Posted on 05/22/2017 11:07:58 PM PDT by Olog-hai
1. Hate: Germany and the US are still befriended nations. Both of them are members of the NATO. We do business. Young Americans study in German universities. American churches spread all over the country. We helped you in Afghanistan with our army and lost over 100 soldiers. We provide you big bases. We build factories in the US and are among the biggest investors. I even have some family in the US and therefore warm feelings for your country and last but not least I visited Pennsylvania (I read you come from there) 5 or 6 times (my uncle has a house there). It was the place where I learned fly-fishing as a boy.
Therefore I am surprised if I hear sentences like:
“Germany and Vichy France vow to speed up eurozone integration” or “Germany finally wins WW2. (But its ruling elite’s sold it out to the islamonazi invasion, just like France’s has done. . So it’s the Islamics that will rule in the end.)” or “Germany and France” is redundant. Where the Fourth Reich leads, the frogs will follow.” or “German chancellor integrating all of Europe. Wanting to punish England. Wanting dominance of the Mediterranean and North Africa. Expansion into Ukraine. Dangerous for a Jew to be in public.”
Somehow this is the way we Germans speak about our enemies and not about our friends.
2. Well if Europe becomes united today there will be no war. The parameters differ from those of the past in a fundamental way. The idea of a “nation” is slowly dying since young people grew up with open boarders and the “free wide open”. We do not need “leading” nations anyway if we want to form one nation in the future. The UK had its chance and bailed out in a democratic process. This is perfektly O.K.. They have to pay their political price now, since they can not be members of the common market in the future anymore. After all this will not lead to war.
3. Nazism. I was born into a family with some real nazis. Both of my grandfathers were members in the NSDAP. One worked as a scientist (for radar systems) the other one was a quite successful officer of the Luftwaffe. I grew up with Nazi ideology in 1970ties when they told me about “the Jew”, “the American”, “the French”, “the Pole” and so on. I read “Mein Kampf” very early. Although I was smart enough to reject nazism completely I think I understand far more than most Americans about this ideology and I know what I am talking about. Nazism is racism. Germans are extremely systematic. It is quite simple. Himmler had a “Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt”(RuSHA), a government agency that did “resarch” about certain races. They charted jews and arabs and found out that their phenotype is identical. They called it the “Semitisch nordafrikanische Rasse”. After this insight were Jews and Arabs simply the same for the RuSHA: “Untermenschen” (Underhumans) that are parasites with the worth of a cockroach. If they could they would have gassed Nasser and Gaddafi and Millions of Arabs and Jews. Both (Nasser and Gaddafi) were imbezile enough to adopt a ideology that would have killed them in the end. Most arabs are obviously too dumb to understand this context. Lately some Syrians (Merkels refugees) explained me how thankful they are for Adolf Hitler since he killed so much Jews. Buhuhaha! They have no clue.
4. Founding fathers. There is much to learn. I agree on that. Of course we Europeans have different sources of our own, but at least I am humble minded enough to adopt the good things of American democracy into our systems of the future.
5. A united Europe: In Germany we say: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser man tut es. (There will be nothing good exept you start doing it.). The new Europe can be a partner and friend of the US. Everybody is talking about rivalry but not about the positive aspects. Maybe we can do better business and exchange more goods. Maybe you Americans are able to sell more goods in a new and growing European market.
Believe it or not, it is just fine to hate socialism and the breakdown of society it brings, especially the attacks on religion and morality that are inherent in it. If you read further into the comments, you’ll see how they are directed at the leaders rather than the populace. The same depredations on society that happen within the EU have been happening here, thanks to EU-sympathetic leaders in DC.
If Europe becomes united today, there will be war. Given the developing foreign policy in Brussels, there is no other purpose for the EU to have a military except for the purpose of expansionism and to dominate the Mediterranean and North Seas; perhaps also the Black Sea and even the Atlantic Ocean. The people that formed the EU saw it rising out of crises, not peace. Jean Monnet said in his memoirs that “Europe will be forged in crises and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises”, which is a bellicose statement.
Remember I mentioned the Ba’ath Party, which rules Syria and formerly Iraq, is a national-socialist construct? Pan-Arabism and antisemitism drives it. There is another IslamoNazi party that caucuses with the Ba’ath in Syria and is quite prevalent in Lebanon, known as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (note how they merely reverse the word order). So it is no surprise (at least to me) how Syrians would think and speak as you have revealed.
As nothing good can develop unless it gets started, the same thing is true with bad endeavors. The social market economy must be abandoned, not just in Europe but here also where the left-wingers entrenched a version of it in Washington DC. The government in Brussels in particular is utterly against the separation of powers, having an unelected executive that both writes and passes laws and a legislative body that cannot write a single law but rubber stamps what the executive creates. The EU, sorry to say, only seeks partnership on its own terms; it is terribly unilateral. (And I must say I am not fond of what has been done to Ireland, where I used to live. I am particularly irked about the Bundestag being privy to Ireland’s national budget; but I hold Ireland’s national government responsible for that too.)
I think you missed my point. I probably didn’t make it very well. Vichy France was Germany’s lap dog. Marcon’s France will be Germany’s lap dog.
No, I did not miss it. Nevertheless your comparison is completely misplaced. The front national, the party of Mme le Pen was founded by her father, Jean Marie le Pen. He justified the rounding up of French jews by Vichy-policemen for Auschwitz i.e. and he said that the holocaust would be only “a detail of history”. The FN is in parts a nazi party and is therefore quite close to Vichy.
Since the contemporary Germany policy is far from nazism Mme. le Pen on the contrary to Vichy does not like Germany.
Macron is politically the opposite of Vichy. You should be careful with such comparisons.
Yep - the Ba’ath party is a national-socialist construct. Fact is also that it has really nothing to do with the idea of German national socialism. The first attribute of the German NSDAP is the idea of the Germanic Uebermensch. That all Germans have better hereditary dispositions compared to other races. Besides of this the German NSDAP claims the world supremacy through “Lebensraum im Osten” (lifespace in the east). Hitler adopted Mackinders idea that the ruler of the “heartland”(Russia) rules the world. Other races than the German should either be enslaved or if they are dangerous for the Germans exterminated.
The Ba’ath party of Michele Aflaq has no such racial key aspect. Itis far less radical. It places emphasis on building a united Arab state. This Arab state is not seen as a way to world domination. Aflaq was argueing in a national context and not in a racial.
Do not get me wrong I dismiss those ideas, but the Ba’th party is a harmless boys’ choir in comparison to the German NSDAP.
We will not meet in our opinion about the best future of Europe. Nevertheless maybe you understand that there are good reasons for a closer continent.
Regards
Andreas
You’re still not getting it. It might be my fault. I was trained as a chemist, and not as a writer.
My Vichy remark concerned France’s relationship with Germany. It was NOT about who has Nazi-like views, and who does not.
You are certainly correct in that Vichy France was a fascist state. But the word “Vichy” usually doesn’t imply fascist. It implies collaboration, bringing harm to your nation by allowing it to be guided by another nation.
Vichy France followed Germany’s lead.
Macron’s France will follow Germany’s lead.
Le Pen’s France would not have followed Germany’s lead.
Yes, the FN has held some extreme (and very disturbing) political views. But the FN would have put France first. Macron seems to want to put the EU first. And the EU is dominated by Germany. That is the thrust of my Vichy comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.