Growth papers over Europe's cracks
As we entered summer the mood in Europe lifted.
The threats to the euro seemed to have passed. It was easier and less expensive for governments to raise money. The banks were put through their stress tests and most of them passed. Greece was praised for its budget-cutting rigour.
And then growth - which had proved so elusive - returned. The eurozone grew by 1% in the second quarter. That was more than many had hoped for.
But you don't need to probe very far beneath the surface to find nerve endings jangling. One set of figures, like a German index suggesting that investor confidence is actually slipping, can rattle markets.
Firstly, Europe's growth is hugely dependent on Germany. It is once again an economic powerhouse. Its exports are surging. Papers in Germany are calling it a new "economic miracle". The economy is now growing at its fastest in 20 years. If any country is hauling Europe out of recession it is Germany.
"It is the same old story," says Carsten Brzeski of ING. "Germany is in a league of its own, carrying a few of its neighbours along, and beneath that, the laggards that are teetering on the brink of recession."
In the eurozone there are really three economies. There is Germany which in the second quarter saw growth of 2.2%. It is way out in front of the rest of the pack.
Then there are the middle-rankers like the Netherlands and France which saw growth of 0.6%.
Then there are a clutch of weak countries at the back of the field. Spain, with a growth rate of 0.2%, is barely out of recession. The Greek economy actually shrank by 1.5%. Ireland is struggling.
So the great divide is widening. A relatively weak euro, brought lower by the difficulties in countries like Greece and Spain, is benefiting Germany. Many economists believe the euro is too strong for the weaker eurozone countries.
Now Germany remains committed to austerity. Even though tax revenues are proving healthier than imagined, Berlin is committed to slashing its budget by 80bn euros (£66bn) over four years. A spokesman for Angela Merkel was quoted in the Financial Times as saying that "consolidating the budget is the main priority".
That is the message - get the deficits down, shrink the debt. Germany could ease off but it won't; it fears other countries would lose their appetite for spending cuts. As Angela Merkel said earlier in the summer, when defending her austerity package, Germany has to set an example.
The big argument over austerity is set to intensify. Budgets are being slashed but the question is whether they pave the road to economic health or whether they lock countries in a cycle of decline.
The EU and the IMF have heaped praise on Greece. It has made "remarkable progress" in cutting its spending. Down 40% this year. But its economy is shrinking. It contracted 1.5% in the past quarter and is expected to decline by 4% for the year. Unemployment is 12% and rising. Tax revenues are less than predicted. Investment is down. It is unclear where growth will come from.
Take Ireland. It was called the "poster boy" for attacking its deficit. It embraced austerity early and courageously. Not only were public sector wages cut, but benefits too. The pain was not spared. Carers are having their hours cut. Some hospital beds are being closed. But more bad debt was discovered in its banking system and its budget deficit has actually gone up to 18.6%.
Meanwhile, all around are signs of deflation. In parts of the private sector wages have fallen by over 10%. Prices fell by 1.2% in July after falling by 2% in June. Rents are down. Unemployment is 13.7%. Ireland has yet to pull out of its dive.
Spain was always a reluctant budget cutter. The government resisted until outside pressure forced its hand. Its economy is so weak that unemployment remains over 20%. Public sector wages have been cut by 5%. There are reductions in benefits.
So Europe is witnessing a booming Germany and savage deflation in the weaker countries in the eurozone.
Many of the austerity measures are yet to hit. It is early days. The stories about medicines not being available on the state, or of childcare being cut, or of teacher shortages, are still anecdotal. What is certain is that the public sector is set to shrink. It is a fair bet that sometime during the autumn some governments will wobble over their austerity programmes. There may even be calls for fresh stimuli.
Europe's bailout packages bought the eurozone time. There is serious work going on to address the problems. The Task Force on Economic Governance, chaired by Herman Van Rompuy, is acutely aware that the crisis has not passed. Growth may ease the stresses and strains, but the big question remains unanswered: how can countries with such different economies inhabit a monetary but not a fiscal union?
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
“…how can countries with such different economies inhabit a monetary but not a fiscal union?”
Mr.Hewitt,
When the euro was firstly introduces in 1999, many people in the mainland thought that the uniform credit system would be the almighty tool that would boost any member state in the euro zone, and that consequently, the free move of capitals, goods/services and labour force would make the rest, I mean would stimulate the economies of all member states, even those of the newcomers.
At a given period of time that logic worked well. The cumulated EU funds started poring into different projects even in countries still waiting at the entrance of the union. Consumption was growing almost everywhere, new jobs were being created both in West and in the East thanks to the enlargement. Everything seemed very easy to be achieved in terms of investments and new industries started growing in the East /especially in the building/ as quickly as mushrooms after rain… And nobody was in the least concerned where the “common” money goes (especially among some high ranked EU officials who probably were too interested to say: GO). The entire affair smelled of “socialism” in the negative sense of the term. But every fair tale has got its end.
It is not the proper time for relaxing; it is time to draw the line and reconsider the whole enterprise we are accustomed to name “Our union”.
Complain about this comment
The Germans are right: it is the debt that is the problem. Deal with the debt and the rest goes away.
However, there are only two ways of dealing with the debt: austerity or growth. If you can manage both then you are doing very well indeed.
The problem with austerity is that you can get into the debt spiral where indebtedness destabilises the rest of the economy. This is why Ireland must watch out but then their bubble was bigger than most.
What we all want to see is that some more discipline be brought into the financial markets so that the taxpayers of Europe don't find themselves bailing out the banks all over again. This is what the EU needs to start sorting out as it would appear national governments lack the will.
Complain about this comment
Gavin.!
Be careful!
"EU"-lovers don't like it when people like you tell the truth.
Complain about this comment
"how can countries with such different economies inhabit a monetary but not a fiscal union?"
Yes they can!
There is a huge difference between spring 2010 and autumn 2010 in terms of what the EU has put in place to deal for lack of fiscal union. It is still not perfect but vastly better than the nothing that existed before!
Recently both Spain and Ireland borrowed at good rates, Germany's taxpayers have not bailed out anyone and the Greeks are getting their economy in order.
Peer pressure appears to work within the Eurozone, from bringing the Greeks in line, to soon (I hope) also bringing the Slovaks in line. So both those nations are learning that a) you don't cheat on your partners and b) you stick by your partners in the good and the bad times.
The Eurozone has balanced trade figures, I still see no reason why I (and the rest of the UK) should pay the banks a fee to use my money in another EU state!
Con/Lib give us the Euro now!
signed by Chris frustrated sterling user!
Complain about this comment
Welcome back Gavin.
“…how can countries with such different economies inhabit a monetary but not a fiscal union?”
Good job the General got in there first. Such heresy will have you burnt at the stake round here. ^^
Now if you had phrased it as "These testing times, despite the wonderous early years of the Euro, seem to call for the advancement of the ever closer union to the fiscal level"....
TBH Fiscal union is the only way Monetary union can survive in the long term. However for that to happen the herd of elephants in the room needs to be dealt with. The voice of the people must be heard one way or another.
Complain about this comment
I believe that the nature of taxation is a major problem which is being overlooked.
We have taxes in the UK which punish honest work and decent employers who supply jobs.
Consider a recent bill from my excellent local garage. On this particular occasion they used very little in the way of materials so they only charged me for the labour.
That labour was taxed at least three times.
1) The mechanics pay income tax.
2) The employees and the employer pay National Insurance contributions.
3) I paid VAT on the bill,which, as I said, was entirely for labour.
I believe that the first consideration should be to change the nature of taxation.
The alternative taxes should I believe be:
1) A new site tax for people with large properties who mysteriously do not have an income which would explain how they could afford that.
2) Road pricing and congestion charging. If truck companies did not have to pay national insurance or road tax, then they would be able to afford the new mileage tax. All those foreign trucks which are in the UK permanently or for a long time would also be paying for the upkeep of the roads they use, for the pollution they cause and for policing which protects them and for the necessary inspection arrangements.
3) A new tax for drinking establishments which stay open after (maybe) midnight. Resulting hopefully in higher drink costs and therefore in less disgusting drunken behaviour around here or at the very least paying for the necessary policing and medical care.
4) Mild but higher import duties. Globalisation has gone too far. I read recently that beans from around here are flown to Poland to be topped and tailed and then flown back. So people are buying local beans with the intention of being environmentally friendly but much pollution has gone into the air contrary to their wishes.
5) I am sure that there are other alternative taxes which I have not thought of.
Cutting the cost of labour by reducing counter productive taxes should result in more people having work and reduce the need for cuts because fewer would be on the dole.
Complain about this comment
#6 - EUpris
They all make sense
Complain about this comment
What this blog, and most BBC articles on the topic of the economic problems of the Eurozone lack is a little bit of context. While the German economy has been by far the most resilient of the major economies to the economic downturn and is showing the strongest growth now, it should be remembered that for years prior to the downturn it was a laggard in the Euro club, growing at a slower rate than the French, and more importantly in the context of the blog, considerably slower than the Spanish and Irish economies.
Perhaps if ECB policy had not been so centred on the German economy prior to the downturn the Spanish and Irish economies would not be struggling quite so much now.
Spain's reluctance to cut its budget might have something to do with the budget surpluses run while growth was strong, while the UK government was happily squandering the proceeds of economic growth. The only reason the UK has avoided problems was the wisdom of somebody to shift the debt obstacle further down the round by selling its debt at longer maturities.
If the economic recovery fails to materialise the UK may face similar problems to Greece but without the help of Eurozone friends to call on for support.
Complain about this comment
"how can countries with such different economies inhabit a monetary but not a fiscal union?"
I hear this a lot but wasn't this the de facto case when everybody used the gold standard. However monetary policy in reality isn't that important no matter what most economist say, the economy is much more depended on other factors. As far as I know there is no country in the world that thank their good fortunes to good monetary policy.
Complain about this comment
I do agree with EUprisoner on most part. It should also be kept in mind that though austerity is a big tool to curb budgets, it is a viscious one too. And, it is disheartening to state that in consolidating expenditure our politicians and regulatory organizations have gone with the money and not with the people. It favors the rich and hits the poor(myself). May be its time to go back to drawing boards once again and take a lesson or two from India/China.
Complain about this comment
Re: 6
OK, now I get it! Increased taxes on a few thousand pubs and foreign lorries on UK roads will pay for NI for everyone, and raise as much money as VAT and income tax. Of course, it is so clear now.
I propose a higher tax on dogs- it will raise enough money for the maternity pay for all women in UK. And a tax on all foreigners who come to UK to litter our streets will pay for a new Trident missile. Not to mention the tax on people who wear sandals with white socks- that will sort out the hole in the pension funds.
Complain about this comment
Mr Hewitt
"...middle-rankers... France growth 0.6%.."
Oh do try to be serious!
France's economy is on the floor & it is the France Government as much if not more than all but the PIIGS 'papering over' cracks in its economy.
The one saving factor for France is Frau Merkel's Germany cannot afford to have its co-founder of the modern day 'alliance grande' exposed as 'une economique dilemme' on a par with Spain & Portugal!
Subterfuge is a French word: At this point in the progress of the EU & its EUro-zone it is also the keyword par excellence for all that is wrong with the way the EU-Brussels entity goes about gathering its 'nation' statistics on which it relies for its economic-fiscal analysis & projections.
My suspicion is if the underlying deflationary trend continues across most of the EU27 then Germany's recovery will be affected and it will no longer be able to carry France.
At that point the political future of the entire EU in its present form becomes a viable issue for debate.
Complain about this comment
Two sentencies contradict each other:
"A relatively weak euro ... is benefiting Germany. Many economists believe the euro is too strong for the weaker eurozone countries."
Surely, an export driven economy is benefiting from weakening its currency. The production of the good increases, the unemployment decreases, the revenue, the tax collection, and each other relevant figure increases. However not the same for the buyers. Is it just China or India, a growing population of German automobile lovers, helping this sudden raise of figures? It is primarily the neighborhood of the Germany. (With the exception of the producers of the components for German fabrication, e.g. Estonia, Austria ...)
Sharing the same umbrella with the Germany means one main exporter is allowed. The others are destined to be consumers. Destined to please the banks, to take austerity measures, to sell all the jewelry they still possess. With the banking system that has been in effect since the first significant EU enlargement it is too early to speak of EU progress.
Complain about this comment
#8: "What this blog, and most BBC articles on the topic of the economic problems of the Eurozone lack is a little bit of context."
A lot of context missing, revealing a fuzzy sepia snapshot of economic life in Europe, embellished with the economics equivalent of "Gotcha"-style so-called journalism from a "journalist" whose principal motivation is to draw attention to himself.
The BBC used to be an authority and a reference for balance. It's a shame that the odd maverick contributor should take it on himself to repeatedly and repetitively lower the bar to this extent.
