World Politics, the Nazis, and Me

This winter, the rush of the Steppes against our venerable continent has broken loose with a fury exceeding all human and historical conceptions. The German army and its allies form the only conceivable line of defence against it.

– Joseph Goebbels, Sportpalast speech, after the battle of Stalingrad (translation mine)

Like most Europeans who follow international politics at all, I have had my views drastically changed by the recent events in the Ukraine. Where my attitude towards Russia was indifferent or at most mildly suspicious before, I now see them as an enemy and a threat. Well, actually "enemy" isn't the right word – that would imply a state of war, which I sincerely hope it won't come to. Rather, I see Russia as an opponent on the geopolitical chessboard. Their interests and those of European countries are diametrically opposed, and will be for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, I've never been a big fan of the USA, either. The reasons for this are many, from their mistreatment of Latin America before and during the Cold War (which has strong parallels with Russian oppression in Eastern Europe in the same period) to the more recent excesses of the War on Terror. While America's domestic situation is nowhere near as bad as Russia's, on the international stage one is no better than the other.

As a side effect of the Ukrainian conflict, I've become uncomfortably aware of how dependent we are on the US for security. Three-quarters of the entire NATO's collective defence budget is American. Due to this vast imbalance, no European country can afford to be truly critical of America; any European head of state in Washington acts a lot like a medieval vassal visiting his king. What's worse, we often have little choice but to tag along with the Americans on military campaigns whose strategic benefits, let alone moral legitimacy, are highly questionable (see Afghanistan and Iraq). I don't think European nations are automatically of a higher moral standing than America, but we should strive to be, and that's impossible as long as we're so dependent on them.

In that light, there are three things I think Europe needs:

• Rapid transition to sustainable energy – to reduce our dependence on Russian oil and gas;
• Heavily increased defence spending – to reduce our dependence on American military protection;
• Tighter political co-operation – to make any of this possible at all.

If we went through with this, I believe Europe as a whole could become strong enough to be truly independent, that is, able to shape its own policies without having to bow to the wishes of greater powers. (At present, the only countries with this level of sovereignty are the US, Russia and China.) Only it's never going to happen. Each of these three projects requires a heartfelt solidarity among the European nations, a genuine enthusiasm for European co-operation – to the point of willingly sacrificing money, political power, and potentially soldiers' lives for the greater good. At the moment, there is not the slightest trace of such a feeling in Europe, neither among the population nor among the political elites.

A man can dream, though. And part of this dream is a leading role for Germany. Although I'm not German myself, I do admire the country. Their democratic system functions smoothly, they've been doing impressively well economically, and they're one of the frontrunners when it comes to sustainable energy. (Besides, as the most populous EU member and the strongest European economy, they're already a dominant force politically. Among EU employees it's a well-known rule that if Angela Merkel frowns at your proposal, you'd better come up with something different.) So, if there's any country I'd trust to lead Europe to newfound glory, it's Germany.

These are the kind of ideas I've formed in the past few months. Last night, I took a long hard look at these ideas, as well as my unwavering pro-Palestine stance in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and came to a terrifying conclusion.

I'm anti-Russia, anti-America and anti-Israel, and I dream of a strong, heavily militarised Europe with Germany as a leading power. In other words, I'm starting to sound like the Nazis.

And the Nazis were evil – a special kind of evil.

I'm not here to challenge this statement. The Nazis ran perhaps the most diabolical regime in human history. The Holocaust is the greatest crime against humanity ever, in scale and in intent. And there is a long list of other Nazi crimes, committed against POWs, resistance fighters, and depressingly often, random civilians. You won't hear me deny or play down any of that.

When I quote Goebbels at the start of this post, I'm not quoting him with approval. Goebbels was a propagandist and a liar, and he conveniently left out the fact that the "rush of the Steppes" was provoked by untold German aggression which had killed millions of Russians. Rather, I'm quoting him with the uncomfortable feeling that words like these might be more relevant today than we'd like to think. (Any time in which Nazi speeches are relevant is a pretty dark time indeed.)

