Germany gets tough over euro
This may be remembered as the day the single currency changed. In a speech to the Bundestag, Angela Merkel said it should be possible to expel a country from the eurozone. It would be an action of the last resort. It would only apply to a serial offender who repeatedly broke the currency's rules.
From its creation the euro was driven as much by politics as economics. Its founders were inspired by the belief that Europe's destiny lay in closer union. A single currency was a fundamental pillar of that. So figures were massaged to enable countries to join. When nations broke the rules, which they often did, it was overlooked. Everyone could stay in the club.
Only recently Olli Rehn, an EU commissioner, said "the euro is not only a monetary arrangement but a core political project of the European Union".
For the German chancellor, however, what is important is defending the stability of the currency, not solidarity, not a belief that the eurozone would inevitably expand. It might not. It might even contract. The German leader wants a treaty change to allow for expulsions.
Angela Merkel has injected some German steel into the debate over the future of the euro and the crisis over how Greece will reduce its deficit. The answer was not "rapid support" or "premature aid" that might not help matters in the long-run but would actually weaken the euro. The problem had to be attacked at its roots. "There is no alternative," she said, " to the Greek savings programme". She said "no country should be left on its own" - but the message from the eurozone's strongest country to Greece was brutally frank. What will actually happen if Greece can't cover its debts is now very unclear.
This was a flexing of German muscle. Ultimately a German leader has to defend the currency. To do other is to risk political damage. The German people were proud of a strong and stable Deutschmark.There is no appetite for rescuing countries who fake their accounts and run up massive debts.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~12~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
So, it is plainly clear. There is no plan. There is no loaded gun at the table. The spreads will stay high or even soar. Germany has made its choices. As I said many a time, fair enough. Greece has no option than to go to IMF. Greek press today reports that this is exactly what Germany suggests. Good luck to Greece under IMF and good luck to rest of EU.
Complain about this comment
The Euro was an invetion of the bankers for the purposes of the bankers. As we have all seen they run the countries and the governments. They can indirectly, through their political handmaidens, tax the people to cover any losses due to conspiracies to defraud depositors. The bankers were bailed out, but nations will not be. Political stability was once the overriding order of the day but in todays world, run by bankers, it is all about how much money can they make at the expense of the public. The large public debts created by bailing them out makes it difficult for countries to accept terms for banking loans and therefore the bankers would like more public suffering so that their profits will increase. In other times this was considered the trade of highwaymen and extortionist but today it is called banking and financial services.
Complain about this comment
Mr Hewitt wrot:
'There is no appetite for rescuing countries who fake their accounts and run up massive debts'
The ECB will have to print some money and give it Greece, and then probably print some more and give it Spain and Portugal.
We could loan them Magical Merlin King to advise.
The Irish won’t be pleased having bit the austerity bullet, but such is politics.
It is not a Union if member states are allowed to fail.
No bailout = No Union
No Union = No need for Euro politicians.
Now if you were a Euro politician what would you push for?
Complain about this comment
Vee haf vays of makink zee pay.
Merkel has two competing sets of interests to take into account. Firstly, there is the party. Secondly, there is the electorate.
The party need to find funds in order to compete in general elections. Every candidate they put forward has a massive media cost for advertising. It costs a fortune to run a successful campaign, as everybody knows. Now the party gets those funds from "contributors", and these are folks with money. Curiously, most folks with money are folks who had money earlier, and even more curiously still, folks who had money earlier invested their money in others things as well as political party contributions. Such as the bond market, and greek debt, for example.
So if the party walks out on the greek debt, it is leaving the folks who had money to whistle dixie and watch greece print drachmas on its own: default.
Well, that isn't going to happen. Institutions don't commit ritual suicide.
So Merkel has to protect her party, first and foremost. That is what it is to be a true party member. It is like the three musketeers for pathological kleptomaniacs. And that means dancing with those what brung her to the dance.
And that means shafting the general public, who in this delightful use of that tired and mournful term means "those who didn't have money previously and don't have any now EXCEPT WHAT THEY EARN AS THEIR SALARIES".
In other words, one way or another, for the sake of the party the workers must work more for less. Behind the scenes, printing presses will be hammering away to print massive sums of Euros, causing inflation and a devaluing of wages. People's wages will freeze or drop, taxes will squeeze them harder, and their living standards will drop further.
But that is how the system works, and it is Merkel's job to keep everyone distracted from who pays whom in the capitalist party system. She knew that when she took the job, and she is well paid to do her job.
In the end nothing drastic will occur. The figures may look alarming, but only to small people who have to pay for things in cash. In the end, wages will be worth less and government will tax a little more, and so it will continue to go. That is the system.
Complain about this comment
Thanks god finaly some rules to change the Euro. Now how much that will work out is anyone's guess but if the only great idea that Angela has in to ensure a crisis free Euro is to throw out countries that don't follow the rules and nothing else, then it looks like the Euro will be used as the currency only in Berlin only:))
Germany will have to expel itself from the Euro :))
I hope the Latvians, Greeks, etc. take note and start printing their own money soon.
Complain about this comment
Vassilis. The IMF is never an inevitability unless this was clearly stated in the contract of the loans. There is always the option of simply stopping to pay loans, stop paying people for 2-3 months, provide water and electricity for only 8 hours per day on total and sell the rest at prices attractive enough to find buyers and forbid the use of cars by 1 person only. I do not know... like that you will eventually reduce your budget that you will be able to pay the loans in 3-4 years.... no matter if you bring the country to the middle ages. But then you might as well restart from a more solid basis.
It goes without saying that I am not supporting the above. There are countries with surplus which could lend Greece like Russia and China but in exchange of favours. The issue of Greece's deficit can be solved in 1 day: lease 2-3 ports to chinese, get on with Southstream and lease a """""commercial""""" outpost for Russians in the Aegean and bye bye deficit. Next month you call in the oil companies (Americans if they want too, by they will have to compete on equal terms with others, capitalism isn't it?) and end of story. Greeks can pay all debt, and get on going out to their beloved ultra-expensive bouzoukia clubs and everyone will be happy, even better like old times.
Sounds too abstract? It is impossible to do all that without US ordering Turkey to attack us? Ha! Precisely!
Why do I have the notion that Papandreou technically led since the beginning the situation to arrive to the IMF? All he had to do is "continue lieing" (pfff...), then get on with the measures and drop the deficit to below 10% then step by step correct the situation. It was him that chose to do it "big-time-catastrophe" (well... him... he is only a poor US-passport holder... you get the idea...). And it is obvious cos one only has to see what he had said in his campaign. Even up to 1 week before the elections and before going out to the world saying "Poor me! I did not know what I was undertaking! I rose to power and in 3 days (literally!) I managed to measure the deficit that Europeans could not see for more than 10 years now. Now I have to go to the IMF cos Europeans will not support me, isn't it you Europeans? You won't support me isn't it?".
This has nothing to do with financial issues. Otherwise we would be discussing the IMF even before 10 years, let alone enterring the euro. Public debt has spiraled since the 1980s (when in 10 years we got as many loans as we had not taken in 160 up to then years of existence). In early 90s the same thing continued under ND and by late 90s PASOK only could hide the reality to join the Euro cos that was anyway asked by the Europeans themselves (it can't be explained otherwise), let alone taking further loans for organising Olympic fiestas at (up to? more than?) 3 times the cost of Sydney's previous Olympics.
The IMF is not the end of the world. Its no 2012, no comet fallking, none will die. But it ties the country geopolitically. And as things indicate, that is the objective of Papandreou. We said it, Greece poses a potential menace so debt and IMF are an effective way of containing the menace.
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
If Germany will succeed in initiating a debate that would allow the expelling from the Euro team of the bad guys who break the rules, I would say that the whole existence of the EU will change. There will be two types of players: the good ones who are still in the field and the bad ones who wait on the benches by the field. The problem is at what moment the referees /Brussels, Paris, Berlin/ will invite everybody in Lisbon for updating of the game rules…
And if Frau Merkel succeeds in her job, then that miracle may come when the Brits will find the single currency more attractive….Amen!
Poor Greece, poor Bulgaria, poor Romania… you will be nailed to the stadium benches for ever…
Complain about this comment
"Angela Merkel said it should be possible to expel a country from the eurozone. It would be an action of the last resort. It would only apply to a serial offender who repeatedly broke the currency's rules."
Under that theory Germany and France should be at the top of the list to be expelled. It was they who violated the Growth and Stability pact time and again. It was they who first insisted it be included in Maastrict and it was they who later insisted it was obsolete so that they wouldn't have to pay billions in fines that should have been imposed on them. It seems now that the whole wretched plan has blown up in their faces, the Germans and presumably the French want to blame someone else. That is true to form, their instinctive reaction.
The irony of being hoist on their own petard doesn't end there. In an effort to con Europeans into the EU, any treaty change would have to be agreed to unanimously. I'd say the chance that Greece would agree to such a change is zero. So it will stay what it is, along with the other PIIGS a lead weight tied to a noose around Germany's economic neck. That angry scowl on Frau Merckel's face can only confirm the utter frustration she, her government, her entire nation are experiencing at this very moment. How delightful.
vassilis;
"So, it is plainly clear. There is no plan"
It only goes to prove the old saying that there is no honor among thieves.
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
What Chancellor Merkel is saying is that this is not only a financial crisis for the Eurozone, but also a political one.
She is trying to balance the requirements of her own German supporters, who are not in favour of helping Greece, and the greater European Union that is, but only under certain circumstances.
You are right that there has been a shift in political thinking in Brussels.
The EU do not know how to deal with this crisis in Greece. There has been a suggestion about an EMF (a sort of EU version of the IMF) but there is little real support for this. Even if there was there would have to be a treaty change (and we all know what happened to the last treaty).
So what Chancellor Merkel is now trying to do is appease her own political parties in Germany, above the needs and requirements of the EU.
She can't win!
If Chancellor Merkel thinks that she is now the head of the EU and also the head of the German parliament, then she has a very difficult time ahead of her.
The two positions cannot be reconciled.
This is now a cross-roads for the EU.
Stay together - or abandon one of the member states in favour of union.
However this will not end here. What about the other 'failing' member countries? Does the EU abandon them for the greater good, or support them.
The next few months are going to be interesting.
Complain about this comment
The Eurozone and EU now find themselves in a damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma. If they bail out Greece, they open the door to a seemingly bottomless pit that will suck money into it like black holes suck in stars. If they don't, there is not only a very real possibility that the Euro will collapse but the entire EU will also. What must the citizens of the other PIIGS think if Germany is contemplating nullifying their currency? That they could be next, left to twist slowly in the wind by themselves, bankrupt with no where to turn. The party is over. The EU is over. This farce is winding up. We're in the end game. Germany's move and they are evidently going to take their pieces off the table, take the game board with them, and go home. They will not sacrifice their economy for the EU dream. The alarm clock has rung, it's time for everyone in Europe to wake up. The economic ice age cometh. Anyone in Britain want to join the Euro? Tony Blair? Sorry you don't qualify. Angela Merckel just said so.
Complain about this comment
As far as I know, Merkel was not refering to Greece in particular.
Aside from that, I think it is irrelevant to discuss whether or not it should be possible to expel a Euro participant from the Eurozone. Europe is just going to bring crisis after crisis onto the weakest members and keep them locked in their weakness as long as the general status quo is maintained. The general status quo is such that two countries produce goods and export them to the rest of Europe and to places outside of Europe and the other countries hardly produce anything at all. This has to stop if Europe is to improve in any way, shape or form. The production in Germany must be reduced, and quite drastically so, and the production in southern Europe must increase. The only alternative to that would be to increase consumption in Germany, but the average German person is not that rich. And having experienced some of the nastiest consequences of hyper-inflation in their recent history, the Germans, I expectt, would be very reluctant to artificially bolster their consumption through debt. In other words, only an arrant re-industrialisation of southern Europe would do the trick.
Complain about this comment
ES;
"There has been a suggestion about an EMF (a sort of EU version of the IMF)"
Even if the EMF were successfully fast tracked, where would the money come from to fund it? Germany :-) Well you really can't expect France to volunteer. If push came to shove and Germany demanded that France with its "wonderful" economy kick in its fair share, would they? Could they? Would it come out that their numbers are a complete fraud? Even if they aren't, would the French people resist as strongly as the Germans. Yes it should be very interesting.
Complain about this comment
Angela Merkel said it should be possible to expel a country from the Eurozone, but right now there is no provision for expulsion.
And that’s good!
Why?
Because an expulsion proviso would make the solution to easy – just boot the country out. Since the EU cannot boot, it must “think” putting to work the best economic minds of EU.
I believe, like the founders, that Europe's destiny lay in closer union.
I don’t think figures were massaged so countries could squeeze in; rather I believe some countries were fooled by derivative, default-swap gambling (and some are still being fooled).
Olli Rehn, who is the EU's Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs stated: "the euro is not only a monetary arrangement but a core political project of the European Union". So, you can bet the EU will do all that it can do to buttress the EURO and deal with the "root" problem.
Angela Merkel wants to tackle the "root" problem. I wonder what Merkel considers the root and how far this root stretches – clear across the Atlantic to America?
We may learn more soon...
Coming up, March 19th, the European Commission will host a high level conference on the construction of a new "crisis management framework" in the banking sector. The conference will provide an opportunity for the Commission to present the results of its recent public inquiry and to set out its formulations to move forwards.
Three sessions:
- Early intervention: new tools for supervisors/managers
- Making bank resolution effective across borders
- Bank insolvency framework: quick and easier
Some keynote speakers:
Michel Barnier – Internal Market and Services Commissioner
Sharon Bowles – Chair, European Parliament ECON Committee
Jean-Claude Trichet – President, European Central Bank
During the recent financial crisis, a number of governments took emergency action to "stabilise banks". Without this stabilization, banks too big to fail could've failed. The fast intervention by national governments may have avoided the failure. The unprecedented circumstances of the crisis may have justified this exceptional action. However, governments acted under national law.
There is currently no EU framework for "managing crises in the banking sector". This lack hampers the ability of governments to deal with problems in cross-border situations.
In October 2009, the Commission adopted an EU framework for crisis management. Purpose: to consult as widely as possible on a broad range of issues aimed at safeguarding financial stability and the continuity of banking services in a cross-border banking crisis.
The tools range from “early intervention” action by banking supervisors aimed at correcting irregularities at banks, to bank resolution measures which involve the reorganisation of ailing banks, to insolvency frameworks under which failed banks are wound up (Notice "wound up vs bailed out.)
Complain about this comment
This problem with Greece only highlights the essential weakness within the EU. Namely, the attempt to emulate the U.S.A. while remaining individual countries. It has been said by a number of commentators that it is almost impossible to run a single currency without centralised fiscal control.
Federalism, by another word.
Chancellor Merkel is now trying, in her own way, to rescue her dream of the EU. I applaude her for that. At least she is a woman of conviction.
However I doubt that this is shared within the offices of the EU in Brussels.
The essential problem here is that Chancellor Merkel is attempting the impossible. She, alone, cannot save the EU. Sarkozy has helped in his own way, but then he has France to worry about, not the EU.
I don't believe that the EU will collapse over this.
Greece will go to the IMF and solve its own problems.
However, how will the rest of the EU member states react to this?
Have the dreams of the EU Commissioners now come to nought?
Complain about this comment
Looks like Germany should be thrown under the bus also;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8572149.stm
"The European Union has criticised the UK and other European nations for having "optimistic" growth assumptions and bloated deficits."
"As was reported earlier in the week, the report warned that the UK was not on course to cut its deficit in line with EU rules by a deadline of 2015."
"Germany, France, Spain and Italy were also warned they were over-reliant on economic recovery to meet debt targets."
Complain about this comment
BB;
"Since the EU cannot boot, it must “think” putting to work the best economic minds of EU.
That's who got them into this mess in the first place.
"I believe, like the founders, that Europe's destiny lay in closer union."
And I believe that fundimentally uncompetitive in a world where Europe is not subsidized by the US anymore, Europe can't compete. Closer union or no union at all, they are all going to drown... together or individually.
Complain about this comment
Guys, she is talking about exclusion from Euro zone not EU. Your comments are bout excluding countries from EU and that was never mentioned in the article.
Complain about this comment
I notice that people are saying that states cannot be expelled from the EU. This is true but they can leave as permitted by the Lisbon Treaty. Now, can they be 'persuaded' to leave if Germany (the State) or the people don't want them? Is Dr Merkle's speech a green light to try to do this?.
I do agree with Marcus the USA should get out of Europe now. After all, last week showed that all the US's client states do is to bite the hand that feeds them before dragging it further into the mire. It is the way of Empires.
Complain about this comment
This is pure internal politics...
There is no possibility that other Eurozone countries would accept changing treaties so that it would be become possible to expel a country from the Eurozone. You see one of the key attraction of the Eurozone is that it guarantees the value of money regardless of the actions of the individual member state. In essence, even if a member state goes to virtual bankruptcy, money still holds value and economy can continue, individuals and corporations can live and work.
In simplicity, Euro membership is like an insurance for the economy and economic actors in case the state goes down the drain. Now if this insurance is wiped out, then what is the point on belonging to the Euro if you still have the risk on having your money become worthless thanks to the actions of the state. State itself is not important, what is important is that individuals and corporations can perform transaction with stable currency, that keeps a country running and produces wealth and prosperity.
There is 0% chance that what Merkel is telling becomes possibility: other member states are against this and so will the ECB. Again, what matters is the economy, not states, states can go bankrupt as long as the economy itself works. If the economy goes bankrupt, so does the society.
Merkel really should drop the ball with this empty threatening as there will be no treaty revisions, that is guaranteed. What Merkel and other Eurozone leaders should instead be doing is to remind that markets will insure that all Eurozone countries will balance their budgets: in essence, if a state is about to go down the drain, markets will just shut credit, forcing the state to just downsize its activities until budget balance is achieved. That was the logic behind the construct of Euro, let the markets handle it.
Complain about this comment
19. At 6:20pm on 17 Mar 2010, Jukka Rohila wrote:
Jukka - well said!
Complain about this comment
We are all well advised to notice that chancellor Merkel has aired an idea. There is quite a way before it becomes reality: Greece will not be expelled from the Euro zone tomorrow.
Also, everybody should notice that Germany's finance minister today has announced a budget deficit of 80 billion Euros (you may have noticed that Bruxelles has reacted). That is a record in the Federal Republic. Merkel's idea must therefore been seen as a remark to German tax payers - too.
Complain about this comment
It seems to be strange logic. No one had worse spreadsheets than the banks, yet the politicans felt it necessary to bail them out and give their bad debt to the public. Since the banks were hiding their losses and making bad investment decisions and kept accumulating new bad debt it would seen that they are the ones to be excluded, cut down, shut out, downsized, or whatever to reduce their influence in government and their ability to tax the public for their unethical behaviors and very poor decisions. Banks created the mess and now dictate the terms to others, there is something seriously worng with this, no one punished, no one responsible and the governments act like nothing happened. Very similar to the German response to the death camps, no one knew anything, only this time it is every country that does not know how the banks did their destroying of the economies, even though they really do because the governments made it all possible. The Americans decided not to have trials for Japaense war criminals because they said they would have to hang about 50,000 Japanese. I guess that is about how many bankers would need to be put on trial too. The ruling classes are always so civil among themselves.
Complain about this comment
Mickalus wrote:
19. At 6:20pm on 17 Mar 2010, Jukka Rohila wrote:
"Jukka - well said!"
Yes, Jukka speaks well. Reasonable and economically sound.
Unfortunately, we're talking about the EU and its politicians.
Those who have been following this blog know exactly how Jukka keeps getting things wrong. Recently he look into his crystal ball and suggested that the sensible economic thing the EU leadership would do is leave Greece to the IMF, an institution very well suited to handling fiscally errant states. He made a great case, except that he failed to note the political game, and the impossibility that EU politicians could accept the bare fact of their own fiscal failure being writ large on the world stage.
He fundamentally misjudged the relationship between those who fund the IMF and those who fund the Euro. Bu "fund", I am talking about those who lend money via those institutions. Those with US dollars fund the IMF, those with Euros fund the Eurozone.
Jukka failed to take into account the competitive nature of trade, the fact that one nations new markets can often be another nations lost markets.
He, like all economists, likes to see the world as a pretty ballet of numbers and win/win deals. This comforting fantasy allows the economist to perform benediction by numerics, sort of like praying to a benign god with a calculator and a slide rule.
But the world is not so pretty and sensible as Jukka and his economic puritans would have us believe. In the big bad world, nations fund businesses with taxation via state contracts and armies allow industrialists to access resources to the exclusion of competing empires.
Everyone is free to pump oil, but you have a big advantage if you happen to be an american company. If you're a german company, pumping oil from the ground is fraught with practical difficulties that the pure economist cannot fathom. So a german firm may lobby its state to promote its interests in an area with vast reserves of the natural resource, only to find that the US military subsequently walks in to look for weapons of mass destruction, which threaten its timid citizens terribly. Or something like that.
And the net result of these fun and games is that germans who wish to pump oil take a bath, not for the first time.
And that is irksome, because everyone can make stuff and export it if they have the steel and the oil and the skilled labour. But when you rely upon using another companies steel and another companies oil and your own labour, you find yourself locked into an economic production cycle that produces a great deal, but where the profits go to the suppliers of the steel and the suppliers of the oil.
That is the reality of global trade. Resources are finite and crucial to production, and Germany doesn't have access to very many at all. hence they have tried to cannibalize the economy of the EU to make a buck.
It isn't working. They are still paying US dollars for the oil, and losing their profits thusly.
Incidentally, there are some absolutely astounding comments on this thread about how Germany ought to spend more in order to stimulate trade in the rest of the eurozone.
This is classical socialist thinking of the very worst kind. Everything must be fair. Little Johnny is poor and wastes what money he has. Therefore little Jane must also be poor, and her money must be taken from her and wasted because that will make everything fair.
Germany needs the rest of Europe to behave like germans if they don't to watch them go broke competing with German industry inside the internal market. And yet if the rest of Europe does compete like good germans, then the german economy suffers through competition.
Talk about a catch 22 problem.
That is why I say Germany is cannibalizing the EU economy.
The EU must..... hear this Jukka.... the EU must pay for its natural resources and what happens after that is a win/lose game between the inmates of the European gulag.
There is no win/win when you are paying for oil from a cartel of refineries and selling products with energy costs twice that of the folks selling you oil.
Did you study the economics of the global cartel, Jukka, or did your professor only turn his gaze to pretty stories about unicorns frolicking nicely in the evergreen meadow of milk and honey?
Complain about this comment
#15 MarverlousApriliusII,
well said :))))
It reminds me of the movie "Liar Liar" with jim carrey, when they found him in the WC punching himself and his reply was "I'm kicking my self, do you mind!!"
at the moment there would be 10 - 15 Eurozone countries been expeled and countries like the latested addition to the EU going through hell so that they can qualify to join the Euro, they will join the Euro-club and they will find the club empty!! All members gone!
I like DT wacky ideas more and more when I see supposedly serious politician like Angie talk total rubish.
Also the guy furher up the post "the best economic minds"?? I serously doubt it! Unless the Euro was designed on purpose to ensure ever closer union. Because no one even with half a brain would design something without a crisis management mechanism. But if the idea was to design it without such feature on purpose so when there is a crisis the only way forward is close integration then I congratulate them.
Complain about this comment
"The German leader wants a treaty change to allow for expulsions. "
EUpris: Very funny! But when others wanted the Lisbin Treaty changed it wasn't possible.
Complain about this comment
To democracythreat (23):
If you have been reading papers you probably have noted that many Eurozone countries have now turned to support using IMF to help Greece if matters go into that point. The thing is that what matters is money. Let me elaborate...
Politicians of EU member states, while being in the public spotlight might be seen as EU politicians, they at the end of the day are national politicians. Merkel is an German politician, Sarkozy is an French politicians. Views and decisions they take at the end of the day are for the benefit of their own member states, usually counted in pure money.
What we have been watching for this whole sage of crisis in Greece has been about money and how that money should be used best to get it back someday. First it was no bailout, then it was bailout, then it was no bailout, then it was IMF, then it was lets build EMF, now it is going back to let just use IMF if needed. And all this because at the end of the day, the average Johnny, Jurgen or Jacques is going to vote in the next elections based on the feeling of what he thought happened to this money.
In case of your notes about global competition, yes countries do also compete between themselves and agree with you in many points. However I should point out that raw materials and commodities are actually pretty cheap. Yes, we send tones of money to middle east and other places on Earth, but from there it comes back by us selling them tones of over priced products and services, from luxury products to modern armaments that are of course way overpriced, and not to mention tones of government bonds that are mostly loosing value in time and at the end of day can and probably will become worthless. Of course all this is helped by the fact that most commodity rich countries from Russia to Saudi-Arabia are under some sort of dictatorship/authoritarian rule where the upper classes plunder natural resources and just waste the money.
In case of Europe and the Eurozone, while the ECB has quite large reserves to enable Eurozone to carry global trade denominated in US dollars, US dollars just come and go. We exchange our papers printed with nice bridges to some green paper that is then exchanged to tangible commodity. We really don't hold that much US dollars. The real holders of US dollars like China, Japan, Saudi-Arabia etc.. they have some serious problems on having green paper that they really can't even use. They can't buy any serious assets with them, that is restricted by western governments, they can't really buy investment goods as they don't have the knowledge to really put them in use, and if they spend too much buying the latest and greatest offerings from Mercedes or Ferrari, they will just cause prices to go even more up.
I should also remind that for example Russia, Saudi-Arabia and Venezuela all have lower GDP nominal per capita figures than for example Slovakia or Portugal... As they say, easy comes, easy goes...
I should also point out that while cartels like OPEC and monopolies like the US dollar can make others pay more than what the market price is for their products, however there are limits to this. There are other energy production methods that don't involve fossil fuels, for example there is no technical reason or obstacle to jump from fossil fuel based economy to nuclear-hydrogen economy, the only obstacle is that it is little bit cheaper just burn oil and let future generations to pay for it. Now if price of oil goes too much up, you end up in a point where it becomes lucrative to just make that jump away from oil.
PS. No. I myself bought the stories about unicorns frolicking nicely in the evergreen meadow of milk and honey by accepting and embracing the idea that technology and science will for unforeseeable future enrich and better human life thus leading the human kind at the end to a state of utopia, or singularity as they now fashionably say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Complain about this comment
6. At 3:23pm on 17 Mar 2010, Nik wrote:
" ... forbid the use of cars by 1 person only. ..."
EUpris: Nik! Do they have congestion charging in Athens as they have in London or similar?
If they don't , then I suggest they should have. I didn't think it would work in London. I was wrong. It had to happen some day.
I do want the UK to help Greece but not by throwing money at the Greek government. One of my suggestions is that we could set up the congestion charging system for the Greeks in Athens and elsewhere. The Greek government would take most of the money. We might get enough back to pay for our costs. Similarly the Germans could set up their road pricing system for trucks in Greece and take a cut of the takings.
Complain about this comment
22. At 8:03pm on 17 Mar 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:
"It seems to be strange logic. No one had worse spreadsheets than the banks, yet the politicans felt it necessary to bail them out and give their bad debt to the public"
EUpris: I believe that was a massive mistake. I believe that I read recently that a clear majority of the British people agree with me.
Complain about this comment
18. At 5:53pm on 17 Mar 2010, cping500 wrote:
'I notice that people are saying that states cannot be expelled from the EU. This is true but they can leave as permitted by the Lisbon Treaty.'
EUpris: We can leave whatever the Lisbin Treaty says.
Complain about this comment
14. At 4:29pm on 17 Mar 2010, EuroSider wrote:
" ...
Have the dreams of the EU Commissioners now come to nought?"
EUpris: No! They have their sickeningly excessive salaries and perks.
They don't deserve any of it.
Complain about this comment
13. At 4:23pm on 17 Mar 2010, BluesBerry wrote:
" ... I believe, like the founders, that Europe's destiny lay in closer union. ... "
EUpris: The people of the UK don't. We've had the Lisbon Treaty rammed down our throats and there is bound to be trouble.
Complain about this comment
Nobody really knows what would happen to the Euro if Greece or any of the other PIIGS default. Many are afraid to find out. But we may yet find out. It is entirely possible nothing will happen to the Euro itself, we just don't know. So far the markets have not shown a lack of confidence in it. It is off less than 10% from its high against the US dollar. If the default does result in a loss of confidence, the fall will be precipitous, so fast and far people's heads will spin. This kind of uncertainty can be a self fulfilling prophesy, a mad scramble to the exits. Usually in collapses like that there are momentary dead cat bounces, slight temporary upswings that counter the fall. Many take this as a sign that the worst is over. Usually they get in at just the wrong time and find that the worst is yet to come. If the fall does come, it will likely snowball into the stock and bond markets in Europe with money that's left taking rapid flight to the US. With the way people trade electronically, this can happen in a matter of hours or minutes. The way giant computers big investment houses operate trade, it can happen in fractions of a second.
Ghost of a sechuan chicken dinner;
"The Americans decided not to have trials for Japaense war criminals because they said they would have to hang about 50,000 Japanese. I guess that is about how many bankers would need to be put on trial too. The ruling classes are always so civil among themselves."
In America it is crueler to let them live. About 20 years ago there were 16,000 banks in America. As they consolidate, they need fewer and fewer employees. It is expected that eventually there may only be about 200 banks. Instead of five banks on every corner you may find only a few branch offices in a town. When these people are out of work, there is little they can do to get jobs to earn a living. Many go into investment counseling. Unfortunately for them, few people have money to invest having lost most of it in the financial crisis they and their former employers created. So they do the only thing left. They get jobs where all that have to say is...."do you want fries with that order sir?"
Complain about this comment
For those who like to think it is almost exclusively the Brits who hate the "EU":
Here are some comments from the Viennese newspaper Wiener Kurier, which is not ant-"EU".:
1) Brussels = Stairway to Hell
EUpris: 'Brussels' was in German. The rest was in English
2) The Eurocrats could hold a collection for Greece and make their contribution. With their salaries it would certainly not rip a large hole in their wallet.
3) I believe we will never find out the true amount, otherwise there would be an uprising in the EU countries.
4) ... This EU-idea is condemned to fail. ...
EUpris: The above are just the first four or in No.4 just part of a longish comment. They are not anti-comments with surrounding pro - comments.
Complain about this comment
Germans don't like bailouts. I don't like bailouts.
The US taxpayer gave Germany a massive bailout. Germany should pay it back.
No, I'm not talking about the billions in the Marshall Plan, I'm talking about the bailout money that went to German banks and German state-owned banks last year, over $20 billion.
In light of the money Germany has taken from the USA, they are just a bunch of hypocrites.
Complain about this comment
Dan Allen;
Look on the bright side. Brussels and Germany will probably go to war over whether or not Germany will put up the money to bail out the PIIGS. When you put it all together it's got to be hundreds of billions, who knows maybe even a trillion Euros, money Germany knows it will never see back again. Now the reality of the consequences of what they did when you set all that hyperbole aside that lead to this lunacy will come home to haunt the Germans and French. Germany will demand France as an ally against Brussels feeling they should not be alone in whatever payments are made. Watch the finger pointing. I have a hunch that angry scowl on Angel Eyes' face is going to get a whole lot angrier and her voice many decibels louder. Let's see how well Sarkozy shields the graduates of the Acadamie from the fallout. The French won't be any happier about it than the Germans. Is another war between Germany and France possible? Will they both attack Belgium? The fun is just beginning. Take a front row seat. For 20 billion dollars, the US taxpayer spent a lot on this ticket, let's enjoy the show. The curtain is rising, the actors are on stage.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
It's a circus. The French and others: do not go to IMF, solution to be found within EU. The Germans and others: we do not care you brought this to yourself if it was our call we would expel you from Eurozone.
Just curious, do you eat any pop-corn? order some pizza and beers?
Myself At this point of night I usually drink some good single malt and I always think best solution is to not borrow anymore, default and say we pay nothing neither salaries nor debts.
Complain about this comment
I'm curious about the way everyone is gasping at shock and horror at the greeks, and not mentioning the UK.
The UK deficit is 13% of GDP and the debt is 68%. So in three short years, ASSUMING THINGS DONT GET WORSE, the deficit will be 13% and the debt will be 68 + (3 x 13) = 107% of GDP.
Well, Greece is supposedly a basket case now with 112% GDP debt and an 11% deficit.
So what does that make the UK under Brown? A massive basket case waiting to happen? In three years?
I'm told he will probably win this election, and his whole method of operation is to borrow and spend. So what chance he will reduce the deficit?
And if Greece needs these drastic austerity measures, then surely the UK must also need them? I mean, reducing the deficit is reducing the deficit. If not now, and if not in the next three years, then the UK is in exactly the same boat as Greece. Except it is much, much bigger problem, due to the massive size of the GDP.
I wonder if folks are discussing little greece because they cannot bring themselves to contemplate large UK, Italy, France and Spain?
Because from where I sit, if Greece is in trouble and needs to cut spending like crazy, so does the UK.
All these politicians are hoping against hope that the world economy recovers, so that folks start making profits they can tax. That is their only way out. If the recovery doesn't happen, they are left facing a downward spiral of increasing taxation and lower revenues.
What fascinates me (in a morbid way) is the possibility that the "recovery" is a myth. I say that because it seems as though the glorious decade preceding the crash was supported by false accounting by bankers and inflated property markets. If that is so, there will be no recovery. Not in the next three years, anyway.
And that means mass unemployment and hardship for the people of the UK, just like the people of greece. And possibly all across the Eurozone.
If anyone may be inclined to leave the Eurozone, it might well be Germany. They may decide to get out while the getting is good, and leave the rest of the rotten apples in the basket to rot together.
That's what I would do, if I was sharing a contract with cheats, and folks in the habit of creating massive uncontrollable debts for themselves. I'd get out and leave them to it. And sure, they'd be asking me for money. that is what debtors do.
Of course you'd want to get away, in a scenario like that. Especially if money was tight for you as well.
How long before we here the germans cry to leave the Euro and go back to the glorious mark?
European Union was a fashion extraordinaire, and it lasted for a good many years. Who is to say the new fashion might not be petite nationalism, and every culture for itself in a happy competitive europe where everyone does as they think best, and never mind the group games?
It's just a fashion, after all. There was a time when Germans loved being independent and separate from other European peoples. That is why we call them Germans, and not something else.
I'll bet you folks ten marks that we soon here a real and powerful voice from Germany, heralding the glory of the nationally managed economy above the mire of supranationalism.
Complain about this comment
1: Germany can't eject Greece from the Eurozone
Chris Camp, you said "...I think it is irrelevant to discuss whether or not it should be possible to expel a Euro participant from the Eurozone...", Er, I'm going to have to beg to differ on that. Much discussion has focussed on the legality of such a move, but can we consider the logistics for a moment?
It's conceptually easy to imagine a state being expelled involuntarily from the EU (The Commission appoints somebody to act "on behalf of" the state in question, the faux-negotiations go on as per Lisbon, everybody ignores the illegality, borders get rebuilt, monies stop being taken from/given to the expelled state, job done). OK, illegal, unpolitic, but conceptually possible.
Fine. But how, for the love of all that's holy, do you expel a state from a currency union? How can Germany or the ECB stop Greece issuing bonds denominated in Euros? Send Eurocops in to physically break up the auction? (Ooops, no Eurocops...) It's not the legality that's the issue, it's the logistics: not whether it's legal, it's whether it's possible. And I'm not sure it is possible, even conceptually...
2: Germany can't defend the Euro
Gavin Hewitt, you said "...For the German chancellor, however, what is important is defending the stability of the currency...Angela Merkel has injected some German steel into the debate...This was a flexing of German muscle. Ultimately a German leader has to defend the currency..."
That's exactly wrong: she's highlighted German lack of power. She can't defend the currency. Germany isn't in control of it. Currently, the Greeks are. She can't stop Greece issuing Eurobonds. (Nobody may want to *buy* them, but that's a different debate...)
3: Germany can't cope
MA2, you said "...Even if the EMF were successfully fast tracked, where would the money come from to fund it?...". It's a fair question. Given that *nobody* has any spare cash at the moment and, as I said above, I don't think Greece can be expelled from the Eurozone, the only way I can think of (I'm not an expert) is quantitative easing - the simple printing, en masse, of large piles of spanking new money (that's an oversimplification, but it'll do). The ECB may regard such massive currency debasement with horror, but it may be the only option left. If they recoil from it, well, we're back to the IMF again.
All of Germany's choices are unpalatable. So it's coping by not making a decision. Ouch.
4: Germany has no plan
Vassilis, you said "...So, it is plainly clear. There is no plan..."
I think you're right. Everybody's debating how to bell the cat. Nobody's buying a bell, ribbon, and catproof armor. Nobody's pointing out that the CatBellFund has no money. This ain't happening...:-(
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
vassilis;
"Just curious, do you eat any pop-corn? order some pizza and beers?"
Yes I do and far too much of it. Right now I'm drinking Sam Adams Boston Lager, my favorite beer in the whole wide world and I've tasted many mnay hundreds of them. Yes I love popcorn. The kind you get for microwaving isn't bad...if you don't burn it. I thought about buying a popcorn machine but didn't. Now that you mention it, I think I'll look for some Orville Redenbacker next time I'm in the supermarket. We've got a really nice Italian restaurant that opened nearby a few years ago. They make great pizza....New York City style. I like it plain with garlic powder, salt and sometime crushed hot peppers. I'll probably have some of my favorite Scotch later, Glenlivet 15 year old French Oak Cask. I could drink that all day and all night...until I pass out from it.
Complain about this comment
viewcode;
"the only way I can think of (I'm not an expert) is quantitative easing - the simple printing, en masse, of large piles of spanking new money"
This is Germany's worst nightmare. It's Weimar all over again. I think it is inevitable but if Europe does it before America, it will face a disaster. The Euro will collapse to dust. If it doesn't, it might happen anyway. Avoiding this nightmare was the reason for the Growth and Stability Pact in Maastrict. Getting rid of it was a big mistake for Germany. It refused to live within it and so it somehow "persuaded" the EU court to set it aside, or at least the fines violating it imposed. Now for the consequences.
Complain about this comment
Printing money is the way things have to go. Anything else requires honesty from politicians and accountability inside the party system. Nobody sane is waiting up for that, so lets be real and listen out for the melancholy whir of the presses as they ease the pain of debt by making wages worthless.
Hyperinflation is not the same as controlled inflation, and controlled inflation can be very large without causing significant alarm.
I noted to myself a few days ago that in the world of professional football during the 1970's, 300 quid a week was considered too much money to pay a premier league star, and the manager of the best team in the UK received a payout of 125 thousand pounds upon being sacked. That was all the money in the world back then. It had ordinary folks gasping in the street to see a fellow get a 7 thousand pound bonus for achieving national fame and recognition.
So that was the mid 70's. In thirty five years, money has become comparatively worthless. There has not been hyperinflation, but there has been steady and significant inflation.
That is how the politicians will deal with this debt problem, just as it has been how they've dealt with the previous debt problems. Talk about something else and run the printing presses, but not so much that people panic. It is a tax on wages, but we all knew the workers would pay one way or another.
Complain about this comment
I had to google "bell the cat", but it was worth it. Good old Aesop. Was he greek?
They're going to print more money whilst talking about something else.
Look over there! Quick! Did you see it?
No? Oh well... hey, look, a pile of brand new money. And Greece has some. And so does Spain! Well knock me down, how extraordinarily useful and fortunate to find all this money all of sudden.
20 euro for a train ticket to work? One way? 25? Sounds fair to me.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat, you wrote "...Good old Aesop. Was he greek?..."
Yep. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop). Oh, the irony...:-)
Regards, viewcode.
