Geoffrey Roberts & RT: Some Comments by Your's Truly
An interview between RT and historian Geoffrey Roberts. My comments are in italics.
* * *
The political and economical crisis of the EU might help a new European Hitler to emerge, warns historian Geoffrey Roberts. He believes the current rise of ultra-nationalism in Europe resembles that one of 1930s as history tends to repeat itself. Professor Geoffrey Roberts sees the rise of extreme nationalism in Europe as a test for the whole international democratic concept – with no predictable results.
A quick look at Geoffrey Roberts' vita is enough to even have something as continually left-leaning as Wikipedia reveal Roberts' own leftwing point of view, including the accusation of him being too sympathetic to dictator Josif Stalin as well as a biased approach to Soviet era documents and data. The only reason I've decided to pull this into the spotlight is that experience has taught me to be extremely observant when someone who is clearly a left-winger tries to make authoritative statements about "nationalism". It's never without an agenda, and it rarely makes even an effort of using designations objectively. I should know, I'm subjective, too.
Still, Roberts is hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis because “the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII.”
RT: People from WWII are still alive and the memories of that war are fresh. The war could be a good lesson for all of us but we see the huge rise of nationalist right movements in Europe. What is to blame?
Geoffrey Roberts: The extreme ultra-nationalist movement in Europe is not a new phenomenon. Recently, the political influence of nationalism has been very strong; particularly the extreme force has grown in various countries of Europe. I think that has mostly to do with the economic and political problems that Europe is facing at the moment, which pose a dire threat to the whole future of the EU.
As time goes on, the war recedes from memory and becomes much more distant even, and the more time elapses, the more possibilities there are for people to present distorted accounts of the war. Partly, this development of extreme ultra-nationalism in Europe is explained by the distance from the war troubles. But it is not the main reason. The main one is contemporary politics and economics rather than history. That is not to say that history is not important because there are many history lessons that are relevant to the contemporary crisis.
Question: Where are these very strong ultra-nationalist movements with great influence on national politics? WHERE ARE THEY? SHOW ME! A rowdy fringe Greek party getting a single digit percentage of the Greek vote clearly doesn't fit the bill! The French Front National? The party's been competing for the presidency for decades and, as usual, has completely failed in the following parliamentary elections. So, name me these nationalistic groups with drive and great mass appeal!
RT: If the crisis in Europe is to last, will there be a rise of more nationalist sentiment?
GR: There is a great danger of that. If the eurozone collapses, if the EU collapses, the most likely scenario it would be replaced by different fronts of nationalists. Good question is what forms of nationalism, how extreme and dangerous they are going to be.
Well, thank you for your brilliant lack of explaining what you understand under the term "nationalism"! "[W]hat forms of nationalism", nice. And who are these nationalists going to be? You see, the problem is that most established truly extreme nationalist movements are thoroughly discredited as a bunch of fringe crackpots. Honestly, with the ongoing crisis - we're in year what? four? - we should have seen some noteable successes by the existing nationalist forces. But 7% in the Greek elections are the "best" these forces have had to offer so far, and there are no signs of any movement in any of the Eurozone's countries forming up to beat that number. If the Eurozone collapses all that'll happen is that after a few months of turmoil national currencies will re-emerge and the former floating exchange rate mechanism will be re-instated. Sorry, but a comparably wealthy and extremely demilitarized area like the Eurozone won't fall for a bunch of new incarnations of Hitler or Mussolini (or offer the conditions to make them dangers to their neighbors).
That is the historical lesson, what happened before WWII, particularly the 1930s when there was a crisis similar to the one we’re going through now. The result of that was the rise of extreme nationalism, the emergence of a number of authoritarian and Nazi-type regimes in Europe.
WRONG. Except for the Nazis themselves all these authoritarian governments and systems established themselves either directly after World War 1 or during the 1920s, which, given Roberts' economic-deterministic outlook shouldn't have been the case.
The historical lesson is the great danger of that development now. I don’t see this by any means inevitable. I think the difference between now and then is the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII. I’m not confident but I’m hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis.
RT: Do you think that a politician with anti-democratic views could rise to power through those democratic institutes?