For there's one idea I am challenging. Because of the extreme barbarity of Hitler's regime, World War II has ingrained itself in the popular consciousness as a mystical battle of good against evil – more so than any other war, except perhaps the American civil war. The more I read about the war, especially about the geopolitical "metagame" behind the scenes, the less I accept this. Instead, I'm starting to see World War II as just another episode in the long power struggle between nations – just like World War I, the Thirty Years' War, the Great Game or the Cold War. And an episode with some uncomfortable parallels to the present day, too, now that "the Steppes" are threatening Europe once again.

This has also led me to question the validity of Godwin's Law. Comparisons to Nazi terror and repression, to the Holocaust, to the gassing of disabled children and so on: those are almost always wildly inaccurate, and a good way to kill any meaningful discussion. But does this apply to Nazi Germany's international politics and military strategy, as well? Take the Sudetenland. Stealing a chunk of land from another country, under the pretense that you're protecting a number of "your" people living there – that had happened before, and would happen again later. Sure, it's evil, but not "a special kind of evil". If I compare Putin's land grab in Crimea to Hitler's land grab in the Sudetenland, I'm theoretically violating Godwin's Law, but would such a comparison really be so far off? And would it really kill the debate?

So, this has been a long, long rant, touching on a lot of different points. I'd say there's plenty to discuss in here:

• My dreams for Europe may be unrealistic, but are they good goals to strive towards? Or are they the wrong direction entirely?
• Should I be worried about my geopolitical outlook being similar to Hitler's? Am I on a dangerous slippery slope towards becoming a neo-Nazi myself?
• Is World War II somehow "special", compared to other historical wars? If yes, what sets it apart? (Scale aside; that one goes without saying.)
• Are some aspects of Nazi Germany's history, especially its international politics, exempt from Godwin's Law?

edited 10th Aug '14 8:10:41 PM by MidnightRambler

This has potential to be either a fascinating conversation or a flamefest of nigh-atomic dimensions. So I'm opening it, but with a preemptive moderator warning:

• Keep it civil.
• Don't make it personal.
• Keep your brains engaged and your emotions out of it. This isn't buzzword bingo.

Seeing as Godwin's Law means that comparing the opponent to Hitler halts any meaningful conversation, I don't think it applies when the original argument intentionally brings up the compare/contrast thing as a serious question. Basically, it's an emotional or trolling argument and serious arguments involving it don't count I think. I don't think "aspects" matter so much as the intent in bringing it up. I... still don't see why this is what you would think of when thinking about what you want for Europe though, seeing as the Nazi ideology was also highly racist and intent on extermination of undesirable individuals, which is clearly not your goal here. I'm assuming that no one on this site wants anything to do with that sort of thing, and militarism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the various bigotries we have.

I don't think Germany's government would be eager to engage in any activity that reminds anyone of the Nazis though, for reasons both political and emotional. And I don't think other European countries would be willing to let them do that, either. Building up an energy grid separate from Russia is a necessity though. That should definitely happen, and all things considered would probably be a lot more effective and less costly than building up a military standing. (Besides, I don't think the EU has a unified military? That's a lot of logistics and the EU is more an economic thing that anything else.)

Also, I don't see how being more militaristic would help Europe specifically? Unless you want the EU or NATO to send more people to Ukraine and help out with that. (And Obama's trying to keep Americans out of more fights. For good reason.) I mean, we just went through a decade of war and... it doesn't do you any good in the long run.

TLDR: Getting more militaristic is going to be a huge mistake in many ways, I think. Concentrating in building an energy grid that's not dependent on what Russia provides is a great way to prove that you won't put up with their bullshit.

edited 14th Aug '14 6:46:37 PM by aceofspades

I think you're taking Godwin's Law too literally. It's a semi-humorous observation on the fact that people in informal discussions like to compare things they don't like to Hitler. It's not a scientific law revealing the inner workings of the universe. In other words, yes, you can legitimately compare things to Hitler and not immediately "lose" the conversation — if the comparison is actually reasonable, accurate, and relevant.

