would understand that there is no such thing as right or wrong. As long as the data and evidence is correct, i could argue anything i believe in. It is similar to science in that respect. As long as evidence supports a view, the view is correct. I will not be rewarded a higher score for whether i argue for or against the above topic, as long as my evidence is valid.
Mark_w Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 And also... "(I'd be astonished if anyone actually does think Nazi Germany is a microcosm of modern day Europe)." That isn't the point. If you have ever studied at a high academic level within History, you would understand that there is no such thing as right or wrong. As long as the data and evidence is correct, i could argue anything i believe in. It is similar to science in that respect. As long as evidence supports a view, the view is correct. I will not be rewarded a higher score for whether i argue for or against the above topic, as long as my evidence is valid. I'm in my second year of a University history degree thanks Grewks. I understand that you need evidence to support an argument, but the argument you make should be shaped by what the evidence suggests and I'm saying I'd be astonished if anyone looks at the evidence objectivly and comes to the conclusion that Nazi Germany is a microcosm of modern Europe. I understand that you can make any argument you like and still get a good grade as long as you can provide evidence to support it, I'm not stupid, I'm saying that anyone looking at any decent amount of evidence would see multiple major differences between the two. Which is why I'd be surprised if anyone 'actually does think' that that statement is correct.
MC Prussian Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Whatever happened to "Freedom of Speech?" "Human rights destroyed it. Thus did Democracy fall. It's fair to say Hitler wasn't too much a fan of it. Other than that, I have no clue what you're trying to say or what your rambling contributes to this thread.
Vacamion Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Blimey. Grewks, for someone who appears to be an undergraduate history student, you are on an awfully high academic horse there. I wonder how many academic papers you have graded in all your extensive experience which would enable you to judge which responses in this forum would "pass" or "fail"? You posed some questions, I offered some opinions. Take 'em. Leave 'em. Whatever. By all means take issue with my opinions, but a blanket suggestion of a "lack of academic knowledge" followed by your assessment that the themes I raised "would fail" shows breathtaking (and unmerited) hauteur, without actually addressing most of what was written. I consider that my German friends would roll their eyes at your original post, which appeared to me to be another descent via Godwin's Law into the "all Germans are inevitably Nazis" nudge-winking, which is as offensive as it is intellectually bereft. As I have posted elsewhere, no nation on earth has done more to apologise for and atone for its past crimes and, where they were able to, make reparations. I maintain that your original premise was incorrect. By all means, try and convince me of your original premise. Hugs and kisses, Vac.
MC Prussian Posted 26 March 2015 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. Nazism is still present in modern-day Germany, albeit luckily acting as a political minority. In parts reflected in the policies of the NDP and - to a certain extent - with what Pegida and the AfD want to achieve with their programs. I suggest you read up on those three movements/parties before coming to rash subjective conclusions yourself - for a history student with a focus on Germany, you appear to be rather out of date. Nazi Germany's power position in Europe at the time stemmed from the fact that it dominated big parts of it due to its large-scale warfare and hate campaigns towards anything other than German, National Socialist or "Nordic Purity", based on fear-mongering, violence and extreme racism. That included raids and attacks on Jews, gypsies, communists, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, the poor, Polish, Czechs, Dutch, Belgians, French, pretty much anyone from the political opposition, such as Socialists, Republicans, Liberals, Libertarians or even Christians and Christian Democrats. The rise of the Nazi party was a consequence of bad blood originating in WWI with reparation costs bleeding the German economy dry; conservatives, conspiracy theorists and the military founded an unholy alliance, swearing an oath to make the "shame" of 1914-1918 undone. This also resulted in the now infamous "Dolchstoss-Legende". Hardly comparable to Germany's economic stance or position within the EU today - a status achieved down to a steadily increasing production output in the past two to three years.
Grewks Posted 26 March 2015 Author Posted 26 March 2015 Blimey. Grewks, for someone who appears to be an undergraduate history student, you are on an awfully high academic horse there. I wonder how many academic papers you have graded in all your extensive experience which would enable you to judge which responses in this forum would "pass" or "fail"? You posed some questions, I offered some opinions. Take 'em. Leave 'em. Whatever. By all means take issue with my opinions, but a blanket suggestion of a "lack of academic knowledge" followed by your assessment that the themes I raised "would fail" shows breathtaking (and unmerited) hauteur, without actually addressing most of what was written. I consider that my German friends would roll their eyes at your original post, which appeared to me to be another descent via Godwin's Law into the "all Germans are inevitably Nazis" nudge-winking, which is as offensive as it is intellectually bereft. As I have posted elsewhere, no nation on earth has done more to apologise for and atone for its past crimes and, where they were able to, make reparations. I maintain that your original premise was incorrect. By all means, try and convince me of your original premise. Hugs and kisses, Vac. How on earth have you come to that conclusion? I haven't even offered my own opinion on the subject yet. Also, what 'Premise' are you referring to? If you are referring to the question of the dissertation.....It is easy to prove that the microcosm exists. The extent is of course debateable, and in my opinion limited, but refusing to believe the microcosm is there is FACTUALLY incorrect.
bovril Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Grewks, are you the guy who made that video in Leicester standing outside a Polish shop reading the dictionary definition of 'genocide'? Genuine question.
Voll Blau Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Read Vac and Grewks's posts as if they're participants in a rap battle. It's great.