Complain about this comment
dt;
The US has printed its way out of every recession since the great depression. The problem this time is that the scale of what is required dwarfs any prior experience. I estimate that the US needs to print between about 5 and 10 trillion dollars. Right now it is only scheduled to print about 1.5 trillion a year. The value of printing money is that it makes it easy for people to get their hands on it and to pay down expensive old debt with the cheap new money. The devaluation of the currency is a boon to people who borrowed like mortgage holders and the US government, bad news for lenders like banks and China. But it's print money or stay in a depression. The government can't raise tax rates to pay its debts, that would only make the depression worse. Problem, only the US can get away with it first. After it does, it will be safe for others to follow. In fact they will have no choice unless they want to be priced out of selling to markets pegged to the US dollar. BTW, depreciating the value of the US dollar will be the same as appreciating the value of the Chinese Yuan, something they refuse to do because it will not only make their products more expensive on export markets but crash their fragile banks. That is going to happen too. China will get a lesson in Americanomics.
Complain about this comment
CEO of Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann, says in an article from 16th March 2010 in the influential Süddeutsche Zeitung that there is no alternative to help Greece. It will cost too much money not to help.
The article also cites president Barrosso for the remark that the Commission has a European mechanism ready to support Greece, only Greece has not asked for money so far. Instead the Greek PM, Giorgos Papandreou, has suggested that Greece might ask IMF for help.
I consider the latter (wise) negotiation tactics. We should keep on an eye on the calendar: The chefs of governments and states in the EU will meet Thursday and Friday next week, and this will definitely be a moment to discuss the Greek situation and make decisions.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"CEO of Deutsche Bank, Josef Ackermann, says in an article from 16th March 2010 in the influential Süddeutsche Zeitung that there is no alternative to help Greece. It will cost too much money not to help."
Sure. Cost who too much? Me? Him? The German guy working in the snow and rain and mud for a barely living wage? The folks with enough spare money to invest in stock market funds and bonds?
Or are we all in this together?
I suppose we are all in this together. Which is funny, because the last time I saw a banker, he was getting out of a limousine being driven by a servant, and walking into a five star hotel with servants to serve him, and people to cook his food, and other people to wash his clothes and still more people to answer his phones and calculate his tax savings.
But sure, we are all this economic game together, and it will certainly cost too much if the right people are not reimbursed the profits they deserve from the market.
We need to have governments willing to step in and make the market FAIR, because otherwise capitalism will be no fun for the quality and then the socialists will step in and ruin everything by trying to make the market fair by interfering with it.
That's why the banker needs all those people to serve him and do things for him, you see. He has to protect the market from operating in such a way as to need the protection of socialists who would protect it from the way he needs it to operate so that it is fair. He's busy, managing the free market by suggesting policy to politicians.
Imagine if the bankers weren't here to advice the politicians on how to keep the free market fair, huh?
And they help the politicians out with sponsorship money as well, which is dreadfully kind of them. All in all I suppose the bankers are our guardian angels. They pick the best politicians for us, and they protect the market from behaving unfairly, and they stop the socialists trying to mess with market to make it fair as well.
Like I said, that must be why the bankers need servants to do everything menial around them. It seems an awfully busy life, being a banker. Fixing markets, fixing policy, making money for yourself: all of it between sun up and sun down, and all for the good of everybody else.
I can;t get enough of them, myself. I am just yearning to know what the next wise suit thinks, and so I'll go ask a party member. And party will do, as long as they are wearing good suits and listening to the bankers.
And that would be all of them, so I'm in luck.
Complain about this comment
I am fascinated reading this blog and all the comments .
Europeans , voluntary and involuntary , are standing at the edge of a precipice ; wondering who is going to be pushed over first , who is going to slip and fall and who is going to jump .
ChrisArta seems to have done a rapid U turn on Britain joining the Euro .
Jukka Rohila quotes the ideology from the EU Guidebook to a federal state ; while not seeing the precipice , gazes into the distance , where he can see EURO Utopia at the end of the rainbow .
The individual Sovereign States making up the present European Union are never likely to agree upon becoming a single federal state . The Euro that was conceived with that end in mind , has now shown the marked differences between northern and southern European countries . Why should the Germans " Eat Humble Pie ", to level themselves down with countries which cannot match them in production and export or managing their finances .
The Euro was a Huge mistake , Error of Judgement , " Putting The Cart Before The Horse ".
MarcusAuraliusII is as ever full of "Doom and Gloom ", but I am afraid he may be right ; there is no easy way out of the present EU - Euro crisis , which could signal the beginning of the end of the European Federal Dream .
Complain about this comment
Could anyone please explain to me why the European Central Bank doesn't simply print the money and buy up Greece's debt? Isn't that what the Bank of England was doing until recently?
Complain about this comment
@167 AliceInWonderLand /your last post 167 on the thread "the trials of Catherine Ashton"/
“Battled, lost, wounded”?
Alice, dear friend, you are not at all battled, nor lost. You are just a little bit wounded in a result of some unlucky, casual accident. Not at all! You are still our little St.Petersburger princess, living in the best quarters of the Winter Palace which windows open on the Neva…
I assume that you feel unhappy now, and I would like just to tell you that many of us /your fellow bloggers here/ have had similar bitter moments of grief and loneliness that would usually follow the lost of a close relative or some decease or accident…
Well, what I could assure you is that I highly appreciate your artistic presence here, and, I do hope that Nik, Jukka of Finland, MarcusAureliusII, David, Mathiasen, Dr.Eiffel, Cool_brush_work, Jean Luc and the other guys will follow…
“Obnimayu krepko, krepko” (russ. I embrace you with all the strength I have)
Sofia, Marsh 18th 2010
Complain about this comment
Mr Hewitt, again, no really startling revelation in this Blog Article.
German Chancellor Merkel in the German Bundestag - - NOTE, Not in Brussels to the EU Commission or EU Parliament:
'It should be possible to expel a Member Nation'.
'The German leader wants a Treaty change.'
'This was a flexing of German muscle.'
At least not 'startling' for those of us who have long been trying to explain to those 'pro-EU' who lost their 'political' compass somewhere during the last 20 years or so since Maastricht 1992.
Your Article's reference to Germany's Chancellor setting out what will be the EU/EUro-zone way for the future just basically encapsulates the blindingly obvious:
1) Germany now has hegemony in the EU.
2) France, as prime fellow-traveller, was tolerated as a useful equal & tool for this exercise in peaceful acquisition of supreme power in the EU.
3) France has been slipping back over the last decade - - its patent struggle/pretence of Economic parity with Germany has been found out - - why else is Paris unable to organise an EU 'bail-out' of Greece without Berlin onboard.
4) The formation and evolution of an EU27 has been largely accomplished by the axis-of-ill-intent based around Paris-Berlin-Brussels - - that 'ever closer union' momentum is melting faster than paint under a blowtorch - - the EU27 are close to succombing entirely to Berlin.
5) The France that appeared to have forgotten or believed it could renounce History's very hard geo-politic lesson will be reminded: Via the EUro-zone, Greek debacle & way the so-called PIGS are dealt with - - in any critically decisive issue there can be only 1 master.
WELCOME EUROPE to that which so many men, women & children sacrificed so much over generations to prevent - - and this time around Your children have grown up educated by You to believe the 'game' is not such a bad thing - - afterall, if Paris plays the obsequious 'game', what can any other nation, so, shouldn't we all play the game under new Berlin rules!?
I am equally concerned for the UK/England which has been betrayed into the EU catastophe time-and-again by its duplicitous, venal Political Leadership.
This decade is decisive for UK/England and EUrope: And the year ahead is probably the most important for the 27 if they are to have any chance to reacquaint themselves with that Historic moral-ethical-political compass-bearing and steer a Legislative Economic-Judicial-Cultural course away from longterm servitude.
Complain about this comment
YES, Generalisimo,
ALICE COME BACK NOWWWWWWWWWWWWW:)
IT'S TIME TO DO MORE THAN JUST EXIST. I'VE LOST A PET AND IT'S **JUST AS BAD*** AS LOSING A HUMAN:(
YOU ARE NORMAL IN YOUR SORROW. WE WANT YOU BACK.
PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE?
Complain about this comment
#46 DemocracyThreat
If I were you I would consider Ackermann's statement as a guideline for how decision makers in the EURO zone will act in the Greek matter, - a suggestion of what is being thought in the back premises of politics.
Complain about this comment
No one prints money, ...
you ignorant economics theory haters...that is *not* inflation....the EU is reaping what it's sown...economic ignorance as an "ethical practice." :) (say it with a smile lol)
Engineering and being a lawyer is NOT a prerequisite of understanding economics.....duhhhhh...sorry frustration at mass of happy lemmings jumping off the cliffs into blissful ignorance..:)
So... quit bragging about ur degrees for a moment:)
It is to LOLOLOLOLOLOL till I wet meself:)
Golly Gee Whillikers!:)
Complain about this comment
1.) Angela Merkel does not speak on behalf of all Germans. She might think it a wise move to get people on her side in a populist way if she talks about expelling other Euro members. It was a pathetic attempt at rabble-rousing and I am sure I am not the only one who sees it that way.
2.) However, I do not see anything wrong in making a strategic withdrawal from the Eurozone. It would seem to me that at this point the Euro is not even very useful for the Greek economy. The current dynamics of the Eurozone are such that Greece is locked in a position of being a recipient nation in two different ways. Firstly, it receives money from the EU and is yet to create a budget surplus for the EU. If current EU dynamics are maintained, that is never going to happen. Second, it is a nation that imports almost all the goods it consumes and it exports very little. The way things are going at the moment, it looks as if the Euro guarantees that this will not change, either.
So skipping past Merkel's populist remarks, I wonder if there are many people who have yet considered the possibility of getting out of the Eurozone for their own good. Having their own currency would allow them to have control over their interest rates, which would make it easier to manage foreign loans and deficits.
Complain about this comment
#47 Huaimek,
I'm still very pro-Euro but this current pathetic show that the German politicians are puting on, is really puting me off it BIG time and I think maybe the wait and see approach we've taken is not such a bad thing after all.
The idea of having a single currency through out the EU is a very sound idea, but if the reality of it all is that there is no solidarity and the only ones benefiting from it are German companies selling without fear of loosing money or the need to take into account exchange rates then forget it! I want the Euro only if it comes with SOLIDARITY stuck on its label, if it comes with the implied meaning buy our products in our own currency and we throw you out if we don't like you. Then no thank you keeping for yourselfs!
Complain about this comment
#52 Mathiasen,
My guess is that on the 25 - 26 in Brussels the heads of governments will not be able to agree on anything because Angie will dig her heals in and say "nein" or maybe even "nein und abermals nein". Everyone one else will put on a breave face and say "we think that Greece is doing great, it is on the right path they don't need help and they have not asked for help" but secretelly they will all be fummmmmmmming:)))
The Greeks then will have to go the IMF cup in hand and ask for some money, they will have to issue bonds in Dollars not in Euro, so that will be another first for Greece and the Euro! A Eurozone country that issues bonds in US Dollars :)) Then once that happens the markets will smell blood and it will be obvious to them that there is no support mechanism in the Eurozone so they will move on to their next target.
Now what would be interesting to see would be for them to pick a larger target such as Italy or Spain, then we would have real fireworks. Then I'd like to see Mr Ackermann's comments they would similar to: "what on earth is going on here? everyone is issuing Dollar bonds what about the Euro?" :)))
So I give it until the 25th when the real fun starts!
The only thing that would stop the above scenario is if France & other countries step in and lend to Greece directly at a less than 6.3 that they are forced to borrow at now.
If Greece keeps borrowing at 6.3 then although I'm not a smart economist just a simple computer engineer in my calculation Greece will not be able to service its debt.
Complain about this comment
I think it is unreasonable and indeed ridiculous to speak of an "imperialistic" Germany in this day and age. Germany has not done anything to bring about the current crisis of the "PIGS" nations. Germany has just been through a recession itself, but instead of blaming other nations for being "imperialistic" and joining an "axis of malevolent intent" Germany just sorted out the problems for itself and went on with it.
Nations and populations in Europe which are decadent in their nature have got into an easy habit of pointing their fingers at Germany whenever something has gone wrong in their own countries. For a while, this went rather well, as Germany was understandably of the opinion that it owed many countries in Europe due to past wrongs inflicted upon those nations. But this guilt-tripping and "imperialism" racket is getting really old. The joke is getting stale. Sort out your own crises. Don't be so lazy all the time. Don't expect to be a prosperous nation if you pay people for doing nothing. Don't expect to be a prosperous nations if you allow people to retire at 61. Don't expect to be a prosperous nations if you throw your toys out of the pram each and every time your nation his facing an economic challenge. And above all, get out of that silly habit of blaming others for your own mistakes.
Complain about this comment
Yo Alice
I don't know what has happened but we have no sun in the sky to guide us. You must come back. No sun, no light, no enlightenment.
Is there anything we can do?
Complain about this comment
Analysis are very good but as predicted in my first post, after Chancellor Merkel's speech spreads have gone up, making more difficult for Greece to borrow, making more probable bail out/IMF/default (whatever). Thank you Chancellor Merkel for this supreme show of solidarity. Could we please go out of the EU immediately. We do not want to live in Germany's empire as second class citizens.
Complain about this comment
39. @MarcusAureliusII
Delighted that you are having a great time. We will do our best to entertain you.
Complain about this comment
#57
Thank you for the sermon :)) If you are German then you are a good proof at how much Germans like a good speach!
Here in the UK we don't blame anyone for our problems we love them an we believe that we should be able to retire whenever we like before 61 or after 67 and not when someone tells us now its a good age to retire.
No one is blaming Germans for their past mistakes we blame your current leadership for its current mistakes. They are the ones that are throwing the toys out of the pram, because of some neoliberal ideas that if you don't suffer you don't learn a lesson. They seem to have forgotten that in a democracy governments don't punish people for asking what they want, but it is the other way around, people punish governments for not delivering what they want.
So, step off your soapbox, take a look around and ask yourself if there is any point to the EU without solidarity? To me the answer is not, if there is no solidarity the EU servers no purpose and it may are well be renamed EB (European Banking) because the "U" title is misleading! Either we have an EU for everyone or none.
Complain about this comment
I don't know if the US contributes money to the IMF (it's easy enought to check) but if it does and the IMF bails out Greece, I think the US should withdraw all of its support. The IMF was created to help developing nations through crisis to build their nations which may have suffered from lack of development due to a history of bad investment conditions or other misfortune but I don't want my tax money going to a government that failed because of a long history of overt corruption that was aided and abetted by a major power bloc it was part of. Let Europeans bail out Greece to save the Euro. That is not what American taxpayer dollars are for, at least not mine.
Complain about this comment
The say in the streets and press in Greece is that if we have to go to IMF after we have implemented a severe austerity package at the EU's request (and rightly so) there is no point in staying in EU. This is not a union. I think that effectively Greece is expeled by Germany.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
As far as I know IMF is with American money. Behind IMF is US. Germany and others send Greece to IMF, this what they say: for your predicament EU has no mechanism, IMF is the only solution. Greece prefers an EU solution naturally but if it does not come what else it can do? IMF or default. Obama was positive I think on IMF. I think you should be complaining to your government and EU. You can of course invade Greece. There is oil in the Aegean sea. Of course you should expect asymmetric warfare in the Greek mountains in the fine tradition of this land. This would be entertaining.
Complain about this comment
#62,
MAII start kissing those US dollars good-bye, at the moment it looks like they heading Greece's way they'll pay you back in olive oil or maybe your government can get them to lease you bases cheaper than in Germany so you can save US Dollars that way:)))
You have the printing press you have to print dollars, it doesn't look like the Eurozone can find a single voice, so except that "sneaky plan" that no one knows anything about it, the only other thing they have on offer hot air :))
Complain about this comment
Good points #57..
of course they don't go down well in ''12% Budget Deficit Britain''
Forget Greece, let's wait and see until the UK starts to squeek.. and Germany will continue on it's constitutionally decreed path of European Unity..
That's what the negative commetators here hate so much..
They may make trouble now, but who cares, they're on to a lost cause..
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
You may have the ear of the United State's Government. If so, I am sure you will readily and positively respond.
Kindly get in touch with them and request they launch an immediate 'search & rescue' Internet Mission for the sadly lamented and much missed:
WebAliceInWonderland
These Blogs are not important compared to the Lady's safety!
Complain about this comment
Well done to Merkel! We need someone in British politics to look after the interest of our country and its tax payers as Merkel is.
She is one of the few people experienced enough to express these views. The EU have not even signed of their own accounts in the last 10 or more years so obviously have no financial competence or have misused our money so badly they cant hide it. The commission tell Greece how to run their economy and this week said the UK need to get it act together and cut spending. All of this from a bunch of unelected bureaucrats with no more experience than buying sweets at the local shop with the £45 million the UK give them every day, (increasing if Gordon bails out Greece). Now that's £16.5 billion per year, maybe the damp rags have a point we should cut our spending, stop sending it to Brussels for them to give grants to Polish factory's that take UK jobs.
Complain about this comment
Europris: #28
Funny how the majority was against bailing out the banks but it happened anyway. Wonder what "represetative demoncracy means?" Next question will be that of will the people hold those who voted for the bailout accountable in the next election. As it was both parties, as the bankers contribute to both, some new parties and faces should be elected. Until a very stong message is sent to all parties that the business of government is not business but rather the welfare and interest of the people, things will simply continue as will the abuse of the citizens by the politicians. Without a sign of major protest the bankers and the politicians will continue to view the public as fools who can be taxed to support the wealthy. Without consequences behaviors never change.
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta
Hmm...
Your #56 & 61 plus a couple of your earlier posts on the Greece debacle are starting to suggest the EU/EUro-Fan club is close to losing a member?
Complain about this comment
vassilis;
Why should I complain to the EU? I'd only complain to my government. I expect IMF dollars to go to developing nations who are desperate.
Are you crazy, there isn't ever going to be a war between the US and Greece? America doesn't want Greece's oil. Actually, America is doing just fine on oil from Mexico, Nigeria, and a few other places, it does not get much even from the Middle East. There are new vast oil reserves that have been discovered in Venezuela and near Brazil. The US probably has vast quantities of its own off its own coastline. Environmentalists have blocked drilling there.
I don't think that Greece should go to the IMF, I think if the EU doesn't bail it out it should default. It would be no worse off because the IMF will impose tough restrictions if it agrees to bail Greece out at all. Greece should not quit either the Euro or the EU. It is in a position of strength able to dictate to Germany right now. Why would it give that position up? Let Germany worry...and France. The other PIIGS won't quit, why should Greece? Greece became part of their empire. It's up to the occupiers to fund those nations they control. Remember we are talking axis of weasel here. They knew exactly what they were doing, now let them pay for it.
Complain about this comment
CA;
"they'll pay you back in olive oil"
I think I'll place a large order for vegetables to make a salad and some vinegar. I have a hunch I'll have a lot of olive oil to get through. Maybe they'd sell us the Elgin Marbles. We could take them off Britain's hands. They'd look great in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC.
Complain about this comment
Dear friends. How good and kind you are.
I always wanted a kind man - over everything. white horses. since age of five. only one thing - must be KIND. must be formulated projected somehow wrong images, always got diametrically opposite :o)
Now I see my dreams are coming true :o))), and how! 10-fold!
I will be back of course of course where else to. Right now there is life in me left not very much. landscape is Stalingrad battle. when I say battled I mean battled.
technically speaking, there isn't much difference between me and cat now. purely symbolically.
Complain about this comment
How ironic that Gordon Brown who was Chancellor of the Eschequeur when the financial crisis was building up and did nothing to prevent it, didn't even recognize it coming, may very likely be re-elected. The good news is that if he is Prime Minister, he can't be doing any more damage as Chancellor of the Eschequeur again :-)
Complain about this comment
PatienceOver
Re #66 & other purveyors of 'UK doom & gloom'
Now here are a few interesting Economic points to ponder:
Wednesday the EU announced UK was going to overshoot the Government's own prediction of a record 178 Billion Borrowing for 2009-10.
The EU went on to state the UK Government was in breech of EU rules for Defecits not to be above 3% of GDP (G.B. is likely to be around 12%): It insisted UK Chancellor Darling must revise upward his planned 'cost-cutting' measures to reduce the Defecit & bring them in sooner than he is proposing.
The curiosity of it being the EU had either failed to notice or do anythig about this 'defecit-error' in at least 9 of the 16 EUro-zone Nations during the last decade!
Today Thursday - the G.B. Audit Office announced the final revised figures for Government Borrowing April 09 to February 2010 were 131.9 Billion & that figures for March 2010 also indicate lower Borrowing.
This is expected to result in final Borrowing sum of nearer 165 than 178 Billion.
Well, 13 Billion though not peanuts, at those levels does not seem like much: However, it does illustrate yet again the difference between National regulated audit measures and the EU economic-Fiscal accountancy systems which simply are not upto scratch.
It also raises questions of Brussel's competence to accurately assess and determine policy suggestions in such critical areas for Nations. The EU's preferred policy completely at odds with the Economic reality as shown by the new Borrowing figures, but also by the following:
1) UK's Triple AAA Credit Rating has been reaffirmed by International Finance.
2) UK unemployment numbers have fallen 3 months in a row & continue to do so; an indicator the Economy was picking-up early in the 3rd Quarter & unqualified figures of a slower-rate were inaccurate.
3) UK final 09-10 Quarterly figures show it is out of Recession.
4) UK Tax Receipts are rising - - an indication of more 'in-work', more 'spending' & the return to Full VAT - - these Reduce Government Borrowing.
5) UK overall level of Debt is similar to other major countries - - it Borrowed more quickly, hence the present upfront Economic pressure - - however, UK Government imperative is for a stable Recovery over 4 years & thus with a Budget next week, it is likely to be more 'steady as we go' than a dash to match the EU's unreliable and unrealistic economic targets.
Afterall, why would any self-respecting UK Government of any political persuasion listen to a bunch of Brussels Fiscal experts who cannot even manage their own EUro-zone!?
Complain about this comment
remember that dacha balcony photo? there is snow up to mid windows below. in the first day I only managed to walk to the house, open the door and find a spade. at places snow is up to the throat.
next day was easier, we sat on the balcony, discussed this and that. 17 years she was looking after me, not a joke. invisibly, quietly, not like cat boys I had along, or the dog. never required attention. invisible cat, not a sound, not a demand. just watched me. for periods sometimes up to 5 years I don't even remember where she was - in Moscow? in St. Petersburg? lived with me? with mum? whole years lapsed, i don't remember, so un-demanding she was. and I worked, travelled, looked after more demanding attention family members. only since April 2004 she was the last cat and the only left.
and still I forgot to ask directions how to live further.
she is in the snow pile, on the ground, in the wardrobe shelf.
Peggy. Pepa. Pentium. Po-po. Limpopo. Winnipeg. Pegasus.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
Indeed, there are many voices for defaulting in case EU does present a concrete plan than go to IMF. Of course this might be done sooner or later. At least our creditors and masters will suffer also. If it is a jungle out there and every country for itself, if there is no union in the European Union, what one can do? they shouldn't have lent Greece money in the first place. There is always the risk of defaulting.
Complain about this comment
@cool_brush_work
Stay out of Eurozone and try to get out of EU. You don't need these clowns.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
Missed You & know many others did too.
Moving tale, but eased by knowing you are safe and well.
Our cat was 'Maximus': A white giant, he stood his ground at night and dared foxes to approach - - they never did - - 16 years he brought mice, rabbits, voles into our 2 daughter's bed to show his affection & though they would scream if the tv showed any dead animal, for Maximus there was only cuddles and the request I take the carcass elsewhere, but only when he wasn't looking!
Good to read you again.
Here, it is similar: Our Cottage is surrounded by 1 metre high snow - - the tough bit was getting the 1 metre off the roof - - it had 3 frozen layers & no ropes or shovels could dislodge it (even with me on the roof - - yes, JL etc. I hear you, "Jump! Jump!" Sorry to disappoint!).
TeeHeeee.
Last weekend a neighbour leant his tractor and we used the grab-bucket to lift the snow off!
Unfortunately the 1 metre around our home is now 2 metres with the dumped roof snow!
Anyway, Spring is around the corner - - I suspect it's going to be very wet & flooding in the thaw - - from snow-boots to Wellingtons!
Still, it'll give us more to exchange views on.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
It was mentioned by another contributor, but I would none the less like to repeat: It is written into the German constitution that the Federal Republic strives toward a united Europe through the development of the European Union (article 23).
Among the European constitutions I assume the German is the only one with an article of that kind. The background is of course to be found in the events during WW2 and in the years direct after the war.
We should all notice that the article commits the constitutional court in Karlsruhe to consider the interests of the European development when it makes verdicts in cases that go beyond the national framework, or verdicts where national interests stand against European interests for instance in matters concerning sovereignty.
With Angel Merkel Germany the Federal Republic now has its first chancellor without much if any personal experience from the disastrous war. It seems as if she is changing the course of Germany and is following national goals more than it was the case with all other chancellors at least up to Gerhard Schröder.
None the less Germany has had security as well as economic interests in the union from day one, and therefore the chancellor and the German government will have to balance various interests against each other just like Karlsruhe. Let me just mention that Germany could only do very little against it when the Bush government sought support from countries in all corners of Europe to its war in Iraq and got it.
Complain about this comment
Leigh, you wrote "...no more experience than buying sweets at the local shop..."
Leigh, the current European Commission includes a former Portugal Prime Minister, (Barroso), a former Estonia Prime Minister (Siim Kallas), a former France Foreign Minister (Michel Barnier), a former Belgium Foreign Minister (Karel De Gucht), a former Malta Foreign Minister (John Dalli), a former Malta Finance Minister (Dalli again), a former Lithuania Finance Minister (Algirdas Šemeta), a former Ireland Justice Minister (Máire Geoghegan-Quinn), a former Netherlands Minister of Transport (Neelie Kroes), the guy who founded the Warsaw Stock Exchange (Janusz Lewandowski), the guy who ran the 1992 Winter Olympics (Barnier again), the woman who ran the 2009 Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference (Connie Hedegaard) and a former Vice-President of the World Bank (Kristalina Georgieva)
Some sweet shop, Leigh...:-)
I agree that this is not the best-of-the-best-of-the-best-hut-hut-hut. I agree that they were not popularly elected and that this is not good. I agree that the current European Commission contains some absolute lemons. But to characterise them as collectively having "...no more experience than buying sweets at the local shop..." is wildly inaccurate.
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
OP "...There is no appetite for rescuing countries who fake their accounts and run up massive debts..."
What about a government who pretends it is better to cut 'next year' for 'economic reasons' in order to fake up a good front for their electorate? Would there be an appetite in the EU to bailout a country blessed with such a caring administration?
Complain about this comment
vassilis;
"If it is a jungle out there and every country for itself..."
But it is not every country for itself. As I posted earlier, the inability to print one's own currency is one sign of loss of sovereignty. Euroland is in effect one nation now. The implications are that Greece is part of a larger country. That country will have to decide what risks it is willing to take and how to deal with Greece's problems. It can't just suddenly brush them aside the way Angela Merckel would like to.
WA;
So sorry to hear about the loss of your cat. I was so attached to my first dog that when it died when it was 15 years old I cried for months. Eventually a pet becomes like a child. But if it is sick and suffering and can't be cured, the kindest thing that can happen is for its misery to end. Think back on times you were happiest to have it around.
Complain about this comment
75 "...UK overall level of Debt is similar to other major countries..."
If the level of debt were falling then there'd be no worry.
Complain about this comment
Alice
Upon the loss of a best friend remember this verse
"Grieve not, nor speak of me with tears, but laugh and talk of me as if I were besides you. I loved you so.... 'twas Heaven here with you"
.......Ilsa Paschal Richardson
Complain about this comment
Hey, Alice: welcome back...:-)
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
#75 thanks for the mention
I presume you belong/ed to that barmy army of those who eighteen months ago, were telling the French and Germans that they were 'old Europe' and that the reagan/thatcher deregulation was the way to go... in other words, living beyond your means.. buying houses with 150% mortgages.. that sort of thing..
Then damn it, you had to come 'cup in hand' to those more small 'c' old European conservative countries for a bail out.. quel ennui!!
No, many of you show your total ignorance of the German mentality.. created by two lost wars and serious financial crisis in between.. and what an effect that still has on the German way of thinking and doing business.. none of this anglo-saxon 'cheap and nasty' spin for them...
Manufacturing high quality goods, good service is the German way and that will stay so.. also the German desire for peace, as well as having no desire whatsoever to rule the world. .. something the Brits and Americans still espouse to.. although they always try and accuse the Germans of being so..
Thank goodness that the Germans are keeping and will remain cool and will also remain the dominant player in Europe..
Why don't you Americans bring a few spare aircraft carriers over to Blighty and haul the islands back to the USA.. we'd be dead grateful.. and then the Brits could comfortably stick their noses further up the Americans backsides and feel good about themselves again.. but be warned, they have no or very little manufacturing base.. just overpaid workers who transfer money backwards and forwards
Complain about this comment
75. At 4:44pm on 18 Mar 2010, cool_brush_work
You wrote
“It also raises questions of Brussel's competence to accurately assess and determine policy suggestions in such critical areas for Nations...”
Actually, your account raises another question much stronger, which you do not mention, however: Why on earth is the UK member of the EU?
Most of us realise that only the day after it had become clear that the UK is not profiting from its membership it would start the process of leaving the union. From your account I understand that this is long overdue, only we don’t understand why this has not been generally understood in the UK and turned into national policy in Westminster.
Another reason to be astonished: Within weeks you are facing the chance of your life, namely the next general election. Either you get a strong anti-EU result or the British electorate endorse the Lisbon treaty. However, the British electorate does not seem to have understood the matter correctly - in other words it can not take care of its own interests. Should we expect to see any changes of that in the coming weeks?
Complain about this comment
#70 CBW,
I'm loosing my taste for Angie :)) and the economists that thing because in theory something should not happen, then reality will follow theory. I.e. every one will have a budget deficit bellow 3% we don't need a crisis management mechanism, well guess what 13 out 16 Eurozone countries fail the 3% deficit test and the Euro has no crisis management mechanism, because some economist thought it "should not" happen!!! Come on give me a break.
I agree with your dislike for "big government/big business" thought :))
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen @#80
You wrote that Germany is committed to the .development of a United Europe[sic]
In particular you wrote, " ... None the less Germany has had security as well as economic interests in the union from day one, and therefore the chancellor and the German government will have to balance various interests against each other just like Karlsruhe..."
As you implied Angela Merkel is the (probably?) first German Chancellor to have no personal experience of World War II and (probably?) has no feelings of guilt or self-recrimination for the part that Germany played in that (now) historic event.
Without intent to be rude, I suggest that Article 23 of the German Constitution was written by German pluralists who may have (probably, I would suggest?)) felt some guilt or self-recrimination for the events of 1933-1945 and may have felt that Article 23 some way assuaged that guilty feeling or went some way to alleviating collective German guilt for the sins of their fathers.
Dare I suggest that Germany has to date done more than enough to develop a united Europe and that it is not the fault of Germany that now, when the World is facing calamitous global recession that is equal to if not nearly as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s, we find that certain countries within the United European Dream have not played their part by doing as much as Germany to base their wealth on production but, rather than do things right, have used the gifts of the German (and other wealthy European nations) to develop liberal-socialist economies that are based upon the gifts of income from sources such as EU funding (much of it derived from the net receipt from German labour).
Is it not time that Germany stopped being so generous and forced countries like Greece to be more circumspect in how they manage their economies? Has not Germany, actually, not already given Billions of Euros to the EU who has then disbursed that income to countries like Greece who have then wasted that gift?
Perhaps it is time that Germany started to state quite categorically that the development of a United Europe requires all member states to behave correctly, with impropriety and to use gifted funds from the EU to develop their economies rather than waste those funds on liberal-socialist schemes such as bloated and unproductive public services that benefit the needy (and milked to death by them!) but do nothing for the prosperity of the recipient nation or its future generations or to arm a massive military for a war that is never likely to happen any time soon or to support uneconomic ventures that do not produce but consume wealth.
I suspect that, these current events are, in reality, a wake up call for Germany and its citizens to realise that they are no longer responsible for World War II and that they can do more as permanent members of the UN Security Council than they can trying to spend money on wasted causes such as the EU which as you said, "...has had security as well as economic interests {..} from day one almost entirely bankrolled by German productivity and remorse which is no longer necessary.
Complain about this comment
#MAII,
You are right they should not pay, turn around to the Eurozone and tell them straight in their faces, we either borrow at the same rate as the rest of you or print some money for us :)))
Complain about this comment
rg
Re #84
The level is 'falling' in real terms: Though of course it is at record 'borrowing' levels.
That said, the UK is in this top-heavy Economic-Fiscal boat taking on water along with almost everyone else.
When you write, "..if level were falling.." it is worth noting it is true for almost all the EU - - so, to the 'UK doom & gloom' merchants on here, it is not unique to the UK - - and frankly it is my belief a Conservative or NuLab Government would have faced the same difficulties & having to adopt the same stringent measures after the collapsed US Banking/Housing Mortgage system.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII, you said "...The US has printed its way out of every recession since the great depression. The problem this time is that the scale of what is required dwarfs any prior experience. I estimate that the US needs to print between about 5 and 10 trillion dollars. Right now it is only scheduled to print about 1.5 trillion a year..."
OK, let's go thru the math.
UK free money to bankers for being swell
* UK GDP (2009): *very* approximately £1,500 billion
* UK quantitative easing (2009): approximately £200 billion. Call it 15% of GDP
* UK money to banks (2008-9): oh heck, pick a number - approx £500 billion in 2008, another £50 billion in 2009. Call it 35% of GDP
So the UK government has given 35% of the UK wealth to bankers ('cos, y'know: they're cute n'all) and printed money equivalent to 15% of UK wealth to replace the money the bankers destroyed when they got their sums wrong (oops: butterfingers).
And that's just for one year. That's approx £50-100million per hour, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for one year.
(Leigh complains about the £45 million given to the EU from UK - and I'll bet you that's gross, not net - per day. Leigh. The UK government either printed off that much money or gave it to the banks for fun'n'giggles in the last thirty minutes)
US free money to bankers for being cute
So if the US goes the same way as the UK, it'll go something like this:
* US GDP (2009): *very* approximately $15,000 billion
* US quantitative easing if it copies the UK: approximately $2,000 billion.
* UK money to banks if it copies the UK: approximately $5,500 billion.
So the US will (if it copies the UK) give 5 trillion dollars to the banks because they've got such dimply smiles, then print off 2 trillion dollars of fresh new money 'cos the banks can't add up. In one year.
So your estimate is pretty much bang on.
Can anybody find a responsible adult?
I am struck by the ineffable ability of hypersmart adults to make mistakes eight-year old children wouldn't make. Bankers with multiple degrees made mistakes so large economies and countries are being destroyed (Iceland, Greece, Latvia, Ireland: and that's just in Europe). Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany and has an equivalent to a PhD in quantum chemistry. Yet she is galumphing around Europe dreaming institutions she can't realise (EMF) and making threats she can't carry out (expelling Greece). She spoke to the Bundestag. Did nobody think of standing up and saying "Frau Bundeskanzlerin. Er, you do know this is nuts, right? Y'know, actually crazy?"
Regards, viewcode
* https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/11/banks_the_world_is_weary_of_th.html
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7924506.stm
Complain about this comment
90. At 8:08pm on 18 Mar 2010, Menedemus wrote
"they can do more as permanent members of the UN Security Council"
By they do you mean the Germans? They are not! So, I guess you are wrong there :)
Also the UK has been giving money since day one, so what is your point here? What makes Germany so special? The UK didn't do it because it felt guildy about the war, it did it because those are the rules.
In a "union" some states give some states receive, the money we give goes to build roards, bridges, airports etc. The companies that build those things are mostly UK, French & German. Germany can only build so many roads in Germany and then run out of space, so other states build those things also with German technology and knowhow. We don't give anyone any money if that was the case they would not have a deficit :))) we give them some money with one hand but we take it back 2 & 3 times with the other, it is a very smart trick.
Complain about this comment
@Menedemus
All this speeches are very nice, yes ok everything Greece's fault, but the markets have believed that there will be some sort of a loan so after Merkel's speach effectively ruling out this spreads went up for Greece (despite the severe austerity package), so now practically what do you actually suggest? IMF or default? Of course you can say frankly you do not care but there are some practical implications, e.g. default means that Greece will be unable to pay German (and French and other) Banks several tens of billions with implications for the Euro and their economies. IMF?
Complain about this comment
Greece owes some 43 billions to German Banks.
Complain about this comment
how come ,nobody saw this coming ? After all these years of supporting the "siesta nations "in europe ,finally one german politician has the testicular fortitutde to say No ! Bravo
i wish there would be more of that, like a No to War, or a No to superpower imperialism,or a No to EU and EURO.
You were right to look for the money,follow the trail and you will see who made the profits from EU and EURO.....not Germany!
Complain about this comment
ChrisArta @#94
Germany, Japan, Brazil are but three nations that have applied for and being considered for permanent seat on the UN Security Council. India is likely to become a future candidate.
The 'rules' to which you allude that the UK is equally committed to the EU are the very rules that the pluralists from post-war Germany and, in particular, France, thought up as a means to redistribute wealth within the erstwhile Common Market that has, subsequently, become the EU. The UK merely accepted those rules on entry in 1972 which also required amendment of the despised CAP agricultural subsidies which benefit France more than any other nation (least of all the UK) .... that was the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher.
Germany has never negotiated a change in the 'rules' to benefit Germany - unlike the UK. Perhaps they have not done so becaause they are (a) more committed to the EU dream and (b)have felt a sense of guilt for being the 'enemy conquerors' of most of Europe from 1938-1945.
My point IS that, perhaps, now is a good time for Germany to stop bankrolling profligacy and non-productive liberal-socialist economies which benefit the poor at the expense of wealth of Germany (and 5 other net contributor nations) but actually ends up making all our children's children less well off.
Germany has, perhaps contributed to the propserity of Europe too much but that prosperity is now being unveiled to have been wasted opportunity by the PIIG nations and the thrust of my discourse is to suggest that Germany is right to put its foot down and say to the PIIG nations - "stop wasting the benefits of EU membership on overbloated public services, unnecessarily large miltary expenditure and wasteful economic underedevelopment."[sic]
And, please, do not allude to the UK being any better than the PIIG nations as the UK has been just as wasteful and stupid with public expenditure since 1945 and the UK is now as bankrupt as any of the PIIG nations and, now, in dire need of adoping austerity and looking after its own needs rather than worrying about other EU nations or the World at large prosperity.
vassilis @#95
12 billion Euros worth of Greek debt is owed to British Banks. If Greece defaults then it will hurt the UK citizens - equally as much as Greece's EU partners - as it will be the UK Tax-payer who will carry the UK greek default.
In simple terms, Greece is stuffed. Even if Greece were to get 25 billion Euros of credit guarantees from its EUro partners, Greece still has to find 45 billion Euros in May to fund due bank loan interest and repayments. That ain't going to happen even if Germany chnages its mind and bankrolls a lifeline to Greece - Germany and the other 10 Euro nations would be wasting their money.
The only viable solution for Greece is to approach the IMF who will demand even tougher austerity than the Greeks are currently enduring.
The downside of the IMF NOT becoming embroiled in the Greek default is that the Euro becomes a worthless international currency.
It is simply better that France swallows its pride and accepts that the IMF has more funds available to it than the 12 EU nations to guarantee loans to Greece to enable it to pay the scheduled debt repayment in May.
That will at least save the Euro even if the USA (France's bete noire), through the IMF, is going to be the major contributor to the rescue of the Euro.
I bet Marcus is going to just love the USA, through the IMF, rescuing Europe yet again!
Complain about this comment
IMF has its own practical risks for Eurozone beyond the terrible message it sends (let;s forget this). If IMF demands more austerity (it will I agree) isn't going to happen (hundreds of thousands of starving unemployed have nothing to lose from a default or at least they do not care) and I am afraid that we will have a second Argentina but in Eurozone now. Default will be the next option and this will harm everyone in Eurozone for sure including Germany. If Greece does not make it there is the danger of this spreading, if one way or other it makes it, this might not spread. anyway, all these are theories, let's see what is going to happen. There is suspense and we have to keep MAII entertained. In any case, I do not believe that Germans have an obligation to aid Greece. I just believe that in the long term and due to wider implications might be an irrational decision. I could very well be wrong though. I guess most economists could agree with you and not me.