Complain about this comment
Hello Gavin, back from leisure time to discuss or ask the same rhetorical question again and the again. “…how can countries with such different economies inhabit a monetary but not a fiscal union?...” always with a repeating undertone, always circling about the stupidity of the monetary union e.g. Euro. You work for a huge news outlet as Europe editor. I would suppose that you discuss European issues, suggest solutions to current or future problems. But to me it reads like the stories of a man biased to Europe, waiting for the big collapse.
Europe has huge failures that need to be corrected no question. But the single currency is one of the best achievements. Small currency blocks are far more in danger of up & down swings.
Given - one interest rate for such a huge area can not be perfect for everybody. Money available too cheap can lead to bubbles in property or other certain trades. But interest rate is just one way to prevent a bubble. For example a flexible and adjustable property sales tax can prevent a property market running too hot. Every state can influence with taxation the investment flows within the economy. The single currency can not prevent misgovernment of single states. But it is totally wrong that the single currency prevents member states to influence up & downs within their states (e.g. property or other bubbles, investment flows).
The often cited argument that only an independent currency allows a state to inflate out of a budget or debt problem is only self-deception. A high inflation rate is like additional tax on all income and financial savings. Property and other assets would be spared. Basically the poor and part of the middle class would pay for the debt and all the already rich asset owners would be spared.
Complain about this comment
The Eurozone Nations have to agree to merge their economies, adopt a single currency that is both a monetary union and single centralised fiscal control so that all the Eurozone nations are fiscally managed effectively and in economic unison.
The problem with that is that such a merger of fiscal union would require an immense level of public support and the "public" would have to understand that certain parts of the Eurozone would have to go through some tremendous life-changing economic changes including the end of black markets, tax avoidance, undeclared income and people, simply because of the disparity in earnings versus economic productivity, will have to be prepared to pay tax - wherever they are in the Eurozone - based upon average earnings across the Eurozone leading to the people of the less-rich countries probably having to pay more tax than they do now and the peoples of the wealthier/more productive nations actually paying less tax per person. This would, of course seriously concern the socialists who always believe that the rich should pay for poor but unfortunately, global economics is not a zero-sum equation.
There are not enough rich people to be able to afford to subsidise the poor of the World - there never has been and there never will be as wealth is merely an illusion and never lasts much more than a couple of centuries - if not only decades - before it vanishes.
The rich nations of today will be the poor nations of tomorrow. Europe is going through that decline and Europeans need to adjust to that reality.
Complain about this comment
CBW,
Re: 12
Once again you have shown your irrational hatred towards France. Once again you single France out in your rants against the EU and the world as a whole. It does not matter how much evidence is relased to the contrary you will always insist on portraying France as your favaourite bogeyman.
I understand that for some reason you feel strongly about that, however in the past you have been quite quick to label other bloggers here, who have displayed similar opinions aimed at different countries, as America-bashers and Mad-Greeks. I am sure you will find something to say about that, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to see how you differ from the people you are usually so up in arms against.
Complain about this comment
As long as europe continues with it's outrageous tax rates and regulation it will never have high growth rates.
Complain about this comment
12 CBW writes:
Subterfuge is a French word.
Dictionary definition:
"From Late Latin subterfugium, from Latin subterfugere, to escape : subter, secretly, beneath + fugere, to flee.]
Did you fall asleep during your Latin lessons?
Complain about this comment
Nice to see that usual service has resumed.
I give the Euro (in its current form) 3 years maximum.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (16):
That is not really necessary. While nation states and federal nation states like the USA work this way, it doesn't mean that the Eurozone/EU has to follow the same model.
The problem that the Eurozone faces is really simple. People don't believe that a Eurozone state can default without serious implications to the whole currency union and the EU. Contrast this to the USA where many people are starting to believe that some states will sooner or later default, however in the case of USA, people don't believe that there will be consequences to the union itself.
The big difference between the USA and the Eurozone is with banks. In USA they have huge country wide banks that form the backbone of the whole banking and financial system, this system is then guaranteed to the Federal Reserve and the US Federal government. Thus any default of a US state doesn't collapse the local banking system and thus take the local economy with it.
In the Eurozone, we don't have Eurozone wide banking giants that form the structure of the banking and financial markets Europe wide. However we are currently moving into a SEPA system that will allow Eurozone banks easily to extend and serve all Eurozone customers. In the next 5 to 10 years, Eurozone will have Europe wide megabanks that form the backbone of the market. At that point the only needed component is to have the EU have more financial resources to throw against any future problem in the Eurozone wide banking system.
We don't need fiscal union. We need more integrated banking and financial markets and the EU to have enough resources to solve any problem that may face the European wide financial markets.
Complain about this comment
Article: "Spain, with a growth rate of 0.2%"
As someone lucky enough to have paper qualification(s) (though not to degree level, I hasten to add) in Mathematics, I would strongly urge the BBC to be consistent in its presentation of GDP growth statistics (and other statistics in general).
The numbers presented in this article are the absolute change in GDP relative to previous quarter. Thus if Spain were to experience the same growth in the next three quarters it would have an annual growth rate of just over 0.8% (similar to compound interest versus simple interest). The figure 0.2% is not a "growth rate", except for a nebulous "rate per quarter".
The usual annualized rate given seems to be the absolute change in GDP relative to the same quarter in the previous year, this tends to iron out seasonal variations and short-term "glitches". Thus for 2010Q2 we are provided (by the BBC) with a US annualized rate of 2.4% to compare with a UK absolute change of 1.1% (itself a parallel of figures presented in this article).
#16 Menedemus
I think I agree with all your concerns, but not with your analysis:
"There are not enough rich people to be able to afford to subsidise the poor of the World"
Agreed: substitute "World" with "EU" or even "Germany", which since 1990 has thrown huge sums, such as to make the total IMF/EU intervention in Greece seem paltry, into the former DDR area (which still retains Objective 1 status, along with Cornwall).
It is to my mind inconceivable that such a programme of fiscal union and subsidy would be advocated by even the most ardent EU-Federalist as regards EU-27+, either with or without UK, Denmark, Sweden in the Eurozone.
#13 bbony
"Two sentencies contradict each other:"
I don't see the contradiction in the article, perhaps the phrasology implies a contradiction. Maybe the second sentence should read: "Many economists believe the euro is _still_ too strong for the weaker eurozone countries." (My emphasis).
Article: "If any country is hauling Europe out of recession it is Germany."
It's an evocative image, the Germans doing more than their fair share on the proverbial "Tug-of-war" game that is Euro versus World. Surely only exporters to Germany will benefit from a strong German economy, and to a lesser extent countries with large German-owned subsidiaries operating within their borders.
It's interesting to see the phrase "economic miracle" used again, now 20 years since German Reunification. I'd be more inclined to see it as an economic success due to the expansion of land area by 43% and population by 25% holding back relative growth for two decades, thus heightening the post-recession recovery figures as these huge percentages are gradually assimilated.
Personally I think that the quiet economic (and political) miracle is the former Eastern Bloc countries' accession path to the EU. Don't forget that all these are mandated to join the Euro one day (only the UK has a formal opt-out).
Complain about this comment
Jukka Rohila @#21
You wrote, "At that point the only needed component is to have the EU have more financial resources to throw against any future problem in the Eurozone wide banking system."
First of all I don't think the current Euro Crisis has gone away. It may have subsided but the inherent weaknesses of some of the economies within the Eurozone still make the Euro a very fragile currency.
Secondly, you come to the nub of the Euro problem. Should there be another crisis of the Euro then financial resources will be required to combat the 'run on the Euro' which will develop.
We have seen the Eurozone nations club together already to create the Bailout Fund and, even with the many Billions of Euros guaranteed by the Eurozone nations’ individual central banks, that funding had to be provided with additional funding guarantees from the IMF. The other Eurozone nations basically borrowed to ensure that Greece could get the funds it needed to borrow at a cheaper rate than Greece was being offered by the Financial Markets.
The bottom line is that any future financial support within the Eurozone will either require 'saving for a rainy day' or the Eurozone nations reacting as they did recently, by borrowing to guarantee funds to be made available for the current weakest links in the Eurozone Chain.
I just cannot see Germany lodging funds for a rainy day for the likes of countries like Greece or the other PIIGS group nations. Thus, if there is another crisis the likes of Germany will be called upon, yet again, to support the needed bailout funding. The problem with that is that Germany can afford to borrow but other nations within the Eurozone cannot but, that said, I very much doubt that Germany will stand for funding yet another Bailout Fund as the first one was very unpopular within Germany itself and Greece has all but used up that line of credit already.
In reality ALL of Europe has already borrowed money beyond its means and will have to learn to live more frugally - Europe is simply no longer as wealthy as it once was thus each 'run on the Euro' drives all of the Eurozone nations into greater debt individually. Additionally, each 'run on the Euro' spreads the contagion of economies becoming individually more vulnerable and weaker as each crisis (of what will be one long crisis) makes it a very painful transition from states-funded-by-borrowing to states-living-within-GNP+3% for slack – the way it was supposed to be when the Euro was created but never actually honoured by some of the participating nations who borrowed far more than they should have done.
Complain about this comment
Margaret Howard
Re #19
Margaret are You stalking me?
If so... mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Complain about this comment
´Firstly, Europe´s growth is hugely dependent on Germany.´
´Then there are the middle rankers--´
To the first statement -- also Britain ?
To the second statement-- also Britain ?
Mr Hewitt should attempt to raise his journalistic contributions above the ´Sun´tabloid and realize that his fight is with the British government. His cheap tactics to ´remove´Britain from Europe by writing ´Eurozone´ and thus allow the psychosis of his confusionist followers to dominate his blog with repeatedly more of the inevitable same, is an insult.
A more capable journalist should should replace Mr. Hewitt--The BBC must have someone with another axe to grind that does not interfere with his profession ?
Complain about this comment
Oh!
And by the way Margaret, 'subterfuge' is an 'Old French' word (see Oxford Dict.), but like practically all our 'west' languages it has stems in Latin - - which I didn't do until a crash course at college & struggled as You may have guessed.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn
Re #17
I'm afraid I cannot agree with Your assessment of my #12. On the contrary I showed my rational approach to a Nation whose successive Governments' Economic-Fiscal policy bear no relation to reality.
I do not 'hate' France at all: On the contrary I really enjoy the Nation's many fine attributes & unlike many do not even consider the average French Citizen rude. It has a magnificent culture, a spectacular history and had I the extra funds I would certainly spend far more time there than I have done in recent years.
As a friend of France I consider it my duty to point out how disastrously misled are the French Citizens who continue to bask in their 'social' cocoon utterly unaware they have not paid their way for 30+ years!
Complain about this comment
#4. ChrisArta wrote:
"Con/Lib give us the Euro now!"
Yes! I agree.
#6. EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
"4) Mild but higher import duties."
See "Smoot-Hawley" - please look it up read, and inwardly digest BEFORE dooming the World to a deep depression, by repeating the mistakes of the past. But your comments are as I would have expected from you - half thought through and generally dangerous!
Complain about this comment
Time to split the eurozone into two. Think the unthinkable. 1) The Wirtschaftwunder eurozone consisting of Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Finland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Estonia (maybe Poland and Czech Republic in the future and the other Baltics). A zone characterised by efficient, low debt economies and good governance. A zone with a respected currency. 2) The Club Med zone consisting of France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece and possibly Cyprus. A zone characterised by relatively poor governance, high debt, high unemployment (because of dysfunctional job markets) and relatively high corruption (especially in Italy). If the Eurozone splits into two, the efficient Wirtschaftwunder economies carry on as they are now but with fewer worries about currency crises. The Club Med countries would be saved by the sort of currency devaluation that used to save them in the past in the pre-Euro days Salaries and wages would be worth relatively less but there would be more jobs. These countries cannot have both higher wages and more jobs until they sort out their governments (why oh why do the Italians have to keep on re-electing Berlusconi) and their job markets.
Complain about this comment
#2. stanilic wrote:
"The Germans are right: it is the debt that is the problem. Deal with the debt and the rest goes away.
However, there are only two ways of dealing with the debt: austerity or growth. If you can manage both then you are doing very well indeed."
What about liquidating the debt? I guess you are not thinking about the real economic albatross about our necks - private debt - public debt is trivial compared to private debt in its ease of handling. There is little pint in dealing with public debt if private debt balloons or indeed is not reduced. Private debt deleveraging is critical to any return to real economic growth or even sensible levels of economic activity.
The plain fact is the we (and that is especially true of the UK and Spain) have over inflated property linked debt this has to be unwound if Europe is ever to become competitive again. This is simply an imperative of economic arithmetic. [Please read Irving Fisher's analysis of the causes of the crash and recovery after the 1929 crash.]
