[badidea]

Originally posted by vmarks:
So the photograph of Hitler breaking ground (making the first dig) of the Autobahn in 1933 is a fake?

So the fact that in the early days of constructing the Autobahn, Hitler used Jewish slave labor prior to moving to more efficient earth moving machines is a 'myth' ?

No, I actually said that Hitler never existed and WWII never happened!


...wait, are you saying that Hitler brought mankind on the moon?

[badidea]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know. It is kind of striking that the oldest Autobahnen (e.g. AB 6, AB 61) kind of point directly toward France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Holland in one direction, and Czechoslovakia in the other.

I noticed this ten years ago when I drove them. I had no idea that it was a German "myth."

Yeah, that's the part from my quote that I also wouldn't totally agree with! They sure forced to build those transportation ways for the war!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I think we should look back at history with a more perceptive eye. And that involves discussing the merits aswell as the flaws of any historical figure.

While I do agree on principle, I strongly suggest that you discuss that point with vmarks.

I'm sure he can enlighten you.

[vmarks]

You believe we should look at the merits of Hitler?

The discussion on that has been had, and the jury is back in. We know that Hitler was pure evil. The fact that he treated his dogs nicely or 'made the trains run on time' does not change or mitigate his well-deserved reputation as pure evil.

There are few that rank as being as conclusively evil in the 20th century. Thankfully.

Certainly history is worth studying, and certainly Hitler's evil is worth exposing.

By suggesting you want to re-examine an evil that is without question conclusive and go looking for 'merits' is not that far from becoming an apologist.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by vmarks:
By suggesting you want to re-examine an evil that is without question conclusive and go looking for 'merits' is not that far from becoming an apologist.

My point exactly.

No, that may not be entirely rational, but for undotwa to expect to be able to discuss fascist dictators rationally with a German or a Jew is just silly.

(Excuse me for bringing you into that, vmarks.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You believe we should look at the merits of Hitler?

The discussion on that has been had, and the jury is back in. We know that Hitler was pure evil. The fact that he treated his dogs nicely or 'made the trains run on time' does not change or mitigate his well-deserved reputation as pure evil.

There are few that rank as being as conclusively evil in the 20th century. Thankfully.

Certainly history is worth studying, and certainly Hitler's evil is worth exposing.

By suggesting you want to re-examine an evil that is without question conclusive and go looking for 'merits' is not that far from becoming an apologist.

In principle I agree, but not because Hitler was a `particularly evil' dictator, but because all dictatorships are an obstacle to society's welfare.

I personally don't like the way Hitler is `simply' branded as pure evil, because people tend to forget that he was a human being. He was not made of pure evil, but flesh and blood. And as such, it doesn't take some evil entity to create a brutal, disgusting a dictatorship, but a fellow human being. It can happen again, that's why I think this should be kept in mind to prevent it from happening in the future.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
In principle I agree, but not because Hitler was a `particularly evil' dictator, but because all dictatorships are an obstacle to society's welfare.

I personally don't like the way Hitler is `simply' branded as pure evil, because people tend to forget that he was a human being. He was not made of pure evil, but flesh and blood. And as such, it doesn't take some evil entity to create a brutal, disgusting a dictatorship, but a fellow human being. It can happen again, that's why I think this should be kept in mind to prevent it from happening in the future.

We agree overall but differ on the details.

Perhaps 'pure evil' is a problematic description, but here's why I used it:

We can make the distinction between people who do evil things and people who are become evil things.

Hitler was a particularly evil dictator, more than other dictators. He was not simply an "obstacle to society's welfare," and if we have to squeeze and contort the action of literally railroading people to fiery mass death in order to label it a mere "obstacle to society's welfare," then we're abusing both history and the language.

As you say,

"this should be kept in mind to prevent it from happening again in the future."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmarks:
We agree overall but differ on the details.

Perhaps 'pure evil' is a problematic description,

Here you go:

Evil: When I have the map, I will be free, and the world will be different, because I have understanding.


Robert: Understanding of what, master?


Evil: Digital watches. And soon I will have understanding of videocassette recorders and car telephones. And when I have understanding of them, I shall have understanding of computers. And when I have understanding of computers, I shall be the Supreme Being! God isn't interested in technology. He knows nothing of the potential of the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time: forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men!


Robert: Slugs.


Evil: Slugs! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't operate machinery. If I were creating the world, I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would've started with lasers, eight o'clock, day one.

And of course, the question is why?

Supreme Being: You might as well say, Why do we have to have evil?


Randall: Oh, we wouldn't dream of asking a question like that, sir.


Kevin: Yes, why do we have to have evil?


Supreme Being: Ah, I think it's something to do with free will.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
My point exactly.

No, that may not be entirely rational, but for undotwa to expect to be able to discuss fascist dictators rationally with a German or a Jew is just silly.