Complain about this comment
Of course I love the irony being saved by MAII. And imagine if we default in the end, more US money down the drain! Excellent! MAII these pizzas and beer might cost you more than you think. Your admin wants to save us!
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen
Re #88
Several cheap shots at the UK: Unworthy of your normal high standard of contribution.
There is no chance in a couple of months of any 'anti-EU' Political Party being elected as Government of the UK - - this You well know - - as there is no significant UK Party that seriously opposes Membership of the EU.
UK National Elections are fought almost entirely between the Political Parties on National issues - - just like the elections in Germany, Poland, Finland etc. - - this time there is the added spice (?) of the Economic-Fiscal calamity & how quickly the UK Tax-payer should be forced to pay-up for the so-called intellectual/clever people who made the mess!
The British Electorate have well understood the issue of the EU - - as countless surveys/polls reveal - - however, they are also well aware the General Election affords them no opportunity to make any meaningful comment in the Ballot box on the question of the EU.
Thus, I can honestly claim that the forthcoming UK Election is no more likely to be an endorsement of the EU than any German Election: Whether Voter Turnout is 60, 70 or (miracle) 80% the Votes will almost all be cast by Citizens according to a National perspective.
The issue of the EU will loom large in UK/England politics in the next 2 to 3 years because:
1) the failure to seek UK Citizen mandate for the Lisbon Treaty will be revisited; especially if Merkel pushes for various Treaty alterations.
2) the failure of the EU/Brussels to manage the EUro-zone economy/currency will require 'hand-outs/bail-outs/opt-outs'... call them what you will in order to stave off the total collapse of the EU: The UK is 1 of only 5 member Nations that could possibly find the wherewithall in a joint exercise to save the EU's humiliation.
3) the rising tide of Citizen hostility to the EU within the UK is now being joined by more open dissent on the Continent as EUropean Citizens grasp the reality of 'ever closer union' actually means evermore under Paris-Berlin's Economic-Political-Judicial thumb.
4) the ECJ is due in the next 2 years to make momentous interventions in National 'political' arenas - - such Judgements will not go down well not only in UK/England, but across the 27 - - I warned you months ago.
As for Brussels' competence - - I note you did not deny just how hapless it has been these last few months - - that's what comes by allowing the unquestioned, unchallenged, unaccountable mantra of 'EU is good, Anything else is bad', and the frankly now exposed as laughable, 'one-size-fits-all'.
Complain about this comment
@MAII
between Chancellor Merkel and President Obama I prefer Obama, at least we will be spared some speeches about morality and the like by Merkel. Germans are continuing to bash the Greeks and they have given no loan. Imagine what we will hear from them if the use their precious Euros for us. Better not. I prefer your IMF! I am persuaded by MAII, US is superior, why should we go with these losers in Europe? MAII here you are coming for us!
Complain about this comment
PatienceOver
re #87
Oh dear! The 'pro-EU' in full arrogance mode!
Quote, "..presume you belong/ed to that barmy army.."!?
And believe me it went downhill from there!!
Quote, "..living beyond your means... then you had to come 'cup in hand'... to those small (c)old conservative EUropean countries.."!?
Sorry, but You lost me some way back! What are you writing about?
If You are suggesting the UK/England had to ask Germany, France etc. for loans, then please provide the evidence of something no one else seems to have known about.
Quote, "..buying house with 150% mortgages.." !?
If referring to me, on a personal level or to British Citizens in general, I have absolutely no idea at all what you are on about!?
So far as I am aware the Property Market in UK/England has managed to survive reasonably well during the recent economic recession & it is my understanding 'repossessions' of houses have remained at a fairly low level.
As I say, not really understanding what you're writing about in #87, I hope this has been of some help to You.
Quote, "..why don't you Americans bring a few spare aircraft over.."!?
Finally, I am not American - - and just so as to put all Your #87 contribution in its proper perspective - - I am English, I live in Finland and every part of my #75 referred to the UK/England Economic-Fiscal situation.
Complain about this comment
Yo, tovarische :o) bloggers
- a musical interval -
My grandfather, in such a mood, would have sung this.
Para Gnedykh/Couple of Grey horses
will greatly expand your feel of the Russian romances.
Couple of Grey, saddled by dawn,
Puny, hungry, tired and ill
You are eternally trotting in short trot
Couple of Grey - au wow - Couple of Grey
There were times - you were quite dashing pair
And quite ? likewise dashing, riders you had
Now you master got old along you
Couple of grey au wow couple of grey
Your ladyship-owner, in ancient old years
Used to have quite a lot masters herself :o)
Seasoned ones :o) she was alluring home, following fashion,
Those more timid, drove mad just for fun :o)
Melted in her hugs one-two happy lover,
Melted the capital, with other chaps :o)
So you had quite enough time, to rest in your stables,
Couple of Grey au wow - Couple of Grey!
Greek from Odessa and Jew from Warsaw
Youthful leutenant and grey-haired general :o)))))
- Everyone searched in her love and entertainment
And on her breast was getting asleep!
Where are they now, in what new goddess
They are searching for the new ideal?
You, only you, are true to her still -
Pair of Grey oh the pair of grey
That is why now, being saddled at dawn,
And staying hungry for days in a row
You're moving ahead by un-sure trot
And provoke only laughter from folk
Old years, like night, threatens her and you both
Chatter of crowds is silent tra la
And only knut is caressing you now,
Couple of grey oh couple of grey
Quiet is foggy morning of capital
Along the street slowly cart moving on
In the pine-tree coffin, remains of the sinner :o)
A couple of grey are tugging along.
So, who's seeing her to the cemetery?
She doesn't have neither friends nor kin!
- A handful of old and torn-over beggars
And the Couple of grey , oh, couple of grey...
Complain about this comment
MAII will be furious.
1) US is biggest contributor to IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm)
2) IMF works in dollars.
So if the IMF bails out Greece, it'll do so by selling dollars to buy Euros to buy Greek bonds denominated in Euros. So the value of the Euro in dollars will (counter-intuitively) go up.
However, before we all selfishly rejoice at MAII's discomfiture, Germany, UK and France are also in the top 5 of IMF contributors. There's no upside to this. Germany, France, UK, US...everybody funds the IMF (it's got 186 members). Greece goes down, everybody pays. Banks pay, taxpayers pay, we all pay.
Another point. In the G20 summit in London last year, they decided to make the IMF's money resources (oversimplification, but run with me) approx 15 times its 2008 size. Woo, big money: in the trillions, in fact. But I don't know if the money is actually in place. And the IMF is kinda busy at the moment, and all its members have troubles of their own, and it just did Latvia already, and the US is antsy, and China wants a bigger say, and Germany's a bit short today, and this and that and stuff. So I'm a little bit nervous: can the IMF actually *do* this big huge bailout thingy? I know Greece is held to be small'n'that, but its GDP is still about a third of a trillion dollars. And it's just first in line - there's Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain, UK, all with their hand out for a handout. So here's the question:
What happens if the IMF just can't do it?
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
As of March 18, 2010, the assumption that Mrs. Merkel’s rhetoric was just a temporary political trick to secure her party’s win at the state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia in May 2010 has proven nothing but a naïve hope.
It has become clear that Mrs. Merkel’s government is in complete alignment with the interests of those “investors” that have placed their bet on Greece’s bankruptcy.
It simply does not make sense to be asking your partner to solve their own problems alone, claiming that this is best for everybody’s benefit, while at the same time you are sabotaging the solution that you have agreed upon.
Chancellor Merkel’s denial for coordinated action within the euro-zone, systematically and deliberately, maintains Greece’s borrowing costs to an artificially high rate that not only does not reflect the economic reality of the euro-zone but also increases the chance for failure of the austerity measures Greece is already implementing.
Within the midst of a global economic crisis, Mrs. Merkel understandably attempts to gain political amnesty for the future challenges that Germany’s dependence on exports suggests and to minimize her country’s losses. To do so however, Chancellor Merkel’s government is not only creating an escape goat out of the Greek crisis, but is also draining the economic sacrifices of the Greek people into the German economy.
Practically, this means that average Greek families -certainly not everybody was living beyond their means- that had absolutely nothing to do with either the global crisis, or the corruption that contributed to the Greek crisis (here, too, Germany’s role is anything but insignificant) are now asked to reduce their income and pay more to put the Greek economy back on track within the euro-zone requirements. Despite the cynicism, it is hard to make an argument against the necessity of these austerity measures. However, in the case of Greece’s bankruptcy, this financial sacrifice will “disappear” only to be translated into profits for those who placed their bet on Greece’s bankruptcy.
Mrs. Merkel, if you no longer believe in the potential of the euro-zone as is, one would expect you to be more responsible in your decision to dissolve it, given that you represent the strongest economy in it, and the one that has benefited the most from it.
Dear German citizens, I know very well that it is almost never fair to judge a whole nation by it’s representative government; I really don’t know, though, what should I assume of Germany’s stature if you can actually hide behind the people that a very small number of you were so proud to call “the frauds of Europe”.
Complain about this comment
viewcode, the US contribution to the IMF may suddenly dry up if American taxpayers find out their money will go to bail out corrupt Greece and presumably the other PIIGS to save the Euro.
When Greece finds out what kind of conditions the IMF puts on their loans, they may not be so eager to grab at it. Time will tell. I still say they can do a lot of arm twisting in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, you keep using the term "liberal-socialist" to describe Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Italy. You're using anglo-american terms to describe a Southern European phenomenon, and the terms don't accurately map. Of the five countries, two (Ireland, Spain) have recently (less than 20yrs) had centre-right governments with an emphasis on deregulation. The characteristics they do have in common are:
* a significant grey-market underground economy,
* kickbacks (Ireland not so much),
* a large civil service,
* overreliance on tourism,
* unreliable statistics,
* a propery bubble followed by a property crash.
That's not "liberal" (current UK sense), nor "liberal" (current US sense), nor "liberal" (classic liberalism), nor "socialist" (any sense, including - at a push - social democracy). It's more a small-town economy blown up to country size, where local connections are the key to advancement, and there's little internal rigour (police and judiciary are corrupt or underfunded, patronage is endemic). That's not socialist nor liberal - socialist states tend to promote on ability (the trick is the definition of ability in a socialist context...:-), and liberal states have greater emphasis on the rule of law.
The picture is further complicated by the fact that arguably Ireland shouldn't be in the group at all.
Regards, viewcode
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Portugal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Spain
Complain about this comment
Euhemerus. You're using a conspiracy theory to explain what can more simply be explained by stupidity. Angela Merkel isn't a coldly calculating and cunning Machiavell. She's a human being who's out of her depth and flailing.
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
MAII. You're right about the US going "What the heck!" or thereabouts: that's why I was trying to track down whether the post-G20 IMF money was in place. If it isn't, even the IMF will have trouble. And they're the last line of defense...
You're very right when you say "...When Greece finds out what kind of conditions the IMF puts on their loans, they may not be so eager to grab at it..." - the IMF absolutely gutted Argentina. I don't think Vassilis gets quite how hard things *can* get, even under the present privations, which are hard enough for two.
As for your observation that "...I still say they can do a lot of arm twisting in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin...", er, yeah they can, but *will* they? Everybody on this board, eurosceptic and eurofederalist alike, think the Europoliticians are rational actors with a plan and resources. But they don't have a plan, they may not have the resources, and I don't think some of them are rational any more.
Ah well, gotta go...:-(
Regards, viewcode
Complain about this comment
Re.106: Euhemerus, you said:
""It has become clear that Mrs. Merkel’s government is in complete alignment with the interests of those “investors” that have placed their bet on Greece’s bankruptcy.""
Hmmm... it puts me into thoughts.
I find all this a farce. Greece never asked any money. It asked taking a loan with reasonable rates.
However it seems that Europeans expect to find out by a couple of american banking institutions how much they should rate the loans of a country...
... sounds really worrying. Cos if it really is like that, what if those bankers tell Merkel to stand up and dance the bear-dance? She will stand up and dance like a bear? What next?
Why Europeans run like headless chicken? The issue is straight-forward. US is checking in. And EU is called to keep the logs. An charmless position.
Complain about this comment
#98 Menedemus,
Again I would insist that you it looks to me you are thinking with more emotions that the PIIGS right now, hold on for one second and think who builds the trains the PIIGS are using, who builds and runs the airports the PIIGS are building, who wbuilds their bridges, roads even the arms they buy? Most likely you will find Siemens, etc. behind them. So if the aim of the EU is to create markets for out goods & services then the amount of money we pay as net contributors is very small compared to what we get back from them. Even the CAP that goes to farmers does not go to them without strings attached, they have to grow plants we want them and certain quality also it makes their products more expensive so they don't ruin our farmers. If you thing a German or UK farmer could compete in price with farm produce from Poland, Greece, Romania, etc. then I can't guess what you are thinking.
So before you get all emotional again and in order to make the right decision do the sums, one the one hand we pay money to the EU, on the other hand what do we get back? You will find out we get back more.
The US to maintain its empire (markets) has to spend even more on weapons to project its power, so I think our PIIGS markets come to us at a cheaper price.
About the UN thing, I know Germany wants it, but its not there yet.
Again I'm not having a go at Germany or Germans but I can't fathem how pathetic Angela turned out to be. Some months ago some German commentators here on the BBC said that she was a phony and she was a "product" and that she lied about been a real East German, so I think they were right. She is a fake.
Complain about this comment
#90. At 8:08pm on 18 Mar 2010, Menedemus
Concerning your thoughts about article 23 and how it came about: The theme you mention no doubt plays an important role, but there are also a couple of other elements. The constitution was originally written in 1948-49. At that time there was no European union, and therefore this article must have been adjusted down the road.
I would call it a necessity that Germany gets integrated / maintains its integration in Europe, and that makes up a fundamental difference in comparison with for instance the UK.
In relation to another of your observations: Germans are actually very consensus minded. In the case of Greece the German government will have to go that way too - let me just mention that the finance minister of France, madame Lagarde, has just rejected the idea of an expulsion mechanism of the euro zone, or more precisely any changes of the treaties at this moment. Personally, I would prefer that Germany continues to play a constructive role in the Union.
In the Greek matter, it seems that chancellor Merkel is concerned about German tax payers, but she is definitely more concerned about the court in Karlsruhe and the interpretation it makes of the treaties of the union. Therefore, Merkel now seems to have a preference for the IMF solution.
However, German media are reporting that Germany is getting isolated in the Union, and the expectation is therefore now that Merkel will face a majority at the EU summit in the coming week in favour of a European solution of the loan question in Greece.
The whole matter is developing into a very interesting process for the entire union.
Complain about this comment
@73 AliceInWonderLand
“Now I see my dreams are coming true :o))), and how! 10-fold!”
Ten knights on white horses, came to the river side, killed the monster and delivered little Alice…
Complain about this comment
88. At 7:54pm on 18 Mar 2010, Mathiasen wrote:
" ... Why on earth is the UK member of the EU? ..."
EUoris: Because we have been lied to by arrogant British politicians who were supported by arrogant undemocratic continental "EU"-lovers and because representative democracy isn't working.
Complain about this comment
#101 and 115
I think we can agree in principle that the three main UK parties are broadly pro-EU, while the majority of the British public, rightly or wrongly, is not. So that raises the question why the big three don't try to pick up cheap votes by taking a more Euro-sceptic line at the next election. After all, if we are really 'giving our powers away to Brussels' why on earth would a politician want to push himself into a position of power, only to give that power away? I suspect the answer is partly that all the political parties (and, increasingly, David Cameron) realise that if the UK left the EU it would be left out of the loop in discussions between the superpowers, and the days of the 'special relationship' between the UK and USA, already put under strain as a result of Iraq, are effectively over. We need to come to terms with that reality.
Complain about this comment
viewcode @#108
When I use the term "Liberal-Socialist" I refer to the society values derived from the use of Democratic Socialist political objectives achieved through the existence of Liberal Democratic government systems that presently exist throughout Western Europe and the North Americas.
My sceptical perception is that the idealism of the 'Democratic Socialists' is laudable in that social justice, freedom, equality and solidarity are ideals that are seemingly worth pursuing within the Liberal Democratic nations but history will prove that the implementation of such ideals came with a cost for future generations in that freedom will have become illusory, equality will have created unfairness, social justice was abused and sought after solidarity led to divisions.
The European Union is just such a Socialist Democratic venture and we are, perhaps, now witnessing the degradation of the ideals of social justice, freedom, equality and solidarity for all Europeans becoming corrupted by inherent inequalities, imposed freedoms not being real freedom and a failure to achieve solidarity is obvious for all to see with the debate over the need to financially support Greece being such a clear example of the divisions that persist between the North and South of Europe as well as between individual european member state national governments - be they in the EU, in the Eurozone or on the periphery.
Perhaps my scepticism is cynicism but I fear for all our futures if Socialist Democracy is not fettered with a sense of realistic objectives rather than rampant idealism which I deride as being the epitomy of "Liberal-Socialism".
Complain about this comment
Re115: EUprisoner. I am much more suspicious of the whole UK's involvement in the EU. I think it has less to do with the political circles (mainly represented by UK industrialists etc.) who are pro-European and more to do with the political circles who claim to be against (mainly represented by circles in finance). With UK out of the EU, the UK has maybe its own freedom in terms of sovereignty and economy but it has absolutely no saying in what happens on the mainland. By enterring EU and paying, it gave a small part of its sovereignty (which in fact did not change a lot) but it gained a saying having the power to block certain processes.
You might find that the Germans and the French have a bigger standing in the EU, maybe since they are the driving motors of it, but the reality is that Britain as one of the biggest net contributors has a position that weights and the power to stop processes that are against its interests - or perceived UK's interests, since behind there is US of course. Biggest example, the war in Iraq - a war that was waged against the interests of Europeans in which Britain led a movement (dragging surprisingly Spain...) to break the EU reaction to the US invasion by instantly sending its armies there. And, trust me, this is not even the most important one, there is a large number of other issues on which UK wants to deflect EU's movement. A big example is Russian gaz. Britain, a country that suffers a horrible gaz shortage right now (it has only stocks of a few weeks) defies logic (well...) by resenting the German-Russian approach on this issue of basic energy ressources trade... but then if that is against common logic... how one can rate Germany's refusal and actually aggressive response to Bulgaria and Greece trying to do the same with the Southstream pipeline when itself has signed for Northstream which is underway... which means that UK is not the only one whose net interests are on the whole detrimental to EU's integration but often it is Germany itself even if its net interests are supposedly driving this weird union.
Complain about this comment
Alice,
Welcome back..its terrible and shocking, sobbing, ...no one seems to care..but you remember your kitty.
Pray that she is ok in the afterlife..console yourself...Remember her worth...and realize she always knew of your love and friendship...
In a few months think of a new cat or kitten...
BTW, my Peanut, a male, is 18 yrs old and he sags, but soldiers on..I dread his end(-ing) But my other cat loves me and demands my love:)
Welcome back from your battle..get well soon:) It so sad that cats can be better than humans for loving, no offense, anyone:) (say it w/a smile)
And yes, Chris Arta, economics is not rocket science just..boring even when interest rates are the subject ..in loan talks..I hate micro econ theory..macro theory is more understandable:).. and more like an escape from reality lol..unuseful for checkbook calculating...oh well:)
David
Complain about this comment
Merkel is dogmatic. But flexible, I think. She seems knowledgeable but aware of all realities, I hope.
Complain about this comment
@104 AliceInWonderLand
Thanks for the song. I have the original version on my player. The translation into English is good, though the lost of the nuances is inevitable… All the guys here, except maybe for me, for Nik, for Vassiliss, for Jukka Rohila and for some Pole /if any/, seem to be unable to understand your poetic stance … I do not put whatever blame on them. First, I have no moral rights to do it; second, they know very little about /the positive moments/ of the Russian history; they know very little also about the Russian cultural heritage… and, as a result, they are almost unable to decipher what you are posting here. For me, it would suffice to read just several words, kind of “Para Gnedykh” /russ. “A pair of grey horses”/, and… the melody, along with the expressive & rich Russian verse would come back, in a split of a second, to my mind… We /the orthodox folks/ are too different compared to the Latin people and to the German/Scandinavian people (not to mention the Anglo/Saxon ones). There is nothing to do. It’s a question of different cultures… However, I should congratulate you for your successful efforts to remain among us, thus representing those highly intelligent, generous, open minded and very, very educated people, we are accustomed to name “Russian inteliguentzia”. Welcome back to us, Alice…
Complain about this comment
@115 EUROprisoner
I think it is too late to divorce. It's better to reconsider the marriage agreement.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps it would help to stop using silly metaphors for describing the EU. The EU is not a "prison", a would-be "empire" a "marriage" or any other form of passive restraining system. It is, surprise, surprise, an agreement among 27 states to have a common market and to cooperate in certain areas. Nothing more.
So it isn't a "marriage". I do not have any emotional attachment to people in Greece or Sweden. In fact, I do not have any emotional attachment to the people living in the flat above me. Therefore, no country or population has any more moral or ethical obligation to show "solidarity" to Greece than they have an ethical obligation to show solidarity to people in Haiti or Chile.
It is not a "prison", either. Any state that wants to leave can leave.
And it's extra-extra silly to call it an "empire". It does not have a common foreign policy. It does not have a standing army. It does not have a specific foreign policy agenda. It never specified any foreign policies that would signal any imperial ambitions.
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #118
Not sure about your grasp of the facts concerning the UK & US relations.
I firmly support close UK - US ties in Trade/Defence/Foreign affairs etc.
That said, You are writing as though the Iraq campaign began 'instantly' (or am I misreading that?) - - whereas it was actually 2 years of negotiation on the issue (& 12yrs if we refer to Bush Snr-Clinton era - for the most of which the EU supported the US-UK pro-Kurd & anti-Saddam policy - - though as ever France refused to offer any military backing).
The actual invasion of Iraq was a brilliantly successful short campaign - - horrendously the ensuing years under US-UK occupation have been a gross tragedy for the Iraqi people (though seemingly Iraq is emerging from the nightmare at long last).
As for UK 'energy reserves': Cannot fathom where you got the 'few weeks' Gas supply idea from!? It simply is not the case - - true enough G.B. certainly requires far more Gas for the decades ahead than is presently on-line, but the Gas provision is much higher than you appear to think.
I'm afraid it is another of these 'UK gloom & doom' scenarios which when properly examined just are not based in fact.
To read some of the contributions on here, re Parliament Democracy, Pound, Economy, NATO commitment, Terrorism, Energy supply etc. it is a wonder the British Isles 60,000,000 Population isn't all refugees in life-boats & making for EUrope, Asia, Africa, the Americas etc. and not the factual reverse which is that upto a million+ head into G.B. every year!
Not to coin a phrase: 'Rumours of the imminent demise of the UK are greatly exaggerated!'
Germany's negotiations with Russia on 'energy' supply are part of a much wider cooperative movement to settle EUrope/UK Energy needs for the next 40 to 50 years: I.e. matching-up suppliers-supplies to requirements across the whole Continent - - naturally, there are National & Regional differences of perspective as to the key interests - - Scandinavia, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, East & West Europe plus the British Isles all have varying needs & therefore varying factors come into play during negotiations.
I'm fairly sure the UK will negotiate suitable arrangements as the likelihood of a 'market-place' of 60+ million being abandoned by those Energy Suppliers is nil!
Complain about this comment
@123 Chris Camp
“And it's extra-extra silly to call it an "empire". It does not have a common foreign policy. It does not have a standing army. It does not have a specific foreign policy agenda. It never specified any foreign policies that would signal any imperial ambitions.”
All that is true, at least, for the time being. However, we have a GDP estimated to more than €12,256.48 billion for 2009 (adjusted for purchasing power parity) and a population of about half a billion /which make the EU the largest economy of the world and the third entity after China & India in terms of population/. That said, the need for a better organization of the market /I agree that the EU was initially designed to be just an economic agreement/ led to the gradual installation of additional /non government/ institutions which mere functioning later ended up by the signing of the Lisbon Treaty. Ever since, we have a president, a foreign secretary, a cabinet with many commissioners, a parliament /which classic configuration is a carbon copy of any European democracy/; we have also an anthem, a banner, a single currency,….. and many, many Eurocrats.
Well, we have not yet our “IMO” for rapid fiscal intervention when need be; nor we have an European army to defend our integrity and the interests of any member state all over the world. Which is why, I would allow myself to ask anybody here present on this blog, what were all those achievements for? Shall we stop where we are “coexisting” now, or shall we move on down an unknown path without a clear vision on our future destiny…
I agree that the terms I used “marriage” and “divorce” are not the best idioms for describing the present situation…
Complain about this comment
Re.121: Generalissimo, how did we end up talking so vaguely? Let me indulge in it.
It is true that in the west, there are a lot of misconceptions about Russian culture and all they think it is about imperalist oligarch Russians, gaz, and Bolshoi ballets. In general, there are a lot of misconceptions about the whole European culture and that is because recent (last 200 years) politics overplayed or downplayed civilisational processes spanning even millenia.
Tribally I may divide Europe into several different layers (anthropolocially Europe is the most diverse continent with at least 6 basic anthropoligic tribes) but then if I was to reduce these to the fewest possible number I would reduce it to 1) Mediterraneans (characterised by Greeks), Germanics (characterised by Germans) and Slavs (characterised by Russians). Perhaps there used to be a 4th one, Celtics but then that has regressed for 1500 years now, so if I add them, I have to make talk of Hungarians and Finnish exceptions too whom I have turkic languages and such. Now everything in between is a natural variation formed out of history.
The culture of these 3 different groups are substantially different albeit due to the spread of the Hellenic thought and christianic religion they seemed to form a large common civilisational group.
Out of these 3 basic anthropocultural groups (I just invented a new word, give me some time to define it!), the most coherent is the Slavic one, since its members not only share quite close cultural characteristics but also have languages which permit quite a lot of communication. To give you an example, my brother studied in Sofia, Bulgaria so he became bilingual in Bulgarian. Through Bulgarian he is able to communicate with Russian without really much effort. He can do the same in Ukrainian, a language that anyway under different politics would be considered a strong Russian dialect (a part of modern Ukrainians try to mix Polish-style in it to sound less Russian), the trut his that there is no way for a group of Ukrainians to talk in front of a Russian and him not understanding. He is of course able to speak and write in Serbobosniocroatian (absolutely one language), especially the south Serbian dialect of Nice whic his simplified Serbian very much like Bulgarian. It is a bit more difficult to communicate with Slovenians but still he can find his way while things get more blurred with Chechoslovakian (this is again absolutely one language) and Polish, still he can read their newspapers and get the summary of any article. So with Bulgarian my brother, a native speaker of a language of a different group alltogether, can communicate at varying levels with absolutely all Slavic countries. Did I forget in this "all slavic" FYROM? Hehe... no I did not, but see... Generalissimo is Bulgarian, what should I say in front of him? That there is a FYROMian language? Well, to put it very midly, once a FYROMian minister came to Bulgaria and wanted to have his speech translated from the percieved language of "FYROMian"to Bulgarian... the affair went like this:
FYROMian's speech: I'm very moutch h'aappy tou be h'ere and h'ave talks with me Bilgarian intirlocutors
Bulgrarian Translator: I am very happy to be here and have talks with my Bulgarian interlocutors
... so the whole affair ended with Bulgarian journalists falling to the floor laughing and the Bulgarian ministers becoming red-faced trying to hold blowing out in hysteric laughters... I do not know if FYROMians continue this farse.
So the Slavic family linguistically - and largely culturally - is very coherent. However, there is another interesting twist of the Slavic family, especially their orthodox part:
Like the Germanic group, they combine the Hellenic thought and christianism but unlike the Germanic school they actually marry these two in a more integrated way. No, it is not just being orthodox and the usual idiotic simplifications (as-if orthodox nations were ever in alliance - Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians for example have been terrible enemies to each other - note that even the common enemy of muslim Ottomans was not enough to unite them, when Greeks revolted asking Bulgarians & Serbians to do the same none of them followed). It is mostly that the Slavic cultures have deeply adopted the "logos" (logic) and the "mythos" (the acceptance that logos will always be incomplete, the "one thing that I know is that I know nothing" of Socrates). In that sense they are much more balanced (and down to the basics more Europeans - based on the basic 2 characteristics of this super-group of cultures & civilisations) from Germanics (western Europeans) who are either overemphasising "logic" or falling completely into "mythos". Funnily this is even more prominent in the US which has an internal battle between these two extremes.
Generalissimo, this comes strange out of a Greek isn't it. Do not be fooled. I am not any particularly pro-Slav, I am Greek, and as such I am always worrying about Slavs, any of them, including Russia that can change opinion overnight, potentially wanting to erase us from the south (for Russia it would be much more convenient to replace Greeks with Serbo-Bulgarians). But speaking coldly and comparing 1 on 1 I find Slavic culture much more deep than western one. 1st it is 1000 years older (first of the modern slavic nations is Bulgarians whose kingdom rise in the 7th century - with Bulgarians being also the 2nd nation in Europe with ethnic consciousness, after Greeks), Russians come in the 9th century. In the west it was first the north Italians starting formulating some loose notion of local national conscioussness (no matter if in different states) by the 11th century and French and English do theirs by 14th century. Thus in terms of time and history, Slavic nations are more mature. Then comparing the cultures, while enlightment and industrial revolution happend in Britain, Belgium, France and Germany first thus making them the steam-engine of civilisational evolution, it was still finally Slavs, from their own not yet fully developed societies that produced the 2 biggest breakthroughs: Tesla & Tchiolkofsky.
Parenthesis: funnily, the father of modern physics (relativity and all the rest...) still remains an orthodox, a Greek, the physicomathematician Karatheodoris (the guy that provided an inquiring Einstein his whole theory along with the mathematical proof - Karatherodoris never cared for fame, he was a scientist and a humanist professor, nothing more nothing less), thus the 3 biggest scientists of the last 300 years were... orthodox... 2 coming of Slavic nations, 1 Greek - the 2 nations being Serbs and Greeks only recently gotten out of the most nightmarish Empire ever... quite interesting. What is interesting in these three is that as scientists they always married "logos" and "myth" (albeit in Tesla's case the myth took a bit more place than usual... still he is the man that has directly influenced our lifes more than any other man in late human history).
Western friends might find the above "weird" or that I pull the rope too much to the east which is not logical given the imbalance of modern world dominated by the west. Well I might do that but then westerners still think that WWII was won by British aided by US (fighting against 300,000 German aristocrats and playboys holidaying in France and not Russians fighting nearly 3,000,000 German middle and working class campaigning in Russia).
So... different perspectives? Maybe. Certainly I drag the rope to the east to reveal a different world perspective breaking the western approach which in no means is a total rejection of it - as said both Germanic and Slavic cultural schools are part of 1 super group as it is positioned in the modern world of the following main blocks: European, Muslim, African, Indian and East-Asian are the main civilisational blocks.
However, indeed I still do consider Tolstoi & Dostoyefsky several levels higher than 5 Hemingways and 10 Steinbecks as much as Tesla's complete refusal to think of financial terms was much more superior to Edison's fixation to profit.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice: You have my sympathy and I hope that you get through this difficult time.As others have said, think of the good times and the love you were able to give and receive. I know the pain though so my best wishes.
back to business:
# 116 Wonthillian- your rhetorical question of why British politicians would try to get themselves into a position of power if that power were given away. I cant pretend that I know the answer to that. I'd speculate that it might be that they still get to be the biggestboy(or girl) in the playground and that is enough. Plus there is always the prospect of a nice Eurojob if they play ball nicely. Can't prove it of course but just my thoughts.
#123 Chris Camp- some might suggest that the word "yet" could be added to just about every sentence in your final paragraph-I wouldn't of course as I am sure there is no way that that will happen.
Complain about this comment
Re.118 Back, more closely to the discussion: CBW I certainly do not claim to understand every move of British geopolitics. And down to the basics, the details of the Iraqi invasion cannot hide the pro-US British stance (even if British people were largely against just like any other European people).
The gaz supplies of Britain were discussed in a meeting I had with employees of an oil&gaz industrial company - I did not only hear them, I saw them printed on paper too followed by references. These people should have the correct figures. It is clear we talk about weeks, a very thin balance - but I do not say that as-if Britain is the only here, its a pan-european phenomenon with Eastern Europe being even more desperate.
That British's iput in Europe is to push for more variety in energy supplies is understandable, anyway the same is wanted by French and Germans. It is however to the interests of British to talk not only about their own needs but to intervene and have a saying over the needs of others. It is quite irritating that this very thingie of energy provision and energy variety is denied to southern Europeans, namely Greeks. They dared to sign a paper with Russians and everyone fell on them to rip them apart over it talking about "irresponsible and dangerous moves" as-if it is irresponsible and dangerous to buy gaz via a pipeline that in no way is any dependancy as existing gaz installations in a maritime country like Greece can always be refueled via alternative maritiem traderoutes (if the case demands it, if ships could ever match the price of pipelines). Hence northern Europeans with foremost British refuse Greece's attempt to increase the variety of its energy provisions, condamnign the country to further underdevelopment, then hypocritically complaining over its pathetic financial records. Why? Well Britain has a lot to answer on that, but then not that it is the only one, lately Germans too started dancing the same song while French at least remain mostly silent.
Anyway, do not think I am considering politics as too linear. And British politics are exactly the opposite of linear politics. It is the only country that can take an ally and make war against another country having as a final objective to empower this country and attack and destroy its own ally. The phrase "better by enemy with the British than friend" is not out there for nothing... In these terms De Gaul, a guy so much aided by British in WWII, knew something more when he stubbornly refused UK's entrance in the EU - I suppose personally you would wish De Gaul had left a heir of his there...
Complain about this comment
Re.123: Chris... you are the opposite of me: too much cosmotheoretical blah blah to say beautifully what you plainly said in 2-3 words.
You might have not realised it but you just described in 1 paragraph all what is wrong with the EU!
EU's purpose of existence is finally all what you said it isn't and EU's demise is all what you said it is.
Complain about this comment
CA;
" I can't fathem how pathetic Angela turned out to be."
I don't refer to her, Sarkozy, and Brown collectively as the three blind mice for nothing. They really are pathetic. Obama for all his serious faults is smarter than the three of them combined.
Menapause;
Socialism doesn't work or didn't you figure that out yet. It doesn't merely rob from the rich to give to the poor to re-engineer and level society, it takes away the incentive to work to become rich because it makes it pointless to try. The result is that everyone becomes poor. That is what is happening to Europe right now. Teach a man to fish and he can learn to feed him self. Take someone elses fish away to give to those who are hungry and pretty soon nobody will bother to go fishing anymore and they'll all starve.
CC, whether you know it or not, Euroland is one country. It has the two most important characteristics of a single country. Individually its members have no control over their borders and there is only one authority to legally mint money. As a result, the economies of Euroland are tied together inseparably. This is why the PIIGS have so much power over Germany, France, and anyone else in it who still has money. That wealth WILL be transferred to sustain them or the entire rotted ediface may collapse. Timing is everything. The question is when to short the Euro on the currency markets. When it collapses as it seems it very well might, those who have bet on it may make up to 100% profit depending on how far it falls against the currency the favor. If this process starts and appears to have momentum, there will be a rush to the exit and the collapse will take on a life of its own, a snowballing effect, a self fulfilling prophesy. When that happens the Euro will fall to zero on the world markets. Considering the kinds of organizations that are most of the currency speculators, large institutions who use huge superfast computers to trade, that could come in the twinkling of an eye. It will be so sudden, so surprising that there would be no stopping it by the ECB even if it had the power to.
Complain about this comment
@125
I had in mind the IMF, not the IMO.
Sorry for the misprint
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp
Re #123
"..It is (the EU), surprsie, surprise an agreemnt among 27 States to have a common market and to cooperate in certain areas. Nothing more."
Oh well, that's alright then!
Only trouble for You is, as they say, 'the devil is in the detail.'
Despite Your personal assurance on the benign/limited raison d'etre of the EUropean Union I would like to raise a couple of issues.
If it is just a 'common market', as was in late, lamented EEC days, then why are there EU Directives concerning Hours of Work, Employment, Work Clothing, Alcohol/Tobacco, Advertising, Pay-scales, Fish/Meat products, Transport, Footwear, Shopfronts, Housing, Social Benefits, Energy, Mining, Telecommunications... ?
27 agreeing: Then why is there a Common Agriculture Policy from which France receives more than the next 10 of the other 26 members?
27 cooperating Nations in an internal 'common market': I cannot quite see the need for a EUropean Defence Force, a EUropean Foreign Office, a EUropean Police-Judiciary... ?
If it is 27 in a 'common market' for Trading purposes then why is there a EUropean Court of Justice with supreme authority able to over-rule any National Elected Parliament's Legislation & thus wholly negating 'Policies' Mandated by the National Citizen Electorate?
If it is such a moderate institution why are so few EU Citizens Voting in its Parliament Elections - - and, why is an EU Parliament continuing to claim a Mandate it has not had for 3 elections in a row - - why, with 1 exception, has no Treaty since 1979 agreed by these 27 Nations been put to an EU Public Vote for ratification - - furthermore, why if it is only a Common Market did 2 founding Nations' Citizens (Netherlands & France) REJECT its 'Constitution' in the ONLY Ballot box test of this common market's expansion & encroachment into EU Citizens' lives?
Why, if it is 27 Nations agreeing to be 'Members' of a simple common market, is not 1 of the 27 National Leaderships or the central authority in Brussels prepared to put 'Membership' to a Public Vote?
Why, if it is supposed to be EU27, are all important EU Policy formulations decided by the Paris-Berlin cabal?
EU as a 'prison' is about right only if one thinks of it in terms of the modern 'Open' custodial system whereby the Inmates may go out to gainful employment etc. but are bound to return each evening to a place the rules of which they have no say whatsoever.
EU as a 'marriage' is just too ridiculous except in the concept of a Medieval Society controlled by a single, unchallengeable, faith-based orthodoxy.
For decades it has not once seen fit to allow its Citizens a genuine voice in their political-judicial-social experience. This EU is now extending its Judicial-Policing authority & power inside each of the 27 and developing Military-Foreign affairs policies for its 'common market' absolutely WITHOUT ANY MANDATE AT ALL.
I am afraid the term 'imperial' is far to lenient a description of such an unaccountable, unrepresentative, anti-Democratic entity.
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #128
I'm just startled how You come across to me on the subject of 'Britain' & the 'British' in the manner I am sure I appear to others on 'France' (though, in my case, not the French people).
Nik, You write little bits hinting you have nothing against the Brits, but 7 out of every 8 sentences certainly come across as anti-British!
Your anecdotal comment about a meeting with people who had figures about very low G.B. 'Energy' resources just like your previous tales of Britain read to me as not really factual and based more on your hunches!
I can't pass a comment on Britain's role in Greece's 'energy' policies: You didn't give any clue as to what matters you were referring to!?
Complain about this comment
Germany and Merkel has no right to talk about anything. Germany caused two world wars and is going in the right direction for causing a third. If anything, it is Germany who should get out of Europe. And to be frank, Europe and the euro is a sham. All countries should go back to having thier own currency.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to hear about the cat, Alice.
But, you know.... "Remember the mice!"
Seriously though, it is a lucky cat to have a caring owner, a meal ticket and a long life. Lucky and happy.
There is really nothing more a cat, or a person, can ask of creation.
Complain about this comment
Tory Central Office never sleeps, does it?
Seems like UKIP doesn't either..
All this blah-blah here won't change a thing.. the EU and Euro will long continue and the UK will have continuous nightmares about them..
Perhaps when all three stop fighting WW2 they might get over it!
Remember negativity never achieves anything.. Working as a team does..
Complain about this comment
CBW, if it is like you say why don't British vote in the next elections the party that will take them out of the EU? Reject it alltogether. What is it stopping you? You claim - and I am 100% ok with you - that EU is undemocratic. But then if the majority of British are against EU - 20 years now - that means that at some point if ever there was any real democracy in Britain, there should be a party that would promise to get Britain out of EU. If that does not happen that means that 1) the majority of British are net more happy than sad in EU or 2) There is no democracy actually in Britain. This is not applying only to Britain but to any country.
It goes withoutsaying that were are on case 2. Thus accusing EU of being not democratic is quite funny. If you want to get out of undemocratic EU you first have to figure out how to install democracy in Britain.