On the subject of "does imagining a strong, unified Europe with Germany at its core make me a Nazi?" the answer is emphatically no, unless you're proposing that Germany invade and annex the rest of Europe in order to set the German people and German nation up as superior to their peers. When you're talking about a unified Europe, you're presumably speaking of economically, culturally, and politically, brought about by peaceful and willing means, rather than talking about forging the continent into an empire built by violent conquest. The Nazis weren't evil because they wanted to see a unified Europe. They were evil because they wanted to see themselves ruling a conquered Europe. There's a huge difference there.

There's also an enormous difference between being pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic. You can support Palestine without being against Israel (except inasmuch as Israeli policy negatively affects Palestine, anyway). You can be critical of Israel without hating Judaism or Jews. And you can certainly support Palestine without hating Judaism or Jewish people.

As long as you don't start thinking that waging a war of conquest or using an entire ethnic group as a scapegoat would be acceptable tradeoffs for creating a unified Europe, you don't have to worry about becoming a Neo Nazi.

Moving on to your other questions: is a unified, stronger Europe a laudable goal? I'd say so. I don't think that "strength" is ever really a bad thing to pursue, as long as you're responsible about its use. One thing I would suggest is considering the things you find negative about Russia and America. What are those things? Why do they do those things? And most importantly, how would you prevent your theoretical independent, unified Europe from doing the same things? If your answer is that you don't like them because they're doing them to Europe, and you'd like to see them take some of their own medicine, then you might want to stop and rethink your positions. "I hate those bullies because they're bullying me; I wish I could bully them instead" is not exactly the most morally pure of motivations. Do you want to see a stronger Europe out of a genuine desire to make the world (or at least Europe) a better place, or just out of nationalism because you're tired of Europe being thought of as America's little brother in terms of international power and prestige? There's nothing wrong with a bit of nationalism (pretty much everyone considers their own homeland "better" than everywhere else, if only in some ineffable way), but basing government policy on it is dangerous.

That’s opinion. But one I share.

Hitler Ate Sugar much?

It depends of course. Do you want Europe to be dominating other nations because of it’s inherent superiority? If not, then your views are not really the same. And they’re hopefully not based on race anyway.

Not really. It’s just a difference in quantity not quality. Genocide has been attempted before and after it, as has world domination. There are sometimes better sides in war and sometimes not but it is never a matter of Black-and-White Morality. It weren’t the Nazis who dropped nuclear weapons over cities (though they would have if they could).

All things are exempt from Godwins Law if they actually apply. If someone started gassing Jews, comparing them to the Nazis would be applicable. It would be wrong however to imply that because the Crimea incident is similar to the grab for the Sudetenland, that Putin now wants to gas Jews or create a master race. The land grab is bad in itself, not because the Nazis did it. Just remember: The Nazis are bad because of the things they did; the things they did aren’t bad because they were done by Nazis.

And the Nazis were evil – ‘’’a special kind of evil.’’’

That’s a bit of a flanderization really. It’s not like Sparta’s views and policies were any better for example. Nationalsocialism is just a (deliberate, no less) throwback to crueller times. But the prototypes for their bad things (racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, militarism, etc) already existed before that. Often combined already. The Nazis just had better technology available than anyone before them to enact those ideas.

edited 14th Aug '14 7:25:31 PM by Antiteilchen

The dream of German geopolitical supremacy does not necessarily lead to "oh, and kill all the Jews, gays, gypsies, and any slavs you can off is nice too." Germany is well-placed to be Europe's leading power, and i think Merkel's entire political strategy at home is based off of selling that idea to a culture that is still so gun-shy that no military aspects can enter into their concept of "dominance".

Europe does not need her own defense, however. Russia is no threat to Europe: the Ukrainian crisis, while showing that they are still far from ready to be a responsible partner for world peace, also shows the vast limits of what Russia is capable of strategically. They didn't invade Ukraine, or even take any Ukrainian territory that didn't already have a heavy Russian military presence (Crimea).