Vacamion Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Read Vac and Grewks's posts as if they're participants in a rap battle. It's great. Word.
Grewks Posted 26 March 2015 Author Posted 26 March 2015 Grewks, are you the guy who made that video in Leicester standing outside a Polish shop reading the dictionary definition of 'genocide'? Genuine question. Genocide doesn't exist This should be fun
Vacamion Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 How on earth have you come to that conclusion? I haven't even offered my own opinion on the subject yet. Also, what 'Premise' are you referring to? If you are referring to the question of the dissertation.....It is easy to prove that the microcosm exists. The extent is of course debateable, and in my opinion limited, but refusing to believe the microcosm is there is FACTUALLY incorrect. If it so easy to prove that the microcosm exists, crack on and do so. You haven't done yet. As I outlined, I think the comparison is flawed. Your initial post mentioned Hitler and immediately proceeded to ask about modern Germany. The implied association was clear. - Hitler laid the foundations for a 'United states of Europe' [...] - 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. Did they bomb your Grandad's chip shop or something? You're clearly holding something against present day Germany. Oh, and we are all still waiting to find out about your impressive list of academic credentials which allow you to disdainfully judge what is a convincing argument and what isn't.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 27 March 2015 Posted 27 March 2015 It's fair to say Hitler wasn't too much a fan of it. Other than that, I have no clue what you're trying to say or what your rambling contributes to this thread. Actually, you are right. Just goes to show I should have read the thread properly. My response was clearly out of context.
Merging Cultures Posted 27 March 2015 Posted 27 March 2015 Wait, did I just read this thread properly? Grewks puts forward an unsupported premise and asks people to discuss. Vacs puts forward an argument. Grewks gets annoyed says the argument isn't supported and Vacs is wrong and uneducated. But Grewks doesn't provide a supported argument as to why Vacs is wrong.
bovril Posted 27 March 2015 Posted 27 March 2015 Wait, did I just read this thread properly? Grewks puts forward an unsupported premise and asks people to discuss. Vacs puts forward an argument. Grewks gets annoyed says the argument isn't supported and Vacs is wrong and uneducated. But Grewks doesn't provide a supported argument as to why Vacs is wrong. This thread is a microcosm of modern day foxestalk.
Merging Cultures Posted 27 March 2015 Posted 27 March 2015 This thread is a microcosm of modern day foxestalk.Exactly what I was thinking! I just couldn't support my argument, so I didn't make it.
MooseBreath Posted 27 March 2015 Posted 27 March 2015 Exactly what I was thinking! I just couldn't support my argument, so I didn't make it. Errm, excuse me, but grewks will be the one who decides whether you can support your argument or not thank you very much. This is a serious academic thread.
Benji Posted 27 March 2015 Posted 27 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. That isn't the point. If you have ever studied at a high academic level within History, you would understand that there is no such thing as right or wrong. As long as the data and evidence is correct, i could argue anything i believe in. It is similar to science in that respect. As long as evidence supports a view, the view is correct. I will not be rewarded a higher score for whether i argue for or against the above topic, as long as my evidence is valid. You've had an absolute stinker. I'd suggest putting the books down for a bit and learning how to talk to people without being a haughty tit.
ADK Posted 27 March 2015 Posted 27 March 2015 I'm pretty sure the idea isn't to form two opposing arguments but to gather suitable evidence, then assess that objectively and reach a sensible conclusion. The actual conclusion doesn't matter so long as it is supported by the evidence and the evidence is suitable. If all the evidence points one way then that is fine so long as the evidence is suitable. It's quite a boring question though. I'm not sure if Grewks is actually trolling.
Rincewind Posted 27 March 2015 Posted 27 March 2015 TBH I would like a united world free from religion and conflicts. A bit like it is in Star Trek. But that will never happen. From what I understand Hitler believed that countries surrounding Germany were once together and he wanted them back. He never wanted England involved in the war nor did certain members of the royal family. Yes he was a little mad. Power does change people. I like the idea of a united Europe. No more bickering of who should have have what, free movement , trade etc. Without this humanity is doomed. At some point we have to to get along and work together. I dream of Utopia.
inckley fox Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 March 2015 Having had a good long look at the diverse suggestions on this thread, I think I can safely conclude that Grewks is by far and away the last person on this forum capable of making meaningful contributions to the discussion. I've worked in universities before and I think there's a huge variation in the standard of marking between, say, Luton and Birmingham unis. But I can very safely say that anyone spouting the sort of abject nonsense Grewks is coming out with would be laughed out of town by any semi-respectable lecturer in any semi-respectable university. I've seldom seen someone go through so many years of education with so loose a grasp of the prerequisites of critical writing, and such a miserably hostile attitude towards those who pull him up on it. Economically, there are similarities between Nazi Germany and the modern day EU because Gernany is dominant. The way in which they are dominant, how they came to be dominant, and the reasons for them being dominant bear absolutely no similarities whatsoever. It's like saying David Cameron is a bit like Alfred the Great because he has presided over rising prosperity in Wessex and his education policy has prioritised literacy. Put simply, you thought you were coming out with something insightful, illuminating. But your suggestions, how you came to those suggestions, and the reasons for those suggestions are hopelessly misguided. Try again. And make sure you do a much better job next time around.
Lamby Posted 28 March 2015 Posted 28 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) Next you're gonna most likely start blaming the Treaty of Versailles for the EU struggles.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.