Simplificaiton maybe, but please point me where am I logically wrong.
E.g. I do not mind the lack of democratic procedures out in the large (that can never happen). I mostly mind the lack of democratic procedures in the everyday details of our lifes. If I had a centralised not so democratic governance permitting local direct democratic forms (a bit like Russia having Chechenians rule their country as independent in everything but the name with overlying Russian geostrategic control) it would be actually a very good case - but only if the undemocratic leadership regarded itself as autonomous and not dependent to anyone else in the world (thus existing only thanks to EU and thus interested to serve its interests - not the case today.
Complain about this comment
CBW, as I have stated in the past British geopolitics =/ British citizens. If I criticise the former I do not criticise the latter. And even if I criticise the former, that is no moral criticism or something. I am no "preacher" and I do not frequent in any "temples". I understand that you are used to either see people over-admiring Britain or "over-hating" it but the latter are for the most of it ignorant, illitarate, fascist people or just jealous French. But when a Greek comes calmly presenting things under another perspective, it gets ackward.
SBM drills for oil and gaz. Its a specialised company and one of the best world wide. Their job is to chase contracts where they can be chased, they they are the first to know where the gaz is and where the markets are. They should know better than any politician of the actual situation. Note that the discussion took place 3,5 years back. From there on I am not informed if things got better. Perhaps as there are more gaz-transfering ships and as prices of these overly expensive ships start falling the situation got a bit better - but I really doubt it, most probably the lack is covered by importing more oil as it happens elsewhere. The global profits of oil companies (this mentioend in general, not necessarily for BP) in these times of crisis only show that.
When I am referring to Greece's energy question, I am referring to bying Russian gaz. Behind the scenes Britain led a whole circus of anti-southstream reactionaries fighting off that choice of Greece as if it is a sin. Scan back the BBC articles (or other media) about Greece - its all around the period of 2006,2007 and early-mid 2008.
The question is: why Britain cares if Greece gets gas from Russia? What bothers you? And if you explain me this, isn't it yet another aggressive action against Greece, especially when you are not proposing an alternative? And why some articles (I say that by memory) spoke of strategic dangers (implying that even in defense matters?)? Let us not hide behind our fingers.
Complain about this comment
"Germany and Merkel has no right to talk about anything."
They do not? How so?
By the way, you might want to check back on how WW1 started.
Complain about this comment
"And if you explain me this, isn't it yet another aggressive action against Greece, especially when you are not proposing an alternative?"
Nik, you mentioned you mentioned something like that before in another forum. I didn't get it then, I don't get it now. The last time I checked, Greece was a souvereign nation with a government all its own. If Greece chooses to do so, then by all means, Greece is perfectly entitled to choose other places to buy resources from. It would not be the first country to buy gas from Russia, it will not be the last. So what is the problem?
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #137
There is no way for the British to express their satisfaction or dis-satisfaction with the EU in a UK General Election.
Also, my views on the EU are mine: Whether sufficient other UK Citizens agree I cannot say as the British (like all of the pre-expansion EU12 Populace) have never been given a Vote on membership (or, for that matter, much else concerning the EU since 1992 Maastricht).
Whilst surveys/polls do indicate a Majority supporting England withdrawal that is inexact evidence - - as for the rest of the UK, I think the Scots & N.Irish would probably vote to stay in, and the Welsh seem very even on the issue.
For a fuller explanation of the upcoming UK General Election aspect see my #101 reply to Mathiasen to explain this situation.
Complain about this comment
CBW, at the end of the day you are right: one such important issues, there should be done a specific vote - even a step by step (you want this, you want that) vote if possible. EU is a thing that affects peoples' lifes. It should be done to every country BUT ONLY after having openly developed in a public dialogue the full scenarios - and when these are going to be developed I am not sure anti-EU guys will be jumping around about voting on that (apart a few cases, including Britain). Promising mirros and zinc jewelry to do referendums is simply out of question, it is not any more democratic than not doing a referendum at all as 99% of people are simply NOT knowledgeable of what repercussions might have their decision. It is like asking someone to do a surgery on himself and if he fails, then tell him "Well you did it onyourself, don't complain". Thus yes to a referendum, only after both cases have been fully developed... and not in the likes of Sun's 3 page.
Greeks tended to be largely pro-EU for a single reason. Not for the money that EU rained blindly (really? was it so blindly?) all these years, contrary to common perceptions - one has just to see the Greek public opinion in the 1980s was not that all interested in the money throwed in "blindly" as anyway it did not feel affected by it. Greeks were pro-EU for the simple and single reason of geopolitical security. It felt somehow safer to belong to a family of countries following the worst treason from NATO. Down to the basics, a very noble reason to want to join the EU, much more noble than having been promised little mirrors and zinc jewelry.
Eventually what Greeks hoped was for the EU to evolve into a third block of countries - and down to the basic, that is the idea. Having the EU as a serving-boy of US has absolutely no point and is detrimental to the EU countries' interests.
Re.140: Chris Camp: Funnily Germans refuse to Greeks what they have taken for themselves! An amazing "state egoism". Poor Greece. We should go out of the EU, then since EU countries do not support each other, we could declare war on Germany, we have a much better army than them (they started having one only in the last 20 years so they are not yet up to the point), we should pass via FYROM, make a pact with Serbia and Slovenia, invade a bit of Austrian land (they would let us or die for their past sins too...), and invade Germany, invade them and stay there 4 years killing the 1/8th - which should be around 10 million Germans, getting out all their gold, destroying all infrastructure and leaving 2 inter-fighting fractions. Then we can let them try and assemble... not Mercedes but bad copies of Trabant. As for their energy it will be coming from Usbekistan via Chechenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Transdneisteria, Moldova, Roumania, the autonomous valley of Transylvania, Hungary, Voivodina, Serbia, Slovania, Austria, Switzerland, France, Wallonia, Flantres, finally Holland but Holland will stop the tap from times to times until Germany gives all Dutch lands it owns (if it does not own we will be able to invent some...).
You get the point?
Seriously, Chris you touch the heart of the problem: I will try down to answer you avoiding my beloved style of embellishments and such... if possible point after point so that you comment on it.
Complain about this comment
Victor,...with all respect,Germany is not able to go to war, You can tell by their botched operations in Afghanistan that anything more then a soccer game-riot is to much for them to handle.
Where have you been the last 30 so years to miss out on the transformation of a very sketchy Germany , to one that has no more identity or culture,and a desoriented youth.
Forget the "Bundeswehr",half their stuff ain't even working.
Have you seen German TV ?...followed their political events?....
Make no mistake,there is no threat.
The last time i checked ,there was freedom of speach...in your house too,?
Don't you think the expanded EU couldn't do without PIIGS ? (Portugal,Italy,Ireland,Greece)
Imagine ,....Greece would bail out of the Eu and the Euro , and go on and do their own thing,probably chaos right ? Possible trouble staying in NATO, right ? conflict with Turkey over Cypres right ?,oh and Macedonia and the Albaniens ...and so on , who will protect you there?
Also less EU tourist dropping hard cash ,less EU business and down the drain you go,Uups...
So, if they don't like be criminally screwed by...other members...they should be allowed to say so. whats good for one brother , has to be right for the other.
The EU is a big political Pokergame, ... and Greece just ran out of chips.
The other players are complaining,hey , you can't play without chips,
and Greece says ,yoh you gimme my chips ...
come on,... admit it , the EU needs to slim down .
get rid of that dead weight, and expand Eastwards
Complain about this comment
Thank you all dear caring about Alices and their kitties. :o)
(Most in-human to separate the two.)
And I did have Kitty - of course! as the first cat. ages 7-23. By the book.
Then Grusha and Sher-Khan - brown stripy twins.
(water-melon stripes)
(most un-usual in cats vertical stripes, along the spine)
Then Peggy.
oh no better about gas!
about gas? ?
Nik, we heard here your EU is planning a nasty trick :o) connecting all of your tubes in all directions, making connections and cuts, joining separate countries' tubs into one system, that will allow to share gas country to country during technical glitches (type Ukrainian strike :o) the prev. winter and shortages' times and all. These tubes will be able to send gas back in reverse direction, shuffle it back and forward.
Thus reducing dependency on us or whoever else, allowing to receive gas at any EU point of entry and cascade it down to whenever in the EU.
This efficiency will of course reduce the amount the EU wants from Russia, some say by about 20% of what it is currently, which is bad news for us. But on the other hand I heard Gasprom is not overly pessimistic, because a better system is a better system, not bad the EU is copying our unite energy system which is more flexible since USSR creation :o),
and two flexible systems will somehow find the common language after all, because why to be so stiff and awkward after all.
It is for the better, and when the EU system is efficient - we trust :o) it will consume even more Russian gas! :o))))
That's of the recent developments I heard of, and there is even a meeting or something scheduled on that for the next week if not this weekend, energy EU programme big developemnts are being forecasted.
(by us) (expected as a result of that meeting)
Complain about this comment
On the South Stream, we were approached last week, it' couple of days' fresh news, with an offer to unite South Stream and Nabucco into one pipe once it enters the EU.
Because Nabucco proves to be sour grapes :o))))) and, how to say, not awful realistic a scenario.
On this I heard Gasprom is thumbs down, like thank you very much, like -aha! we were telling you Nabucco is abstract thingy, compared to our South tubie, that can realistically function ready and packed as of 1st Jan 2014, and so many blocks in the wheels we got with the Northern one, only the lazy not complaining about every metre of the tube in the Baltic sea, as if British and Norwegian tubes don't lie on that very bottom, only Russian tubie is suspicious and "causing concerns", that, how to say, after all this jazz with getting agreements Gasprom is not awful friendly re uniting South Stream and Nabucco idea.
Complain about this comment
On the cat I am thinking of selling both Mosccow and St. Petersburg tiny apartments and buying one abroad instead with a permit to visit it and live in it or something. So I am opening a bid, in which the decisive criteria of the future country of my residence is computer tomography for animals.
I am not sure I survived this 5 days' vet story yet, dashing by taxi from vet clinic to vet clinic with dying cat on hands like a headless chicken in despair, getting one diagnosis worse than another (the only consolation - all different :o), with each and every vet promising the cat sure death within hors or right on their table and taking a written consent from me on entry I understand the cat is not to live whatever they do, all this torture and nightmare, dozens of injections into tiny dying body (and all wrong. from wrong diseases. as proving by tests invariably the very next morning, every day, when test results were being ready). all this disaster for 5 days in a row, the merry-go-round when I haven't slept an hour and only shook from scare and borrowed money right and left - and no body knows what's with the kitty - mind it.
that is, all think they know - until an x-ray is done or blood tests are ready or cytolocy (tissue sample tests) or ultra-sound
I am so fed up with this un-professionalism and despair, I can't have it repeated, I will better next time jump myself out of the window first, just not to torture the animal by own hands' making and not to go through this again.
democracythreat, cris camp, mavrelius, chris arta, jukks, deadly lamp and shade to it :o) - aand the "view" - answer me honestly - have you heard of computer tomography for cats and dogs in your respective countries? Is it acessable or "only 1 city in the country and I don't know of anyone ever doing it"?
We live only once. Why all this torture?!
Complain about this comment
Yes, Nik, Chechnya is typical 19th century Russian Empire approach. No other way was found to keep them in, so old rules were fished out for them from dusty papers, must be, in the Lavrov's ministry of foreign affairs.
The rule, that's how the Rus. Empire expanded originally. in fact, smells of the 18th century , even. Anyway, the rule was - do the hell whatever, keep own padishahs or rulers or religon, your priests, your tops and "elite" - all stay un-touchables. likewise your ways and habits. Live as you like, do what you want - but if anyone is asking - you reply "we are under the arm of the Russian tsar".
This means "this place is reserved". :o) It won't be taken by anyone else. Which is already something :o), in Russian understanding.
Complain about this comment
Chechnya has as good as ran away entirely. Was lost. So it is reasonable we start from scratch. :o)
When you get into a hotel - you first make a booking.
That's what we do - a booking. A reservation. A very loose booking.
And then, just wait 2 hundred years :o))))) - locals get used to consider themselves subjects of the Russian tsar!
In fact I think it's time we start slowly, by the good old patented way :o), with Ukraine as well. And whoever is there else? on the run :o)))))))))
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #142
Oh no!
Not the 'Sun' excuse again!
Nik there are 60 million British Citizens - - 45,000,000 are adults - - about 1 in 8 read the Sun!
8,000,000 Britons do not not have English as their first language - - all those Asians, Africans, Europeans, Americans etc. plus the Scottish, Welsh, Irish - - What is it about You EUropeans that You keep writing about this 1 tabloid newspaper!?
Honestly, I think maybe the 'Sun' has more effect on EUropeans than it does in UK/England!
As for your Referendum & the people must have "knowledge" before they can Vote - - You know that is really a lame excuse to avoid a Vote - - afterall, no one 'pro-EU' was saying before the Referendums on joining the EEC/EU that the Citizens of UK or anywhere else were not clever enough to "understand"!
Now, when it is a Referendum question of, 'Do you want your Nation to withdraw from the EU?' SUDDENLY, no one is clever enough to 'understand' so they cannot be permitted to Vote!?
Now, that really is the kind of simpleton view the 'Sun' tries out - - only it is the National & Brussels leaders doing it - - maybe they are really afraid of just how much their Citizens do understand and have knowledge of the dangers of the EU!?
Complain about this comment
@ Nik - Germany "refuses" to allow Greece to make its own decision? Germany cannot do anything like that. Greece is a souvereign nation. If I were the Greek prime minister, I would aim to do whatever is best for Greece and I would not mind whether Germany liked the decisions I made for my country or not.
By the way, and with all due respect, I have found that you can only blame World War 2 for so long. If Germans had fallen on their behinds after World War 2 and blamed all their problems on Hitler and the war (admittedly, a few actually did, but they are a minority), then they would still be living in smoldering ruins. There comes a point when you have to stop feeling sorry for yourself and move on. Of course, it was a bit "easier" for Germans to quit feeling sorry for themselves, as there was a very clear understanding that they only had themselves to blame for their situation. In many other parts of Europe, this has helped cultivate a habit of not critcising your own country but blaming Germany inbstead when something undesirable was going on on in those countries. In other words, Germany's willingness to accept full responsibility and eagerness to make amends in Europe created a fertile ground for moral decay and decadence in other parts of Europe. It is, after all, very easy to blame Germany for everything when it is so willing to take the blame. Much easier, anyway, than taking a look at yourself.
Germany has been a net contrbutor to the EU from the get go. Not once has it been a recipient nation. The last time I was back in England I noticed signs on park benches and housing projects "financed by the European Union". I have never seen a sign like that in Germany, because Germany looks after itself without any help AND it contributes a huge amount of money to help its European partners. There are plenty of countries in the EU which haven't even once been a net contributor nation. They receive and receive each year and in those countries, there does not even seem to exist any sense of embarrassment about that.
That, in conjunction with a veritable delusion of victimhood, 65 years after World War 2, after many of those countries had subsequently brought home-grown dictatorships upon themselves and ruined their own economies many times over, it is still all Germany's fault? Really?
Self-pity and unwillingness to face important home truths have cultivated a wide-spread decadence so deep and so corrosive to the dignity and self-respect of some people that they openly resort to lying to keep the victim myth alive.That big grub who spoke on BBC spoke about gold being stolen in WW2 - gold which was rescued by the British before WW2 and returned to Greece after the war. Then there is that myth of huge quantities of gold stolen from Greek homes during the war. Really? I am willing to accept that things were stolen, but huge amounts of gold? Greece has never been a rich country - it was poorly assembled by the British out of remnant provinces of the Ottoman empire. I have been in Germany for two years now. I have never seen any Greek gold. None. Where is all the gold? If what some Greeks are saying is true, then German households must tyle their floors with Greek gold. There is nothing there.
The Wehrmacht and the Einsatzgruppen stole everything they could get their hands on. That much is certainly true. What is a complete exaggeration is the claim that huge amounts of gold were stolen - the Greeks did not have any. They were a poor nation, aren't exactly prosperous today and if they do not make any realy changes, then they will remain a poor nation. And for this, you can blame Germany and even be justified in doing so, as Germany has played an active role in turning great parts of Europe decadent.
Why do the Greeks not do whatever they think is best for their country? I really think that if they need a Russian pipeline, they should get a Russian pipeline - don't listen to the Germans, it's none of their business.
Why do the Greeks not go to the European court and demand back whatever they say Germans stole from them? Let the Germans get in a bad mood about it, it's they're problem, not yours. What's yours is yours and you have a right to get it back.
Why do the Greeks not form stronger alliances with regional players and show Macedonia and Turkey who's boss? Greece has every right to stand up for its interests.
We all know the answers to these questions, don't we? For example, Greece could have taken Germany to court over what it thinks it still owes Greece, but you don't want to punch momma while she's breast-feeding you, do you now? There is a tacit agreement in those countries that having Germany cough up its budget surplus each year is much more profitable than having to confront Germany with war-time claims, many of which seem increasingly spurious, by the way.
You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot accept billions upon billions of Euros from the EU (in financial terms read Germany) each year and think this will not do compromise your chances of getting litigious with Germany. If you want your fantastic legendary gold treasures back, then stop accepting money from Germany first. You cannot have it both ways.
So it goes on. Some countries have successfully trapped themselves in an indelible victim delusion, which I am sure is the reason for their sense of entitlement. The Germans invaded my country 65 years ago and killed many people there, so why should I not live beyond my means? Why should I not pay civil servants years after they have taken an early retirement? Why should I not retire at 61? I am a victim and I am entitled to luxury.
Complain about this comment
Alice,do you share ?
Complain about this comment
God knows, I am patriotic.
But a country without computer tomograph for cats. Is Afghanistan! with a Philharmonic society
Complain about this comment
chohatsu,
do I share? an apartment, you mean? Nay :o(, live with Mum :o(
:o))))
Live with Mum in one apartment, and let the other one, in Moscow.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (144):
Just a note about European energy markets...
The mission of the European Union has been to create a common European market, in many areas this it has succeeded in this, but in some areas where there has been strong national monopolies or monopolies due to physical constraints, for example European electricity and gas markets are largely not been liberalized and opened to common competition.
Union is moving forward in these areas by removing national monopolies and supporting projects that interconnect networks of different countries and regions to work together. The visioned end result of this is common European energy market where buyers, sellers and transmitters of energy all assemble to public energy exchanges where trade will be carried out. An example of this kind of trade and market liberalization is the Nordic energy markets where there is Nord Pool, a common exchange for trading electricity between different market actors in all Nordic countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Pool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Energy_Exchange
And like I said, there projects concerning interlinking Europe into a one European super grid to interconnect all European national energy networks into one single
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid
In case of Russia and other energy providers what this all mean is increased competition, increased efficiency on energy usage and moderation of energy prices inside the European Union. In real terms this all means that energy providers will have smaller marginals and less leverage against buyers, for example a central European industrial energy buyer can measure on where to buy gas, from Algeria, Russia, Iran, Iraq, etc.. or can buy from some other market actor that at this point of time doesn't need the gas.
These projects that the Union is doing to liberalize and create a common energy market for the whole Europe are those that can very well make Europe the most competitive economy in the world.
Complain about this comment
Web Alice,
Thank you for coming back. I just got a new laptop (from myself) because Sunday is my birthday. I'm 52, yes I look only 50 :) and the screen is so big ...overwhelmed..very easily made happy.
But, also, next time, considering all the money you...may have spent in 5 days...you might consider going to a hospital, next time. I've heard of people taking beloved cats to a hospital. I Could/Would not be able to afford that...but perhaps you could. :)
On subject, I agree with someone, above, who said, basically that Germany is a "non-threat." Actually, they are more a threat to leave the EU,
because they are catching on to the fact that France is Using them to gain power in the EU and yuk, who wants to be used?
I read about "Germany, the Engine of the EU" in the Economist website (with over 400 comments) and the article is very informative and makes Germany seem very good/able at present.
Much luck and have a nice weekend,
David
Complain about this comment
Re.149: CBW, I will try to answer to your questions of mes.150. Just to set things write - my reference to Sun page 3 was not meant to imply that British people are all getting their info there. I was just saying that in such a referendum, the political discussion should be kept strictly at a proper analysis level of the 2 (or more) options and their expected resulting outcomes (the benefits and shortcomings of each decision). I meant to say that such a discussion should not end up in sensasionalism.
My reference was general (in fact I meant it for all countries, not only Britain). If you think it was unsuccessful and easily mistaken I take it back now and apologise.
For general info only, back in my dear Greece you wouldn't believe the amount of crap that is out there. You have selectively to chase 2-3 good voices that use often smaller tv channels and newspapers and all the rest are far below the page 3 level.
Complain about this comment
web Alice...
No, .. not a flat my dear,... I love my little calico,so fuzzy,..so daring ,so not a dog of war.
Unfortunately in the Kabul theater they are having boxing matches on the weekends. How savage is that ?
That place should be a beacon of joy and laughter,art and expression of a nation beeing reborn.
Once a people have been robbed of their culture,it goes only downhill from there.
Same with Europe,its "new" generation is so "culture confused" that it is easy to be radicalized,or americanized and even neo-fasho comes back easy.
Most of them don't know what they are talking about...as it has been for ever
Every EU country is suffering from about half their population beeing pulled towards some sort of extreme thinking.
And that's a problem.
How would you feel about a 25 % presence of " Quasi-legal " right-wing in Bruxelles ?
It would be like Washington DC ... says my cat !
Now add the same amount of lefties and you have Weimar allover again. ( my dog likes that, but i don't)
It's coming, the signs of a new time are clear.
The EU will collapse,no doubt about it.
the Question is , when ?
... and who is getting out first ?!
Greece can stay or leave the EU it wouldn't make a difference,next year they have another crisis,maybe Italy and so on.
If Germany counts its losses and signs out.... good night EU ! byby EURO
"Can't they do anything right ?" my dog wants to know ....
What has to be done to that nation ,so they finally understand that all the world really wants from them is their money and their cars and yet another slice of realestate ,or one of them blonde things , that knows how to use a razor .!
As a people they are done ! As a NATION ? Pah ...whatnation,what army,whatselfesteem,whatselfrespect,whatgagreflex?All they got left is their worries about money.... Thanks to ?
Complain about this comment
The Euro always was and always will be one of those idealist dreams that can never work in practise.
The value of a currency is based on one set of policies, one set of needs, and one interest rate etc. When you have a collection of states with different economies, different states of the economic cycle, different needs - especially with regard to interest rates - its simply not possible to have one set of rules to fit all.
When a countries currency becomes immune to a lack of fiscal responsibility and good management by its government, the result will inevitably be a disaster stemming from over spending, unrealistic expectations and so on. With regard to Greece EU policy makers are now caught between a rock and a hard place. Politically - this time around -the member countries should come to the aid of Greece - and others in difficulty. That done the rules must change for the future to provide harsh consequences for non compliance - but should probably fall short of actual expulsion from the Euro zone - if the Euro is to have any chance of a future at all
Complain about this comment
**Nik - Germany "refuses" to allow Greece to make its own decision? Germany cannot do anything like that. Greece is a souvereign nation.
==> Yes you are right. The correct rephrasing should be “Germany does not want Greece to make its own decision”. However the “sovereign nation” includes many thingies that Greece simply has not and thus it is not a sovereign nation.
--------------
**By the way, and with all due respect, I have found that you can only blame World War 2 for so long.**
**That big grub who spoke on BBC spoke about gold being stolen in WW2 - gold which was rescued by the British before WW2 and returned to Greece after the war. Then there is that myth of huge quantities of gold stolen from Greek homes during the war. Really?**
**Why do the Greeks not go to the European court and demand back whatever they say Germans stole from them? Let the Germans get in a bad mood about it, it's they're problem, not yours. What's yours is yours and you have a right to get it back.**
==> No Greek does such a thing. Our sayings have been distorted. For Greeks this is a completely separate issue. We did not mention the non-payment by the Germans as a reason for our state of economy (Greeks, including us here on BBC, openly talk about how badly run was our economy – we are not accusing instantly others on this specific area). We mentioned the always alive issue of reparations ONLY when Germans started throwing ridiculous accusations and even swearing at us, with politicians saying to us it is time to sell our islands as if these are potatos, culminating in the German magazine “Focus” cover with the armless statue of Aphrodite acquiring hands and making the finger obscene gesture. We just reminded them that they are in no moral position to speak especially when they have sneakily avoided the issue of WWII war reparations which for us remains open and if that really we should be taking back to the table of negotiations some time in near future ending all that farse. We did not say to the rest of Europeans that this is related to Greece’s current issue.
Germany might want to think that it repaid the Jewish (but not the Greek Jewish of course!), said a half-hearted sorry in the air, and that that was it, but in fact they are responsible for much more and 60 years now they have not paid. Greece was never compensated for the whole quantity of Greek gold and other resources stolen, neither for the nearly 1 million lifes lost. It accounted for a small part of what Germans stole from Europe, but for poor Greece back then was important. Today even if they give us the double, no Greek is expecting it to correct our financial situation. Greece’s war reparations’ sum is known to both Greeks and Germans. Germans can give it easily but it is a matter of pride for them. They refuse to having to pass yet another humiliation. Afterall Greeks (and Serbians, and Polish, and Russians and gipsies etc.) are not Jews, it is convenient for them to remember only the Jewish genocide and forget about the others. Something like 900,000 Greeks died in WWII (nearly 1 million, 1 in 8). Note that Serbians (equal number of victims) too were never paid back instead just remember the openly expressed hatred of Germans against Serbians in the Jugoslav wars! Gipsies were never payed back too. Polish were given German lands. Russians took the reparation themselves of course in various forms, often not so charming. But Greece? From 1945-1950 Greece was fighting a (sorry to say, but British imposed) civil war. Not only on war reparations but on much more important reasons such as the question of Cyprus and north Epirus Greece could not do anything as US, Britain, were objecting to talk with a country that is in civil war. From the 1950s till 1967 Greece tried repeatedly and desperately to take reparations but as other countries had taken theirs and as the cold war was escalating USA did not anymore want Germans to be harassed on that. The detested Germanobritish as-if Greek pseudoroyal family threatened Greek politicians that tried to demand our rights from the Germans saying that “it is no time to complicate Greece-W.Germany relations”. The case of Max Merten the butcher of Thessaloniki is indicative of how much US, UK and the as-if Greek pseudoroyalties wanted all that. Greece was monitored closely till 67 when they were imposed finally a dictatorship following the 2 failed military attempts of Turkey to invade Cyprus (called implicitly by Britain). From 67 to 73 and from 73 to 74 we had 2 US imposed dictatorships – perhaps the only case internationally where US imposed a dictator then when he would not do fully their job they brought him down (via inciting the left-wing people to remember reacting after 6 years of absence…) and raising a more fidel kid.
------------------------
**Germany has been a net contrbutor to the EU from the get go. Not once has it been a recipient nation. The last time I was back in England I noticed signs on park benches and housing projects "financed by the European Union". **
==> Germany has been also a net contributor to Greek corruption. They knowingly fed it and nurtured it. And yes you are right, Greece received continuously, yet by 2000 the position of the 70% of Greeks is much much lower than it was in 1978 when entering the EU, the money have been eaten by a 5% which gives bits and parts to another 25% around it – but it all ends up to the famous 20 big families. In Russia you would call them the Oligarchs. In Africa, the Chiefs. In Italy, the Mafia. In Greece it is the “Families”. Is it Greece’s problem? Maybe. But as far as I know even nursery school kids in Greece knew that EU gives “blindly” money in Greece which are spent in … Porche Cayennes (how convenient for Germans! Hehe!) and not so much in some real projects.
So the question is : why Germans were perfectly ok with Simitis cooking Greek books at a time Greece was getting even more loans for Olympic fiestas, allowing Greece to enter the eurozone?
--------------------------
**That, in conjunction with a veritable delusion of victimhood, 65 years after World War 2, after many of those countries had subsequently brought home-grown dictatorships upon themselves and ruined their own economies many times over, it is still all Germany's fault? Really?**
==> Hmmm… do you think really it is the WWII we talk about? So there has happened nothing all those 65 years? And really you believe that the 2 dictatorships (Papadopoulos then Ioannidis) in Greece were home-grown, when US officials have openly admitted their direct involvement?
--------------------------
**Self-pity and unwillingness to face important home truths have cultivated a wide-spread decadence so deep and so corrosive to the dignity and self-respect of some people that they openly resort to lying to keep the victim myth alive.**
On the phrase about decadence I will add the double! Greece is utterly decadent, inside-out. But funnily this decadence is not resulting in creating the myth of the victim alive but quite the opposite to hide it and present instead the myth of “It’s all Greeks’ fault”. Greeks are the victims of a terrible manipulation (and that is not any novelty in this world! they are not the first, not the last!) and the decadence actually serves in hiding the whole case and telling them “You are the fault, you are incapable” (refer to next message).
-------------------
**Why do the Greeks not do whatever they think is best for their country? I really think that if they need a Russian pipeline, they should get a Russian pipeline - don't listen to the Germans, it's none of their business.**
==> A! That is the big question! WHY! And we go back to the sovereignty question!
----------------------
**Why do the Greeks not form stronger alliances with regional players and show Macedonia and Turkey who's boss? Greece has every right to stand up for its interests.**
==> Macedonia is a coastal/near-coast region north of Olympus (including this mountain and) around the city of Thessaloniki where I come from. The other state, north of us, inherited the name FYROM from a failed attempt of Tito to invade Greece, and it cannot be anything more than pseudo-macedonia. You can call Japan Macedonia if it suits you and press the world recognise them as such but you cannot hide the truth when other will be digging India and western China and finding the points of spears of semi-illiterate Macedonian soldiers with Greek writings on them. So ask yourself “who is behind all that farse” and why that is all done. Do not take it as a abrupt impolite answer from a Greek. And it is not like not respecting our northern neighbours, it is more them not respecting themselves and their own history (and I am talking about their proper grandparents!). Take my word and please ask Generalissimo, he is Bulgarian and knows something more about them and what do they represent.
Now, for Greece it was never the case of imposing ourselves over the others. We simply wish the establishment of perfect relations with neighbours and the overall development of the region. But what can do Greece when 3 out of 4 neighbours openly question the sovereignty of Greece, and that not only without having any basis, historic or legal but when themselves are actually have no basis for their own sovereignty over Greek lands (especially Turkey all western coast and much of its northern coast, then Albania’s south, and FYROM having a thin line along the borders).
So what do you wish Greece to do in this situation when 3 out of 4 neighbours are aggressive? Perhaps we should become aggressive too, and that is a demand by many Greeks who say that the best defense of our basic rights is the attack – anyway in the attack we have old rights to demand so our case remains on a moral standing. But Greeks remain peaceful believing that the last thing the region wants is yet another war something that is not shared by the 3 out of 4 neighbours.
------------------
**We all know the answers to these questions, don't we? For example, Greece could have taken Germany to court over what it thinks it still owes Greece, but you don't want to punch momma while she's breast-feeding you, do you now? There is a tacit agreement in those countries that having Germany cough up its budget surplus each year is much more profitable than having to confront Germany with war-time claims, many of which seem increasingly spurious, by the way.**
==> Exactly! You touch the nerve here and I will press on it with you! And this is the big time shame for both countries! The tacit agreement you mention! But note that the complete circle of this tacit agreement is Greece not asking once and for good to resolve ancient issues for Germany breast feeding which ends up in the 20 Families (who will spread bits and parts around them to maintain their position) and who in turn give back to Germany an advantageous position in local big projects as well as direct contribute to consumption over German products (our flagship is Porche Cayenne… Athens is the city with most of them… I say so and I am deeply ashamed of it).
If you think that the money Germany gave to Greece remain in Greece and give nothing back to Germany, you are deeply mistaken. Let us say – very broadly of course – that it is money taken from Greek citizens, given to German oligarchs, then German oligarchs taking money from German citizens giving them to Greek oligarchs who in turn give the German oligarchs projects paid half with that money and half with Greek citizens’ money. Did I miss any link of the chain?
Complain about this comment
chohatsu, you are too clever for me :o(
:o)))))
I knew you mean , something", but wasn't sure which.
and thought "what normal foreigners mean by "share"? clearly not what I mean :o))), but something simple and straightforward :o))))
what to ask for :o)))), of simple foreigners :o))))), after all.
now, gets more difficult. calico. isn't it cloth, say, in India?
but you "love" your fuzzy one. champaign?
"un-dog of war like" champaign. good. :o)))) a cat, a champaign cat? made of cloth? clothy? oh.
a cat? a calico cat?
Complain about this comment
alice..
please accept my appology ,for my crude english,...it is never simple to be a foreigner,i found out!
I,myself ,am 6000 km away from.....don't matter anymore
Calico,...fuzzy ..born in the wild ...feline of endless wisdom
-champain- bourgoise- ha ! it might be the nektar of the gods.
unless you are Greek and can only afford Metaxa .
we are all foreigners, almost everywhere we go ,... and its never easy,...c'est vrai?
Complain about this comment
Darling Generalisimo, @121 and elsewhere.
Back to real business; looked up various options in youtube, one big opera lady in a grey silk cloak, singing in what seems to be our Philharmonic society hall, and two more corpulent opera chaps, and who only not privately by guitar.
The best is if you dial in youtube
Oleg Pogudin Para Gnedykh (Pair of Grey horses), a young chap on dark stage duration 5:24.
Now, he is quite a ? Oscar Wilde in his eh? narcissism and ? dandy-ism? approach, kind of a ? raffine chap, you'll see. But it's more interesting than usual wide Gypsiness romance singing, and I think he succeeded with the Pair of Grey quite well. :o)
Complain about this comment
Well, with not much hope :o)))), but still will try. He's our St. Petersburger, has admirers, doesn't mind his advertising on youtube (not so awful famous) (yet). so why not. I'll try.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGVRvDRXtQ
Complain about this comment
wow, unmoderate moderators :o)))), finally!
seriously, very thankful. what a nice surprise.
Complain about this comment
MaudDib, Dave and MA - all davay davay /come on! here :o)))
un-expected luck :o) , a direct link, and the text stayed @104.
Complain about this comment
Generalissimo, you are wrong, that Westerners can't understand slavs and other compilations from other places don't have a clue :o)))) of what others are talking about :o)))
You under-value various species' cognitive abilities :o)))
For that matter don't you see how perfectly we understand each other with chohatsu :o))))
I think it's, rather, a mattter of ? being used to.
and the level of resistence.
For example I read Humpty Dumpty at a very soft age :o))), and other Mother Goose rhymes. Accordingly, don't find them dangerous :o)))) Can accept. The "Westerners", simply, didn't read baba yaga and other chicken leg stuff, therefore resist. just in case :o))))
Look at Mavrelius, he is slowly gradually getting used to it. Improves in direct, un-aided eye-sight. :o))))
It's also, all have own worlds. British world is rich in itself - so they don't stretch a hand for other worlds, like, what for? happens.
Russians, though, are eager to be inquisitive :o))) the more (worlds) - the better :o))), you know. You never know where you can expand Russia. :o)))) It's useful to understand eskimo, just in case. :o))))
Besides, one can always develop a foreign notion to incredible heights.
It's not for nothing Mavrelius blames me in plagiarism. :o)))
In silly examples, but he sniffs correctly.
Just look what we here did of "foreign notions". I'll think of examples.
We can certainly develop deeply and profoundly. Just give Russians a handle - we'll turn the world. :o))))
O. thought of some obvious.
All read Kapital. I think the book was not a deficit in Europe. Look what we did of that read, and what - everyone else.
All noticed US drop a nuclear bomb. Look what Russians did of that idea, and what - all the others :o))))
Of positive examples will mention Bulgarian alphabet. Just give us an alphabet - you'll get "Pair of Grey"!!!! :o)))) and other. Literature.
Wild West. nobody else watched movies? In 1990-s half of the country here shot up another half of the country, grabatising the wealth.
Rest assured, when the idea of "democracy" finally sinks in our snow pile - we will have such democracy - ! :o))))) own Mama won't recognise it. :o)))) Nobody will have "democracy" - we will. The next 70 years.
All will regret the day the term was mentioned with Russians nearby.
Complain about this comment
chohatsu.
"We're all drunkards here. Harlots.
Joylessly we're stuck together.
On the walls, scarlet
Flowers, birds of a feather,
- you will have to google the whole -
--
--
...Windows tightly shut.
What's that? Frost? Thunder?
Did you steal your eyes I wonder
From a cautious cat?
:o)
---
---
Complain about this comment
chohatsu.
"that place should be a beacon of joy and laughter".
________
Now, moderators, there is nothing to google for below, I translate from Russian myself. Gumilev, our St. Petersburger, during the 1st WW. About his impressions, fighting the 1st world war. (democracythreat will not approve of it, but what to do, I kind of like it)
chohatsu, hear:
That country - that could be - Paradise
Became a fire swirl.
For the four days we are advancing
We haven't eaten - four days in all.
No need for earthly viands
In this hour, dreadful, and bright
For the word of God better, than
Bread nourishes us.
And ? ...flooded by blood, weeks fly
by,
dazzling, and light
Above me - shrapnels explode
Quicker than birds - blades fly off, for fight
I shout, and my voice is wild
This is brass, beating at brass
I, the carrier of the great mission
Can not, simply can not die / pass. :o) rhymes better :o)
Like thunderstorm hammers
Or waters of angry seas
Golden heart of Russia
In my breast evenly beats
...
And, so sweet is to dress up victory :o)
Like a girl, into pearls
Passing on smoking tracks
Of the retreating foe
_
I know, quite voracious :o). Gumilev was the softest chap, though :o), a poet. ovver-impressed by war.
I wanted the first line, actually, only, as an echo to you.
Complain about this comment
alice...
thank you, very deep, will investigate....for today i have to let the world be as it is.
For Europe , i hope she keeps it together, dead-beat members or not.
It will be a very long and hard struggle but it's worth fighting for.
And even if it all goes down in utter chaos
..it is better to have fought and lost,than never to have fought at all..
chohatsu
Complain about this comment
@ Nik, I would have to challenge you on more than just a few points. It would seem to me that you are under the impression that Germany never paid reparations to Yugoslavia, Greece, Sinti and Roma. I would refer you to a couple of easily accessible wikipedia pages:
Yugoslavia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_reparations_towards_Yugoslavia
About Sinti, Roma, Greek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Restitution_Laws
(those who read German will find the Germanlanguage version of this article very enlightening).
Those who do not understand German might get an idea of how much Germany gave back to Greece after WW2 in this article:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5284838,00.html
Based on all of this, I think your claim that Germans "refuse" to pay Greece out of "pride" falls apart on two separate ends. First, it does not and did not "refuse" any payment and therefore and second, it is not "too proud" to pay Greece.
I do not understand where you got the idea that Germans "hate" Serbs? Really? ALL Germans hated ALL Serbs during the break-up of Yugoslavia. I would hazard a guess that the media tilted a bit against the Serb agenda during the break-up but that does not qualify for out-and-out "hatred" in my view. Plus, as I have shown above, Germany did indeed pay all the nations you mentioned and in a few cases continues to do so. One very dark spot is its treatment of Romani and Sinti. It is utterly shameful and inexcusable and on this one, I am left with nothing but to agree with you fully.
Complain about this comment
Chris, do not let yourself be impressed by articles. Try to read them more in-depth. Jugoslavia's reparations were partial and in such a form that did not go to the victims necessarily but were spread even to pro-Nazi Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovars as if they suffered any Nazi occupations themselves - which is down to the basics amazing. Of course that was not the problem of the Germans but of Serbians inside Yugoslavia. In anyway thanks for pinpointing me that at least partially I was wrong.
However for the case of Greece where did you see any reparations? The reparations for Greek slave force that was taken to work for the Germans? So Germans did only that? What about the 900,000 dead? The ressources? Etc. The list in Greece is actually much longer than other states always of course in a comparison to the state, population, economy. Well Germans can say whatever, they have clearly not paid even the 1/3 of the war reparations they should pay. It is our fault, not theirs of course, ours in the sense of being handcuffed by a germanoanglosaxon pseudoroyalties and british-paid communists fighting each other not letting the country escape its misery and denying it even asking what was its right to take.
