Populism And Nationalism On The Rise In Europe

Fact is that Western Europe is far more mature than the US. Europe went through its age of nationalism and learnt the hard way that it doesn't work and any advantages achieved in the short term do not warrant the horrible medium to long term consequences.

When is the last time you heard a mainstream european politician run an election campaign on how superior their nation is to others? It just isn't kosher in Europe. It sends alarm bells ringing whenever some madman or group try to rise to power betting on people's nationalistic and superiority sentiments. They've learnt that the best and shortest line to prosperity and peace is being a good neighbor and making your neighbors good.

Compare that to every politician running in the US today.
Almost everything in US politics centers around being "Better" than everyone else. Politicians run on that because that is what the people want to hear, not what they need to hear.

Do you know how insane it seems to the rest of the world that the US people, in this day and age, actually demonize other people and forms of government? Its like dealing with a child's tantrum. Look at the last 100 years of history in the US.

The US spies on its allies. It even tapped Angela Merkel's phone. It spies on its own population (NSA/Snowden). It has brought down a sh!t tone of democratically elected governments (1969-1989 SA). It has tossed out its principles and values when challenged (torture). Some of the worst and most disgusting images of the abuse of power have been of the US. The US is simply not civilized enough to be compared to Europe. Its a lot better than a lot of places on this earth, but that is setting the bar pretty low for the nation promised prosperity and peace around the world in a bid to get everyone else to support it against the USSR and communism.

You can say the racial tension in the US is fiction. But I have Black American Colleagues who bring it up daily. Sending me links of things that are happening in their hometowns on whatsapp.

What is funny is that when you talk to Republicans and ask them about the grievances of the minorities in the US, they either say they don't exist or point the finger back at them. This is INSANE! How heavy and big is that rock you're all living under?


Either the right start to read and educate themselves on global politics, culture and emerge from their bubble or the US is going to experience another civil war within the next 20-50 years if the rate of polarization continues.

Oh it's the wave of Historical Revisionists that like to write the US out of both World Wars entirely. They like to do that cause the other European countries still carrying a grudge about having to rely on someone else because of how weak and ineffective their military's were, and most still are. The British are about the only ones who put up a serious fight and there is only so much they could of done. The Russians basically threw bodies at the Germans and used scorched earth tactics that turned the entire Eastern theater into a giant bloody meat grinder.

Anyhow both World Wars were won because the US threw it's industrial strength behind the Allies and simply outproduced everyone else. When the US entered into WWII the ratio was something like 10:1 for the US vs the combined Axis nations. By the end of the war it was much higher because unlike everyone else, the USA's industrial base was protected and able to churn out war supplies with impunity. The downside was incredibly long supply chains and the need to establish secured forward staging bases prior to leveraging that industrial capacity.

But hey if the Eurocrats want to keep repeating comforting lies to themselves to feel better, more power to them.

Nobody rely on US actually, they just show up uninvited, make a mess and pretend to be heroes.

Germany had too many fronts open. While Italy sure wasn't the greatest of allies, when US and Canada liberated it, that just caused another front to open, and good luck repelling the forces in northen France, from the east, bomb wars with UK and not to mention the wars fought in Africa. Germany was the most powerful nation in the world, but nobody can fight everywhere at the same time.

But the point is, going back to nationalism is a recipe to risk repeating the events of the first world war.

I don't see anyone saying the US wasn't instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany. The point being discussed was how nationalism is an outdated political construct in today's world. that point went right over your head and you fell right back into the "Murica is tha best yahoo" frame of mind.. and you're one of the few who can actually stand your ground and articulate an argument... you falling back into that mantra of "Murica" is what scares everyone else in the world.. its an example of just how you, Americans, seem to take everything as a pissing contest.

There were only two that were important, the fight against UK and what was left of Western Europe and the fight against Russia. Germany was winning in Western Europe and the UK was fighting a defensive war. The Russian winter had stopped Germany from taking Russia, not because the Germans couldn't fight in the cold but because their military strategies relied on fast, highly maneuverable and lightly supplied units which were not optimal for a drawn out fight in a cold climate. Germany would of beaten Russia given enough time, the same with Western Europe. The African campaign was just a holding action to keep several countries forces divided and unfocused as those nations couldn't afford to leave their colonists defenseless.

There are very good records about the numbers involved and they paint a very clear picture. Germany had built up a large, well trained, highly mobile, military that could strike like a hammer and shatter the antiquated defenses of the other nations military's. After WWI the other European nations scaled down what was left of their military's, they didn't want to believe another big war would happen and there was no political will to maintain large expensive forces "just in case" another war happened. Russia on the other hand had a tremendously sized, though poorly supplied military. Funny enough Russia was building this military to invade Western Europe. When Germany eventually went full scale the only ones that could possibly hurt them were the Russians, and thus that's why the bulk of the Germany military went to the East. A smaller contingent swept through Western Europe and pretty much crushed everyone except Great Briton. The only reason GB didn't get slammed is that body of water surrounded them prevents for a rapid land assault and there were enough other countries in the way that they had time to fully mobilize and actually stand up a large military force.