This has to be understood, managed and engineered. The one thing that we, and Europe must avoid at all costs is re-inflating property prices and associated indebtedness - this however is exactly what we are doing so to quote John Laurie's character in Dad's Army, Private Frazer 'we are all doomed.. doomed'!
Complain about this comment
#28
Half thought ?
You ARE in a complimenting mood tonight !
Complain about this comment
#30
Re-inflating property prices appears only possible with sub- crime loans ?
---or am I wrong ?
Complain about this comment
#26. cool_brush_work wrote:
"Did you fall asleep during your Latin lessons?" No and I passed the exam, but only later did I look into Anglo Saxon and the related ancient Saxon language and dialects or Germany, the low countries and England!
I am sure that we do not need to be reminded that in Anglo Saxon times we shared a mutually comprehensible language and culture with the other Saxons in Europe. Indeed Otto the first Duke of Saxony (and later Holy Roman Emperor) married, the granddaughter of King Alfred, Eadgyth and her elder sister Eadgifu married another descendent of Charlemagne Charles the third, King of France. These girls understood and were able to freely converse with their partners in a shared language as the Saxon dialects were mutually comprehensible - (as well as in Latin, of course.) OK it was a fair time ago, but what is a thousand years between friends! The squabbling descendent of Charlemagne need to remember that they are stronger together than divided! (And by the way every European is a descendent of Charlemagne - all of us! And we have always gained strength by incorporating strangers into our country (Europe). These petty people who seek to divide us are like a passing eddy in the long current of history - they will be worthy of only a footnote, if that!!!!
Complain about this comment
What changed since the crisis in Greece? Nothing good. The German government put up a lot of money to help Greece pay back German banks. It went from one German pocket to another, it never even left the country. Who are the Germans selling to? China? America? South America? Africa? Or to other European countries, many in EU denonminations with financing coming from the same German banks and the German government? Who's kidding who? 2.2% projected annualized growth over one quarter in one country is nothing to write home about.
What bad happened? America's economic recovery is flagging. It is the largest consumer of goods and services and the largest importer in the world. China's currency hasn't gotten stronger. The billions it will pour into Piraeus is only being spent now so that far more billions can flow from Europe back to China later. Japan's economy is stagnant. And speaking of China its economy is not nearly as robust as economists hoped and said it would be. China needs 6% growth just to stay even. We've had the oil spill that will cost BP many more billions. Russia's fires are driving up the cost of food around the world while Pakistan will demand and probably get billions in aid for the flood victims. Iran draws closer to having a nuclear weapon, global warming continues undiminished, North Korea is still a source of grave anxiety in the US and East Asia. Afghanistan and Iraq continue to present lots of troulbe and soak up lots of money. And then there are the strikes and threats of strikes all over Western Europe. The backlash against the "sacrifices" those who are not wealthy will have to make.
So there you have it. Enjoy the good times while they last, things are only bound to get worse.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
MAII, "Who are the Germans selling to? China? America? South America? Africa? Or to other European countries"
_____________________
Here's a breakdown of sorts from the German Sats office on where German exports are going to in H1 2010 - scroll down to table " Groups of Countries"
58% of German exports in H1 went to countries outside the Euro zone or 38% of all exports went to non European countries (described as 'third countries')
http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/EN/press/pr/2010/08/PE10__275__51,templateId=renderPrint.psml
Complain about this comment
i like MarcusAurelius pragmatism and EUprisoner needs to be my Finance minister lol
truth be told if the US consumers cant buy.......capitalism is dead and socialism is dying...and CHINA's way(cant call it capitalism or socialism)will be now to run its own internal economy with commodities and Value added products which reveals why it spends so much money on arms to secure said commodities...what now?
Complain about this comment
#34 MarcusA
The mods just stopped a good joke.
We are worrying about a double-dip recession --while still in the first.
If German sauerkraut can add wind to our sails --we should be thankful.
Complain about this comment
They can not go on like this... The eal problem is not the profligacy of the latin and greek states, but their lack of competitive standing, their unit labour costs deteriorated by about 25% in respect to Germany during the last 12 years. So their trade deficits erode jobs, firms, tax receipts.
A strong fiscal center with redistribution in such cases of "asymetric chocs" is seen as prerequisite in "optimal currency union" theory. So the hidden agenda of the creators of theEuro was exactly to create a situation asking for this.
Now, taxation by Brussels would (1) eliminate even more tax competition in Europe, but which is the only way to keep back creeping tax levels and exercise control over politicians, because (2) in the EU national politicians delegate powers to the center of EU and tell their electorate that there is a european obligation to conform, which eliminates subsidiarity, and it would (3) make pay Germany, Austria, Finland, Slovaki, the Netherlands for the rest of the pack. The consequences of disinflating southern countries and of supports by northern countries will be political desintegration between the party systems everywhere with new partys asking for an end oft. Upheaval, poverty in the south, discontentment in the north. So, it is in that way these states will live together now.
Complain about this comment
#1 Generalissimo62
I Vote your Comment the best!
ChrisArta
The EU needs optimists like you ," Good Times Are Just Around The Corner ".
Jukka Rohila and a number of other contributors are full of theory .
While massive EU and National DEBT exists none of the other possibilities are likely to come to fruition .
Talking of GDP and percentages may be self convincing , but means little in reality . Germany having slower growth over many years does not signify anything ; more industrially developed countries are likely to have slower growth than those who have a lot of catching up to do .
Perhaps Germany should take over the major part of the Eurozone member states ?
Generalissimo62 is right the whole project needs re thinking in a different direction . Perhaps a looser , more flexible association .
It is easier to cut down one big tree , than a plantation of smaller ones .
Complain about this comment
So the Americans only do annualized growth rates and every one else measures their quarterly growth from the previous quarter....hmmmmm.
..OKKK...
Complain about this comment
I wonder what has happened to Web Alice...its only been one day...my days must be long....hmmm
That chatter pavilion must be fun for her :)
Complain about this comment
Good times are always around the corner...aren't there more years of growth than recession?
Or is this only a thing happening during my own lifetime?
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Re Your #33 and the #26/#19
I'm sure all 'pro-EU' will be wistfully hoping Your 'eddy' of us 'anti-EU' is a lot more accurate than Your general observational skills.
I never wrote: "Did You fall asleep in your Latin lessons?"
That was Your co-'pro-EU' specialist MHoward who remarkably also sufferrs at times from an inability to read others' contributions accurately!
Still You both accurately reflect the EU-Brussels level of concern for their Citizens - - patchy at best - - dire at worst!
TeeHeee...
Complain about this comment
Gheryando!
Please come back!
I need somebody to laugh at.
Have you been up on high alm with your families herds throughout the summer, yodelling and slapping your leather trousers.
Was there a pretty Sennerin there?
Complain about this comment
CBW,
Re: 27
Basically, the good old 'I do not hate the people of X, I hate their Government'. Unfortunately, everybody knows how empty of meaning this has become, when even the Iranian president said that the Iranian people did not hate the people of Amertica, but hated the American Government. Iam sure Nik and Elinas who you often describe in such unflattering light have nothing against the people of the USA and Turkey, but merely are unhappy with the respective governments' policies.
A phrase like that, which has become the mask, behind which modern day chauvinism hide, is not sufficient to convince anybody that your attitude towards France can be described as anythng but irrational hatred.
Complain about this comment
#44. cool_brush_work wrote:
"I never wrote: "Did You fall asleep in your Latin lessons?""
Quite right it was Margaret Howard in #19. You were responding to #19 by accused him/her of stalking you. I am afraid I edited out a large chunk of text from my post and left the incorrect heading for which I apologise. I have also gained stalkers on the bbc blogs who use almost identical names and I find it rather amusing that people are daft enough to want to stalk me. I don't see that Margaret Howard was stalking you in the same way. He/she was pointing out an etymological error that you had made. If she/he had chosen the name 'un_cool_brush_work' or 'daft_as_a_brush' then you might have a more convincing case.
The essence of the point I was making is that a single united Europe (with the Euro) is a good thing for everyone in Europe - except perhaps the bankers in London, and that those against it present a huge danger to not only our prosperity, but also (more remotely) to our very existence. The bigoted and ignorant nonsense written by anti-Europeans moves from the hugely dangerous to the just plain daft.
Europe's citizens and the level of EU concern for them was not the subject of my postings as you should have been able to understand if you had bothered to read them.
"Still You both accurately reflect the EU-Brussels level of concern for their Citizens - - patchy at best - - dire at worst!"
What on earth are you talking about? How is wanting a peaceful and cooperative federal state using one currency not caring for Europe's citizens? It is the anti-Europeans and little Englanders and xenophobes that are trying to drag us back into conflict and the hands of the money-lenders. [Substitute any state's name for England as required]
I used the diversion into Latin to wander off into Anglo Saxon and Charlemagne to allow me to stick a knife into the anti-Europeans and xenophobes by pointing out that Europe is stronger and its people generally better cared for when we are united and use the same currency, and rather than use the Roman Empire I chose Charlemagne and his descendent and that significant King of England, Alfred.
The hatred and bile of the you and your fellow anti-Europeans is akin to shooting ourselves in the foot. You are extremely dangerous, the more so in a time of economic depression as these are exactly the forces that have in to past destabilised Europe and led to it being publicly acceptable to wage war against our cousins. Anti-Europeans, such as yourself must accept that the path you are pursuing has in the past led to millions of deaths and economic calamity of a World wide scale. You demonstrate the irrational hatred that historically has caused terrible consequences.
Do you hate all of your neighbours? Do you indeed hate everyone else? If so why? How do you rationalise this hatred? You and your fellow anti-Europeans are the real risk and you know it! You hate it when others show you up for what you are - an aberrant and dangerous bunch and an anachronistic footnote in history. You have nothing to offer. You seek only to dwell in the past I look back to when there was an single European entity but you look back to some dead imaginary nirvana that did not exist when you could live your whole life in your own castle independent and isolated - we live in a global World everyone move about - everyone loses money to bankers especially businesses and holidaymakers - yet you want to return to your own castle - that is just idiotic.
You stubbornly refuse to look froward and to seek to make your country, Europe, the best place for its citizens (or in our case subjects!) by ensuring that we have genuine democratic federal pan-European institutions, a single currency and an efficient multi-level government that handles issues at the most appropriate level.
Come out from your shell and make Europe a better place - but you can't do that by refusing to take part!
Complain about this comment
@ 40 Huaimek
I thank you for your comment, though I do not pretend in the least that I have made detailed analyses of what GH reported here. What I posted is a well known fact by every participant here. The enlargement of each economic entity is beneficial to the busyness, at least until the markets are able to consume goods and services. At a given moment, when the EU funds are gone, when the consumers are no more able to service the loans, when the banks are no more motivated to lend easy credits, we usually say that the fairytale is over.
The logical question is “were the EU institutions (or the EUrocrats) able to prevent what happened?” That is the question which answer is still subject to long, sometimes fruitless discussions. Why?
Complain about this comment
Welcome back from your break Gavin. I tend to agree that there are still issues to be faced by the Eurozone.To this end I saw the following analysis of Ireland's banks on the notayesmanseconomics web blog.
"The Credit Institutions Scheme ends in September and the Eligible Liabilities Guarantee was also supposed to end then too although it has now been extended to December for debts with more than three months in duration. However this leaves plenty of debt requiring funding as we move into the autumn of this year and we know that European interbank markets are currently function with weak liquidity."
In the end it looks as though the European Central Bank may end up funding yet another country's banking system.http://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com
Complain about this comment
@ 41 42 43 KCDavid
“Good times are always around the corner...aren't there more years of growth than recession? Or is this only a thing happening during my own lifetime?”
Dave, ever since Adam Smith this steeple chase has been played without interruption. Karl Marx invented a recipe to cure the decease. It did not work, at least in Europe. Certain John Keynes offered a medicine to curb the ups & downs of the free market economy by creating funds for the unemployed in order to stimulate the consumption/demand/increase of the output of goods & services. It still works though not very well because the left wing political formations in old Europe (backed up by many trade unions here) have been continuously misused with that practice (that had come from the opposite camp, for nobody is able to accuse Sir Keynes of whatever sympathy to the leftist ideas & practices). The problem is where the optimum is. Marx was wrong. Keynes was right. And our MEP still try to discover the hot water or the bicycle...
P.S. Be sure, America is still unaware of our economic & social experiments. Thanks Lord. You may sleep well.
P.S. I am still waiting for you at the Smolenks forum where Alice, Threnodio_II and Buzet23 have already landed. It's interesing to change the company for a little while...
