EU was Hitler's idea

[mapuc]

(To the moderators-if this should have been posted in another thread, please be free to move it to the right thread and close this one.)

What do you say about this ?

Are the authors wrong claiming these things or does the authors have more or less right in their statements

'The EU: The Truth About The Fourth Reich - How Hitler Won The Second World War' argues the single currency, the free market and even the phrase "United States of Europe" were all dreamt up by high ranking Nazis, including the Fuhrer himself.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...laims-new-book

1. If you dislike/hate EU I guess you would take this to be true
2. If you like/love EU I guess you would take this as an insult on EU and those who works there

Markus

[Skybird]

And the secret Nazi moon base? They did not mention the secret Nazi moon base?

I certainly "dislike/hate the EU". But I am nevertheless not tempted to take this serious.

There have been so many Italian, Polish, Greek claims that Germany is the fourth Reich and Merkel carries a Hitler mustache, in the wake of the fincial meltdown 2008 and the credit crisis in Greece and during demands that Germany should paypaypay. Did you believe that, too?

[mapuc]

I should have mentioned in my first thread, ´cause I'm like you, I dislike EU and I also have problems believing these "facts"

Markus

[Catfish]

I do not dislike the Eu maybe simply because i obviously do not know the facts about why it is the second bad thing after the devil.

But I have to agree, it was all Hitler's idea.
Only that the "EU" would have been called "German Reich", and would have had its eastern borders somewhere near Stalingrad. Had England not intervened only against Germany after the soviet-german attack against Poland, Germany probably would neither have attacked France, nor Norway, nor Greece. The plan was to go for Russia right from the start.
Astonishingly enough, when Russia attacked Bulgaria, despite England's treaty with Bulgaria there was no declaration of war towards Russia. You will not find that in Wikipedia.

And then, after the war, it was Churchill's idea of a unified Europe, he said he himself could imagine to become the chancellor of Europe.
http://www.churchill-society-london..../astonish.html
"The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause."
The biggest problem for England today and for Farage's hate seems to be that England is not leading the coming United States of Europe.

Somehow it all did not work out, but because or neither of that happening, the Eu must now be destroyed. Ask Trump, or Putin.
Then, this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37867591
And then ask yourself who would most benefit from a EU's downfall, apart from the US/Trump's explicit plan to do just this

[ValoWay]

I don't think the nazis were ever interested in 'friendship' with other nations.. They made allies out of necessity, not because of an interest in peaceful coexistence..

I also think that the brits or the french are smart enough to sniff out any german schemes.. They probably would have noticed by now if there was anything within the EU which would secretly favor germany..

I generally think that the EU is a good idea. To work together to achieve a common goal becomes more and more important the farther we move forward into the future. Hiding behind your dandy little border barriers will only slow progress down like a class of schoolchildren which all work on the same test individually instead of together..

I think dismantling the EU would do more harm than good but there also has to be the will to improve. They have to seriously think about the reasons why britain left, why citizens are upset.. If they remain, however, stagnant instead I fear that we won't see anything even close to an EU in our lifetime ever again.

I believe the farther we go into the future the more difficult become humanity's problems. Britain alone won't be able to stop global warming, fixing poverty, cure cancer or finance a space program, for example. Such challenges are easier to overcome when we work together instead of every man for himself..

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And the secret Nazi moon base? They did not mention the secret Nazi moon base?

I certainly "dislike/hate the EU". But I am nevertheless not tempted to take this serious.

There have been so many Italian, Polish, Greek claims that Germany is the fourth Reich and Merkel carries a Hitler mustache, in the wake of the fincial meltdown 2008 and the credit crisis in Greece and during demands that Germany should paypaypay. Did you believe that, too?

True that

Originally Posted by BL!TZKR!EG

Have you actually ever bothered to listen to any of Hitler's speeches, for example those about Czechoslovakia?

No? Cause your observations would be entirely different then.

I see your point, but using a speech of Hitler is hardly some sort of proof, as he said many things - and then did the opposite, for example him assuring Germany's neighboring countries neutrality/that they will not be attacked.
Weeeell... about that...