GR: That’s exactly what happened in the case of Hitler. He did it. And that’s what happened in a number of other countries in Europe before and after WWII. It is a distinct possibility, a challenge that would be a test of Western democracy. Not just Western democracy, but European and international democracy. Can it actually survive the challenge of nationalism which thrives in conditions of economic collapse and political disorder?
And that's why most European countries have a necessary system of checks and balances.
RT: Could a sticking together of the united Europe work as a magic push against rise of nationalism?
GR: I don’t think it is a panacea, but I sincerely hope that the European Union doesn’t collapse. Because for all of its faults, the EU is much better than an ultra-nationalist alternative. Who knows what is going to happen? I think it is possible that the EU will survive and I hope it does.
While the European Union is better than a bunch of interwar Hungaries there's wee bit of a difference between the European nations returning to a pre-Masstricht treaty modus operandi - the LIKELY post-collapse development - and Roberts' amorphous "ultra-nationalist alternative", which is as vague as it is unlikely.
Okay, lets put things into perspective here. Extreme rightwing nationalists are dangerous. But so are all other kinds of political extremists: leftists, islamists, globalists. If that Greek party was politically smart it could play the long game and influence public opinion even with only single digit results by sinking its teeth into key positions in the media and education. The Greens did that very successfully in Germany, for example, but that takes time. Decades, usually. But aside from that small example I cannot see any mass nationalist movements on the horizon at the moment. The political presence of rightwing extremists is dominated by failure, by gaining a handful of seats in regional parliaments, by being outnumbered three to one at demonstrations by the leftwing radicals alone, let alone ordinary citizens. A new Hitler (himself a man with leftwing political origins) isn't coming anytime soon.
If I were Russian, I would actually be hoping that case as well because a collapse of the EU and the rise of extreme forms of nationalism in Europe could pose quite a significant challenge for Russia as well.
From whom would that challenge arise? The only one that could have the clout - economically, politically - to do so would be Germany. And I'm sorry to break it to you, Geoffrey: German "nationalists" are on really good terms with Russia...
* * *
The political and economical crisis of the EU might help a new European Hitler to emerge, warns historian Geoffrey Roberts. He believes the current rise of ultra-nationalism in Europe resembles that one of 1930s as history tends to repeat itself. Professor Geoffrey Roberts sees the rise of extreme nationalism in Europe as a test for the whole international democratic concept – with no predictable results.
A quick look at Geoffrey Roberts' vita is enough to even have something as continually left-leaning as Wikipedia reveal Roberts' own leftwing point of view, including the accusation of him being too sympathetic to dictator Josif Stalin as well as a biased approach to Soviet era documents and data. The only reason I've decided to pull this into the spotlight is that experience has taught me to be extremely observant when someone who is clearly a left-winger tries to make authoritative statements about "nationalism". It's never without an agenda, and it rarely makes even an effort of using designations objectively. I should know, I'm subjective, too.
Still, Roberts is hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis because “the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII.”
RT: People from WWII are still alive and the memories of that war are fresh. The war could be a good lesson for all of us but we see the huge rise of nationalist right movements in Europe. What is to blame?
Geoffrey Roberts: The extreme ultra-nationalist movement in Europe is not a new phenomenon. Recently, the political influence of nationalism has been very strong; particularly the extreme force has grown in various countries of Europe. I think that has mostly to do with the economic and political problems that Europe is facing at the moment, which pose a dire threat to the whole future of the EU.
As time goes on, the war recedes from memory and becomes much more distant even, and the more time elapses, the more possibilities there are for people to present distorted accounts of the war. Partly, this development of extreme ultra-nationalism in Europe is explained by the distance from the war troubles. But it is not the main reason. The main one is contemporary politics and economics rather than history. That is not to say that history is not important because there are many history lessons that are relevant to the contemporary crisis.
Question: Where are these very strong ultra-nationalist movements with great influence on national politics? WHERE ARE THEY? SHOW ME! A rowdy fringe Greek party getting a single digit percentage of the Greek vote clearly doesn't fit the bill! The French Front National? The party's been competing for the presidency for decades and, as usual, has completely failed in the following parliamentary elections. So, name me these nationalistic groups with drive and great mass appeal!