(Excuse me for bringing you into that, vmarks.)

I'll end this stupid discussion of fascist dictators now. Poof! It now never happened!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
We agree overall but differ on the details.

Perhaps 'pure evil' is a problematic description, but here's why I used it:

We can make the distinction between people who do evil things and people who are become evil things.

Hitler was a particularly evil dictator, more than other dictators. He was not simply an "obstacle to society's welfare," and if we have to squeeze and contort the action of literally railroading people to fiery mass death in order to label it a mere "obstacle to society's welfare," then we're abusing both history and the language.

As you say,

"this should be kept in mind to prevent it from happening again in the future."

Yup, I know what you mean. It's just that this `simply evil' perspective is prevalent in Germany today (the reason is obvious: generation 68 is in charge now, which had to fight against Nazi remnants everywhere: at courts, in the police, public offices, etc.). So they have a rather allergic attitude towards the topic.

I personally feel that my generation feels differently about everything, since we don't have to ask our parents if and how they were involved and what they did. The discussion is led differently, although people from other generations tend to find my generation's way of talking about it unacceptable.

They usually use the `pure evil' way of talking.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I personally don't like the way Hitler is `simply' branded as pure evil, because people tend to forget that he was a human being. He was not made of pure evil, but flesh and blood. And as such, it doesn't take some evil entity to create a brutal, disgusting a dictatorship, but a fellow human being. It can happen again, that's why I think this should be kept in mind to prevent it from happening in the future.

I am convinced Hitler was a possessed man. I don't think he knows why he even did the things he did.

[Big Mac]

This thread contained a very interesting discourse on Europe's acceptance of Turkey, which has again come to the fore in recent days. After reviewing the posts I more fully comprehend the controversy involved herein. I empathize with the passionate opposition articulated by some Europeans, but I can also appreciate the strong desire of Turkey to integrate. I must say that I am surprised by France's opposition to the expansion, particularly as it relates to the religious angle.

[vexborg]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It was one of your last sentences: `We do not need EU (sic!). I hope we will not join the EU.'

Well, that was actually a sentence from LiquidSnake...

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by vexborg

Well, that was actually a sentence from LiquidSnake...

OreoCookie is known to skim and post. As opposed to read, comprehend, post. Nothing personal, I've just had long posting sessions debating with him where it was painfully obvious he just skimmed my posts or just read whatever he liked out of them.

A fine moderator but a lousy debater.

[REB3L]

Like someone said above, I hope that cunning English diplomacy can bring about the acceptance of Turkey into the EU, in order to put a stop to this idea of a single European country. Europe has not turned a new page. European countries will continue to be suspicious of one another and rightly so; treachery has been a persistent feature of European relations right down through the centuries. If Turkey joins, any hopes of the EU becoming a superstate will be dashed, and the union can go back to being economic rather than political.

Hopefully though we can keep the license plates!

|
|
V

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by REB3L

If Turkey joins, any hopes of the EU becoming a superstate will be dashed, and the union can go back to being economic rather than political.

To a point, I agree. I think the consequences will be more severe than just changing the Union to an economic one. It will spell the end of it. The EU will split and the idea will die.

That is one of the main reasons Turkey must never join the European Union.

[REB3L]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

To a point, I agree. I think the consequences will be more severe than just changing the Union to an economic one. It will spell the end of it. The EU will split and the idea will die.

That is one of the main reasons Turkey must never join the European Union.

Now that I think about it, Turkey doesn't even need to join the EU in order to disrupt the union. At best, Turkish membership is 15-20 years away, but the very notion of such a thing is one of the main forces behind the growing euroscepticism in charter countries. Even France is likely to vote down the constitution in the upcoming referendum. As charter countries like France and Holland begin to fully understand the consequences of deferring their sovereignty to Brussels, they will start to back-pedal.

In my opinion though, the biggest conflict within the EU is not the West v Turkey or Rich Nations v Poor Nations; the biggest conflict is England versus France. Up until now, France has shaped the EU largely in its image, but now England wants to continue eastward expansion, create a "two-speed" Europe, and turn it back into an economic union. These are the guiding principles behind England's participation in the EU. What we face now is just a continuation of an old story: England and France vying for supremacy in Europe.

[Weyland-Yutani]

You put it so dramatically

I have never noticed this England vs. France complex from anyone except English people. Maybe you should tell France you are fighting them?

This isn't a fight, this is about co-operation. This is about what countries *can* work together for their greater good and what countries would just get in the way. United we stand, divided we fall and all that.

Expanding the EU into Turkey isn't expanding it into Eastern Europe - we're already there. It is expanding it into the Middle East.

