Nazi = National Socialist. It is technically a leftist ideology. It was a nationalistic form of socialism.
No it really wasn't. It is all explained in the link I gave you, based on the work of one of the most distinguished experts on Nazi Germany.
Please read it, this is one of the misconceptions you can easily refute by reading more about the subject. Hitler was not a socialist, he even killed those in his government who advocated something somewhat resembling socialism (although that was mostly motivated by eliminating possible obstacles).
Nobody would call Noth Korea a democracy just because they call themselves "democratic". The same counts for Nationalsocialism.
Hitler was helped into power by rich German industrials, and he rewarded them with contracts and made them very rich.
And when exactly is the next round of voting for the president of the EU? Jean Claude Junk is one such example of an unelected commissar.
He is actually the perfect example why you are wrong. During the last European election, Juncker and Schulz competed for the job of president as candidate of their respective parties, it was understood that the party who woul get the most votes would get the president. This was quite interesting, because after Juncker won, the heads of governments from other European countries could no longer choose their own candidate (as they used to before).
. If these migrants and all were supposed to 'enrich' European countries, why are the Germans, French, etc so upset at the V4, Austria, Bulgaria, etc for not taking in their share of the 'burden.'
Nobody talks about refugees "enriching" Europe. They are an economical burden for a significant time, which is why we require all member states to take care of them. They can turn into an asset once they are integrated, have learned the language and found the job, but that takes time.
You mean like NATO?
Even better. We might also get countries involved that have decided to stay out of Nato, but would agree to a European defence policy like e.g. Austria.
That happens all over the world. Selling military hardware, training forces, etc is a business and political decision - in some cases more business, in others more political.
Yes, but because military hardware becomes more and more expensive, it will be impossible for smaller nations to have a fully functional and sophisticated armies. Just look how expensive aircraft carriers have become. And frankly, there is no reason why ever small country needs an air force, when we could have a shared Air force.
Not with Iraq...
There are currently German soldiers in Iraq, but we thankfully never participated in the invasion of the Iraq, which was no Nato mission to begin with.
almost all of whom operate in the safety of northern Afghanistan hence have far less casualties than the Brits and Yanks there.
We still had a lot casualities. There are even now soldiers stationed there, risking their life for a war with no end in sight. How many Americans are currently dying for a war that another Nato member started?
Germany also gave a lot of hardware, including hundreds of millions of dollars of nuke capable submarines to Israel. T
Something I am very proud of.
nce Trump took office, money from the NATO countries, especially from Germany came pouring in.
And where exactly did this money "pour in"? You are aware that a higher German defence budget will not give the USA any additional money right? And it will also not mean much for the USA, because as explained above, the USA has devoted relatively little of its' ressources to Europe. All that has happened so far is that Trump decided that the USA needed to spend even more on defence.
Its like that cheap friend when you get a pizza for 3 people for $20 bucks plus a tip and your buddy only puts in a $5.
And then you are the only one who gets hungry and eats the pizza, but insist that the contribution of your friends were sufficient enough. All the while you are still eating mind you.
That's why Britain left.
The UK left because of a lot of lies (NHS bus) fed to them by an europhobic press. One of the most persistent ones was the one about German dominance, probably because the Brits like to compare everything to WWII.
Of course there's MEP from all over, but nonetheless the top figures tend to lean towards Germany and Merkel.
Merkel will no doubt go down as one of the most skilled diplomats in European history. She understands - perhaps better than any other politician before her - how important it is to forge alliances with other member states. German success is based on this, as evidenced by the Euro crisis. The lazy British press wrote that Germany dictated her will to Europe. The truth was that all Northern European countries were in agreement, and Merkel could use this for her policy. This is also why the Polish government will end up sidelined in Europe. You have influence in the EU if you are not interested in working together with others.