The EU is violating Godwin's law, notes Mark Steyn, in their rush to ram the new EU constitution through, claiming that without a unified Europe the concentration camps are just around the corner.

That is a particularly bad analogy, I think, because the Holocaust happened under a Europe newly unified under the Third Reich. There was no Holocaust in Switzerland, nor in England. I suspect, although I don't know this for sure, that even Jews under Mussolini had much less to fear than they did in occupied Poland.

EUcrats might point to the devastation of WWI as an example of rampant suspicion and security dilemmas piling up in a fragmented and militarized Europe. But the Holocaust happened within a Europe without national firewalls--firewalls the new Constitution will bring down.

Posted by: seedubya at 12:04 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I already told you weeks ago that EU is the Fourth Reich.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 03:15 AM (cWMi4)

2 What's the big deal with the constitution anyway? Just the laws of Finland and Sweden with slightly reduced jailtime and without isolation chambers. If they're not willing to submit to the Finno-Swede law, the norsemen shall sail south once more. And there was Holocaust in Switzerland as well, but since they are neutral, they didn't do anything to stop it and the Germans just took what they wanted and left. The English Holocaust started before Hitler became Führer. The English Holocaust is the reason why Israel was created. They told all the Jews in their country, and in all other countries that hated them, to go there.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 04:12 AM (cWMi4)

3 A litle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Posted by: traderrob at May 25, 2005 06:27 AM (3al54)

4 How was Third Reich not a firewalled, militarized Europe of rampant suspicion and security dilemmas piling up? Countries can keep their firewalls towards people who aren't from a country directly next to them, and the new EU-memberlandpopulation can't migrate at all (except Estonians) for 5 or 10 years, because they are poor people un-Sovieted only about 15 years ago.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 06:41 AM (cWMi4)

5 traderrob can't be over 12 or from a English speaking country, he misspelled little as 'litle'.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 06:43 AM (cWMi4)

6 oooooooh. Or then he has a hangover, is not a morning person or hasn't got enough brains to process this extremely easy and simple form of communication of writing in English.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 06:47 AM (cWMi4)

7 At least he knows history, unlike some Finnish punk who thought that 9/11 was pleasing.

Posted by: Defense Guy at May 25, 2005 08:09 AM (lVjfM)

8 I think this whole EU constitution is a joke. Even if it is passed it's not going to have any teeth in it. As an analogy I own a bar but I rent the building. The landlord has threatened me for over 10 years that he's going to sell it, problem is there are 14 same size lots surrounding the bar (the building is worthless without these lots) that are owned by 11 different people. So far we have had Walgreens, Petsmart, and JP Morgan Chase inquire about the property over the years. They could never get all 11 to agree on a price. So, how the hell are these dozen or so countries going to agree with everything?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 25, 2005 08:35 AM (xkIHW)

9 Simple. They are forced to do that by denying financial and economic support if they don't do as they are told. They also lose entrance to European markets for their countrys products.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 09:34 AM (lGolT)

10 It's really like this: Three or four big ones with a long history of imperialism make decisions, those who don't agree often enough don't get as much support the next year. Finland basically ignores everything pretty much always, since most of the decisions have absolutely nothing to do with the northern parts of Europe. They develop the east and south, and that's why their efforts and annoying changes are on southern and eastern parts of EU and those already doing fine get to sit back and relax and get pretty much the support they pay to the EU.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 09:38 AM (lGolT)

11 Oh, and might I say every country teaches history differently due to the different point of view, so of course my history is different than yours and your history seems ridiculous, way too westviewed and minorityfavoring.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 09:40 AM (lGolT)

12 Finn, Of course is different depending on the point of view. That is why it is called His story.

Posted by: Butch at May 25, 2005 10:26 AM (Gqhi9)

13 Oh well, we have a great saying for this in Finland, "Joka vanhoja muistelee, sitä tikulla silmään", roughly translated: Stop yammering about the past or I'll poke yer eye out.

Posted by: A Finn at May 25, 2005 11:23 AM (lGolT)

14 See-Dubya your almost right on Jews in Italy. Though Mussolini had anti-Jewish laws, the government he presided over tried to smuggle Jews from occupied Europe away from hitler. What I suspect is that a Jew would rather pick Mussolini's Italy over the france of today where ethnic hatred runs deep (btw france during WWII not only capituated faster then gang-banged Poland, it readily offered it's Jews/Gypsies/any race the reich considered "sub-human")

Posted by: AF_ROTCer at May 25, 2005 11:31 PM (5Wo0D)

15 Yeah, dem Frenchies really took advantage of Hitlers plans to solve their unemployment and immigration problems.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 03:00 AM (cWMi4)

16 Wonder why they couldn't even defend for a month. Usually wars with France last a long time before they give up or get a God-appointed leader to save them.

Posted by: A Finn at May 26, 2005 03:49 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment