It's important to realize that while Germany went throughout an extensive period of "Denazification" after WW2, Austria did much less so.

This process is probably the main reason even today Germans tend to be rather averse to warmongering and nationalism. It's only been a few years since Germans have become comfortable with publicly displaying German flags in support of German sports teams again -- the phenomenon was so strange to us Germans that it actually gathered a lot of media attention within Germany.

I'd even go so far as to say that the differemce om Denazification in the American zone compared to the Soviet zone is one of the reasons far-right parties are doing better in former East Germany than in former West Germany to this day (although the economical consequences of the fall of the German Democratic Republic and the lower population density likely play a bigger role).

While Austria was subject to Denazification its role has always been seen as more of a conspirator: it wasn't Austria that created the Third Reich, Germany annexed Austria and made them subject to the Third Reich. That Hitler himself was Austrian is treated as nothing more than an interesting factoid -- after all his rise to power started in Munich, which is in Germany (or at least Bavaria -- which btw has been politically dominated by the right-of-center Christian Social Union for decades) after all.

As a German I can't possibly say what Austrians think of their role in the Third Reich but from a German perspective it seems to boil down to "that thing Germany did and got us involved in". There certainly doesn't seem to be the same level of cultural guilt and political paranoia.

So? Doesn't mean they plan a genocide or aggressive expansionist policies... Japan has been doing something similar for years, only there it's apparently not called "right-wing politics"

"Right-wing identity politics" does not automatically equate to genocide or expansionism. However, historically, nationalistic states usually exhibit a widespread "if you're not one of us, then you're at best a nuisance" attitude. Mid-20th-century Germany, Japan, and Italy are just the most obvious examples.

Lebensraum was about unifying a diaspora of German speaking people into one collective country.

These people want racially based geopolitical partitioning. The ones with a diaspora and victimhood narrative certainly advocate for an aggressive "homeland of the x people" where racist law keeps it that way.

TOOT-TOOT! Fact-checking police: (...)Lebensraum was an ideological element of Nazism, which advocated Germany's territorial expansion into Eastern Europe(...) As the very name says - "living space"

You seem to be correct!

My mistake! I know what I described was a Nazi policy but after reading wikipedia, Lebensraum wasn't the name of it.

Thank you for the education and correction

Since when was planning genocide a pre-requisite to be considered right-wing?

We're not talking about possible genocide or expansionism, I was simply responding to:

> The "moving to the right" analysis is wrong both in Europa and in the US.

As for Japan, Shinzo Abe and his Liberal Democratic Party are widely regarded as nationalist/center-right/right both within Japan and without. There's nothing controversial about this characterisation.

The unified Europe was originally a nazi idea. Can we please move the intellectual level up a bit?

The European Union was pretty much created to prevent Germany from starting another war (or more generally: to maintain peace in Europe).

The nazis wanted to "unify" Europe only in the sense that they wanted to annex all European nations and exert unlimited control over them. They weren't interested in creating a European identity, they merely wanted Germans to rule all of Europe (but not make Europeans Germans -- after all Europe was full of untermenschen they wanted nothing to do with).

In other words "unifying Europe" under the doctrine of Lebensraum basically meant conquering more territory for Germans to settle (and enslaving, deporting or exterminating the local population as necessary). Unless you're saying the EU wants to literally do that, the comparison is hyperbolic at best (and defamatory at worst).

Yes you are completely right. It wasn't meant as a serious argument. It was a reaction just as silly as then one it was answering.

You say that, but I've seen this argument presented as serious criticism of the EU before, so Poe's law aside I guess it's worth refuting.

Yes I have seen that to. Just as I have seen serious arguments trying to turn current voters for right-wing companies into nazis.

Thats what I was reacting to by putting just as ridicules a claim out there.

"Originally a nazi idea"? ROFL. Just to pick a previous example, what about Napoleon?

Sure Napoleon too. And there were other parties before the parties we talk about here proposing the same things.

The point of of course is that if that is was nazist is the argument, completely ignoring the current context and reality then it's not really worthy of anything but equally retarded attempts to morally paint something s you don't have to actually make a case.

Maybe I completely misunderstood you then... were you writing against the argument that uniting Europe was "Originally a nazi idea"?

I was writing against the argument of trying to use Nazism in the argument we have here. Which someone tried his way with.

Of course it's true that the Nazis wanted something very close to the EU. It's been used by many opponents of the EU as an argument against it.

But of course it's a retarded way to argue because the current EU is not founded on nazism or nazist ideas.

My main thesis was that most political analysts are wrong in their attempt to make the increasing popularity of the right wing parties a question of racism, fascism etc.

Many of the parties originally gained their support with some of these voters but they have since then mostly developed into being simply National Conservatives.

And so their voters are not so much voting as racist but as skeptics when it comes to immigration especially from countries that are culturally far from their own.

They fear that a continued influx will destroy the culture and their nation. They just want to be left a lone so to speak.

Thats a very different sentiment than the nazis looking out for a specific race to exterminate.

There is one nagging thread remaining: the theme that ones' own culture is elevated over all others, and deserving of first-class treatment. As an American, with neighbors and friends from all over the globe making my culture a mixing pot of music, food, work ethic, church and leisure, I am always puzzled by the European idea that somehow their culture will be destroyed by letting new neighbors live in their city. A century and a half after being settled our local cities all have strong cultural identities with their ancestral pioneering families. From city-wide events, to cultural centers and musical venues, to celebrations of food traditions. I can sample all this because I live among folks from all over the world. Without threatening my own history.

Thats because Europe have a very different system for supporting immigration.

In the US it's up to you to basically take care of yourself from day one.

in the EU you benefit from the social welfaresystem from day one.

In Europe you are made a patient so to speak, in the US you are made a provider. Europe doesn't have millions of people living their under the radar participating in the economy. Instead most immigrants and refugees gets paid by the system.

Further more the US is a big big big continent. Europe isn't yet it has more people than the US.

So this is not about being afraid this is about the rate, the quantity and the cultural change.

I read somewhere that this different means that the US get the 80% most self-sufficient immigrants while EU gets the 80% least self-sufficient immigrants which make sense when you think about the very different demand the US puts on your for self-sustaining your life.

> the theme that ones' own culture is elevated over all others, and deserving of first-class treatment

Isn't this one of the themes that make Trump such a successful candidate in the USA right now? There are people who have that have that attitude in Europe and the US (and, I guess, everywhere). Unfortunately, that attitude is on the rise both here and there, AFAIK.

I get that you're not a native speaker so you're probably not doing this intentionally, but casually throwing around the word "retarded" can sound offensive and juvenile, and will certainly discourage people from engaging with your arguments in good faith.

I am well aware of the meaning of the word.

In the original argument you made and which I was answering were trying to make connection between people who vote for right wing parties and nazism.

I am saying that both are retarded argument. Both the one I am responding to which you made and the one I am making.

I am only making it to show how absurd kind of argument it is that you are making.

Call it what you want.

> Of course it's true that the Nazis wanted something very close to the EU

Even that isn't remotely true. The Nazis wanted an empire based on military conquest, with the imposition of the will of the "superior Arian race" on the other "inferior races"; the territories where those inferior races lived should have been colonized by Germans (lebensraum) and the original inhabitants should have become slaves, be relocated elsewhere, or just be exterminated.

Can you tell me which part of this is close to the EU?

There is nothing in nazism that is about unifying the EU, just as there is nothing in right-wing skepticism that is about a superior race.

Thats the point. Just like the fact that the nazis did have a dream of a unified europe also politically doesn't have anything to do with the EU we see today, the fact that some right wing party was started by someone with nazi sympathy does not mean thats why people vote for them today.

I don't know how to make the argument much clearer to you.

The technique of assuming a point prior to actually establishing it, is a cheap one. It's also transparent.

Please read the context it was made in.

I am not assuming anything. I am simply providing an argument just as silly as the one I am responding to show how useless that line of argumentation is.