War is about numbers, not heroic deeds or some movie ***. The numbers tell a very clear story about how both WWI and especially WWII played out. There can be some debate about how WWI would of played out as the allies would of eventually won, at a higher cost, but with WWII it's pretty clear that Germany was winning prior to the USA fully mobilizing. Japan saw that a fully mobilized US would be the end of the war due to raw numbers and thus they attempted to paralyze the Pacific Navy with a preemptive attack, that gamble nearly paid off for them.

Anyhow I just find it funny how the anti-Americanism is such that people are willing to ret-con history to try to write the USA out of it. That's flat-earth society, faked moon landings, Illuminati new world order, holocaust denial type stuff there.

Lots of people are, just read back a few pages.

It's a very common theme, usually done by European people who were taught a heavily nationalized version of history that attempts to marginalize the USA. They are some of the most xenophobic nationalistic people I've ever known. It's only when a culture is threatened by a new invading culture that you get to see how people really are, which is one are the US is far ahead of the rest of the world. The USA has been a mish-mash and melting pot of so many cultures for so long that it's become the default state and everyone's accustomed to it. A new immigrant culture moving in wouldn't be any different then the previous dozens of cultures that have moved in. Just now a days you can read all about it on a website somewhere vs before only knowing about it if you happened to be present.

I didn't retcon anything. Nor showed any "anti-americanism".
And Germany went to war first and foremost to conquer land in the east. But Hitler was just a little bit crazy and, you know stuff happened.
As for GB I think if it went on a bit longer they would have just surrendered and bailed out of the war, Germany had no reason to keep fighting them tbh.

Everyone spys on their allies and everyone keeps secrets from their allies. The US just happens to be the best at electronic spying is all.

The first modern democracy we overthrew in SA was during the first Eisenhower administration. Guatemala, 1954. It wasn't the first democracy we overthrew.

As someone raised in the shadow of WWII the concept that we would ever institutionalize torture is flat astonishing. I can't wait to see where we go next.

we never said you did Seha.

Hitler could have well defeated Russia if he started his campaign in the spring, they could have finished that. They had Russia on the backfoot, and they were stopped only because of their armor freezing in the ice.

(This part is directed at everyone else)

The fact that Britain would have lost is evident. They needed the US to mass produce their radar systems for their equipment, otherwise they would never have stood a chance against the Germans and their bombing raids. Their facilities were too preoccupied with other things, they couldn't possibly get the radars manufactured, so they relied on the US to manufacture them.

Saying the US at the very least prevented the European allies from losing is a blatant lie, the US had an enormous military built up from their time spent in isolationism, and after the fact that we were in the depression, and as we all know, war is a great breeding ground for profit.

Well Saevel quoted me that's why I assumed I was the target.

That some of those who posses power and wealth would come together to control world governance for their mutual benefit seems crazy to you?

***its 2015... keep up!

watch this TED TALK, please.

George Carlin said it well. "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests align". It doesn't even imply it's nefarious or intentional, people with common interest will band together and work together towards a shared goal. And anyone who isn't a person in power is stupidly naive if they think their interests and the interests of the powerful align.

Actually no, Hitler wasn't making war time strategic decisions, his extremely competent Generals were. The German Officer Corps are some of the finest, best trained Officers in the world. Their military genius was one of the corner stones of how the German military crushed everyone else.

The reason the Germans put so much effort into attacking Russia was that Stalin had marshaled a gigantic military power with the purpose of invading and conquering all of Europe. He was intent on spreading Communism by force. German spies had been gathering intelligence about the Russian military buildup and it indicated that the Russians were almost ready to invade. Germany executed a preemptive attack on Russia with the goal of defeating them before their military was mechanized enough to be virtually unstoppable. Germany's mistake was that they overestimated the capability of Russian military officers, they weren't aware of how bad the effects of Stalin's purges were. So while the Russian military has giant with lots of weapons and mechanization, they didn't have the leadership or logistical ability to effectively field it yet. Germany could of safely ignored Russia for another year or two and focus on Western Europe instead of committing most of their forces to fighting an unprepared poorly led Russian military.

Germany's purpose for the war was two fold, first to preemptively prevent the Russians from conquering Europe, and secondly conquer Europe and reestablish a German empire. They were very methodical about it and damn near won.

Uhhh...Hitler wanted to claim the lands in the east to redistribute them to his people, whether this was his own idea or someone suggested it to him I don't know, but while he was at it he also wanted to slaughter everyone of slavic ethnicity.
I think it was called Lebensraum.

Umm no.

Hitler didn't give a *** about "his people", he just said whatever would get people to support him. He said a bunch of *** just to motivate his war ravaged, economically depressed country into accepting very harsh conditions to support a military. After WWI the other nations of Europe force some very harsh war preparations onto Germany as punishment, Hitler wanted to end those permanently and reestablish the German Empire while he was at it. His primary direction was West Europe not Russia. The only reason Germany even bothered messing with the Russians was they believed them getting ready to invade, which would be a very bad thing for Germany.

From the German point of view, they didn't want to risk a fresh Russian military invading right after they had conquered Europe. So it was off to defeat Russia first, then conquer Europe.

Something else a lot of you don't really know, the persecution of the Jews had jack ***to do with WWII. Most Europeans hated the Jewish people, hell they still do, anyway so they made a great target to act as a scape goat. Germany's people were starving, impoverished and being pressed into work by the government, the government needed a good boogeyman to direct everyone's anger to and the Jew's made the perfect target. That whole "pure race" *** was just a political smokescreen to get people to support the German military and accept the harsh conditions imposed on them by the Third Reich.

I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong.

Lebensraum and Hitler

This truth isn't very public. Hitlers rise to power was because he turned around the economic depression killing Germans which was imposed on them after WW1. 6 million Germans were jobless and deaths from famine were rife. Hitler changed the monetary system and put jobs back into Germany, which is how they became more powerful. This is why people loved him. The west saw this as a major threat. This escalated to war with the west after much political arguments.
But in some ways as Saevel mentions, Europe should also be thanking Germany for stopping Russia.
Russia's intent was to take all of Europe. They had amassed a huge army. Germany's preemptive attack stopped the forcful takeover of communism.
As he also mentions the hate of Jews were Europe wide. It was to do with the power they had in the monetary systems. And the fact that the Jews made a deal with the allies against Germany economically in exchange for establishing isreal. The hate then spread to all Jews.

Omg thank you for mentioning the Africa and Italian campaigns. My grandfather fought in both, so I'm glad someone knows that those fronts existed

From what I remember, North Africa was one of the bloodier parts of the European theatre.

Read up on your history and stop taking political platforms at face value. Just because something was used to rouse nationalism to support a military doesn't mean it's an actual goal.

All too often people claim to know those goals without any evidence in support.

Umm those are two different continents... that's like saying the East Asian campaign was the bloodier part of the European Theater. Those were two very different locations with very different goals and strategies.

Africa was a huge diversion with the goal being to prevent the Allies from consolidating their military forces while Germany dealt with Russia and swept through Europe. It was messy because neither side could devote enough forces for a swift victory and just wanted to the other one off. Europe only looked quick because most of those countries had no modern military to speak of and just folded when Germany came through with their modern mechanized military. Really can't stress how utterly incapable most of the European military's were, and still are. They are a token force to parade around and make the population feel safe.

This, coming from a guy who is practically begging for more socialistic government programs? I mean sure, I agree with your statement here, but it just seems... out of place.

more ad hominem

It's pretty simple if people just look at the war. There has been a lot of work done to paint Hitler as some sort of crazy madman, but you don't get to where he was by being a crazy madman, you get there by being a cold calculating meticulous individual. He had some of the worlds best political military advisers in his inner circle and was able to galvanize a nation to support a military war machine far more capable then anything else in that region.

If any of that political *** was real, he wouldn't of invaded Russia and would of stopped at Poland. Instead he went straight for Russia with a smaller force sweeping through West Europe. There was no serious military force in East Europe to begin with.

Here is a map of the German Empire that their national ideology called for



Notice most of the military action was outside those boundaries.

North Africa was part of the European theatre. The forces fighting there were fighting over position to support or attack throughout the Mediterranean region. It was simply another front of the war, just like Western and Eastern Europe. The Pacific theater involved different players AND different goals.

What purpose in your narrative does calling North Africa a different theatre even serve?

Because it was. And it had different players and different goals.

The European theater was about capturing capitals and forcing countries to surrender to Germany. The African theater (the ENTIRE African theater not just the Northern part) was about dividing forces and forcing stalemates.

Now quick use your google foo to get out of this one. I'm sure you can bring something up about the Dutch and the African tribes involvement.

Either you don't read a thing I say or you're injecting your own bias into my words because I don't fit in a little box.

I am not even remotely begging for more socialist programs. I'm realistic about the socialist programs we already have and would prefer they worked better and benefited more people. If we're going to spend 800 billion a year on socialist programs and another 400 billion on programs that prop up corporations who couldn't exist without them, why wouldn't we cut back on waste and use the money to educate and improve quality of life for everyone?

We don't need bigger or smaller government, we need smarter and better government. Free of influence from private interests, limited in scope and power, and beholden to the will of the people. That's how it was designed, and it was designed well enough than nearly 100 other sovereign nations sprung up or restructured to mimic it.