Orban's Mouth, the Fourth Reich, and The European Union (EU)

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/czechia-fumes-after-orban-compares-eu-with-hitlers-plans/

The European Union has always been a secularized attempt at rekindling the Holy Roman Empire – and as time has made clear, the 'of the German Nation' is probably more apropos than many would care to admit.

The First Reich (eventually The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) was originally conceived around the Carolingian lands and if one views it through that lens, the imagery is even more poignant as it would make France, Germany, the Benelux nations, and perhaps Northern Italy as the historic core – which is also the economic core of today's EU. Eventually the axis of power would shift to the east and almost exclusively to the Germanic lands. Regardless of the exact boundaries, over a thousand years later – though things are different in form, in substance they are in many respects very much the same.

While Hungary's Viktor Orban is in reality much closer to overt fascism than the EU elites in Brussels – what he says contains a grain of truth. Though it is deemed out of bounds to raise the point, as all of German history is now tainted by Hitler – there were German imperial aims prior to his rise. Not all of his ideas were original nor can they be exclusively located in the context of the Third Reich. Nazi rule, ideology, and even foreign policy emerged from a context and while all imperial designs should be condemned, it would likewise be a mistake to automatically view Second Reich (1871-1918) predecessors through the grid of Nazism and Hitler. This is all to say that German imperialism while wicked, is not necessarily rooted in Nazism. And so to speak of EU imperialism is proper, it would be a mistake to automatically equate it with Hitler's policies.

The German and French-led EU does have a plan for consolidating Europe, not just Western Europe or Mitteleuropa, but also an evidentiary policy of Drang nach Osten, a drive to the East as seen with NATO and EU expansion over the past thirty years – a Fourth Reich project which is not as yet complete. Not every NATO member is going to join the EU, not every EU member will join the Eurozone – let alone the Schengen treaty, but it's clear that the EU, NATO (or both) has plans to dominate from the North Atlantic to the edges of the Middle East. There are historic parallels – again the forms are different, but historical concerns and patterns don't go away.

Some of the present confusion is due to the fact that NATO and the EU overlap as imperialist entities – the one is the primary expression of and vehicle for Atlanticism which conceives of a US-led Western Empire – essentially an American Empire in which the European nations are satrapies. The EU at present 'officially' conceives of Europe within the NATO/Atlanticist framework but it also acts independently and thinking ahead, envisions a day in which NATO may (or for some 'will') no longer be a reality. At that point the EU is an independent power (even superpower) and separate from the United States and its domination.

Once again in the 1990's and early 2000's, this European colossus (with a GDP that rivals the US and a population of over 440 million) was viewed as a rival and potential threat to Washington and its empire – and may still be at some point. But at present, Washington is ignoring the threat of the EU and its massive economy and population – and (wanting to crush both Russia and China) is instead pushing hard for the revivification of Atlanticism, the paradigm of US imperial domination that was used during the Cold War, a paradigm that has come into question in the thirty years since its end, and damaged under Bush, was almost eradicated by Trump – that is until now.

But the present situation is far from permanent. The US may go into decline which will leave the EU to pursue its own independent goals – or the crisis with Russia will end, in which case the US and EU will again become potentially antagonistic rivals and competitors.

And frankly the Czech foreign minister's statement that suggests membership in the EU is voluntary is not entirely true. On paper it's voluntary and yes, we've seen the UK leave – one of the most powerful member states in Europe. However, the UK's status was always problematic – even from the very beginning. In some respects it's amazing that the UK ever joined and it certainly was never part of the Eurozone and thus viewed as a less than fully committed member, and yet due to its economic and military power – it remained as part of the top-tier. It was awkward right up until the end with many in the EU viewing the UK as America's proxy within their European polity.

Would the EU tolerate a nation like Hungary existing within the frontiers of Europe and not be a member? Let's just say, it wouldn't be acceptable and the transformation of the nation would be considered a pressing project. Ask Serbia. And yet Serbia is in all respects a little country, all the more since the Yugoslavia it once dominated no longer exists. NATO utterly dismantled it and Washington did all it could to facilitate this, from Slovenia's exit in 1991, to Croatian independence, to the violent secession of Kosovo in 1999.

Hungary is of much greater historic, geopolitical, and economic importance than Serbia and a Budapest regime in power that remained outside of the EU and perhaps somewhat hostile to it – would not be easily tolerated. The overthrow wouldn't necessarily be violent (the result of a coup or invasion) but there would at least be action in the realm of political machinations and scheming.

The truth is that Orban for all his nationalist posturing wants to be part of the EU but resents the loss of national autonomy and the reduction of his nation which in the nineteenth century was a great power within Europe and came to dominate the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It may reach a point that he's willing to sever ties with Brussels and yet in doing so his nation will find itself occupying a very lonely position indeed. Hungary is an important country but it's unlikely that it will be able to do what Türkiye has attempted – take a mediating position, dealing and navigating with the cultural, political, and economic spheres on its periphery. And even Ankara struggles as its policies are contradictory as are its obligations.

Orban's statement should be condemned – but not on the EU's terms.