Far-right parties rattled the traditional powers in the European Union and made major gains in parliamentary elections Sunday, dealing an especially humiliating defeat to French President Emmanuel Macron.
On a night where the 27-member bloc palpably shifted to the right, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni more than doubled her seats in the EU parliament. And even if the Alternative for Germany extreme right party was hounded by scandal involving candidates, it still rallied enough seats to sweep past the slumping Social Democrats of Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Sensing a threat from the far right, the Christian Democrats of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had already shifted further to the right on migration and climate ahead of the elections — and were rewarded by remaining by far the biggest group in the 720-seat European Parliament and de facto brokers of the ever expanding powers of the legislature.
The same is true now and the same was true for WW2, perception of reality is much different than reality. Your not making the point your thinking you are, we’ve literally never lived in a safer world and you’d think that aren’t true given the far rights screeching about jobs and crime.
Correct, the right wasn’t happy about that weren’t they? Similarly Germany WW1 and Germany ww2 are quite literally the poster children of far right nationalism given that their sole reason for entering the war was to rid themselves of their neighbors and gain territory.
Unintended? All these people were writing letters to each other pantomiming their intentions, like 90% were family Members and the rest might as well have been.
Perception is much different from reality. It’s true, but not how you think. You are perceiving, or at least trying to portray, the causes of WW2 as similar to WW1. But in reality they can’t be shoehorned into your framework.
Again, the left, not the right, was ascendant in that period. The left was in control of the German and French parliaments. The left was on its way to overthrow the government of Russia. After the assassination of a leftist leader, the Second International, a leftist organization, made pro-war statements. This was immediately followed by the entry of France and other countries into the war. The right as we know it did not exist yet.
Immigration was not a major concern in Europe in the period before WW1. People were not immigrating to Europe. If anything, they were emigrating from Europe to America.
Germany and other countries were not scheming to gain territory. The geopolitics of the time were aimed at containment, not expansion. The goal was to preserve the balance of power. This was supposed to be achieved by a network of alliances that would deter war. If you must draw an analogy, the politics of the time were far closer to the nuclear detente in the 1970s between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Finally, Germany entered the war because they were obligated by treaty, just as America would have been dragged into a war if someone had invaded Portugal in 1970. Kaiser Wilhelm was notoriously uninterested in military affairs, and he realized almost immediately that war would be pointless. Hence his lack of involvement in Germany’s war effort, earning him the nickname “Shadow Kaiser”.
They are, you’ve as of yet not offered a single shred of evidence otherwise aside from your opinion. Cite it, I’m referring to Dan Carlins vast commentary on both WW1 and WW2.
“Left” you know the left that supported Germany’s colonial efforts… The left that supported excluding polish immigrants… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelminism Don’t confuse winning an election with winning the population. Biden won, the rise of right wing christofascism is still accelerating because they’re two separate things.
Yeah except all the contemporary compliants and attempts to expel polish people in germany…
Sounds like it wasn’t an issue huh?
Germany was literally caught scheming to gain territory, it’s historical record. There’s quite literally no good faith argument about it.
Sure, that doesn’t change my point or strengthen yours. It’s just information for informations sake.
Please provide a single reference once ever.
I think you’re confused. Prussia had annexed regions of Poland in the 18th century. The Poles in question were born there. They weren’t immigrants, just as Native Americans and Hawaiians are not immigrants.
Yes, the “left” that supported organized labor and opposed capital. Which was the original goal of leftism. In Germany, the left was led by August Bebel who was described as a “model worker’s leader” by none other than Vladimir Lenin.
Anti-colonialism is a relatively new project for leftists. Old school leftists, including Marx, defended colonialism as a necessary step from feudalism to communism. Marx himself described the colonization of India as a “tool of history” in ending the “Oriental despotism” of the caste system and other “traditional rules”:
Yes yes, let’s exclude the evidence showing you’re not correct. Similarly native Americans were considered immigrants not entitled to us citizenship. Do you not remember the whole “they’re savages” let’s exterminate them thing?
No you’re simply confusing left leaning with left and taking a weirdly myopic view based on that.
Wrong again, marx said it was necessary for capitalism and benefited the world. That doesn’t imply support it just didn’t imply vehement distaste.
Non-citizen and immigrant are not the same. Plenty of immigrants are citizens. In fact, the opposite of “immigrant” is … “native”.
The next time you meet a Native American, tell them they are considered immigrants. Please post their reaction on YouTube, your video will surely go viral.
Explain that to the American nativist movement created by immigrant occupiers, you say these things from ignorance of history my friend.
I am native boss.
Then you should easily be able to find a quote by someone in that movement referring to Native Americans as immigrants.
They call them savages, they’d have to consider them people to consider them immigrants but give me a minute I’m sure someone somewhere said it.
Similarly, look at you demanding evidence but providing none.