If we are not to use strong words, then simply I could largely reduce it to Germans holding Serbs in disregard. Ask not me, ask a German on that.
More to come on the critical question...
Complain about this comment
Nik, I found one thing I can console you with. I don't know what is FYROM, never heard.
In fact, you can make some money on it :o)))), if you find a party willing to bet.
And safely bet 20 bln euros or whatever the near-due housekeeping expenses required, that there won't be one Russian who is asked in the street, or is given 2 hrs to think ab it :o) - and replies he/she ever heard the word "FYROM".
Complain about this comment
Ok, lets answer now the main big question you set in 140 – and thank you for answering it.
Open a google map and make the round of the world. By far biggest landmass, Eurasia. Most population too. Most resources, most commerce… if one wants global domination, that is where he goes to play! Now ask a chessmaster how one should play to win on a chessboard. He will tell you 2 things:
1) Control the center
2) Control the strategic positions so that you have more space movement
So:
1) Center? The center of Eurasia is of course the Middle East. People think that it is only about the oil there but they are wrong. It is foremostly about controlling the trade routes.
2) Hot spots of Eurasia? Gibraltar (UK), Malta, Cyprus, Aegean (Greece), Bosphorus (Turkey), Crimea (Ukraine), Caucasus & Kaspian Sea (Russia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaitzan, Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, Iran), Persian Gulf (Iraq, Iran, UAE), Afganistan (connecting Iran, Pakistan, India and China), Suez and Red sea (Egypt , S. Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Yemen, Soudan, Erythrea, Djubouti, Somalia, Ethiopia), ok lets add … Singapoor to the other edge. As you see East Asia, apart Singapor, is relatively much more open in terms of strategic points.
What a collection of countries! Apart the Russian Empire, out of all these hotspots the only “lucky” ones are Gibraltar, Malta, UAE and Singapoor. What do these countries have in common? That mostly they are not historic or even proper countries but were/are British protectorates. And what do the rest 15-20 countries have in common? That they are either extremely poor and war-torn despite sitting on a commercial “gold-mine” or they have been in war with Britain or its US succesor or… most often all 3 cases together, like the case of Iraq! Do you find it accidental? Do you think that the fate of these countries was decided in the last 20 years? Last 100 years perhaps? Or last 500 years? As the chessmaster will tell you, it is the central pawns that suffer first and their position (or way they are eaten) will decide the fate of the whole game often visible much later.
What did we have over these 500 years in this circle of Eurasian center? Ottomans closed much of the area under one of the most regressive regimes stopping all trade enabling Europeans to do commerce after having circumnavigated Africa (i.e. half the globe!!!) to reach India and Indonesia (return to your google map and measure that Ottomans from Persian Gulf failed to establish even a basic trade with… muslim Indonesia and it was the Dutch that were going there. And what else happened during that period? Creation of USA? Well, yes but I meant something more important than that, not a side-effect!!!!. It was Russians reaching the Pacific, jumping on Alaska descending to modern day Canada reaching even modern day north California, all that while pushing down for entering the Eastern Mediterranean to reach the Suez.
So whatever happened in the world since then was always related directly or indirectly to Russia and Britain already the victor of the commercial maritime wars at western Europe. Everywhere. Going to the center, you can imagine why the Ottoman Empire lasted up to 20th century when it could not even last more than up to earlu 18th. Huge internal opposition (of course from Christians only, mainly the Greeks) and a grave external threat, that was post-Peter Russia meant that Ottoman Empire was lucky to survive until 1750. Russia surprisingly belatedly was ready finally to dissolve it by 1770 yet it stopped. Again around 1800, it stopped. In 1828 it was 40km out of Konstantinople, it stopped and came back accepting a ridiculous treaty that was 20 years later not respected by Turks forcing Russians to attack them again bringing a British-led pan-western European force to deal with them in the Krimean war. It was all about the sharing of the world with Britain thinking that Russia had already enough and should not claim more than it should. So in that huge geopolitical context you may easily imagine that everything that happened in the Balkans, the place where Krimean war and WWI started with WWII being only a sequel, happened always with the background of Russoanglosaxon antagonism all that includes all Balkan and Minor Asian wars, including the genocide and clearing of 40% of the population of Minor Asia, i.e. the Christian Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians. It is interesting also to see that in front of Russoanglosaxon antagonism, the Germanoanglosaxon and Francoanglosaxon antagonism can only be seen as side-effects since one may not fail to notice that in both Germanoanglosaxon and Francoanglosaxon antagonisms always ended up in Germanorussian and Francorussian ones, for some “mysterious” reason (what did Russia have to do with Britain?). If one rejects this idea then pre-emptively I ask him to count the French and German colonies around the world that posed a problem on British in the 19th and 20th century. South Africa or Quebec perhaps?
Ok, with all that blah blah, ok with Russians trying to have access to Eastern Mediterranean and British trying to stop them but all that remains general, how on earth are we supposed to link it to modern affairs, especially related to modern Greece?
Well we go back to WWII. No, not the Germans again! We are talking about the Yalta treaty. Stalin got influence over Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, Britain kept its influence over Greece and Turkey (that would soon pass on to USA keeping for itself the direct control over Cyprus). Somehow the communist and largely not-trading with other non-communist USSR was ok with it. It had access to Mediterranean via the Jusoglavs and Albanians – who soon both cut amiable relations with Moscow for ridiculous reasons (coincidence? Eh!), but at the end of the day if Jugoslavia and Albania did not pass on the other camp, USSR was not so pressed to trade in the Mediterranean.
There were indeed such plans for USSR to set marine bases elsewhere since the 1960s (eg. Cyprus) and they were continuously developed but these were for the future and after the priority of trading of energy resources with central and western Europe for example and that is why USSR had pre-emptively built the network of pipelines in Eastern Europe. And that was the main issue throughout late 70s and 80s and why USA rushed to push USSR into a race that USSR could not economically follow so as to break it up as much as possible and stop this potential kick off of communist-capitalist trade. So we arrive in 1990s. USSR collapses and there you have Russia becoming a free market, as free I mean as anyone else. Thus with the urgent need to trade around the world. So in the north the question is the pipelines leading to central Europe, but in south where to start? Secure politically Ukraine, Caucasus, then pass via Bosphorus and Aegean to the Eastern Mediterranean. So yet once again, the interests returns there.
And here is the big fight right now. Bosphorus and Aegean. Greece and Turkey. Turkey was for long chosen as the good-boy of USA like previously with Britain. They keep the narrows while having an eye on middle East. Greece is regarded as less predictable something natural since it is US themselves that caused with their politics, i.e. Greeks would have all the good will but US pre-chose it to be that way, especially the events in Cyprus and their support for Turkey. For US it would be much more simple to have the Turks controlling both Bosphorus and Aegean at the same time so they would simply their approach in the region. But that would mean a full scale war between the two NATO countries. So Greece would have to go out of NATO. In fact Greece got out of the military part of NATO (which is like going out of NATO all-together, the political side was simply saying “I am not going to Russians!”) but did so only in 1978 when entering the EU. Does that ring you any bells? Hmmm!!!! All that for those that think Greeks got in there “for the money”.
But if Turkey controls the narrows, what do Greeks have to do with that? Well you have to read the Montreux treaty that still is active today. Turkey controls the channel, certainly permits the passing of commercial ships while for military ships there are strict rules like informing weeks earlier, size, weaponry loaded and overall number and such other things. More interesting are the quotes that permit Turkey to actively influence the trade that passes through the channel… effectively refusing Greeks to trade freely with the Black Sea nations.
However, while Turkey has all that, it is still Greeks that have the last word! Get your google to the Aegean. All Aegean is Greek apart the two small islands that are in front of the narrows which are equally Greek but were given to Turkey by Britain and Turkey transformed them to open prisons moving there all murderers, rapists and other psychopaths so as to clear permanently the Greek population. Despite these two little islands, Greece has control of all the rest of more than 3000 Aegean islands, the vast majority small rocks (only 10% is habitable and only 5% is habituated, 1% are big enough islands) but which all of them constitute Greek lands. And according to international law signed both by Greece and Turkey
Greece can have a sea space of 12 miles around every little island.
If Greece respects the international law (and that is what it has to do), it will “close” the Aegean sea. And for that the international law has no problem, Greece has simply to provide a commercial corridor. Nothing else!!!!! So in practice Turkey loses all advantage of controlling the narrows of Bosphorus and Greece becomes the deciding factor.
Yes, but we said, Greece is esteemed as unpredictable by USA cos it has chosen Turkey as its good boy for a number of reasons. With Russia out there as a free market, Greece is esteemed as a natural target for Russians. So US politics have to do something for that. Already since 1970s US were arming much more Turkey than Greece. With Greece out of military NATO in the 1980s Turkey openly questioned the Greek sovereignty in the Aegean and started a campaign of air attacks that continue always – and this silent war is going on when Turkey applies for EU while there were armed air fights (i.e. dog-fight with real missile exchanges) even when your athletes were competing in the Athens Olympics 2004. So much for war against terrorism and security… EU borders are on fire and EU countries discuss on how to accept as a member Turkey…
The military analogy has been exploded by 1990 but still for Turkey it is not easy to face Greece militarily let alone politically, Greece being inside the EU. So US thought of it smart to add on top of Turkey two new problems. Since 1990 it started openly supporting the FYROMian propaganda which has territorial demands over the 1/3rd of Greece, you know there in the north, where most of the Aegean oil is also (around the island of Thasos). And then it pressed Greece to open its borders to 1 million Albanians as immigrants who nowadays having seen what they won by being aggressive in Kosovo they are starting speaking to do the same against Greece too. Officially there exists even an UCK that is organised against Greece. So you can imagine the severity of the situation for Greece.
What is happening is that you have US creating all these issues over Greece to convince it not to do what it should not do according to the US world-view. EU is completely
And that is the problem. If US gave something real in exchange for Greece’s co-operation and sacrifice of its own interests, it would be fair enough. The problem is that US demands Greece to forget about its strategic interests, step back of its sovereignty, and even forget about its own history –and who talks about the old! we speak the recent one – all that in exchange of nothing more than its physical survival.
-------------------
If so far is is interesting for you, and if it was comprehensible, I may continue on the Russian gaz and the Aegean oil. The story is much more complicated.
Complain about this comment
Nik, give me a break, about German reparations to Russia :o))))
You don't get it :o))), it's the other way around - they demand of us things :o)))))
Yeltsin promised way too much in his hey time :o))))
The only country, of the 12 fighting Russia in Russia, who really paid money and reparations post 2ndWW to Russia is Finland. The only good thing about Jukks :o)))) Credit where it's due. There were reparations, decided on paper, signed, and paid, and in money, and in full.
With the rest it was decided at Potsdam type "should pay but so that their national economies are not under-mined" :o)))), so, basically, forget about it.
About Germany - of 125 bln or trillion or zillion of whatever in whatever forgot what it was signed at Potsdam due to the USSR - it was decided by the winning company that realistically Germany can only "reparate" 20 - of that - 125 - of something (they happened to destroy more than they themselves theoretically ever had :o))) or could have had in the observable future.
That USSR will get those 20 in the form of trains and ships and factory equipment and cows and electro diesel engines - and art pieces - and "coo-coo clocks" (no joke) - listed separately - grabbed and robbed away from German households and "piano fortes" - in thsi barter, natural format, not money - from the territory of the Eastern Germany. And in the shape of money - from the territory of the Western Germany.
The other allies were to satisfy their reparation appetites from the Western Germany side, by Potsdam.
And that the claims to Germany of countries entering the USSR block (Eastern Europe) - "shall be covered from this 20 (of whatever) USSR share". Poland - as a separate clause - Polish claims to Germany - from USSR share - in particular.
From the Western Germany the money as agreed at Potsdam - USSR never got.
Simply - the allies elegantly skipped it. :o)))) Cold war this and that.
From the Eastern Germany USSR was taking out by trains heaps of things, tons of things, all those aforementioned factory equipment, cows, ships, coo-coo clocks and Art in incredible quantities, and pianos. Also sugar and cabbage and potato trains and trains. And forgot what else there are whole long lists can look up. But not for long, 1946-1949. And giving to the rest of the USSR places destroyed by war and the same very our brand new socialistic campus. And bringing back to Germany also heaps of things, from us, because Eastern Germany became ours, and it was totally ruined in war, as all German battles took place on the Eastern side of it, surprise surprise, and they were not in the robbing condition, should have been saved instead. Nobody never established in this turmoil how much of this 20 of something due, in this "practical - things - format" USSR ever got, between 1946 and 1949. What of it USSR got itself is ksimply impossible to establish. What of it Russia got as part of USSR, and how to caluclate those cabbages and pianos and coo-coo clocks into money - nobody knows either.
Major Art pieces we returned back at once, Hermitage restored the whole Drezden gallery - and brought it back. Khruschev , during his thaw , in 1958 - returned Germany the rest, all he could collect, 300 train wagons - back then it was estimated we returned by 1958 - 80% of all Art exported out of Germany by the USSR.
For comparison, German records show that for "the transfer of cultural valuables from Russia to Germany during the war" there were used 1,408,000 train wagons and additionally 450 tons of Art were sent by water way.
In response to the 1958 Khruschev delivery - take note - RETURNING BACK TO GERMANY WHAT USSR GOT AS A CONTRIBUTION FOR THE WAR - German side returned USSR a dozen of pieces. Well, may be 15. :o))))) You can count on two hands.
Grabatised Art from Russia Germany has never been and is in no hurry or desire whatsoever to return back to us. Because in the West private property is sacred.
Last time I looked into it, Germany wanted from us 2 things in particular - some "Keniks" collection and Shlieman gold.
Keniks was a man, and Germany insisted it is his, and private, and couldn't have been taken as part of those 20 of something war contribution. Kremlin reasoned that Keniks was indeed a man, only his collection was grabatised from him by Hitler, not by the Red Army, and was Hitler's at the time we took it. Who the hell knew where Hitler took his things from. Clearly not from good sources :o) but in 1946 nobody worried very much where fascists got their things from preliminary, neither USSR nor Allies other.
With Shlieman I remember it's 3 countries at once who insist it's theirs - Germany, Greece and Turkey - all the three demand it back from Russia and in full and only to them.
So, simply forget about "reparations" for the 2ndWW to Russia. No money. Not doomed to be. Finland darling only :o))))
For that matter, we are peaceful generous bears, but I heard lots of talking from Ukraine and Georgia and Belorussia and who only ex-USSRians not. Who are in far less generous mood :o))))
Yesterday read a Crimean site - Nik, all support your Greece, and say why don't we demand reparations from Germany, Ukraine. If Russia is stupid - why are we to suffer? :o)))) Discuss your girl without arms' assault, and all. In the Black Sea you've got full support :o))))
Another thing can add on the matter, Germany is still paying 1919 or was it 1921 ? deal, compensating all for the 1st WW, payments are due to end in Septemeber 2010, will be paid in full.
Those Russia didn't get either :o))) but there it's all on paper, agreed, Lenin signed up a deal with Germany in 1922 that Russia swaps what's due to her in money by 1919/1921 deal in exchange for nationalising German factories that stayed in St. Petersburg, Moscow and Russia overall post revolution, and all German property other that stayed in Russia post the communist revolution.
We are not born for money, simply :o)
But then one can't complain, after all I like chocolates still made in the Moscow confectionary factory, ex-German, and telephoen station in St. Petersburg, and I am sure they were all good red brick buildings as they still stand.
The At the moment 2 pieces are wanted from us - some
Complain about this comment
I think Nik has a point there. Russia "took" its compensation for WW2 by de-industrialising east Germany and taking the factories to Russia. For more decades, captured Germans were made to work for free in the Russian gulag system. It also took a sizeable part of Poland, a country that had not aggressed agaisnt Russia. I am not blaming Russia for doing these things, but it is clear to me that if you do things like that, then you forfeit any claim to any compensation.
Complain about this comment
Re.174 + 175: Alice you have some point there. I spoke generally of USSR taking war reparations but then one (and certainly me, I am not that good on translating things in financial terms) cannot imagine how much USSR should take given that Germany invaded USSR with what has been the biggest human military campaign since dawn of mankind - that in absence of knowledge of the precataclysmic intercontinental war described in Timaios and Kritias of Plato (Athens vs. Atlantis and such)... eheh! Gemarns sent 2,2 million Germans and 0,5 million allies, nearly 3 million soldiers, not Mongols with bows and arrows but armes with the best things WWII technology could offer, so one may only imagine the catastrophe. And in return, as an even bigger wave of Russians was pouring into Germany smashing everything in their passage with fully understandable revengeful attitude, one can only imagine that there would never be enough in Eastern Germany (anyway the less industrialised part of Germany), to pay off Russians. The only thing that Germans paid off Russians is something I am constrained from mentioning here, so let it go.
At the end, perhaps the best war reparations that one country can receive is to have its own geostrategic interests upgraded. Greece and Greeks of Cyprus and north Epirus were promised Union by British for their alliance, they got nothing of it. All Greeks got was the Dodecanesa from Italians that anyway were not in position to keep them (local people would rebel, Greek navy would just enter and bash them out if they would not leave themselves). At the end Greeks were told to be happy about it on the top and remain shorting out a horrible civil war. Tragic (but Greeks are so stupid and so easily manipulated that they deserved it anyway).
So at the end Chris, the main issue is how countries upgrade their freedeom of movement, like the chessmaster tries to do on the chessboard.
Let us not over-discuss the "reparations", an issue mentioned (not wrongly but also not being our main point in this crisis) by a Greek politician, Pangalos, that I esteem very lowly (he is known to say whatever and is a man that makes no proper dialogue apart slogans and other as-if smart rehtorics).
Be it "Reparations" or "EU packets" or "cheap loans" any other kind of parcels are not the point for one country. They will be soon translated into buying suppliers for Olympic projects and BMW X5s & Porche Cayennes, thus they will soon return where they came from. What countries like Greece, our main issue now, need to do is start making their own money and at least maintain a sustainable development.
And the question is: here, in our case of little Greece. How this country can make money itself, benefiting itself and also - why not say it - the rest of the EU family and in particular its neighbourhood (Bulgaria is already an EU country, Albania and FYROM to follow)?
Hmmm... industry? Ok, what ressources has little Greek state? It has lots of oil but as said it is menaced with war and destruction. So no oil for the time being. Then it has coal, not a lot, and of the low quality that is fully exploited but can only suffice for merely a percentage of its electricity needs, the rest is completed by oil and hydroelectric energy, still Greece imports energy from Bulgaria and Albania to complete its needs. Then it has bauxite, the raw material of aluminium, it is fully exploited and has a very healthy ans sizeable aluminium industry, one of the few healthy industrial sectors in Greece. From there on it has nothing special, a bit of gold here (whatever Philip did not transform into phalanxes!), a bit of marble there (ancient over-production meant that there is not much left, even since medieval times there was lack of it, hehe!) these are not sectors that can make it big. At the end of the day who wants to invest in industrial production there when it is all about a country that imports everything, even the most basic. In its agricultural sector Greece has one of the worst lands of Europe, least fertile, most of it suitable only for local plants such as olives and vines that require less water, something that Greece is going to lack seriously in a few years. Even so, to export its agricultural products (mainly its few high quality ones) Greece has to import (mainly lower quality ones). Thus even this sector has a deficit. Tourism? Well - and that is a big shame for Greeks - tourism is not even the 1st industry of this country and had an 8% increase when world tourism had a 300% increase in the last 20 years. All is not black but Greeks lost 30 years of time in it not being able to offer the quality of services that tourists would expect from such a country. The beauty of beaches, the sun and antiquities never betray tourists and the local people's joyful atitudes is always there but prices and services are not there. Turkey next door has the same things (i.e. beaches, sun and Greek antiquities) for half the price (Turkish tourism increased more than 200% in the last 20 years). All is not black but still tourism cannot save the country.
And what about Greece's main advantage? The sea? What fishing? It does not even suffice for internal consumption. We import. Ahh... you meant boats? Ships? Ships what? Moving tourists around the islands? You meant commerce? Yes, thank you we import so much that indeed there are many ships enterring the country. Shame with that movement the country mostly loses money than gains.
Forget about the ships. Yes, indeed the commercial Greek shipping industry is one of the largest in the world. But it is all about Greek magnates living in London, having their accounts in Switzerland and Cayman islands, sinking a ship or two per year to get the insurances, then building new ones in Japanese (in the 1950s), Korean (in the 1970s) and Chinese (since the 1990s) shipyards, manning them with 1 Greek captain, 1 Ukrainian mechanic and 30 Philipinos for crew and putting them to work between Sanghai, Rotterdam and New York. Where is Greece in the picture? Hmmm...
For good or for bad, Greece's internal shipping industry could revive only if:
1) Russia+Ukrainian trade routes with Mediterranean are revived
2) Some of the Suez's + Middle Eastern commerce enters Europe via Greece
For the 1st we will speak below, for the 2nd, obviously this cannot happen unless there is absolute stability in the Balkans and all Balkanic countries start developing - otherwise why a trader would bring his stuff in the port of, say, Thessaloniki? Reach which market?
PS: Funnily, these 2 trade routes are exactly the ancient trade routes that made rich ancient and Byzantine Greeks!!! This is no accident - it is for the same reason that if the chessboard remains the same, the same rules and strategies are applied in the beginning of the game - unless one plays Bobby Fischer's chess960 (where pieces are placed randomly changing the terrain - I absolutely love it!).
Complain about this comment
Nik
Re #173
They do say, 'Hindsight is a wonderful thing!'
Sometimes that 'hindsight' as in your case reads like hindered-sight!
It is rare to read a Very Brief History of the World that completely bye-passes or overlooks the key elements concerning Human Evolution, e.g. Thought, Agriculture, Faith, Science etc.
Still, as an interested bystander, I did enjoy reading it even though it bears almost no relation to Historical reality.
Complain about this comment
So after having done all this prologue I will finish it with the very very recent case of Russian gas.
So currently there are 2 projects in the overall area. 1 is the Russian Southstream. The other is the US-backed Nabucco. Let us open google map:
1) the Russian Southstream is the most solid project with Russia feeding directly an EU country, Bulgaria, then Greece and then Italy. From there one there can be many branches, Russia has no major problem over it.
2) the US-backed Nabucco project is a bit less solid as it implies gaz taken by Turkmenistan, passed via the Kaspain (and over Iran and south of Russia and Kazakstan) to Azerbaitzan, from there a fantastic bypass of Armenia to go via Georgia (the plans are for the pipelines to pass at 20km of south Ossetia, now an independent state either we like it or not, backed by Russia!) and from Georgia down to Turkey and from Turkey to Bulgaria (fantastically bypassing Greece that will only receive a small branch – thus Turkey can do whatever there without anyone else caring), from Bulgaria to Romania, from Romania to Hungary and the rest…
Out of the two the Southstream not only it is a plan 10 times more solid but is also the only one with secured gas reserves for at least the following 80 years. The Nabucco project has not even secured gas for the next 10 years as Russian Gasprom has already signed deals with Turkmenistan and Kazakstan. Let alone Nabucco passing from fantastically unstable countries (Turkmenistan, Azerbaitzan, Georgia, Turkey) all in some short of war, and doing both in Asia and Europe fantastic hat-tricks bypassing countries in a better way than Maradona’s 2nd goal after his Hand of God cheating goal against England in Mexico’s world cup back in 1986.
Now one cannot but see that Nabucco not only snubs Greece but aims at making it dependent on a country that has aggressive attitudes against it. Just imagine Greece receiving a small branch from Turkey. Turkey will be able to close the tap any time – brining financially Greece to its knees unless Greece accepts to step back from its own sovereignty over the Aegean – refer to the description of mes. Above. Not to mention that the Nabucco project will bring inherently much more expensive gas than Russia. That is something known to Europeans like French and Italians. It is mostly Italians that are waiting for it – remember Silvio visiting Vladimir… all these hugs and kisses were not accidental. Italy has to win over it. But then at the end of the day Italy is not subject to the same pressure that Greece is, it could as well receive gas from a Nabucco branch via Bulgaria, FYROM and Albania, another fantastic US idea of how to by pass Greece!!! For Greece we said… Turkish gas and Saoudi liquefied gas. 3 times more expensive than Russian gas. Fantastic prospect for Greece!
However, that is where Germany enters! Babababoum! Fat Germany secured its fresh top quality Russian gas with the Northstream, a pipeline that directly feeds Germany from Russia. The project is already underway, and Germany somehow feels relaxed now. So what is the interest for Germany for Southstream? Absolutely no interest! Southstream is interesting for only for southern countries, exactly that it is all about.
So it is not that much that fat Germany minds southern countries developed (not that it rejoices particularly over it) but it is mostly that it would like to have is a second alternative, expressed in the project of Nabucco. In that way it could play between the two suppliers and obtain a higher level of energy independence. For it fat Germany is ready to sacrifice a lot of things including Greece, not only as an economy but also as a sovereign country. If Nabucco passes finally from Bulgaria and Roumania heading for Germany, Greece can as well be kicked out of EU altogether, why not?
Complain about this comment
CBW, thank you for reading it. If you have a general disagreement with the overall approach then this should be out of a collection of details where you have a much different opinion. I do not ask you to comment it altogether, just chose a particular point and I can bring you whatever ino you wish to have in order to understand the basic line of my thought.
PS: Let us chose for example the fantastic example of France and Germany being at war with Britain but sending the 90% of their excellent armies against Russia to be tragically crushed, instead of clearing first Britain? How about that?
PS: My main point is to point out that China/India or no China/India, still the big geopolitical game is still between US and Russia. US strives for world domination. Russia has the 1/5th of the earth and the 1/3rd (roughly said) of Eurasia and the 1/4rd of world ressources and it capable of turning the tables between East West trade. It is not only about the oil and gaz as people think: the construction of 2-3 hybersiberian railways suffices to transform the Suez into a much less frequented channel just like Panama may lose much of its circulation to the Arctic passage north of Canada - and for China that wants to develop also its western underpopulated regions it is a very attractive scenario (China is anyway dependent to US for consuming its products, it may as well get dependent to Russia for moving them).
PS: On the top of the big geopolitical game still being US against Russia, Russia still maintains a slight military advantage over US. US's overfocus on combatting 3rd world countries led to over-reliance on weaponry that is least effective against Russia - where we should talk only about nuclear weaponry. Head on head Russian missiles are still better, and their aiming systems are more accurate since they have more percentages of avoiding US anti-nuclear shields than the US missiles avoiding Russian anti-nuclear shields. Hence, the anxiety of US to install bases just outside Russia (Poland, Chech republic and Roumania consulted, Georgia & Ukraine (not forseeable now with the oranges rotten and georgians a failing state), possibly Uzbekistan, South Korea etc.
Complain about this comment
Nik,
as the things are more or less now, Greece might be able to get something useful of the improved Russian-Ukrainian relations. We shall watch how it develops, but if Russia-Ukraine start to trade again, I mean, on our usual normal level, which during USSR and previous non-USSR times meant a lot of activity, you might find your place again servicing Black Sea cargo and the rest of travel.
Lately we only trade on one-offs, like we deliver them a pack of this, they sell us a pack of that, like foreigners, but if morally the stress is away off, longer-term projects get possible, tying up parts of industries and requiring a lot of activity.
We've got hell of a lot of production capabilities left on Ukr. side, they stood still as un-fit for other players in the world to be compatible with them, nobody is interested, stayed of no use to Ukraine.
With us they are compatible, and if we won't quarrel again, many things may start functioning again.
Even during these quarrels time, Russia and Ukraine were able to build a new airplane, passanger, new, mid-range, badly needed on both their and our side - in the atmosphere of total scandal :o))), mutual accusations :o)))) and quarrel - but the plane is ready, speaks for itself, pilots tried it in both countries, and are happy. Quarrel you or don't quarrel - all still need a good new airplane, whole Aeroflot USSR-makes are derelict disnosaurs without spare parts, 20 year olds at best, falling into pieces. Now a big new modern white darling.
Now the stress level is largely away, with Janukovich. He went first thing visit to the EU - Russian newspapers said good and fine and OK (which you can't imagine in earlier times, such a reaction), and it's all because he indicated Sebastopol bay rent may be prolonged after 2017.
They are every day in Moscow, re-negotiating gas agreements, to make them cheaper for Ukraine, and get paid more for the transfer - also nobody winks, anything but leave Sebastopol where it is.
We are prepared to stand a lot of Ukr. demands in exchange for Sebastopol, so if the rent is prolonged, we will trade fuller again, and the Black Sea gets busy again.
The third corner of the triangle is component though is still missing, travelnow reduced to a single airplane exchange going back and forward
Complain about this comment
Alice, I am not new in geopolitics. Be it an engineer, geopolitics is my hobby, I have a high disregard for common low-level politics though, in my eyes they are trivialities, being merely the expression or more neutrally a side-effect of geopolitics. I have nicely explained above how out of the 20 countries in the geopolitical center of the world, apart Russia itself all others are either poor, either wartorn, either in war with US, Britain or Russia either... British good old protectorates like Gibraltar, UAE, Singapoor and Malta. All the rest either have to suffer or their capacity is restricted multiple times in the sense: "stay low or get destroyed".
Being not new, gives me considerable hindsight. I was still a student when I had read articles about Ukraine. That is back in 1997. That means 8 years before the oranges and 12 years before the rotting of the oranges. It was not even an article on politics, I was scanning articles on industrial product development and fell in that article of a Ukrainian analysing the Ukrainian industry and how in the first years there was hope of transforming it into an independent industry exporting to the west and how 5 years after it was clear that pretty much all Ukrainian industry was to remain Russian dependent. Then, the same year I fell on a British article, very interesting (British journalists no matter if on a propaganda and no matter the falling standards of BBC - just like anyone else of course - they still write excellent articles that provide you with a hindsight unlike others who remain to sensasionalism). So back then the article was saying that for the last 6 years (then...), USA did not know how to treat Ukraine which US diplomats back then called "that little Russia, under Russia". But the article was suggesting that was about to change with "Ukrainians" being fed up with the situation and with US wishing to capitalise on that turning "that little Russia under Russia" into the "soft underbelly under Russia".
From there on during the 2000-2005 period I was reading random articles in Greece about how political tensions in Ukraine are also influenced by religious tensions fuelled by the pope John Paul - to orthodox eyes a criminal figure that supported the wars in Jugoslavia and the political tensions all over eastern Europe - something that the current pope Benedict tries to correct by maintaining a more reasonable balance and better relations with the orthodox in the face of “others” rising... and I am asking if all that recent attack against Benedict is accidental (I sincerely doubt).
I remember someone of my circle having written an essay for her master back in 2005 on Ukraine - and I helped her so I managed to read even more about the role of Russia, of US, of Vatican - the clash between the Russian orthodox church followed by orthodox Russians, the catholic church followed by the western polish-originated populations and the role of Ukrainian orthodox church that battles for its independence from Moscow as well as maintaining its power over its subjects "threatened" by the most ridiculous (but still devious) effort of catholics to "steal" subjects from orthodox - the Ounia.... Ounia is a catholic propaganda of enterring poor or wartorn orthodox regions, paying a lot of money and convincing the local bishops to abide to pope without changing the slightest thing in their ways - thus in fact most of the christians of the region will not even realise... they became catholics untill it will be very late. You might laught but if you think these things are funny, they are not, they are pure politics.
Anyway, she had written what the professors wanted to read, that more or less "Ukraine will opt for freedom and democracy". I was alright with that since she had to get some grade, but I had explained to her that in reality, the elections in Ukraine were not as rigged as people said, it is just that in countries like Ukraine there will always be some tension in the election centers with people trying to force others to vote for this or that just like it happens in the majority of countries (including Greece, there big time!), so it does not necessarily have to be a centrally organised fraud with intimidations, violence and such. I had explained to her that Yanukovich's results seemed more or less logical since half of the country is Russian - who have the eastern, more developed and more industrialised part and thus for them it is rather difficult to change and vote for an anti-Russian president; to do so there has to be an incredible propaganda - well that is what we saw back in 2005 with all those millions Mr. Soros spent there (so if Americans said they were out of that, they tell the truth indeed!... now start imagining why the last 20 years we had all that flourishing of NGOs of which we barely now how they survive financially when even healthy businesses feel the pinch!!!). So when Yanukovitch won the late 2009 elections he did it easily by taking back all the stray votes of orthodox Russians and neutral but rather pro-Russian Ukrainians that back in 2005 were fooled by the orange propaganda.
Now that speak dates… late 2009…. Hmmm one is to wonder how Greeks that were supposed to vote again in late 2011 finally ended up voting in late 2009 resulting in the pro-Russian ND right wing party stepping down and the PASOK socialist pro-US party stepping up instantly deteriorating the relations with Russia, freezing all agreements and stopping the talks with the Chinese and kickstarting the events of the current crisis – all that in the very first week of their governance (no really you have to go back and read it to believe!).
What I say is that nothing is accidental.
CBW... I am not playing the smart guy here. And I do not claim to know everything. Far from that, I try to approah mathematically the whole situation, just like a chessboard, cos you know what? That is what the political consultants and analysts do. There is no sentimentalism, and no particular ideas over it, pure business.
Complain about this comment
Nik,
Apoligies, but this eludes me:
"..France & Germany at war with Britain.." plus ".. 90% of their excellent armies against Russia..".
Can't quite recall that 'war'!?
100 Year War, 7 Year War, Anglo-Dutch Wars, Russo-Swedish/Baltic Wars, Napoleonic Wars, Wars of German Unification, Italian Wars of Unification, Wars for/against the Ottoman Empire, Chinese Opium Wars, Balkan Wars, WW1, WW2...
To which 1 do you refer?
Complain about this comment
Ok, so let us finish the Russian-Bulgarian-Greek Southstream pipeline vs. Nabucco case.
We have explained that Germany and via it other northern European countries are going to receive directly through Northstream the much wanted Russian gas hence they are not at all interested by a Southstream that will majorly benefit southern countries. What Germany would prefer is the Nabucco for having the choice to play between more than 1 supplier. But here is the stupidity. First, the Nabucco will only nominally bring the prices down for the single reason that the market will be cut – certainly Russia with Northstream and Southstream working can give better prices and expect to profit mainly from encouraging Europe to consume more, thus encourage Europe to have better economies and richer citizens!!! US is not interested in making money through the actual selling of gas BUT from maintaining the current amazing scum: i.e. forcing countries to trade in dollars!
Therefore the whole Nabucco approach for Germany is simply short-sighted, still it is understandable that Germany does not want to be over-dependent on Russia. Behind that approach of Germany – do not forget, hides UK that is the most Russia-weary country in Europe traditionally being situated on the other extend. France on the other hand is largely nuclear-based so the whole issue bypasses it to a large extend ¬– France is more interested to work with Russia on other fields like the military and spatial applications (go read the equivalent projects in concern) and thus it really does not mind this closer relationship, yet it does not want to force upon Germany a whole dependence. Now Germans on their side think that if applying this approach on gas supplies is going to step on Greece’s dead body, that is no problem.
And watch out here! One will say : “Nick, you tell us Germany supports Nabucco, Greek socialist PASOK party is pro-US now, so why all that debate”?
Well, it would not be that simple would it be? It is all a farse… don’t you get it? Down to the basics all that talk about statues showing the finger and WWII are actually hiding us the truth. The truth is that Germany internally is also split just like Greece: the Kostakis approach would keep hiding the truth going on to install the pipeline, the Gerhard approach would had Greece aided both in its economy in case a current crisis occurred as well as in installing the Southstream pipeline while the Giorgakis approach is to freeze everything and kickstart the current crisis and Angela approach is to fight off Southstream (at least as it is presented right now) and not supporting Greece in this current crisis. All the rest could be simply ashes in our eyes. It goes without saying that the competing interests are mainly EU industrialists vs. finance with the first being on average more pro-Russian and the latter being more pro-US. For the case of Britain, following simple geo(politico)graphy, there is a shift: industrialists are somehow more pro-EU and less pro-US than finance guys.
Complain about this comment
Nik :o), may be the rest of Europeans get tired saving you :o)))) and relax finally about South stream, after all, that's money in, not money out. Yes, we have signed something with Turkmenistan last week additionally, and I saw their Pres. in TV as pleasant as he could make himself look :o))))) saying dear Russians rest assured Turkmenistan will always have gas for you, no problem, for decades ahead.
So he got, whatever it is he wanted, after what he came to Moscow. No idea what but he looked genuinely content.
With Italy, Berlusconi/Putin combination, or without one or the other - we have always been quite relaxed about Italy, I mean they are Russian-friendly traditionally, and Italy will also get what it wants, Nabucco way or not Nabucco way, their interests Russia will account for.
They campaign for us now the only ones in the EU, for the visa relax between Russia and the EU, it is generally seen as a very good will sign from Italy, a clear favour to us, so Italian interests will be considered by Russia. Like, that it pays, so they are not discouraged, in their expectations.
The Black Sea, I thought, of course will never be as booming as it was before, after all it serviced all USSR transfer needs before, port cranes for kilometres buzz, in Odessa, Sochi, Novorossijsk. This is un-repeatable, on the same scale. We don't trade with Georgia anymore and the whole that corner. Azerbajan. Armenia simply got cut off.
Between us and Ukraine things got to a stand-still 20 yrs ago already. It's not that we quarreled at once, 20 yrs back, but it's that they hoped they will build a different trading block or co-operation, with Europe or US or I don't know who. That others will invest in them heavily and ? will be interested in the Black Sea trade, this didn't take place.
Anyway we have signed a customs' union with Kazakhstan and Belarus now, Ukraine also began considering at the moment, so the playing field that shrank to zero is expanding a bit.
One good thing is Black Sea in the past 20 yrs became very good ecologically :o))) Cranes at ports rusted away :o)))), ships disappeared entirely :o)))). And the only thing you see there are meduse-es jelly fish floating :o)))), plus an occasional NATO ship, visiting Sebastopol with a friendly visit :o)))))
OK, and a handful of tourists, on the inflated mattresses :o)))))
Anyway
Complain about this comment
And what about little Greece? Southstream? Nabucco? Saudi liquified gas? What is the game?
I have already described in my mes.176, I have presented well how the Greek economy has not many options other than to revive the good-old trade routes of Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea together with pushing for more Balkanic stability and economic development with some hope for more Turkish collaboration, cos at the end, that is the long term interest of Turkey too.
So how the gas provision enters that? For Greece to have any hope of doing anything, it has to maintain its national sovereignty and its energy provisions, both under threat at the moment. We have already analysed the 12-miles problem in my mes.173 and why Turkey wished a war with Greece to occupy at least 2-3 main islands in the Aegean (obviously, Lemnos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes are all candidates) and if possible to occupy western Thrace were certain regions have a 45% muslim minority (situated mainly north of Xanthi and Komotini). It has been years that Turkey plays a very nasty game trying to incite among muslims a hatred against Greeks and the only thing that keeps things calm is the relative for Balkans general relaxed attitude of Greeks on muslims and the fact that 60% of these muslims are Pomaks, a Bulgarian-speaking Slavic tribe that are not at all fanatics but recently islamised populations (300 years ago – imagine they still do have in their villages old stuff from churches and such) who are very friendly to Greeks and today feel a bit awkward when they are forced to start hating the Greeks otherwise they will be treated as “traitor muslims” that “bend on infidels”.
And it was the relative slow movement of Turkish propaganda inside Greek Thrace (note: Thrace is a geographic name that covers south/central Bulgaria, northeastern Greece and European Turkey) that made the Turks follow plan B as proposed by Americans. It was back in 1987 when the then Turkish leader Turgut Ozal – a very offensive one – had stepped up the provocation against Greece sending a turkish “oceanographic” ship (accidentally equipped with “oil scanners”) invade Greek waters as well as stepping up the violations of Greek (and thus EU!) air-space. Two leaders had met at Davos, it can be seen as minor tactical political defeat for Greeks, but still double-chinned Turgut had not taken what he wished and then declared that “Why do Greeks make it such a fuss as if we are going to invade them? All we need to do to them is unleash the gates of Asia pooring into them millions of muslims, they will be forced to accept our terms without a single gun pointing at them”.
In 1991 US extorted Greece to open its gates to 1 million Albanians or having to face an imminent danger – what USA said “to let-off steam”… i.e. what they were saying more or less is that things in Albania were desperate, so US would easily arm them secretly to enter Greek territory and provoke mayhem, then them invading Greece to protect “poor Albanian fighters and such… ”… you know how these things go. Let alone that this was a promise to the corrupt 20 Families (we spoke before on them) of Greece to freeze and lower the wages of workers in Greece enabling a huge part of even public projects to be carried out using “black market” hands of illegal immigrants – and all the money end in their very private pockets of course! Now the whole idea for the US was to fill Greece with immigrants of a neighbouring country thus add a newly created problem for Greeks.
However, the Albanian trick has a problem. First of all not all Albanians are muslims, there are orthodox too and many of them are pro-Greek (let alone the sizeable Greek community of north Epirus in south Albania). Then even muslim Albanians are hardly any practicing ones. Historically they converted for the money, and once again Americans need to poor a lot of money to remake them muslims (money usually given by Saudis as in the case of Kosovo). But then as Albanians live with Greeks, and despite the understandable friction born out of Albanians being exploited in Greece while Greeks suffering their imported criminality, they find some concensus – Albanians are not stupid at the end of the day, 1 million of them read Greek, they read also a lot of Greek media, they can see that Greeks really do not threaten them in north Epirus as they feared in the past and thus they tend not to fall easily for such propaganda. So US recently (the last 5 years) went on a different approach – to dig out a failed theory that Italians had invented 100 years back to push back Greeks away from Otranto (another geostrategic point, regional of course), thus pushing Albanians to think that Epirus is an Albanian land stolen by the Greeks and other amazing things all inside a propaganda that has nothing to be jealous of FYROMian propagandas… and yes… Alexander the Great was Albanian.. what did you think? You laugh?
It is not funny. But then even with that US is not fully happy. It has the Albanian pseudo-nationalist propaganda, it has the FYROMian propaganda (the two are of course largely conflicting and it will be difficult to join them on their common point of aggression against Greece) but it will not succeed easily in using them against Greece if that does not serve the end purpose, i.e. provide Turkey the upper hand in the region. Hence the plan that Turgut Ozal dreamt went on with 100,000s of muslims of all shorts, Kurds, Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Pakistanis. Strangely very few Iranians since Iranians when outside Iran are not so fanatic muslims, then they are Shiites thus not in terms with Turkish sounites while there is a fantastic absence of other non-muslim Asiatic nations that give millions of immigrants elsewhere like the Indians, Chinese, Cambodians etc. etc. which only proves that the flow is technically provoked by US and facilitated by Turkey. One cannot say that it is in the post-90s times that this immigration started since there were many more wars in the 80s in both Asia and Africa (Iran-Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia) yet Greece in much better economic situation back then and with “seemingly more relaxed attitudes towards political asylum” never received really any big number apart… Papandreou the father beloved Palestinians (still they were a community of 10-15,000 people in Athens only). In 10 years Greece got from 100,000 illegal immigrants something like approaching 2 million immigrants, their vast majority souni muslims, with low educational standards, with high needs of medical care, with lots of children to take care off and above all coming often with a profound hatred of the west into which they classify Greece too.
Turkey refuses to do anything about it – it is their plan anyway. It is the Turkish police and army that allow all these sad troops of unfortunate people to cross 1000s of kilometres across Turkey to arrive to Greece and even the Somali Africans actually enter Turkey via Syria, cross all the country and enter Greece along with all the rest via the Aegean or Evros borders (i.e. meaning this sad march of people passes from within Constantinople without the Turkish forces doing anything… of course they do… they help for all they can!). And already in 2009 we had he first signs of that policy… in a unbelievably amazing event of a policeman entering a drug-selling shop and examining people he found that someone had some old dirty papers and something wrapped inside that looked like drugs so he went to open it, then a Syrian stood up and said “this is the Koran”, the policeman of course not believing that any religious person would take out papers in that condition from a holy book or copy the holy book and have it in that condition he told him to stand down and he tore the parcel to find nothing inside… the muslims got out of the building shouting fanatically against “infidels” and in 2 hours they had gathered 2-3,000 people and started breaking things and clashing with police – interestingly the Pakistani and Syrian leaders of that hideous provocative demonstration were calling “the greek government to apologise to muslims all over the world”, which as a statement is nto accidental (they have been instructed to use it). The only positive thing on that is that the large Albanian population of Athens (most of them nominally muslims) largely stayed out of that. I think also Kurds stayed out, it was mostly Pakistanis, Syrians and other Arabs.
Now if anyone thinks that the current turn of Turkish politics to Islamism (they even started to speak about “how much Ottomans they feel”!) and the following silence of US on this issue is accidental he is largely mistaken.
It is sad to say but simply put, in geopolitics the bad fortune of this people becomes an arm against a country, in this case Greece (but then similar things are done all over Europe). The idea is to put Europeans fighting inside their countries instead of having any vision for doing anything more outside (not wars, but you know… buying some gas, sending some more Soyuzs up there and such).
So ok alright, Turkey is behind all that and US behind it, but how on earth we combine that with the gas?
Well it is easy. Get back to your map:
The Southstream will not enter Greece anywhere else but where Greece exactly wants it: right next to the Greek Turkish borders! But then with the pipeline arriving it will not bring only gas but also the Russians! The pipeline is also Russian property. And thus Turks will instantly forget any plans to do anything aggressive in Thrace…. Well first in Thrace cos if Russians get down there, they won’t stop there. They will ask from Greece – paying a nice sum – to lease to them a port anywhere in the Aegean preferably in north Aegean where the oil id of course (but it is not so much about the oil – Russians are not so much interested in that, though they will have nothing to lose and more to gain by helping Greeks extract it), so Turks really will find themselves having to deal not with Greece anymore but with Russia. And this scenario is what is worst for Americans, it is simply a nightmarish for them scenario.
But for Greeks it is The whole game! It is not just our energy source, but our means of protecting ourselves too. And all that, because Europeans have blatantly failed to provide Greece the geopolitical protection for which it entered in EU back in 1978.
For Europeans – apart the US-friendly guys of finance – it has absolutely no impact, I would say it would be more positive for industrialists who would make deals more easily with Russians and who would also have the opportunity to jump on and participate in the extraction of Greek oil. Theoretically that should not have any impact in their relations with Turkish industry but of course Turkey will try to answer back with impositions. One wonders though if losing the market of 80 millions of Turkey is more important then gaining the market of 50 millions of Ukrainians and the 145 millions of Russians… Because Russians wish not to make anything else than spatial applications, missile systems, weapons, energy provisions and Bolshoi ballets… the rest they can import.
In this approach I do not esteem Russia as more ethical partner than US. There is no moral judgement. Russia can be as bad as US or anyone else. It is pure mathematics. Russia is our neighbour. She lives with us, she cares if we go well or bad not because she cares about us but because she earns more when we go well. US is more distant, on another continent. If we are not going well she can still do well by playing elsewhere something that Russia is not foreseeable to do in the following decades and maybe not interested to do so. Did no see them building aircraft carriers…
Complain about this comment
Now, Chris Camp.
"Russia "took" its compensation for WW2 by de-industrialising east Germany and taking the factories to Russia.
For more decades, captured Germans were made to work for free in the Russian gulag system.
It also took a sizeable part of Poland, a country that had not aggressed agaisnt Russia.
I am not blaming Russia for doing these things, but it is clear to me that if you do things like that, then you forfeit any claim to any compensation."
1.
De-industrialising is not the term from Russian jargon.
I am not sure, but I think "de-industrialisation" was put as a target, or some programme bullet-points, by the Allies else, re West Germany, post-war.
USSR had no interest to de-industrialise Germany. We have insured by fire and steel Germany won't fight back again. You forget Russians were always sure they defeated Germany and defeated it, how to say, very substantially well, and can defeat again, any minute, come any troubles. Level of Eastern German industrialisation - only beneficial to Russia if high. The more the better. Nothing to be scared about.
Secondly, Eastern Germany was a part of the friendly block, mind it - on the equal footing with the other countries in the block, in Russian understanding. You don't harm your own people, and Eastern Germans in USSR times were viewed in general "own people", friends.
By Soviet propaganda all the bad Germans somehow got concentrated on the other side, we had exclusively good ones :o)))), by some twist of fortunes :o))))) This was intentionally done, right in 1945, this approach taken, because otherwise how can you live and function together as a block, especially after such a war. It was very severely cut and dotted above i - all the bad ones - there, all the good ones - extreme luck :o))), on our side.
Now, even if you don't belive Soviet propaganda :o))), though I'd say it was very convincing :o)))), simply think yourself: what was there, theoretically left, on the Eastern side, to industrialise away?
Hitler viewed threat to arrive from the East. All there was, once we crossed into Europe, was taken away onto the safe Western side.
Still, surely many useful things remained. However these were done over with, not intentioanlly, but in the incredible tension of war making, as Red Army advanced into Germany from our side.
It's a big difference, the intensity of fighting on the Western and on the Russia-facing side of Germany. The Eastern side was one big pebbles by May 1945.
You don't give credit to own army. All German army there was left by 1945 fought us, and in extreme concentration of the last effort, and on the Eastern side. There was nothing to lose, by that point. You gave a fight. Every kilometre to pass through Germany was paid for by thousands deaths, and often the Red Army couldn't make forward even 200 metres a day, had to step back. You gave a fight, the last fight, and it was Eastern Germany territory.
There was really not much to look at, how to say, after that combat.
2. For more decades Germans were made to work for free in Russian Gulag system.
Not correct. For 5 years German captives - soldiers - captured IN Russia, not "exported" out of Germany post war - were re-building Russian cities. In fact - only Moscow and St. Petersburg. Kremlin didn't trust Germans to work in Russia, away from bosses' eye, some place in small towns, away from supervision.
Gulags were all in distant, Northern areas or Siberian parts, and that's prizon work, as prizoners, not as war captives who live in cities, by the construction site, and who all see daily. All the working Germans muscovites saw daily, and St. Petersburgers did, and talked to them, and exchanged things with them, there was quite a lot of interaction, believe it or not. Even German words entered Russian language, from those streets, house blocks' construction. They were all visible, and accessable, not packed away to far away closed prizons, behind wire and dogs.
Re Gulag in particular - some Germans made it there indeed, but I am not sure they were captives of any sort, or the result of the war at all. There were always Germans in Gulags, as prizoners, but I rather think they were our own Germans, who lived in Russia before the war.
Gulag stat, for that matter, shows that on 1st Jan 1939, in the whole Gulag prizon system there were 18,572 Germans by nationality (1.41% of whole USSR prizon system inmates).
After the war, Gulag stat. for 1 Jan 1951 - Gulag system held 32,269 Germans, 1.28%.
With all respect, that's about Uzbekistan amount and Moldovian amount and Afghani amount.
I think these were political prizoners, own Germans found PC in-correct, against Stalin, not war prizoners.
3. It has also took a sizebale part of Poland, a country that hasn't aggressed against Russia.
Yes, took. All that Russia took - up to the last inch - became Belorussia, Lithaunia and Ukraine, according to the nationalities that lived in that "sizeable part of Poland".
Not agressed - not correct. This Eastern side of Poland that Russia took post war - was Russia 20 years previously.
Poland annexed it in the Russian-Polish war of 1921, which Poland won.
Complain about this comment
You may suggest, Chris Camp, to Lithuania, Western Ukraine and Belarus to become Poland again, as it were by the war results of 1921 (Polish invasion into Russia. We did not attack them, to say the least, no intention to fight whatsoever, in civil war and post-revolution blast out conditions) - but I don't think Lithuania, Belarus and even Western Ukraine will agree to become Poland again.
Where do you think these countries were stiched out, put together, moulded from? Out of nowhere, fell from the sky? When Russia makes countries :o))), it makes it of material, of land, either her own, or borrows a bit on the side :o))))
And normally, as I noticed, nobody is willing to go back to pieces they were before, they can hate Russia, but always support one Russian idea only - to make them exist.
Complain about this comment
In short, I find the 3 reasons you put forward void, and the third one, at that, simply funny. The idea that Germany paid its compensation to Russia, for the aggression and occupation of the 2ndWW, by means of Poland. Poland would never agree to pay for Germany, how to say, you allocate not your own funds in this way.
Of war compensation, the only two things Russians can practically remember, are big boats under sails, large yachts, and Moscow telephone switch station down town. All numbers in Moscow starting from 122 - re-switch - exported from Eastern Germany.
The rest is trains of cabbage and potatoes we exported East, and trains of bread we imported from Kazakhstan West (Ukraine temporarily blasted out).
Nevermind. Not only in Eastern Germany, in both Germanies combined - there wasn't enough post-war to "compensate" USSR for the loss, even by 20%.
And if previous generations didn't for one reason or another demand money - I would not either. I absolutely don't want of Germany nothing. And I think most Russians share my opionin - if you give we won't take.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
Re #184, 186, 187, 188
As ever an alternative perspective on events & wholly relevant to the Russian Citizens and Kremlin rank & file situation view of the USSR in the war era, 1945 & immediate/longer term aftermath.
Well defined points and some rational explanation of the background
war of words'/'propaganda' by the Soviets & the NATO factions about the Germans and Germany post-WW2.
Your able critique of one-dimensional Historical analysis must come as a startling eye-opener to Nik especially who appears to see a 'Greekness' about everything, but as you wrote, "..maybe they get tired of saving.. Greece)" - - then you took care of Germany's man on the ramparts & I particularly enjoyed, "..where do you think these countries were stitched out, put together, moulded from? Out of nowhere, fell from the sky?"
It really is constructive to have you debunk the ultra-'German western' philosopher/apologist, Chris Camp, on which side did what, when and to whom.
Keep it coming.
Complain about this comment
1.) The Potsdam accords ensured the transfer of German industry into the Soviet Union:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations
2.) with regard to forced labour in the Soviet Union after world war 2, I would refer you to these two links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POW_labor_in_the_Soviet_Union
With all due respect, I think your account of historical events is at least contestable.
3.) The Russio-Polish war ended with the re-establishment of the original Poland, which had been illegally annexed by Russia, Prussia and, to a lesser extent, Austria, between 1772 and 1795. The Polish refer to the time of the occupation as "the stolen century". The result of the Polish-Russian war was simply the re-establishment of the ancient nation of Poland within its traditional borders. Germany, Russia and Austria did not and never will haver any title to those territories. Now, Russia, under Stalin took those territories "back". The repeated Soviet/Russian theft of that land cannot be justified through Poland's success in the war 20 years before, as the Poles only got back what was theirs. It is also a flimsy argument to say that, "because they won a war against us 20 years ago, we are now in our rights to take their land". If everyone thought that way, the perhaps Turkey could re-capture the Balkans or Germany could re-capture Silesia, or Britain could re-capture Zimbabwe. If past wars are used and accepted as justification for present-day wars, then you cannot really blame the German Nazis for anything they did, either. Well, I for one do blame the German Nazis for everything they did. What was done to the Polish nation was an inexcusable crime and I have no admiration for Hitler or Stalin. Some people, it seems, do...
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp,
I will look into the links, but at once: what was signed in Potsdam - was not done. Simply, not realised practically.
We quarreled with Allies (somehow), and they backed off on all due to Russia from Western Germany.
And then on things due to Russia from Eastern Germany - we backed off ourselves.
As instead of Stalin dream of one big puffy fluffy soft cushion Germany, between USSR and West, there began to appear such drastic contradictions between USSR and the Allies post war, that every day it was getting clear, like, forget about it. One altogether cushion Germany - Russian-frindly cushion Germany, mind it - plan became un-realistic.
And Stalin took what was available, plans reduced greatly, one half only, and formalised that one half as own, and once understanding became - own - you don't rob oneself.
Complain about this comment
CBW... where did you see the Greekness in my approach? All I did is a cold mathematical analysis.
12 miles, gaz routes, trade routes, military bases, then political manipulation, social manipulation, religious manipulation - all knit to maxime profit and profit used to increase control:
hellow! All these things apply simply to any other country in the world! This is not even little Greece we talk about.
Perhaps it is not me but you that refuse to leave a bit your island and see what is going on in the world. I have strictly repeatedly underlined that my approach is not a moral judgement of anyone, it is 1+1=2. Your approach is 1+1=0, as you simply reject any point of view that is not up to your pre-constructed cosmotheorisis - if that is not, at least that is what you seem to be doing, prove me wrong by taking some point in my analysis and pointing to me why you think I am wrong.
I do not claim to be objective, something that does not exist. I claim to be analytic. You do not have to be objective to criticise one specific point of mine. If you did not understand me that is exactly what I wish you to do even if you prove to me I am wrong - the whole issue here is for me also to have a deeper understanding.
Complain about this comment
Potsdam was very good and wonderful, and Russia-beneficial extremely, the only problem with it :o)))) is it took place before Americans dropped the bomb.
Potsdam was signed in the situation when USSR had all the aces on hands in Europe. Your slightly distorted history may say it's Allied forces but not USSR who won and could dicate things, how they are to be, post May 1945. While Russian understanding is we had a very, very heavy upper hand in Europe, post May 1945. There was Red Army everywhere, and enough of it, how to say :o)))) And in very high moods, such a victory, very energised and triumphant. Stalin was in excellent spirits.
By Churchill and Eisenhower estimation, after a short council they held :o))) (it's formal, in writing) - "if Stalin desires at this point to take the rest of Europe - nothing will stop him, we don't have combined forces enough". We held absolutely all the chips. Therefore sweetie-sweet Potsdam.
The Allies were very sweet and respectful. :o)))))
That is, until Americans tried the bomb.
then the lay-out turned kind of upside down, :o))) I must say :o))))
We haven't had one, couldn't have one, there were years before we would ever get one.
Some Allies immediately became far less Russia-friendly :o))))
Livened up, how to say :o))))
I'd even say - from the bomb point on - Stalin lost his happy content smiles (and he was really feeling very generous and eager to embrace the world, temporarily, :o))) was full of best intentions) and instead came into the habit to comment Allies following "suggestions" and "improvements" to the previous plans as "what a cheek!"
:o)))
So, Potsdam was nice. But didn't come true.
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp.
I am back; read the info at the links.
- And ?
"The Potsdam accord ensured the transfer of German industry into the Sov. Union."
Why not "ensured" but rather "promised" I explained above.
Not "German industry" but "East German industry" - read your own links if you don't trust my opinion.
An important correction, given the state of that "industry" on Eastern and Western sides off Berlin.
Not into "Soviet Union" alone - again, read your own links. The ships and airplanes, both military and civil, were shared, as far as I remember, between all the allies. The subs were drowned, dumped, nobody took, on this you'll have to trust my word on it.
Now, even if by Potsdam USSR was to take the lions' share (of the EAST side) German industrial goodies, in harming the interests of the USA and Britain - so? I remind you that the trio of countries thought it fair, as min. back then, because Britain and USA were NOT occupied by you.
Germany did not frolick there for 4 years razing own countries' industry to the ground. We lay in ashes, not Britain and the USA.
We were to be restored post war, for a sec.
Why should this manner of distribution "deprive Russia of any rights for compensation". You put this Point 1 as justification that Russia should never want from Germany a compensation, I remind you.
Don't destroy infrustructure of others - then your own one will survive.
You really think what was exported out of East Germany covered the loss of - industrial objects in particular - what Germany destroyed in European Russia? It's a joke. You razed cities down to the ground, hundreds of cities, with all there was there. Telephone station 122 sure consoled us greatly.
2. Forced labour.
Again, read the links.
- And?
By nice, "clean war" rules, I agree with you, POWs ought to be sent home the next day the war ends. 10 May 1945 in our case. It was not so, to put it softly.
But, once again - read your own links, since you quoted them. Did British and US use of German POWs forced labour deprive them of the rights for compensation? No? Why not? Because they are not Russia? Why double standards? All used German POWs forced labour. France used! for that matter, as well.
If USSR happened to use most, the amount varies between 2.5 mln by Russian sources and 3.2 million - by "wildest" German own estimations, the max any one of your historians ever claimed, as compared to 400,000 quantities of people "used" by other Allies - I'll tell you why.
They didn't have more. It is not USSR fault that the whole Germany gathered in Russia between 1941-1845. And was captured there!
You graciously excuse yourself for "coming over". These high quantities were NOT "exported" out of Germany post 9 May 1945. There were on our ground, 95% of them, captured before, and 5% - yes, exported. Out of Eastern Europe - into the USSR, between 1 Jan 1945 and 9 May 1945.
In case you forgot - you occupied Eastern Europe. We got those Germans there when liberating these countries, and yes, bad, in the rush - dozens of thousands were "exported" behind the Red Army back - into the USSR, for forced labour in the USSR.
Some sources say 35 thousand. Some say 16,000 people. Anyway, a small percentage, compared to 2,2 million we had already on own ground.
Of their treatment, and distribution across Russia, and kinds of labour they did, and categories of captives, and times and terms, portions, of their return - there are far better Russian sources than blank bland wiki links.
There are whole sites in Russian internet, created by various cities' historical societies, remembering exactly the German POWs, and what they did, and having memoirs of locals, and photos of the buildings they built per city. A Russian eye can see these houses in 1 sec., in any Russian city. It is your heavy German architecture, very reliable, they are all still there. What we call "Stalin style" houses. Similar taste. Or, rather, Stalin didn't have any other taste, all so-called "Stalin houses" were built by Germans post-war.
These historical local groups work together with German historians, it is all very well documented, because there are still thousands of people in Germany who worked in USSR as POWs, and it is their past, their youth, their family history and their memoirs. There are a lot of trips, believe it or not, to the old sites, from German side, then there is the work of keeping the cemeteries of those who died, and relatives visiting. It is a huge layer of local history in Russia, and you don't need "wiki quotes" to know.
I can give you on the spot links to a dozen such sites, devoted to particular German POWs sites - I mean - practically - geography sites, where they lived, and how they lived, but they won't pass the House Rules, as they are in Russian.
Complain about this comment
NKVD stat.
POW nationality - registered - repatriated - died in captivity
Germans - 2,388,443 - 2,031,743 - 356,700
Austrians - 156,781 - 145,790 - 10,891
Czechs and Slovaks - 69,977 - 65,954 - 4,023
French - 23,136 - 21,811 - 1,325
Jugoslavs - 21,830 - 20,354 - 1,476
Dutch 4,730 - 4,530 - 200
Belgians - 2,014 - 1,833 - 181
Luxembourgians - 1,653 - 1,650 - 53
Spanish 452 - 382 - 70
Danish 456 - 421 - 35
Norwegians - 101 - 83 - 18
Nationality not discovered 3,989 - 1,062 - 2,927
Now, I understand NKVD stat is not the best statistics there can be possible, but this is at least documented with soldier books and photos, it is a special secret before archive, which was disclosed post perestroyka. You can enhance it to German number of 3 million, still the pattern is more or less the same. Except I ought to read somewhere where those who prefered not to disclose their nationality to NKVD officers were "repatriated " :o))))
One such man I know, a granddad of my Austrian friend, who was released in 1952, and simply WALKED the whole Russia and Eastern Europe home. He didn't say he is Austrian, he said. And he was not awfully happy when his grandson brought me home for dinner :o)))) Anyway, out of interest he crawled out and we talked. He said he never left Austria ever after, even for a short trip abroad, never once left Austria, even for a day. He said that walk home was enough for his whole life, and he gave an oath that if he ever again get home - he will never leave it for no money.
He also told me he was made to service in the army, was drafted, nobody asked him if he wants or not. And that after he walked whole Russia home he has nothing against Russia, because people were helping him, even that he spoke nothing but German and was scared of everybody on the road, was getting off the road when he saw someone alive, into the forest. But that nobody beat him and many fed him and gave a lift,on horse carts and trucks, because he had absolutely nothing to eat. Though he had his POW great salary with him, 25 roubles a month ! accummulated, only he was buying him food for that salary and things while he worked, so not much was left for the road home.
To his grandson he said he DOES NOT recommend him to go visit Russia :o)))), enough, for one family :o)))))
Complain about this comment
His grandson actually told me grandad ran from Russian captivity, and far earlier than "1952", but to me he was careful :o)))) just in case, and vaguely explained he was "released". Well, as far as my German allowed me to understand.
Complain about this comment
Amount of Russian POWs in Germany also varies, for that matter, by Russian and German sources.
Russian sources give 4,559,000
German sources give 5,270,000
Let's compare the conditions Russia kept German POWs and Germany kept Russian POWs - no?
any ideas?
In short, of 100 captives who passed through your concentration camps 3 were Jewish. The rest - USSR-ians, Poles, or, how to say - slavs other.
Wermacht, "Order on Comissars", 8 Sep 1941.
"Bolshevism - deadly enemy of national-socialistic Germany.
For the first time in Europe the German soldier faces an adversary who is trained not only in military respect but in political respect, who is trained in the spirit of Bolshevism. Struggle against national-socialism penetrated his blood and flesh. Such an adversary leads strugle against national-socialsim using all methods - sabotage of work, propaganda of own values, setting buildings on fire, murder of German soldiers. Therefore a Bolshevik soldier lost any right for managing him as a soldier by Zheneva Convention."
Ration for Soviet POWs, used at heavy labour, norms given from 100% standard for POWs used at heavy labour of NON-SOVIET POWs. Order of 8 Oct 1941.
Per 28 days.
100% of non-Soviet - Bread - Total - 9 kilos
50% of non-Soviet - Meat - Total - 800 gramm
50% of non-Soviet - Fats - Total - 250 gramm
100% of non-Soviet - Sugar - Total - 900 gramm
German stat. on Soviet POWs, 1 Jan 1944
Currently held in concentration camps - 1,053,000 (20.4%)
Agreed to go to German military service - 818,000 (15.9%)
Died in concentration camps from illness and hunger - 1,981,000 (38.4%)
Ran - 67,000 (!!!) (1.3%)
Executed for revolt - 473,000 (9.1%)
Died in transit (from "Dulag" / behind the acting army, to "Shtalag" /stationary camp for soldiers or "Oflag" stationary camp for officers - to Concentration camp in the territory of either Poland or Germany) - 768,000 (14%)
Total 5,160,000 (100%)
That's only 1944; a year and a half still ahead.
That's only soldiers. The amount of civil Soviet population in your concentration camps was far higher. I am depressed to look for numbers, but as whole USSR population, starting from AGE 10 was fit to be exported to Germany by trains for forced labour, and was trained away , from all occupied territories, and either worked in germany or was put to the same concentration camps, that's higher than a dozen additional million.
Wiki in English doesn't tell you you exported children. 10 year old the famous "cutting edge"? Girls and boys, both? Gagarin's own sister was trained away when turned 10, right after "the birthday", by the book, and the other one, 13. He was un-fit, luckily, just 7.
Complain about this comment
"Well, I for one do blame the German Nazis for everything they did. What was done to the Polish nation was an inexcusable crime and I have no admiration for Hitler or Stalin. Some people, it seems, do... "
Stalin happened to govern the country that put the end to "inexcusable crime".
Hitler happened to govern the country who conducted this "inexcusable crime".
That is the difference.
Unless it seems to you that one nice day your Germany simply realised how aj jaj jaj they "behave", it downed on it, from the sky, and decided to hand out around "compensations".
To the Doom's day the Jewish and whoever else would be waiting for those "compensations" if not that country - of Stalin.
All you did you were forced to do, none own sudden "repentance" observed.
Payments to the Jewish, by the way, included. US protege Israel campaigned for that, modern Germany didn't dare to quarrel with the USA.
________________
With Poland, you used strange logic. By which Russia can't restore what was hers, 20 years previously. Poland though can, waited between 1770 and 1920 - and restored "own lands".
As you wrote "if all were guided by this logic, returning back what was previously theirs, then Germany now would... etc."
So for Russia this logic is un-appliccable. For Poland, though, it acts as valid.
I don't get it, "natural Polish size". There are no "natural" countries' sizes, but what goes currently. All countries' sizes are results of previous shifts. Where it is written what's "natural Polish land", in the Doom's book? Who decided?
Declaration of war, by int'l law, cancels all previous borderline agreements between countries. They become void. Every time someone declares a war - that country loses rights for all it ever had, these rights, from the point of war declaration, become a leaf in the wind, depending exclusively on their good fortunes in the war they began. By fact, and by int'l law.
When Poland invaded Russia in 1919 it kissed good-bye to her historical borders - their decision. For the time being, for 20 years, they won.
And in the next shift - they lost.
And, by the way, didn't lose either, Stalin allocated them a good chunk of your own Germany, in compensation for their awful death rate in war. That's Stalin's justice, as he understood it, his "compensation".
He took of them lands, in the East - and added them lands - in the West. Shifted Poland westwards. Because they were in our camp, if they liked it or not, he took care of them the way he saw it fit.
And I didn't notice them ever after willimng to dispute "un-fair Stalin's decision". They seem to me to be quite happy, to get rid of always revolting Ukrainians and Lithanians and nagging Belorussians in their rows, and get empty lands - forcefully freed from Germans, in compensation. That was a good swap for them, and if someone gained anything , as Nik puts it, "geo-strategically", post war - it was Poland exactly.
Courtesy of Stalin, not "Russian people", mind it. I don't remember any Russians campaigning "Poland ought to be more West! get German lands!"
Now these Poles eagerly equal Stalin to Hitler - in gratitude.
When Poland was in its "original place", as you put it, in 1770, it still strangely had Ukrainians and Lithaunians and Belorussians in. Who strangely knew they are not Poles, and happened to fight with them. Apparently, because they were feeling oh so "Polish", so patriotic.
Complain about this comment
If you listen to the Poles - their "natural size" includes Moscow.
They were sitting in Kremlin once, for full 10 years.
And?
In 1939 Polish "natural size" ended 80 km off Kiev. I don't know for whom how, but for us, in view of the Poland being consumed any next day by Germany, this was un-acceptable "natural Polish size".
Very bad size, 1 day for Hitler by train to Moscow - kiss Moscow good-bye, in your German shturm and drang and whatever patented attack style.
Complain about this comment
If Putin starts a war - which I can't imagine - but, say, if - puts our borderline at risk, and loses that war.
Will many later on bend an attentive ear to my shouts about "natural Russia size"?
Complain about this comment
@ WebAliceinwonderland
"Stalin happened to govern the country that put the end to "inexcusable crime".
Hitler happened to govern the country who conducted this "inexcusable crime"."
I am sorry, but I have never heard a weaker argument for Stalin. Stalin, who was resposible for the death of many millions of people, who committed genocide, is now painted as a Eurasian policeman who stopped a crime? Give me a break. The British had to make the strategic choice between Hitler and Stalin when they both annexed Poland. They chose Stalin. That does not make Stalin a good person and it does not mitigate Russia's horrendous crimes between 1930 and 1953.
"All you did you were forced to do, none own sudden "repentance" observed."
well, I were not forced to do anything. You seem to think I am German, which I am not. And on Germany's policy of restitution and compensation, you need to get your facts straight. I would refer you to the German "Bundesentschädigungsgesetz" (compensation law) of 1953, when the US desperately needed Germany's support and compliance in central Europe and did everything to woo it.
"With Poland, you used strange logic. By which Russia can't restore what was hers, 20 years previously. Poland though can, waited between 1770 and 1920 - and restored "own lands". "
From the very beginning, the Poles tried desperately to regain their independence from both the German and the Russian oppressors. The Prussian and Russian thieves managed to drown every Polish uprising in oceans of blood until finally the Poles managed to seize the opportunity at the end of WW1 to regain their sovereignty. It was simply the undoing of a colossal Russo-German crime and to paint it as sort of an aggression against Russia is falsifying history.
"I don't get it, "natural Polish size". There are no "natural" countries' sizes, but what goes currently. All countries' sizes are results of previous shifts. Where it is written what's "natural Polish land", in the Doom's book? Who decided?"
I did not write anything about "natural" sizes of countries. I wrote about traditional sizes. All you need to do is look at a map of Poland before their land was stolen by Russia and Prussia.
"Declaration of war, by int'l law, cancels all previous borderline agreements between countries. They become void. Every time someone declares a war - that country loses rights for all it ever had, these rights, from the point of war declaration, become a leaf in the wind, depending exclusively on their good fortunes in the war they began. By fact, and by int'l law. "
I do not mean to be rude, but you do not know the first thing about international law. Everything you said is a crude speculation on your part of what you think might be inscribed in international law. Let me enlighten you with regards to the impermissibility of acquiring territory by means of war:
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/STATUTE/99_corr/2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation#Annexation_and_international_law_after_1948
It is impermissible to acquire territory by war. Please, the next time you talk about international law, then read it first.
As for your tortured argument about Poland having "attacked" Russia - there was no such thing as Poland before. Russia and Germany had stolen all of Poland's territory and Poland simply got back what was hers. The territory "taken" from Russia was Poland's territory.
"And, by the way, didn't lose either, Stalin allocated them a good chunk of your own Germany, in compensation for their awful death rate in war. That's Stalin's justice, as he understood it, his "compensation". "
"my own Germany" I do not own a single part of Germany, but some people seem to think they are entitled to decide on things like that. Let me spell it out to you one more time. I have been living in Germany for two years. I am not German. The Potsdam conference brought about the Oder-Neisse-Linie decision, which granted Poland a part of the German territory. It was a British-American idea, an idea born out of necessity, because Russia simply refused to give back to Poland the territory it had stolen from Poland. Stalin had a very different plan for Germany, which would have resulted in considerably less amputation of German territory. I am not going to shed any tears for Germany here, it was just as guilty of aggressing against Poland as Russia was, but what Russia did was, is and always will be considered a horrendous crime against the Polish people, which resulted in mass deportation and genocide as millions of Poles were forced by the Russians to leave the eastern part of their homeland and move to the newly acquired western part.
Also, even if your premise were correct, which it isn't, then it was not a straihght swap of territoty. The territory stolen from Poland by Russia was considerably larger than the three measly German provinces given to Poland as "compensation".
"Now these Poles eagerly equal Stalin to Hitler - in gratitude."
And they have every reason in the world to do so. They have every reason to distrust Germany and Russia. In fact, the distrust Russia more than Germany, as Russia is still, unlike Germany, an authoritarian regime, undemocratic, with unspeakable infringements of human rights and it may very likey hold territorial ambitions to Poland again. Poland, the rest of Europe and the United States must watch Russia.
"When Poland was in its "original place", as you put it, in 1770, it still strangely had Ukrainians and Lithaunians and Belorussians in. Who strangely knew they are not Poles, and happened to fight with them. Apparently, because they were feeling oh so "Polish", so patriotic."
Every state has ethnic minorities in it. There were no uprisings, at least, I could not find any evidence of them. I must assume it's another one of your inventions. In particular, the union of Lithuania and the Poland was voluntary on both sides. The "marriage" of the two countries was very amicable. In stark contrast to that, what the Lithuanians thought about living as slaves under Russians was very easy for everyone to see in 1990 when there were shootings in the streets of Vilnius and a bitter fight of independence from cruel Russia.
Complain about this comment
Chris, appearences seem to give an image to Russia of autoritarianism, oligarchism, anti-democracy as-if in the west things were ever any more democratic. Western leaders were not any less pre-chosen than in Russia.
As french geopolitical analyst and demographe expert Emmanuel Todd puts it bluntly - back in 1999! (his book was published in 2000 predecting much of 2000-2010) - maybe we have arrived at a point where Russia with its "autoritarianism" will be the defender of nations' freedom against "democratic" US and EU allies who gravely threaten it.
Anyway guys, we should not fail see the following (and I do not take out myself in that):
How the issue of this current European crisis especially regarding Greece has ended up in a stupid exchange of accusations with German people being told "Greeks are lazy useless people that know only consuming borrowed money" and attacking their culture (the statues pointing fingers and such) and Greeks being told "Remember what Germans did to us in WWII, we should ask at last what they owe us", then again Germans being told "Look, the Greeks ask us things on WWII to revenge us, we should give nothing", and turn to Greeks saying "You should sell your islands"...
Which is an amazing exchange of accusations and stupid populist exchanges - but one has to analyse more these - they are not accidental:
Most of you lost it in the details but in fact, both Merkel and Papandreou are exactly on the very same thing: representing US interests. Thus deep inside, they work consciously for the same thing. So what about these accusations? Not anything else but the most certain way to convince both Germans and Greeks that "it doen't work among them" and drive things were naturally they should't be. Germans are hard working people and one thing they cannot tolerate is lazy, useless people. Thus, present Greeks as such. Greeks are in general sensitive people and of course much more if it concerns their civilisation, history, memories and such (currently anyway under direct attack). Thus hit them there.
The truth is that Greek working people work most hours not only among Europeans but also western nations (refer to statistics presented earlier above by Vassilis I think). If they have these problems is that they are rules by the state of 20 Families and their underlings that have ruined the country for 35 years continuously - not to go back more. And Germans are people that recognise the erros of their past, and they deeply respect the Greeks for what they are, if they seem to not, it is because they are currently told so, and Germans (unlike unruly Greeks who question everything, anywhere, anytime) have this bad habbit of getting on with their jobs and not questioning much that.
So at the end what is happening? Not only Germany lets Greece "out" (as "US-passported" Papandreou actually wished(!), but also there came out the purely legal issue of WWII reparations which is still open, to be discussed among German & Greek citizens - and which should not be even discussed in public : did you ask yourselfs why? Germany owns that money and will have to give it no matter if geopolitical interets hindered Greece from asking them, as I described above - why should the German citizens be informed and consulted on that? It is not even up to them to have an opinion - especially when they are not asked and they do not have an opinion on things that really matter and of less "legalist" nature such as Germany's own borrowing! And why Greeks are supposed to mention this purely purely purely legal affair as an "argument" of pressure? By doing this, Pangkalos simply depreciates Greece's position and makes German think that "Finally, we should really try avoiding giving"
So all that exchange of accusation is simply not a coincidence. More interestingly, I have searched the bakcground of fat Pangkalos (the politician that answered Merkel about the WWII reparations). I never has the slightest respect for this fat populist and very rude politician. When I read his background I have even less than that! He is from an old "known" family of the Pangkalos, his grandfather was one of the generals in Minor Asia, who fared very well (him and Plastiras), but then later in 1924 he tried to capitalise on that becoming a dictator, nothing special, though, was a very short lived one (not even 1 year), he is more remembered as a good military tactician and as a quite ridiculous dictator (his law on women's skirts was immemorial - it had people laughing their hearts out in the streets and giving to embarassed policemen taylors' meters to enforce the law, who of course rarely if ever applied it (in Greece be it a macho society, harassment on women was always seen as pathetic and manless) as well as most of the dictator's measures.
However no matter his ridiculity, if his grandfather could at least be remembered as one of the few good officers, his father and uncles (and generally all the family) in WWII were actually -... guess what!!! - ... part of the few sold Greeks, the "dosilogoi", i.e. traitors. As was said by Greek journalists fat Pangkalos was raised with Wermacht milk and was eating Gestapo chocolates when other Greek kids were dying of a horrible hunger (only compared to 1980s African hungers - refer to photos...tragic...). Amazing as it is, the Wermacht-fed little fat Pangkalos rose to do "his revolution", generation of 17N (Polytechnic, 1973, the ones that rebelled to... change dictatorships...), then joined the socialist party (him, from a right wing family!),... almost never worked in his life! Simply said, he should not even be in the Greek parliament, let alone have a face to come out and speak against the ones that fed him. Now, why Greeks vote for him? They vote not for him, they vote for his assistants who find jobs to their desperate kids, in unemployment for 2 or even 3 years...
Complain about this comment
@ 185 Nik
“with pushing for more Balkanic stability and economic development with some hope for more Turkish collaboration, cos at the end, that is the long term interest of Turkey too.”
This is the working approach. I agree.
“Turkey refuses to do anything about it – it is their plan anyway. It is the Turkish police and army that allow all these sad troops of unfortunate people to cross 1000s of kilometres across Turkey to arrive to Greece…”
I condemn that Turkish nasty game. True, they make their best to convice us that they are our best trade partners, allies and “komshou” /turk. “neighbours”/. They openly declare that the Muslim minority in Bulgaria /about 7-8 %/ should be the bridge between our two nations, etc., etc…
I personally am very, very cautious when reading their declarations knowing well their imperial ambitions to enlarge their economic gains within the European markets, using any kind of means, to start by the well paid support of the Turkish/Muslim Diaspora, and to finish with very active diplomacy on all possible levels…
“The Southstream will not enter Greece anywhere else but where Greece exactly wants it: right next to the Greek Turkish borders! But then with the pipeline arriving it will not bring only gas but also the Russians!”
This is a very good project, both for Bulgaria/Greece and Europe.
“…and all that, because Europeans have blatantly failed to provide Greece the geopolitical protection for which it entered in EU back in 1978.”
That’s true. NATO is presided over by the US. The EDF is just a dream. The US is more interested to have a mighty ally like Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean than to have a almighty and prosperous EU. Unfortunately, the internal gradual shift to the Ottoman /Islamic/ values and the resulting imperial ambitions of the new Turkish leaders do not represent a problem to the American Administration. What a pity, that some EU leaders are so willing to see Turkey entering the EU, no matter that it does not meet the European standards.
Complain about this comment
@166 AliceInWonderLand
“You under-value various species' cognitiveabilities: o)))For that matter don't you see how perfectly we understand each other with chohatsu :o))))”
Alice, I highly appreciate your continuous efforts to represent here the best sides of the Russian people and the Russian culture. We do not discuss only politics. We discuss values, cultural and other issues, and thank Lord, the people here /in their majority/ are nice, open minded, responsive and educated. This is the main reason why your coming back here was so warmly welcome, as if you were making part of some intellectual, international, secular and very, very tolerable brotherhood. As a matter of fact that virtual brotherhood does exist, somewhere in London, on the BBC files…
I shall strongly support your intelligent comments on every issue, provided they do not contradict my personnel beliefs and hopes on how our world should function…
Maybe I do not understand enough your personnel contribution when chatting openly and friendly with, say, dozen fellow bloggers at a time. Maybe I feel sometimes a little bit jealous…
However, I still think that you are an exception to the commonly accepted opinion on how the Russians live and behave abroad. I have travelled much all my life /12 years as a sailor and more than 25 years as a dealer/ and I have collected many impressions on your compatriots /I have in mind the people of Russian origin that have nothing to do with the diplomats, the commercial representatives and the like/. What I can assure you is that the majority of them have problems to integrate the locals, the natives. They just stick to their cultural traditions, and as a result, they suffer much…
You are lucky to be in good command of the English. You are lucky to have the courage and the brains to feel proud of your origin. You come from the city of Peter… and that matters.
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp,
if you aren't a German, you spoke for Germany very convincingly.
____________________________________
Stalin happened to govern the country that put the end to "inexcusable crime".
Hitler happened to govern the country who conducted this "inexcusable crime"."
I am sorry, but I have never heard a weaker argument for Stalin. Stalin, who was resposible for the death of many millions of people, who committed genocide, is now painted as a Eurasian policeman who stopped a crime? Give me a break. The British had to make the strategic choice between Hitler and Stalin when they both annexed Poland. They chose Stalin. That does not make Stalin a good person and it does not mitigate Russia's horrendous crimes between 1930 and 1953.
______________________________________
I think the opposite, that it's a very strong argument "for" Stalin.
Options, how country leaders can behave differently in such a war, are abundant. For one, he could always surrender.
"Responsible for the death of million of people, committed genoside" - absolutely true.
AND "stopped the crime".
You think only knights on white horses, knights "without fear and reproach" have the moral right to stop fascism expanse and countries' take over? Why didn't anyone complain in 1941? Type, "your morals are un-fit, scary standard, Russia and Stalin. Stop fighting."
Pity you can't live with it, because it's fact. Fascist Germany didn't press brake "by itself".
That the British chose Stalin for war allies over Hitler - it's their business. We don't "cover up" Stalin by British decision.
Russians feel no need to, because, how to say, it is our business, we are quite able to judge him ourselves for what he were.
Even if 30 countries would formally take Stalin for allies, or 30 formally decry him for allies and call the evil of the Earth. That's their business, joining as fringes to the war "business" or falling of as fringes off the "war business". We think the main story in Europe was taking place between Stalin and Hitler, symbolising the two countries.
"Russia's horrendous crimes between 1930 and 1953"
Nothing else you noticed, made by Russia in that time period?
For you that's a period of world history, marked down as "Russia's horrendous crimes". Aha.
Complain about this comment
"It is not even up to them to have an opinion - especially when they are not asked and they do not have an opinion on things that really matter and of less "legalist" nature such as Germany's own borrowing! And why Greeks are supposed to mention this purely purely purely legal affair as an "argument" of pressure? By doing this, Pangkalos simply depreciates Greece's position and makes German think that "Finally, we should really try avoiding giving" "
You know, generalissimo, I would consider this a really great and valid point if Pangkalos had not lied. He lied about the Greek gold being stolen from the Greeks. What really happened is commonly known and a proud chapter in Great British history. The gold was rescued by the HMS Dido and shipped to London via Egypt.
http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-06CL-Dido.htm
Germany has a resposnibility to give back monies it owes. I am the first person to say this and I am deeply angry about the way the outstanding debt to Poland is handled, for example. But the debtor is not the only one who has responsibility when a debt is owed. The creditor has responsibilities, too, whether he/she likes it or not.
For example, it is imperative for the creditor not to lie about the nature or the amount of the credit/debt owed. What happens if you lie about it is that legitimate claims get mixed in with illegitimate assertions. Before you know it, your lies are found out about it and you got yourself on a slippery slope. The debtor is going to ask questions like, "if they lied about that one, what else did they lie about?" and "how can I trust any of his assertions?"
One of the adverse effects of this is that the creditor/claimant compromises his/her position of ever getting anything, be that "anything" legitimate or not. I think any Greek person who feels they are still entitled to compensation monies, should be very angry at their politicians and their clumsy attempts at illegitimately extorting money out of Germany.
Germany has been, is and always will be willing to consider legitimate claims. It has a functioning judicial system and a set of restitution and compensation laws specifically passed with regards to WW2 questions, that is, in its aim to right past wrongs, second to no other country in the world.
I have always maintained that Germany will not be able to avoid bailing Greece out of its self-inflicted crisis. And Germany does not want to avoid it, either. Germans are not quite as unreasonable as all the many, many people who have gotten themselves in the easy habit of blaming Germany for everything think. But Germany simply cannot do it now. Bailing a country out that gives civil servants's orphans a life.long pension scheme, allows people to retire at 63/61, mass-avoids paying taxes, hardly produces anything - that's not investing in the country. That's investing in the country's further degeneration. Greece should be and will be supported. But support only makes sense if real support is accepted by the people who need the support.
Complain about this comment
amendment: my post was a reply to Nik, not generalissimo
Complain about this comment
Nik wrote:
"Chris, appearences seem to give an image to Russia of autoritarianism, oligarchism, anti-democracy as-if in the west things were ever any more democratic. Western leaders were not any less pre-chosen than in Russia."
Nik, you have isolated the only real difference between the soviet system of representation and the western system: "appearances seem".
We could all see the soviet system for the ridiculous sham that it was. It was heavy handed and clumsy: it employed idiots in military uniforms to police civilians who didn't need policing. It employed huge numbers of frankly stupid people to monitor what intelligent people were saying.
So these things made it look ridiculous. We could all, inside and outside the soviet union, look at the sham "democracy" and say "These elections are not real! All the candidates are already carefully chosen for the people!"
But in the westminster system, the way the sham system of democracy was made to appear was fundamentally more cunning and persuasive. It was not sold to the people as a moral benefit, but rather as entertainment.
This is the crucial difference between the british model of sham democracy and the soviet/orthodox/catholic models of sham democracy. The british understand that if people are entertained, they will cheerfully worship the powerful and ignore dissenters. But if the system is enforced as a moral code, then dissenters can entertain by placing themselves as a moral force, and thus steal the thunder of the regime.
The soviets were just a very small step advanced from their parents, who held power through the moral force of the orthodox church. And so we saw the soviet leaders preaching, and moralizing, and even sanctifying and deifying themselves. This was ho things were done in their community, and so they did it the same way. And, like their predecessors, they face moral dissenters.
But in the west, where all media is privatized entertainment, moral issues are neither here nor there. The only thing that matters in the west is ratings. "How many people are watching?" is important for advertisers AND for those seeking votes in a sham election. Hence it is really the only useful question to be asked at all, IF the system is based on sham elections.
And because the west does away with moral issues, it does away with criticisms of the sham electoral process. Everybody knows you need to be massively wealthy to own a newspaper or a tv station. Everyone knows you need to have a vast amount of money behind you to sponsor the political representatives on offer. Politics, like rock and roll and movies, is a rich man's game. Everybody knows that.
But nobody cares. And that is the difference between the soviet sham democracy and the western sham democracy. Nobody cares because everybody knows and nobody has a moral position either way.
And because nobody cares, nobody says anything except to comment on the quality of the entertainment, and then dissenters become nuisance oddballs. If you state the blindingly obvious and point out that everyone standing for office has a vast amount of private money behind them, people object in the same way they object if someone stands up in a public cinema and points out a flaw in a film. Everyone shouts "Sit down! It's only a movie! Shut up!"
That is the anglo-american way, nik. We know it is only a movie, but we don't want to be interrupted whilst we watch it.
We are entertainment fundamentalists, in the english speaking world. We can't take anything seriously except boredom.
Complain about this comment
I, ...agreee that there is no natural size to any country.
As long as we are talking about bringing back old geography,
Me ,personally,..i like Germany back in the borders of Charlemagne, it don't matter right ? one stupid idea is just as good as the other.
Let's move'em also back into a single Monarch kinda situation because i think Hans is better beeing ruled than ruling.
Of course ,The new Kaiser...preferably me, will then name the Pope,...
ah check it , we already have the panzerpope,moving on ....
Don't you see this is futile and will only cause the next war ?
No doubt , Hitler....big time scizzo murderer and criminal,just as Stalin and the rest of the polit mafia.(Blair,Bush,and their poodles
but they are ll the same .You can't tell me that G>W>Bush is not a warcriminal just as the wwII dudes.that counts for every governement that supported US troops invading IRAK. which is ?...... yes, almost all of Europe ,England at the Helm !! and it's going on and on and on ....
let's be open,everybody during WWII,did evil things,Stalin killed 25 million russians out of ...Madness ergo he is a war criminal of giant proportions.
Hitler,we all know his story, the Japanese ...... well,we know that too,but did anybody ever admit that the allied bombing of Japan and germany during WWII is just equally a crime against humanity,?
how many innocent civillians died there? burnt to crisp with phosphor ,NO answer right?
Atomic bombs on Japan and where is the i am sorry for that ? oh ,nowhere
Dresden ? Hello...! Hello ?
why is it unjust for Germany to invade one of their neighbors,but it is OK !! to give a quater of it's territory away like it is candy ?
What are these people smoking,and why don't they share?
Japanese people were put in camps! on US soil !!,...oh it's ok when america is doing it , i am not trying to defend the Nazis at all but what the Allies did to the german people is worse than just killing soldiers or whoever,...their kulture was destroyed,their country cut up and given away,and an entire people humiliated....rememmber that happened before in that stupid traincar in France ,1918 ??
remember what happened because of it ?
But please fellow bloggers help me out here , wasn't it french money that bought the blackhand assasin in Sarajevo ? but its germanys fault right ?
Alice ,. in 1914, who crossed first ,Germans into Russia or Russians into Germany ? no need to answer..
But ,we all know who got the blame .and is still paying for it .the game is the same , the players are the same , even the scapegoat is the same ...
The US and UK gov lied about WMD's just so they have a reason to invade a nation that was obviously innocent, where are the WMD's ???
Now they are in so much trouble with Irak that it took almost the world financial system down.
THEY ARE NOT BETTER ,just a different colour.
My only hope is that one day its not going to matter anymore,NATO shtonk ! EU shtonk ! USA shtonk !
I don't even think GB should be in the EU anymore ,they bring zip to the table,and can't afford the EURO either,
Sorry for Poland ,but if it would not be for pitty and keeping a buffer between Germany and mother Russia ....you would not exist as a nation,..and maybe shouldn't.
i want my Kaiser back
Complain about this comment
Re203: Generalissimo. Who doesn't want to have excellent neighbours? Couldn't we make agreements us three on the management of the Black Sea - Eastern Mediterranean commerce? Turkey and Greece controlling the passages, Bulgaria bringing in from the north. If Greece has oil on its sea-space, couldn't Turkish contruction companies invest in European Turkey and neighbouring Bulgaria to built the structures needed importing Ukrainian steel? Wouldn't our neighbours profit too if Greece as sovereign nation drilled its oil? But that in an ideal world. In a real world, Turkey has to aggressively question the Greek sea-space that is well defined by treaties, and to impede Greece from profiting from its own ressources, not because Turkey will gain anything but because this way it secures "things" for its masters, namely Britain previously, US today.
I am not so worrying about a military confrontation. Propaganda has it in Greece to make citizens be afraid of Turkey, this and that... and propagand has it in Turkey that they will do to Greece this and that. The analogy in army numbers is 1/8 with the Turkish army more drilled and with ruthless discipline while the Greek has not fought since 1950 in Korea (in Cyprus there was effectively no Greek army at all, only disarmed leftovers). The analogy in navy is 1/2 or something but Greeks have the quality advantage. The analogy in the airforce is 1/3 with Turks having the technology advantage and Greeks the personnel quality advantage (internationally acclaimed as among the 3 best in the world in the category of average pilot capacity /e.g. Greeks win their dogfights in a 1/2 analogy (google "Greek pilot low flight Aegean" to find out why).
The truth is that Turks simply enjoy US support. Without it they are not going far if not doomed. In a hypothetic (thus impossible of course) scenario in which Turks alone attack Greece alone, they might destroy Greece but not Greeks while through the war they will get destoroyed as both Turkey and Turks.
Generalissimo, it is very important, you as a Bulgarian, to understand this so you have a deeper understanding of why currently Turkish politics are changing rapidly internally in Turkey (Erdogan, Ergenekon scandal, recent anti-kemalist scandals etc.).
In case a war breaks out between Greece and Turkey, the aggressor will be 100% Turkey. Not just because they are "bad". But because these things do not happen just like that. Turkey is the only country currently with an aggressive military dogma in the region. Greece theroritically could be in position to do the same in about 30 years time ony if today changes its military dogma that is considerably defensive).
The Turks will certainly attack on the only 2 possible fronts: Thrace (where you Generalissimo will be hearing the guns literally) and the islands (for which Turkey has already bought special amphibious attack equipment - showing its military intentions as Greece is the only country for which Turkey needs such a navy, no other really).
For Greeks there can be no case of being able to defend a random island out of their 3000 ones. Not even the big ones - just see Chios on the google map. Chios will be lost with all the population inside slaughtered as usual. On the top, Turkish will not hesitate since it is in their dogma (imposing it!) to bomb all major Greek cities so as to cause fear to the population and bring it eventually to submission (this is their major stratagem, they do it even internally in Turkey against Kurdish towns...). However, that might prove the Turkish weakness, I will explain done why, and it will free the hands of Greeks feeling no remorse in their reponse (they will not slaughter of course as it is not in the mindset of a Greek, but they won't hesitate either to target military-civilian spaces that Turkish have the bad habit to mingle for well-understandable reasons.
While losing 2-3 islands on the first hours of the attack and having their cities terribly bombed, Greeks have a huge advantage in Thrace where (as you Generalissimo know) the terrain is a kind of Thermopyles: a force can stop the enemy at the rate of 1/5th. Turks even if they enter, they will find themselves in a labyrinth of mountains leading nowhere and if they proceed it will be even worse since right there they can be encircled, cut and destroyed in pretty much the same manner Kolokotronis with 6-7,000 rebels encircled and massacred step by step 45,000 Ottoman "highly trained and equiped" Imperial army (less than 8,000 of them survived) in the battle of Dervenakia (google to know more - note that in wikipedia numbers are softened so as NOT to embarass the Turks more... you might find it funny or absurd but that is all about greek-turkish friendship (you think of Dervenakia? There they told us "it was overcrowded in Smyrna...). The 36,000 numbers refers only to the army and not the about 10,000 militia (mainly Albanian-Turks) that integrated to the Imperial army (some of them from local guards along with their families, so the number rose perhaps even more). For more accurate numbers refer better to original texts. Note that the 8,000 were actually left by Greeks as they were in pathetic state, fleeing terribly and dragging civilians too - but in that case, Turks in case of the slightest error they risk losing the whole of their European offensive army in a matter of a small period of time leaving them with stationary howitzers defending the 200km of easy level road to Konstantinople.
Turks know very well that. And they know that if a first attack fails in Thrace, then they collapse (that is how Turks work). And from the borders Konstantinople lies 200km an easy straight plain lowland, thus they effectively lose it together with the half of the protection of the channel, thus the overall better Greek navy might as well attempt to break the other half on the opposite. No matter the outcome of the battle there, one cannot but see that the battle will simply be made around a very small region where around nearly 30 million Turks (nowadays many of them Kurds) live. Speaking coldly, if Turks themselves will not care for their own people (and they never cared anyway), Greeks won't do it either so their toll will rise at such levels that it will be the very same Turkish people of that region that will rise up against their army. Not to mention the Kurds that might as well remember they are not Turks, and that is not at all their war. A similar phenomenon might appear when the Greeks will be start bombing areas in Minor Asia, perhaps doing an unexpected minor landing on a least guarded front so as to have an exchanging argument in future negotiations in case big-daddies enter to stop the war.
Of course till here we did not even mention about Kurds in the east. If Kurds performed in such a way in Cyprus (Greeks know, you just do not know, ask me another time...), we cannot but take it almost for granted that Kurds will simply rise up trapping a large part of the Turkish army in the east.
On the opposite, side while Greeks of occupied islands will be massacred, Greeks of mainland can relatively easily find refuge in more remote areas (everyone of us derive from mountainous villages as 80% of the Greek population lived in the country side), thus there will always be a temporary refuge for the bulk of Greek civilians, thus apart the 1st day of attack, the toll will be much smaller than in Turkey.
Turks know about it, but "they just don't wanna know". They know that if the war ocntinues for more than 2 weeks, they have only 1 hope to win: carpet bomb Greece with anything they have (they used Napalms in Kurdistan, they used Napalms even in Cyprus even if it was completely unecessary due to the practical absence of Greek army...) in hope to reduce the population so much (i.e. at least to 30% of the original population), before proceeding more deeper inside). But in the process they risk losing anythign between the 50% to 80% of the population of European Turkey and western Minor Asia which is simply said enormous and which will leave Turkey with... a Kurdish majority!!!!!! So you imagine the implications.
Hence Turks can only aim at a very short war, 2-3 days and over. Maximum 1 week. They step inside 2-3km in Greek mainland trying desperately to keep Greeks nailed there defending (actually on the last days more defending than attacking), while their navy choses randomly 3-4 islands so as to to negotiate the 2 and hope to keep the other 2 as soon as the war stops by divine intervention.
The problem is how to convince the Greeks to accept such an impossible scenario?
Complain about this comment
In order to convince the Greeks to accept such a scenario Turks can do nothing:
Like the case of Cyprus where Turks attacked in 64 and in 66 (no matter if they ever could land on the island, that is why they don"t tell you this today...), there has to be an internal Greek problem, some short of division to stop them from being willing to fight such a war and accept the situation.
Now start thinking again Generalissimo, what could that be?
Complain about this comment
My usual mistake, taking attacks at face value. :o( .
Mea culpa.
Every time someone speaks anti-Russia and takes a German stand it ends up being either Jukka Rohila from Finland (what a battle we have had oj. 500 posts must be :o)))) or Chris Camp who "is not German".
Apparently when a German would speak I'll take him for a Pole.
:o))))
________________
Generalissimo, thank you. watching my interests. Indeed, what am I doing. Flirting with complete strangers by means of poetry. :o)))))
I promise I will stay true to you and only you forever. :o))))))
No, seriously, you are right. Nobody else here is so attentive to me.
I'd even say, :o))))) nobody notices me at all :o( , and
:o))))))) (again). incorrigible. I won't I won't I won't.
Poetry - reserved for you, and David and Mavrelius, as reliable company.
The rest of men are so un-reliable folk dear me :o)))))))))
Seriously, it is hard here. Invariably any blogger proves to be a man, in this political-economic how to say dwelling. The only real human face is MaudDib.
Complain about this comment
Vassilis was giving certain hopes for a while. Proved to be Vasily!
:o))))))
Complain about this comment
So Generalissimo - I bet you have read my messages very attentively and thinking really a lot - while other dear interlocutors might have read such a raw analysis of scenarios with shock and awe and of course a good dose of disbelief. They do luck the information (eg. geography, military numbers, past events, real reasons of Turkish prevailing in 1922, Cyprus giving an impression that Turks control nicely their area and being able to do more... etc.).
However either you agree or not - and my point here is not to develop a full military analogy but to explain the current geopolitics (not to judge the morality and the moral of Greeks & Turks as people) - one thing is for certain:
- Greece wants nothing else than the status quo and the enforcement of international law
- Turkey wants nothing less than the shattering of international law and the changing of status quo with Turkey earning 2-3 islands ending the Greek dominion of the Aegean sea and if possible as much land deeper in Thrace so that they can have a better standing in Europe.
It goes without saying that as things are, in case of a military escalation:
- Turkey's interest is to do an attack as quick as possible and to sue for peace with all it managed to got in the first days of confict. More than 1 week, starts being risky for Turkey.
- Greece interest is to not chase Turkey around the Aegean but to let in Turks at Thrace and encircle them, destorying their main defenses and going straight for Constantinople, while trying a small landing on Minor Asia, most possibly around the region south of the channel. To do that it is of the interest of the Greeks to maintain war for more than 2 weeks. If possible 3-4 months expecting also (and if possible inciting) a large part of the 20 million Kurds to rebel again in the east trapping an important part of Turkish forces there.
So how Turkey could lead things were she wants?
You Generalissimo you got the idea:
It is of course the illegal immigrants. A mass of almost only muslim (guess why), almost all Souni (guess why), that cross the whole width of Turkey "undetected" by the all seeing eye of the turkish police and which their "powerfull" army cannot detect neither on entry or exit... They overcrowd particular habitated Greek islands (they know where they go...), of traditionally weak military and police presence and from there one they are transferred in Athens - particularly in the capital, with few of them going elsewhere.
Now go back to 1987 and what Turgut Ozal said: "We need not even employ our weapons, we only need to flood them with muslims.".
And imagine the following hypothetic scenario:
...Greece suffers a crumbling economy, social tensions rise, paid gauche-caviar break things in the streets (that is how distant island Cyprus was sold anyway by employing gauche-caviar to change dictatorship as the first would not do the job), then illegal immigrants violently protesting. EU lets Greece out of eurozone, and soon out of EU due to its "lack of human rights" that internally NGOs pinpoint (and they do fantastically good work at discovering breaches of human rights where there is no case). So violent clashes happen in the streets, there is a curfew, while in 2 islands crumbling of illegal immigrants immigrants break loose and attack the local population. The Greek police sends special police forces and paramilitary in, and there "bullets" start falling on immigrants from places such as balconies (i.e. where no Greek force is... you get the idea... "agents"). There is a global indignation as to how Greece treats its "poor immigrants" and the usual "modern greeks are little fascist people that bear no resemblance to ancient Greeks and thus deserve all the evil of the world"... suddenly amazingly fantastic stories of FYROMians and Albanians (actually the Nazi supporters) come out about "Greek oppression" and Albanians send down irregular guerillas to Epirus start slaughtering Greek population there, while Turkey - the "large democratic European force" strikes down directly to the Aegean tkaing up these 2 island and pre-emptively other two while in Athens the police fights down immigrants finally having the UN invading Greece to bring peace and stability, imposing some caricature of local "Greek" politician that will re-establish Greece's image internaitonally, after having of course negociated the exit by giving at least 3 islands to Turks effectively giving half Aegean to them, and the Greek citizenship to about 2 million muslims who next generation will be nearly the 45% of Greece.
Complain about this comment
The above is just a scenario.
Now you Generalissimo start making the connotations: why suddenly Turkey turns its back on Kemalism? Why back the islamists? Why not 40 years back? And is it only to make peace with the co-muslim Kurds? Maybe it is primarily for that reason. But all evidenence shows that US does not mind that much that islamisation of Turkey unless they act upon their lead and not alone (as somehow Erdogan has tried to do).
I am not saying that this is going to happen. But it a scenario that 20 years back was impossible, today it is becoming a possible one.
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp, @ 201.
"Every state has ethnic minorities in it. There were no uprisings, at least, I could not find any evidence of them. I must assume it's another one of your inventions. In particular, the union of Lithuania and the Poland was voluntary on both sides. The "marriage" of the two countries was very amicable. In stark contrast to that, what the Lithuanians thought about living as slaves under Russians was very easy for everyone to see in 1990 when there were shootings in the streets of Vilnius and a bitter fight of independence from cruel Russia."
I wrote Belorussia, Lithuania and Western Ukraine were cut out from that "Poland" piece. And that they up-rised in their time.
The only country I can "submit" to you in the dispute as "not uprising" is Lithuania, at very max. I am aware of the Polish-Lithuanian tsardom their fruitful union. Not lesser fruitful union later on Lithuania had with imperial Russia. And all along they were different, to Polish and to Russians. They are their own folks, indeed, not very up-rising minded. Well, as min compared to others around. :o))))) But that they never wanted a divorce from either party is a little bit stretching the reality.
With Belorussia I assure you this mysterious nation consists of mysterious Belorussians, slaves to Poles, simply Russians, slaves to Poland, and simply all European Jewish, accumulated in their migration I'll say run East on that side.
Neither of the three Belorussian components was Catholic and neither was
ever fond of the Polish masters. Because the Poles somehow always happened to be extraordinary noble and the rest of non-catholic folks in their vicinity were simple agricultural peasants and slaves to be squeezed.
With Western Ukraine "never uprising against Poles" it is simply a joke.
All Ukrainian history consists of one big anti-Polish fight.
Complain about this comment
Taras Bulba, for a second. National Ukrainian hero. Year 1612. This is a trailer, of some foreign moviie, but even the foreign movie has enough on relations between Ukrainians and Poles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67yVHZzyI1o&feature=related
Complain about this comment
Why is it that "Russia has to be watched" by the world, because any next moment eager to grabatise a piece of Poland again?
From what you wrote of Poland it follows that Poland has to be "watched", as considering Belorussians, Lithuanians and Western Ukrainians living in natural original oh how you put it correctly, Polish land.
I am Russian and don't think Western Ukraine is natural Russian habitat. Neither Lithuania.
Well, Belorussia is, but there are so many Russians there that how to say, they don't need to be "liberated" or anything, from anybody.
It's simply majority of Russians having formed an own country, and, let them. A piece has drifted away, is managing itself, developing in own direction, and, how to say, shaping up differently from Russia. and why not it's alright.
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
Re #212
I fear, not only for You, but for many women it is a lesson long in the making and harsh in the experience:
The Male species are 'unreliable'!
It is what makes us so devilishly attractive and I am sure accounts for my 40+ year liason with the one Female.
She by the way is consistent in finding fault with only what I do, I say, I think, I read, I write, and I enjoy, however, she forgives me everything for the marvellous children that bind us together!
Complain about this comment
"I want my Kaiser back".
Aha. And in 10 posts I'll find out you are Afghani.
Won't believe there is a real German in this blog anymore unless passport, family tree and full credentials are presented !
:o))))))
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
Re #205
United Kingdom & Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in alliance against Fascism!
It was a Historic moment the revisionists amongst us (ChrisCamp, Nik, Jukka_R etc.) would rather leave out of the factors as it is a discomforting thought of how disaster is only a pen-stroke away!
In November 1939, British First Sea Lord, Winston Churchill strongly urged the British Government to side with Finland and quickly send Armed Forces to their aid against the invading Red Army.
A lot of Britons felt this was a fairly natural G.B. foreign policy reaction and follow-up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact after which the USSR invaded Poland & declared the UK an enemy and Nazi Germany its friend.
As it happened the Chamberlain Cabinet was split on the issue: Most, anticipating Finland would collapse in weeks, opted to continue building up forces in France and to defer a decision on the Scandinavian adventure (the strategists also argued any assistance to the Finns would attract Hitler's attention to Norway-Sweden - - unfortunately, as we now know, the Nazi leader already had such ideas in mind). Partly to keep Churchill from resigning plans were set in motion for a possible UK Force to be sent into the Baltic (ironically, these Forces were later stood down and then had to be reconstituted for the hasty and defeated intervention in Norway).
So, imagine the fate of the European World had Britain sided with and militarily intervened on behalf of Finland!
Imagine a British Government in WW2 without Churchill even in the War Cabinet never mind as PM!
It is a sobering thought to find one considering November 1939 events, April-May 1940, and June 1941 were not so very different from the UK Politicians' perspective!
Fortunately, as genuine History testifies, the British went with Stalin and the USSR through no affection at all, but because as Prime Minister Churchill wrote in his diary, 'I would rather sit down with the devil than Nazis.'
It is also worth noting in 1941 the fiercely anti-communist USA (much more so than it was anti-Fascist) was still 6 months off joining the actual 'fighting' effort: So, Churchill switching allegiance needed extra careful handling in Washington.
If Churchill had got Chamberlain to pen the order for Finland the course of WW2 may well have been very different (though outcome the same - - Nazism/Fascism crushed by USSR & USA).
If Churchill had not signed-up to back Uncle Josef's Kremlin again no change in the result, but along the way who knows what additional catastrophes in the maelstrom of all-out war may have been witnessed!?
PS. Just as a little 'modern' aside (& this will especially give J_R thought on how the real World turns): In the mid-1970s, during my UK Armed Forces stage of life, I was one of a group of NATO troops sent to Finland to clandestinely map (no Satellite imagery back then) its borders with Russia - - I know it sounds outlandish, but it is a fact - - of course the top echelon of Finnish Military (& probably Government) knew about it, but would have denied all knowledge (probably still do). The reason I was included was because I had a Finnish wife, knew a bit of Finnish & was relatively familiar with Finnish cultural practises (I assume shortage of Finn experts in those days).
Anyway, 9 of us flew to Norway - - crossed into Finland - - got as far east & south as Lake Sammijarvi and then someone pulled the plug and we were taken out by helicopter!
By the way - - NO, no special forces training or extra skills by me - - infact none of us were that sort, though our 2 NCOs had quite distinct 'mapping' skills and we could all ski (but it was mid-summer! Go figure!).
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland - well as history has shown, those countries wanted to be part of Russia even less than they wanted to be part of Poland. Was Russia right to steal and subjugate those nations? Surely not. Now those nations are autonomous. They would, of course be better off if they were still part of Poland, but history has taken its course.
Your assertions of Ukraine fighting one long struglle against Poland is dubitable. Especially seeing as how Stalin ended up treating Ukrainians in the end.
Complain about this comment
@ 210 & 211 Nik
The eventual engagement in Eastern Thrace is virtually impossible. As far as I am informed, the 6th US fleet along with a special US task force is to intervene in order to avoid a bigger conflict between two NATO allies. As to the eventual navy operations all along the south eastern part of the Greek Archipelago that would involve landing of Turkish marines, I think that such crazy adventure will close for ever the chances of Turkey to join the EU.
However, being “humble citizen” of a /Christian/ member state, and taking into account the last events in neighbour Turkey, I am very cautious to all formal declarations that would come from that country, no matter how peaceful they may appear. Our government officials seem so far to be unanimously good intentioned both to Russia (as far as the three big energy projects are concerned, namely the Southstream project, the Belene Nuclear Plant and the Bourgas/Alexandropoulos pipe line) and to Turkey (the Nabouko project). If everything goes well, Bulgaria may counterbalance the interests of all concerned sides.
What I apprehend however, is the US pressure over my country to offer its territory for the deployment of elements of the so called anti-missile shield /which are intended, as they say, to protect Bulgaria and the NATO allies from an eventual Iranian missile attack/(?) It’s nonsense. We all know that the project is designed against Russia. If the Bulgarian politics, by some unlucky chance, side with the US /like the Romanian politics already did/ we risk misbalancing the entire complex politico-economic schema that the history is offering, at this very moment, to our country . And I am deeply distressed about such unhappy eventuality, when Bulgaria will definitely side with the enemies of Mother Russia, our liberator, our protector /against Islamic Turkey/ and our banner… And I do hope, that our people will stand firm against such deployment…
212 @ AliceInWonderLand
You are welcome darling. You are allowed to flirt and dance with all the knights here. You come from the Winter Palace /on the Neva/ down the invisible electronic paths with all the poetic verse Russia is able to produce ever since Alexandre Sergueevitch’s times…
Your scale is made to fit the whole Continent of Europe, the whole /civilised/ world… Just take it easy, and dance…
Complain about this comment
Chohatsu
Re #209
Audacious, breathtaking, incredible, panoramic, stunning...
But enough about the movie 'Titanic'.
What You wrote sinks without trace when placed against facts as an insulting misconstruction of History to millions alive & dead!
Complain about this comment
Generalissimo, take and see what I mean:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8577614.stm
Now if anyone is so naif to think that this could be some local work, he is simply tragically misled, even dangerously misled. A local act would be as quiet as a mundane car accident. A bomb - that as usual fails to do anything else than noise - is obviously the work of "someone else".
I expect the worst to hopefully see something better... but one must remain at close watch over such evolutions.
Complain about this comment
212 @ AliceInWonderLand
I think there are many other “knights” here who are able to appreciate your contribution. If I were you, I would not limit my preferences to, say, three or four bloggers. How about CBW? His post @219 seems to be very convincing by its logical and responsive approach…I find it very, very coherent, good intended and responsible…You see Alice, the fact that I am orthodox Slav gives me some advantages to better understand your messages. However, as you have already avowed, there are other, non Slavic people here who are able, through some good meditation, to penetrate in your poetic world and to respond adequately to your posts.
However I thank you for your very emotional assessment of my presence here. It’s normal. We are linked forever by common values and historic links… I am happy and delightful to be your “preferred knight” here…
Regards
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp, how is it "those nations subjugated"?
Search whole Belorussia upside down, you won't find one single voice alive or in the past or ever in writing thinking Belorussians ever viewed themselves distinct from Russians and then at some point Russians "subjugated them".
What you want to say LOL is that "at some point of time" (and it happened not once) Russia deprived Poland of a chunk of land where lived Russians who post 1945 we know as "Belorussians".
We've still got here 168 variations on the Russian theme, and the differences in cultures and languages between those are 1,000 times more with many components than they were ever between Russians and Belorussians.
That's not even the great and mighty :o))))) difference between "Russians" and "Ukrainians" :o))))))
Between Russians and Belorussians there is one letter i. Honest. They spell one letter of their Russian I am sorry alphabet :o)))) with Latin i, with a handsome dot on top.
When did Russia "subjugate" "Ukraine" is also funny. The whole thing we "subjugate" were Ukrainian cossacks, who petitioned themselves to go under the hand of the Russian tsar, 1500 something. Pressed by turks and Poles on both sides, not of good life, had their reasons. That's who spoke "Ukrainian". The rest there, I am sorry, were Russians, normal ordinary Kiev Russians, mother of Russian lands.
Lithuania yes was always distinct, and when the ownership of it changed hands, it was visible, and marked in history and all. You think they blossomed with Poland and suffered with Russian empire, basing it on the "we all saw in 1990". Kind of a hop in time, I'd say, to justify anything in the previuous centuries.
Why all the three "would be better of within Poland now" is completely beyond me. Poland didn't hurry up, in its time, to give them independence, shape them as separate entities, or did I miss anything?
How they are better off on their own is also yet to be seen. So far Belorussia lives at Russian expense still, though as a "separate entity" :o))))), how Ukraine lives we all know, how Lithuania lives I think also is no brainer. But OK, drifted away then drifted, better to try than never try, and all.
Now, back to dear Poland. Remind me, what Poland wanted these 3 for.
What it kept them for. Exploited in middle centuries, that's all. Poles don't like variety in their rows, they are awful homogeneous nation. In Poland there are always first rate - the Poles and 2nd rate - whoever happens to be there as well. Never Poland was ruled by a foreign surname once, not one upper tier, no government of any kind or whatever it was called in the prev. centuries. All the power in Poland - for the true Polish exclusively. Without a good all Polish pedigree full of fussy names for centuries and fam. trees proving who you are - forget about it
in Poland. What chance stood the Jewish in Poland, Ukrainians or "Belorussians", in that respect. Unless one is proper Catholic and ends by -insky- and can present a solid pedigree - simply forget about "ruling" anything in Poland, for other nations.
That's why I say it was beneficial for Poland to get a chunk of German lands - from Stalin hands - it is not "correct", to put it mildly, that the USA and Britain campaigned for it. The max they agreed and gave up to Stalin. You simply want all the good things for Poland to arrive from positive quarters. Sorry. Wishful thinking contradicts facts.
It was beneficial for Poland to move West. Their long term desire - to get away from Russia and closer to the "West". Dreams came true. One off in history, I must say, as many a country would like to slightly imprpve its location this way - but nobody else have had that luck.
Complain about this comment
Sipped of a blog again.
Nobody agrees with anybody, Britain with Germany, I don't know with who :o)))), Nik just complains into universe, au wow what a pathetic, no! unweavering strong positioned :o)))) folks we are!
Complain about this comment
well I at least we with Generalissimo are buddies :o)
On cool-brush one can count in case of a war.
Nik will be understood in the Black Sea basin.
I wouldn't mind returning a quarter of Germany back to place. As we say, "Took Berlin? Put it back to place!" :o))))
And, the main thing, :o))))) Poland is free of Russia!
:o)))))))))
Complain about this comment
cool-brush-work, how right you are. That Jukka, nearly turned the fortunes of the world, with his un-healthy wanting something :o)))), in 1940. Close escape indeed from which it follows Never listen to :o)))))
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Chris Camp,
how about this:
In the black black room, a black black hand, in dark dark darkness, snatched Lithuania in 1940. By the book.
I rather think they showed no sign to be diff. to Europe elsewhere, giving up to Hitler if left on their own. Which wouldn't matter either, but their luck was they are too close to Russia capitals, making a convenient platsdarm for attack.
Then there followed a period of subjugation. 40 years. USSR was at its worst, first poor from the war, then poor by the arms' race, and ovverall communistic annoying poor and stupid. Not the best 40 years in the Russian history, to put it softly. Nadir :o)))), how Mavrelius puts it.
So far so bad.
Then there comes a period of enlightment, liberation, breaking free from horrid Russians, Lithuanians join the rest of the European family, and are on the up. The EU is the crown of creation, Europe is at its best, and Lithuania thrives along the new partner.
1989-2010. 21 years already. Not yet 40, when we can safely compare the results of the Russian rule over Lithuania and the EU rule over the same entity.
Not yet 40, but, say, mid-term results, no ?
Jukks will give me "GDP". Jukks I won't take GDP.
Far more telling is - what's on the table, in the plate, the ration?
Life duration.
Health.
Infrustructure.
Industries.
Something that gives Lithuania independent source of income.
And, finally, how many are of them, left, at all, at home, after 21 years of blossom?
Complain about this comment
@ WebAliceinwonderland
I really do not enjoy doing this, but I have to correct you again. In the Yalta conference, and later, in the Potsdam conference, Stalin gave Roosevelt and Churchill no choice but to make Germany concede the entirety of the territory beyond Oder-Neisse line to Poland. Details as to why here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oder-Neisse_line#Yalta_Conference
As to Russia's subjugation and mass-murder in Ukraine -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Famine
An example of Russian-Belarusian relations/Russian blackmail of adjacent states -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relations
As to your unfounded allegation that Poles are intrinsically monocultural -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Shortcomings_of_the_Commonwealth
Poland was one of the very first nations in Europe that was genuinely multucultural and democratic at the same time. Russia and Prussia destroyed it.
Please, I'm begging you. I am getting the impression that your patriotism and your efforts to make apologies for Stalin are really clouding your judgement.
Complain about this comment
Nik, that's one thing we did not get at Potsdam. Control of the passage on par with Turkey, in two hands, that was our main "idea" about war reparations. Stalin demanded, in various formats, in a succession of various options, and got thumbs down on all offers 101% :o(, like - take any thing bbut not the passage.
Complain about this comment
Oh, of news we had a Tupolev plane flopped down last night in Moscow from the skies, 1 mile before airport - and all survived!!!
Extrapordinary capable airplane :o), first in flew Moscow-Khurgada (Egypt), developed fire on board, flew with a fire, arrived with a fire :o))), all tourists safely landed.
Then it decided to fly back to Moscow :o))), nearly made it, fell down engines switched offg something, in approach to the airport. Glided somehow incredibly how, landed in the field, all alive.
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp,
"I really don't enjoy doing this". And then many links.
It's alright because I don't see how these links contradict me.
"Stalin gave Roosevelt and Churchill no choice but to make Germany concede the entirety of the territory beyond Oder-Neisse line to Poland."
Then the link.
And what did I say, without any links?
USA and Britain gave up to Stalin in that. Present of German lands - excusively Stalin's idea and courtesy to Poles.
Where we differ is you think it was bad for Poles this Stalin's hefty present and I think good as it's not the couple of bogs and marshes in Baltics and Belorussia they lost but prime German lands. More Westwards, at that. Free of Jewish all of who stayed on the Belorussia side, and about who Poles were cataleptical.
May be they were nice and open-minded, in the middle centuries, in their Federation time, I don't know, to Ukrainians they certianly weren't - this much I know. But by the 20th century Poland became very Poland for Polish.
Why is my view "clouded by protecting Stalin?" Not so much clouded I assure you, monster and monster. I am offended modern Poland bites at Russia by poking Stalin at us and comparing him to Hitler. I think of all people Poland should complain less. All sufffered from Stalin in the vicinity, Russians first, but hardly anyone ever got anything useful from him, while the Polish did. Ukraine did, as well, Stalin allocated to that republic 1/3 of their current lands, was re-passed, in his udual map-daring manner, during his rule.
With the "Stalin did the famine to Ukraine" you won't impress me either. He did it to all around, all bread and peasant regions, enhanced, so to say, the natural famine, there was a bad yied as it were, due to draught seasons, and bad economic situation as it were, due to 1930-s depression, on top of which he decided to grab from the peasants the last crumbs. These were all who were making bread, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, were flopping down from hunger death in equal quantities.
Why do you single out Ukraine? Simply Youshenko's propaganda, that famine exhibition tour he did ww, with photos used by Russian lands famine and from American depression. Even one of Norwegians delivering bread to the famine regions in Russia on behalf of the Red Cross was titled in that famine photo campaign "Soviet Comissar taking away the last bread from Ukrainians." Bringing in, those carts , to that train, and not "Soviet Comissar" at all.
Ukrainians simply search for independence, need to severe ties, find contradictions with Russia, search high and low, it's understandable, they want to feel their own, find national identity, to stand on own legs.
And whenever they look - they don't have anything of their own, whole damn history :o)))) from Kiev and upwards - :o)))) total "Ukra-Russians" :o))))) any scientist, writer, ruler, admiral, nobody strictly "own" in the portrait gallery at all.
Try to divide prince Oleg and Prince Igor or writers Gogol and whoever. A total no-go.
That's why they clutch at the last straws.
We understand.
This maddening stage will pass and they will be normal people.
May be :o))))))
With Belorussia, won't even look into any links, how modern Russia supresses depresses them. They lived 10 yrs FOC post divorce - totally FOC on our electriciy, gas and oil supply. And took loans. And sold and sell each and every product they have into Russia.
Naturally, every attempt to move them away from this sheer communism ends up by Likashenko screaming high of robbery in the day light. He protects himself and own people (and does it not badly).
We are philosophical about it, as we still view Belorussians as own people. Who also have right for happiness, and if their ruler happens to take care of their interests better than ours do of our interests - their luck.
Complain about this comment
The only thing I feel un-well about Poland is the lowly manner and bad timing Russia took her lands back.
On one side Poland was just invaded by Hitler - total doom and gloom, disaster, earth opening under feet, horror, all are killed, who is not killed is scared to death. At which point, to compliment the picture - Russia appears from the other side. Polish shock is understandable, worst nightmare scenario comes true at once - and Germany, and Russia, both old dear neighbours, who never acted in accord normally, and they split Poland between them like a cake on the plate.
For this I feel very sorry, on my own I'd never. Before, after, any time, but not when someone is weak already, cornered, nearly killed, and then we come to finish them off.
Really awful of us and low.
__________________
That Russia and Prussia finished off Polish happy confederation in the middle ages I don't agree. All have ther ups and downs. Back then Poland was en vogue, Germany in small knights, busy in between, Russia simply Ivan the Terrible awful attractive snow pile, Poland in between yes I agree was like a ray of light in the dark tsardom :o))))
But times change. Prussia developed, and Russia developed, and Polish shlyachta (nobility) continued carousing and singing songs to the glory of proud Poland. Instead of doing something. All empires have ups and downs, the next times were simply not Polish times. People gravitated to other centres of strength, Russia raised from the snow, as a quite attractive destination, on the up.
That's why we were able to clip up many neighbours - nobody resisted. When you are rich and attractive neighbours clip onto you in semi-automatic manner, various agreements are signed in 5 minutes.
Right now is not Russian time, it ended in 1990-s, we lost, had nothing to put on the common table, so naturally all deserted us, as we couldn't offer anything interesting.
Then some crawled back, as other attractions around proved to be quite desert mirage, and at Russia there aren't many things, but some still are, better than nothing.
It all depends on how well you are doing yourself. If we will perform better - all will be back, if we won't - nobody will, and - why should they, exactly? That'll be right and proper they won't.
Why Poland demands empire time adoration I don't understand. What can it offer?
By the way, Polish are angry that Russians don't love them - and whho Poland loves herself? Germany? Russia? Nobody ever noticed.
When Germany was weak post-war - Poland took their lands and did't wink.
They insisted and outlined what they want - Stalin was voicing out Polish own requirements.
Wheen Russia was weak post revolution uoside down turn of the country and all systems - Poland immediately came with war, and took "hers".
What Poland demands of others - understanding and compassion - it never so far showed an example herself.
It's all "Polsky Gonor"/Polish Honour, a set expression in Russian. Thinking too much about themselves. And explaining others how all is not Polish fault all nasty neighbours always plot against them. They were explaining to Napoleon and to who only not, anyone stopping by. Normal Polish condition. While in own degree of arrogance, in this "Polish Honour", it's only, I don't know, USA Bush time matching.
Complain about this comment
ah,.. moderation ...ok!
don't like the voice of the common german proletariat.
that's ok, we are ,i believe in my humble opinion, probably the most misunderstood people on this planet.
so let me try this with censurship in mind
german ? yes ,patriot ? oh no, nationalist ? no, afghani ? ...no no,EU ? failure by design,
NATO ? bunch of muppets. with the possibility of Greece and Tukey having problems this alliance is about to break apart.
history? it's what the spindoctors come up with
Complain about this comment
die drei kameraden is back :o))))
Complain about this comment
"The only thing I feel un-well about Poland is the lowly manner and bad timing Russia took her lands back."
First of all, let us call it what it is. It was not "taking back" lands that traditionally belonged to Russia. The fact that Ukraine and Belarus and especially Lithuania were desperate to secede from that repeated aggressor and mass-rapist is testament to that fact. Poland's struggle during and after World War 1 was a fight for independence. Russia and Germany committed theft, mass-murder and mass-rape. The timing and manner was bad? Yes, definirely. But when, in your opinion, is the right timing for theft? Which do yo you consider to be the right manner in which to commit genocide?
"But times change. Prussia developed, and Russia developed, and Polish shlyachta (nobility) continued carousing and singing songs to the glory of proud Poland. Instead of doing something. All empires have ups and downs, the next times were simply not Polish times."
Yes, I am guessing this is what a Hutu in Rwanda might say - "It's a shame what happened to the Tutsi, but those simply weren't Tutsi times."
Germany's and Russia's crimes against Poland were unforgiveable and if both countries were never held to account for what they did to Poland, then Russia and Germany would simply cease to exist.
"Right now is not Russian time, it ended in 1990-s, we lost, had nothing to put on the common table, so naturally all deserted us, as we couldn't offer anything interesting."
They never had anything interesting. They had guns to point at Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian heads. That's blackmail, not offering them anything interesting. None of those countries ever wanted to be part of Russia. Russia just stole those countries. People in those countries who dared defend themselves against the theft and mass-rape of their countries were deported and murdered in their millions. Russia lost, not because they "did not have anything interesting to offer anymore". It never had. It had simply lost much of its capacity to bludgeon its way through resistance and liberation movements, because it had bankrupted itself.
"Why Poland demands empire time adoration I don't understand. What can it offer?
By the way, Polish are angry that Russians don't love them - and whho Poland loves herself? Germany? Russia? Nobody ever noticed. "
The Polish people I know do not want any "love" from Russia or Germany. They simply want to be left alone and they demand guarantees for that. They demand other countries give up their imperialistic ambitions toward their country. I know it is strange of them to feel that way but they seem to hold the quaint opinion that the Germans and Russians have stolen, raped and murdered enough in their country to last for the next 10,000 years. I know it is a strange way of thinking but the Poles just do not seem very grateful for the fact that the Russians stole their land and mass-murdered them. They do not appreciate the fact that Germany deprived them of Poland's Jewish population and tried to bring them back to the stone age.
"Where we differ is you think it was bad for Poles this Stalin's hefty present and I think good as it's not the couple of bogs and marshes in Baltics and Belorussia they lost but prime German lands."
Well Stalin forgot to ask the Poles their opinion, didn't he? If he had asked the Poles, then they might have left their traditional homelands themselves and their would not have any need for the Russians to commit any more mass-murders and mass deportations. The Poles would have travelled to their new homes on their own accord. Stalin did not give them the choice because the choice would have been between their traditional homelands and bombed-out German cities and a ruined landscape.
"With the "Stalin did the famine to Ukraine" you won't impress me either. He did it to all around, all bread and peasant regions, enhanced, so to say, the natural famine, there was a bad yied as it were, due to draught seasons, and bad economic situation as it were, due to 1930-s depression, on top of which he decided to grab from the peasants the last crumbs. These were all who were making bread, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, were flopping down from hunger death in equal quantities."
Oh that does not impress you, does it? The Russians subjugated every adjacent nation and starved them to death and that does not impress you? The Russian economy was so badly run that even with food stolen from dirt-poor Ukranian farmers, the Russians themselves were starving and that does not surprise you? Russia is a vast country with massive resources and it still needs to steel from its neighbours? And even then it does not get by?
Unlike Germany, which at least made symbolic gestures of contrition, Russia was never held to account for its unspeakable crimes. Today, it is run by ex-KGB thugs who try to bring about a renaissance of an imperialistic Russia that can just invade and blackmail neighbouring nations at will. Georgia was just the beginning. People around the world are disgusted and indignant about it. I think it is imperative the Americans stay in Europe. We Europeans need to start showing them more respect and contributing more funds and active support for their protection.
Complain about this comment
@ 225 Nik
Thank you for this information. I think that the social tensions along with some external "clever assistance" could spoil not only the Greek society but also the Bulgarian society. It’s true that apart the Muslim Diaspora of say 6-7% and the bohemian Diaspora of say, 3-4% there is not other ethnic groups here that would eventually give way to foreign interferences or pressure. So far, the Palestinian and the Iranian people represent a very tiny percentage of the population here. Bulgaria still remains one of the strong fortresses of the Orthodox faith and culture /and an intact reservoir of the white human breed/. However, I assume, that what happened to our neighbours /and orthodox brothers/ the Greeks can easily be repeated here, if our public authorities give way to the bribery, to the foreign pressure, or say, to their hypothetic inability to make the proper assessment for the ethnic balance in the country.
I firmly believe that the democratic society is possible not only through the establishment of a compulsory & secular system of education along with independent secular court of justice. It needs also a very strong police & army force. It needs also some real international guarantees for the sovereignty of the state /this condition does not concern countries like the US, China, India or Russia/. Bulgaria is at the mere beginning of that long process of reshaping the politico-social model, which is why the democracy is still a fragile structure here… To that matter, I think that Greece seems to be more prepared to resist...than we can do.
Thank you again for your kind attention
Complain about this comment
Chohatsu
Re #238
"..voice.. common German proletariat.." & "..(Germans)... probably the most misunderstood people on the planet.."
It all hinges on a keyword: 'Understanding' - - without it - - You get people viewing History by fortunate hindsight and thereby comes some 'misunderstanding', but crucially a lot more MISCONCEPTION.
It is a possibility the 'west' German Nation was 'misunderstood' to some extent prior to the erection of the Berlin Wall by the Soviet Union aided by 'east' Germany.
Germans both sides of that August 1961 monstrosity of attempted mechanised political-social-engineering must have despaired of ever finding themselves sharing one flag again.
Considering it was still only 16 years since the defeat of Fascism it says much for the entire capitalist-democratic 'west' that almost all Citizens of the 'free world' lamented with Germans this awful development: Meanwhile, in the 'east' among the Soviet occupied nations' populations there was a sickening realisation the USSR was tightening its controlling influence.
28 years later: The heartfelt joy among all Germans of November 1989 as the 'wall' & 'iron curtain' began to tumble was shared by most of the rest of Europe (west & east: From differing perspectives, but similar reasons of 'liberation' from oppression). It is also often conveniently overlooked a large portion of Citizens of the crumbling Soviet Union were alongside their east/west European neighbours in anticipating the joys of liberalisation.
However, in Historical terms it is Germany's Political Leadership and to some extent the German Citizen that has always 'misunderstood' their European neighbours near and far.
Afterall, the Red Army had not come to be in East Berlin and the DDR by accident in 1961 - - the Soviet Union armed forces were there precisely because of the defeat of German fascism in May 1945 - - (1961) a mere 20 years after the Nazi German regime had visited the brutal & catastrophic Operation Barbarossa on the USSR it is no surprise at all the Kremlin Leadership was still of the opinion some 'understanding' among the German populace of exactly what cruelties & calamities had been inflicted was still required.
Similarly, the NATO forces based in the 'west' were not there by some whimsical falsehood - - neither had they first come to be there because of the USSR in the 'east' - - Allied & later NATO was there in 1945, 1961 and 1989 because a particular Germany and German Citizenry had 'misunderstood', miscalculated, misbehaved on an enormous scale with all of its neighbours from around 1933 to 1945.
Among its neighbours (near & far) there had been gross 'misconception' of the Nazi Germany intentions during the 1933-39 era: Equally, the Nazi leadership & portions of the German population had a misconception of how far those neighbours would go to defend their right to Democracy & liberty.
Factually, the Red Army ended up clear across all 'east' and the US-UK-Commonwealth Forces in the 'west' by 1945 precisely because of Nazi Germany's misconceptions.
It does the modern German Citizen no good at all in the eyes of fellow neighbour Citizens to now write as though 1945 to 1989 was all grounded in misunderstandings!
The idea of neighbours 'misunderstanding' Germany is not borne out even when we go back in the History of the formation of Germany in Europe.
From the moment in 1864 when von Bismarck's Prussia forced the capitulation of Denmark to allow the annexation of most of Schleswig-Holstein the dye was cast. Along the way Austria & Italy were made to understand only too well the intentions of the new German Reich. This Bismarck & Germany's policy culminated 7 years later with France, the last of its rival neighbours, being roundly defeated & humiliated.
Around Europe and indeed the World there was no 'misunderstanding' of Germany - - here was a new, Great geographic-political-economic-military-social Power, in the centre of Europe - - near & far notice was taken and National policies arranged one way or another to accommodate this phenomenon of a unified German-speaking peoples.
It was a misconception by the post-Bismarck leadership of Germany that because it was indeed such a 'Great Power' that it might TWICE use the prevailing precarious international situation in the 20th Century to seek to enlarge itself at the expense of non-German speaking neighbours.
You 'misunderstand' as your forefathers had done: Germany is certainly entitled to its "place in the sun" as a leading Nation of the World, but for all its 'great power' it has no more right or claim than any other Nation to the deck-chairs to bask in the light.
Germany's population suffered occupation for almost the entire second half of the 20th Century (occupying powers treaty ended mid-'90s): It would be a distortion & misconception of facts however, to imply anything other than that fate, grievous though it was, was thoroughly deserved.
Do not be under any misconception: post-WW2, Germany's neighbours may have chosen an accommodation by conciliatory negotiation policy with it after the traumatic events of the last Century, but some Citizens & indeed Nations 'understand' Germany and its History all too well.
There is still a lot to prove before it can be truly said by near & far neighbouring nations in political terms, the German leopard has changed its spots!
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp,
Ultra Polish position follows clearly from your post. As badly and randomly we represented both sides above, it still can be deduced who currently attacks who, and should be "watched", as an aggressor. Poland simply has short hands to attack Russia physically, and compensates by black-mouthing its neighbour around. To maniacy degrees.
Have you ever had a look at the map? You didn't notice that Ukraine is , and has been, softly to say, bigger than the stripe of "Western Ukraine" that Russia joined to it in 1940? That Belorussia is bigger, and has been bigger, than its side equally added up at the expense of Poland acquisitions of 1921? That Lithuania does not consist of what Russia took from Poland in 1940 alone?
When you were split by Russia and Germany, you were split by the same Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians, surprise surprise.
Have you ever heard of the 2nd Ukrainian Front, who was taking Berlin?
The 1st Belorussian Front? That's army groups who were taking Europe. And they were un-tellable from USSR rest, how to say, it's one company, represented in the army, in the administration, in the Communist party, in Kremlin, at all levels. And not like it's fashionable these days, for political correctness. USSR was ruled by the same very Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Belorussians and Russians, and Tatars, and Georgians, so recently dear to your heart - alike. Lavrentij Beria and his grouping, for a sec? The ones who Polish side questioned about Katyn'?
Never Ukraine and Belarus felt once in USSR "decreased" in any way in rights. What you complain of, "was done to Poland" was done in equal measure by all here along. I wouldn't worry, but the Polish side stubbornly singles out Russians and the state of modern Russia, for Stalin offences. You don't want to write a complaints' letter to Georgia? To Ukraine, who was splitting in you great pleasure?
No.
There is one star in your vision - Russia.
In fact, good. :o))))))
And it is a pleasure to watch how your gov. now is finding a common tongue with Janukovich. Just 2 months ago he was personifying in Polish media all the evil there is on Earth. We are all in expectations how you will explain now that he is great and wonderful.
You aren't yet tired to sing in the EU the hymns to Saakashvili? What a difficult protege of Poland, and gets more troublesome every day.
Anyway this is all nevermind.
How is it that
Complain about this comment
Re.241: Generalissimo, yes. I was reading an article about on Greece's geostrategic deficit which currently is even more menacing than 10 crises like the current one, which was making reference to Bulgaria saying that our ancestors that fought against Bulgarians would harldy believe that today we would worry about the shrinked role of Bulgaria - once it has a powerful army, today it has merely 50,000 troops armed in ages weapons. Once it had 10 million people and less than 300,000 muslims, now it has less than 8,000,000 people and 10% of them are muslims. Much of the most dynamic part of Bulgaria fled on all directions to Russia, EU, US, Middle East following the closure of the once quite extended Bulgarian industry. And all that actually proves to be very detrimental to Greece's interests.
There are increasingly more and more people in Greece that demand a deeper cooperation with Bulgaria. You should not underestimate that. This is a HUGE leap for the Greeks and you know why, you know well the back thoughts of Greeks in terms of the old claims of Bulgarians on the coastal regions of north Aegean (and the birth of the Macedonian question - a byproduct of which was the creation of FYROM by Tito turning the immature Bulgarian nationalism into regionalism and from regionalism into an artificial new chauvinism (since FYROM is no nation in the proper sense) who is characterised only by its anti-Greek feeling). When Greeks (but not the sold-out politicians) are calling Bulgarians to absorb FYROM without even asking their border-city of Monastiri, that is a HUGE leap, Greeks supporting Bulgarian expansion, that is something new. I wonder though if it would be any help now to Bulgaria to take in a 40% Albanian minormajority - but Greeks support what is right and the right is that back in 1913 while it was totally right for Greeks to get their homeland Macedonia the real, it was totally wrong that Bulgaria lost the Vardarska (real name of false-maceodonia) land to Serbs cos what we got today is a bunch of people not happy about themselves, threatened by Albanian nationalism and manipulated as button by US against Greeks and - that is so tragic - even Bulgarians.
And you should not think that Greeks turn to seeing positevely Bulgaria in 2010, just because they are in a time of need. Crises like that Greece passed repeatedly, one huge was back in 1897, you know what followed, so it certainly is not that.
The tedency to view positively Bulgaria dates actually many decades now, even prior to 1980 as post-WWII Greeks had never been threatened by Bulgaria apart the occasional Bulgarian Thrakologist who claims coastal Thrace as a part of Bulgaria since Bulgaria inherited Thraecians (as if Greeks were not linked to Thraecians, anyway). 1000s of Greek students (including my brother) studied in Bulgaria and despite the usual (often funny) cultural misunderstandings (also the fact that middle class young students lived the life of upper-society in 1990s Bulgaria of steep economic downfall), their knowledge of Bulgarian society became a major factor for passing that mutual understanding in Greece. 100s of Greek companies went to invest in Bulgaria, though many of them were swift delocalisations made for some quick profit of investors, half-benefiting Bulgarians and not at all benefiting Greeks. 1000s of Bulgarians came to Greece to work and were one of the few immigrants that did real work and caused no problems unlike "others". Greece buys electricity from Bulgaria, Bulgaria wishes to use Greek ports increasing the local commercial movement.
Just open the map and see the two countries: they are different, they cannot compete apart in military terms, they can win only through co-operation.
Complain about this comment
" Poland's struggle during and after World War 1 was a fight for independence".
I don't know what Poland was doing during the first world war. May be was striving for independence, in own understanding.
To a Russian eye, of the tsar, though, it looked like developing political groupings, Marx' Kapital admirers, booming with revolutionaries conspiring in every house. Naturally they wanted to choke you a bit, wanted to live.
I think Nicolas the II and his police were not very wrong in his estimations, as from one of these groupings we later acquired Dzerzhinsky and Co. Shuttling between native Poland and Baltic states, conspiracy apartments everywhere. And followers. All thinking people, Jewish, Polish, great master-minds of the future, had their den in the province of Poland. Away from the centre, frolicking at comparative ease.
Great fun of Ve-Che-Ka, NKVD, KGB and FSB for a century ahead. I think Nicolas the II did not choke Poland effectively enough.
Your "struggle for independence" harmed Russia in an awful degree, KGB memoirs, how did you put it ? "enough for 10 thousand years ahead". When chicken of brilliant minds on the outskirts of the empire came home to roost in 1940, neither Poland nor Baltics liked own medicine.
"Struggle for independence". So far so good. But who wanted you in 1920-1921, prey? Why did Poland come with war to Russia?
Russian Empire post revolution let you go, Lenin's decree on the "Self-determination of nations".
Right, you don't take it literally :o)))), however the Protestant, Lutheranian and Catholic lands he let go. Enough trouble with Orthodox and Tatar folk, civil war. Finland, Poland and the Baltic provinces were let go, as impossible to keep, given the over-turn of all country structures.
You had yourself, why not to stay in your borderlines and be happy?
May be not ideal borderlines, but for 200 years were more or less sufficient.
But no, Poland expeditions into Russia, taking lands that were hers 200 years previously. This you call "struggle for independence".
Interesting if anyone these days in Europe, not attacked by a single party, not wanted by a single party, out of own clever thinking and brilliant conclusions, goes after the lands it had 200 years ago.
Sure it could be sold in PR as "struggle for independence"?
As to "when is good time to attack" I don't know. Ask yourself. Poland found the time good in 1920, found it good when took Moscow 3 centuries before. Overall the good times seems to be the change of the tsar.
Polish expedition on Russia was scheduled when Rurikovichee dynmasty expired, and Romanovs haven't started yet, the in-between Boris Godunov things, period.
Change from Nicolas the II to Lenin one can also view as change of the tsar. That seems to be Polish reasoning in relation to Russia.
The rabid anti-Russian campaign of recent times was also, in a way, scheduled around Russian "change of the tsar".
That seems to be the Polish apprpoach.
In relation to Poland I have none.
Complain about this comment
Poland apparently thought that revolutionaries are busy scheming how can Poland break free from Russia. Same reasoning with the Baltic countries.
Well surprise surprise one well bred revolutionary is capable of versatile tasks.
Complain about this comment
Kremlin tsars were hated by Polish for 500 years, revolutionaries of all colours were no good either, "democrats" are even worse, what is it, a green Marsian we should have, that Poland is finally happy with the neighbour. I think Poland should think of itself, instead of hysterically reading every word of the Russian media bended down over a page with a magnifying glass "how does it relate to Poland?"
It doesn't. Russia is none of her business, likewise Poland is none of Russia business. Stop at some point.
Complain about this comment
First I was German according to you. Now I'm Polish. A few more posts from here and you're going to speculate I'm Danish. I don't want to keep you guessing anymore - I've got a British passport. My father is Scottish and my mother is German-Turkish. I grew up in England and in Germany, but I have lived in England for most of my life.
So my position is not Polish at all. All I am doing is making an effort to respect Polish people as fellow human beings and, unlike some other people, I am trying suppress the misanthropy and chauvinism of demanding gratitude from Poles for the genocide and deportation inflicted upon them by Russians and Germans. Even to someone like me, who does not have any Polish people in his family, that seems a bit rich.
Complain about this comment
Anyway, Chris Camp, do you have any relation to Poland, a wife or a relative other. or is it again like I thought you are German, when you were stepping for Germany, acquired knowledge?
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp I haven't seen your post when was writing. It appears the idea to ask who you are finally and the idea to explain who you are came to us simultaneously.
So, you are British, I am Russian, that's about all discovered, to summarise the exchange above.
"next thing Danish" not bad idea, we've got 19 immediately bordering neighbours only, plus some 1 country away types Germany Poland etc, thus choice from whose stand-point to bash Russia is practically un-limited.
All the wealth of knowledge accummulated by the humanity (minus sources in Russian) are at your disposal, wiki and internet, books and publications.
I suppose I can also have a go at Britain imagining me to be any one of your prehistoric colonies, plus what I would have thought being France, and, basically, no lack of options either.
Will result in a lot of wondrous discovery for outsiders, type the beauty of Polish lands - posessions in Belorussia post war, as compared to the lousy alternative of "war-damaged German lands" "imposed" by Stalin on unsuspecting Poles.
In Belorussia Polish posessions were safe, as you wrote, while what they got instead in Germany was utterly un-satisfying. Plus the cost of re-location, aj jaj jaj, how Stalin dared to impose this expense on Poland. Not the population of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine ex-Polish posession, this population stayed at home, but the drastic expenses of Poland mainland, having to inhabit Dansig.
Well for the sake of Belorussia I won't let it go, it was the most destroyed and depleted area of occupied USSR, of "average" places, not counting hot spots type Leningrad, Kursk, Stalingrad and other focus points of intense battling.
Stone didn't stay on stone, across Belarus, as they were on the way of one of the 8 "sleeves" of in-raid into USSR, an entry direction, plus had the mis-hap in occupation to consist of slavs and Jewish about 50/50.
Whole Belarus, with the exception of those surviving in the bogs and marshes and deep forests, partisaning, was either buried on the spot or trained away to Oswentsim and the likes.
You see these are minor details which come to one natural as a local, but of course can be derived from wiki as well, simply you need to turn up all of the material in it, analyse and compare.
Complain about this comment
Nik, Generalissimo, Chris Camp, CBW, and WebAlice, etc. (oh And Chohatsu,)
I so much appreciated your epic debate filled with poetry, prose (truly), and INFORMATION... not much heard before. Generalissmo,*Alice* proves that there is more to media/news than was actually known to ME (I). So, her contributions that lean towards literature are actually effective.:)
love y'all,
DS
Complain about this comment
David
Re #251
Thank you.
Agree, all the contributors make a difference, but, WebAlice is unique.
Complain about this comment
@ 224 Nik
All you wrote here is an acceptable analysis of our common near past. I thank you very much for the effort you made to remember me all those historic facts. I should however remind you that up to 1922 nobody contested the predominance of the Bulgarian ethnos in Southern Thrace, namely between the Maritza river valley and the Struma river valley. As a matter of fact, we were always on the loosing side of the two world wars. And, as you know, according to the terms of the Neuilly peace treaty, the Kingdom of Bulgaria was deprived of its land possessions of Southern Thrace. All of them went in favour of the Hellenic Kingdom. As a result, the Bulgarian administration along with the remaining part of our army left Southern Thrace in 1923. The peace agreement stipulated also an exchange of refugees and a refugee’s loan in favour of the Bulgarian state as some kind of compensation. And the exodus started. The Bulgarians /mainly peasants/ left their homes and with what had remained of their cattle and belongings, marched for weeks to the north not knowing where they would arrive to. Accordigly, the Greeks coming from the Bulgarian Black sea towns /Messembria, Apollonia, etc./ started their horrible adventure in the opposite direction. However, many Bulgarians remained in Greece and many Greeks remained in Bulgaria. /As a former navy officer, I served in the naval base of Sozopol /former Greek colony of Apollonia/, and I remember that half of the population there spoke very fluent Greek. Some of the guys of my promotion married Greek girls and there were no trouble at all between the two ethnic groups /same faith, same churches, same popes, same traditions, etc./. But the fairy tale does not stop there. When I go shopping nowadays in Thessaloniki with my wife Praskovia /she’s Russian/, we have no trouble in addressing the locals in Bulgarian! Which means, that our ethnos is not at all lost there?
You see Nikolay, the history is finally giving us a good chance to survive. And I pray our Lord Jesus, to take care of all orthodox folks of the region and to ensure for them a long, long peaceful coexistence…Amen.
I deliberately skip the delicate Macedonian question. We sincerely sympathize with our Bulgarian folks there /I have relatives there/ but unfortunately the hostile stance of the FYROM authorities does prevent us for further rapprochement and cooperation. They persecute /in their courts of justice/ every one who dares to declare himself Bulgarian. At the same time, they have already much trouble with the Albanian minority there.
My personnel view point is that if the inhabitants of the FYROM really want to join the EU, they should abandon all their ridiculous pretentions to the neighbour countries, and if they are enough wise and responsible, they should come to the Salomon decision, namely, that half of the country should go to Albania and the other half should go to Bulgaria /we have a good example of the peaceful divorce the Czechs and the Slovaks proceeded to several years ago/. Unfortunately, knowing well their extreme chauvinism and unscrupulous assimilation policy, I do not believe that that country will be able to meet the EU- adhesion standards in the near future. One can not remake history at the expense of his neighbours…
@ 251 David
David, as far as I remember, you are the first American guy here who do not make whatever effort to lecture us how to “improve our democracies”. I sincerely thank you for your contribution to the intellectual, secular, fair and responsive brotherhood we have established here /under the banner of the BBC, that is to say under the Union Jack!/
@ AliceInWonderLand
Alice, I am very happy that you have completely recovered your aggressive, poetic, imperial, etc. “pure Russian” shape! I love you darling /telle - quelle/!
Complain about this comment
@ 250 - that does not invalidate the point. The victims of Russian-German aggression, the Poles, were not asked the Russians simply used mass-deportation and genocide to move them. That, whether you think Belarus is/was a beautiful country in your opinion, is an unspeakable and unforvivable crime.
Complain about this comment
"mass-deportation"
Chris Camp, even your fav. wiki will show you that Poles were represented from 2% to 17% to 35% in the regions which they had to vocate.
In fact, they didn't have to, could have stayed in USSR Belarus, USSR Lithuania and USSR Ukraine. I understand they wanted nothing to do with the USSR, LOL, so left the places, but nobody cattled them away into mainland Poland from the Eastern side by trains.
The "mass" of people stayed where they were, at home.
Surely it is bad and painful to have to move house to nowhere, even if you were a minority, it is still thousands of Poles who had to re-locate. This I understand and am very sorry.
Still, when you grab something in 1921, you might expect to have to vacate it in 1940. Shock and awe that Russia cared to take it back, why didn't they forget they owed the place for 200 years? They should have forgotten.
Complain about this comment
Who was trained away to death were Polish army officers, generalitet, var. HQ personnel and simply local admin, to Katyn. Stalin was be-heading the newly acquired region to be included into USSR, to prevent the top figures and able intelligencia sowing seeds of revolt.
That is true, and is old news, was only kept away from general Polish formal knowledge, when they were within the Warsaw block, to lessen potential tensions. Khruschev admitted the crime to Polish goverenment commission in 1954, and said he is truly sorry "We mis-judged these people, didn't have faith in them, made with them a huge mistake".
What he meant, as historians say now, was that once the war broke out on our side, Stalin realised an extra 5,000 army officers camp would be not extra at all, and only an idiot would have killed them, and weakened the resistence to Hitler in such a great scale. That's what Khruschev meant by "huge mistake, re these people".
But back then Stalin didn't expect Poles to resist Hitler, thought they will give up, so army officers, un-army un-officers, no difference. Viewed them only as potential uprising source. And where he had that paranoja - he didn't count victims. Be it any nation, it doesn't matter they were Poles, no excuse, in Stalin's eyes.
When Leningrad as a city got under suspicion, the "Leningradskoye Delo" /Leningrad deal, we had whole building depleted, all local admin, not only Leningrad Communist party, but the Soviet of People's deputies, all ministries branches, all governmental bodies - whole buildings floors stood empty. A lucky floor-cleaner escaped, in whole admin buildings. I think floor-cleaners were taken included, for saw too much.
Likewise the own Russian army was beheaded before the war, "The Fieldmarshals' Coup". Well, that was real, Fie;dmarshals did plot against him and planned a putch, during an army "training", arranged at Moscow. But once Stalin heard of an un-scheduled army drill to take place in Moscow - they were all taken and killed within 2 days. Plus thousands of un-suspecting army tiers other, who didn't have a clue about any putch ever planned. Wide sweep.
That's what happened to poor Poles as well.
Complain about this comment
"Still, when you grab something in 1921, you might expect to have to vacate it in 1940."
Except they did not grab anything in 1921, they had already been living there for generations from the time before the Prussian-Russian theft of their lands, all the way through the stolen century, to their fight for independence up to the year the Russians decided to commit genocide against them. No attempts to wrap something pretty around it will succeed.
Complain about this comment
In fact I don't think Stalin even considered "will Poles resist or like the rest", at all.
For him the priority was always to choke opposition over priority to win the war, like, LOL, "no brainer".
Complain about this comment
Chris Camp,
I don't know what you are writing over there at 257, can't see yet, but whatever it is :o))))))
You are strategically wrong. If USSR were nice, and didn't grabatise Baltics, bordering Finland and bordering parts of Poland in the build-up to the war, Germany would have attacked Russia from far shorter distance.
From platsdarm 80 miles off Kiev (Polish border btw 1921 and 1941) - onto Moscow.
From 8 miles off Leningrad - onto Leningrad.
From 6 hrs by train (Estonia) - onto Leningrad.
As it were, our borders were pushed off away, no build-up of German army was assured in the 3 above locations, and what we got by fact is 1.5 months of war before enemy approached either Moscow or St. Petersburg.
This 1 month and a half "warning", in the shape of approaching enemy, saved both capitals. Plus the selfless resistence of whoever was on the German army way (population mostly :o)
The outcome of the war hanged on such a thin thread, such a, I don't know, invisible pendulum, we retained both capitals against all odds, even having 1 month and a half, before enemy came over to.
Should your dreams of kind Stalin un-envading neighbours come true - your own Britain would be gone in flames the first thing.
How can you wish for that, even 65 yrs later, is beyond me.
That of Russians you don't care goes without saying. 18 million civillians killed, and 18 million more is pea-nuts, for a well-willing individuum as you are. Stoves to continue to churn on, death camps improving their efficiency to beat 6,000 killed per day to newer hights, but then you know, Stalin would be remembered fondly by you instead.
Or would he? I rather think that not anyway.
But then of course it's may be like Jukks, that Germany should have won, why Russians stood in the way of it, highly annoying and disappointing.
May be you think Americans would have saved you?
Americans planned to strike a peace deal with Germany, if USSR surrenders. Fact. You'd be sold down the river, if continued to resist alone.
Nevermind, you seem not to realise that Americans are in another continent, as there could be only as many of them in that war in Europe as peaceful airplanes over peaceful Atlantic could deliver, and peaceful boats would bring, over through the friendly sub Atlantic waters.
It's a joke, a mass US troops delivery onto Europe, in triumphant Germany condition. They couldn't walk over, in case you forgot.
Complain about this comment
@ "That of Russians you don't care goes without saying. 18 million civillians killed, and 18 million more is pea-nuts, for a well-willing individuum as you are. Stoves to continue to churn on, death camps improving their efficiency to beat 6,000 killed per day to newer hights, but then you know, Stalin would be remembered fondly by you instead. "
The justificationb of the Soviet war effort and the great loss of life on the Russian side was not contested by anyone. But it does not do anything to justify theft, mass-deportation, genocide and enslaving entire populations for 40 years.
Complain about this comment
Well Chris Camp if you are so clever, can win 2ndWW without nasty Stalin, or with a "kind" version of him, who doesn't invade neighbours pre-war, I mean
I mean I wouldn't like to depend on you.
Sort out a minor problem then, between Germany and Greece.
So that, as you like it,
"And wolves are full, and sheep are altogether".
When something appears on one side, it always disappears on another side. Law of energy preservation.
Complain about this comment
"Except they did not grab anything in 1921, they had already been living there...
up to their fight for independence, up to the year the Russians decided to commit genocide against them.
No attempts to wrap something pretty around it will succeed."
I think fight for independence is like kurds, or? Chechens. Polish uprising of 1864 is fight for independence.
When it is a regular army, in uniform, against a regular army, in uniform, how to say, with general HQs, charting the operations on the map, captives taken, exchanged. what is it? what's the difference then with a war?
any war between countries can then be classified as "fight for independence".
But OK, semantics.
That Poles lived in the regions they were taking in that war/fight for independence - how many were they in Western Ukraine and Lithuania, give me a break. Very few, more so in Belorussia, but still never anything close to majority.
In this area here all live mixed. It matters who rules a particular space, not the nationalities mix.
Imagine if Ukraine starts to "fight for independence" everywhere where there are Ukrainians. All is Ukrainian authorised then, from Pacific to Moldova. To say nothing about Russia.
For that matter, can we fight a little bit "for independence" in the half of Ukraine, East, South and Crimea? In the central Ukraine the prospects aren't bad either :o) Far more Russians than any Polish ever were even in Vilnius/Wilno!It matters who rules the place formally, not the ethnicity mix.
1921 Polish in-raid was a pure war, what were their claims for Ukraine? Where were Polish there apart from one tiny Lvov town, where at all, a single one, in 1920?
Jesus Christ in St. Petersburg there are more Poles than there ever were in the whole Ukraine.
Anayway.
As to attempts to wrap it beautifully, I don't try to beautify it, but to point out at the existence of a notion that you miss entirely and neglect whatsoever - namely that Russia also existed and had own interests. And troubles. And wanted to live.
At times of peace accounted for interests of neighbours, at times of trouble - neglected interests of neighbours, and, by the way, this is more than can be said about many other countries.
After winning the 1921 war - and Polish wiki calls it a war, and a victory, mind it, nothing else - the Polish starved away 10,000 soldiers Russian captives. In a camp. Gone. How can they sleep well having committed such a crime, "for the next 10,000 years" you never wondered? I assure you sleep peacefully, and don't even wink. Which is less that can be said about Russians and Katyn'.
Neighbours always gracefully excuse themselves, for own ? those "autrocities", only Russia shouldn't sleep and pepper head with ashes.
For what? for the sake of shrewed company who doesn't even know what is the word compassion? cool nerve, how to say, folk? who never hesitated a sec to kill ethnic Russians?
Anyway.
Beautifying. Nothing can make that century "beautiful".
It is modern crazity to re-write the history, pure and clean revisionism, in order to appoint someone guilty, driven by Poles et al.
Last time Europe agreed and found a scape-goat it ended by holocaust.
We won't allow for that, don't even hope.
Russia - is un-apologising word.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS