In 1939 it was the Poles who wanted to govern themselves and keep out foreigners, but now people who want their countries to keep out foreigners and govern themselves are considered Nazis.
It's almost as if the left had changed sides.
Though, in fact, during the invasion of Poland the far left were on the side of the Nazis.
The Nazis were, I suppose, nothing if not globalists.
It's like Alice Through the Looking-Glass.
It's almost as if the left had changed sides.
Though, in fact, during the invasion of Poland the far left were on the side of the Nazis.
The Nazis were, I suppose, nothing if not globalists.
It's like Alice Through the Looking-Glass.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Globalism and National Socialism are diametric opposites. That’s why you see countless movies, books, novels and documentaries about Nazi crimes (real or imagined) while next to nothing about Communist ones.
ReplyDeleteYes you are making a very good point. I should instead have said that Nazis certainly did not respect national boundaries or the rights of sovereign states or other nations.
DeleteOn the other hand I went to Google and immediately found this definition of globalist, which does seem to include Nazis.
"a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.
a person or organization advocating or practicing operations across national divisions.
Seeing Nazis as nationalists, Timothy Snyder argued in a recent book, is misleading. De Valera and General Franco were nationalists but Hitler was something rather different. Professor Snyder calls him a racial anarchist.
The Nazis were, I suppose, nothing if not globalists.
ReplyDeleteTheir idea of globalism was uncannily similar to the modern American political establishment's view. In both cases globalism actually means empire. The Nazis wanted a German Empire spanning most of Europe. The American political establishment wants an American Empire spanning the globe. Globalism is just a nicer word for imperialism.
I am in favour of imperialism and so should you be as an Australian. Particularly a politically incorrect one. I am in favour of the Hapsburg and British empires but even the Ottoman empire had its points. Tsarist Russia saved part of Armenia - what a pity that Turkey grabbed back the area around Kars.
DeleteThey are without power. Moreover, the relevant species of political power - terror, seems to have been distracted into greater pursuits.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that in 1939 Poles wanted to keep foreigners out? Please bear in mind that I am not questioning your assertion that Poles wanted to govern themselves.
ReplyDeleteI meant they wanted to keep the German army and German invaders out. They did not want to expel their large German population.
DeleteKeeping invaders out does not make a gaovernment orientation anti-imigration. Everyone presented with imminent invasion becomes invaders freak reagdeles of how liberal is. Invasion is an existential treat. Invasion qualifies as force majeure, if you wanted. Your argument premises is a slippery slope falacy.
DeleteKeeping invaders out does not make Poles government imigration freaks. Invasion is existential, is force majeure if you wish. Your argument is what is called a slippery slope argument in the sense that a ludricous consequence i.e. keeping out foreigners (which in fact should be interpreted as keeping out invaders) is associated, in your argument, with a rather out-of-the context, out-of-proportion, no proof feature of the Poles government i.e. being anti-imigration. I'm saying that defending against invaders does not make one being anti-imigration. On the other hand, the nazis were trying to portray the imigration as invasion, weren't they? Now my point is that, apparently you might be the one who sees invasion as a consequence of imigration, as the nazis, which is OK for humanity and for you if you wish to believe that. Neverthelss the fact that your argument does not hold water does not make me a Leftie, but might make you a nazi. And I am aware that I should use capital letter to spell nazi, but Ive chosen not to.
DeletePoland was very multiracial in 1939 but did not want to be part of an empire run by Berlin.
DeleteBut this discussion is pointless.
DeleteYes, indeed. It’s little known now that from the beginning of the Second World War until June 1941 the British trade unions resisted the war effort, as (with some justification) they looked on Hitler as an ally of Stalin, who was their hero. It all changed when Hitler deeply shocked them by attacking the USSR. Then he became the enemy.
ReplyDeleteYou are talking about Communist trade unionists. Most unionists were patriotic though I think at least one strike did take place in the war. The Nazi treatment of trade unions made unionists particularly opposed to the Nazis but Labour was in any case patriotic. Michael Foot etc blamed the Tories for appeasement. Atlee prevented the cabinet agreeing to putting out feelers to Germany after the fall of France as Halifax suggested.
DeleteI think Communists were much more powerful in the 1970s but I have not researched this.
'So when you think about, whenever we use the word "nationalism" the first think people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler had just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine.
ReplyDelete"The problem is, is that he wanted – he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize, he wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German.'
Candace Owens talking to congressional committee about white nationalism this week.