Complain about this comment
Out of a coming liquidity crisis fueled by ill-liquid and stock market decapitalized banks, a falling currency value, economic contraction, stock market deflation as well as rising corporate, banking and sovereign credit default swaps, european economic governance with fiscal federalism will arise together with the new mandates from Eurostat and the President of the ECB becoming the credit and lending seignior of Europe.
There will never ever be a split of the Eurozone into a Wirtschaftwunder (Germany and Slovakia) and a Club Med (with the PIIGS). When the Europeans implemented the Euro they waived national sovereignty and became a region of global governance, one of ten called for by the Club of Rome in 1974.
Complain about this comment
The Euro is a wonderful concept, but there were rules laid down for entry that were relatively sensible, including the GDP and borrowing requirements. Clearly, several countries have broken those rule knowingly and repeatedly, and if I join a club and break the rules, I should expect censure at the least, or more likely being thrown out or having my membership reduced to a lower rank.
Entry to the Euro removes several economic tools to manage the economy - interest rate changes, currency re-valuations for example - leaving a disproportionate extra burden on the remaining tools, such as austerity cuts, local inflation, local tax policy and consequent unemployment.
So, we now have "local" politicians who have proven to not be up to the job, plus growing civil unrest and unpopularity with these politicians and the austerity cuts forced upon them as their collective chickens have come home to roost. This will be a long term issue, certainly extending over a longer time frame than the accepted periods between democratic elections.
I see two ways out - exert more central control, or expel the miscreants.
If the EU exerts more control (politically and fiscally) the fiscal course required will still, necessarily, be unpopular, but now the local populace will have an almost unelected central "dictatorship" to voice their anger against, stoked up by their suddenly powerless local politicians and their local media.
"No taxation without representation" was the rallying cry that led to the American war of Independence. In Brussels I fear that there are too many vested interests, too many secrets, too many unelected officials, too many faceless bureaucrats and, with no national veto and Qualified Majority Voting, no prospect of representation or accountability.
So the imposition of central control in these countries will lead, in my opinion, to civil unrest and the likelihood of an overwhelming local demand for the country to leave the EU, since they have their required bogeyman.
On the other hand, the central power brokers could decide to expel the country in question anyway or reduce them down to a second tier, maybe using the Mediterranean "Medi-Euro" - less bloodshed, less pain, but the same end result.
To quote No 20 (MaxSceptic) I give it three years.
The rub is that it's a great idea, but it's let down by the fallibilities of men (no sexism intended) - greedy (or to be charitable, incompetent) bankers; and politicians who cared more for their own short term future rather than the long term objective of seeing their country prosper.
It's not a matter of whether the EU and the Euro is good or bad, it boils down to the inevitable fact that the kind of people who want to be senior national or international politicians are not the kind of people we need or want as politicians! The greater their powers, the more this becomes true.
Complain about this comment
#48 Generalissimo62
Going into technical detail and analysis serves no purpose , other than as a blind to those who write them . The same statistics can prove for and against the answer you are seeking . The question, " Were the EU institutions (or the EUrocrats )able to prevent what happened "? Why ? because clearly the answer is NO .
Complain about this comment
30 JfH
I wholly agree with your view on property prices. Without a lower cost base we cannot expect the essential economic revival we all wishing for.
I did not go into the issue of private debt as the blog seemed to be concerned about observations on fiscal debt.
In your post 33 you seem to be unconsciously reinforcing the view that Old English became an elite language. This echoes views expressed by certain historians of the early Middle Ages trying to understand the relatively rapid development of Middle English after the Norman Conquest. Whilst the jury is still out on this theory the idea is that as Old English became a written language only used by the Anglo-Saxon elite, a more practical everyday language was evolving from underneath. Once the elite was removed by William and friends the language disappeared.
I am agnostic on European integration. However, I just don't see why I should be paying for two governments: one in Whitehall and one in Brussels. Since Brussels seems to be doing 70% of the law-making then surely it is time to downsize Whitehall.
Complain about this comment
stanilic @#54
Actually, Brussels generates calls (Regulations and Directives) to generate new laws and Whitehall implements much of those calls but not all thank goodness. Brussels cannot generate any laws or statutes per se but can direct the UK to implement legislation where the UK has surrendered sovereignty to Brussels.
Whether the ratio of new laws is 70% the result of EU initiative, I actually question but it matters not a jot really.
I totally agree with the need to get rid of one of the two 'governments' that cast a shadow over us all here in the UK but I would suggest we downsize both and downsize the Brussels 'shadow government' even more drastically as it generates rules and regulations that have to be made statute in the UK ... a bit like tilting at windmills.
Perhaps we could actually try to get our central UK Government to do all of that in the first place and do without the Brussels shadow? That's actually what the UK PArliament is supposed to do, is it not?
The other thing is that as I don't vote for the EU Commission members and they are like King George was to the Yanquis and American Colonists - someone they did not vote for nor could influence through the British Parliament ... thus without representation over which I truly have any chance of influence by democratic vote, I want my share of the contributions to the EU back or else I may rebel one of these fine days!
Complain about this comment
If there is one person in whom I have utter faith to lead Europe to economic stability it is Herman Van Rompuy. His is a true gift for finance; in fact, one might say "brilliance".
Within the first year of being appointed as the bloc's first full-time president, Mr Van Rompuy is leading & contributing to an economic shift in the way the EU conducts its business.
In Novemnber last year, very few people (even financial people) saw the intellect of Mr Van Rompuy; some people dismissed him. He had served as Belgium's PM for 11 months, but was little known outside Belgium - except by financial experts.
Having seen him, worked closely with him, EU politicians admit they are impressed. The UK Labout Party Member of the EU Parliament (Mary Honeyball) acknowledged: "Mr Van Rompuy is far from lightweight. His knowledge of economics is outstanding."
The ambiguities and conundrums of the EU are made for Mr Van Rompuy; he had long ago polished his acumen in institutional subtleties of Belgian politics. He seized on the fact that the biggest challenges facing the EU were
1. the sovereign debt crisis,
2. reform of eurozone economic governance and
3. how to increase Europe's economic growth rates.
In March he persuaded EU leaders to let him head-up a task force which includes all EU finance ministers. This task force is drafting proposals on strengthening eurozone governance. He will deliver the task force's final report this October.
Because of his leadership, economic policy, an area in which the ROTATING presidency might have caused certain problems is playing a prominent role. Van Rompuy makes light of his heavily-weighted, extremely responsible expanded duties. He's like a financial fox among lesser chickens.
Two factors have helped Mr Van Rompuy:
1. clashes of policy and political styles between Angela Merkel, Germany's Chancellor, and Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France, have blown a space for Mr Van Rompuy to act as the EU's anchor of harmony (Wow, that's a task onto itself.)
2. Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's PM, who chairs meetings of eurozone finance ministers, has lost influence over the past two years as Europe's financial crises intensified and Juncker seemed stmied. Intensification of the European financial complexity is Van Rompuy's chessboard.
I believe that Mr Van Rompuy has done and is doing exactly what the Lisbon treaty envisaged and more. His genuius is like a beacon of light in the black-tunnel of economics. He is not to be fooled or double-talked.
He has a two-and-a-half year term, which can be renewed once, and may I be among the first to state: Europe is lucky to have this shrewed economic talent to move the pawns and ultimately "ckeck-mate".
Complain about this comment
45 europrisoner writes:
"Gheryando!
Please come back!
I need somebody to laugh at.
Have you been up on high alm with your families herds throughout the summer, yodelling and slapping your leather trousers"
Welcome back yourself euro, we've missed you too. I wondered whether you had by any chance gone off to apply for another job at the EU commission in Brussels. More successful than last time? Otherwise the same old record stuck in the same old groove. By the way, I take it you meant to say alp not alm. It's best to get these things right even if the 'irony' was rather heavy handed.
Complain about this comment
56 BluesBerry
Oh dear, prepare yourself and expect all the EU haters here to come down on you like a ton of bricks. You have committed sacrilege. However, well said.
Complain about this comment
#54. stanilic wrote:
"However, I just don't see why I should be paying for two governments: one in Whitehall and one in Brussels. Since Brussels seems to be doing 70% of the law-making then surely it is time to downsize Whitehall."
I'd go along with that.
However as one of the really valuable concepts of government that has come from Brussels and the EU is 'subsidiarity' we have to balance a need to delegate decisions down as far as possible with the necessary democratic institutions at each level I think.
Clearly the United Kingdom, or Großbritannien if you like, as an intermediary government level is rather over blown when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has quite satisfactory institutions - perhaps there needs to be an English democratic assembly and not a UK government of such size as we have now. (This would also solve the 'West Lothian question'!) Clearly the English state is deficient in a democratic institution. However for as long as the UK sets and manages policy and administration of some matters it also needs a democratic control too.
So to overcome the democratic deficit we need a small (under 250 seat) directly elected English parliament and for the time being a UK parliament of no more than 100, with direct election of the executive president which could be additional to the titular traditional head of state. [ No longer could a prime-minister be criticised as being un-elected!] And of course direct elections for a president or Europe along with the European Parliament. It would seem logical to me that the other states of Europe that have strong traditional regional assemblies, as well as state parliaments, should also look to restructuring their systems too.
As an aside should this not also offer the opportunity to create a strong regional Cornish assembly too if the people wanted it. Such an assembly in Cornwall and if the Union démocratique bretonne (UDB) could be persuade to join in then there could be a Celtic group. The same could be true fro the Basque regions of France and Spain - allowing a historically important re-linking of the peoples whilst both regions would still remain part of Spain and France. I'll not go round the whole of Europe country by country highlighting how a sensible degree of democratically controlled subsidiarity could provide a mechanism for alleviating age old grievances whilst at the same time maintaining the existing states. The French would need to address the problem of Pay de La Loire presently containing 20% of Brittany somehow - but that is what civil servant and politicians are intended to do - sort things out!
The only reason that these ideas remain unconscionable is that there are too many politicians and civil servants who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo! The key is to show these people that a new structure based on subsidiarity could also benefit them. The key should resolve around the administrative and cultural cooperation of presently divided regions without necessarily changing the 'national' borders - just as is happening across in the island of Ireland and hopefully on Cyprus too.
Our first step is to get an English Parliament (and possibly a Cornish Parliament too) along with slimming down the size of the governments and the parliaments and a proper written constitution that sets out the relationships between the subsidiary assemblies and their competences as part of the European Union - and of course adopt the Euro asap!
Complain about this comment
Interesting and interactive.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-07-13-government-debt-graphic_N.htm
--Should clear up some statistics and put into perspective.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn
Re #46
Sorry, but whilst one gets used to all sorts of allegations, accusations, stereotyping & plain insults I have to say I think You attempting to compare me with the current mysoginistic, fundamentalist muslim, anti-semitic, nut-job President of Iran is taking things a tad too far!
Supposing I proposed Your 'everything is fine' defence of France was no better than Pres Mugabe's claim of 'prosperity' in Zimbabwhe!
I repeat I do not have 'irrational' or even 'rational' "hatred" of France.
By all means defend Nik if You want: You are of course defending someone who suggests Greece is dominated by USA & UK, that Turkey is as bad as Nazi Germany, that every decent Greek politician has been murdered by MI5 or CIA and so on...
I rather think it tells me more about Your general opinions of the 'english-speaking' world than my little contretemps on France do about me!
Exactly: It aint fair & it is no way to debate!
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Re #47
Oh dear, dear me!
Here we go again...
"..little englanders..", "..xenophobes..", plus "..the hatred and bile of you and your fellow anti-Europeans.."
So, that would be those of us who oppose Your idea that the UK/England should be in the EU?
From Your #47 it would seem straightforward: You think membership of the EU is a very good thing. Therefore, You are logical, rational, sensible.... all those really positive things that go to make up what may be loosely termed a 'pro-EU' person contributing to these Blogs.
Whereas, those of us on these Blogs who do not consider membership of the EU a good idea are all illogical, irrational, unreasoning fools that do not have the mental capacity You are blessed with.
I know You will find this hard to take because You of course are so blessed: But, not everyone shares Your opinion about the values of EU Membership!
Amazingly among those who do not are those with some education, some who live on the Continent, some with families of European origins, some with experience of many years prior to the present EU, some who voted 'yes' to the EEC in April 1975 & some of whom have since have changed their mind as they have seen the evolution of the current EU.
I know, shocking isn't it! Imagine people from the British Isles who aren't 'little englanders' or 'xenophobic' and happen to think 'John-from_Hendon' needs to get out more before he starts labelling as dullards anyone who doesn't agree with his version of how those Islands should be governed!
Complain about this comment
#62 CBW
Your problem is identical to Mr Hewitt´s.
--and that it with the British government.
You are fighting the WRONG war and against the WRONG enemy as you persist in incessant British flag-waving.
