Responses: The Totalitarian Founders of the E.U.
Some of the postings follow the usual pattern witnessed here in the UK. The fanatical Europhiles just hurl abuse. Some more intelligent critics get things wrong by relying on established, politically controlled, or popular sources, which are incomplete.
Regarding my alleged Germanophobia (the classic ad hominem attack): I taught at a German school for a year before graduating, and then taught at the University of Mainz for six years in the 1970s. I voluntarily organised many courses in England for German students and ran a folk club for German students in Mainz. I have had many good friends from all over Germany for decades. On the Freenations website I founded in 1994 we regularly translate and publish the work of our German journalist friends.
Those who criticize the Vatican are described as “anti-Catholic” even when they are Catholics; those who criticise Israel are “antisemitic” even when they are Jews; and likewise those who attack the imperial activities of the German state are “Germanophobe” even when they are Germans . . . etc.
As for the claim that the EU’s Charlemagne Prize was not founded by the Nazis: It was, in the early 1940s, in praise of the “Unifier of the German Tribes.” It was taken up anew in 1949 with Charlemagne portrayed as the “Unifier of Europe,” principally through the efforts of the Aachen textile merchant, Kurt Pfeiffer, who had previously been a member of the Nazi Party and of five other Nazi organisations.
The Aachen Professor of Philosophy, Peter Mennicken, had authoritative influence over the symbolism of the Charlemagne prize and the "liturgy" of its award ceremonies. Mennicken had taken over the professorship previously occupied by an expelled Jew. Mennicken had joined the SA (Storm Troopers) in 1933 and the Nazi Party in 1937. He had worked for two so-called "societies for (international) understanding" which were informal offshoots of the Nazi Propaganda Ministry, used for German propaganda in the Netherlands and Belgium.
As for the claim that the Federal Union of European Nationalities (Volksgruppen) was not of Nazi antisemitic origin: It was. The FUEV describes itself in its own material as the "Successor" of the well known Minority Movements of the 1930s, control of which by the Nazi government is historic fact. At the foundation of the FUEV in the 1950s the majority of the participants spoke German—they came from the German-Danish border area. Particularly well organised was the "Association of Germans of North Schleswig," the post-war organisation of that German speaking minority of which a quarter of the male members had been found guilty of betraying the country during the Nazi occupation of Denmark. This organisation owes its origins to Rudolf Stehr, the former leader of the Propaganda Department of the Nazi Party of North Schleswig and later chief of the Nazi "Ethnic Group office" in Copenhagen.
A second representative of the infamous Nazi "Ethnic Group" racism in North Schleswig belonged to the FUEV from the beginning: Hans Schmidt-Oxbull, who at the founding congress of the organisation made a speech laying out the principles and programme of the organisation. In the 1930s he had led the "struggle for the national socialist ideal, for Homeland and Germanness."
In 1950s Hans Joseph Graf Matuschka of the "European Union of Germany" succeeded in linking the FUEN to the German Foreign Office and the financial support of the German Government. As Consul for the Nazi Regime in Hungary he had promoted "Ethnic Groups" and spoke continuously after the war about "Ethnic Minorities." The legal theoretician of the FUEV was Felix Ermacora, who established publishing contacts in the field of ethnicity. His work "The Self Determination Idea" appeared in the Austrian Eckartschriften, an organ which saw itself as a "worthy memorial to the achievements of the Waffen SS" and the new foundation of the "biologically effective ancestral inheritance" of the "ethnic ancestral succession"
To emphasise the continuity of their "Minorities policy" the FUEV re-published their Nazi-era newspaper Nation and State under the title of Europa Ethnica. The publisher and author of several essays in this publication was Theodor Veiter, who in 1938 (in "National Autonomy") had written: "The Jews’ destructive questioning of even the highest human values shows that the Jews are excluded (because of their way of thinking which arises from their race) from the sphere of ethnic life enjoyed by other nations and for that reason should be isolated from other peoples."
Up to 1944 Nation and State promoted and justified the extermination of the Jews, the destruction of the sovereignty of the nations bordering Germany and the enslavement of their peoples.