RT: If the crisis in Europe is to last, will there be a rise of more nationalist sentiment?
GR: There is a great danger of that. If the eurozone collapses, if the EU collapses, the most likely scenario it would be replaced by different fronts of nationalists. Good question is what forms of nationalism, how extreme and dangerous they are going to be.
Well, thank you for your brilliant lack of explaining what you understand under the term "nationalism"! "[W]hat forms of nationalism", nice. And who are these nationalists going to be? You see, the problem is that most established truly extreme nationalist movements are thoroughly discredited as a bunch of fringe crackpots. Honestly, with the ongoing crisis - we're in year what? four? - we should have seen some noteable successes by the existing nationalist forces. But 7% in the Greek elections are the "best" these forces have had to offer so far, and there are no signs of any movement in any of the Eurozone's countries forming up to beat that number. If the Eurozone collapses all that'll happen is that after a few months of turmoil national currencies will re-emerge and the former floating exchange rate mechanism will be re-instated. Sorry, but a comparably wealthy and extremely demilitarized area like the Eurozone won't fall for a bunch of new incarnations of Hitler or Mussolini (or offer the conditions to make them dangers to their neighbors).
That is the historical lesson, what happened before WWII, particularly the 1930s when there was a crisis similar to the one we’re going through now. The result of that was the rise of extreme nationalism, the emergence of a number of authoritarian and Nazi-type regimes in Europe.
WRONG. Except for the Nazis themselves all these authoritarian governments and systems established themselves either directly after World War 1 or during the 1920s, which, given Roberts' economic-deterministic outlook shouldn't have been the case.
The historical lesson is the great danger of that development now. I don’t see this by any means inevitable. I think the difference between now and then is the democratic culture, democratic institutions which are much stronger in Europe than they were before WWII. I’m not confident but I’m hopeful that European democracy can survive this current crisis.
RT: Do you think that a politician with anti-democratic views could rise to power through those democratic institutes?
GR: That’s exactly what happened in the case of Hitler. He did it. And that’s what happened in a number of other countries in Europe before and after WWII. It is a distinct possibility, a challenge that would be a test of Western democracy. Not just Western democracy, but European and international democracy. Can it actually survive the challenge of nationalism which thrives in conditions of economic collapse and political disorder?
And that's why most European countries have a necessary system of checks and balances.
RT: Could a sticking together of the united Europe work as a magic push against rise of nationalism?
GR: I don’t think it is a panacea, but I sincerely hope that the European Union doesn’t collapse. Because for all of its faults, the EU is much better than an ultra-nationalist alternative. Who knows what is going to happen? I think it is possible that the EU will survive and I hope it does.
While the European Union is better than a bunch of interwar Hungaries there's wee bit of a difference between the European nations returning to a pre-Masstricht treaty modus operandi - the LIKELY post-collapse development - and Roberts' amorphous "ultra-nationalist alternative", which is as vague as it is unlikely.
Okay, lets put things into perspective here. Extreme rightwing nationalists are dangerous. But so are all other kinds of political extremists: leftists, islamists, globalists. If that Greek party was politically smart it could play the long game and influence public opinion even with only single digit results by sinking its teeth into key positions in the media and education. The Greens did that very successfully in Germany, for example, but that takes time. Decades, usually. But aside from that small example I cannot see any mass nationalist movements on the horizon at the moment. The political presence of rightwing extremists is dominated by failure, by gaining a handful of seats in regional parliaments, by being outnumbered three to one at demonstrations by the leftwing radicals alone, let alone ordinary citizens. A new Hitler (himself a man with leftwing political origins) isn't coming anytime soon.
If I were Russian, I would actually be hoping that case as well because a collapse of the EU and the rise of extreme forms of nationalism in Europe could pose quite a significant challenge for Russia as well.
From whom would that challenge arise? The only one that could have the clout - economically, politically - to do so would be Germany. And I'm sorry to break it to you, Geoffrey: German "nationalists" are on really good terms with Russia...
No comments have been added yet.