Get a grip on reality ! ---write to your MP or Prime minister !
Complain about this comment
@62 CBW
I believe your penultimate paragraph encapsulates the reason for certain anti-EU sentiments amongst many people in the UK.
I was one of the baby boomers who voted for a "common market" back in 1975. I did this in the belief, at the time, that enhanced trade links between the countries of Europe would lead to a greater inter-dependance that would reduce the likelyhood of nations waging war against each other.
With the benefit of hindsight, I think that has proven to be a reasonable call.
What I never envisaged was that, subsequently, UK governments of all persuations would abandon massive elements of national control over many other issues to a non-elected commission in Brussels (or anywhere else for that matter). I've been to Brussels and it's a very pleasant place - if you like concrete
It's not just in the context of the UK's current economic dilemma but the fact that the auditors of the EU have not been able to sign off the accounts for donkeys years really hacks me off. The corruption must be endemic.
Complain about this comment
47 John from Hendon writes:
"I don't see that Margaret Howard was stalking you in the same way. He/she was pointing out an etymological error that you had made." (it's she)
You're quite right. I'm afraid CBW is getting a bit paranoid and pompous.
Incidentally, in your posting at 33 you mention the mutually comprehensible language between the mainland Saxons and Anglo Saxons. I remember being told at school that Saint Boniface who was sent by the Pope to convert the Friesians to Christianity could converse perfectly with them. That was in the 8th century and the two languages (Old German and Old English) obviously hadn't changed too much in the intervening centuries.
Complain about this comment
#65
Getting ?
Complain about this comment
Ok :) Gen. Franco, I think Buzet may help, tho W. A. says something in the previous thread on how to get there....
It will be fun there :)
Complain about this comment
BTW, how is Nik?
Complain about this comment
#56 BluesBerry
Mr Rompuy may be a clever fellow ; but I doubt he can even begin to turn the EU around in two or even four years . Finance is not the only problem of the EU . The EU is at a standstill at the moment , has serious problems of many kinds as well as a lack of goodwill from many ordinary citizens right across Europe . We may be silenced through lack of democracy ; but the proposed federal state of Europe will not come to fruition without it being the will of the people . You may think it is only for Rompuy to get the Lisbon treaty in motion ; but citizens in many countries , like Germany and Holland as well as Britain and others are disatisfied with and opposed to the direction of the EU in its present form . If there were an EU wide referendum on the EU today , I doubt that 50% of the people support it in its present form .
Complain about this comment
#63 Quietoaktree
Why choose a name so intrinically British ?
Do you want to take on Britain by yourself ? What flag will you be Flying ?
Complain about this comment
@ 67 @ 68 KCDavid
I guess you should ask Threnodio_II for that service. He knows better the clues to the Smolensk forum.
I cease the opportunity to mail to you a musical souvenir from Bulgaria.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmVKdvXpkrE
Complain about this comment
tyyyy
Complain about this comment
MHOward
Re #65
"...afraid..cbw ... pompous.."
Margaret!
Re my "...are You stalking me?"
Any chance You could laugh occasionally instead of taking every single item as gospel-serious!?
Same for JofH! Blimey, a lecture on Anglo-Saxon history from my 'stalking' one-liner!!!!!
We certainly have differences of opinion on the EU & UK future etc., but come on...
Complain about this comment
people in bulgaria are v interesting....unclassifable n unknown ...are they all w charm like u?
Complain about this comment
Title of article = To have growth is glorious...just look at papered over China. At least they are self aware in a good grounded sense...and thx to God for it:)
Complain about this comment
Look at it this way...CBW never ever snubs...
Complain about this comment
QOT
Re #63
As usual from You: Wholly, deliberately misconceived perception of the anti-EU perspective set out by me & others.
You choose not to see in the main our motives are the promotion of a better UK, better England, better Europe: You & others (e.g. JofHendon) choose to lump us all together as some sort of throwbacks to a byegone era - - when almost nothing we write alludes to a 'past' Britain or Europe and is almost entirely about what might be an alternative 'future' for Britain & Europe outside of the EU framework - - in fact, You get so exercised at times about it one suspects You have a sense that we 'anti' may be right to a large extent in our proposals!
Complain about this comment
Well, CBW, do u feel like me... at our age... primed for observing 'n relishing world news and this new-ish world of information overload?
Meaning looking out instead of in? Though this 2 Dimensional world of the Internet & pc can be limiting...
I need my bed time nite all!
Complain about this comment
#62 etc. cool_brush_work wrote:
A load of substance-less nonsense as usual - devoid of content except that he/she dislikes all foreigners and does not want to have anything to do with them - even at the cost of damaging his/her own countrymen and their future prosperity. As he/she will not actually engage in discussion of the particulars of his/her concerns except to say that they are visceral rather than based on logical or ration assessments of the costs and benefits.
Just being against something has costs, real costs - consider for example, just being against re-armament in the late 1930s - you cannot maintain a position of being against something unless you can show that you are actually for something - and in the case of the EU that what you are for will most likely benefit your countrymen - you have totally failed to do this and this is why you are a failure and your arguments will die along with you and your die-hard xenophobes fellow travellers.
You talk of your proposals when you have none!
Complain about this comment
59 John_from_Hendon
You argue against what you usefully call the Perptetual Government and then go on to argue for more regional assemblies, the very vehicles which will allow this essentially parasitical economic class to multiply throughout the land like a plague virus.
My view is that government in the general sense is the problem as it always sees itself as the solution. More often and not there is no problem and so no solution is needed until government interferes to solve a perceived issue which ordinary people could resolve on their own. Societies tend to mend themselves over a period of time.
We don't need regional assemblies, there might be a need for a small central government to keep the ring, but the provision of public services should revert to county or district level.
Complain about this comment
65 Margaret Howard
A proportion of the people called Anglo-Saxons in the history books were actually Friesians. I always find it odd that the British are in perpetual denial about the huge movements of people back and forth across the Channel, the North Sea and the Irish Sea over thousands of years. I think it is called insularity.
The fact that the Old German and Old English languages had not evolved separate identities over a two hundred year period does support the view that Old English had become an elite language. Over the same period Pictish completely died out.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Re #79
Quote, "...except that he/she dislikes all foreigners and wants nothing to with any of them.."
Tell that to my Finnish wife, Belge mother, German & Dutch grandparents, Polish godfather, Scottish & Australian son-in-laws!
Honestly, You are so far from the reality of my life I'm considering nominating You for the 'Clueless bombast of the year' award!
Not only are You making totally unrealistic claims about other contributors of whom You know nothing, but Your total lack of willingness to accept people who do not agree with Your ideas on the EU also have ideas, proposals (which if You ever cared to read back over the last 3yrs You could find in copious numbers) just shows You up as the one on here devoid of logic.
In fact, to call me 'xenophobic' makes You the 'stereotypical' 'pro-EU': I.e. 'EU is good, All else is bad', is what You have learnt by Pavlovian rote and nothing and no one can shake You of that dogma.
Though I fear it will serve no benefit I do again urge as in my #62, John_from_Hendon, "do get out more!" A whole lot more!
Complain about this comment
@ 74 KCDavid
"people in bulgaria are v interesting....unclassifable n unknown ...are they all w charm like u?"
Thanks for the comment. As a matter of fact we are typical "Balkan folks", just like the Serbs, the Greeks (like Nik), the Montenegrin, the Croats, the Slovenians, or the Romanians.
They would call us generally Balkan "stuff", or just Balkan people. The culture is predominantly orthodox (which is the reason why the Russians are welcome here). True, the Turks, the Bosnians, the Kossovars and the Albanians are Muslims, but their living standards, kitchen and traditions are very similar to ours.... It's the same Balkan culture.
Just listen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gNmE9kcJCM:
The songs come from my native country (the so calles Shop's people, pure Slavs, with some vague resembance with the the Scots...
Complain about this comment
#67. At 03:48am on 20 Aug 2010, KCDavid,
Come on KCDavid, it's not difficult to figure out, lol. just think of internation and mybb and the rest is obvious. Just remember to have an automatic language translation from Russian to English.
See you there.
As for the rest it would seem John_From_Hendon, QOT, MH have somehow awakened from their slumbers, I heard the coffin lids creaking even over here in Belgium, now I must go out to buy some more Garlic, good night all as it's watching Footie tonight and hoping that the referee is for once not anti-Standardman.
Complain about this comment
OK, Buzet,
I will try tonite with the first stuff ...yes it does sound truly easy at first glance. Hopefully...
David
Complain about this comment
We are having tornadoes in my area---will keep y'all informed....its not that... exciting, because I've only once seen a tornado in my living area.
I knew it had happened because I looked out and a lamp post was overturned and leaves were all being moved around and around and alighting (sp) We go to the basement when the siren comes on
(and its on now)--(*back then NOT now*--the tornado I "saw.")---
and watch the weather news then someone calls us up and says "you wimps" lolol
But, anyway....
it just said on the TV that the tornado warning is OVER for now.....
this usually only happens in *March/April
Complain about this comment
Buzet
You guys have vampires (except for "my" M. Howard and "my" Oak Tree and "my" Nik),
And we have tornadoes lolololol,
David
Complain about this comment
#87. At 8:35pm on 20 Aug 2010, KCDavid,
Vampire are reputed to suck the life blood out of humans, the EU is sucking the life blood out of us EU citizens because of its current direction, I think the similarity is easy to note.
Complain about this comment
#88 Buzet
The European Vampire Society is collecting blood for its starving British members.
Their British victims have only credit card or medals to offer --times are bad.
It is advised to dilute the much richer and nourishing European blood before drinking !
Complain about this comment
KCDavid
If you take one of our American vampire brothers with you into the cellar -- we will put you on our honors list !
The bed-bugs are causing our American Chapter members to claim Blood Stamps !
Complain about this comment
QOT,
You know Himmm. (our American v. bro.)
He would, of course, get the wrong impression...because of ..er.. his ego. :)
and then bite me on my neck (to kill me)
lolol
Complain about this comment
#91
You have been declared and accepted as a ´No go zone´
Complain about this comment
Buzet,
Yes, this weekend will be spent trying to "get in" the chatter room :)))
QOT,
I'm honored to be a "Honorary vampire"....BUT I MUST LIVE FOREVER....
or I'll be ....not happy (hissss:)
Complain about this comment
Re: 61
CBW,
I am sorry to destroy the nice cosy notion of unfair persecution you have build around yourself, however I did not compare you to the president of Iran. I merely used his example to show how meaningless your statement, that you do not hate the people of France only their Government, is. As to my ‘defending of Nik’-let me assure you that I am not defending Nik. Mentioning your behaviour towards him was only meant to demonstrate the inconsistency and double standards you show, applying unflattering labels to people who dare to question the policies of countries you feel favourably about (UK/USA) and yet displaying indignation, when anyone dares to suggest your rants about France put you in the same light.
As to my attitude towards 'english-speaking'- I do speak English myself, as you might have noticed. On the other hand, what is really telling about opinions is that posters like MAII, do seem to consider yours as consistent with theirs.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn
Re #94
So, basically You did compare me to the looney-tunes President of Iran, but only so as to helpfully point out my contributions do not suit Your version of reality.
Which just leaves me wondering if my statements are "..meaningless.." why's a fine, upright, defender of truth, justice & the EU way bothering over such trifling matters?
Then there's Your ridiculous assertion You are "..not defending Nik..", which just leaves me pondering which 'English' You do speak if the following isn't a 'defence', "..I am sure Nik and Ellinas whom you often describe in such an unflattering light have nothing against the people of USA & Turkey.."?
I also wonder where Your 'sure' comes from about their attitudes to USA & Turkey?
IMO there's a distinct possibility it comes from the same frame of mind that describes my contributions as a 'rant' but is "..sure.." when Nik writes that MI5 murdered Greek politicians he is just being reasonable!
I cannot say MAII has never agreed with my contributions, but then I cannot say I've always disagreed with his or anyone else inc. Your's. Where we differ is You, as with so many 'pro-EU', assume to know more about me & other 'anti-EU' motives & feelings when such conjecture could not be more silly for its lack of reasoned, rational background!
People do not have to be consumed by 'hatred' to not want to be in a union with another Nation: I.e. You are alleging a mental disposition by me akin to that of the rabid elements during the break-up of the Yugoslavian State, and that is a disgraceful as well as wholly unfounded assertion by You.
But then assertion is Your method, isn't it? You assert motives for which there is no basis in fact because Your actual arguments are too weak to be honestly pout before us.
Well, thanks for Your opinion of my opinions & contributions: Take care, You need to consider carefully whom You next attack & then when they reply apparently You then allege have a 'persecutuon complex' - - that, I am SURE is how many of the people of Iran feel right now & how Nik presents himself.