The Russian threat was a boondoggle ten years ago when Bush was pushing for missile defense systems in Poland and Czech Rep. The Russian threat is a boondoggle now, despite Putin's recent actions. Military expenditure is the last thing Europe needs as it struggles through budgetary crises, since military expenses were what bankrupted Europe through two world wars. Europe needs to move forward, but your point is not at all linked to the dark side of Nazism in spite of that.

I like this idea, but I think Europe becoming less dependent on Russia and America would be met by resistance from people who have rather a lot of money invested on us being dependent on them.

Speaking as an American, I would definitely like to see Europe become more responsible for their own conventional defense now that the Cold War has changed forms and Europe is moving towards unity (with a lot of hiccups).

However, I would hazard a guess that part of the reason that Europe as a whole is not becoming a military Great Power (though I note that Britain and France are each approaching Russia's military spending) is because Europeans, as a whole, are not really seeing themselves as European patriots and that's not changing any time soon. We may need greater European unity first, because Germany as Germany isn't going to take the lead on something like this. Hell, Angela Merkel has been very grudging about Germany taking a leadership role within the EU's economy, from where I'm sitting.

What i meant was that Europe doesn't need armies designed to wage 20th-century wars any longer. Russia's still arrayed that way, but as Ukraine demonstrated they're having a hard time figuring out how to swing that bulk around without bumping into something important.

Obviously Europe needs security in this age of global terrorism and the constant stream of boat people from North Africa that you're getting in the Mediterranean, but they don't really need armor and airpower.

The boats from Afirca come across because much of Africa is still a mess, a mess that Europe is both responsible for and able to cleen up. We need enough of a military for basic security, counter-terrorism (which can include toppling governments that support terrorists) and power projection for (proper and well managed) humanitarian intervention.

Most of Europe doesn't even have that — most countries are below NATO's minimum level of Defence spending (2% of GDP, something which not even the British are meeting).

A interesting topic, but for the moment I don't have the time to answer everything. Just one thing about military spending. Look at this list. Add France's, Germany's and the UK's military spending (absolute, not by GDP). Compare it to Russia. Or compare the EU total to the Russian total, and you'll notice that the EU has twice as much spending and twice as much personnel as Russia does. I absolutely don't see a need to increase this.

The public perception that Europe relies on the USA to defend them is wrong.

Yeah but the EU has an insane amount of unneeded redundancy, as the basic things you only need one of in each military are done once for each EU military, meaning we waste a lot when it comes to total EU spending.

Reltihlieh

X5

It's similiar to the US in that mass immigration Is the US' fault in the first place, the aforementioned mistreatment of the the Latin American nations let corruption and gangs take over, forcing the residents to flee for their lives.

The problem that needs to be fixed is the countries they are coming from.

An excellent point. The things I don't like about the US and Russia... Well, a large part of it is more about domestic than international policies. To me, "the American way" means aggression, hysteria and dog-eat-dog individualism, while "the Russian way" means authoritarianism and corruption. I like to think there's a "European way" of doing things, a gentler, more civilised way – and that if we want to uphold that European way, let alone spread it, we need to be our own masters on the world stage.

As for international politics, I don't think I need to explain what Russia is doing wrong; invading another country and taking a chunk of their land because your puppet president got toppled is not okay at all.

With America, one obnoxious thing is how little they seem to care about human rights or national sovereignty as long as it's happening outside their own borders. PRISM, "extraordinary rendition" and the drone war are all examples of this. And it isn't just the government, either. Read anything written by an American about the NSA scandals, and you'll find that they'll cover allegiations of privacy violations in America as a very important point, but completely ignore the many foreign citizens whose privacy the NSA has trodden on. Only the most left-leaning writers will mention the latter point at all, and even then only in the context of "we pissed off our allies, which is bad for us" rather than "we did things that are unacceptable in and of themselves".

But what irks me most is America's omnipresence. They claim the entire world as their sphere of influence, and have their fingers in all pots. If there's a conflict somewhere, even if they don't necessarily send troops they're always involved in some way, hovering over the battlefield, sitting at the negotiating table – no matter where it's happening. Russia bullies the Ukraine? The US are involved. Tensions rise between China and Japan? The US are involved. Iraq falls apart in the face of ISIS? The US are involved.

Wherever the chessboard is, the Americans are always a player, and very few people see anything strange in this. The idea that some parts of the world are simply none of America's business doesn't seem to have penetrated any skulls in the Pentagon or the State Department.

Granted, not all European nations are free of these tendencies, either; France, in particular, still likes to play at being a superpower. However, I don't think we need to be afraid a strong, unified Europe would be just as much of a pretentious jerk to the rest of the world as the US are. We remember our own colonial past, which is drilled into our heads from early on as a black stain on our history which we should never stop apologising for (and rightly so, I think). And then there's the powerful counterbalancing influence of Germany, whose history – as others have pointed out – has left them even more terrified of an aggressive foreign policy.

Besides, I think we'd be busy enough defending our own little "oasis of civilisation" that we wouldn't have a lot of time, resources, or political capital to spare for military adventures across the world.

Of course, the Russians aren't about to drive a steamroller into Europe and march to the Atlantic in two weeks. But if you count the Ukraine as a European country, then Russia definitely is a threat to Europe. And yeah, the Russian threat may seem like a "boondoggle" if you're living in the Netherlands or France, but what about Poland? Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania? Finland? There are a lot of European countries for whom Russia is frightfully close. Many of them have Russian minorities that Putin could use as a pretext, similarly to what happened in Crimea, and for most of them the Russians' last visit is a recent memory.

The redundancy thing is definitely a problem; I'm very much in favour of more specialisation and co-operation among European armed forces. Dutch transport ships putting German tanks ashore, protected by Czech fighter jets which took off from a French carrier – I can imagine it already. All without an American in sight, of course.

One thing I'd also propose is a return to conscription. Going by Cold War figures, it's a relatively cheap way to swell the ranks of your army considerably.

However, I'd just assumed we'd need more spending as well. It's a kind of common sense for me: you want more of something (defence, education, healthcare, etc), you've got to throw more money at it. In domestic politics, promises to do more on the same budget (or, more often, the same on a smaller budget) by working "smarter" or "more efficiently" usually turn out to be naïvely optimistic. But maybe this is one case in which it would be possible.

Anyway, if Europe really doesn't need the US for defence, then why do European countries still behave like American client states in practice? Why are almost all of them so eager to please Washington? Why is Angela Merkel so reluctant to say a single bad word about America, no matter how outrageous the espionage revelations get? (The German equivalent of The Onion joked that the German government would still utter "polite and nuanced" criticism if the US dropped a nuclear bomb on Hamburg.) Obviously we need them for something or we'd act a lot less servile towards them.

Ok, serious question; what do you want Europe to have a military for, specifically? Just to defend against Russia? Get out of America's control? Because I don't see how a military would really get you out of the latter, as that is also heavily economical and while things are shifting America's managed to retain economic influence.

Also, the simple and glib answer to all your questions would be "politics". Merkel probably doesn't have much to gain from badmouthing America.

Also conscription, by definition compulsory, is slowly falling out of favor. What benefit do you think anyone would get from forcing people to join the military? Quite frankly I don't understand countries that have that and find it to be an asshole move.

As for American omnipresence: What the fuck is the president and others supposed to do when the people involved keep asking for intervention? Because that's what happened with ISIS. It's what happened with the Syria thing, and Obama let that be a NATO thing. The president is trying his hardest to strike the balance between withdrawing our military and giving aid to those who ask without trying to be interventionist. Domestic politics as well as foreign issues make that a difficult balance to strike, but I promise you he's trying his damnedest. (Also, probably has to do with the fact that we omnipresent. It's sort of self-perpetuating. The reputation already exists, so foreign powers act on that, thus continuing the reputation.)