[REB3L]

Oh I think the French know something is up! One of the main arguments against the EU constitution in France is that it has been crafted by the sly, mean spirited English, and it will result in the creation of an "ultra-liberal" capitalist EU.

All of this is really quite ridiculous though when you consider that the English oppose the Constitution on the grounds that it is a plot to hand over sovereignty to French bureaucrats.

The lesson here is that neither the English public nor the French public know what is going on with the Constitution, but they don't trust it!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by REB3L

Now that I think about it, Turkey doesn't even need to join the EU in order to disrupt the union. At best, Turkish membership is 15-20 years away, but the very notion of such a thing is one of the main forces behind the growing euroscepticism in charter countries. Even France is likely to vote down the constitution in the upcoming referendum. As charter countries like France and Holland begin to fully understand the consequences of deferring their sovereignty to Brussels, they will start to back-pedal.

In my opinion though, the biggest conflict within the EU is not the West v Turkey or Rich Nations v Poor Nations; the biggest conflict is England versus France. Up until now, France has shaped the EU largely in its image, but now England wants to continue eastward expansion, create a "two-speed" Europe, and turn it back into an economic union. These are the guiding principles behind England's participation in the EU. What we face now is just a continuation of an old story: England and France vying for supremacy in Europe.

At least judging from how the EU turned out, France seems to have the upper hand. I don't mean to nag you with that, because it often is a problem for Germany as well. Anyhow, I don't think you can describe the history of the EU as the struggle of the two old foes England and France, I would rather say England vs. `the continent'. I guess it's not coincidental that my British friends used continent and Europe synonymously

The different models of EU integration -- Europe of different speeds, a core Europe with a strong degree of integration with other countries slowly following suit, etc. were (and are) already discussed on a scientific level (heard some lectures about that). So this development is nothing new and unexpected. Practically, we already do have a clearly partitioned Europe: those countries which are also in the monetary union and the rest. I'm fine with a Europe of different speeds so the Brits will join later, no problem with that.

Originally Posted by REB3L

Oh I think the French know something is up! One of the main arguments against the EU constitution in France is that it has been crafted by the sly, mean spirited English, and it will result in the creation of an "ultra-liberal" capitalist EU.

All of this is really quite ridiculous though when you consider that the English oppose the Constitution on the grounds that it is a plot to hand over sovereignty to French bureaucrats.

The lesson here is that neither the English public nor the French public know what is going on with the Constitution, but they don't trust it!

Well, you need to understand the very different cultures and political as well as philosophical ideas before making such a blunt comment. The EU constitution is a bastard child of very, very different ideas. France is a very centralized country (as is the UK AFAIK) whereas Germany's states on the other hand have a strong position in the constitution. The UK based its economic system on its colonies for centuries, renamed it Commonwealth (nice euphemism ), and lack a written constitution. The list goes on and on, but you see my point -- different country, different ideas of how things should be. (Small countries vs. big countries, newcomers vs. older members, ...)

In this sense, it is a very generic compromise and France's concerns need to be taken as seriously as yours.

I do agree however that the people need to be involved a lot more and a lot more directly. It's one of the short-comings of the current EU, it's inherently un-democratic. By far most of the decisions are not majority decisions, but unanimous ones. Important decisions are not made in the European Parliament, but behind closed doors by heads of governments.

There is no big discussion about the EU in the public, as (I feel) it should be. Then there would be better support among the public. Some of the contracts and treaties that are the backbone of the EU already have pretty much the legal rank of a constitution. If the proposed Constitution fails, the messy framework of several (sometimes incommensurate) treaties stays in effect.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vexborg

Well, that was actually a sentence from LiquidSnake...

The sentence was improperly quoted. It was bold instead of put in quotes.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The sentence was improperly quoted. It was bold instead of put in quotes.

Improperly quoted?

Maybe you should just actually read, comprehend and post and stop excusing youself?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Improperly quoted?

Maybe you should just actually read, comprehend and post and stop excusing youself?

Just because my opinion is not always the same as yours does not imply I merely skim through all the posts and give non-coherent replies.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Just because my opinion is not always the same as yours does not imply I merely skim through all the posts and give non-coherent replies.

Perhaps, perhaps

It sometimes feels that way, is all.

[REB3L]

Tell me about it.


Oreocookie- You seem to be disagreeing with everything I'm saying, and yet I don't know why! Europe is France writ large, we both agree, and England & France both have very different ideas about the future of the Union. We both agree on these points, so what is there to debate? Nothing!!