You on the other hand just leave me puzzled: Why You contribute if You wont accept others with alternative views are not, as You claim You are, arguing from their beliefs & not some monstrous dislike of other Peoples.
Complain about this comment
95 CBW writes:
"You on the other hand just leave me puzzled: Why You contribute if You wont accept others with alternative views are not, as You claim You are, arguing from their beliefs & not some monstrous dislike of other Peoples."
Did you really write that sentence with a straight face?
Complain about this comment
MarageretHoward
Re #96
No, I wrote #95 with the intention of bringing into the minds of well-meaning people such as Yourself that the curious in-built belief everyone else's motivation is suspect is true of us all and therefore it is best to proceed without leaping to any conclusion about anyone and addressing the issues they raise and not the personality.
The problem arises when You refuse to see it, Isenhorn can't see it & contributors like Nik & QOT have no idea to what I am referring.
When I have denigrated Nik, or QOT, or JeanLuc, DemocThreat or You for that matter if any of You actually cared to read the context it was the CONTENT of Your argument that I found wanting & that is precisely what I expect others to do where I am concerned.
As I have said before: Don't come on here complaining about my reference to Your Scottishness when practically every contribution by You insults/denigrates/attacks the 'english' as though it's fair game & no one else is.
For that matter, don't Isenhorn, JohnofHendon etc. come on here calling me a xenophobe or 'hater' of any Nation & Peoples simply because I choose to express a view that a EUropean Union is not a good idea and give grounds (surprise, surprise... NOT!) for my opinion based upon my views about the efficacy of the EU as an organisation & of its various member States.
How can it be xenophobic & a 'hater' of France to suggest its Government is not being honest & its Economy is based on false pretences!? It is just too pathetic of 'pro-EU' to come on here labelling those of us who are 'anti-EU' & then expecting we will sit back and just take it.
The 'xenophobe' is You Margaret when You lambast the English or Americans when those 2 are not even the topic! The 'hater' is QOT who chucks in totally spurious links about GB on the 'roma' article! The 'mad' IM honest opinion is a Greek writing on here that Britain & the USA have conspired for 2 centuries against his Nation without a shred of evidence - - and then Isenhorn, You backing him simply because You find it easier than facing the awkward questions I & others raise about the EU!
Why not try Your question on Yourself: Did You really write #96 with any sort of straightness at all in mind?
Complain about this comment
97 CBW
So everyone from Nic, QOT, JeanLuc, demothreat, Isenhorn, John of Hendon and me is wrong and you are right. Ever heard of paranoia? And could you just tell me where and when I mocked, insulted, denigrated and attacked your englishness? My husband is English and I, unlike you, live here and have lived here for forty years.
Complain about this comment
##98. At 8:06pm on 21 Aug 2010, margaret howard,
It seems you have finally learnt something, your inability to remember your words is amazing, but then for a Scot it's not surprising as we've paid the cost in England for the Scottish errors, or rather my kids who live in England have. Please give my condolences to your hubby and wish him the best of British luck, note I did not say English.
Complain about this comment
#99 Buzet 23
Who got to you first last night-- the vampires or the bed-bugs ?
--you arguments sound sucked dry and smell of garlic !
Complain about this comment
#100. At 9:31pm on 21 Aug 2010, quietoaktree,
It would seem so be you, I've smothered my house in Garlic as a committed EU phobe is just like Brams story. Your beloved EU is no different from the famous story, it sucks the life blood from the poor citizens. Are you proud to be associated with this?
P.S. Garlic just happens to be good for the health so I would not recommend it.
Complain about this comment
#98 Margaret Howard
And why shouldn´t you attack CBW´s Englishness ?
He uses it to compliment himself and country incessantly --above all other arguments !
Complain about this comment
#102. At 9:43pm on 21 Aug 2010, quietoaktree,
Beam me up Scotty, or rather not if it involves being anywhere near Scotland. QOT, your logic is like a first generation computer, let us know if we can help you to make the quantum leap to a second generation computer, maybe we can help.
Complain about this comment
#101 Buzet 23
After living in 3 societies in Europe and America and having visited and compared many others -- Britain is just not developed enough for me to pay it incessant unfounded compliments.
Its problems (especially social) are nothing to brag about, nor export as ideals into Europe.
Complain about this comment
#103 Buzet 23
I would appreciate more intellectual responses !
Ok, I have pulled the plug --Britain just went down the drain !
Happy -- is that what you wanted ?
Complain about this comment
QOT,
Now I begin to understand your problem.
Sleep tight.
Complain about this comment
MHOward
Re #98
When looking back at the previous Article's comments & this one the following labels in no particular order have been written directly at me (and a good few of the same have been aimed at other 'anti-EU'):
"..LIAR..", "..STUPID..", "..IMPERIALIST..", "..PETTY..", "..CHAUVINIST..", "..XENOPHOBIC..", "..HATRED..", "..PERSECUTION COMPLEX..", "..PARANOIA..", to say nothing of being compared to the anti-semitic, mysoginistic, raving President of Iran!
Of course, they were only helpful, reasoned, logical 'argument' used to expose my 'argument' about the failings of the EU.
Yeah right!
Contrary to what You suggest Margaret, I don't feel got at by anyone: I consider the amount of vitriol launched at those of us who will not accept at face value the dogma of EU-Brussels is a vindication of our consistent and persistent voice of opposition to a dangerously anti-Democratic, venal & corrupt supra-National institution.
Complain about this comment
CBW,
Re: 95
There is one thing I need to grant you- you are a master of spin, master of twisting statements around and putting the opponent off-guard by completely moving the topic of the argument. I do not have any desire to start replying to your posts line by line, in order to try and answer your statements and assumptions, as many other posters here do in some cases. Nor do I have a wish to start discussing the meaning of the word ‘defend’ or the phrase ‘I am sure’. The whole point of this exchange as I planned it was to try to show you the double standards you apply, when you consider and label your beliefs expressed here, and the beliefs of others who have different opinion from yours. Unfortunately, from our brief discussion I have become convinced that you do not wish to see that. I do not see any further point in this argument and what is now left to me is to join the ever growing list of posters, who have decided not to interact with you anymore. A desire to win every argument no matter the means is OK in itself, unless it leads to the sad situation where the person who displays it is considered as someone who cannot be reasoned with.
Complain about this comment
#105. At 10:35pm on 21 Aug 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"#103 Buzet 23
I would appreciate more intellectual responses !
Ok, I have pulled the plug --Britain just went down the drain !"
Intellectual responses will of course result from intellectual posts, when you post reasonable argued points of view that are not based on various phobias we will respond in kind, as we do.
The UK is little different from the the countries I've visited in the EU in that it has good points and bad points, so do all the rest. You could analyse France for instance, what a paragon of good practice they are (NOT). You could analyse the centre of the much disliked EU empire, Brussels, and see how not to organise a country. That flagship of Federalism, Belgium, is highly likely to show soon what would happen if the EU continues its crazy lurch into federalism.
If a plug needs pulling then it is the inherent waste and corruption of the undemocratic EU, and I believe it is not too late to turn things around and reorganise the EU so that it can be less autocratic Socialism and more a true Social Europe with a minimal regulation that enshrines true freedom of movement. One only has to examine the cases in the ECJ to understand how restricted the current EU is with every regulation being exploited to enhance restrictions. Yet as always the Socialist EU mandarins keep on saying that yet more regulation is needed, these people never learn from experience that increasing regulation just make things worse. The 13 years of Nu-Labour in the UK are avid proof of that with a new law a day. The only people who like ever increasing regulation are Socialists and the legal profession who make a fortune out of the stupidity of the former.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23
Re #109
So accurate it should be posted every time an EU topic comes along.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn
Re #108
Fair enough, mate.
It is probably exactly as You describe: Of course that You are wholly at fault in precisely the same manner as You allude to me... Has yet again completely eluded You!
Still, enough said.
Bye.
Complain about this comment
#109 buzet 23
During the early 70´s Britain needed a periscope to see mainland Europe - it was such a wreck under water. While Europe was going it alone, Britain was still in the never ending class struggles that had forever (and still) plagued it. (read your own,CBW, etc. contributions)
While other societies had fair arrangements with their Unions and employers, Britain was still in the pre- WW ll mentality. The colonies were gone and the businesses had to find new markets for the first time in centuries. Mass migration to English speaking Canada, Australia etc. was long underway to flee the low workers wages and living standard. Two weeks holiday was still the rule, 6 weeks in Germany and increasing in other European countries as the living standard increased.
The industrial manufacturing towns were decaying and the pound went from DM 8.5 over the years to below DM 3.
Then oil was discovered and sold at no reduction to the public --only to bring in more taxes, to be spent on little to raise the living standard.
The Hubris of the Commonwealth British passport decayed into racist passports -- and has been so since.
The tall story of `I wouldn´t have voted for the Common Market if I had known ---´ by most British contributors is just that, or at worst a lie. Britain was (and is) desperate and the Common Agricultural subsidies is a nice sweetener for the Land owners.
Europe got along quite well without Britain and many Europeans I am sure wish a return to those days also.
--- and Buzet 23, you do not defend arguments by claiming others are worse -- that may be interpreted as being rather self-insulting don´t you think ?
What are you British contributors proud of anyway. I can´t figure it out ?????
Complain about this comment
Well, of course every Nation has its good & bad moments, pinnacles of achievement, and pitifully distressing lows.
Still, as the question was raised:
"Proud of"?
There's any number of things, but...
In terms of pre-1945:
Not having to explain their nation's direct involvement in Kaiser Wilhelm's brutal invasion of tiny Belgium in August 1914 to my children & grandchildren.
Not having to explain their nation's direct involvement in National Socialist Germany 1933-45 to my children & grandchildren.
Not having to explain their nation's direct involvement in the Holocaust to my children & grandchildren.
Post-1945: In no particular order...
UK National Health Service, UK 'Devolution' Government, UK Invention & Discovery from Hovercraft to DNA to Clock-work Radio to World.Wide.Web. and so on...
However, of course it is not really so much 'pride' which as History demonstrates is a particularly Germanic-French trait. No, it is more the knowledge for all its many & varied faults the British Isles continues to attract the 'ire' of QOT etc. whose fits of pique about Britain & Britons assist another fine-tuned aspect of British lifestyle... Comedy!
I mean, if You're given a choice between reminiscing over 1946-89 StasiLand East Germany or BBC Radio & Television Comedy shows circa '46-89 it really is a no-brainer, except for the likes of QOT!
Complain about this comment
Re113: Back from 2 weeks off-Europe (work) and in-Europe (holidays) and I see CBW trying to justify his position of regarding everyone else (i.e. quite a lot of contributors here) as anti-US, anti-British etc. etc.
CBW you do not realise the 3 following thingies:
1) you might disagree with say "my views" here which is 100% understandable and respectable and ok with me
2) you might even disagree with "my views" even when you do not have any substantial argument to counter my argumentation, this can be also understandable in the sense that you are not expected to accept an opinion that is not of your likehood just because it is right
3) but when you give up proper argumentation and find refuge to personal attacks that is neither acceptable nor respectable.
So stick to 1,2 and avoid the 3. We all know this is BBC, a British channel and thus it can be frustrating having us foreigners commenting often negatively on British political choices but th
Complain about this comment
Re113: Back from 2 weeks off-Europe (work) and in-Europe (holidays) and I see CBW trying to justify his position of regarding everyone else (i.e. quite a lot of contributors here) as anti-US, anti-British etc. etc.
CBW you do not realise the 3 following thingies:
1) you might disagree with say "my views" here which is 100% understandable and respectable and ok with me
2) you might even disagree with "my views" even when you do not have any substantial argument to counter my argumentation, this can be also understandable in the sense that you are not expected to accept an opinion that is not of your likehood just because it is right
3) but when you give up proper argumentation and find refuge to personal attacks that is neither acceptable nor respectable.
So stick to 1,2 and avoid the 3 (and that goes for all of us). From there on, we all know this is BBC, a British channel and thus it can be frustrating for British to have us foreigners commenting often negatively on British political choices but below this surface that does not come as an attack on everything that is British or on British people or on British culture or a total rejection of what Britain has done around the world - at the end of the day even when I refer on Britain having actively worked in recent wars and troubles (with Americans only taking the lead after WWII) I am fully aware that we wouldn't have any less wars if Britain was a just a fringe corner island of northwestern Europe.
Indeed, that is how it goes. But beyond this understanding, for a guy like me coming from a region that has been repeatedly hit by British and subsequently by US geopolitics there is no reason to be any positevely positioned on British/US geopolitics on top of it. It should not be so so difficult for you to understand this.
Complain about this comment
Re #115
Yes, yes...
Next...
Complain about this comment
There are a lot of things that can come as next. Like Britain abandoning being mingled Mediterranean for a change. Have you got a problem with it?
Complain about this comment
Re #116
Move along...
Nothing to see here..
Complain about this comment
Not everything is doom & gloom on the edge of the Aegean!
Istanbul, being celebrated as 'European Capital of Culture' 2010.
For an enlivening & informative documentary on this development contributors on here may like to look at BBC's Fast Track web-page for links to relevant programme details.
Complain about this comment
# 119. At 11:14am on 23 Aug 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"""Not everything is doom & gloom on the edge of the Aegean!
Istanbul, being celebrated as 'European Capital of Culture' 2010."""
Last time I saw it on the map, the city you funnily call Eistinpoli (i.e. "to the city") is placed in the Bosporos channel which is of course situated north-east of the Propontis channel which is situated northeastern of the Hellespont channel but neither the third, the second let alone the 1st is part of the Aegean sea.
Being ungeographied is alright, but trying to spot cities, a map could aid.
As for the "European capital of culture", in that case we can ask "what european" and "what culture"... it reminds a bit the joke about the Holy Roman Empire. Not Holy, not Roman and not an Empire.
"""For an enlivening & informative documentary on this development contributors on here may like to look at BBC's Fast Track web-page for links to relevant programme details."""
Do they say about how they sieged with a 300,000 army a city defended by a mere 8,000, failed miserably to sack it so took it by treason (the famous "open door" that managed to open 2 days before the departure of their army), plundered the city for 3 days and that is what they celebrate still today with huge celebrations as a huge achievement? I am not kidding, it is part of the culture of the city as we saw again and again and again like in 1955. What a culture! Quite represents you CBW.
Complain about this comment
113 CBW
I shouldn't feel too sorry for "tiny Belgium" being brutally invaded in 1914 until you have read a bit about the brutal treatment "tiny Belgium" meted out in the Congo to the poor Africans they forced to slave for them and apparently chopped their arms off if they weren't productive enough. I see you also omit to mention the horrible part Britain played in the general enslavement of Africa. Obama has mentioned in his book that his grandfather was tortured by the British as recently as the 1950s. You don't mention the horrible colonial wars Britain was involed in during the 18th and 19th centuries, culminating in the most brutal of all, the Boer wars where a quarter of a million soldiers were needed to defeat 80 000 Boer farmers and where their wives where strapped to supply trains and afterwards put into concentration camps where 50 000 of them, their children and black servants died in horrible conditions.When it comes to horrors committed by nations in the last few centuries Britain stands at the top with the best of them and it would probably be wisest if we Europeans abstained from blackening each others history. I hope you won't forget to explain that to your children and grandchildren as you so sanctimoniously declare.
As for claimed achievements post 45
UK Nationa Health Service:
"Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Health Insurance Act of 1883"
Devolution:
Do you mean giving back countries you had invaded in the first place?
DNA? Crick and Watson (American) won the Nobel prize for unravelling the structure of DNA, the Swiss Friedrich Mieschen discovered it a century before and in any case people like Mendel had worked on it for many years. Like all discoveries that have enhanced the condition of man over the centuries, they were always the work and achievements of many people, or as Newton said on his 'discovery' of gravity: "I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
Complain about this comment
Re #120
'Funny'! Undoubtedly:
Here's a clue...
"...edge.." meaning in the vicinity though not 'of' the exact area.
'Funnily enough', here's another...
I didn't nominate or make Istanbul 'culture capital'.
For 'fun' clue...
Never have made BBC documentaries & thus content of any BBC prog is not my responsibility.
Final, 'fun-packed' clue...
In 1955 I was 6... which sort of "represents" my age then and the appeal level of Your contributions!
Complain about this comment
122. At 1:10pm on 23 Aug 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"""Re #120
'Funny'! Undoubtedly:
Here's a clue..."""
""""...edge.." meaning in the vicinity though not 'of' the exact area."""
So if I put 3 rectangles, A, B, C side by side, then according to your logic as presented above the corner C1 belongs to rectangle A. Thank you very much, we all know the city you funnily call Eistinpolin is a Greek city occupied currently by the recently formed state-nation of Turkey after the decision of Britain (and France and Italy) of how to handle the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1920s. but from there on none of us eve claimed of it being a city on the edge of Aegean. If anything, it is a city on the edge of the Black Sea.
Get a map and educate yourself.
"""'Funnily enough', here's another...
I didn't nominate or make Istanbul 'culture capital'."""
Never said you did nor that you were ok with it. I have no personal opinion on it either. I just found the title funny as it is all about a country that is neither european nor cultured.
"""For 'fun' clue...
Never have made BBC documentaries & thus content of any BBC prog is not my responsibility."""
Never said you are. On the other hand, talking generaly about the region of Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean BBC's long standing propaganda is well known. And 1955 is not so far.
"""Final, 'fun-packed' clue...
In 1955 I was 6... which sort of "represents" my age then and the appeal level of Your contributions!"""
In 1955 you were 6, in 1974 you were 25 and in 2010 more than double but that won't change your point of view either. Which is quite admirable how a citizen of a particular state, ex world power, is so bound to his country's geopolitics even in those cases that his country's, region's interests or his own personal interests are not directly involved. I never cared much about my country's relations to Equador or Bahrein or Norway and of course I would not throw any comments on them, so what is all that interest of yours to all those countries in Eastern Mediterranean? And why do you consider that you (your state) has to be there and to have (military) business there and to mingle with the local politics trying to create more and more mess? And why you as a sole citizen feel so obliged to follow that line of thinking - do you have invested money on Nabucco or something? Or will you lose your salary/pension scheme if Russians or Iranians sell 1m3 of gas more? I really do not understand.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Outside of Greece, who has actually begun the process of cutting government spending? There are debts to be paid and I guess everyone can only assume that the trillion given to bankers was actually a bribe and not a stimulus. Because they have no plan and never had had a plan the governments rely on the banks to move this along....asking the thief to see what he can get for what he stold from you and maybe give you a little of what he makes. Nothing has changed but the governments continue to avoid making the decisions they need to make...the bankers will gladly lend the governments money while they decide what to do.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Groucho Marx had some good advice that countries should have considered before joining the Europe or Euro Clubs:
“I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.”
And, one (or Germany) should also have thought about the long-term prospects of the other members before joining.
Complain about this comment
@121 margaret howard
excellent posting.
I would like to add that any claim that Emperor Wilhelm was the one who planned the violation of Belgian neutrality or that Germany single handedly started the war in which Great Britain had no choice but to join in order to save poor Belgium, blantantly ignores historical facts.
Every single nation wanted this war.
And Wilhelm probably was the last person amonst European leaders who really wanted a full scale European war.
Complain about this comment
128 DurstigerMann
Thank you for your kind words.
As regards Kaiser Wilhelm I read recently that he tried to end the slaughter on the Western Front as early as 1916 but his offer was turned down. What a waste of all those men - never again.
As for ignoring historical facts, I'm afraid the victors still dictate their version of events for now. I think it was Mao Tse Tung who when asked for his response to the question of the significance of the French Revolution said: "It's too earlly to tell."
Complain about this comment
128. At 1:58pm on 26 Aug 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
"""@121 margaret howard
excellent posting.
I would like to add that any claim that Emperor Wilhelm was the one who planned the violation of Belgian neutrality or that Germany single handedly started the war in which Great Britain had no choice but to join in order to save poor Belgium, blantantly ignores historical facts.
Every single nation wanted this war."""
False. The bulk of European nations had no particular interest in war of that scale. It had been political circles serving very specific financial circles moving across various countries in Europe as well as the States. If any state wanted this war more than others, that must had been Britain of course whose interests were better served through that war than through a continuous peace where Russians (2nd world oil exporter by 1909 while it was only on the first step of its industrialisation) and Germans (about to surpass Britain in population and industrialisation) would get bigger and bigger the soft-power way.
"""And Wilhelm probably was the last person amonst European leaders who really wanted a full scale European war.""""
Actually Wilhelm comes second last. Last was Tchar Nikolai.
Complain about this comment
130 Nic says:
"False. The bulk of European nations had no particular interest in war of that scale"
Yes, I agree with you although nobody could have predicted the horror new weapons technology would bring. I think England thought it would be just like another colonial war against people with inferior weaponry who could be easily defeated. Over by Christmas, was the general opinion. They had won their empire fighting men who had nothing more effective than spears, assegais or in some cases rusty guns sold to them by unscrupulous dealers to defend themselves with. Had they known that the first world war would spell the beginning of the end for the empire, they would never have become involed. Monumental misjudgment. But ultimately freedom for the world and now just one empire left to fall.
Complain about this comment
Of course no one wanted a war in the way WWI ended up to be.
However, I stay with my statement:
All big nations wanted the war, they just didn`t expect it to turn out like that.
They should have taken a look at the US civil war which foreshadowed technological development in full scale warfare.
Or the German-French, particularly the Battle of Sedan, where Krupp-artillery took a huge toll on the French army.
Not only the German high command was blind on both eyes to this development in warfare.
With Nikolai, I`d tend to agree. He was in a weaker position of power within his country compared to Wilhelm.
Complain about this comment
MargaretHoward
Re #131
Still bashing the 'English' I see and again from a little knowledge based on a whole number of prejudicial assumptions.
Let us take the popular 'myth', "..It'll be over by Christmas..".
Nothing of the sort was anticipated by the UK Government nor by the UK General Staff, e.g Lord Kitchener the Secrtetary of State for War predicted, the war would be won by whichever nation had the 'last million to throw into battle..' about as prescient as it gets. General French, Commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) stated, '.. our forces (140,00) will require tenfold recruitment if we are to do anything other than a holding operation..' and, '..the war cannot be won.. in the present year.. the Kaiser has too many in reserve for that occurrence..'.
In fact as opposed to Your assumption, 'Over by Christmas' was an expression first used by Germany's High Command as to their 'Tactical-Strategic' intention with the daring 'Schlieffen Plan'.
For sure there were newspapers on all sides who picked up on the theme that 'no modern war could last more than a few months' due to the logistical requirements.
However, none of them knew what we now know about 'Total War': The 'lads' who volunteered on all sides did not want to '..miss out..' on the'..scrap..' had all been brought up on those 'Colonial Wars' as You rightly say: Nevertheless, Your disdain for the 'English' exposes Your lack of ability to present a balanced view: The 'wars' were fought by ALL of European society against inferior armies, not just by the 'English', e.g. Germany in East Africa, Belgium in Central Africa, France in North Africa as well as those nations plus UK & others in campaigns in the Far East. If we also take into account Imperial Russia's experiences with Japan (a very 'modern' war fought by the Japanese) and the earlier Franco-Prussian war then we clearly see a pattern of relatively short wars which affected 'strategic' thinking/planning on all sides pre-WW1.
It wasn't 'colonial' wars brought into mind the atmosphere of 'over by Christmas', but a more general conclusion from much more recent warfare experiences and 'economic' factors in the advanced industrialised nations. However, none of the industrial nations had grasped exactly how far 'industry' could be put to use in war-time.
In fact the last real experience for the UK of 'warfare' in a 'colonial' sense was not against 'inferior' armed peoples but against the Boers in South Africa & it lasted 3 years, so, even less reason for the British/English to be careless to the possible consequences of a war in Europe.
Unfortunately Margaret, as with so much of Your anti-English jibing, You start from an ill-founded premise and end up contributing invalid points.
Hence Your 'just one empire left' (I make the assumption You mean the USA) is also completely off-reality! In Your clumsy bias You ignore the World about You, e.g. China & the Russian Federation, to say nothing of the EUropean Union's over-arching 'colonising' intentions!
Complain about this comment
MHoward
Re #129 & #131
Oh and Margaret, to mention 2 other small matters You & the greek raised concerning WW1:
1) It was Kaiser Wilhelm's chief of Imperial staff in the 1890s Count von Schlieffen who devised the Schlieffen Plan for a rapid advance & victory in the 'west': Pre-WW1 it was amended several times to take account of developments. And to carry it out it was of course the Kaiser who gave his Imperial Staff permission to include tiny Belgium in the overall 'plan' - - a plan the Kaiser insisted be enacted in full when brave Belgium refused the Imperial Army permission to entrain and cross its territory in order to invade northern France.
You of course sided with the 'greek' whose knowledge & understanding in almost every matter debated on these Blogs leaves the majority of us breathless by his inexactitude, irrelevance & irredeemably poor quality!
2) Your 1916 Kaiser Wilhelm wanting an early peace was a classic of gleaning a tid-bit & making it a whole case just so as to berate the British/English!
In 1916 Kaiser Wilhelm put out very low-level peace-feelers in which his proposal was for almost 40% of Belgium inc. a Channel port plus a chunk of North-East France was to be ceded to Imperial Germany.
