Fascist rise in europe

[Zaras]

It's largely accomplished the main goal it was designed for - preventing another gigantic European war from starting. (It didn't do shit in Bosnia and Kosovo, but that's probably because nobody anticipated that.)

That goal could have been accomplished by building a giant concrete croissant in Paris and calling it a day.
There hasn't been a war despite the European Union, not because of it.

Multinational cooperation instead of integration would also mean the absence of institutions like the European Court of Human Rights, which forced Ireland and Northern Ireland to junk their bans on homosexuality.

[Zaras]

To call the EU a dictatorship is just silly.

It's largely accomplished the main goal it was designed for - preventing another gigantic European war from starting. (It didn't do shit in Bosnia and Kosovo, but that's probably because nobody anticipated that.)

Neither in the Basque Country

I dunno if calling the Basque country a war is accurate. Northern Ireland seems more like one to me.

[Zaras]

You have a pretty poor understanding of Nazism if you think that throwing somebody out because of their immigrant status is the same as being a Nazi.

Supporting Golden Dawn is being a Nazi.

When you call people 'Nazi' your implying that they are a proponent of Nazi ideology. And last I checked the Holocaust was committed by Nazis. Ergo, if your calling someone a Nazi your saying that they condone the Holocaust. And you've been throwing around the N-word alot.

Considering that Golden Dawn has actually done that, calling the people who support Golden Dawn Nazis is accurate.

I really don't care what your view is. I've given up trying to convince you a long time ago, my mission now is just to make sure the rest of the forum doesn't actually fall for this erratic nonsense.

If you think there's even a chance of that happening, you're giving me too much credit. Seriously, who the hell is going to "fall for it"?

Plus, I never try to convince people in a thread. It's usually a waste of time.

[Zaras]

I dunno if calling the Basque country a war is accurate. Northern Ireland seems more like one to me.

Really? ETA killed politicians, forced companies to give them money and has killed thousands since its foundation (althpugh many dont count necouse were before 1983)

When I brought up Bosnia I meant specifically that it was an outright regional war. Basque country and Northern Ireland are probably best described as civil wars.

[Zaras]

Multinational cooperation instead of integration would also mean the absence of institutions like the European Court of Human Rights, which forced Ireland and Northern Ireland to junk their bans on homosexuality.

The European Court of Human Rights is a sham.

A sham that helps force states to abandon their dumb laws and upholds human rights.

Cases generally take years to process, and people can submit them for ludicrous reasons.

How is that different from a normal judicial system?

[Zaras]

When I brought up Bosnia I meant specifically that it was an outright regional war. Basque country and Northern Ireland are probably best described as civil wars.

Anyway, the EU hasnt helped us

Likely because this happened before the Maastricht Treaty and the creation of the pillar model, right in the middle of the "Eurosclerosis" that started in the 1970s and lasted until Delors?

[Zaras]

Reactionary politics rise when there is a crisis for the reactionary factions to exploit. Fascism, and especially the abhorrent anti-immigrant, oppressive form, is just one of these groups to make a push, somewhat successfully.

Though usually they can't win an election outright, so the fears of a new Nazi state are likely unfounded.

[Zaras]

Right. Because the fate of Europe and the risk of World War III all rested on whether people in Ireland had proper Civil Rights.

Never said they were related.

but if we are going to talk about the threat of WWIII I fail to see how a ECHR ruling on Homosexuality is relevant in any way.

I wasn't talking about the threat of WW3. I just said that the initial goal of the EU's establishment in the 1950s was a combination of preventing it and realpolitik maneuvering.

[Zaras]

Likely because this happened before the Maastricht Treaty and the creation of the pillar model, right in the middle of the "Eurosclerosis" that started in the 1970s and lasted until Delors?

ETA disolved 2 months ago

Quite a similar thing happened with Northern Ireland. I'm guessing that the EEC didn't intervene in either at first because of the struggle between neofunctionalists and intergovernmentalists, because Ireland only joined in 1973 and Spain in 1986, and post-Maastricht because the EU had no clear remit on how to deal with terrorism.

[Zaras]

The only time it makes sense is if your going to try warcriminals and the native country has no developed justice system. But thats what the ICC is for.

And the ICC also has been criticised for the same reasons...

[Zaras]

The ICC is a horrible, horrible thing. I've often described it elsewhere as "the place dictators go when they don't have planes, tanks and economic interests working in their favour anymore". I can't see Hu Jintao, the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, Vladimir Putin, Silvio Berlusconi, Nicolas Sarkozy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron just being arrested and tried there. It is not at all a court that looks into these matters equally - it is a court of opportunity and a method of imperialism.

That's the problem with a lot of international justice - there's no real way to enforce it, so most of the time it's really victor's justice.

America wasn't tried for the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the same way Japan had a war crimes tribunal. The Allies were never brought to account for their own atrocities. Etc etc etc.

[Zaras]

Quite a similar thing happened with Northern Ireland. I'm guessing that the EEC didn't intervene in either at first because of the struggle between neofunctionalists and intergovernmentalists, because Ireland only joined in 1973 and Spain in 1986, and post-Maastricht because the EU had no clear remit on how to deal with terrorism.

IRA was a liberation army at it's height not a petty terrorist group like ETA ...and many people support it's political wing,Sinn Fein,even today.Actually,they're the second most powerful bunch in the Northern Irish Assembly.

But the IRA used terrorist tactics, which is what I was saying.

Ah, the Northern Irish Assembly. Where just about every one of the parties repulses me because of their opposition to abortion.

[Zaras]

IRA was a liberation army at it's height not a petty terrorist group like ETA ...and many people support it's political wing,Sinn Fein,even today.Actually,they're the second most powerful bunch in the Northern Irish Assembly.

ETA killed a PM.

beat that.

Which one? Must've been one during Franco's time.

[Zaras]

Which one? Must've been one during Franco's time.

yes, luis carrero blanco, the one that would have been francos sucesor.

So i guess thanks to ETA we live in a democracy.

More than you can say about the IRA.

[Zaras]

More than you can say about the IRA.

yes, but both were terrible.

Not denying that.

[Zaras]

Not denying that.

Bitch please,IRA tried to kill Thatcher & Armed Unionists.In a war between nations you always try to kill your enemy and so did both sides
It is terrible but as a whole not only because of IRA.

..they also had many female members and I trust female insticts. ...except Thatcher's,she is no woman,she's the devil.

Dude, I know that. "Thatcher" is a swear word for me, but I'm saying that you can't say the IRA is one of the reasons the UK is a democracy.

[Zaras]

Still a badass statement.

It's a pity, because they're not exactly my favourite political party.

They still sound cooler than Fianna Fail.

[Zaras]

it's also widely accepted that Hitler's policies were nothing more than a quick fix, and had World War 2 not started, then the German economy would've collapsed.

This is speculation. Though I hate Hitler, he did get Germany out of recession and had he refrained from starting WWII or committing genocide he might've been remembered as a German FDR who got the country out of a horrible depression.

No, this is a fact. Laerod knows this is bullshit: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=191426.

[Zaras]

hitler collapsed it more

Not really before Hitler came in the Economy was shit Hitler improved it

Bull fucking shit. Read this: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=191426.

[Zaras]

No. Not even close. The German economy under Hiter's Nazi regime was built upon the war industry. Not even the arms industry, which though overly specialized might have done somewhat well, the war industry. Hitler's Germany required large scale war to support its economy, as proven due to his pilfering of foreign banks and the German collapse when they started losing the war.

If the Nazi economy was based exclusively on pillaging foreign banks, slave labor and the spoils of war then how come the recovery began before the start of World War II?

Because of infrastructure investments made before he came into office!

[Zaras]

Because of infrastructure investments made before he came into office!

Based on your own source, a lot of the infrastructure investments happened during Hitler's tenure in the 1930s.

Which made jack shit of an impact.

So basically, the Nazis were not responsible for causing the recovery; it was already under way and hardly unexpected given Germany’s geographical position and demographics.

This isn’t to say that the massive investment in infrastructure and armaments didn’t help or speed up recovery, but it wasn’t exactly as great as many people pretend it is. There are, again, a number of misconceptions and a good deal of cherry-picking involved.

Firstly, let’s address misconceptions about the Autobahn. The first proper Autobahn in Germany was opened by Konrad Adenauer, then Mayor of Cologne and later first Federal Chancellor of Germany, in 1932 (construction started in 1929) and connected the cities of Cologne and Bonn, ergo a year before the Nazis took power. It was the only Autobahn out of a bunch of planned by the Reichstag to reach completion, mainly because the day that the Reichstag had finally managed to agree to finance them and was going to vote on that (July 18th, 1930), the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and KPD (Communist Party) sabotaged the vote by failing to attend (Cologne-Bonn was built only because it secured municipal financing).

But then the Nazis took power and began an ambitious project to build multiple Autobahns across Germany. They were going to grow by a thousand kilometers every year and create endless amounts of jobs. The projected goals weren’t met. Apart from the first few years, the ambitious objective of an extra thousand km each year remained utopian; in total, the Autobahns reached a total length of 3 896 km before construction was finally halted in 1943. The Autobahn never employed more than 60 000 workers, plenty of which already had jobs (thus it didn’t actually create that many). Indeed, there were routine complaints by the Autobahn organizers that there were never enough workers available for the Autobahn; they already had jobs elsewhere!

So basically, if it hadn’t been for the Nazis, the Autobahn could have been built at a time when it actually would have provided much needed jobs and stimulus, rather than after the economy was already in an upswing.

The armaments industry had a bigger impact on the job market, as did the reduction of female employment (and subsequent purging of women from the unemployment statistics) and the reinstitution of the draft. Now, we can’t really credit this with aiding the German economy either, despite the noticeable effects it was having. There are a few reasons for this:

First off, the entire process was financed by a credit-swap scam. Economics minister Hjalmar Schacht created the Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (MeFo for short) to circumvent limits on how much the Reichsbank could lend out to the government. Using this, the Nazis managed to run a debt of 12 billion Reichsmark. The year the first payments were to be made? 1939, the year the Nazis attacked Poland and began plundering Europe for food and finances (just consider the tax placed on the French for which they were meant to fund their own occupation). So the entire rearmament was funded by debt and the looming economic collapse was hidden by WWII.

Which brings us to the second point: WWII. Rearmament had no other purpose than to fight WWII, specifically wars with France and the Soviet Union. Hitler outlined as much in Mein Kampf (even if his hopes that the UK would join an alliance with Germany and Italy turned out to be utterly unfounded) and then to everyone’s surprise, followed through on that. When the goal of rearmament is a war of aggression, whatever job growth it creates is ethically indefensible. If you buy a gun and then shoot the owner of the gun shop that sold it to you with it, you don’t get a pat on the back for having given him a sale.

Not to mention that the end result of rearmament was the utter economic ruin of Germany, mass displacement of the population, and the irreparable sullying of the German reputation. The entire point of the lion’s share of the Nazi stimulus was preparation and waging of the Second World War, so cutting off the evaluation of what good it did for Germany before the fighting began is an intellectually dishonest assessment of Nazi economic policy.

[Zaras]

Then why are extreme right wing parties on the rise of these nations?Villages in germany are lead by neo nazis,serbias goverment is right wing,hungaries right wing party is getting bigger every day and there is a rise on French France's Right Wing Party was defeated by the Socialist one already, I don't see how France will ever be conservative again.

Good on France.

[Zaras]

Which made jack shit of an impact.

"jack shit'? what does that even mean?

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Negligible. Worthless. Unimportant. Ignore-worthy.

You've heard the expression before?

[Zaras]

They still sound cooler than Fianna Fail.

Technically it's spelled "Fianna Fáil".

I know, but they are epic fail.

[Zaras]

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Negligible. Worthless. Unimportant. Ignore-worthy.

You're seriously telling me that you speak English but you don't know the expression?

How about this - I'm telling you that you've been told to attack the argument, not the poster, and that you've already been tapped for dancing into dangerous territory in your so-called arguments prior to now. Let's watch our tone and content, folks. Will not make another reminder here.

Understood. I wanted to sound surprised that Delanshar was asking me what that meant, but I didn't realise I sounded insulting. I'll edit the post to clear that up.