[Hawkeye_a]

Havent read the entire thread, but i'd like to say that....
Despite Turkey desperately wanting to join the EU and the EU considering it, i doubt it will ever happen. I think that region in general has seen quite a clash of civilizations throughout history. It would be rather rude for me to say it, but i think it has to be said.... there's quite a drastic difference in social order and conduct on either side of the border.(not saying one is better than the other...just different... and yes religion is a big part of it). There's major differences in laws(death penalty as an example), and other differences brought on by fundamental differences in cultures.
I dont think it would be far fetched for me to say there's a considerable amount of animosity in the region as well...much to do with the religion issue. Armenia, Albania, Cyprus, not to mention numerous wars over 'cultural'(religious) issues through history. The EU might have it's headquarters in Belgium(i think?), but the way the geography is laid out in the eastern mediterranean, i doubt the people on the EU side would want Turkey to become part of the EU, and vice versa to some extent.
Turkey wants to become part of the EU for obvious economic reasons, but lets face it, it's a muslim nation on the Asian land mass, with closer ties to it's neighbours in Asia(mid-east) than in Europe.
I have a few Turkish friends, great people, very hospitable, etc. But i dont think it would be a good decision to integrate Turkey into the EU, at least now.
It's obvious that when considering someone to join a group, they have to share the same views on society and outlook on the future at the very least....and its quite apparent that turkey and europe have had major differences, not just politically but even at the level of the individual.

Cheers.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by REB3L

Tell me about it.


Oreocookie- You seem to be disagreeing with everything I'm saying, and yet I don't know why! Europe is France writ large, we both agree, and England & France both have very different ideas about the future of the Union. We both agree on these points, so what is there to debate? Nothing!!

Because you claim the biggest conflict within Europe is the struggle for power between France and Britain, which is not true.

[REB3L]

I'm an history major, so I may be prone to interpret things in an historical context, but the conlicting views between France and England are consistent with what has been happening for hundreds of years. The two countries have always been switching back and forth as the most culturally influential countries in Europe. Up to this point, France has been, let's face it, the most important country in the EU. But now that les anglo-saxons are becoming more successful at implementing their plan for Europe, the French are back-pedalling and they are likely now to vote down the Constitution, throwing the future of the union into doubt.


Which brings me to my next point of discussion: what do you think will happen if the Constitution is voted down? I read an interesting article recently, claiming that the EU could be thrown into financial "chaos" if the French vote no, as they are likely to. It was predicted that investment in Europe could dramatically decline, bringing about another age of protectionism and stagnation. Honestly, I don't think this is true, stock markets don't like uncertainty, but I don't think "chaos" will follow if the Constitution isn't ratified. If it is rejected, I think politicians will all breath a sigh of relief, and things will continue as usual.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by REB3L

I'm an history major, so I may be prone to interpret things in an historical context, but the conlicting views between France and England are consistent with what has been happening for hundreds of years. The two countries have always been switching back and forth as the most culturally influential countries in Europe. Up to this point, France has been, let's face it, the most important country in the EU. But now that les anglo-saxons are becoming more successful at implementing their plan for Europe, the French are back-pedalling and they are likely now to vote down the Constitution, throwing the future of the union into doubt.

Which brings me to my next point of discussion: what do you think will happen if the Constitution is voted down? I read an interesting article recently, claiming that the EU could be thrown into financial "chaos" if the French vote no, as they are likely to. It was predicted that investment in Europe could dramatically decline, bringing about another age of protectionism and stagnation. Honestly, I don't think this is true, stock markets don't like uncertainty, but I don't think "chaos" will follow if the Constitution isn't ratified. If it is rejected, I think politicians will all breath a sigh of relief, and things will continue as usual.

Well, it's not quite consistant with what's happening for the last couple hundred of years. Several reasons. The most important reason is that the Britain back then (the no. 1 superpower basically due to its economic and military advantage) is not what Britain became, especially in the early to mid 20th century. Britain has been overtaken by Germany as industrial superpower, as was France. The #1 force on the continent was Germany (and the Germans failed to see that they were not a superpower yet, hence started and lost WW1). BTW, that was one of Thatcher's objections to Germany's reunification: the threat of a country that would be (is) clearly more powerful than Britain, and that it might become as powerful (relatively speaking) as it was.

Back in 2005, Germany's close relationship with France made it pretty much impossible to negotiate with just one of them. Germany even represented a joint French-German stance at some EU negotiations. So in this way, I don't think you can in most cases distinguish between Germany's and France's position in negotiations as they usually agree on a common position in advance. Even without such a union, I wouldn't simplify the current balance of power within the EU to that. Germany is still the largest net giver, #3 economy in the world and largest country (based on population), keeping it out of the equation would be nearsighted.

To your second question, it would clearly be a setback, but nevertheless, the EU wouldn't collapse. The existing patchwork framework would continue to exist, but decisions would be harder with 25 parties agreeing on something. And I don't think `politicians would sigh in relief', they tried for a long, long time to get this done, because they wanted to have a constitution and Europe needs a constitution (it needs something more consistant to replace the patchwork). For me, it is even a miracle that these things happen.