[ikalugin]

EU is the yet unborn 4th Reich, not Germany within the EU. If you are very negative about EU and do not like the 4th Reich analogy you can try EUSSR, in which case Germany is the equivalent to the RSFSR (ie biggest member and one of the core donors).

Originally Posted by ikalugin

EU is the yet unborn 4th Reich, not Germany within the EU. If you are very negative about EU and do not like the 4th Reich analogy you can try EUSSR, in which case Germany is the equivalent to the RSFSR (ie biggest member and one of the core donors).

What?

Explain to me what the EU has in common with the third Reich?
A fourth Reich would mean a reincarnation of the national-socialistic third Reich. Do we really need to even start trying to find similarities, or can we agree right away that calling Europe the fourth Reich 'unborn' is simply wrong?
You can say about European power-plays what you want, but implying it is, or will be, even can be something like a "Reich" (in the national-socialistic and/or imperialistic sense) is flat out off-target and sounds like a typical RT headline to me.

[Sophia]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I should have mentioned in my first thread, ´cause I'm like you, I dislike EU and I also have problems believing these "facts"

Markus

Hahaha this sought of clarifies a lot. Hahaha very brilliantly put!

[STEED]

Not this old nut shell again.

[August]

I thought Napoleon was the first to think of creating a EU, or perhaps it was Charlemagne or Caesar?

[Rockstar]

The main difference between the E.U. and Hitler is, Hitler had vision the E.U. doesnt.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The main difference between the E.U. and Hitler is, Hitler had vision the E.U. doesnt.

Oh, the EU has vision - way too much of it, as always with Europeans.

What it lacks is sense of realism, and awareness for the difference between what is ideological, cultural-sociological ballast created in a laboratory, and what is pragmatically desirable. And that is NATO as the primary tool of security-creating, and economic cooperation in the meaning of free trade. Such a union has my support. But no, it wants to be so uch more than "just" this. Its too profance to focus on material realities...

You see this inability to differ between vision and pragmatism in so many areas, last but not least foreing poltics. Both in the Ukraine and Syria the EU acts on the ground sof moral maximum demands. Now compare to the Russians: their imperative is different, they focus on what actually is possible to achieve. I doubt that Putin likes Assad, but he knows that beside Assad no other faction there is that could provide any form of state structure and stability again, once this war may have ended. The terror grouops the West declares as his wanted "allies" - should these be the future of Syria? The wEst fools itself there, like it fooled itself over the Arab Spring, the Egyptians voting for the Muslim Brotherhood, and so forth. - In the Ukraine, the West again started to act on the ground of maximum moral demands, which to support or to enforce it was totally imptent at the same time. Meanwhile w ehave learned once againw hat a corrupt, criminal thug we have embraced ther ein the person of Victor Poroshenko, not to mention the earlier potliians that popped after the Maidan revolution, nd meanwhile have dissapred again. Boy, what a shady crew of ganster and oligarchs! But "Morals!" shouts the West, fingerpointing at Moscow. The Russian may not hjave played nice, but they played according to doctrines we should have known since the cold war, and they have some very valid hisotrical and more important: strategic interests that one can easily see if only what would just care to think oneself into their heads. But did the West do that? No - "Morals" was the parole, and basta.

See where it got us. We are loosing, and geostrategically we have suffered severla defeats from Russia now. Our reaction? "Morals!" Or, as you put it - "Visions!"

No, that does not cut it, that just is not good enough.

Regarding realism, Putin has outplayed the West in the past couple of years. And I think he is running a very strong offensive to erode the EU from within. It simply is in his way.

The only question is whether he can soldifiy his victory before the economy of Russia crumbles once again. He does too little to modenrise the Russian industry, all investments seem to go into the military. Thats is where Russia's sense of realism may lack. Just waging the monetarian war by buying gold as much as he can, is not enough.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

you can try EUSSR,

In fact I have compared the patterns and structures of power aggrevation and institutional power projection compared to the USSR repeatedly over the years, thats why I have spoken of the EUSSR repeatedly over the years. Tha parallels of said structures, are stunning, and scaring.

The function of "empire" dictates the format, i suppose.
Same desired functions lead to same formats. Including the sideeffects like corruption, nepotism, oligarchy, etc.