One of the comments poured scorn on the post war influence of Walter Funk, on the grounds that he was imprisoned for war crimes until 1957. But if there is one document which precisely mirrors the 1957 structures of the new European Economic Community, it is the 1942 plan of Walter Funk (Economics Minister of the Reich responsible for the anti Jewish property laws of 1938) for a “European Economic Community.” The exact parallels are dealt with in my book Treason at Maastricht.
One commentator suggested that Churchill was a promoter of “British Socialism.” Churchill changed parties twice—from the Conservatives to the Liberals (over free trade in those days Liberal meant liberal!) and then back again to the Conservatives. He was never a “socialist,” althought he was associated with the introduction of early elements of a welfare state.
Finally one commentator claimed that my “speaking at the House of Commons” suggested I was speaking in the Chamber of the House. Of course speaking there is not possible unless the speaker is an MP. Equally, speaking in a Committee Room, as I did at the invitation of an MP, is a far more serious location—for it is in such rooms that the real business of democratic analysis and scrutiny is carried out!
For evidence of the exact replication of 1940s Fascist and Nazi ideologies and structures in modern day Europe see my books Europe’s Full Circle and Fascist Europe Rising. I would also recommend John Laughland’s book on the European Union The Tainted Source.
Entries(RSS)
It makes perfect sense that ex-Nazis and Fascists would join with the Marxists and other miserable sorts to found what became the EU. They come from the same root origins. As a matter of fact, didn't Hitler recruit many of his minions from the Communists? Why should anyone be surprised at what Mr Atkinson has written?
I wonder how the cultural Marxists factor into this? Were they there at the founding of the united Europe movement too, or did they move into it later?
I agree all the swine forget the greatness is in the smallness.
Orwellian story of the pig in the department store who walks up to the complaint desk. "Yes what is your complaint?" the clerk inquires.
Says the pig - "I want to be taller."
Moral: Pig doesn't know he's a pig. (of course he can't be trusted to be wise then either, sadly.) But NOW he's 'equal.'
________
(keeping this in the animal kingdom at first along with myself, happily...)
"People are super-monkies
because conscious now, yes -
Though predisposed [by mother Nature]
to belief
Even when thought is best."
_ you see the science is IN - more endorphins the brain's natural painkillers are released when people believe in whatever...which is good. Except, not so good, when thought is required. But thought releases less of the feel-good in a person in their personal-Now.
As humans, instead of just being aware like a monkey, we are also aware of being aware. Now we ought to attempt to consciously add to that - to be aware when BELIEF is good, yes very healthy mother Nature says and releases the most endorphins... However aware as well when we really ought to put on the thinking cap, since when in the arena of thought, coincidently enough thought is needed.
In arena for belief where the unknown or unknowable is concerned, great = BELIEVE
In the arena of the knowable where being aware of thought and refining it, great = Think (less endorphins released, but better long term outcome kids)
our Father's house has many mansions... no? Europe respect also your many mansions, kids, no? What are you 'stupid?' Just asking.
Let's just hope that proverbial History repeats itself often in a bizarre way. Previous leader of those pompous, profoundly disturbed "intellectuals" at the peak of their rule of madness was a self proclaimed universal genius. In fact, he was a pompous, inept fool. The very fact that they accepted him as a leader, honored and even worshiped, tells us enough about "depth" of their philosophy, courage and wisdom. Albert Spaer described this very well in his memoirs.
That was our luck, then. Cost was "only" some 50 million dead and a planet out of balance for few degrees thanks to various
"calculations" by major players with an eye fixed on gains in the aftermath.
At the moment we are witnessing situation which cannot be more similar to pretext of WWII.
It seems that Humanity doesn't mind encore presentation. Outcome can be also guessed pretty well. Ten years from now, majority of survivors will enjoy some fifty years of life they will see as peaceful prosperity. They will be thankful for all the peanuts available until nightmares fade away and their children become ready for yet another encore.
Before Britain joined fully the EU, I admonished my British friends to remember who their real friends were - America or Germany? Well they made their choice, let us hope for the best. Matt in Ohio.
Reminder:
Back in 90's Croatia became internationally recognized State despite symbols, actions and rhetorics of self proclaimed State from WWII sponsored and approved by Adolf Hitler. Details of that enterprise are well documented by many researchers on subject: "crimes against humanity".
In the same time "unification" of Europe had been postponed several times.
The very beginning of most recent chapter of Balkan Tragedy had been marked by massive effort of two British noblemen who tried to defuse the "situation". They were later replaced by various Scandinavians and yet later by some more "new Europeans" of common manner of capo's in conclagers.
We now know that initial British effort was cooled down by deal between Helmut Kohl and John Major apparently by promise of retention of special privileges to Britain in future Union.
So Britain finally got it I guess.
The Nazis also gave us high speed, limited access motorways aand affordable family oriented cars. Hitler was a vegetarian and liked dogs.
Strange this is it is that the reductio ad Hitlerum is being used by EU supporters as well. I can't count how many times I've heard some Brit europhile toff say 'referenda are the tool of dictators' . And Mr. Atkinson should lay of the ethnic groups, it is ethnic parties like Liga Norda and Vlaams Belang that are the most effective in fighting the EU.
It is a long time since I wrote my comments on Mr. Atkinson's original post (tasks related to a death in the family will put you off anything else). I see that his original post is no longer available, so I will have to remember it as best I can, where necessary for this post.
First, the comment about relying on "established, politically controlled or popular sources": I did say I "googled" over to established websites . . . and they, I admit, are popular, and undoubtedly controlled by their owners. And you have identified your sources (I guess I will have to buy one of your books: the title of one of them is intriguing ["Fascist Europe Rising"], because you and I may disagree about what Fascism is - but I do think that that "system" is rising, everywhere). Point made.
I agree that Germanophobia is not the right term to use when describing a person criticizing "the imperial activities of the German state." Nor would Anglophobia be the right term for someone criticizing the imperial activities of the English state. (However, I sometimes wish that the "free" states in the nether regions of the world were still controlled by their pre-WWI European colonial powers, because we would all be a helluva lot better off.) However, see my comment about a broad-brush below.
One thing that arrested me when I read your first post was the gratis inclusion of four quotes from Germans (I think) at the end, apropos of nothing, apparently (there was no direct tie to your subject). Fischer is of course a modern German leftist, the quotes with the anti-Semitic (do I remember this correctly?) tinge were tied to people you previously identified in your post, and the first quote was a remark made by Helmut Kohl, the former Chancellor of Germany (in the 1980s), to the effect that "Might is right, in politics as in war." I would bet that probably thousands of public figures have said that, or something similar, at one time. What was the point? Surely you don't believe Kohl was a Nazi; yes, he was in the German Army at the close of the war (as a 15-year old, when Germany induced/drafted/"shanghaied" its young into military service), but so was Helmut Schmidt, a prior Chancellor (my source: "Voices From the Third Reich", pgs. 487 and xiii), and, as I recall it, so was arguably one of the most powerful exponents of Western values today: Pope Benedict XVI (and I am not a Catholic). Simply, your "brush" (as presented in your original post) is too broad for me, sir!
But I do not retreat from the comment regarding Walter Funk. Davidson's book on the Nuremberg Trials is not a "popular, controlled" source. Davidson, author of several books on Germany and the Nazi experience, described, as I noted before, the severe restrictions imposed on ANY communication with the outside world for Nazi prisoner Walter Funk. Your statement was to the effect that Funk (here again, I must rely on my memory of your first post) was a "critical supporter" of the EU idea during the 1940s and 1950s. I cannot see how - even though he had some idea of a EU earlier - Funk could be a "critical supporter" of much of anything during the twelve years he sat, virtually incommunicado, in Spandau. Nazi bigwigs in prison did not during those days influence many people.
Finally, it was interesting to read that Churchill also supported a "United States of Europe" (pgs. 10-11, "Roosevelt and Stalin", by Robert Nisbet). Of course, he had no vision of England joining such an organization.