Hmmm. I'm seeing a contradiction here, that you might want to poke at: First you say, that one of the things you don't like about the American attitude is "With America, one obnoxious thing is how little they seem to care about human rights or national sovereignty as long as it's happening outside their own borders.

But then you say "But what irks me most is America's omnipresence. They claim the entire world as their sphere of influence, and have their fingers in all pots.

So they're not willing to get involved enough, but they're too anxious to get involved. How so?

edited 15th Aug '14 5:21:15 PM by Madrugada

What said. Also I'd like to double down on how bad an idea conscription is, even ignoring the moral arguments against it, it's incredibly ineffective. It gives you a drop in quality of troops in exchange for an increase in quantity, unless you're facing an enemy with a massive numerical advance (like South Korea does) you really don't need or want conscription, you'll get better results out of willing solders, better retention rates and not have to spend a ton of money on troops you don't want or need.

edited 15th Aug '14 5:27:13 PM by SilasW

America is a superpower, and that is what superpowers do. They assert their power over the world to remind it that it is still relevant. Now what might be obnoxious is that America gives off the impression that it is a benevolent international sheriff instead of a bully (when it can very well be a bully at times), but as aceofspaces mentioned, you also have to take into account the cases where America is asked to intervene.

As for conscription, bad idea for aforementioned reasons. And the fact that your reason for it essentially boils down to nationalism.....I don't really consider that a good reason, and it seems too similar to the sentiments and ideas that led to WWI.

This is a mistake to think that way. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Maybe you trust humanity to learn from its mistakes, but I do not. If anything, humanity ends up repeating the same mistakes on a grander scale. And even if an "empowered Europe" does not repeat America's or Russia's or someone else's mistakes, it can always make new ones. I also find it odd that you mention European cooperation but have not mentioned actually tearing down the national boundaries. I would think that one of the biggest obstacles to a truly unified Europe would be that Europe is not a single nation but several despite having less land Area than the United States.

I should note that perhaps part of the reason I disagree with you is that while you are nationalistic, I am anything but. While you would advocate conscription, I would end up as a conscientious objector.

The persistent problem is that when you topple the ruler of a country you generally have to replace him with somebody else, who may not necessarily be any better than the guy you are replacing. People sometimes have a hard time understanding this.

So, you're fine with the US meddling, you just want them to do it for different reasons?

As an American whose nation's military is the prime lifeline of NATO as you mentioned, a powerful EU would do great to ease the strain on the U.S' increasingly tired arms with all these allies to protect. A rise in military spending, as long as it's done gradually as to prevent economic instability, would also help kick the European economy back into gear. The main political problems would remain the general sense of pacifism among Europeans along with the political incorrectness of right-wing politics, especially in France and Germany, while socially, the continent's low birth rate would discourage young people from enlisting in the first place. Re-militarization, even among Cold War lines, in Germany and central Europe would also instantly attract comparisons to Nazi Germany - in fact, the Bundeswehr was only able to be formally created by a meager 4% if I recall correctly. A militarily powerful Europe would also be able to do much more on the world stage, as recent crisis have shown, and wouldn't have to piggyback on the U.S military's back across the world all the time.

People in the street may call you out on it, but factually, your ideas are only political in nature; while Nazi Germany championed the general idealism of the European continental superpower similar to what you want, it also went with plans to alter the general society and culture as a whole. It's one thing to say that Germany should take the military lead of all Europe, it's another to argue that Deutschland should take the initiative in committing genocide against domestic groups of people that don't fit the ruling power's agenda.

World War II is "special" in the sense of how relatively recent it is in the world's social minds; eight decades into the past isn't much on the historical timeline, and most continue to have living relatives that lived through the conflict. The entirety of the world's current geopolitical issues also arise out of the aftermath of World War II, such as social rivalry between the Chinese and Japanese, the confirmation of the United States as a world superpower, and the decline of Europe's overseas empires leading to countless revolutionary movements across the world while forcing said newly independent nations to struggle with the linear and arbitrary boundaries preset by the Europeans (*Middle East in a nutshell*).