Of course, those little facts wouldn't prevent You from deciding & siding with the 'greek' it was all the fault of the 'English' the war continued another 2 devastating years!
Years that a certain Edinburgh born Scot profited from a great deal: But then Douglas Haig wouldn't figure in Your prejudiced history of the British Isles, would he!?
Whatever Mao's thoughts on anything it was a Prussian Officer in 1824 devised the first idea of 'Kriegsspiel' or 'War game': In the period 1903 to 1913 von Schlieffen's plan was rehearsed no less than 7 times according to National German Military archives - - that really is not the 'victors dictating facts', but the cold, hard reality.
You would do well to ponder a little longer on such matters (or at least do some decent research and not just flourish Your ignorance of history before us all).
Except for the 'poor, bally infantry' on all sides & fronts nobody emerges with much credit from WW1: The poppies in Flanders fields are not now replicated & sold simply as a publicity stunt by the Royal British Legion.
Your crocodile tears for the pre & post-1916 casualties is unworthy as You cheaply snipe at their commitment to a 'cause' they believed in, no matter how redundant it may appear through Your modern, cynical eyes.
Complain about this comment
@134 cbw
"Whatever Mao's thoughts on anything it was a Prussian Officer in 1824 devised the first idea of 'Kriegsspiel' or 'War game': In the period 1903 to 1913 von Schlieffen's plan was rehearsed no less than 7 times according to National German Military archives - - that really is not the 'victors dictating facts', but the cold, hard reality."
Now that you mentioned dates in the early 1900s, let`s face all the facts.
Which nation did invade the German area and occupied it? France.
No hard feeling here. Napoleon brought with him the code civil and - even though unintentionally - unified German nations in a feeling of national and cultural belonging and in their quest to drive out the invaders.
He was the godfather of the German Empire which came into existence after another 60 years and another war.
It was not that Franco-German and the following French revanchism or a German sense of superiority which lead to WWI.
The newly founded entity in the center of Europe was rushing into a late industrialization. It was bigger and more powerful than any other nation in Europe, yet too small to dominate them.
This nation was becoming increasingly powerful and under Wilhelm II tried to establish a colonial empire.
The old powers of Europe such as GB and France did not like this development and tried to contain Germany.
Bismarck was clever enough to outplay the surrounding powers against each other. Wilhelm II was, unfortunately, less clever diplomatically and tended to use a very harsh tone.
But even he pledged in front of the British parliament that Germany was not longing for war.
So why did every nation go to war? And why did nobody try hard to make peace?
-Germany found itself surrounded by potential enemies and therefore initiated the Schlieffenplan which, in essence, had the goal to start a preemtive war and crush France before the slow Russian military could mobilize. In the end only Belgium was invaded and GB deliberately joined the conflict.
Also Germans felt that they rightfully earned a "place at the sun" just as their Emperor promised them.
-France was angry with Germany ever since the last war and just longed for a chance to settle old scores. Also wanted to contain Germany.
-Russia tried to contain Germany.
- GB was unhappy about the German ambition to build a vast fleet to rival the Royal British Navy, which admittedly was quite undiplomatic from Wilhelm II. Also tried to contain Germany.
- Austria-Hungary was an empire which could not last in its entirety. Franz Joseph I gave in to his military and broke lose WWI.
All great (colonial) powers - let`s call them "global players" - of that time tried hard to contain Germany, to limit her development and power.
WWI gave them the opportunity to finally get rid of that new, strong entity.
A hundred years after the outbreak of WWI, there is no need anymore to keep the myth of a good entente against an evil German empire alive.
And this is where I get to the point: the victors of WWI dictated terms and facts. They rewrote history.
Germany would have done the same.
And had Germany not rushed through Belgium and just concentrated on defending against France, it probably would have been on the "good" side.
WWI was not a battle of good against evil of right against wrong. It was a clash of ideas and ambitions.
Complain about this comment
Durstigermann
Re #135
Aye! "..Napoleon.."?
Think You are 100 year wrong side of History mate: It was circa 1794-1815 'Boney' got his itchy feet, and in any case it was a Prussian Army ably assisted the British & coalition forces to whip him at Waterloo.
Quite right about the 'Encirclement' plans of the UK & France (plus in part Imperial Russia), but then the giant Bismarck Germany was looking for its 'place in the sun' and as You say that created tension on all sides.
I'm afraid no matter how You may wish to revise History the stark, clear facts are as follows:
1) WW1 began with Germany's ally Austria aggressive invasion of Serbia.
2) Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany honoured its obligations to Austria and was first to attack Belgium.
3) Part of the reason for that invasion of a part of the Low Countries was the prepared Schlieffen Plan which strategically envisaged a rapid victory over France in order for the Kaiser to turns his Armed Forces on Russia (the ally of Serbia).
I know it is all damned annoying & inconvenient for those who would rather History revealed a different image of the 'new' unified Germany, however, that is how events occurred.
We can all write the '..what if..' history where something else is proposed, and it is fascinating as an exercise in cause & consequence. We can get desperate & try to suggest with the benefit of hindsight that this or that was done and/or he/she did this because of... Makes for highy interesting conjecture and even more 'waht if..' History.
Unfortunately for You & others the events of late July-early August are self-explanatory: Germany, in alliance with Austria instigated a War of which among the consequences were the removal of the Dynasties that had wilfully led them into it. That is not the 'victors' History, that is the factual reality of August 1914 to November 1918.
Complain about this comment
I do not revise history. There are no "what if.." assumptions in my posting.
Regarding Napoleon, I mentioned him because you wrote about something like Prussian war games in 1824.
1. The Treaty of Brest Litovsk clearly shows that the German high command and politicians had no other understanding of "peace" than the Entente. Whoever wins takes it all. The idea of "Lebensraum" was already present in German public consiousness at that time.
Therefore, the sttatement that Germany would have not been fair had the Entente surrenderd, is not really an assumption.
Bismarck was clever enough a politician not to take much from France after the Franco-German war. Wilhelm II and his high command were different.
2. The claim that WWI began with the Austro-Hungarian attack is only true if you limit it to the order in which each nation declared war.
Many historians agree that WWI - on the long run - could not have been prevented.
It did not begin on August 1 1914, but decades before that with increasing feelings of animosity towards other nations and strong nationalist feelings. Literature of that time indicates this as well.
The consequence was an unprecedented arms race which no nation seemed to be willing to stop, because this would have meant to lack military power against a potential attack.
3. I strongly recommend you to read the Wilhelm II - Nikki telegraphs. It will be eye-opening. If you think that Wilhelm II wanted war against Russia lead by his favourite cousin or against Great Britain, which he considered his second home, you might be quite mistaken.
What you can blame him for is his lack of willpower to stop his military high command against public and political opinion in Germany.
4.quote: "Quite right about the 'Encirclement' plans of the UK & France (plus in part Imperial Russia), but then the giant Bismarck Germany was looking for its 'place in the sun' and as You say that created tension on all sides."
I will translate a small piece of a speech which Wilhelm II held on 6 August 1914:
"ever since the founding of this Empire, it has been a pleasure ensure peace throughout the world and to further our strong development. But our enemies begrudge our success. We are expected to remain passive while our enemies arm for an insidious assault...."
What he said reflects the public opinion in Germany of that time.
In their opinion, they were surrounded by multiple world powers trying to weaken and contain Germany.
The war would settle this score.
The Entente on the other hand - and particularly Great Britain - took that chance to defeat and weaken Germany. The setup at that moment was just too good. A weak Autro-Hungarian Empire as the only real ally for Germany, which would have to fight on all fronts. Peace was not on the agenda.
It would be ludicrous to assume some of the most violent colonial powers in history were poor victims attacked in a war of pure aggression by the evil German Empire.
They were just as willing to use force in order to further their interests. Even the "neutral" Belgium, a colonial power to blame for many problems in modern Africa, was all but an innocent victim.
The bigotted and twisted reasoning of France and especially GB against the German intent to gain colonies is one of the most overlooked factors regarding WWI.
They didn`t want Germany to become any stronger.
And they deemed war to be a good solution to this problem just as the German high command thought that 1914 would be better than to wait for a fast growing Russian army.
WWI was not WWII. There was no evil empire or force that wanted to conquer the world.
And the Triple Entente definitely did not consist of humanitarian, peaceful nations.
I really thought even in Britain they already stopped conveying this idea.
Complain about this comment
Durstigermann
I appreciate all Your suggestions, but the reality will not change.
Of course 'all' wars have their origins in past decades: That is not the issue.
As to whether it was inevitable, well, I suggest that is a classic 'what if..': Yes there may have been a different outbreak from the actual one, but there was not, neither before nor after (if You see what I mean).
Thus, we must stick with 'what is..' and not 'what if/may/perhaps... etc.'
The 'what is..' are the facts of the outbreak and they are distinct, incontrovertible and plainly do not reflect well on Germany & Austria-Hungary.
Neither France nor Great Britain in the 'west' fired the first shot; neither invaded neutral Belgium; neither invaded Germany's 'western' border: All those episodes in the first days are down to Germany.
Serbia did not invade Austria; Russia did mobilise as a reaction to Austria which it knew was in military alliance with Germany which in the last week of July 1914 began its call-up & disposition of Armies to enact the Schlieffen Plan for a Two-Front War.
I say again, it is 'annoying & inconvenient' for those who would rewrite/revise the many paths that led to a general war in Europe, but the actual outbreak of that War is down to the deliberate activities of all the so-called 'Great Powers', but in particular those of Germany & Austria-Hungary.
Hindsight is a useful tool, but it will not change Historical fact.
I'm puzzled as to why You are referring to the Triple Entente as if I had made some claims about its 'humanitarian' actions/policies!? Nothing of the sort is contained in any comment by me.
British Education in History is reasonably accurate so far as I can judge in comparison with any other nation: That You object to some reality being presented is unfortunate but cannot be used to alter that reality.
Maybe it is fashionable & politically productive today (re EU) for France, Germany & the Low Countries to write a soft version where there is no 'aggressor' and it was all the fault of misguided Monarchs & a few conniving Politicians & Ambassadors. Sure enough, if we examine all the grounds for the outbreak of the War there are faults on all sides (as I have previously written & agreed). It is a perfectly normal method of historical assessment used all the time by British Historians (I commend to You, 'Thirteen Days' by Clive Ponting & 'Germany's Aims in the First World War by F.Fischer, plus J.Joll's Origins of the First World War). I understand by the English National Curriculum for History the average English pupil in 2010 is aware 'war' is not the result of only 'good' side v 'bad' side.
Which adds to my concern that You would have the nerve to suggest anything I had contributed to this discussion implied 'evil empire' out to 'conquer the world' when nothing is further from the case. What I have the nerve to suggest to You is that You don't like the 'facts' as they are and would rather everyone went along with the 'soft' version whereby responsibility is parcelled out to one & all in a pan-National mea culpa.
Sorry, but I will not be obliging You: The outbreak of the war on the European mainland in August 1914 stemmed from aggression toward their neighbours by the Central Powers, namely Germany & Austria-Hungary.
It was in response to that aggression the Triple Entente (the encircling Powers) entered the war with very mixed & far from altruistic motives of their own. All the same, whilst the Triple Entente could have stood back & done nothing at all it is to be remembered that had those aggressions gone unchallenged (as we all know from the 1930s) then further encroachments would have more than likely followed (though it is the realm of 'what if..'). Only in that sense the War in Europe was inevitable and therefore all the Great Powers can share some responsibility, but NOT for the initial outbreak.
Complain about this comment
You cannot evaluate history just based on cold numbers, completely taken out of context.
You are right that Germany did nothing to deescalate and put a stop on the events unfolding. Nobody stopped Austro-Hungery from attacking Serbia, which was actually quite cooperative.
The German Empire was responsible for the outbreak of WWI to a significant degree. I do not disagree here.
When Russia began with the general mobilisation, Germany promptly reacted and put forth the Schlieffenplan, which was already in preparation at that time. The Entente could not just sit by.
Also no disagreement.
What I am talking about, though, is that Germany also was in a situation in which it could not just sit and watch.
The Schlieffenplan was developed and executed out of the fear of a war on two fronts.
Fischer`s thesis that the German Empire started the war in cold blood to further its interests has long been revised, relativised,corrected and complemented.
I suggest to read Jürgen Kocka on this.
The consensus basically is that Fischer, while his thesis included a lot of relevant and true facts, just went too far in blaming everything on Germany. This is true especially for his later publications.
Historical science in Germany today knows much more about the other European players of that time, their interests, ambitions and politics.
Anyway, what I am trying to convey is simply this:
Germany pulled the trigger first, but the others had their guns up and ready as well.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS