Don't look at me, it's your son

[Louis VI the Fat]

If "EU" had been exchanged with "German", I would personally have had great difficulties knowing that such a document wasn't coming directly from The Reich propaganda!Maybe the problem isn't that you misunderstand the EU, but that you misunderstand Nazi Germany?

How can you confuse a program for Nazi propaganda when it calls for European countries to 'work together for peace and prosperity', an 'idea born because Europeans were determined to prevent such killing and destruction ever happening again', urges a cooperation that embraces 'many different traditions and languages' and defends 'shared values such as democracy, freedom and social justice' and asks Europeans to 'work together with people from other countries in a spirit of curiosity, openness and solidarity'.

This is the EXACT opposite of everything that the Nazi's stood for. :wall:

Jesus Christ. Are you taking the piss Legio? ~:confused:

[Rodion Romanovich]

How can you confuse a program for Nazi propaganda when it calls for European countries to 'work together for peace and prosperity', an 'idea born because Europeans were determined to prevent such killing and destruction ever happening again',

Maybe you remember the German nationalism sprung from statements such as "work together for peace and prosperity", and "idea born because Germans were determined to prevent such killing as in the Napoleonic wars from ever happening again" (Fichte), and urging for "such internal fighting as in the 30 years war from ever happening again" (Fichte), urging a cooperation that embraces "many different traditions" and defends "shared values such as freedom and social justice" (Goebbels) and asks members of different German states to "work together with people from other German states in a spirit of curiosity, openness and solidarity" (Goebbels).

This is EXACTLY what Fichte (the father of German nationalism), and the Nazi's wrote in their propaganda

Here are some cutouts from nazi propaganda to illustrate it's similarities to EU propaganda on the points I highlighted:
Source: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

"Naturally there were Bavarians or Saxons or Wurtembergers or people from Baden or Schaumberg-Lippe who were unhappy about developments, but in the end their prejudices vanished and their attention turned to the greater goal, the new Reich." Goebbels, 1940

"I am convinced that, just as we look back with some amusement on the narrow-minded conflicts between German provinces in the 1840's and 1850's, our posterity in fifty years will look back with similar amusement on what is going on today in Europe. They will see the "dramatic battles between nations" of small European states as family squabbles. I am convinced that in fifty years we will no longer think in terms of nations, but of continents, and that entirely different, and perhaps much larger, problems will concern Europe.", Goebbels, 1940

"We are not dictators, but rather instruments of the will of our people." Goebbels, 1940

"The German army protects life and property of every peace loving citizen." From Propaganda leaflet dropped over the Netherlands in 1940

[Rodion Romanovich]

edit

[Ser Clegane]

So when you are talking about peace you are spreading nazi-propaganda, just because Goebbels also used the term "peace" in a speech.

This is getting increasingly silly... :no:

[AntiochusIII]

Louis VI the Fat: Thanks. ~:)

I find your revisionist view of European history quite interesting. Is that a common perception of European history where you live? :daisy: Pardon me, but: are we talking about the same book here? All Quiet On The Western Front with Paul Baumer & co.? The corpse-rats? The poor French printer who got snuffed? Butterflies on the skull? That book?

Because I really don't remember references to "Prussians" in that book. I mentioned "Kantoreks" because of the quotation in the book about something which I think is closest to the alleged Prussian reference.

Since you still fail to realize the main point, you obviously will not understand the rest of the causes behind the historical developments from 1900 to 1945. The main point you need to realize is, that Germany was not a Nation any more than nominally and de jure at the outbreak of nazism, but it was a de facto Union, and Nationalism arose naturally in the attempts to centralize it even more and fight and suppress those who wished independence for the member states. Once you understand this (and that the situation was exactly the same in Italy), you will understand the rest.Erm, it was. Nationalism by definition is for the nation. I really can't see why you're stretching it this far to justify your Nazi Germany = EU comparison. Germany was a nation back then.

The whole "Prussia oppresses the weaker members" is a Bismarck-era political issue, not post-WW1.

You have to understand that different countries have very different news coverage of events. For instance after 9/11 we saw 3 minutes of the incident in most European countries, whereas I suppose it was given a bit more coverage in the USA?May be you'd like to post a link on where pro-European extremism has happened? Any terrorist attempts? Violent movements? Crowds of angry people beating anti-EUers?

I fail to realize the significance of the amount of color levels in films to degree of nationalism.I appreciate your sarcasm, but I think you know what I mean.

This is present all over the pro-EU philosophical texts written in the previous 5 decades. And here's a funny modern example, from: (text)

If "EU" had been exchanged with "German", I would personally have had great difficulties knowing that such a document wasn't coming directly from The Reich propaganda!So an optimistic-sounding statement is a sign of dictatorship nowadays? I didn't know the UN is also a Soviet Union in disguise. :yes:

[Rodion Romanovich]

So when you are talking about peace you are spreading nazi-propaganda, just because Goebbels also used the term "peace" in a speech.

This is getting increasingly silly... :no:
Forming a Union saying it will work for democracy and peace, while having a less democratic system than in each of the member countries, is quite telling that the EU propaganda, and the actions carried out by the EU are different things. What I demonstrated, was that just because you talk about freedom and peace in your propaganda, you aren't necessarily a defender of those things, as some people here think.

[Strike For The South]

Legio leave the old country behind and move to Texas:smash:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Pardon me, but: are we talking about the same book here? All Quiet On The Western Front with Paul Baumer & co.? The corpse-rats? The poor French printer who got snuffed? Butterflies on the skull? That book?

Because I really don't remember references to "Prussians" in that book.

Reread the book. Already in the very first chapter, on one of the first few pages, there's such a reference.



Erm, it was. Nationalism by definition is for the nation. I really can't see why you're stretching it this far to justify your Nazi Germany = EU comparison. Germany was a nation back then.

Nationalism is of no need if your country is already united enough. Nationalism is a tool to transform a loose collection of states into a single nation.



an optimistic-sounding statement is a sign of dictatorship nowadays? I didn't know the UN is also a Soviet Union in disguise.

This is irrelevant. My point is not "EU is a dangerous dictatorship", it's "EU is taking a path that is leading towards dangerous nationalistic dictatorship and is close to the point where reversing the development becomes difficult".

[Rodion Romanovich]

Legio leave the old country behind and move to Texas:smash:
Soon, that might become necessary. Better Texan, than French, overlords :tongue:

[Strike For The South]

Soon, that might become necessary. Better Texan, than French, overlords :tongue:

Our women our better any how

[AntiochusIII]

Reread the book. Already in the very first chapter, on one of the first few pages, there's such a reference.Ah, I found it. (Have the book handy) "The Prussian is not so generous." I still don't see the comparison though. Your first step is noted: "Prussian" is a euphemism for the officers of the German military. Your second step is also noted, "Prussia" prior to the upheavals of World War 1 dominated the German military ranks, as the book's quote is an anecdote. That I already explained that I agree in an earlier post. Your next step: that this relates to a comparison to the situation in the member states of the European Union and recent centralization (sounds more like clean-up to me personally) efforts: That is not noted. There is no valid comparison.

Nationalism is of no need if your country is already united enough. Nationalism is a tool to transform a loose collection of states into a single nation.

This is irrelevant. My point is not "EU is a dangerous dictatorship", it's "EU is taking a path that is leading towards dangerous nationalistic dictatorship and is close to the point where reversing the development becomes difficult".And you are insisting that the little "we are an organization of peace and cooperation" statement piece is proof that the EU has evil intentions? That the generic message will provoke in many a sense of deep loyalty to the European Union to the exclusion of other sensibilities, as historical nationalist movements are wont to do?

I'm not convinced.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Ah, I found it. (Have the book handy) "The Prussian is not so generous."

Exactly, Paul Baumer doesn't think of a Germany, but about a Union with member states. He doesn't say "the leaders of Germany aren't generous", he says "the Prussians aren't generous". Simply put, at that time "Germany" wasn't a nation, it was Union.



I still don't see the comparison though.

That is because you fail to understand history from the point of view of those living back then. Because it says "Germany" on the map today, you forget that the independent states in the area that later became Germany didn't feel they were on a temporary transportation route back towards a united Germany, but they felt there had never been a Germany and never would be. The transformation from this into a single nation can't happen overnight without nationalism. And it was in attempting to unite these nations into a German Union that the dangerous nationalism arose. ww1 emerged. When it turned out the Union didn't bring the advantages the people had been told it would bring, but aggression and abuse of the newfound strength to offensive activities, Nationalism was used again to keep the Union together. The main point to realize, is that nationalism in The Third Reich wasn't about liking your existing country, it was about making the people start liking a newly formed Union that the leaders intended would become a country, to remove the desire for independence struggle that remains in a Union for many decades, since in the minds of people, it's still a Union and not a nation.



And you are insisting that the little [...] statement piece is proof that the EU has evil intentions?

See my response to Ser Clegane. You're both putting words in my mouth (i.e. Red herring fallacy), much like the nazis would call all non-nazis anti-patriotic dangerous maniac conspiracy theorists for opposing their views. Such is not a very mature way of debating.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Our women our better any how
:2thumbsup:

[AntiochusIII]

Exactly, Paul Baumer doesn't think of a Germany, but about a Union with member states. He doesn't say "the leaders of Germany aren't generous", he says "the Prussians aren't generous".You're really putting much on a single line in a novel, you know. Euphemisms are by no means indicative of current viewpoints. They usually last much longer than any relevant issues that created them in fact. "Inside the Beltway" is still in American political junkie use despite it being caused by an early 90's scandal. Long over. Long forgotten.

And it is a novel you know. Mr. Remarque was a remarkable writer [/shameless pun] but he was writing a novel. A single piece of fictional work.

Moreover...

That is because you fail to understand history from the point of view of those living back then. Because it says "Germany" on the map today, you forget that the independent states in the area that later became Germany didn't feel they were on a temporary transportation route back towards a united Germany, but they felt there had never been a Germany and never would be. The transformation from this into a single nation can't happen overnight without nationalism. And it was in attepmting to unite these nations into a German Union that the dangerous nationalism arose. ww1 emerged. When it turned out the Union didn't bring the advantages the people had been told it would bring, Nationalism was used again to keep the Union together. The main point to realize, is that nationalism in The Third Reich wasn't about liking your existing country, it was about making the people start liking a Union that the leaders intended would become a country, to remove the desire for independence struggle that remains in a Union for many decades, since in the minds of people, it's still a Union and not a nation.Excuse me, but do you have any proof that such a mindset truly was the norm in Old Germany? To make such statements you need more solid proof.

As a matter of fact I can easily point out to you that voluntary unification was very much in the idea of mainstream Germany at least decades prior to the actual unification through the Franco-Prussian war. A certain meeting in Frankfurt offered the Imperial throne to the King of Prussia you know...

And I still don't see how this comparison is valid to the European Union. The situations, the scales, and the mindsets are vastly different. There's not even a "Prussia" for the EU for starters.

Watchman pointed out some time ago that the particular brand of nationalism engaged by much of Europe in the late 1800's/early 1900's has long fallen out of favor thanks to the two World Wars, and that the EU is in fact created as an antithesis to that very idea. That you would accuse the organization with the very thing it is fundamentally opposed to, and justify it with some flimsy comparison to a very different situation in a very different time, is most baffling.

Your insistence that there exists or that there will soon be sizable extremist pro-EU movements is also baffling, as all evidence points to the contrary. The use of the term "nationalist" to describe such a movement is against its very terminology as the European Union is not a nation state and will not likely be for a very long time.

See my response to Ser Clegane. You're both putting words in my mouth (i.e. Red herring fallacy), much like the nazis would call all non-nazis anti-patriotic dangerous maniac conspiracy theorists for opposing their views. Such is not a very mature way of debating.Huh?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Our women our better any howYes, and there's so much more of them too. ~;)

[Rodion Romanovich]

You're really putting much on a single line in a novel, you know.
No, I am not, you are. I gave an example, you said it was wrong, it was then proven I was right about the example, and now that it has been shown correct, you start accusing me of putting much on a single line in a novel. The reason that this line was discussed back and forth in 10 posts was because you originally claimed it was wrong, which you now know it wasn't.



As a matter of fact I can easily point out to you that voluntary unification was very much in the idea of mainstream Germany at least decades prior to the actual unification through the Franco-Prussian war. A certain meeting in Frankfurt offered the Imperial throne to the King of Prussia you know...

A lot of people were against it. This meeting wasn't a representative democracy, it was a representative of representative of representative of representative of the people, i.e. not a democratic one.



Your insistence that there exists or that there will soon be sizable extremist pro-EU movements is also baffling, as all evidence points to the contrary
Go read the texts at www.europa.eu, they're highly arrogant, totally lacking in self-criticism, and a good example of the drunken mist of self-praisal present in the heart of supremacist nationalism.

[Ser Clegane]

Such is not a very mature way of debating.
You mean "mature" like here?

Perhaps rational arguments are possible, when you dictatorship-lovers point out how the citizens have any influence whatsover in the current system.

Why do you think it's so important to defend a dictatorship? Why do you think it's so important to make institutions that the people have no control over look democratic? How can you defend such an indefensible position? How can you defend something that is the same as what caused World war 2, the Holocaust, the Gulag archipelago, and more lives than anything else of the previous century? Do you like bloodshed? Are you a sadist? Do you think you will somehow be able to escape the suffering that will come over us all?

There is not "red herring" as you like to assert when you are called on your statements.
Your main point in this thread was to point out that the EU is a dictatorship that will go down the same road as Nazi-Germany or the SU under Stalin.

To support this point you (as part of your argumentation) tried to mark similarities between a text that describes the self-image of the EU and a number of nazi-propaganda pieces.

You highlighted specific parts of the EU text (or "EU propaganda" as you call it) to put it one the same level as "The Reich propaganda". Unless you consider the highlighted parts to be typical for such propaganda your comparison makes little sense.
If you consider it to be typical parts of nazi-propaganda then there is no red herring and nobody has been putting words in your mouth.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You mean "mature" like here?

That was in response to a claim that it was unacceptable for him to have the benefits of a Union without having either the current anti-democratic constitution, or the newly proposed (only slightly less) anti-democratic constitution. Therefore not a red herring.



Your main point in this thread was to point out that the EU is a dictatorship that will go down the same road as Nazi-Germany or the SU under Stalin.

This is incorrect. My main points are that:

1. showing blind trust that the EU is immune to nationalism and immune from becoming anti-democratic is naive. (This was argued for by showing previous examples that are similar in one or more aspects, but I also pointed out that this was not a provable outcome, but an outcome with a high probability)

2. calling people who dislike EU and want independence of their countries nationalists or nazis is hypocritical, unfair, and naive. In fact, the nationalism of The Third Reich and Fascist Italy sprung from keeping a Union together, not from people fighting for the independence of their own country. (This was proven with obvious historical references)

3. believing that just because someone uses words such as "freedom" and "justice" they can't be dictators or maniacs (This point was proven by showing that nazi propaganda too used these words, stating that the nazis were seeking to protect these values, which they as we all know, in their actions, showed they were not).

4. the current EU has put no maximum limit to the amount of centralization that will take place in the EU. Centralization is constantly increasing and nobody that has access to the brakes is pulling them (This we all agreed to)

5. the EU is doing many things that are highly remniscent of how the USSR and Nazis once begun. Today, when they're still relatively harmless and not yet too powerful, is the time to correct the route the EU is taking. Remember the functionalist view on Holocaust and ww2? That one thing followed upon another once things started to get a life of their own? It is dangerous to, as is done today, give fuel to nationalist, supremacist and anti-democratic tendencies in the EU before they grow too strong. The homepage www.europa.eu is a good example of the kind of dangerous, disgusting propaganda that the EU should NOT be publishing, if they are to stand for democracy, freedom and justice. (This I proved by demonstrating these similarities, and pointing out that all dictatorships start out as nice people who look like they will serve the interests of the people. I pointed out that the actions of the leaders, and not their words, should be used to judge their intentions in this matter, and that they should receive harsh criticism early on if they ever without any motivation take a step that decreases the amount of democracy, freedom and justice, because if the criticism doesn't come early on, it may be too late)

[Husar]

than the Prussian efforts to create a German Union abolished nationalism in the individual German countries. In reality, it created a dangerous supremacist German nationalism.
That was mostly due to the nutjob who inherited the throne though.
He was a big nationalist and an example for the people who then followed him. But then again, Germany was not the only nationalistic country by that time, or didn't they happily go to war in Britain? And I thought Britain was united for quite some time by then. either way, blaming the unification of Germany for the upcoming nationalism is completely wrong.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That's right Husar. Also, in 1848 German unification was a progressive, liberal ideal. But please let that not deter anyone from the formula unification = facism. The victims in Auschwitz, the civilians in Dresden, Coventry, Oradour-sur-Glanes, the Gulag - if we could transport them to present-day Europe they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between then and now anyway. They would immediately notice the striking similarities in the gap between rhetoric and reality.

[/Godwin]

[Rodion Romanovich]

blaming the unification of Germany for the upcoming nationalism is completely wrong.
I agree ~:cheers: doing so, would be not only be very unfair but also ignorant

[Rodion Romanovich]

...
I think you too should stop making pointless accusations that detract from the main points of the discussion. Read post #268. The anti-democratic tendencies in the EU, and the romantic rhetoric, are things that should be taken seriously and looked upon with deep concern, rather than ignoring the issues as in 1917 in Russia, and in 1933 in Germany. If there's something we should learn from these events, it's that dangerous developments must be stopped while they're in their earliest phase: after that they will become too strong to be able to stop. That is why it's the duty of all people in the European countries to require more serious efforts within the EU in restricting the dangerous tendencies summarized in post #268. If these demands for stopped anti-democratic developments aren't met, there are no other options than 1. accepting an immense risk from which nothing good can come, or 2. leaving the union. If we liked the union, we then have the possibility of starting over with a new EU, that looks at these important questions early on, instead of postponing and forgetting them, hiding them behind pointless discussions about banana length and curvature, or discussing how to solve poverty on a luxury cruise in the Pacific, etc.

[Husar]

Less than 100 years later than the Napoleonic era, this heterogenic mass is supposed to suddenly be a single country. Such a development isn't automatic, it meets heavy resistance from all the parts of the Union, and to keep them in check, nationalism is used. Transforming this heterogenic mass into a nation requires nationalistic propaganda to go back to the ancient times and speak of "Germania" (not by far anything united and similar to a Germany either, but good enough for propaganda purposes), because that is the only time in history where the differences in culture between the different germanic tribes was smaller than the difference between them and their neighbors (the romans), because at most other times in history similarities and unity between "Germans" hardly existed as either an idea or a fact.
I'd say that's a lot of bollox.
Think about the "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation", which it was called since the 15th century. Wait, it has german and nation in it, doesn't it?:dizzy2:
Yes, it did split up, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a nation before.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Read post #268Sorry, I based it on the whole previous discussion.

Anyway, this discussion is nearing its end I believe. For me it is anyway. Let me just say that you've got a good mind, Legio. Especially: an original one. You've often posted original thoughts that I found refreshing. About the EU though, no, your logic is leading you in a direction where I can't follow. :shrug:

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'd say that's a lot of bollox.
Think about the "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation", which it was called since the 15th century. Wait, it has german and nation in it, doesn't it?:dizzy2:
Yes, it did split up, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a nation before.
The HRE was a very loose confederation of states, besides it didn't at all have the same borders that either modern Germany or pre-ww2 Germany had. Italy, for instance, is not part of modern Germany. Or do you perhaps think it should be? The HRE was only close to being a nation during a few separated decades in the Middle Ages, but these were temporary discontinuities that most independent state within the HRE worked hard to prevent from happening. Those who tried to increase centralization were often seen as tyrants. Perhaps you remember the murder of Wallenstein? The Catholics were prepared to murder their very best general, to prevent centralization.

Anyway, as pointed out, the unification became necessary in the 19th century because of Napoleon I's rape and pillage of these regions, and Napoleon I's political move of dissolving the HRE (which was only existing in name at that time).

[Husar]

The HRE was only close to being a nation during a few separated decades in the Middle Ages, but these were temporary discontinuities that most independent state within the HRE worked hard to prevent from happening.
Of course they wanted to prevent that, because the local lords wanted to keep their power, just like today.


Soon, that might become necessary. Better Texan, than French, overlords :tongue:
That comment was probably a joke, but one could say your nationalism shines through, giving away what you really think.~;)

[Rodion Romanovich]

Of course they wanted to prevent that, because the local lords wanted to keep their power, just like today.

Exactly, but they didn't have democracy so each state followed the will of the leader of that state. And the subjects were happy to avoid more centralization since it would mean not another level of tax, and duty to go fight some pointless war, would be put on their shoulders. So in total, except in a few exceptional cases, the lack of centralization was better for the regular people, as the Kaiser had no real incentive to go policeing and making sure the kurfürsts didn't treat their subjects badly.



That comment was probably a joke, but one could say your nationalism shines through, giving away what you really think.~;)
:laugh4:

[Husar]

Exactly, but they didn't have democracy so each state followed the will of the leader of that state. And the subjects were happy to avoid more centralization since it would mean not another level of tax, and duty to go fight some pointless war, would be put on their shoulders. So in total, except in a few exceptional cases, the lack of centralization was better for the regular people, as the Kaiser had no real incentive to go policeing and making sure the kurfürsts didn't treat their subjects badly.
One big problem of the split-up Germany were the taxes you had to pay at every of those small borders, centralization/complete unification would have gotten rid of those borders and reduced the overall amount of taxes merchants had to pay when travelling from one side to the other and "taxes" were paid to the king/kaiser anyway, even if indirectly. The pointless wars happened often enough between two of the smaller rulers as well so I'd say that's about the same anyway.

[Watchman]

Legio, just for the record the way you compare Reich official jargon to, in this case, the EU equivalent rings hollow for one very simple reason - there's nothing particularly "Nazi" about it. They just used the standard nice formulations and never had about the slightest intention of even paying lip service to them - Goebbels was one of the few in that bunch of loony morons who actually knew his job. Kinda like Japan's "Pacific Co-prosperity Sphere" and the assorted "People's Republics" which weren't.

Most authoritarian rulers are clever enough to misuse and pervert legitimate phraseology and practices (such as elections) to their own ends. That hardly invalidates the latter in normal circumstances though, now does it ? Iraqi elections under Saddam were a transparent bad joke, of course, but that hardly affected the legitimacy of, say, French, German or Canadian elections, no ?

To assert that the sunshine terminology was equally fake in EU (or UN, or whoever) usage, you would first need to prove there was a similar power-hungry, warmongering totalitarian bunch hiding behind them... and please don't embarass yourself by trying to offer up the Council and Commission as candidates, okay ?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Watchman, you fail to realize that it was immensely difficult to prove this about Hitler in 1933! The point is that it doesn't matter who rules, what matters is that dictatorship systems must never arise, since the risk of someone with cruel intentions ending up at the post is a risk that is unnecessary to take, since we can avoid it without suffering any disadvantages. I'm still curious about why you're so eager to have an EU without proper democracy, when it's fully possible to have the same cooperation under democratic circumstances. Are you one of those persons who need to get a kick out of taking unneeded risks? Then bear in mind that this, unlike bungy-jumping, is a risk that concerns 400 million people.

[Fragony]

Legio, just for the record the way you compare Reich official jargon to, in this case, the EU equivalent rings hollow for one very simple reason - there's nothing particularly "Nazi" about it. They just used the standard nice formulations and never had about the slightest intention of even paying lip service to them - Goebbels was one of the few in that bunch of loony morons who actually knew his job. Kinda like Japan's "Pacific Co-prosperity Sphere" and the assorted "People's Republics" which weren't.

Most authoritarian rulers are clever enough to misuse and pervert legitimate phraseology and practices (such as elections) to their own ends. That hardly invalidates the latter in normal circumstances though, now does it ? Iraqi elections under Saddam were a transparent bad joke, of course, but that hardly affected the legitimacy of, say, French, German or Canadian elections, no ?

To assert that the sunshine terminology was equally fake in EU (or UN, or whoever) usage, you would first need to prove there was a similar power-hungry, warmongering totalitarian bunch hiding behind them... and please don't embarass yourself by trying to offer up the Council and Commission as candidates, okay ?

Sir your theory sucks, insufficient and grosly inaccurate, not to mention that it fails to grasp even the most fundamental political dynamics.

hmm, debating is easy.

[Husar]

Sir your theory sucks, insufficient and grosly inaccurate, not to mention that it fails to grasp even the most fundamental political dynamics.

hmm, debating is easy.
:laugh4:

The joke was good, but Watchman is still correct.:7teacher:

[Snowhobbit]

Watchman, you fail to realize that it was immensely difficult to prove this about Hitler in 1933! The point is that it doesn't matter who rules, what matters is that dictatorship systems must never arise, since the risk of someone with cruel intentions ending up at the post is a risk that is unnecessary to take, since we can avoid it without suffering any disadvantages. I'm still curious about why you're so eager to have an EU without proper democracy, when it's fully possible to have the same cooperation under democratic circumstances. Are you one of those persons who need to get a kick out of taking unneeded risks? Then bear in mind that this, unlike bungy-jumping, is a risk that concerns 400 million people.
Am I the only one thinking Mein Kampf and Beer Hall Putsch?

[Watchman]

Sir your theory sucks, insufficient and grosly inaccurate, not to mention that it fails to grasp even the most fundamental political dynamics.

hmm, debating is easy.http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG248a.jpg

Here's your coat sir. :blank2: