Cameron's EU budget battle
For some weeks now David Cameron has been arguing against the proposed 6% increase to the EU budget. He and his ministers have used words like "outrageous" and "unacceptable".
The prime minister made "freezing" the budget his ambition. "We can't ask our members of the public to pay more in the UK and have to pay more in Europe as well." Yesterday in the House of Commons he was back in the same groove. "We've called for a cash freeze in the size of the EU budget for 2011," he said.
The expectation grew that after a honeymoon with Europe the prime minister was intending to go into battle to avoid Britain paying an extra £900 million a year. Gradually it took root that his greatest priority was to get the EU budget under control.
Then late yesterday and early today his officials briefed that he had accepted that a freeze on the 2011 budget was impossible. The curious part of this is that it was known over the summer that a freeze was not on the cards. Back then the EU Council of Ministers had agreed that they would settle for an increase of 2.9%. Britain did not agree to this, but without a veto had to accept it. An increase of 2.9% would mean that Britain would end up paying an extra £500 million.
That was the agreed negotiating position for talks with the European Parliament, which had voted for a 6% increase. Those negotiations, under the auspices of the Commission, are about to get under way. It would be very difficult if not impossible for Britain to change the EU Council's position.
The second curious fact is that the budget for 2011 is not formally on the summit agenda. David Cameron will have to raise it on the fringe of the discussions or in bilateral meetings. So the attention of the UK press is on an issue that barely warrants attention elsewhere.
Now Downing Street has stressed that the prime minister is playing a long game and that his main interest is in the budget that runs between 2013 and 2020. Negotiations over that are just beginning and David Cameron is searching for allies. He is not alone. The Danes, the Dutch, the Swedes, the Austrians and a few others share his view that at a time of austerity Europe has to join in.
And that brings us to the main agenda of the summit. The 27 heads of government are focused on setting up a new system to ensure that there is no re-run of the Greek debt crisis. In future there will be sanctions to prevent countries running up excessive deficits. There is also a plan to set up a permanent crisis mechanism in place of the current bail-out funds that are due to expire in three years.
Chancellor Merkel has surprised and angered some other leaders by insisting that such significant changes require a change to the Lisbon Treaty. She wants any change to be legally watertight, knowing that it would be examined by the German constitutional court. Angela Merkel seems to have an ally in President Sarkozy, but few others.
Mr Cameron is against treaty change. It if involved new powers going from Westminster to Brussels then it might trigger a referendum in Britain. But that is unlikely. Britain has an opt-out from any sanctions.
He is instinctively opposed to treaty change for another reason. Some of his backbenchers may see it as an opportunity to try and claw back some powers to London.
But in the horse-trading that is how business is done in Europe, Mr Cameron might just offer to back a treaty change if Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy were to support him in his campaign to restrict future increases in EU spending. He is a leader in search of new allies.
It was interesting to note that when David Cameron arrived in Brussels he focused in his public comments on resisting a 6% increase. He did not refer to the 2.9%. It could be that he is preparing the ground for eventually having to agree to a final increase above the 2.9% but lower than 6% - still enough for him to claim a kind of victory.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~05~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Pay the increase by taxing to 100% the CAP of the British land owning Aristocracy ?
Complain about this comment
Post Lisbon changes almost everything but qualified majority voting was not designed to help the UK! We can be easily outvoted now if the French and the Germans pull in the favours.
Cameron needs to be extremely negative in private conversations with these 2 countries in particular about any treaty amendments or indeed new treaties. If Merkel or Sarkozy want to amend any treaties or implement new ones then the opportunity is there for him to veto them, irrespective of whether or not they affect the UK. He should resist everything until they give up something in return. Don't accept any promises to review things, just accept concessions as the quid pro quo.
Complain about this comment
With Governments throughout Europe cutting expenditure and increasing taxes to reduce budget deficits, why should EU budgets be exempt from similar cuts?
David Cameron should therefore be pressing for substantial cuts and in the EU budget in order to reduce our net contribution to the EU.
Complain about this comment
Cameron's EU budget battle, a battle of his own chosing, a battle of Brits' choosing.
The EU, whether Cameron appreciates it or not, whether Brits as a whole appreciate it or not, is a growing concern with united propspects for all of the EU. Personally, 6% does not strike me as "outrageous" & "unacceptable." e.g. If the EU achieves an FTT (Financial Transaction Tax), which may very well happen, does Britain intend to stick with its rather rinky-dink bank levy, or will it accept FTT. If Britain excepts FTT, it will gain WITH INTEREST this sorelly contested 6% increase that has actually dropped to 2.9%.
Cameron: "We can't ask our members of the public to pay more in the UK and have to pay more in Europe as well."
Yes you can, IF there were not such an extremely hostile attitude in Britain against the EU that is being fed more negativity day-by-day. I don't know if Britain well ever change its attitude. The EU is not seen as an umbrella organization that could render good decisions, beneficial decisions where Britain and all other EU members are concerned; in Britain the EU is more or less seen as an external enemy.
Officials now say that a freeze on the 2011 budget is impossible. Well, I can't say that the Coalition Government jumped the gun on this one since the fact of the impossibility was well-known over the summer months. It was generous for the EU Council of Ministers to settle for an increase of 2.9%. Even this Britain did not agree to. It just didn't have a veto...
Downing Street has stressed that the PM is playing the long count; his main interest is in the 2013 and 2020 budgets. Negotiations over that are just beginning and David Cameron is searching for allies. A lot depends on what the EU is able to accomplish between 2011 and 2013.
Greek crisis, need for permanent crisis mechanism, expiration of temporary mechanism 2013 - all of this is well-known, and of course is why the Lisbon Treaty MUST BE tweaked.
Merkel wants any tweak to be legally watertight; she knows that the current, temporary measure is temporary only, looks and feels too much like a bail-out, places the additional weight on the taxpayer, and might be challenged in the Courts. Are these not good reasons to get a permanent mechanism into place?
Mr Cameron is against any treaty change. He dances around explaining that a referendum won't be necessary of this new mechanism applies only to countries using the Euro, if there are no transfer of powers to Brussels. He hates the thought of that referendum. I hate the hostility between the EU and Britain.
To Cameron I say: Get on with it. Do your referendem bit! What are you waiting for? Let's get this matter done - you are either in the EU or not. I'm tired of this iffy-wffy halfway stuff!
I asked before and I ask again, if the EU achieves an FTT will Britain refuse to participate in that too?
I guess not.
Complain about this comment
Oh for a political leader in England that doesn't have jelly for a backbone...
Unfortunately, they're either too close to the EU or just don't want to rock the boat.
Honestly! How hard is it to tell Europe to get lost & we'd like our money back please?
At least 2/3 of the English would drop EU like a bad habit (No idea what the Jocks & the Welsh want, but that's their problem) in an instant, but we're more likely to see a fly-by by the Avian Pigs Circus, than to ever get a referendum on the matter.
Which means all we can do is complain bitterly, whilst the europeans grouse about us being not into the contnental ideal
So absolutely no-one's happy :P
Complain about this comment
A permanent crisis mechanism must be in place for the permanent crisis.
Complain about this comment
An increase any kind of "victory", when so much else is being cut? That would be a *very* hard sell for Mr Cameron.
The EU claims to be serious about helping to resolve the economic problems of its member countries, but doesn't forcing them to no doubt borrow even more to pay its increased financial demands send out rather a contradictory message?
A message that prioritises greed, and a desire to feather their own already luxurious nests, rather than both face Europe's economic reality and align with the experiences of Europe's peoples at this time.
If the EU does not join in the austerity and drastically cut back its spending in line with cuts being made in member states, it can only become even more distant from people and, ultimately, only hasten its own demise in its current, over-centralised form.
Complain about this comment
Blueberry wrote
["Cameron: "We can't ask our members of the public to pay more in the UK and have to pay more in Europe as well." Yes you can, IF there were not such an extremely hostile attitude in Britain against the EU that is being fed more negativity day-by-day. I don't know if Britain well ever change its attitude. The EU is not seen as an umbrella organization that could render good decisions, beneficial decisions where Britain and all other EU members are concerned; in Britain the EU is more or less seen as an external enemy.]
I can assure you that comments such as this only serve to enforce the negative attitude to the EU which you say you deplore!
We are paying through the nose for the EU and it appears that we have no control over the budget or the way our money is spent. In fact, you give the impression that David Cameron should not even be questioning the budget! With cuts widespread at home, why should the taxpayer here be expected to pay more to the EU?
The EU is seen as wasteful, dictatorial and expensive and Joe Public would be hard placed to list any benefits which makes the cost of membership worthwhile. Thank goodness we are not in the Euro Zone!
I don't think the EU is as popular in the rest of the EU as you might like to think it is. The Lisbon Treaty was pushed thought without asking the people of Europe if they supported the Treaty and the one country Ireland where a referendum was held voted No first time round. The promises made to the Irish to get them to vote Yes at the second referendum have yet to be incorporated into a Treaty.
Complain about this comment
#4 BluesBerry. In a comment on one of Mark Mardell's blogs you say that there is no longer democracy in the US. How much democracy is there in the UK when even virulently pro-Europeans like yourself, to your credit, admit the majority of Brits do not wish their country to be part of the EU? The answer is that, on the subject of EU membership, there is no democracy.
"It was generous for the EU Council of Ministers to settle for an increase of 2.9%". The US may or may not be governed by Wall Street and other big business, to be honest I rather fear that is true, and true also of the UK, but even more undesirable in my opinion, is being governed by an elite of unaccountable self serving bureaucrats and corrupt politicians, very well versed in dipping their hands in other people's pockets for their own gain.
Complain about this comment
#1. At 4:41pm on 28 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"Pay the increase by taxing to 100% the CAP of the British land owning Aristocracy ?"
Lets start by examining the affairs of such heroes of the left wing, Tony Benn, who renounced his title but nothing else and whose privileged son has carried on as his father. There are many left wingers who have been milking the privileged system for years, time they were outed don't you think?
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
Cameron is spinning his head off and most broadcasters are falling for it.
He wanted a 0% rise but has lost and will be forced to accept a 2.9% rise - so he is spinning that is would have been 6%
Why aren't the other journalists doing their job and calling this for what it is dishonest spinning by the most superficial Prime minister we have ever had.
Complain about this comment
Cast-iron Cameron is a hopeless negotiator. In exchnage for agreeing to a permanent treaty chnage that would advance fiscal federalism, the cast-iron One is seeking a one-year freeze in the EU budget? And not even getting that??
Cameron needs to negotiate like-for-like; a reduction in EU power over us, in return for agreeing to Brussels increasing its power over eurozone states.
Cast-iron Cameron and vague Hague unfortunately have created the impression thay they are pushovers who will climb down whenever told to. France and Germany are beginning to think they do not even need to throw Cameron breadcrumbs to get him to agree to their latest treaty change stich-up.
Complain about this comment
Get us out of this dreadful organisation, we did not need it before, and we certainly don't need it now.In context, the I understand, 12 billion we give annually to the EU would have reduced Labour's deficit by half in 5 years without all the supposed cuts now in the pipeline.Why should British taxpayers be facing cuts in our own public services while subsidising the most inefficient and corrupt organisation it's possible to imagine and at the same time giving cash to Eastern European economies that must think we are a soft touch. Give us a referendum.
Complain about this comment
This is a none story. 6% is already off the table and Cameron has already agreed to 2.9% as have the rest of the EU. It is just a fassard so the Tory press can hail Cameron savin the UK 3.1% of the bud.
Complain about this comment
Please correct me, but doesn't David Cameron have the same bunch of advisers from the permanent government as Blair and Brown?
David Cameron will not take any advice from anyone else - but here goes...
Join the Euro now.
Take part in Europe.
Complain about this comment
#14. At 7:59pm on 28 Oct 2010, mja
Almost right, but you should have said the pro-EU press, as such a farcical saving is simply geared to spin the EU as being 'responsible', oink oink.
As for the UK rebate, any swerve on that is akin to being a traitor, but there is one simple solution, No CAP means no need for a rebate.
Complain about this comment
When will we - the British people - get a chance to express our opinion about whether or not we want to continue to be part of this shambles?
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Re #15
Couldn't agree less.
UK has been 'in' EUrope since 1973: UK has cooperated with the EEC and post-Maastricht with the EU in almost every aspect of its policies, rules & regulations.
UK 'Opt-outs' have been few: In the main they have been related to the unique position of G.B. as the British Isles and not about general policy eminating from Brussels.
Whether one agrees or not with the possible 'opt-in/out' on these matters it is every 1 of the EU27 right & responsibility to make those decisions on behalf of their Peoples. And, plenty of EU States have used the 'opt-out' besides G.B.
UK has a Currency that historically has served it well: There is no evidence the Pound contributed anymore to the Economic Recession than membership of the EUro-zone managed to protect any of its Nations from that same Recession.
UK 'tabloids' have for decades enjoyed the knock-about 'loony EU rules' stories etc., and some UK Citizens cannot think beyond these daft scares: However, the UK Citizens are also exposed to 'pro-EU' media etc. and genuinely serious debates: E.g. October 2010, the UK Chancellor has just announced Public Spending 'Cuts' running into Billions how can EU-Brussels realistically expect UK Citizens to accept a 5.9% Increase in the EU Budget?
The EU does itself no favours with this arrogant, avaricious manner at such a difficult time for so many.
Similarly, the arrogant, avaricious UK Parliaments of the last 2 decades, post-Maastricht, that have wilfully denied the British Citizens any consultation via a Referendum on EU Membership or aspects of that membership has completely undermined the EU-Brussels' entity in the eyes of much of that UK public.
I submit the UK/England 'Political-Governmental-Economic/Trade UK' has 'taken part in EUrope' for decades: IMO the overall evidence is that whilst there are some plusses to membership the minus side has mounted up post-Maastricht. The constant 'centralising' of controls that are slowing enterprise 6 initiative (the most recent being the additonal 'oversight' of City & Banks - - a clear attack on the London Financial sector), the encroachment of the ECJ' judgements into 'political' elements of National sovereignty, the ermergence of a push for a EUropean defence Force & breakaway from NATO, the implausible EUropean Parliament claim to a Mandate with 4 consecutive EP Elections failing to receive even 50% Voter Turnout and so it goes on...
IMO, on balance a winning argument for those who back withdrawal.
However, IMO that argument is far from convincing and I would not agree with those who claim the British would overwhelmingly Vote to quit the EU. I would say as no one has given the British a voice in this issue or previous significant EU moments, e.g. the defunct 'constitution' or the Lisbon Treaty it is likely many Britons will feel disadvantaged and distrustful of their UK Government dealings with EUrope and of the EU: The matter has still to be tsted via the Ballot box for a clear direction to emerge.
PS: Cameron-Hague-Clegg will 'sell out' completely on the EU Budget demand as have all previous PMs: They will return voicing propaganda satisfaction at having 'talked tough' & 'banged the table' in Brussels. They'll come away with a Two-Stage EU Budget increase that will cover everyone's embarrassment at folding up infront of Brussels.
Complain about this comment
I feel this is a non-story. We all know the EU governments will not agree a 6% increase, so does the EU parliament and so does the BBC. The increase in the budget is likely to be around the 3% we have been told our government will agree to and then Cameron will claim a significant victory and everybody, including the BBC, will say how well he has done.
The whole process is just a cynical exercise. I'm not against the increase just the way politics and the media work.
Complain about this comment
--✄-- The prime minister made "freezing" the budget his ambition. "We can't ask our members of the public to pay more in the UK and have to pay more in Europe as well." --✄--
The Germans played a significant roll to that crisis against and on behalf our Greek needs...France did the same by, in some way, supporting us. So it comes natural to those countries to be Key roles to all EU matters.
EU chessboard
♜♞♝♚♛♝♞♜ France
♟♟♟♟♟♟♟♟ (pro France policy)
▓░▓░▓░▓░▓░▓░
░▓░▓░▓░▓░▓░▓ ✉ 凸 game clock
▓░▓░▓░▓░▓░▓░ |̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅| UK-EU role: "freeze" the EU budget
░▓░▓░▓░▓░▓░▓
♙♙♙♙♙♙♙♙ (pro Germany policy)
♖♘♗♔♕♗♘♖ Germany
Ireland, Spain, Portugal, had same Greek destiny in one way or another and Italy is on the road to hell too.
All other EU countries passively remained on their seats, watching, cheering, gossiping and taking part from one or the other side as spectators.
It maybe a rapid EU chess (UK freeze the EU budget) game or shorter as blitz chess game or maybe a bullet chess game but certainly it's without the UK since never played EU ball and by acting in such way, naturally, UK hasn't got EU allies as long such countries play EU ball...
...and as far it concerns to me it's the most insignificant EU member...for the good and the bad moments. A EU mosquito to a EU Celebrity Survivor show...i admit, has the power to spread EU malaria
Complain about this comment
What may one expect from a pig but a grunt?
Russia is building it's energy delivery infrastructure eastwards to the Asian markets, and the USA is fighting multiple wars half way around the globe in order to secure its empire's free energy lunch.
Meanwhile, the landed gentry of old Europe whisk their puppets around an increasingly impoverished stage, sucking the remaining blood from their host to the increasing dismay of that host, a downtrodden and disillusioned audience of political serfs.
What must the rest of the world think of Europe, as they consider that Germany is soon to run out of coal and Britain soon to be exposed as a fourth rate military power?
Increasingly, the view of Europe in Switzerland's press is that world events are leaving the EU behind. Switzerland has a uniquely international perspective. Despite a large amount of trade with the EU, the Swiss have long known that diversity in international trade, combined with a strong local political and social economy, are the only peaceful path to prosperity.
Russia is sacrificing material reserves for the sake of an emerging feudal class of war lords. The USA is sacrificing civil rights and technology for the same.
Europe is desperate to sacrifice something to sustain the myths of its own warlord class, but the unhappy truth is that Europe has neither a real warlord class, nor anything worth sacrificing for the sustenance of that elite group of robber barons.
Europe is living from the intellectual work and military power of fives generations past. It is feeding from the brains of those Europeans who are now long dead and rotted into the earth. It is not even in the game of feudal power struggles between Empires.
Its only hope is to turn to the creativity and imagination of its young people, and yet the ruling elite seem determined to beat the youth senseless with the absurd fantasies and obsolete myths of a bygone age.
America is closer to an intellectual reformation than Europe, and yet it is a thousand times less in need of the event. It is an interesting world.
Complain about this comment
Re #20
Snigger... (honest, I tried to stifle it, honest I did..)
Complain about this comment
The mechanism by which the annual EU budget is decided has an automatic bias towards one-way expansion. The system is based on proposals from the Commission which has an institutional self-interest in a larger budget. Not surprisingly they only ever propose increases in the budget.
The member states can only modify the Comission proposal if all 27 agree unanimously to do so. This is highly unlikely in any issue and beyond the realm of fantasy in an Eu where the majority of states are net recipients of Brussels largesse.
The proposal from the Commission requires the agreement of both the Eu council of ministers (I.e. A qualified majority of governments) and the Eu so-called parliament. The latter however shares the same institutional self-interest as the Commission in a larger budget so it will always vote for at least the amount proposed by the Commission. The Commission will always therefore make a proposal for an increase which it thinks will only just avoid being rejected by the Eu council of ministers.
This year the Commission judged it finely that a proposal for a 2.9% increase would be opposed by a group of net-contributing countries (UK, Netherlands, Austria, Scandinavia) just 3 votes short of the blocking threshold. It assumed as a given that the eu parliament would vote for a higher budget still and that the final increase would end up being decided in concilliation procedings somewhere between what it had it proposed and the EU so-called parliament demanded.
Basically when 2 of the 3 institutions have a permanent institutional self-interest in an increased budget the only question remaining is how big the increase will be. That is the Lisbon system that will be used year after year after year, with an 'ever increasing budget' being the pre-programmed outcome; year after year and year. And that money for Brussels must be taken out of the taxes you might rather see going to public services. Maybe socialists should have thought about that before railroading Lisbon through.
Furthermore, this system can only be modified with the agreement of the Eu parliament who have no interest in ever agreeing to a change in the current system when it more or less guarantees them an increased budget every year.
This is the type of thing that those of us opposed to Lisbon were warning about before it's ratification, and which the rest of you will be paying for indefinitely no matter how you vote in any future election.
Complain about this comment
Hold on - a budget that is not acceptable. Limit the increase - HOW ABOUT A COMPLETE CUT BY 20% and throw these people in the bin of history - these people are disgusting. They are simply parasites of no value in any process which adds value. In any business they would be on the first rung of redundancy and yet they are being put upon us. We can't even audit them. PWC will not even sign off their accounts - not for one year but all of them. They are an affront to common sense let alone decency or any concept of democratic mandate - FIRST THE BANKERS have ripped the population off and now the gravy train continues to QUASI POLITICIANS - I DEMAND A VOTE - I WANT RIGHTS - I WANT DEMOCRACY, I WANT A CHANCE TO SAY NO. I don't want to be governed by these people in BRUSSELS. I never elected them either. I OWE NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY PRESIDENT, NOR ANY EU COMMISSION. THEY HAVE NO MANDATE AND I SEE THEM AS AN ENEMY.
Does this make sense because I guess half the population thinks the same, a quarter are on facebook, 10% are watching Eastenders. ONLy 5% MAY VOTES FOR THE EU COMMISSION.
Complain about this comment
#21. At 9:30pm on 28 Oct 2010, democracythreat
"Its only hope is to turn to the creativity and imagination of its young people"
Er, have you forgotten that the most resounding success of Socialist Europe is to dumb down the level of education so that everyone has a worthless bit of paper just for being able to write their name on the top of it. As for creativity, well unless that involves a playstation or similar forget it, most countries work on the scenario that in order to employ more teachers the young must stay in education until just before pension age (dry joke).
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon wrote:
""Join the Euro now.
Take part in Europe.""
Oh dear! I thought even Europhiles knew that, in order to join the EU, member states had to run a budget deficit of no more than 3% of GDP. We dont qualify to join the Euro!
Thankfully we are not in the Euro, otherwise we would be in a severe recession, like Ireland. Ireland is trapped in the Euro without the freedom to control their own interest rates, their exchange rate and their monetary policy. The Irish Govt is having to rely on fiscal measures alone to reduce their budget deficit which shows the folly of joining the Euro.
Complain about this comment
#18. cool_brush_work wrote:
Are you really trying hard to damage the UK, couldn't you manage to destroy more jobs - go on try harder?
British prosperity will not come from banking it will come from making things once again and doing something that employs the mass of the British people. We have to minimise our costs to be competitive in line with the competition. Getting rid of the currency uncertainty is a really good way to achieve this - indeed if we don't we are directly damaging our chance of success - but that is just what you want isn't it!!
Complain about this comment
#27
What would have happened if the UK had gone through this recession without the option to print money (at an interest rate of its own choosing) and have its currency float downwards? You should go back and revisit what happened in 1992 if you want a reminder.
"British prosperity will not come from banking it will come from making things once again and doing something that employs the mass of the British people."
But that IS the reality John, and it will take decades to diversify. What has any UK government, of any flavour, done in living memory to stimulate diversification? They talk about Green jobs, but who built and installed all those wind turbines off Essex? Wasnt it a Swedish and a Danish company? Why isnt Britain building wind turbines? Britain gave up on heavy manufacturing and we are now paying the price.
Complain about this comment
Do politicians ever listen to ordinary people? Its not a dumb question. Rephrase - do politicians ever do what the majority wish? Sorry, I keep asking the wrong question - do politicians ever give people the right to make decisions about their destiny? Damn it, I will rephrase once more - do politicians do anything which is not in their personal interests?
I think many people begin to ask the right question.
Here the French people don't want any of this and nor do any of the peoples of Europe in a vast majority. The problem is they are never asked. Recession has been here since living memory. The lower quartile of earners have known nothing different ever and have been enslaved by state dependency where the greatest ambition for your children is to become a member of a privileged group on a predefined ladder which is political or as part of the administration. A bit academic but Kafga is real here. It is not fiction. The second is to get your children out of Europe to America or just about anywhere else where their wings may not be clipped. If all else fails, the ultimate ambition for the brightest academically is getting a job with the EU in some capacity, followed by a government job (now second rate - I think we can all see that here looking at them), followed by a regional council job (definitely third rate but tend to have better hearts), followed by a job at the lowest level in a village Mairie (highly competitive). Words like meritocracy, free markets, starting a business, being an entrepreneur are dirty words. And it is not just those on the political left but all governments of all colors and persuasions. It has become nothing more than a stitch up.
An aside: All the reporting about state pensions in France is rubbish that I have seen . Most back home are in a far better position. Here we have politicians telling the population to do 42 years of actual work against 30 years in the U.K. and yet for those very priveleged politicians the pension arrangements are disgustingly different.
All I would like to see are credible politicians and political parties who will dissolve his monster in all countries of Europe and get back to adding value in the world rather than sucking like leeches of those that work and those which try to create businesses. Whether they be the Bransons of this world or the guys which fix my car in the local garage. We want small governments, small taxes and less regulation. We want less laws, less administration and less of everything these unelected people dictate. We want less (correction none of them too). I am basically one very dissatisfied customer. I want my money back and a choice not to go shopping in their their shop anymore.
Complain about this comment
What I don't quite understand is why, if promises made at the election can be broken because 'things are worse than we thought' can we not break similar 'agreements' with the EU about funding any increase whatsoever. The Prime Minister needs to sharpen up his act when it comes to Europe. Why would anyone agree to paying a penny more to Europe when we are having to entertain such savage cuts at home. What's 'blood curdling' to use a term from that non-entity, the Shadow Minister for Europe, is that we're even negotiating about this at all. Quite simply Cameron needs to summons up the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher 'No, no, no!'.
Complain about this comment
If the British government had the slightest ounce of spine and integrity it would tell Brussels it will cut its contribution to the EU by the same percentage it will cut its domestic budget. And it would tell Brussels that if there are any reprisals it won't give them any money at all because it will pull out. But that won't happen. If it did, how would the Macaroon and the Clegg he stands on become MEPs and lords following in the path of that man of the people Neil Kinnock?
Complain about this comment
#10 Buzet 23
I thought you wanted your money back ?
Britain still has the power to raise taxes --without asking the EU.
The Mayor of London (?) has just protested against cutting or stoping RENT subsidies for London´s poor.
----and you support the CAP by arguing it would be socialist to use the money for Britain´s poor ???
Please explain--- adequately !
Complain about this comment
If Britain´s homeless are lucky --the CAP and tax increases will be used to repair the bridges.
Complain about this comment
This is rich! The Conservatives have long argued that the EU does not listen to its citizens, that it's all behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing between politicians and officials, etc. But now, when democratically elected representatives of EU citizens, i.e. the European Parliament put forward a proposal to increase the budget, Mr Cameron is using the very strategy that he has criticized and is scheming with other leaders to supress the will of the EU citizens expressed through their democratically elected representatives!
Complain about this comment
As long as we give money to the British Government they will hand some of it to the nauseating "EU".
We need to search for ways to legally avoid paying taxes so that they have less to give to the "EU"-Dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
Eleven EUSSR's member states reject Brussels-attempted raise.
If there is no agreement within 2 weeks the budget will be frozen at 2010 level.
So in the end Mr. Cameron may get his way after all.
Complain about this comment
Buzet: "There are many left wingers who have been milking the privileged system for years, time they were outed don't you think?"
If leftists had any moral backbone no member of the LABOUR Party would have ever accepted a "Sir" or "Lady" title.
But the rednecks did. As usual. :)
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic wrote:
When will we - the British people - get a chance to express our opinion about whether or not we want to continue to be part of this shambles?
Does anybody doubt what a result would be would be if British voters were allowed to have a referendum on UK's membership in EUSSR?
Just check recent polls.
Complain about this comment
MAII: how would the Macaroon and the Clegg he stands on become MEPs and lords following in the path of that man of the people Neil Kinnock?
More respect, please. That's SIR Neil!
Complain about this comment
Forgive me for being cynical here: I'm not a European and have no dog in this fight. I would like to point out, though, that you seem to be running Play #3 in the capitalist's Big Book of Strategies for dealing with the plebs: ask for 6% (knowing you won't get it), then respond to the people's howls by "compromising" to 2% (which is still a LOT better than nothing, probably more than what you were really hoping for in the first place, and still a -lot- more than you actually deserve).
We recognize this scheme here in the U.S. because we see it about once a month from one government authority or another. And remarkably -- it continues to work! Even in the EU, apparently.
Complain about this comment
At least he has the guts to stand up and argue against the raise. At a time when Britain is cutting back on expenses in many critical areas, an increase in the EU budget would really suck.
Complain about this comment
Re #40 "ask for 6% (knowing you won't get it), then respond to the people's howls by "compromising" to 2%"
Perhaps in the U.,S. but that's not how EUSSR works:
You ask for 6% knowing you won't get 12%, and you settle for 5.9%, claiming a compromise.
Complain about this comment
The first draft for the title of this article was: "Our hero, David Cameron, has travelled to the heart of Europe, the continent of Evil, to battle a budget increase designed only to suck pounds out of the British tax payer, with no benefits whatsoever."
But I guess the editors decided it was too long.
Complain about this comment
Could one of your many anti-EU contributors please explain the hysterical nature of so people's hostility to the EU.
I am broadly pro-EU; that doesn't mean I support everything the EU does, and in these times of spending cuts, I find it crazy that the EU is still considering increasing its budget.
I accept that many people disagree with me and are anti-EU. But why don't we discuss this in a calmer and more rational way? Britain is a member of signatory to many other international treaties and organisations. Whenever you sign up to such things, you voluntarily give up some of your sovereignty. As a member of the UN, we agree not to torture people and arrest them without strong evidence, which some people say hampers the fight against terrorism. More seriously (to my mind) we are members of the World Trade Organisation, which imposes many (to my mind rather intrusive) rules about how we organise our economy, and stops us should we wish to restrict foreign competition. But I never hear people ranting that we must leave the UN or the WTO immediately, and that anyone who disagrees is a traitor.
Reform the EU? By all means. But leave? No. #8, you say "Joe Public would be hard placed to list any benefits which makes the cost of membership worthwhile." What about the right of Brits to go and live/retire/work in any other EU country? You may not choose to exercise this right. But if we leave the EU, what do you expect to happen? Do you then want to let EU citizens living and working here stay, or do you want to send them home? If they stay, then what have we gained from leaving the EU? And if you want to send them home, do you seriously expect EU countries to let 1 million British expats stay? If not, we end up with a million disgruntled unemployed Brits arriving back on these shores having been thrown out of their homes and lost their jobs.
Sorry if this post is a bit long, and I don't mean to upset anyone. I just want to know why people get so worked up about this and not (say) about something I would consider more serious/urgent, such as destruction of the environment or human rights in Zimbabwe. If you disagree with me and think the scenario I have sketched out is OK, then let us just agree to disagree in a civilised way.
Complain about this comment
#44, You are correct, IMHO.
Some things need pointing out:)
Complain about this comment
#32. At 00:43am on 29 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
QOT, it was obviously late when you made your post #32 so I'll repeat both mine and yours as you went severly off track. After you have reread them can you either answer my question and/or explain just what you were on about in #32.
++++ QOT's post #32 ++++
#10 Buzet 23
I thought you wanted your money back ?
Britain still has the power to raise taxes --without asking the EU.
The Mayor of London (?) has just protested against cutting or stoping RENT subsidies for London´s poor.
----and you support the CAP by arguing it would be socialist to use the money for Britain´s poor ???
Please explain--- adequately !
++++ my post 10 referring to the following post by QOT on #1 ++++++++
#1. At 4:41pm on 28 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"Pay the increase by taxing to 100% the CAP of the British land owning Aristocracy ?"
Lets start by examining the affairs of such heroes of the left wing, Tony Benn, who renounced his title but nothing else and whose privileged son has carried on as his father. There are many left wingers who have been milking the privileged system for years, time they were outed don't you think?
Complain about this comment
#36. At 04:46am on 29 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
Just to be accurate, eleven member states of the EP did not vote against, certain MEP's of those member states did but apart from the UK it was a small sub section of the MEP's for those member states which voted against. In the UK only the Greens voted for the budget increase, which shows how inherently stupid they are.
Complain about this comment
#39. At 05:04am on 29 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
Quite so, as DT would probably say he deserves respect because he's been knighted, rofl, even though this is the man that as transport commissar sponsored speed humps everywhere, and when as anti-corruption commissar fired a whistle blower in his department. Oh and I forgot, the family were kept together in Brussels by his son getting a nice job, lovely family man, eh.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Re #27 & "..UK join the EUro.." plus '...cbw... trying to destroy UK'
Well, what's one man's meat is another's gravy I suppose!
You insist the EUro-zone is the UK/England's future: You claim that adopting the EUro Currency will enable the UK to create jobs that involve 'making things' again.
For the life of me I cannot make out how that dog's dinner menu has relevance to the UK/England doing better in business? I'm not even sure there is so much wrong at the present moment when the UK Economy's overall progression is compared with that of the EUro-zone's membership.
Under dogma-laden Thatcher the UK did catastrophically destroy whole chunks of manufacturing industry: It left 'rumps' in some areas that have never recovered & withered away or were picked-off at low prices by foreign rivals who now dominate those industrial areas of UK Production.
I suspect not a lot can be done to restore/revamp or reinvent (if You had that in mind) those more traditional manufacturing elements to the UK Economy no matter how allegedly magical are the EUro's fiscal powers.
More likely the UK/England manufacturing & trading economy should continue the path forced on it post-Thatcher's ruinous blight. Contrary to some foreign contributors' uninformed views of the UK Economy & indeed Your supposition UK/England does 'make things' & alot of them: Some heavy engineering, e.g. Factory machinery, tools as well as engines & transporters etc., however manufacturing has evolved & UK is a pace-setter of Hi-Spec/Hi-Tec equipment, significant chemical & biologic products and the 'new' sciences-technologies replacing 'fibre-optics'.
The EU is a significant Trading partner (60%), but 40% is outside it: The UK Pound would not seem to be an impediment because for sure outside the EUro-zone 15 nobody else is using it, but they also manage to Trade within & out of it. Similarly, whether in/out UK's 62million or England's 51million are not a 'market' that will shrivel or be ignored by the EU because there is profit to be made; likewise, the UK/England will still have its opportunities to trade with the Continent.
Why on earth would the UK not be able to negotiate terms for mutually beneficial deals when clearly the rest of the World manages to do so with the EU? Neither the Pound nor EUro is an impediment to those deals: It's a nonsensical argument.
Politically the UK does not need Brussels & frankly Brussels would do far better without the UK/England.
In Financially & Regulatory terms, the UK would be freed of the Economic stagnation Brussels' centralisation IMO is gradually developing across the Continent: The UK must free itself of this notion that prosperity only comes from 'bigness' & 'one-size-fits-all'; the EU's methods are the modern equivalence of an 'imperial' Economic policy and is doomed to fail.
An independent UK or if needs must a solely England has to break out of this mire of political-bureaucratic inertia so prevalent in EUrope: FGS it took 10 years to negotiate the Lisbon Treaty to the suitability of 27 Nations! A 'dog's dinner' of over-ripened regulation the 'pro-EU' claimed was only 'pulling together' various other Treaties already in-place: within 4 months of Lisbon's Ratification Paris-Brussels-Berlin are announcing there will have to be changes!
Just to slaughter the 'dog's dinner' analogy: In my view Brussels' supra-National shared trough has too many snouts in it to ever provide adequately for all, especially with half the members feeding of the other half: It is indigestible and the solution - - for the UK or England - - better out than in.
Complain about this comment
#44. At 08:01am on 29 Oct 2010, HeartOfOak58
There are very few here who are anti-Europe or anti-EU, but what we are is anti the current direction and structure of the EU. Most, like me, voted yes in 1975 and I even was an activist for that vote, but it was never envisaged, based on the documentation circulated, that the common market would evolve into the undemocratic autocracy that it has now. Faced with such blind one sided direction of the politicians, and since almost all parties apart from fringe extremists support this 'one size fits all' EU how do the population voice their discontent. In Belgium, which was obviously a founder member and one of the EU's greatest supporters there are many now very dissatisfied, but all parties except a few racist parties are for it, which is why only three of Belgium's 22 MEP's voted against the budget increase.
As for what would happen to those living elsewhere within the EU, well the easiest is to apply for citizenship in their country like I have, which means my son and I both have Belgium nationality. This is virtually a pre-requisite for a number of reasons with how the EU has developed. But in any case do you honestly think there would be mass expulsions from anywhere, what do you think happened before the EU, you simply applied for residence. There is nothing to suggest there would be a block on movement of people, just a bit more formality like before.
Complain about this comment
Cameron in or out make your mind up time the club aint for me and never was GET RID...
Complain about this comment
HeartofOak58
Re #44
And talking of 'hysteria'!
Where on this earth did You come to believe that a UK outside the EU would have to choose whether or not to kick-out EU Citizens from the UK or vice versa? Why would Britons or Europeans become persona non grata?
Outside the EU: What precisely changes about the idea of Europeans & Britons continuing to co-exist: Are Britons & Europeans going to stop holidaying, buying homes/property, doing business because the UK/England quits the EU?
UK is member of many very worthy International organisations: None of that changes outside the EU - - G.B. will be a sovereign Nation going about its international responsibilities as it has always done - - its political-economic-judicial voices will still be heard at the UNO, IMF, WTO etc.
It may be that not everything agreed will suit the UK, but then nothing about the EU suggests it has any preferential clout at any international conference (infact, last time around at 'Global Warming' meetings Pres Obama completely ignored Brussels).
UK could still play its part: Though there maybe pressures on it to give up such things as the UN Security Council seat - - fine by me - - let some of the so-called 'new' powers have a go at 'policing' the World (I'd enjoy seeing the likes of Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa etc. having to actually take a stand and not conveniently sit on the neutrality fence pointing the finger at the wicked 'west').
Complain about this comment
Re: #44 "Britain is a member of signatory to many other international treaties and organisations. Whenever you sign up to such things, you voluntarily give up some of your sovereignty."
Correct, however one usually knows what one's joined.
But in many comments posters not only from UK but also from other countries, such as Netherlands, e.g., express their frustration that years ago they voted "for something completely different" than EUSSR, that is for a membership in Common Market or European Economic Community, which made sense for them, and then have ended up in a completely different outfit for which they didn't vote, and against which they are not allowed to vote now.
And even in those few countries (such as France, Ireland, Netherlands) in which they were allowed to express their views on SOME aspects of EUSSR, such as, e.g. European Constitution, their votes didn't matter in the end. Not at all.
Perhaps that's why many of them find it difficult to remain calm and dispassionate.
BTW. I know Brits and other foreigners who reside and even work without any obstacles in countries which are not members of EU: e.g., Norway and Switzerland.
Just like I knew Brits and other foreigners who moved/retired to Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc., even BEFORE there was any EU.
Now, how do you suppose they managed to do that? Legally, to boot.
Perhaps some of them would explain it to us here.
Complain about this comment
QOT,
Watch "The Go Between." And you'll see it was the bitter few who really abused the power of their "class positions."
:)
Complain about this comment
#49. cool_brush_work wrote:
"For the life of me I cannot make out how that dog's dinner menu [joining the Euro] has relevance to the UK/England doing better in business?"
May I explain (yet again) why having a single currency in which to trade helps traders and manufacturers in goods. (As you seem not to understand the way that business works.)
I hope I am not treating you in a too childish manner but here goes:
I make things therefore I sell things. Furthermore I sell a substantial percentage of my things to customers who use a different currency. And I am in competition with local manufactures - let us call it the Euro.
Now my goods are sold for Euro and I get Euro, which because most of my costs are in Sterling I need to turn into Sterling. Now two things happen: first I have to pay a banker (spit!) to change my Euro into Sterling and second I am not certain how much Sterling I will get when I set my Euro price. So I suffer a known cost and an unknown cost. Neither of these costs is suffered by my competitors so they can both sell for less and/or make more profit than I can.
Going further: let us suppose I buy raw materials in Euro to make my product. I don't know for certain how much sterling it will cost me and of course I have to pay a banker (spit!) yet again.
These two activities can of course be offset by buying ans selling currency forward - this is a risk and requires management time and so costs me directly and indirectly - neither of these costs are suffered by my competitors.
Do you understand now why being inside the Euro will substantially assist the UK in trading competitively and profitably (or at least everyone except our banks!)
Also if you are so keen of self punishment why not allow the North of England to have its own currency, or Bristol etc.?
Further we need to have a sensible level of democratic control over the management of the currency and to ensure a fair and equal legislative and regulatory environment so we must be a full member of the EU not the insane ranting idiot detached relation on an offshore island prison colony!
Complain about this comment
#36. At 04:46am on 29 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
Just to be accurate, eleven member states of the EP did not vote against it.
To be accurate, Buzet, I did not say they VOTED against it.
As far as I know (please, correct me if I'm wrong) there was no valid vote on the matter yet.
I've simply relied on reports (incl. BBC's own) that leaders of 11 member states were against such a hike.
And (after double checking) I still see in different wire reports that unless there's an agreement on it before November 15, the budget will remain, out of necessity, on 2010 level.
Since you're much closer to the center of action (Brussels) than I am I'll appreciate your updates.
Complain about this comment
"You insist the EUro-zone is the UK/England's future: You claim that adopting the EUro Currency will enable the UK to create jobs that involve 'making things' again."
CBW, I travel a lot, and out of necessity convert US$s not only to euros, but also to Swiss franks and other currencies.
And I must say that all things considered British pound is holding surprisingly well.
Just as I hear, when in Germany, that everybody and their grandmother there would go back to their beloved DM the moment they'd be allowed to do so.
Complain about this comment
Buzet,
Please forgive me for not commenting on policies of Green parties in any country.
Complain about this comment
"(infact, last time around at 'Global Warming' meetings Pres Obama completely ignored Brussels)."
CBW, let the record show that all signatories of Kyoto Protocol have ignored it as well. So far. At least in practice.
Complain about this comment
"The UK Pound would not seem to be an impediment because for sure outside the EUro-zone 15 nobody else is using it, but they also manage to Trade within & out of it."
UK exports to many non-EU countries.
For example US buys a lot of British medicines and other products, including big ticket military gear.
Never heard that if those products were priced in euros rather than in pounds we'd buy more of them, or that British profit would be higher.
Complain about this comment
The only reason the 6% increase was mooted was to enable DC to claim some sort of Political Victory.
The budget is set, we have no say in it AT ALL thanks to the Lisbon Treaty and the nu-liebours signing away any control we may have had.
So thanks to Gormless Gordon, we have no way to control EU budgetary issues.
This is why there should have been a Vote on it in the first place, Lie-bour gave away our voting rights at the stroke of Gormless Gordon' pen.
No Cameron has his hands tied, makes all the sounds of someone preparing for a "proverbial" handbagging ala Thatcher, but in reality he has no voice and neither do we.
The best move for the UK right now, would to place an ultimatum before the EU and declare "we wont pay any increase whatsoever and we want a 10% cut in our contribution, else we walk and they get nothing!"
That would smash a huge ball and chain right through the EU budget and when they refuse (as they will) we can get out of that god forsaken mess they call the EU!
Complain about this comment
#55. At 09:37am on 29 Oct 2010, John_from_Hendon
You seem never to have used an accounting system that works with multiple currency books, if you have then you would not have come out with the simplistic point you made. With such accounting systems you have a monthly rate which is used for general day to day items, and an end of month currency gain/loss reconciliation. Now that's not very difficult or complex is it, as all of the many companies I've worked at as an IT consultant in accounting systems found no problem with that.
The very small gain by having a single currency with just the Eurozone is very much outweighed by the major failing of the Euro, you lose control of your interest rate leaving only fiscal policy as a regulatory mechanism. While times are good this is not so important, but now, with a recession, that is critical to survival, just look at why Greece and others are still struggling as they can't regulate their economies sufficiently.
Complain about this comment
"There is nothing to suggest there would be a block on movement of people, just a bit more formality like before."
Buzet, it seems some countries, e.g. France and Italy not only would like to, but actually do block a movement of people, which according to Brussels move there legally. And that's within Schengen zone, to boot.
Complain about this comment
Quote "55. At 09:37am on 29 Oct 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote: ...
childish prattle about the Euro ... "
then dont get paid in Euro's tell these customers that the goods are for sale at Sterling prices and they pay in Sterling, if they do not like it then sell your goods elsewhere.
make them take the exchange cost not you.
Complain about this comment
#56. At 09:50am on 29 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
Somebody posted a link to an interesting web site that takes EP votes and records them so that we can be aware of what is being done in our name, lol.
Take a look at votewatch [http://www.votewatch.eu/index.php] and search for Budget as it shows Parliament's position on the 2011 draft budget as modified by the Council - all sections - Motion for a resolution : vote: 20/10/2010
Have fun!
Complain about this comment
Personally I think Cameron should let them change the treaty and trigger a referendum in the UK. He cannot be unaware of the depth of feeling in the UK about the profligacy of the EU and this would be a wonderful way in which he can let us voice our disapproval without having to step into the firing line. If the EU bureaucracy wants to retain any pretence of democracy then it would have to accept the result of its own actions for once.
Complain about this comment
Re #65
Thanks for a link. I shall.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Re #55
You mustn't worry too much about how 'childish' or otherwise You treat me & other EUro-sceptics.
After reading #55 You need to worry far more about Your own accounting methods!
How is that You & Your business seem to struggle with this Currency exchange-rate etc. and some 180+ Nations not in the EUro-zone manage without a Euro in sight!? Come to that: What happens with the 11 other EU members outside the 'zone' as I've asked before & You've been remarkably quiet on the issue?
Well, let me help You out: It would appear after 10+ years EUro existence each is still managing to make a bob-or-3 and what is more some of them did significantly better during the recent Economic debacle than some of those EU Currency nations!
JohnofH, it's one thing for You to promote the EUro Currency on the grounds that it is beneficial to Your business (it's Your's; I can't argue on that score), but it is quite another for You to represent the view that what is good for Your business is good for everyone else's business when plainly it has not and is not the case!
Complain about this comment
And already, we see the 'self-amending treaty' mechanism at work, which we Lisbon opponents (who both read and understood the treaty) said it contained, and which the blind EU-fanatics denied was possible.
Guess who were lying again?
Lisbon has been amended, democracy has been destroyed a bit further. The pro-EU crowd have no shame.
Complain about this comment
RTE stating that a change in voting rights would trigger an Irish referendum.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1029/eu_lisbon.html
Should be the same for us, too.
Complain about this comment
HeartOfOak58 wrote in post 44 in reply to my post 8
"Reform the EU? By all means. But leave? No. #8, you say "Joe Public would be hard placed to list any benefits which makes the cost of membership worthwhile." What about the right of Brits to go and live/retire/work in any other EU country? You may not choose to exercise this right. But if we leave the EU, what do you expect to happen? Do you then want to let EU citizens living and working here stay, or do you want to send them home? If they stay, then what have we gained from leaving the EU? And if you want to send them home, do you seriously expect EU countries to let 1 million British expats stay? If not, we end up with a million disgruntled unemployed Brits arriving back on these shores having been thrown out of their homes and lost their jobs".
I have absolutely no interest in living, retiring or working in any other EU country and therefore don't see this as a benefit. Indeed I regard the right to live, work and retire in any EU country is a disbenefit because it removes the right of nation states to regulate immigration - we cannot for example prevent criminals arriving here from other EU member states. Another disbenefit is that EU membership means that my cousins living in Australia and Canada have less right to live and work here than EU citizens.
The previous Labour Govt was stupid enough to allow unrestricted access to the UK from citizens from the new Eastern European member states. I don't see that as an advantage to our nation and if leaving the EU meant large numbers of them left and that we could control new entrants to fill jobs we need, that would be far better than the current free for all situation. In places like Peterborough, for example, Eastern Europeans have not only taken the jobs that were difficult to fill but also the jobs that unemployed British workers would have taken. Many of them have brought their families, live in social housing and the cost of educating their children and subsidising their social housing cost etc far exceeds the economic benefits of their work contribution.
Others have pointed out that many British people lived, retired or worked in the countries that now make up the EU before it was formed. My understanding is that nations like Spain value the economic contribution Ex Pats make to their economy and that they would continue to welcome them whether or not we were in the EU. I believe however that the choice should be for EU states to decide and not one imposed on them by the EU. States might for example want to impose a cap on numbers coming from the EU or elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
To: Margaret Howard
Came across this on the BBC web-site.
As Remembrance approaches & You dismiss it all as the 'English' preoccuptaion I wondered if You would have any thoughts on the 'lady'?
BBC Radio 4 Today magazine - - a programme about Eileen Nearne, heading 'Reluctant Heroine' by Sanchia Berg - - of course it may be You dismiss it as just another one of those trivial episodes.
Ms Nearne's story has 2 points to my mind: The lady's courage in adversity & the fact she passed away unheralded.
The former representative of an entire generation now passed to whom we owe so much, and, that 'Remembrance' is surely too little too late, but all the same it is better than derision or nothing at all.
What say You, Margaret?
Complain about this comment
13. At 7:45pm on 28 Oct 2010, kaybraes wrote:
Get us out of this dreadful organisation, we did not need it before, and we certainly don't need it now.In context, the I understand, 12 billion we give annually to the EU would have reduced Labour's deficit by half in 5 years without all the supposed cuts now in the pipeline.Why should British taxpayers be facing cuts in our own public services while subsidising the most inefficient and corrupt organisation it's possible to imagine and at the same time giving cash to Eastern European economies that must think we are a soft touch. Give us a referendum.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Couldnt have put it better myself!
Complain about this comment
David Macaroon, future Earl of Coconuts will do the usual Euron kabuki dance pretending to be outraged at the increase. In the end he will give in to it completely pretending with great reluctance that he fought for Britain's interests. He' come up with some small token gesture, a crumb Brussels will throw his way so that he can claim a great political victory, a meaningless face saving (or nether parts) figleaf for him. Such has politics always been in the USSK.
Complain about this comment
John of Hendon
You seem to have forgotten in all your complaints about us not being in the Euro how the fall in the value of sterling against the Euro must have helped your exports to the Euro Zone! If we had been in the Euro Zone, your goods would have far less competively priced and that would have hit your business.
Complain about this comment
This is typical politics...typical Cameron really. Can we afford to pay a 2.9% increase in the EU budget? Of course not.
Would your average Euro-sceptic Tory voter want to see 2.9% extra go to the EU? Of course not.
So how does Cameron, and all the other EU leaders, pay them the 2.9% increase they want in these times of EU wide fiscal austerity yet still come out smelling of roses?
Well they say they've stopped them getting 6% increase thats how.
Everyone is a winner. Spin spin spin...
Complain about this comment
@ 69. At 11:15am on 29 Oct 2010, resistance35 wrote:
--"And already, we see the 'self-amending treaty' mechanism at work, which we Lisbon opponents (who both read and understood the treaty) said it contained, and which the blind EU-fanatics denied was possible.
Guess who were lying again?
Lisbon has been amended, democracy has been destroyed a bit further. The pro-EU crowd have no shame."--
OH WOW!! A treaty change that requires unanimous consent of all 27 nations subject to approval by national parliaments is possibly being considered, democracy truly is dead. Woe betide us, sad day for Europe, fascism on the march! Beware the Gendarmerie coming to take you away!
Once again you engage in ridiculous hyperbole, the Anti-EU crowd (by which I specifically mean you) have no shame.
Complain about this comment
You know perfectly well that the undemocratic EU and its main players put enormous pressure on national politicians to betray their peoples and vote FOR something the people are AGAINST. And to deny referendums if possible.
They know the people do not support political integration, and do not support the Euro, so they bribe national government politicians with promises of future EU-jobs and all that. Those who voice even the slightest opposition to more integration such as V Klaus get shouted down.
You also know perfectly well that the EU will never accept a 'NO' on any treaty. They will bully, plead, beg and if that doesn't work force national politicians to rerun referendums after giving them meaningless 'guarantees'. We will either see 'keep voting until you get it right' or the 'self-amending clause' in action, which Merkel and Sarkozy will likely try to bully the others into.
Also, the EU always blatantly lies about treaties and changes to treaties. Take Lisbon, nearly everything the EU said Lisbon would do it hasn't done (such as transparancy, more dynamic and efficient etc...) and nearly everything people like me who like democracy and thus hate the EU said, has come true.
A bunch of COUNTRIES voting for something is by definition not democratic. Especially not when no mandate exists to transfer powers from national to supranational level. Democracy is about people voting. But I guess that those who like the EU aren't too fond of that, knowing the people do not support the grand design.
Complain about this comment
@Busby2
Now don't go confuse JohnofHendon with facts... EU-lovers tend to get headaches when confronted with facts ;-)
Complain about this comment
69. At 11:15am on 29 Oct 2010, resistance35 wrote:
--"And already, we see the 'self-amending treaty' mechanism at work, which we Lisbon opponents (who both read and understood the treaty) said it contained, and which the blind EU-fanatics denied was possible."--
Uh huh...
http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-Site/en_GB/-/EUR/ViewPublication-Start?PublicationKey=FXAC07306
P.40
Final provisions
56) Article 48
You can read the whole thing, but the main part your looking for is:
(relating to ammending the treaty of Lisbon)
"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
That would be national Parliamentary approval here in the UK.
Complain about this comment
#46 Buzet 23 and champagne_chariie (previous blog)
A´Cranial vacuum´is not a prerequisite for a pragmatic discussion to British governmental (left and right) incompetence --- which past and present governments have demonstrated.
The reduction of any worthwhile discussion to a ´Beauty contest for the ugliest´ in no way assists Britain to get out of the mess it faces.
The mentality that 400,000 is peanuts ---but please no scroungers ---IS BRITAIN !
#79 resistance35
If you are going to steal my original formulations -- at least give me the credit !!!!
Complain about this comment
79. At 12:25pm on 29 Oct 2010, resistance35 wrote:
--"Now don't go confuse JohnofHendon with facts... EU-lovers tend to get headaches when confronted with facts ;-) "--
I take it your going to shut up about the 'self ammending clause' being some incredibly insidious circumvention of democracy now then?
Complain about this comment
#78 resistance 35
-- At least some are getting paid for doing to the British government what the British government has been doing to its public for centuries.
Complain about this comment
#83
(Partly plagiarized)
Complain about this comment
I'm listening to the EU Budget Commission speaking on BBC Radio 4 'pm' programme right how.
The Budget Spokesperson categorically stated the '2.9%' claimed by PM Cameron was not settled. On the contrary the EP desire for 5.9% and the European Council choice of 2.9% is now in 'negotiation' and as with every UK PM since 1992 and Maastricht there has been an utter fold-up & betrayasl of hard-pressed British Tax-payers' interests.
As another contributor asked earlier: What was wrong with PM Cameron going to Brussels and simply stating on behalf of the UK, 'You 26 can vote what You like, the UK ISN'T PAYING A PENNY of any increase'?
What is so wrong with stating 'NO!' to the EU?
What happens as UK PMs cross the Channel?
Where the hell do these supposed Leaders leave their 'bottle' and their proclaimed concerns for the UK?
Also, they've announced the possible Lisbon Treaty changes do NOT need a UK Referendum: Thus we have a veritable melt-down of Cameron's pledges on defending UK 'interests' with regard to the EU.
PM Master becomes PM Myth!
Cameron lied to the Electorate before & during the General Election: He has now lied again as he negotiated in Brussels.
Staus quo prevails: UK Citizens will not have anymore genuine representation of their attitude to the EU than when led by Major, Blair & Brown, i.e. the attractions of fingers-in-EU-pie for UK Government exceed any recognition of their Peoples' Rights & responsibilities.
Complain about this comment
#81. At 1:01pm on 29 Oct 2010, quietoaktree
Now, now QOT, did you not like CC pointing out that the Royal family and landed gentry are not the worst in the EU CAP by far, what a shock that must have been to you. BTW you still haven't commented on the amounts Tony Benn and other Socialist (in theory) landed gentry receive, the [www.farmsubsidy.org] site CC mentioned is quite interesting as is the DEFRA site.
Complain about this comment
82.Benefactor wrote: I take it your going to shut up about the 'self ammending clause' being some incredibly insidious circumvention of democracy now then?
Not at all, because that clause was designed so referendums could be avoided. Its the only reason the clause exists.
You see, national government ministers can be bullied behind closed doors in Brussels, threatened with 'sanctions' so they will give in. This cannot be done in public, in national parliament debate.
The Brussels modus operandi is to quickly isolate a dissenter, and trying to make them believe they are the only one against something. When in fact, for many of the politicians who vote for something, the peoples of respective countries are decidedly against it.
Its how the system was designed, to 'encourage' national politicians to place Brussels interest ahead of national interest.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#85 CBW
Your political naivety is only surpassed by the fore-mentioned void !
Complain about this comment
Can you imagine what is 6% for a country that there is no money, high unemployment, no money for public sectors, pensions, cuts od 42000 jobs in the military area, 500.0000 jobs gone??? Who says against do not know what means crisis, public debit, and probably is someone who always thought rich is always rich and never paid attention for the own home or country!
Complain about this comment
#86 Buzet23
--- `beauty contest for the ugliest´?
In such a competition --- you would wave the flag at losing or try cosmetic surgery ?
--- You have the same dilemma with every discussion !
Complain about this comment
#85. At 1:26pm on 29 Oct 2010, cool_brush_work
I'm not surprised by what you've listened to, the very same (I guess) Polish Budget Commissioner also is on record as saying the UK rebate must go. It will be interesting to see if Cameron and Osbourne cave in on that as well as I am certain they have had the wool pulled over their eyes here. They fell for the EU spin, hook, line and sinker.
Lets see if the UK approval (lack of) ratings in polls teach them a lesson.
Complain about this comment
#88 Edvaldo Dortas
Exactly --- ´The island of the uninformed´!
Complain about this comment
#92 Buzet 23
-- ONLY the CAP is important !
- Granny´s false teeth are of secondary importance.
My predictions have so far been correct --- 100% .
You are in the EU until death OR the CAP is removed -- and the Brits pay it directly to the elite themselves.
Take your pick ---Heads I win ---tails you loose !
Complain about this comment
Resistance35 wrote: "we see the 'self-amending treaty' mechanism at work, which we Lisbon opponents (who both read and understood the treaty) said it contained, and which the blind EU-fanatics denied was possible."
I was in the Canaries (on Grand Canaria, more specifically) when a Spanish referendum on EU Constitution was taking place.
Weather being not good enough for flying that Sunday I went to a concierge, and a bright young Spaniard who was on duty helpfully found me a copy of the document in question.
Now, I can be quite persistent if sufficiently motivated, and I tried my level best, but I fell asleep at least thrice trying to read it in my apartment and never really finished it.
Only much later I felt a little better about my failure when somebody explained to me that EU Constitution was made unreadable ON PURPOSE, so that nobody really found out what was exactly in it.
I wonder whether history is not going to repeat itself now.
[btw. Spaniards voted "yes"]
Complain about this comment
@85 c-b-w wrote
"UK Citizens will not have anymore genuine representation of their attitude to the EU than when led by Major, Blair & Brown, i.e. the attractions of fingers-in-EU-pie for UK Government exceed any recognition of their Peoples' Rights & responsibilities."
Here here to that: but I'd like to add Heath, Wilson, Callaghan and Thatcher to your list.
Regards
Complain about this comment
#96 EBAHGUM
--- Now we are getting somewhere !
The question is only WHY ????
Buzet 23
---Now both you and CBW should show some originality !
Complain about this comment
All this while they continue to fund bad banking loans and provide them with money for free (well, not exactly free, paid for by the taxpayers).
Seems the logic provided for the banks does not apply to anything else. The question remains: Why are we in this mess? Year end bonuses are due.
Complain about this comment
#98 gos
--CBW and Buzet 23 are preparing their answers.
--- Please be patient and be ready to wave the flag !
Complain about this comment
Re #89
Talking of 'naivety' & the cranial 'void' between ears: The inability of a certain contributor to read & comprehend my comments for over 3 years have repeatedly pointed out the duplicity of the UK 'political elite' merely confirms how right is my ignoring of the aforementioned fool.
Complain about this comment
Now UK is suffering from its own spending in wars, benefits without stopping...Now there is no money at all! People are the ones to suffer. But this is also people's fault because during years people did not complain, many people even did not know who was the prime minister, people were completely without info about politics, also because they did not want, and the UK past governments since the 70's created a system to make people lazy and dependent of the state. All thought the rich kingdom would never face poverty! And now the UK citizens, British of all origins are trying to immigrate to other countries because there are no Jobs! Lots of ads but when they are contacted they say the position is gone or closed.
The situation in the UK and other EU countries are not so easy, is much harder than anyone can imagine!
Do you know what I think??
If this situation continue this may drive Europe back in the history!
I leave you here to think which one...
Complain about this comment
#21 - democracythreat
"What may one expect from a pig but a grunt?"
Pork. What did you expect, cod and chips?
Complain about this comment
@97 quietoaktree
You ask WHY ????
For me it's quite simple. I cannot understand how we have moved from a free trade area, my understanding of the original 1975 question, with all its' perceived benefits, to an unelected European super-state.
It's the un-elected element that really gets my goat! Excuse my temper.
I'm not, in my heart of heart, anti-European, I'm just ***ed off with never being given a ballot paper to express an opinion on the current position since 1975. In political terms 35 years is a rather long time.
Regards.
Complain about this comment
#100 CBW
My experience of this world is not limited to British army barracks around the globe-- with orders not to mix with the locals.
You can be proud of the fulfillment of this limitation --- but not on this blog if you use your experience and knowledge as an argument against those without such limitations.
Complain about this comment
#103 - EBAHGUM
"I'm just ***ed off with never being given a ballot paper to express an opinion on the current position since 1975".
And who do you think should have given you this ballot paper?
Complain about this comment
#104 - quietoaktree
I do wish you would stop lecturing from on high people who are honest enough to tell us who they are while hiding the origins your own prejudices.
If it helps you, I am still basically an Englishman and we are a nation of dog lovers. I lived in the New Forest where lamp posts were in short supply. Quiet Oak Trees, on the other hand, were readily available.
Complain about this comment
#103 EBAHGUM
I sympathize with you.
But I cannot overemphasize the importance of the CAP.
As you have stated -- it makes no difference who is in power ---my answer is the CAP, until a better answer is forthcoming. ---as to date --none has appeared.
To even pose the question and offer an answer -- is unfortunately High Treason with some contributors.
Complain about this comment
@105 thredonio_II
Anyone of the listed Premiers who accepted the various treaty amendments without putting the consequences to the UK population.
Do you have a problem with that?
Regards.
Complain about this comment
I notice with interest that a 2.9% budget increase appears to be a done deal. Given that this figure has been around for a long time, it would be a bit rich to claim it as a British victory and it is certainly not a freeze.
Even so, is it not interesting to note that if enough like minded EU partners get together, the Paris-Berlin-Brussels axis will not always have it their own way?
Complain about this comment
#106 Thenodio
Then you have discovered `you don´t need a Weatherman to tell which way the wind blows´ (Dylan)
I lecture from the bottom -- where most of us are !
(except you, CBW and Buzet 23 of course)
Complain about this comment
#107
quietoaktree;
CAP is irrelevant. The Royal Family receives a one-hundred-thousandth of the CAP budget, which amounts to 1-2% of their income. It pales into insignificance when compared to their total income, what other British recipients get and, significantly, what 450+ German and French CAP-millionaires get.
The Royal Family shouldnt get ONE CENT from CAP. But to suggest that deters Britain from leaving the EU, or that the Queen even has the power to influence that outcome, is farcical. Successive governments are too scared to give the British people a referendum on EU membership, none of which has anything to do with protecting the Royal Family's CAP.
I appreciate dogmatics find it hard to get out of the rut they are in. And BOY you are nothing if not dogmatic. But do try , theres a good chap.
Complain about this comment
#108 - EBAHGUM
Of course I have a problem with that.
Who on earth would accept a system of government which finds referenda entirely unnatural and contrary to the spirit of parliamentary sovereignty but then demand one every other Thursday because it is EU related?
Its make up you mind time. Either you want direct democracy on all matters or you want a parliamentary system. You cannot have both.
Complain about this comment
#110 - quietoaktree:
"I lecture from the bottom - "
Oh, as opposed to just talking out of it? Thank you for the enlightenment.
Complain about this comment
Back in the summer I saw a photograph of a tiny reed warbler stuffing food down the throat of an enormous cuckoo which had completely outgrown the nest and dwarfed the 'parent' bird. Today as I watched on television the tiny Prime Minister of Great Britain set against the backdrop of towering and mysterious Brussels institutions explaining enthusiastically how he was simultaneously saving us money while handing over even more of it to be spent on who knows what, this image came flashing back as the most wonderful and terrifying metaphor for what the EU has become.
Complain about this comment
#111 Champagne_ charlie
You deliberately forgot the others ?
and the ´Oath of Allegiance´ ?
---disprove with ANY new ideas --- and I will believe you !
Complain about this comment
#111 - champagne_charlie
Agricultural land management poses similar problems regardless of who owns or farms the land. Do you seriously suggest that the Crown Estates own the land should disqualify them from CAP funding? I imagine you might exclude those who lost their jobs if it were not available should not receive benefit either.
Complain about this comment
Somewhere on here MarcusAureliusII (if I may paraphrase) suggested David Cameron should have told the EU the UK would cut its contribution to the EU budget by the same percentage as the UK has cut its own budget. Sounds good to me. Obviously that will not happen, but why on earth not?
Complain about this comment
powermeercat wrote #95
" Only much later I felt a little better about my failure when somebody explained to me that EU Constitution was made unreadable ON PURPOSE, so that nobody really found out what was exactly in it.
I wonder whether history is not going to repeat itself now.
[btw. Spaniards voted "yes"]"
I remember seeing the the Irish PM on TV and it was clear that he hadn't got a clue when it came to explaining to the Irish people why they should vote Yes on the Lisbon Treaty. I can only assume he didn't understand the terms of the treaty or couldn't see any benefits to Ireland and I don't suppose that he was the only national leader in such difficulties. No wonder the Irish voted No first time round and had to be bullied into voting yes at the second attempt with promises that have yet to be delivered.
Complain about this comment
@112 threnodio_II
I'm not sure that you and I are too many miles apart.
I enjoy the benefits of a parliamentary democracy but do not see that as a bar to the occasional referendum on an issue of significant principal. From my perspective that would include EU membership.
In that sense, I'm sure I (and you), should have both.
Regards.
Complain about this comment
ThrenodioII
Re #113
Now that is what is known as a proper touche!
Good man.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#115 - quietoaktree:
What, this one?
'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Complain about this comment
#113 Thernodio
--- but only wipe my own !
Complain about this comment
Spineless.
The biggest news though is that the proposals for the tighter mechanism will require that Britain submit its budget for approval to Euro Bureaucrats, before it is even seen by Parliament.
Complain about this comment
To all the people which see the EU as enemy and no relevant to the prosperity and social correlation of the UK.
As firm believer in the European project i do agree with you we need a Referendum to solve our position in the EU.
Bat before a referendum is held the majority of people in the UK need a minimum of 3 moths of evening classes to learn the in and out of the EU .
Alternatively spend the same time on the EU web site only then we be able to make a decision.
If the above is done you my fiend lot of pleasant surprises.
Giovanni
Complain about this comment
#122 Threnodio
Just as stupid !
Now I am American ?
Maybe Margaret will claim me as Scottish, Buzet as Flemish and Marcus a squeezed tea-bag ?
Complain about this comment
Re #104
'Proud' is how I do feel about my UK military service from 1972 to 1981: It was packed with various experiences from 'barracks' to streets in places as far apart & as varied as N.Ireland, Hong Kong, USA, West Germany & a couple of smaller stints in Scandinavia & the Mid-East.
Having been invalided out (nothing dramatic) I'm equally 'proud' to have had 2 more successful occupations that also took me to most parts of the World until retirement in 2006.
Some of my comments contain reflection on this multitude of experience: I note a lot of other contributors offer their considered viewpoints based on background lifestyle.
It is also notable that a very few attempt to make all sorts of assertions, assumptions & concepts in their contribution and signally fail due to a clear lack of grasp of the real World beyond their television screens.
Whilst I acknowledge nothing in my life compares to the really noble 'oak' in all its resplendent finery I'm also very aware beneath its lurching boughs nothing much can grow or survive intact as little enrichment or nourishing daylight is available: This I'm led to believe accounts for its overbearing appearance and its attraction for twisted, creeping, pointless ivy!
Complain about this comment
Two challenges thrown up by this. Firstly, the increase is a difficult pill for the British public to swallow when you can't see the difference the money makes when you walk out your front door every morning. Secondly, there's a pervasive view that 'they', whoever 'they' are, won't spend it as wisely as 'we' would. Not sure there's much truth in this, but it's going to be tough to sell the benefits.
Complain about this comment
#126 - quietoaktree
Stupid? You are the one who is obsessed with "oaths of allegiance", not me. I was simply pointing out that many nations have them - that was one example.
Now you are American? Who knows - you don't tell us? Come to think of it, who cares?
Complain about this comment
#127 CBW
-- Bad spelling ---poison ivy !
Your comments still do not match your supposed worldly experience.
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree/cool_brush_work
If you guys are determined to slug it out in public, at least let!s have a level playing field. CBW has spelled it out in language we all understand.
QOT?
Complain about this comment
91. At 2:29pm on 29 Oct 2010, quietoaktree
Oh dear, did you forget your medicament today as recently you have made a little bit more sense, now you have reverted to the land of the lost. Please take your pills as you're making MH look rational.
Complain about this comment
#106. At 5:25pm on 29 Oct 2010, threnodio_II
Oh dear Threnodio, we seem to have upset the oak tree, must rush, I need to find one.
Complain about this comment
#125. At 6:44pm on 29 Oct 2010, john
To be held in Siberia, only the USSR used to call it re-education.
Complain about this comment
Re #130
'Pointless' ivy = it's of no use whatsoever to anyone or thing.
And there it is!
'Poison' ivy = a dummy who is so cocksure of himself, so smugly self-possessed he make contributions utterly out of his depth, unable even to distinguish the correct wording.
Complain about this comment
@127 c_b_w
Many thanks for your ten year contribution.
A criticism re "pointless vis poison" is best disregarded.
I hope you are enjoying, and continue to enjoy, your retirement years.
Regards
Complain about this comment
EBAHGUM
Re #136
Thanks.
Yes, I'm enjoying the armchair enthusiasts view of my lovely wife shovelling the snow away from the garage door...
Damn! I think I'll have to get up & remind her to put the kettle on for my Horlicks.
Regards & Cheers.
Complain about this comment
@137 c_b_w
My thanks were sincere, until I read your response.
You, a MCP! It cannot be true!
Now pop out and make the lovely Mrs c_b_w a nice cup of tea as a Friday evening surprise. You know it makes sense.
Regards.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Three hours gone by --and still no beef ?
#127 Is polishing his medals.
#131 Is looking up his dictionary for every second word.
#133 Appears to admit in-house water works difficulties.
Gentlemen, you are the ones pulling the island´s plug !
Complain about this comment
So the U.K. has retains its own sovereignty does it and parliament is sovereign.
DON'T THINK SO.
Well can the U.K. parliament declare that they do not agree with any increase in the EU budget and insist it be cut by 20% to match the huge cuts being imposed on the average British family. Which M.P. has the gumption to stand up and say the 'emperor has no clothes' to this government and wants a free vote and would even prefer a referendum to let the people give their decision. Which minister will back it and put his neck on the line. Who will defend the rights of the majority?
THEY ARE SPINELESS AND PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER
So stop the bull in the media about this and that and get to the facts. Can parliament stop it? If they can't then parliament has been hijacked by an autocracy. I doubt you will find less than 1% of the population that wants to spend a single penny more on the EU and in fact would prefer it to become nothing more than a trade organization. Oh! that was the original idea before it got hijacked into a project to build a superstate.
The British prime minister could have said he will not agree and 50+ million people were behind him.
No M.P would vote for any increase given a free vote. It would make them unelectable should it become known whatever their political persuasion. And the current prime minister must be hoping this will all go way but it isn't going to.
Europe does not need the EU. Make these parasites redundant and spend 500 million pounds so children have better education, young people can find work and the old have decent healthcare.
And just to be clear. I think the majority of French people think the same and so do the Germans. Remember how the French voted NO and their vote was cast aside. Remember how the Irish voted NO and their voice was cast aside. What more proof do people need? The British don't even get a vote and nor did most in Europe.
Complain about this comment
And for good measure: when will the EU commission and its institutions be investigated by customs and excise should there be false accounting affecting the U.K. - wrong doers who trespass into Oxford street (or more likely Knightsbridge) for a bit of xmas tax free shopping may find themselves arrested?
I am eagerly awaiting Wikileaks to expose all, aren't you because the mainstream media is doing little to open it all up to inspection? Where is the investigative journalism of the main stream media? The good news is it is only a matter of time before they do. The EU commission and the rest of its gravy train have not been independently audited for more than 13 years and anyone trying to be honest within the auditing function seems to have lost their job.
The word I am searching for is CONTEMPT. I am not even angry.
Complain about this comment
#141 frenchliving
I agree.
Those who want out should get out.
Do you honestly believe national governments would do a better job ?
Proof there isn´t --if the past is anything to Judge by.
The EU has not prevented massive national spending --that is the reason for the mess Europe is in.
The EU is unfortunately the only hope remaining for some fiscal order and national spending sanity --- national governments have failed miserably.
This was NOT the fault of the EU.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear god!! can the people amongst us that talk of the EU as something that it is not "us" please wake up to the fact that it is "us", we make it and shape it the way it is through the choices we make when we elect our politicians. If you can't get this very basic fact right, then you make the rest of your arguments sound pathetic. I didn't vote LibDem in order for them to get in bed with the cons and impose upon us a second recession, but that's what they've done. The same goes for the EU I voted the people I wanted both at national level and Euro-parliament level. So both the EU and the GB are as real to me or unreal as I want to make them. Please blame people, not abstract concepts, called they, UK, EU or UN. With the current system we have in place I can influence things in the UK as much as I can influence things in the EU as much as I can influence things in the UN!
Complain about this comment
Not one country has gone belly-up because of the EU.
--- only by national governments !
The list is long --- face up to the facts !
Complain about this comment
If anyone tries to blame low EU interest rates for the housing bubbles in Spain and Ireland --30% down would have solved the problem caused by the bank and building industries before they began.
Or have I made a mistake ?
Critique is encouraged.
Complain about this comment
144. At 11:24pm on 29 Oct 2010, ChrisArta wrote:
"Oh dear god!! can the people amongst us that talk of the EU as something that it is not "us" please wake up to the fact that it is "us", we make it and shape it the way it is through the choices we make when we elect our politicians."
We in the UK elected politicians who promised us a referendum and then did not give us one.
The repackaging of the "Constitution" as the "Lisbon Treaty" was an insolent, arrogant pan-"EU" conspiracy to deny the people of Britain and other parts of the "EU" their rights.
The "EU" is not "us.
It is "THEM".
I feel like I have been gang-raped by THEM.
Complain about this comment
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20101029/tts-uk-eu-summit-britain-ca02f96.html
'Prime Minister David Cameron faced rising discontent from the "eurosceptic" wing of his party on Friday over European Union plans to amend its treaty and his acceptance of an increase in the EU budget.'
Complain about this comment
When millions, maybe hundreds of millions did not want the Lisbon Treaty the sickos who control the "EU"-Dictatorship came out with a load of bullproduct about how it was too difficult to change it.
Suddenly, when this anti-democratic clique want change, suddenly it is not too difficult.
Complain about this comment
125. At 6:44pm on 29 Oct 2010, john wrote:
"...
Bat before a referendum is held the majority of people in the UK need a minimum of 3 moths of evening classes to learn the in and out of the EU .
Alternatively spend the same time on the EU web site only then we be able to make a decision."
EUpris: We know we were promised a referendum and then were denied one. By so doing the "EU" demonstrated that it is terminally sick, arrogant, megalomaniac, undemocratic, anti-democratic, nauseating, dangerous, hypocritical etc.
We don't need no soviet-style re-education sessions. When I tell the lecturer the truth I is going to get thrown out and have my licence to vote withdrawn.
I have been studying this crock-of for about forty years. I don't need some badly informed, indoctrinated apparatchik talking bullproduct at me.
Complain about this comment
99. At 4:24pm on 29 Oct 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"#98 gos
--CBW and Buzet 23 are preparing their answers.
--- Please be patient and be ready to wave the flag !"
EUpris: Your lousy "EU" waves its flag-rag, the symbol of its fascist arrogance. The rotten thing was held up in the International space-station.
I have seen the lousy thing on public buildings in the UK.
I have the thing on my British driving licence.
It stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Buzet, if it makes you feEl a little better: EUSSR is not unique.
Read about Hobbit laws just passed by NZ government. :)))
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11649734
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
'WEAR PROUDLY UNION LABEL'
Complain about this comment
David Cameron is weak and wet ; politics by the book !
I wonder how Mrs Thatcher would have handled this situation . One might like to think that she would have said NO! NO! NO! and have slammed somebody with her handbag . The EU supposedly has a council of ministers , heads of state of the sovereign countries , but NOBODY is permitted to say NO to the EU . Perhaps that is a mechanism that should be instituted .
What can the EU do if Britain just says NO , we are not going to contribute to the 6% or 2.9% rise in EU expenditure . The EU can fine Britain , Britain can refuse to pay . I cannot see Britain being thrown out of the EU . Heads of state must have the power to say NO to the EU . Perhaps there will come a point when all member states are SO hard pressed , that one and all say enough is enough and unanimously say NO . As things stand the EU is on a course to self destruct . The EU may be putting in place a mechanism to protect the Euro against other countries following Greece . Greece has already reached that point and observers are of the opinion that her indebtedness is worsening rather than improving . What happens when Greece reaches default point again ?
Without mentioning names , some Pro EU commenters are prigishly selfrightious , to leave out words that might be deemed offensive .
As one suggested , it IS time that Britain was given that promised referendum ; so that everyone at home and abroad knows where Britain stands . Our politicians haven't got the guts , because they supect what the result will be .
Buzet23
With reference to your comment to QOT . I won't hear a word against Anthony Wedgewood Benn in this context . I regard my self as politically conservative , considerably to the right of centre . Before the 1975 EEC referendum there was a debate at the Oxford Union , on the merits of Britain's membership of the EEC . Together with Peter Shore , Wedgewood Benn was one of the most heroic speakers against Britains continued membership . If at the time his foresight stretched people's credibility , over time he has been proved right .
One might speculate that Britain's leaving the EU might cause her citizens to suffer a little at the outset ; ultimately Britain would be much better off and the people happier .
The problem for the EU might be , that when one rat leaves the sinking ship they all do .
Complain about this comment
When I read the comments of one contributor I am reminded of my niece .
She was very pretty , petite and vivacious and attracted a number of highly inteligent , high flying young men as suitors . My niece never read a newspaper or listened to the news on TV ; so was completely uninformed on current affairs . Conversation at my house was often an in depth discussion on the latest news . My niece loved to chip into the conversation to make her contribution . Most often , if she was even on the right subject , she had completely got the wrong end of the stick .
Complain about this comment
Re #154
If you miss our dear margaret that might serve as an explanation:
"N. England has experienced a serious broadband access problem.
There's an issue with a node in Edinburgh" :)
Complain about this comment
#152. At 04:52am on 30 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
An interesting article, I'd heard there was a Union problem there which is not surprising since NZ has been somewhat Socialist for a long while now, although not far-left. It is a truly beautiful place (I spent a month there once) and I've been thankful that the various coalitions and governments have not been too fixed in mind so this decision tends to confirm that. The key words in that article were "The union had wanted local actors and other production workers to be hired as full-fledged employees on union contracts." with union contracts! that ranks of the worst form of demarcation as the UK used to experience in the heady days of the loony left in the 60/70's.
Complain about this comment
#153. At 07:42am on 30 Oct 2010, Huaimek
Regarding Tony Benn, you're right that he is against EU membership but one needs to remember why he and the other darlings of the far-left are against EU membership. While the USSR was in existence he was an avowed fan of that federation so it is not that he dislikes federations, it's simply because the EUSSR is not yet a communist federation. That may be a slight exaggeration but the gist is correct.
My personal dislike of him is somewhat similar to my personal dislike of Ken Livingstone and Derek Hatton, they are all far-left fanatics who speak the language of 'poor suppressed disadvantaged workers' whilst caring not a hoot for them in reality. When Benn renounced his title all those years back but kept his privileged lifestyle we knew the nature of the beast.
Sorry about this but on this topic we have to agree to disagree.
Complain about this comment
EUPrisoner:
Funny...sad story in NZ,
but my inner nerd says yea! ...more LOTR movies..
"I will have a life, again":))
PMK,
much calmer..work is...OK! LOL
and, about PM Cameron,
Can it be he is smarter than everyone once thought/do think??
Complain about this comment
looks around..
Where IS that Web Alice lady?
working hard, I guess :))
Complain about this comment
And where are you, Ms. M Howard? Are you ok? :))
Complain about this comment
Buzet 156 re 152
"It is a truly beautiful place (I spent a month there once)"
Indeed, particularly west of Queenstown.
(used to ski there moons ago at Coronet Peak, before Chilean Valle Nevado was developped).
BTW. Do you realize thet NZ Alps are actually bigger (square km wise) than European Alps?
[Hard to believe but it's true]
P.S. Milford Sound is gorgeous too, particularly when the sun shines.
Complain about this comment
#140. At 10:00pm on 29 Oct 2010, quietoaktree
You got my reply in #139
A null vote (blank) reply to a series of irrational, rambling posts containing drivel. A blank reply was all they merited.
#145. At 11:35pm on 29 Oct 2010, quietoaktree and #146
In many ways you're right that "Not one country has gone belly-up because of the EU", without the EU several would not have received substantial amounts of contributions from Germany, UK, France, Italy, Netherlands and would have collapsed earlier. In that case though they would not be using the Euro and would have had to devalue their currency, like the UK did in the 70's, and rebuild, but because they are in the EU they can't do that.
When, and note I say when and not IF, Greece comes back to the table, this new financial security agreement will mean not just the Eurozone countries having to fork out, the UK will have to as well since it is an EU agreement and not just a EUROZONE agreement. Greece or another failing member state could well smash the current attempts to resolve the UK's problems, if they have to use funds to save a club med country.
BTW, your suggestion of forcing 30% down on house purchases changes little other than discriminating against the young 'first timers', likewise low interest rates make mortgages more affordable and people more likely to take them out but that's all. There were many reasons for Spain's bubble, the most likely being the massive EU reconstruction funds made available to Spain which encouraged a building boom to match the infrastructure rebuild. When the EU funds went Eastwards to the new members the bubble burst.
Complain about this comment
EUpris: "We don't need no soviet-style re-education sessions."
" We don't need no thought control.
All in all it's just another brick in a wall"
Complain about this comment
re #156. The key words in that article were "The union had wanted local actors and other production workers to be hired as full-fledged employees on union contracts." with union contracts! that ranks of the worst form of demarcation as the UK used to experience in the heady days of the loony left in the 60/70's."
Even in the U.S. is is not always a past.
What happens quite often on Broadway is that you need an 8 piece band with 2 pre-programmed synthesizers, but you still have to pay for an orchestra of 30 unionized musicians. Even if you don't use them.
Complain about this comment
Re #160
David I think I've explained in #155 :)
Complain about this comment
#55 John-of-Hendon
I don't think a British government would dare introduce the Euro to Britain without a referendum . You know what the answer to that would be ! However beneficial , the vast majority of British people would not accept the Euro under any circumstances . There would be a risk of the houses of parliament being sacked . Parliament would have to be disolved and a general election called .
Complain about this comment
#61 Spinonthis
Well said !!! That is exactly the tack to take with the EU .
It is time our politicians broke free of political protocol .
Complain about this comment
#167. At 09:17am on 30 Oct 2010, Huaimek
It looks like any mention by name of my favourite (just joking) figures of the far left will get referred to the mods. My post #157 was saying that we have to agree to disagree about a certain far left politician who renounced his title but not his wealth, and who is certainly not against federations as long as they are far left, the EU not yet achieving that despite the efforts of the commissariat.
Complain about this comment
#168 Buzet23
I got your point completely . A mention of Wedgy Benn , triggered a train of thought . Benn appeared to be a political " Nutter " and the complete opposite of my political viewpoint . Perhaps that evening at the Oxford Union was the zenyth of his political career . Had the British labour government listened to his advice , Britain might not ever have become a member of the EU , or have been in the conflict and mess she is in today . While you are joking , there is Mandleson , Harold Wilsons secretary and quite a few more to add to your list . You are not alone in writing with your tongue in your cheek .
Complain about this comment
#169. At 10:03am on 30 Oct 2010, Huaimek
Quite so, there are more than a few on my list, HW is certainly high up, but I think the mods don't like any mention of him who should not be named, a certain ex-mayor who wants to get back, that person I knew in person as he comes from my home town.
Complain about this comment
Re #169
Mentioning Harold Wilson 'triggered a train of thought' going back to CBW's comments re Kim Philby.
[I'll skip Sir Roger Hollis for now]
Complain about this comment
#171. At 10:28am on 30 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
Ah yes, Harold Wilson, a good example of a Young Communist who discovered that if he stayed as a communist he would never be elected to anything, therefore he 'converted' to Labour and eventually became PM. I doubt anybody believes his true allegiance was to anything but communism and he was certainly watched by the spy service who suspected he was in the USSR's pocket. I remember two things in particular about him, the 'pound in your pocket will not be devalued' speech just before the UK went broke, and the cancellation of the TSR2 warplane, a pretty close replica of which appeared as a Russian MIG somewhat later.
Complain about this comment
Re 172
Since you've said it I won't repeat it.
It's also worth pointing out that FDR's Administration was positively stuffed with Soviet spies and agents of influence, including some of the president's closest advisors.
Unfortunately irrefutable evidence of that penetration has emerged only after Soviet Union collapsed, and Boris Yeltsin partially opened old NKVD files, incl. some of its payrolls.
So only now we can understand the real 'rationale' of some of FDR's decisions in the 1930s and '40s.
Complain about this comment
Here's hoping that a certain North Korean "Parliament"'s aficionado will read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11519249
And of course send a personal check.
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat,
There is a situation in the East-China vs. ASEAN.
Interestingly, Ms. Clinton has befriended -- on our behalf -- Vietnam ..to counter China's ambition in the islands near both antagonists
(PLA well as ASEAN including Japan, mainly, (see BBC article) but I was impressed by H. Clinton's --
no offense to US veterans -- taking on Hanoi as an "ally" (a chess move, of course) to counter China --
But, I'm impressed that Obama is not blindly thinking of China as non-threatening.
I am actually very impressed with China's direction of growth. In the Economist, there are articles on the now occurring debate on whether some values are "Universal" as in freedoms, and the will of the billion people there -- democracy.
As in "not Western only ideas," but rather universal rights. The Prime Minister And Communist Party Leader are both leading "lights" in this debate (see Economist website)
Complain about this comment
It's the oldest selling trick in the book. If you want 4.5% ask for 6.5%. When its finally settled, half the suckers will think they're getting a bargain, the other half will be left to grumble helplessly like EUp.
The masters of the United Soviet Socialist Kingdom (USSK) will be only too happy to accomodate those in the club in Brussels they hope to eventually join themselves. The old boy (and now with Mrs. Ashes old girl) network is still alive and well. Spinless voters don't have a prayer so long as they never find out that ultimately they hold all the power and the government would be helpless facing them if they ever revolted en masse against it as may happen this Tuesday in America. In spineless Britain that will never happen. They will suffer taxation without real representationm forever.
Complain about this comment
"But, I'm impressed that Obama is not blindly thinking of China as non-threatening."
David, triangulation is an old concept dating back to Kissinger days in Nixon Administration.
And there's still nothing wrong with that concept now.
However, if you believe in any progress re human rights in PRC look no further than to a plight of the this year Nobel Peace Prize laureat.
And of his wife's. :(
Complain about this comment
61. At 10:14am on 29 Oct 2010, Spinonthis wrote:
' ...
The best move for the UK right now, would to place an ultimatum before the EU and declare "we wont pay any increase whatsoever and we want a 10% cut in our contribution, else we walk and they get nothing! '
EUpris: No! The best thing is just to leave the "EU" and leave it to soak in its own gold star spangled blue juice.
In the meantime we should look for legal ways to avoid paying taxes because the government gives our money to our enemy - the "EU".
The continentals are not our enemy, just the "EU".
Complain about this comment
[quote]EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - European leaders have given way to German demands for a change to the European treaties, but the procedure for the change and its size has been calculated explicitly to avoid the danger that it could provoke referendums in some EU states.[/quote]
Surprise surprise. I said they would do this, and got lambasted for it by some EU-philes here.
[quote]The method EU leaders chose to achieve the change will be via what is called the "special revision procedure," introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, under which the treaty can be amended by the European Council alone, so long as there is unanimity and the changes do not extend the competences of the European Union.[/quote]
In other words, the self-amending clause.
And EU-philes who supported the Lisbon treaty (and mostly didn't bother to read it) said it wasn't possible.
Turns out they were lying.
Complain about this comment
Edvaldo Dortas
Re #101
I read it; slept on it; I read it in the morning; and again in the afternoon; I thought about a comprehensive reply.
This is what basically came to mind: What You know about the political-economic-social History of the UK between joining the EEC in 1973 and 2010 is somewhere between nothing at all and a bit less than nothing at all!
Complain about this comment
#146 - quietoaktree
No not at all but I think even EU enthusiasts like me wold have to concede that control of interest rates can have an effective influence on the money supply. The ready availability of cheap credit along with a perceived but ultimately illusory demand for second homes and retirement abodes encouraged profligate spending in an aged dated business environment.
We can't have our cake and eat it. If, as we appear to agree, the commercial environment is enhanced by having a single currency, we have also to accept this will occasionally present local opportunities for ill-advised and profligate investment strategies. The risk goes with the territory.
#139 - Buzet23
I was tempted to refer this comment for irrelevance but did not want to confuse the moderators even more than they already are.
Complain about this comment
118. At 6:05pm on 29 Oct 2010, busby2 wrote:
...
"I remember seeing the the Irish PM on TV and it was clear that he hadn't got a clue when it came to explaining to the Irish people why they should vote Yes on the Lisbon Treaty. I can only assume he didn't understand the terms of the treaty or couldn't see any benefits to Ireland and I don't suppose that he was the only national leader in such difficulties. "
Busby2
The inability of the current Irish Taoiseach IMHO to function in any sense should not be taken as anything other than an indication that the man is spectacularly unsuitable to hold public office.
He couldn't articulate the significance of the Reform Treaty to the public then, so much so that he had to be hidden during the rerun. He currently cannot grasp the fact that his administration, and in particular his lack of a role in it, has engineered and entrenched the economic predicament in the Republic.
His inability to 'explain or account for' anything, including his own behaviour, should not be greeted with surprise, and should certainly not be used as an index to gauge other Prime Ministers.
Mickalus
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports the citizens of Niger are voting in a referendum over their new constitution.
The nauseating "EU" and its glove puppets, Quislings, apparatchiks and writing-desk criminals denied us the referendum we were promised and to which we are entitled.
Niger is better than the "EU".
Complain about this comment
"The EU budget may yet rise further"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100061514/the-eu-budget-may-yet-rise-further/
Complain about this comment
EUpris: Get your money out of the "EU" fast!
Complain about this comment
Re:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100061514/the-eu-budget-may-yet-rise-further/
EUpris: Lots of interesting information in the comments beneath Mr. Hannan's article.
Complain about this comment
Only 2 days approximately to our 2010 elections. (USA)
I'm not anticipating a great day...but haven't given up hope that young Democrats (not same as young ...past organizations) will get out their vote.
But I truly do not like any of the Tea Party candidates...they seem so IGNORANT ..focused on xenophobic issues..immigration, for example.
(they are, also, ignorant largely -- frm poll results -- of Obama's tax cuts..its said)
Tea Party supporters are Sure that taxes have gone up not down. And Nothing will convince them otherwise. Facts are weird things, it seems to "Tea Partiers"
No offense to any Tea Party Sympathizers here. lol :)
Complain about this comment
Why do I have to sign in every week , or 2 or 3 days , when I contribute nearly every day ?
Complain about this comment
I believe that the EU Pact to defend the Euro is just a lot of hot air or a piece of paper . The fund set aside for emergencies is just a promise from Eurozone members . Heaven help the poorer ones if they were ever asked to pay up .
One contributor commented that no country has gone belly up yet . In my opinion Greece has effectively gone belly up , only that an enormous rescue fund was lent ( Given ) did they manage not to go on the rocks and default . Independent observers say that Greece's indebtedness is deteriorating ; so there is every possibility that Greece will need a further massive bailout or default .
IMO as the EU is dishonest and most member states economic with the truth ; in the Event of a further Euro crisis , the EU and member states will be NO more prepared or able to deal with it than before .
Complain about this comment
Huaimek,
I'm waiting with baited breath till I have troubles again with the site...sometimes I think individual pcs or brands of pcs have compatibility problems with websites or programs...
Also, if there is an update to the software, then uh ohhh watch out world :)
Of course, its my thinking and one knows that "thinking can be dangerous"
LOL
Complain about this comment
All and Gavin Hewitt, [sic] in particular,
Here is a possible future topic for the Europe blog.
(far be it for me to decide..)
"Germany -- Victorious? or just embarrassingly successful during these economic doldrum days?"
The following is from a story about Germany in the Economist website, sorry:)))
"America and Europe are seeking slightly different answers to questions posed by Germany’s growing strength. Americans, says the diplomat, hope for “an outward-looking Germany” that is less “conflicted about its weight in the world”. Europeans, for their part, look to Germany for leadership, but want it to be tempered by traditional German self-restraint. In the eyes of its allies there are still two Germanys. It may have to learn to be both.
from the Economist website.
Just a pointer to other Europe happenings not a criticism. Europe is Unfortunately the most interesting place around for Americans
these days :)
(including Russia)
Complain about this comment
A relevant report from the U.S.:
"A new study released Friday by the Pew Hispanic Center confirms that immigrants are benefiting before native-born workers from the slow-paced economic recovery.
Foreigners gained 656,000 jobs in the first year following the official end of the recession in June 2009. Native-born workers lost 1.2 million jobs, according to an analysis of government data by Pew, a nonpartisan research group.
As a result, the unemployment rate for immigrant workers fell to 8.7% from 9.3% between June 2009 and June 2010. For native-born workers, the rate rose to 9.7% from 9.2%."
Sapienti sat.
Complain about this comment
#188. At 05:18am on 31 Oct 2010, Huaimek
The need to keep signing on is probably your browser settings, or whether you clear the cache, etc, this of course also depends on which browser you use.
Complain about this comment
#189. At 05:38am on 31 Oct 2010, Huaimek
"I believe that the EU Pact to defend the Euro is just a lot of hot air or a piece of paper . The fund set aside for emergencies is just a promise from Eurozone members . Heaven help the poorer ones if they were ever asked to pay up ."
From what has been reported the recent agreements between finance ministers means it's all the EU that will have to cough up, not just the Eurozone. Therefore the UK's recovery could be fatally damaged if required to support a failed Euro country, plus the UK already contributes via the IMF, so it's a double whammy.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23,
Its like that commercial in the USA--
"Lets get the UK to do it. They will do anything if they feel concerned enough." (paraphrasing very much)
Don't be the doormat for the EU's dirty feet :)
Complain about this comment
"But I truly do not like any of the Tea Party candidates...they seem so IGNORANT ..focused on xenophobic issues..immigration, for example."
David, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas voters' concerns have nothing to do with xenophobia.
Please re-read results of a research quoted in #192.
Complain about this comment
"In the eyes of its allies there are still two Germanys"
Ditto in the eyes of the citizens of former BRD.
[cf. their comments re "Ossies"]
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 wrote:
#188. At 05:18am on 31 Oct 2010, Huaimek
The need to keep signing on is probably your browser settings, or whether you clear the cache, etc, this of course also depends on which browser you use.
Different problems many posters have with BBC portal are simply caused by the outfit's efforts to modernize its portal.
See if you have similar probles with, say, CNN.com. or France24.com
Complain about this comment
#198. At 09:00am on 31 Oct 2010, powermeerkat
There are indeed problems with this blog from time to time but those are normally because there seems to be a lack of old fashioned quality assurance testing before a roll out. That partly is because of the style of programming that is used in web development is very modularised making a small change in a small module likely to impact on unforeseen areas.
In the case where the login disappears, that is more likely to be the browser than the blog. I use firefox and it's only when I do a clean up that I have to log back in.
Complain about this comment
Re #199
In my case, if IE8 stops working on BBC portal, I switch to Google Chrome.
That often helps.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
#108 - EBAHGUM
"Its make up you mind time. Either you want direct democracy on all matters or you want a parliamentary system. You cannot have both."
Why do you say this?
Why must people be forced into black and white choices when discussing issues with you, threnodio?
Aside from you style of discourse being unpleasant and domineering, you are also well out of your depth factually. What you are saying is, with all due respect, completely uninformed. You just do not know the first thing about the subject, or you'd never make that statement.
What working model of direct democracy do you know of which does not also have a working parliamentary system within it? The answer, of course, is none. Because Switzerland and California are the the only remotely working models of direct democracy you know of, and your knowledge of those systems is pitifully weak.
But that doesn't stop you sneering down your superior british nose at other folks, and demanding that they make black and white choices between the half baked scenarios you are capable of dictating to them.
You don't strike me as having any real interest in these topics, threnodio. Even less than CBW, in fact. I don't understand why you bother to post here, unless it is for the satisfaction of sneering at people in a fit of nationalistic british pride.
I say that because you do not appear to be stupid in the normal sense of that word. You have a reasonable vocabulary. But you, like CBW, simply refuse to learn anything new unless it furthers your delusions about the greater glory of the British people. I doubt either one of you has learned a single thing about the world since I've had the misfortune to endure your pompous, sneering monologues on this blog.
I honestly think that if you were to try and respond with a serious, reasoned opinion on the topic of democracy, something inside you would break with an audible crack. Forgive the petty psychoanalyses, but I find the British system of indoctrination fascinating. Of all the various types of repugnant nationalism I have encountered, and it has been a few, there is nothing to compare with the utter delusion and complete brainwashing of the British people. You folks are simply incapable of having a serious think about a thing once you've left university. From that point onwards, life for an adult Brit is just a long series of alternate sneering or groveling, depending upon whom you are lecturing, or who is lecturing you.
Is that how the british class system endures, do you think? Is there an unwritten cultural rule which says that if anyone has an unorthodox opinion after the age of 21, then everyone within earshot is entitled to sneer at them relentlessly, and bully them in every way possible, until they give it up?
John Lennon was right about the brits. They hate you if you're clever, but they despise a fool.
Complain about this comment
#201
"I doubt either one of you has learned a single thing about the world since I've had the misfortune to endure your pompous, sneering monologues on this blog"
"life for an adult Brit is just a long series of alternate sneering or groveling, depending upon whom you are lecturing, or who is lecturing you."
"Aside from you style of discourse being unpleasant and domineering, you are also well out of your depth factually."
"But that doesn't stop you sneering down your superior british nose at other folks, and demanding that they make black and white choices between the half baked scenarios you are capable of dictating to them."
Irony, clearly, is lost on you.
Complain about this comment
#201. At 10:55am on 31 Oct 2010, democracythreat
Just what is it about you and many others on the mainland that you have to invent and carry on this façade about a so called British superiority complex that is quite simply not there and has not been there since at least the end of WWII. Is it a form of jealousy or envy since at one time there was an empire, or is it because the Brits stood up and were counted during many conflicts. I really don't know what causes your thoughts on this but I have encountered similar in Belgium and France, but strangely not in Germany where I was. The Germans I met all respected the UK even though there were two world wars against their country, but then most Brits have a respect for Germany that is not present for France or Italy.
Your last sentence is only correct in one perspective, the media, they love to attack the successful and in particular sporting hero's. The actual Brits admire the successful just as in most other countries but the media take a perverse pleasure in trying to destroy them 'in the public interest'.
During my twenty years in Belgium I have noticed that there is a culture of envy surrounding those who have bettered themselves, they are envied and great pleasure is taken when one falls on hard times. It is a bad form of tittle tattling and totally negative but it exists, you I'm afraid seem to made of the same stock judging by your post, which is a shame because often your posts are very reasoned.
In many ways, I would enjoy seeing England leave the EU and build a successful future unhindered by all the petty rivalries, envy, jealousy, regulations that exist on the mainland.
Complain about this comment
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100061514/the-eu-budget-may-yet-rise-further/
'In the subsequent press conference, the Iron Chancellor [Merkel] pointed to her main achievement: “There is one important measure I want to underline: the surveillance of the competitiveness of each country – so that the Council can work as the economic government you have all been asking me for,” ... The surveillance of national budgets, as Douglas Carswell keeps telling anyone who’ll listen, will apply to every member state of the EU, not just to those in the euro-zone.'
EUpris:
Re: "the economic government you have all been asking me for"
So suddenly she is supposedly interested in what people want. But when 82% of Brits and 77% of Germans wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, she was not interested.
Re: "you have all been asking me for" Who is this "you" ???? Is it Germans? Presumably! So why do their views count and not the views of the British?
If they really do all want it and that counts then PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!
Give them a referendum!
Brits also count.
GIVE US A REFERENDUM ON IT!
Complain about this comment
If UK citizens had any guts, they'd start a taxpayer's revolt. They'd calculate how much of their tax money goes to the EU and not pay it in their taxes. This would be their referendum. They'd also organize to sign up millions of Brits on a petition to the government demanding a referendum on the entire EU issue to settle it once and for all. In large numbers, governments are powerless to stop them. But the British government has nothing to fear. In a nation of sheep, all it takes is one sheepdog to keep the entire herd in line. No "mobocracy" like in America. Spineless whimps of subjects think of themselves as too civilized. What they are is to indifferent to what their government does to them to do any more than grumble. They are a nation of sheep.
Complain about this comment
203. At 11:47am on 31 Oct 2010, Buzet23 wrote:
"...
In many ways, I would enjoy seeing England leave the EU and build a successful future unhindered by all the petty rivalries, envy, jealousy, regulations that exist on the mainland."
EUpris: And not allowing British citizens to be extradited to countries where the police and prison warders frequently beat and rape people.
Complain about this comment
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100061514/the-eu-budget-may-yet-rise-further/
Merkel: "so that the Council can work as the economic government you have all been asking me for ..."
EUpris:
So now some weirdos on the continent are to act like Plato's Guardians and dictate to the UK.
Many of these people will come from counties with an amazing record of corruption. These people should dictate to us!!!!
The Eurovision Song Contest has demonstrated the inability of many continentals to be fair. They have voted for songs on the basis of politics rather than the merit of the song. One Baltic state person was quoted (In the "Independent"?) as referring to the "Bloodthirsty British" and the pleasure it gave her that they had no votes. She or somebody with the same sick mind or her dentist could end up deciding on British Government policy.
GET YOUR MONEY OUT OF THE "EU" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
champagne charlie,
I have posted more substantive content concerning direct democracy on this blog than any other contributor.
Because I care about it, as a political issue. It is the only reason I come here.
If you mistake my impatient anger towards threnodio and CBW as sneering contempt, and therefore mistake my complaints about their lack of substantive contributions for ironic hypocrisy, then perhaps you are not properly acquainted with the full history of this blog.
Buzet refers to a "so called British superiority complex".
I'd put it to you both that this characteristic of British culture is not "so called". It is universally recognized in Europe, as far as I can tell, and I doubt there is anyone on earth who has come into contact with british born nationals who is not aware of their indoctrination to believe that they are somehow superior to all other cultures.
This is not to say that the british are horrible people. They are not, by and large. In fact, I'd even say that most of the british I have met are much nicer people, take it all around, than just about any other cultural group I have met.
But the ultra nationalistic indoctrination is there, and it is very, very real. We all see the extreme flag waving and nationalism of the Americans and Russians, but I'd venture that these cultures have nothing on the extremity of British indoctrination.
Let me give you a few pointers, if you are serious about discussing this issue.
1. The british are relentlessly bombarded with the utter fantasy that they "won the second world war", and defeated nazi germany. Every week, on the national broadcast channel, there is a program maintaining this complete fiction. You cannot have a conversation with a brit for more than 15 minutes without encountering some weird reference to the bizarre idea that the UK was somehow involved significantly in the defeat of Nazi germany in the early 1940's. Not only is the truth of british involvement in the defeat of Germany massively distorted, it is repeated ad nauseam, every week, on the national broadcaster, as an example of what can only be described as ultra nationalistic indoctrination. Of all the European countries, only the UK has a formal policy of routinely and relentlessly using the national broadcasting corporation to perpetuate complete fictions about war that demonize or belittle other member states.
2. The british public are indoctrinated into believing that their "empire" was a good thing for its former owners, and furthermore that it was not the english who butchered so many foreigners in order to steal their resources. Two example which constantly amaze me are the way brits discuss the history of the USA and australia, and the treatment of native people in those lands. Brits refer to the "American" treatment of both native americans and slaves as barbaric. But clearly the barbaric slaughter of natives and the conquest of their lands was done by british nationals, under a british flag, and not by Americans. That is just a simple chronological fact. It isn't even contentious. It was the british who engineered the invasion and slaughter of so many native americans, and it was the british who orchestrated the vast majority of the slave trade to the americas, and who profited so hugely from it. And yet, the brits educated in the UK today always refer to these massive crimes against humanity as being the fault and consequence of "American" behaviour. This is despite the fact that since there has been such a thing as "American" nationals, these twin evils of slavery and the genocide of native people's were largely halted. Australia is another typical case. Every Brit I have ever met, when discussing the topic of Australia, tells me that Australia is a nation of ex convicts, and that australians "slaughtered" the native aboriginals. But the inescapable fact is that every convict who ever lived in Australia was born and raised to their criminal personality if the UK. As I understand it, if you were an Australian, you were born free in Australia. If you were a convict, that meant you were shipped out from the UK. And as far as the genocide of australian aboriginals was concerned, this most remarkable crime against humanity, which frankly dwarfs the crimes of the third reich in terms of its sheer scale and brutality, was entirely perpetrated by british nationals under a british flag. And yet every brit I meet warns me that australians are racist and brutal people. That is what they learn from their system of state run indoctrination. Every week on television, the british people are bombarded with the news that the people who come from their colonies are the ones who did evil in those colonies, and that the british law somehow tried to stop it happening, because the brits were such jolly good chaps.
3. Educated British people honestly believe, and preach to the world, that their own system of political organization is the one true model of "democracy". This is despite the fact that their head of state is chosen by bloodline and ordained with religious ceremony and blessings. This is despite the fact that their house of "lords" is either chosen by bloodline or appointed by the same class of aristocratic power brokers who own the two party system. Now this is not to say that the westminster system is the worst model of government in the world. I'm simply making the point that it has some pretty obvious characteristics which suggest that it is hardly "democratic". It isn't even a republic. And yet, brits are indoctrinated to preach to the world that they invented democracy. THAT is the weird bit. THAT is my point here. Sure, have a "constitutional monarchy" or whatever you want to call it. But from where does the hubris come from that allows brits to lecture the world about how they ought to live, and from where this complete delusion that britain is governed by a democracy? If you ask a brit, they are likely to quote Lord Churchill, the Duke of Malborough, and laugh to themselves while they note what he said. What he said was that the average man in the street was an idiot, and that the british system was the best form of government in the world, and that he called it democracy. Now a brit will quote this aristocrat as he mocks them from his hereditary seat of political power, and they think they are being wise. No joke, they really do think that quoting this guy is somehow evidence of profound wisdom.
It is just plain WEIRD.
This weird level of ultra nationalistic indoctrination and servility to an aristocratic system of non democratic party based rule is striking to anyone who has not grown up in it.
And yet buzet calls it a "so called superiority complex".
It is real. Ask anybody who is not british, and make sure they don't care to much about shocking you out of your safe and entirely fantastic little world.
The brits were once famous for tea, sodomy and the lash. Now they are universally known, the world over, for being America's chief poodle, and utterly deluded about history.
Complain about this comment
Cameron is useless when it comes to the "EU".
Tories who oppose the EUvil Empire have voted people in who support this rubbish.
Tories need to get rid of Cameron.
Until they do:
A TORY VOTE IS A WASTED VOTE!!!
Unless you vote for Bill Cash or the few like him?????
Complain about this comment
EASE OF TRAVEL IN THE "EU"
Isn't it exciting that it is now so easy to move around in the "EU" ?
Excellent Austrian Newspaper "Wiener Kurier" reports leading member of the Polish Mafia caught in Vienna. He had been living there for two years.
How many members of the Polish Mafia are there in the UK???
Ease of travel benefits criminals more than others.
FREE BRITAIN FROM THE "EU" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FREE EUROPE FROM "EUROPE"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 wrote:
#201. At 10:55am on 31 Oct 2010, democracythreat
"Just what is it about you and many others on the mainland that you have to invent and carry on this façade about a so called British superiority complex that is quite simply not there and has not been there since at least the end of WWII. Is it a form of jealousy or envy since at one time there was an empire, or is it because the Brits stood up and were counted during many conflicts."
Why would anybody be "jealous" of a culture because it once had an empire, buzet? That makes no sense at all.
As for "standing up and being counted" in man conflicts, I have no idea what you are talking about.
In the first world war the british aristocracy butchered millions of their own people by feeding them into the cannons they owned, for a tidy profit. A few people know that Siegfried Sassoon threw his military cross into the Seine river, but very few know why. His family, like nearly all of the british aristocracy who order the working class into hell on earth, owned shares in Krupp steel and profited from military spending on both sides of the trenches.
In the second world war, Britain abandoned its asian colonies entirely, leaving the Americans to pick up the pieces there, and set a land speed record for fleeing the field of battle in Europe as soon as the Germans started the engines in their panzers. Then the Brits sat on their island and drank tea until the ruskis had defeated the Germans and the Americans arrived to rescue what they could of their western European investments from the advancing red army.
You call that "standing up to be counted"?
Well, OK. If you want. It looks more like blood money and sitting out a war in relative safety to me, but each to their own.
And that is my greater point about the brits. They really do have their own "reality" about the second world war. They think they were heavily involved. They all believe they were a deciding factor in what transpired. And why? How can that be so?
For an objective observer, the answer lies in the way the institutions of the british state, overseen by members of the feudal aristocracy, have relentlessly indoctrinated the people of britain. Even now, the BBC bombards the british public with incredible fantasies about the second world war. Quite aside from the dubious factual content of these heroic fables, doesn't it make you wonder WHY? Why do the brits get force fed a diet of imperial glory and military success?
Is that not what one might expect from a society with no democracy, and a ruling class of war profiteers who need a perpetual external enemy to justify their regime?
Orwell was not writing about "over there" in 1984, buzet.
Complain about this comment
208. At 1:34pm on 31 Oct 2010, democracythreat wrote:
Democracythreat
It is sufficient for you to know that I am Irish, and I do not recognise the picture you paint of our nearest neighbours in your contribution 208. I submit the Britons of your acquaintance are very singular people.
A case of the 'lady doth protest too much, methinks',perhaps?
Mickalus
Complain about this comment
EUprisoner, why don't you start a petition circulating to demand that the government hold a referendum on membership in the EU. The right to petition the government is enshrined in the American Bill of Rights. It is hard for a government to ignore a petition with millions of citizens signitures on it. If you are waiting for someone at the top already in government to give it to you, you will wait forever, it won't happen. If not you, who? If not now, when? If you have any democracy at all, find other likeminded people and form an organization to spread the word. Go door to door, stand in public places. If your cause has any real support word will spread quickly. Democracy no matter how restrictive isn't of much value if you don't exercise it. That is what they are depending on. So far from you all I've heard is grumbling. You are all show and no action. I dare you to prove me wrong, to stop your mewling and do something about it. Is it a matter of insurrection? Absolutely. And it seems well justified.
Complain about this comment
#208 #211
democracythreat;
Thanks for your invitation to participate. But after reading the pure, unadulterated garbage contained in these two posts I think I'll pass. Anyone who posts rubbish to simply get a rise out of other posters isnt worth arguing with. Have a nice day.
Complain about this comment
Re #201, #208 & #211
Well, after giving everyone a hard earned period of 'less is more' the sage (or shall I go with 'poor sap'?) of the Swiss has begun pontificating again.
E.g. from 201, "..aside from you(r) style of discourse being unpleasant and domineering.."
Do tell DemocThreat, because if anyone knows about literally writing roughshood over anyone's contributions it is surely the pompous chap who previously wrote on topics, "..This blog is not much read because of so many small minds..", or the self-indulgent gracious quality of, ".. we have anough rampant insanity on this blog without losing more.." plus there was the considerable display of fellowship shown by, "..It is an english disease, I'm afraid. You fellows blot out reality in order to cling to a faint whiff of Empire.." which can be coupled with the height of diplomacy & consideration delivered in this, "..CBW, that you cannot differentiate between general prejudice & the deliberate slander of an individual speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty and capacity.."
Well, aren't we all blessed by Your magnificent 'style of discourse..'!?
E.g. 208, "...if you mistake my impatient anger towards Threnodio & CBW as sneering contempt, and therefore mistake my complaints about their lack of substantive contributions.."
No DemocThreat, there's no 'mistake', at least not on my part. And, I'm sure though it seems to elude You time-and-time again, it will not have escaped others' attention.
E.g. 211, "...even now the BBC bombards the British public with incredible fantasies about the second world war. Quite aside from the dubious factual content.."
Well, it's a viewpoint (and one shared by some others, hence irritated Buzet23's earlier response) and of course it is behoven on us all in respecting DemocThreat's "..reality.." and "..Brits force fed a diet of imperial glory and military success.." to acquaint ourselves with the propaganda Britons are so susceptible to in comparison to every other European nation.
We should recall it is approaching Remembrance Sunday (nearest to Nov.11th - - WW1, Armistice Day): That is the UK-wide National day of recollection for dead, injured & former UK Armed Services personnel.
Therefore if the poor sap of the Swiss Alps is correct in his assessment BBC and indeed the whole of G.B. Television & Radio will be awash with programmes reminding all the Brits of illustrious 'daring-do', 'glory', 'brilliant victories' & for sure, not a 'defeat' in sight.
Only, here is the difficulty, anyone going on-line to research will come across with DemocThreat's powerfully made argument:
BBC1 TV - Sunday 31 Oct: Not 1 single 'military' or 'history' programme scheduled.
BBC1 TV - Monday 1 Nov: Not 1 single 'military' or 'history' programme scheduled.
But wait! Can't get away with it that easy, not when there's of course a BBC2 - EXCEPT, Sunday 31 Oct,, No 'military' or 'history' programme.
OK, let's take a look at BBC2 - Monday 1 Nov: Whoops! No 'military' but there is a 'history of horror' detailing not conflict but Halloween!
Oh well, let's just dip into another couple of days: Let's try for arguments sake & to help out DemocThreat (I mean, he's not the sort of chap to invent stuff he writes is he, not when he' so against other's that write 'fantasy', now is he?):
BBC1 - Wednesday 3 Nov: Hmm, there's 'Bargain Hunt', 'Shaun the Sheep', 'Copycats', 'Eastenders', 'Holby City' and... Aaah, well there's the 'Weakest Link' (NOT that I'm casting any aspertions DT, no, I wouldn't do that to a fine fellow like You!).
Tell You what, let's take Friday 5 through to Sunday 7 November on BBC 1 & 2: Bound to be a few fantasy stories about the Brits in war over that period:
Friday & Saturday it is looking a bit bare! 'Helicopter Heroes', 'Strictly Dancing', and 'Graham Norton's variety show' seems about as near to danger as any of us are going to get! Sunday fares no better, 'Great British Bake-off', 'Formula 1 GP', 'Spooks'...
No, I'm afraid the mass of BBC wartime 'tally-ho chaps', 'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do', 'over-the-top' cos as Brits all know "It's a Long Way To Tipperary...."
Come on now, altogether... "..Pack up your troubles in.." Oh no, even that's now incorporated in a Pop song by 'Eliza Doolittle'!
Now admittedly, on Saturday's BBC2 there's 'Dad's Arm' comedy series followed by a Michael Palin Timewatch documentary about the 'Last Day of WW1' and this dreadful piece of propaganda does indeed look at the issue of how the survivors spent those last hours.
Damn, there You go DemocThreat, You've caught the British Media out shovelling that jingoistic nonsense down the poor old average Briton's throat until they are able to regurgitate 'There Always Be An England' even without Dame Vera Lynn leading the chorus!
Terrible propaganda: I'm sure reading this every UK Media mogul is hanging his/her head in shame at this vile exploitation of British sentiment.
Oh, just for 'quality control' You understand: I did look up some TV Channels for France, Belgium & Germany: Guess what, just like the UK they each had an odd 'war'/'military' scheduled programme - - damn them all, aye DemocThreat - - I mean You wouldn't be prejudiced in Your views, would You? Not a decent chap, like Yourself!
Complain about this comment
But Germany has argued that the Lisbon Treaty will have to be amended to make the emergency fund permanent and legally watertight. The current treaty contains a clause banning members from bailing each other out.
Let's check that again: "a clause BANNING members from bailing each other out."
I am confused. I thought that we (i.e. Germany) had ALREADY bailed the Greeks out? So the EU has BROKEN ITS OWN RULES? GOODNESS - WHAT A SURPRISE!!!!!
Ah, but the thing is, if the rules don't suit you then you break them, just as Greece did by lying through its teeth to get in and as France did by exceeding the famous 3% budget deficit set up at the beginning of the euro at the insistence of Germany. I believe France said at the time 'That rule was intended for little countries'.
Now the fatuous "President" van Rompo is supposed to find out " whether the fund can be set up without each of the 27 member states having to ratify the treaty all over again. "
Indeed. Good luck Rompy - find a way to bend the rules, but no worries, if you can't then just break them - OOPPS; you've done it already. Truly you couldn't make it up. And I am no economist but if anyone thinks that Greece, Spain and Ireland won't need billions more euros to avoid collapse then they are several clowns short of a circus. And how long Germany is gong to want or be able to keep bailing out all the hopeless overspenders is anyone's guess. I suppose that when the German milch cow finally collapses she will be accused of being Nazi. In truth, the other states (France in particular, always quick to get other countries to give it money) has played on German guilt for decades. What Merkel is doing is anyone's guess; a series of demagogic, panicking statements .. now she wants a NEW Lisbon Treaty .... Oh, and the new EU "Foreign Ministry" led by an unelected nonentity earning twice what our Prime Minister does is going to cost £FIVE BILLION and counting. Still, we'll have FORTY-SIX "diplomats" in Barbados and FIFTY in Madagascar.
I really think they're all barmy. Fine, but please NOT WITH OUR MONEY.
Complain about this comment
Never, surely in recent history, has a still-new Prime Minister told so many blatant lies. He lied before he took office and to this day is lying still. Some call it PR and some call it politics - whichever way you think politically - it is lies.
He only is superior to Nicky, for Nicky has told less lies, so far.
Complain about this comment
#213
Englishmen have had the right to petition, as part of a Bill of Rights, a century before your nation even existed. Which you should know, seeing as it, and Magna Carta, are precursor documents for your own Constitution, Bill of Rights and those of the United Nations.
Complain about this comment
EUpris
--- your lollipops are costing Britain a fortune !
Complain about this comment
Here we go again !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/britainatwar/
Complain about this comment
CBW
---sorry --no more lollipops !
Complain about this comment
Re #220
The inane stupidity of the on-line links just gets worse by the contribution.
As mentioned a few times: Next weekend is UK 'Remembrance Sunday' for the Armed Forces.
Hardly surprising then that the Sunday Edition of a UK Newspaper would be carrying a series of articles related to the topic of 'war' & 'sacrifice' - - in this case the Sunday Telegraph has published 4 articles over 3 weeks and will publish (if my source is accurate) 2 more - - it would be amazing if this National 'day' of commemoration were not to attract articles based on historic record.
Now, it maybe that Margaret Howard will dash in to once more denigrate every aspect of it in her unpleasantly shallow manner, so, to get my reply in ahead: I've followed the idea of the on-line links Margaret, and it appears in addition to the English, there are Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish 'Remembrance Parades' & 'Services' being held right across the United Kingdom. Margaret, You have only to look on-line to find the one most suited to Yourself were You so inclined - - at least, it will also provide You with lists of thousands of UK sites You may wish to avoid in view of Your disrespectful thoughts on such matters.
Meanwhile, also re #220, I took another look at the 'foreign' media and as none appear to have a 'Remembrance Day' next week I was just wondering what was the explanation for various French, Belge, Dutch, Polish, German & Finnish newspapers & magazines carrying 'war'/'history' articles?
Don't say those 'foreigners' have fallen into a sentimental trap like the English and even as we contribute the poor souls are being propagandized into recalling their past!? My God! What's the European lifestyle coming to!?
Complain about this comment
CBW
I believe there is a difference between recalling --and worshiping the past ?
---no doubt a minor detail for you --while you charge in reverse ?
Complain about this comment
#223
I've lived in Britain for many years and, out of respect for my friends and neigbours, have attented numerous small-scale November 11th commemorations with their associated church services. To say the British are "worshipping" the past is an insult to the sombre and reflectful way these services are carried out. Its a shame that you allow your hatred for these people to ruin what is nothing than more a memorial to the dead and those who served. And if you think these sort of services are carried out differently in other countries involved in the wars you are greatly mistaken.
Standing around my local village senotaph, with two dozen veterans on a crisp Sunday morning, is still one of the most moving events you can experience. There were school children from a dozen different countries attending, and I brought my three German neighbour's kids along. It leaves you with a feeling of sorrow and regret, not jingoistic pride, you should try and learn that before goading any more posters, especially a veteran himself.
Complain about this comment
I'm utterly surprised this weekend...A powerful and intimidating sound pierced my ears, a UK deafening roar fighting for territorial proclamation, communication with other EU members, and anger.
Raaawwwrrrr! :)))
The EU-UK mosquito is risen...beware...
The "UK Vuvuzela Time" is here :)))))
"If the vuvuzela continues to impact on audience enjoyment, we will look at what other options we can take to reduce the volume further."
"My advice? Get used to it - if you think it's annoying, you will get annoyed by it," EU Emperor Van Rompuy said. "Embrace it, see it as a colourful part of the EU-Summit."
Hmm! OK! "UK-vuvu-stop" ear plugs are essentials the invisible Van Rompuy man acclaimed.
Complain about this comment
Re post 224, Champagne Charlie, wonderfully put
Complain about this comment
Champagne_Charlie
Re #224
Totally agree with Your sentiments.
The Remembrance Day services are commemoration in every way: The dignity of the participants and respect shown by all ages of Britons alongside the superb charitable collection by the British Legion is a credit to the whole United Kingdom.
I'm afraid the contributor at #223 has a history of scurrilous, not to say grossly offensive comments made about the UK, especially the English and this latest is an addition to his spiteful, ill-informed catalogue.
Suffice to say he is a defender (& possible ex-member) of the East Germany Stasi who regularly expresses loathing for all things British and lays claim to worldwide experience, but whenever challenged his lack of depth of knowledge expose unpleasantness flaws in his character.
Cheers to You.
Complain about this comment
#226 #227
Thanks for your kind words.
Sorry, Cool_brush_work , I forgot to mention the British Legion. A magnificent organisation, whose sole purpose is to support their veterans and never, ever allow people to forget the service and sacrifice they made. I wear my poppy with pride, not because of nationalist reasons as I was not born British , but if there was ever a body of human beings that restore my faith in humanity its them. Not a shred of hatred or xenophobia about them, old men and women in their twilight years who embraced (yes, hugged) the German children and thanked them for coming.
Quietoaktree could never understand that. Not in a month of Remembrance Sundays.
Democracythreat denies there should even be a Remembrance Sunday or veterans associations, seeing as Britain did nothing in the war. I wish he could come to the service next week and meet the veterans from North Africa, Italy, Normandy, Singapore, Burma, Imphal, the North Atlantic, the Russian Convoys, RAF, the Home Guard, Blitz survivors, Nursing corps etc and then tell them to their faces that they "sat on their island drinking tea". Meeting them would probably make him turn his eyes in shame and humility, although I'm not sure a Swiss lawyer who brags about how much money he earns (yes I did read your post history democracythreat) feels much in the way of shame and humility. I get the feeling the only shame he feels is when he is forced to drink Verve Clicqot instead of Bollinger.
Complain about this comment
Champagne_Charlie
Re: Our exchange of genuine gratitude for those that went before on our behalf.
Well done: Never read more effective summation.
Once a year at this time we will concentrate on those countless peoples far more deserving of consideration & appreciation.
As for the likes of DT & QOT the old adage, 'ignorance is bliss', is precisely where we should leave their kind.
Complain about this comment
Well, why don't you chaps all sit around holding hands, and have a good cry?
I don't drink fizzy stuff, charlie. If i'm to get my lush on, Kentucky whiskey is my poison. Calle me common, it has been remarked before.
By the way, more war glory from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11652782
Regarding "Our exchange of genuine gratitude for those that went before on our behalf."
Firstly, who is exchanging gratitude with whom? You with the dead guys, or you fellows with each other? It seems to me that you are thrilling to the rare opportunity to let your emotions hang out all over the place.
Second, how could they have gone on our behalf? Surely this is the greatest lie in all of war's smorgasboard of ridiculous fabrications. That the soldier "serves" future generations by giving the gift of "freedom". This is the most insane piece of reasoning around, I'm sure of it. It's worse than arts funding, police unions or bacon mayonnaise.
Conscripts to war because they are forced to do so, and volunteers do it for the money and excitement. This perverse idea that soldiers go to war in order to act selflessly, to "serve" their fellows, is a ridiculous fantasy. It is also transparently self serving. "Look at me and the magnificent things I did for you."
The implication is that you then owe these goons something because they took the kings shilling and went and shot at folks, maybe killed a few babies and raped a few locals. But you owe them respect, admiration and MONEY in the form of a war pension, because they did it FOR YOU. It was a sacrifice!
What a crooked game of dice that is. It's no better than any other half witted fraud where some bully tries to extort money under false pretenses.
And don't tell me it isn;t about the money. It is so about the money. It is ONLY about the money.
Ex soldiers who dress up in their costumes and parade around the streets have all got their hands out for money. They want special pensions, they want mental trauma payments, they want cheap beer at special clubs, they want, they want, they want. They think that landing a job in the ultra violent goon squad of the state entitles them to put their hand in their neighbours pocket for the rest of their lives.
I personally knows guys who "served" at the same time I did, and they way they carry on now is a disgrace and a farce. When they were in the army, they were no good at it. They were lazy, they complained, they only joined up because they were too useless to do anything better. But these guys now, they attend every gathering of ex-state mercenaries they can find on their calendars, and they all claim pensions and benefits of some kind or another. And they all puff themselves up and talk about how they "served".
It is such a fraud and a farce. I was there. I saw how these guys "served". They served themselves, first and foremost, and they never cared a jot about the wider spread of humanity. That is why they were willing to shoot at it for a few bucks.
Complain about this comment
#230
"I personally knows guys who "served" at the same time I did, and they way they carry on now is a disgrace and a farce"
"I was there. I saw how these guys "served".
Who did you serve with? Which army, which unit, which war? It might give people a better idea of where you are coming from.
Complain about this comment
Sorry charlie, swapping war stories and personal details on the interweb is not my style. Feel free to discount everything I say as a fabrication and a lie, it doesn't bother me if you do.
Why should it matter, anyway?
Is that game war heros play, where if you were not in a "real" war then you were not a real man, and your opinion is not worth anything?
I've seen that before, ad nauseam. Talk about chest thumping and preening. And more lies, or course. "I was in a war." usually means they were in the rear, with the gear. But no war hero ever admits to that. They all try to let on that they were infantry corps, or marines, and that "they saw the horror". And having seen that, the thinking goes, THEY KNOW THE TRUTH about war.
Which, if you probe deeper, means that the truth about war is that if you were lucky enough to survive, you are somehow blessed with a deep understanding of society, history, economics, law, spirituality and philosophy. Even if you let school at fifteen years of age and have read half a book in your entire life.
There is nothing quite like taking money to carry a weapon in terms of bestowing upon folks profound wisdom about the world.
For my own part, being in the army taught me about being in the army. Other than that, it was a complete waste of time and the taxpayers money. And what I learned from being in the army is that soldiers are folks who take money and orders, and who rush at every opportunity to dress themselves up as "servants" of everyone, including the yet unborn.
But it is not a selfless servitude. These heros want money. They want benefits. Just ask them.
Complain about this comment
#232
Vietnam was it? That would explain a lot.
Complain about this comment
Re #213 "I am confused. I thought that we (i.e. Germany) had ALREADY bailed the Greeks out?"
You're mistaken: that was merely a 1st tranche.
And send only to one country.
So far.
Complain about this comment
"Two example which constantly amaze me are the way brits discuss the history of the USA and australia, and the treatment of native people in those lands. Brits refer to the "American" treatment of both native americans and slaves as barbaric. But clearly the barbaric slaughter of natives and the conquest of their lands was done by british nationals, under a british flag, and not by Americans. That is just a simple chronological fact. It isn't even contentious. It was the british who engineered the invasion and slaughter of so many native americans, and it was the british who orchestrated the vast majority of the slave trade to the americas, and who profited so hugely from it. And yet, the brits educated in the UK today always refer to these massive crimes against humanity as being the fault and consequence of "American" behaviour. This is despite the fact that since there has been such a thing as "American" nationals, these twin evils of slavery and the genocide of native people's were largely halted."
This comment is ridiculous. The ending of slavery came about after the 1861-65 Civil War decades after the Royal Navy started enforcing a global ban. And the mass slaughter of the Native Indians really kicked off after that with the push west. Were people not 'American nationals' after 4 July 1776 (as they keep celebrating every year) or should we consider Lincoln, Grant and Davy Crockett to be British?
Anyway, as to the EU budget increase. Its all a con to show Cameron as some sort of victor. In reality, UK has very little say now. As do the rest of Europe's citizens. Whatever your ideological stance towards it is, pro or anti, if the French vote against it you know there must be a problem. And an even bigger one if that vote is promptly ignored.
Complain about this comment
General knowledge quizz time.
Who said to the British house of commons in 1937:
"I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between communism and Nazism, I would choose communism".
And who wrote of Adolf Hilter, in an essay in 1935, that he would:
""..go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the great Germanic nation and brought it back serene, helpful and strong, to the forefront of the European family circle."
A hint: this is the same Lord who openly supported Mussolini and Franco until 1937, who advocated for the Japanese invasion and occupation of China, and who hoped Ghandi would die whilst on a hunger strike.
"The truth is," he declared in 1930, "that Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed."
OK, first one to name this exalted fascist aristocrat, this enabler of tyrants and enemy of freedom, gets a pat on the head from the queen.
Complain about this comment
#231. At 10:35am on 01 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie
Maybe I'm wrong but DT seems to me the type of guy who served in the army of a country which practised the principle of everyone being required to serve a certain period in the armed forces. Until not so far back Belgian men were required to serve between 1 year and 18 months and most who did so boast as being para-commando's. However they never saw combat, served close to home and returned home often (weekends, etc) and most just saw the time out. Contrast that with a truly professional volunteer army that actually sees action, if DT served then it was not in the latter I'm sure.
Complain about this comment
A Lester wrote:
"This comment is ridiculous. The ending of slavery came about after the 1861-65 Civil War decades after the Royal Navy started enforcing a global ban. And the mass slaughter of the Native Indians really kicked off after that with the push west."
It is ridiculous, is it?
Consider your response. You claim it is ridiculous to argue that it was the British who made the most profit from slavery, and who instituted it in the first place, because the royal navy "started" to enforce a global ban. With respect, you've offered an irrelevant point. The fact remains that the British DID profit massively from the slave trade, and they WERE responsible for it. The theory that the British navy later tried to stop it is beside the point. It is also hugely debatable whether that action was taken for humanitarian or economic reasons.
Now consider your second point. You claim the mass slaughter of American indians only really "kicked off" with the push to the deserts of the west.
Are you high?
Seriously, do you realize that you are implying that the entire eastern half of the USA was uninhabited by American Indians, and that the vast majority of them lived in the deserts of the west.
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about, in terms of the complete delusions the british public suffer from when examining history. They honestly, truly believe complete nonsense like this. Not only do they believe it, they are indoctrinated to feel so incredibly superior to all other cultures that they dismiss the blindingly obvious facts of history with surprised contempt. "Ridiculous", you called my argument. champagne charlie called it "a load of rubbish".
With as much respect as I can muster, I'd have to offer the observation that both of you strengthen my case with your casual contempt towards arguments that are self evident to any objective student of history.
The fact that you simply can't see the truth of these arguments, and that you feel so comfortable making weird and wonderful arguments to the contrary, simply reinforces my central claim about the British culture. That is, to recap, that the british public are indoctrinated and deluded to an extreme level.
Complain about this comment
""..go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the great Germanic nation and brought it back serene, helpful and strong, to the forefront of the European family circle."
The same person who was publicly ridiculed for his opposition to appeasement and virtually driven from public office once Facsism's true nature was revealed. A serene and helpful nation is preferable to a militarised destructive one, especially in the context of a Europe reeling from the effects of the Depression and a fear of another World War.
You might as well criticize Truman and Eden for fostering good relations with Stalin. Such is the benefit of hindsight.
Back to the present day we could argue that the EU we have now bears no relation to the one that was promised and voted for. I have no argument against a free trade zone. I do have one against an increasing political union that we are persistently denied a say on. Even the French NO was ignored in the Constitution scandal. What does that say?
I would love to know why a Eurozone issue somehow requires our budget to be approved by the EU first? Is it to see how much more money gan be wringed from us?
Complain about this comment
"Contrast that with a truly professional volunteer army that actually sees action, if DT served then it was not in the latter I'm sure."
Wrong, buzet. I was a crusader, a volunteer, a gung ho sign me up and let me at 'em type of guy.
That is why I am so confident that I know what I am talking about on this topic. The professional solider is not an object of mystery to me.
Soldiers, like prostitutes, are just ordinary folks doing what they can to get themselves ahead.
Complain about this comment
#238. At 12:30pm on 01 Nov 2010, democracythreat,
I learnt many years ago here in Belgium that people with views like your on the subject of the EU and Britain have been indoctrinated to a point where the communists of the USSR would have been proud. There is no point talking about truth with you as it contradicts with your indoctrination, the only way you will learn the reality is if you actually experience it. A friend here used to be like you until he left Belgium and went to work in France (he's Belgian and French born BTW), after a few years his views on the EU and France now follow mine and his views on Britain have changed markedly since he worked with a UK company in France.
Therefore there is still hope for you, but only if you open your eyes and mind, as of now you are capable only of finding the client guilty before you've seen the evidence.
Complain about this comment
Democracythreat
On the contrary, i agree with your points that the British profited massively from slavery and started the colonisation of America. I don't condone or seek to justify them either. However, my point was that the assertion that such things ended with the development of the 'American national' is plainly wrong. Does what the UK did in the East negate what 'Americans' did in the West. Was Custer British? I notice you criticize my points without actually answering them.
The typical American criticizes British history, in particular the empire, without considering that the US was busy colonising Cuba, the Phillippines and Puerto Rico amongst others at the same time. Indeed, Puerto Rico is still a colony and has over 4million inhabitatants lacking full protection of the Constitution. This is far bigger than any remaining British dependencies, many of which exist either because they want to or are US bases.
Complain about this comment
My point about fatso the entitled is that he is the most admired British person of all time, according to current polls.
Now he also wrote that history would be kind to him, because he intended to write it. So he had a sense of humour, for sure.
But consider, this guy was born a Duke and a Lord. He was born into political office. He was born into a class of human being that has power no ordinary briton could ever achieve without being born into that class. And he wrote his own history.
And he openly supported the worst of the worst, and then he went to war with the same people. In other words, he was what the American's would call a "flip flopper". In 1935 he was Hitler's advocate. In 1937, he would get out of bed and spend every ounce of his energy furthering the brutality of fascists across Europe, because he supported their policies of violence so reverently.
And yet, he is widely considered to have opposed Hitler in the 30s, because he was "against appeasement". That is one way of looking at the issue. Another is to say that fatso the entitled simply wanted more money to be spent on british war industries, because his family made a good profit from such spending. I mean, make up your own mind, but the facts are the facts. Fatso's family DID own war industries. He WAS entitled by birth to govern tax spending on these industries and he DID spend most of his time getting himself in a position to do so. And he DID openly and vigorously support Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, all manner of Japanese war criminal, and so on and so forth. These are all non contestable facts.
And he ALSO wrote a bunch of reasonably entertaining prose. As did his good buddy Hitler.
And.... he wrote HIS OWN HISTORY.
So that is what we know.
So then you have to ask yourself, what do the british public think of this guy, this fat fascist duke who was born into a superior class, who supported the worst kind of tyrants and advocated for war his entire life, and whose family made a fortune from war for centuries? And who used his power and entitlement to write his own history?
What do the british people think of this guy?
Answer: they think he is the best british man who ever lived!!!
Deluded? Indoctrinated?
These words do not adequately describe the extent to which the British live in a fantasy world. The british live under a system of class power, war profiteering and utter political servitude, and yet they will tell you that they are superior in intelligence to all other cultures, and that they invented democracy and liberty.
I tell you, when god looks down on the british tabloids of a morning, more often than not he ends up snorting so hard his cornflakes come out his nose.
The delusions of the british are outrageous. They are so outrageous, they're actually quite funny.
Tell me the one about how the british defeated germany in world war two! Tell me that story!
Complain about this comment
A lester:
"However, my point was that the assertion that such things ended with the development of the 'American national' is plainly wrong. Does what the UK did in the East negate what 'Americans' did in the West. Was Custer British? I notice you criticize my points without actually answering them. "
Well, I made the point that slavery ended with the US civil war, not because the the British thought it was a jolly good idea. But in any case, that is a dubious argument for a whole bunch of good reasons, and it was never my intention to fly the American flag and argue that being an american is a ticket to moral entitlement. Please, I admit, it is a hopeless case to argue.
But then again, that was not my intention when I started the debate on british culture. My intention was to point out that the british are utterly deluded about their place in the world, and specifically about their political rights.
Because that is the topic of this blog.
David Cameron is doing as his party wish him to do, and gifting vast sums of money to completely secret and undemocratic institutions in Brussels, and THERE IS NOTHING THE BRITISH PUBLIC CAN DO ABOUT IT.
But such is their subservient nature and indoctrination, the british public, as pitifully characterized by Cool Bong Water and his hysterical parade of simpering chaps, will bore us all stupid with their affectations to the glory of king and country.
And of course, EUprisoner will continue to drone on and on about how much better the UK is than continental europe, because the EU is "undemocratic".
It's nauseating. And frankly, it is getting embarrassing for y'all, too.
I would be doing you brits a favour by verbally slapping some perspective into you on this blog.
I live on the continent. I meet french and german and italian and russian folks every single day. I know how the brits are perceived.
Let me give you the bad news: Americans are considered more worldly and intelligent and knowledgeable about history than the british.
People are not going to say this to your face, but the fact is that british people are held in total contempt by the vast majority of educated folks around the world. The brits themselves think they are respected for their grand class system and their "history".
But from where I sit, and from the conversations I have in other languages, this is not the reality. The common british people are considered fools and cowards, to frightened to speak up for themselves and to stupid to realize how badly they are treated by their own government.
And that has real implications in terms of foreign policy in Europe. The french and germans just don't respect the brits. They might not show it openly, but there is a growing and very real sense of contempt for britain and british people.
Have you noticed how few EU jobs are going to british candidates? Well, there are a whole host of other areas of EU policy where the british are being quietly but resolutely ignored. And that will only increase.
So y'all can take my comments for "hatred" of the british, or you can take them as evidence of my own psychological traumas, or whatever. Characterize it howsoever you like. The petty psychoanalyze of wounded nationalism is something I've come to accept as inevitable in serious discussions. It's like dogs barking.
But if we are going to talk about Britain in the EU, let us be real.
The british are losing what influence they have in the EU, and as britain becomes increasingly marginalized it will become treated with open, rather than hidden, contempt.
The two party system of non democracy is being used by the power brokers of Europe to increase their power over European resources and trade policy, and unless and until the british reform their own system of government, they will be spectators to the decline of Britain just as surely as they will be second class spectators to the further decline of Europe.
If people are serious about their objections to the EU, they should look to be real advocates for an alternative system of government.
If you really believe in democracy, then fight for it at home first. If you do not, then try to forget that there is a difference between kneeling down and bending over, grab ankle, and think of England.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat;
I think you need to settle down before you hurt yourself. Good spamming rant by the way, best I've seen since being on here. Why let it bother you so much? You arent British and you dont live in Britain or the EU. Let it go man, leave them to their "misery", you've made your point. If they dont have any influence anyway whats the problem? No one is buying your version of history, neither is anyone buying the fact you reckon you're here to discuss "democracy". Your card was marked ages ago as a paid up member of the British hate cabal, and you should just accept that and quit your ranting.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat
Britain did not defeat Germany in WW2. Neither did the US. Russia did. Germany lost more soldiers in the Battle of Stalingrad alone than the US did in the entire war (including in the Pacific).
The age of aristocracy died over 60 years ago. If you want to consider political families, look at the Kennedys', Clintons' and the Bush's. There was a Bush as either a President or Vice-President for 20 of the last 30 years.
Complain about this comment
I agree with democracythreat on the issue of the EU. It is about time we stood up and be counted. I'm not a fan of the French but they are rioting over increasing the pension age to 62!!!
Complain about this comment
Cameron's EU budget battle
______________________________
If the southern PIIGS can't pay the EU club membership will they have to sell up all their Mediterranean treasures to their Nordic superiors?
What say ye? (What say you all?)
Complain about this comment
champagne_charlie wrote:
"democracythreat;
I think you need to settle down before you hurt yourself. Good spamming rant by the way, best I've seen since being on here. Why let it bother you so much? You arent British and you dont live in Britain or the EU. Let it go man, leave them to their "misery", you've made your point. If they dont have any influence anyway whats the problem? No one is buying your version of history, neither is anyone buying the fact you reckon you're here to discuss "democracy". Your card was marked ages ago as a paid up member of the British hate cabal, and you should just accept that and quit your ranting."
I don't hate the british, CC. I pity them.
And as for why I am here, you are not in any position to speak for that, nor are you in any position to argue who is buying my version of history. I happen to think the history I make up is as good as anybody's. If historical fables were carrot cakes, I'd be wanting a ribbon for my baking efforts.
As it happen's, I am here to discuss European politics and specifically democracy. Hence my intolerance of Cool Bong Water and his ilk, who turn up in order to speak loudly about the latest fashion in fox hunting paraphernalia. I include you in that festering can of pomp, by the way. Just so you don't feel like you can get too familiar, I mean. You've written nothing so far that impresses me, charlie. But I await your best efforts with patience and an almost christlike capacity for forgiveness. It being all saints day and a holiday in Switzerland, I'm generous in this respect.
But at the same time, don't be feeling entitled to liberties, or somehow excused from your general limitations of character and intellect. If and when you and bong water have stopped your cuddling and mewling together over the flag, the page is open for your contributions on European political advancement.
On that topic, I'd note that Marcus has advocated grass roots action that involves an incitement to pay less taxes. He advocates the withholding of taxation from the political class until emancipation is granted.
That is revolutionary stuff. It is also, arguably, a crime.
Sedition, which is the common law crime (invented by the judges) of spreading discontent amongst her majesties subjects, would almost certainly cover this sort of incitement towards non payment of taxation. curiously, the same is true in the USA, where the non payment of taxation is also a crime.
Even more interestingly, in Switzerland this is NOT the case.
To understand why, we need to go back in time a little ways, and consider some reasonably funky reasoning which was set forth during the french reformation and later enlightenment, around the time of Calvin and then 200 years later through Rousseau.
Calvin set out the idea that the individual could obtain god's blessing, and enter what he called a "state of grace", through personal conduct and piety, and crucially WITHOUT the blessing of the ordained officers of the church. That was a major step away from utter subservience of the individual to communal authority. It was also a major incitement to avoid taxation! Calvin's father was a tax lawyer in Paris, one must note.
Now Rousseau was even more interesting on the topic of the individuals right to liberty in the face of the state, but he came from this school of calvinism. He grew up in geneva.
Rousseau argued that humanity had a "social contract", and that just as individuals owed a duty to their government (which at this time was still largely feudal in character), so too did the society owe certain liberties and entitlements to all common people.
Now Rousseau argued that the "sovereign" power in an ideal state ought to be the mass of the people, and that this power of direct democracy ought to be controlled by "government", who were the magistrates responsible for enforcing the law.
Students of the common law will identify ideas here which are widely thought to have originated in English philosophy and law. In fact, that case is extremely difficult to make from the evidence in the common law, and it was not until John Stuart Mill paraphrased these ideas nearly a century later in the early 1800's that they took firm root in English language and culture.
So in a way, folks from around here (switzerland) are waiting..... and waiting.... and waiting..... for the english people to finally "get it", and to demand not only representation, but an actual social contract where they themselves are sovereign over their own law.
The swiss are kind of upset that the french have remained under the sway of puppet republicans, and they expect nothing much from Germany, either. The french did not invent work, and the germans will follow anyone proffering free sausages, beer and a marching tune.
But insofar as the english language is widespread, and insofar as it is hoped that perhaps the english might talk less if they were more carefully engaged with the actual tasks of managing their society, I do think the Swiss would like to see the british people become sovereign over themselves, and enter the modern civilized world.
Who knows, if the brits could do the trick, the Germans would likely follow, in order to march in step, and maybe even the french would stop drinking and striking for long enough to give it some thought.
The french claimed Rousseau, by the way, just as they evicted Calvin, having educated him in the niceties of tax evasion by the titled classes.
That was one of the ironies I wanted to mention in this post, in fact, the curious fact that it is exactly the people who own the british system of political representation who "cheat" the most tax from it. My point was going to be that once you cheat enough tax, you are actually doing the world a service by forcing regimes to compete for your capital investment.
That was going to be my advice to EUPrisoner, as he takes amrcus's advice and starts to bleed the UK crown dry by with holding his taxation dues.
Remember, EUPris, you are not "cheating tax". That is a vulgar expression, fit for continentals, indeed wurst gobblers of the wurst kind. You are "forcing your government to compete for your capital investment".
It's the sport of gents, you understand.
Oh, by the way, I forgot:
Disputing the obligation to pay tax can only be a "crime" if the civil contract between the individual and the state remains an issue for a feudal society. If the individual and the state have evolved from a feudal relationship and have entered a CIVIL relationship, then dispute between these entities must take place on the legal basis of CIVIL law. That is to say, the state may SUE the individual for money it claims to be owed. This should make sense to everyone. If you claim I owe you money, and the two of us are individuals, then you have CIVIL remedies at law. You can sue me. You can't come after me with guns and truncheons and then lock me up if I don't pay you back. You are not my FEUDAL lord, but only another CIVIL partner in our society.
So too with your relationship with you state. If you have a CIVIL relationship with your state, as is found in Switzerland (and in in any REAL DEMOCRACY), then your state can only sue you for money debts.
IF your state has FEUDAL powers to hunt you down and lock you up and take your property if it feels you owe it money (tax dispute) THEN you do not have a CIVIL relationship with your state. You have a FEUDAL relationship with your state. You live under FEUDAL LAW. Your social contract with your state is FEUDAL in character, and not civil.
And why do I make this point at such length?
Because after many, many years of reading, traveling, working and participating in legal disputes in many countries, I have concluded that democracy can only exist where the people live under CIVIL law.
If and when feudal law survives, those who have the most money will buy and control the apparatus of the state. And if and when the state is purchased by the powerful members of a society, whether they be capitalists or communists or priests or landlords, then that class will use EVERY POWER OF THE STATE to gather more money unto themselves. I believe this is human nature. Use it if you got it.
So it becomes crucial, for the survival of real democracy, to limit the power of the state so that when the power of the state falls into the hands of greedy, as it must, the common people cannot be made criminals, and cannot be made fearful of disputing their tax debts to the state.
For if the individual is made fearful of liberty and property insofar as raising the issue of a debt to the state is concerned, then that individual has lost the true sovereignty which any real democracy demands must lie with the mass of individuals. And once sovereignty is lost, the term democracy becomes a meaningless label, no more real than a prayer floating away on yesterday's wind.
Hence I believe the most powerful reform to British society, or elsewhere, if the political objective be liberty and democracy, is to reform the tax code such that governments may note employ the power of criminal prosecution to pursue the debts they claim from the sovereigns of the community, the people.
Until the sovereign in the society has this civil relationship with the state, it cannot be called truly sovereign. How can any sovereign be held criminally liable for a money debt to any other party in a society?
It is a nonsense, and so it follows that while you are so liable under the criminal law for your debts to the state, you cannot be sovereign. And therefore, you have no democracy.
Complain about this comment
democracythreat
Rousseau himself believed there was a limit to the success of his ideals, based primarily on size of the population. Direct democracy can only work if it is manageable and it would not be manageable in a country with a population in the millions. In such instances power inevitably centralises in the hands of a few who 'claim' to be acting in the name of the people such as happened with his pals in the Jacobin Club, or indeed, Marxism.
What we have is a Parliamnetary democracy whereby the MPs are elected to office to act in the name of the people. If they don't then they get elected out of office. In theory, this has all the benefits of Rousseau's ideals without its pitfalls. Again, if our tax money is misspent then they could be unelected. Whilst i may not agree with the allocation of the UK budget, thats what elections are for. If i am unjustly taxed, i can sue HMRC for the monies and damages which i'm sure will be more effective than quoting an 18th century humanist.
What we really need is a leader to grow a backbone and stick up for what the people want. In this particular case, thats for the EU to stop spending our money like it belongs to them.
Complain about this comment
#250 A Lester
´To stop spending our money---´
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/10/land-tax-labour-britain
Complain about this comment
Has anybody idea what most (if not all) British wars were really defending ?
---or were most aggressive in nature ---in the interest of a few ?
Complain about this comment
A Lester wrote:
"democracythreat
Rousseau himself believed there was a limit to the success of his ideals, based primarily on size of the population. Direct democracy can only work if it is manageable and it would not be manageable in a country with a population in the millions. In such instances power inevitably centralises in the hands of a few who 'claim' to be acting in the name of the people such as happened with his pals in the Jacobin Club, or indeed, Marxism."
Rousseau was fallible in many ways, and is not set out in my argument as some kind of authority of what is possible. He was simply the originator of the distinction between civil and feudal law, and if one wants to make an argument that real democracy requires a civil relationship between the individual and the state, Rosseau is where that argument begins to take shape.
With regard to your own statement regarding whether direct democracy is possible, you make the unfortunate error of proclaiming a theory which has already been proven wrong in fact, both in Switzerland and also in California. Indeed, you do nothing more than repeat the standard british article of faith which says that the UK system of sponsored representation is the perfect political model.
Power does not "inevitably centralize in the hands of the few" under a system of direct democracy. I put it to you that this is rather more clearly true of systems of representation.
Direct democracy exists, and it has an admirable record of conduct. It is just not good enough to have large theoretical opinions on the subject when one is ignorant of the practical examples and the facts. This is no more dignified than a person proclaiming that the world must flat, because if it were round then things would inevitably fall off.
Furthermore, and notwithstanding the size of California and Switzerland, the argument about the size of a state is entirely defunct with regard to whether a system of governance can operate. The size of a federation of states is an entirely arbitrary concept.
Arguably, Switzerland is already within the EEA, and therefore within an economic federation of European states. So what? Switzerland is also a democratic state with a civil law relationship between it's subjects and it's government. The same is true of California. California is part of the United States of America, but soon it's subjects will go to the polls to decide a public initiative regarding the war on drugs. Now interestingly, this may bring them into conflict with the federal government, but the fact remains that Californians HAVE direct democracy, AND they are part of a nation of 300 million folks. So this argument that size defeats direct democracy is spurious in the extreme. Even if it were true, it would simply be an argument AGAINST large super states, rather than an argument against direct democracy. Massive centralization of state power is a strong candidate for a symptom of great political mismanagement, insofar as it implies massive inefficiencies and massive distortions in power between local people and their governors who live far, far away, and who cannot have any real contact with them.
But regardless of the arguments, the facts remain, and until people are willing to stop parroting this absurd British article of faith that the westminster system is perfect, we can't have a debate on the subject of democracy.
The brits need to "let go" of their faith in their own perfection, or they shall never understand democracy or even modern legal theory. The brits needs to stop quoting Lord Churchill as though he was an authority on anything except feudal rule.
You must admit, it is a bit odd, is it not, that you make these statements about whether direct democracy is possible with nations of millions, when Switzerland sits right slap bang in the middle of Europe, and has existed as a direct democracy for 150 years and more.
I mean to say, there is a massive, simply weird blindness on this topic. Every british person I have ever met knows Switzerland exists, but when asked about democracy they parrot Lord Churchill like a choir boy singing out a matin mass. The ignorance is profound, indeed it is amazing. It cannot be simple ignorance. It can only be the product of a sustained and powerful process of indoctrination.
Threnodio has read detailed comments from me before, concerning the way the swiss system of democracy melds representation and the direct power to stop the abuse of power by those who sponsor political parties. But on this blog he still can't help himself. He demands that folks choose between representation OR real democracy.
Now he is not entirely stupid. And I know he has read and understood, and made no effort to question, the reality of the swiss system which exists so geographically close to his own location. And yet when he revisits the topic, he "forgets" all that has been said. And he parrots the conventional British article of faith, that the british system is the only true system, and the best there can ever be.
This is why I pity and despair for the English, and why I make the claim that their society is brutally oppressed intellectually, and miserably indoctrinated. I see far too many otherwise intelligent brits who are conditioned like pavlov's dogs to salivate at the sign of pomp and ceremony, and who are simply incapable of understanding or asking for political emancipation.
Trying to talk democracy with brits is as difficult as talking science with hard core religious fanatics, for exactly the same reasons. You are dealing with the stiff clay of pure faith. That faith has been burned into the psyche since infancy, and should you challenge it you find yourself challenging the individuals estimation of their own worth. this is how it is with people who are taught from birth that they are superior if only they plead everlasting allegiance to some cult or another. You can see it in religious cults of all kinds, in political cults like socialism or fascism, and in cults of nationalism or racism.
But anyway, one ought not despair too much for the world. As time and progress evolve around the outdated dogma that supports the british culture, I think more and more young britons feel the ridiculous nature of their indoctrination as chains around minds which were born to reason freely.
You have even said that Russia defeated Germany in the second world war, and not the UK. That sounds like the blindingly obvious truth to most folks in the world, but it is nevertheless a massive, massive step forward into the light for an englishman. Thirty years ago had a person said such a thing on the BBC they would probably have been sacked and then beaten by the mob.
Complain about this comment
CBW
Should one show sympathy or respect for those who have fallen ?
http://www.monarchyinternational.net/quotations.htm
The EU has (not yet) demanded the same !
Complain about this comment
Marcus
- are you too busy freeing the Tea-baggers from thread strangulation on the teaspoon?
---Your silence is suspicious !
Complain about this comment
democracythreat
California has a Governor and Switzerland a central government. I was suggesting a 'sovereignty' of the people in the model of Rousseau in its purest form is unworkable. Day to day decision making by referendum is unworkable without dismantling the concept of large scale (more than a few hundred) society. That is not to say of course that referendums on important issues are not desirable. Quite the opposite. We were promised a referendum on the EU Treaty and that was reneged. This caused a large degree of anger and would have wiped out Labour at the election were large swathes of the population not dependant of its spending sprees.
I can assure you that no Brit would consider the Westminster system perfect. Indeed, politicians are held in the same sort of contempt as bankers and ambulance chasing lawyers. However, from a political science viewpoint it could be argued that a parliamentary style is inherently less susceptable to tyranny that a presidential.
Either way, i would urge you to not to paint every UK citizen as some stuck in the past snoot ruled over by a warlike gentry. Its as inaccurate as me characterising all Americans as bible-bashing creationists ignorant of their own history, let alone anyone elses. Or the French as back-stabbing opportunists.
Complain about this comment
#253
What an absolute farce of a post.Just like the rest today. You may as well as have been talking about the residents of the 3rd moon of Alpha Centauri 5 for all the relevance that post has about Britons. And no, I'm not British. I'll stay clear of this ludicrous blog the next time a Swiss public holiday is due thats for sure.
Complain about this comment
champagne_charlie wrote:
" And no, I'm not British. I'll stay clear of this ludicrous blog the next time a Swiss public holiday is due thats for sure."
Imagine my distress.
A lester, of course you are correct to say that one ought not stereotype the inhabitants of any nation. I know that not all british folks are not "snoots". Whether they are ruled over by a warlike gentry..... well, I mean....
It is a fact that the next British head of state will be a blue blooded aristocrat whose career was in the armed forces. And so will the next one after that. And the next. It is "how they do".
But anyway, I'm prepared to admit I can be a bit heavy handed with the brits. It is not that I wish to insult them, just to break down the casual air of superiority that some of them exhibit on this blog.
I go to sleep at night believing I have improved CBW as a person, for example. That has got to be worth something, surely? Nobody can say "democracythreat doesn't care".
Nobody can say that in good conscience, Lester.
Complain about this comment
"Chancellor Merkel has surprised and angered some other leaders by insisting that such significant changes require a change to the Lisbon Treaty. She wants any change to be legally watertight, knowing that it would be examined by the German constitutional court. Angela Merkel seems to have an ally in President Sarkozy, but few others."
Sorry, Europe. Our government is now handing out that money to the Taliban, so we really need austerity measures in order to ensure that there will be free money for murderers in the future.
Complain about this comment
@246 A Lester
"Britain did not defeat Germany in WW2. Neither did the US. Russia did. Germany lost more soldiers in the Battle of Stalingrad alone than the US did in the entire war (including in the Pacific)."
Here we go again, no topic about Europe without someone mentioning WWII. :)
I agree with you that Russia took the brunt of the war of attrition and slaughter. It is no secret that they crushed the Wehrmacht by sheer numbers.
Successful reorganization and restructrization of the Russian forces enabled them to efficiently fight back.
What you forget to mention is the fact that without both US support in both material and funding (lend-lease-act) as well as allied air superiority above Western Europe, the Soviet Union would have never had the industrial capacity to defeat the Third Reich.
The USA had the industrial and financial capacity to outproduce Germany and Japan at the same time.
Russia really never was a world power, the USA were and still are, albeit a descending one.
Complain about this comment
@241 democracythreat
"So then you have to ask yourself, what do the british public think of this guy, this fat fascist duke who was born into a superior class, who supported the worst kind of tyrants and advocated for war his entire life, and whose family made a fortune from war for centuries? And who used his power and entitlement to write his own history?"
It`s probably quite simple: he is, according to my experience, widely conceived as the driving force behind the English resistance against Nazi Germany.
Despite of all the criticism that person has drawn from the intellectual and leftist corner, I think that he was one rare example of a politicians who could overcome his previously proclaimed opinion and adjust it as needed.
That is a quality in itself which is often disregarded in our now leftist-dominated western societies where it has become fashionable to neglect and ridicule others actions and achievements by scrutinizing their past.
Complain about this comment
#240. At 12:47pm on 01 Nov 2010, democracythreat
DT a crusader? I have to admit that you show all the one sided fixation that a fanatic shows, and yet you claim to have been a crusader, gung ho in an army. Hum was this a troop that relaxed in a Dutch coffee shop, or in some other salubrious establishment where alcohol etc were freely available. This weekend you have excelled yourself with your stupidity, and there I was thinking that you were capable of presenting a reasoned argument in a debate. What happened did the mask slip, you ran out of your pills or maybe your girlfriend ditched you, let us know as we're curious why you should show such irrational craziness.
As for the people you meet who also say the same about Brits, well like mixes with like, what's the matter, do you not like the thought that many in the UK do not swallow the EU claptrap any more, and wish to spend the UK's funds on the UK instead of ungrateful imbeciles. This also applies to the peoples of other countries who also do not share the great Socialist dream of redistributing their wealth elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
Sorry --some info to assist DT.
Only one Commonwealth country as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canadian_Crown_and_the_Canadian_Forces
This UK war cry of ´We want our sovereignty back from the EU ´ is getting suspicious -- its not so transparent as some British media portray it ?
Complain about this comment
#261. At 9:14pm on 01 Nov 2010, DurstigerMann
I think you meant post #236 as #241 was mine, but DT is unfortunately living proof that the culture of envy and jealousy still rides high amongst some on the mainland. He claims he was a volunteer in an army and gung ho, whereas the camp kitchen was probably all he was capable of, if that. We (you) had our discussions some while back but one thing is certain is that all the Germans I met whilst working near Dusseldorf respected the British as we respect the Germans. DT claims that the Germans were saying different behind our backs but that was not the experience I had when with a Belgian/German girlfriend some years back, nor when I was in Dusseldorf, he/she/it must have some warped, self-important, low grade friends.
Complain about this comment
#263. At 9:44pm on 01 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
Yet another fool who keeps on posting links in the vain and hopeless thought that even the innocent will somehow cast doubt on the UK and its Royal family, totally boring and irrelevant.
Just thought you might like to know that on November 11th when most countries will be remembering their WWII dead the EU institutions will be working, including that useless expensive EU parliament, and unlike the UK they will not be remembering it instead on the nearest Sunday. Why, because it seems some think it might upset the German people I've been told, what a crass insult to the dead of both sides. It must make you feel proud to consider yourself a European in step with the EU, eh! Pass me the sick bucket please.
Complain about this comment
#264 Buzet 23
--- I fail to see why DT or many mainland countries and their inhabitants should be envious.
That most Brits have little idea of the world or how time has past them --is most apparent on this blog.
---his basic accusation of Britain wallowing in the past has had no worthy opposition to date.
Complain about this comment
#265 Buzet 23
Now I am a European ?
-- ´ Ther´s a hole in the bucket´ (Harry Belafonte)
--- you can´t even use it as a drum and you have wet feet !
And be careful when kicking.
Complain about this comment
[quote]260. DurstigerMann wrote
Russia took the brunt of the war of attrition and slaughter. It is no secret that they crushed the Wehrmacht by sheer numbers.
[/quote]
It was lack of war production from the Germans that made the difference. Germany had more steel than Russia, more (synthetic) rubber, pretty much more of everything except oil. Even the manpower pool was not too dissimilar considering Germany held areas containing 30% of Russias population for nearly three years. Combined with its allies (Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and to a lesser degree Italy and volunteers from western Europe) its manpower pool was about equal.
The Russians had two major advantages: 1) they only had one front 2) lend-lease enabled them to focus on tanks, planes and artillery. Plus the fact that they had centralized economic control over war production in the hands of one office alone.
Germany had always had at least 2 fronts and failed to centralize war production. War production control was divided over several offices (OKW, Office of the Four Year plan, Aviation Ministry etc...) and they never got around to producing mass numbers of simple designs. Too much focus on top notch designs in small production runs. Considering the resource advantage Germany and its allies had, they should have outproduced the Soviets, but didn't. In fact, the opposite happened.
Complain about this comment
265. Buzet23
"Just thought you might like to know that on November 11th when most countries will be remembering their WWII dead the EU institutions will be working"
My understanding was that "Remembrance Day" is held on various dates in different countries.
November 11th specifically represents the Armistice at the end of WWI - not WWII.
Is Europe to shut down on every day that a member country has a Remembrance Day?
Complain about this comment
resistance35
The Blitz-Krieg could hardly have been achieved with low production.
Until America entered the war Britain believed that by terrorizing the German civil population the best results would be achieved. America changed this tactic by bombing the production centers and was much more effective.
Complain about this comment
#269 reincarnation
Please do not bore Buzet23 with facts that are irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
270. quietoaktree
"The Blitz-Krieg could hardly have been achieved with low production."
Blitzkreig only applied in the early days of the war - and was very successful. However, it was a bit like "Shock and Awe" - designed for short term impact rather than for a long term war which required total mobilization of all the country's resources for success. The structure of the Nazi state prevented the centralized mobilization that would have been required. There have been a number of academic analyses pointing out the structural defects that prevented Nazi Germany operating at optimum efficiency.
Complain about this comment
@264 Buzet23
I cannot speak for all the other Germans, but I have never heard of "the Germans" holding a grudge against "the Brits".
There is some funny relationship between our nations, but that`s just stereotypes and nothing serious imo :)
So I guess that I`d agree with you.
Complain about this comment
273. DurstigerMann
"There is some funny relationship between our nations"
Judging by the headlines in the English/Brit press, there is also a funny relationship between the English and the French over the issue of joint Defence planning.
Complain about this comment
270. At 00:39am on 02 Nov 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
The Blitz-Krieg could hardly have been achieved with low production.
Until America entered the war Britain believed that by terrorizing the German civil population the best results would be achieved. America changed this tactic by bombing the production centers and was much more effective.
Blitzkrieg was a method by which armored forces, backed by air-power, were concentrated at a particular point of the front to exploit a breakthrough. During the early years of the war when it was successful, surprise and speed were the important factors rather than high production. When the initial shock of this revolutionary tactic faded and the Allies became more experienced, the value of blitzkrieg evaporated. During the later years, Germany’s production deficiencies couldn’t replace the units lost in an increasingly attritional war.
While the American manufacturing base was specialized to mass produce many relatively simple cars and consumer appliances, Germany’s was specialized to produce limited numbers of special order heavily engineered vehicles and machinery such as factory equipment, tractors and locomotives. When both switched to manufacturing weapons, obviously one was superior to the other in production numbers. Germany’s industry was also never fully geared towards total war until early 1943.
Complain about this comment
@268 resistance35
"It was lack of war production from the Germans that made the difference.
The Russians had two major advantages: 1) they only had one front 2) lend-lease enabled them to focus on tanks, planes and artillery. Plus the fact that they had centralized economic control over war production in the hands of one office alone."
German industrial output actually peaked in 1944, while being under heavy allied bombardment.
German industrial capacity was vastly superior to anything Russia could have mustered on its own.
"Germany had always had at least 2 fronts and failed to centralize war production. War production control was divided over several offices (OKW, Office of the Four Year plan, Aviation Ministry etc...) and they never got around to producing mass numbers of simple designs. Too much focus on top notch designs in small production runs. Considering the resource advantage Germany and its allies had, they should have outproduced the Soviets, but didn't. In fact, the opposite happened."
As I said, industrial war production peaked late in the war. Considering the fact that the allies already had absolute air superiority over Germany in 44, one can only come to one conclusion: that the decision to decentralize prevented German war production from collapse.
Actually, the industrial output was fine. If anything, it was higher than to be expected under those circumstances. What the Wehrmacht lacked was fuel, manpower and trained personnel.
You remember: in the end, the Nazis even sent small boys against tanks.
About the lack of standardized, simple designs for mass production:
I`d call roughly 8500 Panzerkampfwagen IV and almost 3000 Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther" mass produced tanks.
You could write similar stuff about aircraft as well.
It`s just that most people associate the Third Reich with weapon platforms such as Tiger, Königstiger or Me262 or V1/2 (all immature technology rushed into production), while other platforms actually built the Wehrmacht`s actual backbone.
Complain about this comment
275. Bro_Winky
"Germany’s industry was also never fully geared towards total war until early 1943."
Arguably, not even then - due to the diversion of resources towards "solving the Jewish problem".
Complain about this comment
@272 reincarnation
"Blitzkreig only applied in the early days of the war - and was very successful. However, it was a bit like "Shock and Awe" - designed for short term impact rather than for a long term war which required total mobilization of all the country's resources for success. The structure of the Nazi state prevented the centralized mobilization that would have been required. There have been a number of academic analyses pointing out the structural defects that prevented Nazi Germany operating at optimum efficiency."
Let me make a wild guess: the single greatest obstacle were the Nazis!
After all they suffered from some kind of loss of about any sense of reality.
But still, don´t forget that German rearmament began in 33 and was far from completion in 39. Blitzkrieg supported a myth of a highly mobile German military which, in fact, still worked with horses for the most part.
As for "optimum efficiency", do you have a source?
I`d rather argue that it was a feat by and in itself that German industrial production did not break down during 44 and 45, but instead peaked.
Complain about this comment
278. DurstigerMann
I suspect that we would agree that a Germany not encumbered by the Nazi Party (while we both understand why they were able to seize control) would have probably dominated Europe, without the need for a war!
Complain about this comment
211. At 2:05pm on 31 Oct 2010, democracythreat wrote:
" ...A few people know that Siegfried Sassoon threw his military cross into the Seine river ..."
EUpris: He didn't. It has recently been found in the UK - not in a river.
Complain about this comment
211. At 2:05pm on 31 Oct 2010, democracythreat wrote:
" ...
For an objective observer ..."
EUpris: That is the very thing that you ain't.
Complain about this comment
244. At 1:25pm on 01 Nov 2010, democracythreat wrote:
" ...
And of course, EUprisoner will continue to drone on and on about how much better the UK is than continental europe ..."
EUpris: I don't claim that so stop distorting the truth!
As for droning on and on - look at the length of your own "contributions"!
Complain about this comment
280. EUprisoner209456731
"It has recently been found in the UK - not in a river."
I didn't know that the medal had turned up, but the medal wasn't thrown into any river. The ribbon was thrown into the Mersey - "The poor little thing fell weakly onto the water and floated away as though aware of its own futility".
http://www.rwfmuseum.org.uk/nb_sassoon_medals.html
Complain about this comment
276. At 02:31am on 02 Nov 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
About the lack of standardized, simple designs for mass production:
I`d call roughly 8500 Panzerkampfwagen IV and almost 3000 Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther" mass produced tanks.
You could write similar stuff about aircraft as well.
----------------------
Actually the Germans were able to manufacture just over 13,000 Pz IVs & 6,500 Panther tanks. However, while these numbers may sound impressive, when you compare that to the fact that the Soviets were able to produce over 57,000 T-34 tanks alone (more than all the German tanks combined), Germany’s weakness becomes obvious. Sure a single T-34 couldn’t hold a candle to a single Panther, but 8 or 9 of them could.
The US produced over 200,000 fighters and bombers alone, while the total German aircraft production (fighters, bombers, transports, ground attack, etc) came in just under half that number.
In the context of a war of attrition like WWII, the German weapons were not mass produced.
Complain about this comment
#269. At 00:16am on 02 Nov 2010, reincarnation
and QOT,
Of course you're right about it being WWI, a simple mistake by me, as a rule all Catholic countries seem to follow the actual 11th for the remembrance day, but the fact still remains that the EU institutions are not remembering the war dead in any way.
Bearing in mind the claim by many pro-EU posters here that it is because of the EU and its predecessors that there has been peace in Europe since WWII that is quite a two sided approach. Typical EU sponsored deviousness.
Complain about this comment
#274. At 02:09am on 02 Nov 2010, reincarnation
Maybe you would like to tell me any country that trusts the French, especially if it came to defence, as all the countries I've known in Europe seem to share the same viewpoint about the French. It's probably the only true commonality I've found in Europe.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23
Sharing carriers with any other nation is a stupid idea. What if they don't agree with the mission?
Unfortunately, you don't have to be Einstein to see the end game here i.e an EU military that the UK pays for to defend French interests. There is even an EU flag between the UK and French ones in the photo. It is quite cynical of the Government to take advantage of the current crisis to ram this deal through.
Complain about this comment
In about a year British Navy is going to get first short take off and landing F-35s.
Why would UK need French carriers then?
Complain about this comment
A suspected bomb has exploded at the Swiss embassy in the Greek capital Athens, a day after four parcel bombs were found in the city.
The BBC's Malcolm Brabant in Athens says it appears to be a co-ordinated attack by an extreme left-wing group.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy was among the intended recipients of one of four devices discovered on Monday, police said.
Another of the bombs, addressed to the Mexican embassy in Athens, exploded in the offices of a private courier company, injuring an employee. The other two parcels were addressed to the Belgian and Dutch embassies. (BBC)
So it seems that being Belgian, Dutch, French, Mexican or even Swiss won't protect you from a wrath of left wing Greek terrorists.
Complain about this comment
"Together the facilities would involve "several dozen" French and British experts and cost both countries several million euros.
It said scientists from both countries would be able to ensure the "viability, safety and security in the long term of our nuclear arsenals".
This must be some kind of a joke. "Several million euros"?!
You'd need at least one to 1.5 petaflop (sustained) supercomputer to simulate a detonation of a thermonuclear warhead with any specificity.
Please ask guys from Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore US National Labs, what IBM charges for building one.
Complain about this comment
I would like to comment on the discussion on democracy.
The idea that "direct" democracy is superior to representative democracy seems to be a massive red herring to me.
What constitutes a democracy (as the term is used today, I don't give a hoot about the old Greeks - they are all dead. As is Rousseau.).
Democracy must include all of the following:
- human rights (liberties and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of enterprise, but also respect of the right of privacy, the right to life & physical integrity, etc...)
- the rule of law
- protection of minorities
- a complex decision making process, that takes into account the increasing complexity of our society
- the end of power of any elected person after a fixed set of time
- elections
Elections are only a part of democracy (and largely insufficient by themselves to determine whether a system is democratic).
Referendums are actually not really essential, and have some serious downsides.
- they create groups that will oppose each other
- they create resentment with the losers
- they do not provide for proper protection of minorities, which is an essential element of democracy
- they do not resolve the question of representation. In a referendum based system, the power of representation is replaced by the power to ask the question. Both have problems, neither is perfect.
- most questions of handling our society and economy cannot be resolved with Yes/No, or a similarly simple answer. Just to give some examples:
- what is the right interest rate at any given time?
- how do you ensure that unemployment benefits don't create the wrong incentives, but at the same time keep enough of a middle class to keep a modern economy going?
- how do you ensure that the education system enables, rather than selects?
- how do you affect the balance of power between big corporations and consumers?
- how do you ensure that competition policy creates a level playing field, without distorting competition?
etc...
etc...
etc...
The reason why democracies tend to have superior organisational efficiency over dictatorships is not "sovereignty" or any other theoretical concept that everybody uses for their own benefit (so-called "container" words, because you can fill them with whatever).
The reason why democracies outperform autocracies is that in a democracy, an incompetent person is, on average, kicked out of their job a little bit faster.
That's it. Peter principle sticks in an autocracy, but less so in a democracy.
There is no indication that any type of democratic system is "better" than another. There is every indication that, overall, democratic systems perform better than non-democratic systems. BTW, the Chinese government knows this perfectly well.
Those wonderful Swiss democrats, some of them didn't give the vote to women until about 10 years ago. What a ridiculous, and quite immoral, waste of resources...
Complain about this comment
#290
Why not ask Bull instead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tera_100
Complain about this comment
I thought that part of the contributions to the EU budget was from a percentage of VAT. With VAT going up by a factor of 1/7th in January does this not make up the rise Britain is expected to make.
Complain about this comment
#291
A man needs to ask himself, if the Swiss democracy is that special and that wonderful, why do only one-third of the population vote in local elections and less than half in federal? They have voting rates that , if they occurred in a UK general election, would be deemed as a constitutional crisis. Perhaps they live in such a paradise that they dont feel the need anymore.
Complain about this comment
@284 Bro_Winky
"Actually the Germans were able to manufacture just over 13,000 Pz IVs & 6,500 Panther tanks. However, while these numbers may sound impressive, when you compare that to the fact that the Soviets were able to produce over 57,000 T-34 tanks alone (more than all the German tanks combined), Germany’s weakness becomes obvious. Sure a single T-34 couldn’t hold a candle to a single Panther, but 8 or 9 of them could."
Thanks for the info. I investigated production numbers and found your numbers of the Panther seem to be accurate. I apparently left out Ausf. G.
But I failed to find the production numbers of Pz IV you are supporting. Could you provide me with a source for this?
Complain about this comment
#285 Buzet 23
It may just be that mainland Europe remembers its war dead far more often-- after all, they suffered the most.
The generation of ´Trummerfrauen´who could not marry as there was few men remaining, or those women whose husbands were killed or prisoners of war in Siberia --could hardly be expected to show enthusiasm for sorrow on specific days.
Complain about this comment
#294 champagne_charlie
´Perhaps they live in such a paradise that they don´t feel the need anymore´
-- does that also apply to your country where voting changes little or nothing ?
Complain about this comment
293. terrysolihull
There was a proposal for part of VAT to go direct to Europe - but it was never implemented. IIRC
Complain about this comment
I notice that Britain is struggling with one of the ECHR edicts. That would be the one that requires Britain to allow its convicts to vote. (cruel and unusual punishment I guess).My question is, would British democracy be best served by succumbing to the ECHR or better served by just saying no.
Complain about this comment
#297
quietoaktree;
"-- does that also apply to your country where voting changes little or nothing ?"
Britain has a political system that is discredited on here, and the people are accused of raging apathy, but still more people go to the polls than in Switzerland. I am curious about that, thats all.
But if you think voting out Labour didn't change anything then you weren't paying attention.
Complain about this comment
@284 Bro_Winky
addition:
"when you compare that to the fact that the Soviets were able to produce over 57,000 T-34 tanks alone (more than all the German tanks combined), Germany’s weakness becomes obvious. Sure a single T-34 couldn’t hold a candle to a single Panther, but 8 or 9 of them could.
The US produced over 200,000 fighters and bombers alone, while the total German aircraft production (fighters, bombers, transports, ground attack, etc) came in just under half that number.
In the context of a war of attrition like WWII, the German weapons were not mass produced."
In the context of heavy allied bombardment, I`d argue they were.
Allied production figures cannot be compared with those of the Third Reich without taking this into account.
I also would argue that the production numbers of the SU were not a sign of German weakness or a sign of "what the Soviets were able to produce", but a result of a basically endless supply in raw materials from the allies.
As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse in late 1941/early 1942, lacking not only war machinery, but also raw materials and infrastructure.
The oh so glorious, simple and standardized T-34 would have never been produced in such vast numbers without allied support.
No argument here about the USA though. Like I said, they were/are the only real super power of the 20/1th century.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#291 Manneken
I wish to add one further requirement a democracy should have and that is transparency so that all (or most) members of a society can easily understand the ground rules.
This failure has been demonstrated by Buzet et al. --- with the comment that the topic bores and is irrelevant.
The complexities of British law structure (national and international) and their implications cannot be expected to be accepted by the EU ---and they should not.
Complain about this comment
#301 Durstigermann
-- only until the next appears -- the 21st is still very young.
Complain about this comment
289. At 1:07pm on 02 Nov 2010, powermeerkat
It would seem that the attack on Sarko has been repressed in France on the media, curious eh!
Complain about this comment
#296. At 2:35pm on 02 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
Yet another crap response, you are really scraping the barrel these days, what else can you invent now?
Complain about this comment
#298. At 3:01pm on 02 Nov 2010, reincarnation,
Take a slight look at the EU budget report and look for the part of the VAT or whatever it is called in each EU member state that goes to the EU, you will learn that IT WAS implemented.
Complain about this comment
#303. At 3:50pm on 02 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
You have summarily failed to exhibit even the minutest appreciation of what the ground rules are, no doubt you are one of those fools who consider PR a democracy rather than a conglomerate of pigs with their snouts in the public trough. Oh how terrible is the first past the post system whereby the pigs lose their trough every so often. Just what is your problem QOT, are you a true pig, were you deselected or rejected by the electorate, or maybe as I suspect you live in that PR paradise on the mainland but are not liked.
Complain about this comment
"Why not Bull instead"?
1 petaFLOP is not good enough these days.
[The machine is using American processors anyway]
Even Chinese Tianhe 1A at 2.5 petaFLOPS would be a better choice.
BTW. IBM is constructing a 20 petaFLOPs supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as we speak.
Sequoia, as the machine is called, is scheduled to go online in 2011.
And I assume that soon after that it will become available to other paying customers. Including French Nuclear Center.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 wrote:
289. At 1:07pm on 02 Nov 2010, powermeerkat
"It would seem that the attack on Sarko has been repressed in France on the media, curious eh!"
Unlike a small explosive charge sent from Greece to Mz. Merkel's office.
[it was discovered in the chancery's outside mailroom.]
Complain about this comment
Buzet, re Sarko:
"As to the question of whether the French president would allow a French carrier to be used in some future conflict, say in the south Atlantic, he was elusive."
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
#310. At 5:51pm on 02 Nov 2010, powermeerkat
It would seem German media is not quite so controlled as the Benelux and French media, did Rompuy also get a parcel?
Complain about this comment
Buzet 23
If you put your head into a bucket (#265) do not blame me.
You alone are responsible for your irrelevant and escapist statements.
If I assume that your #308 is your most intelligent answer, may I suggest styropore as a substitute cranial filling ?
--- or do you wish to attempt another reply before the substitution ?
Complain about this comment
#313. At 6:21pm on 02 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
Well since you obviously know the product you seem to have already tried it to insulate yourself from reality, personally using a foam isolant to detract yourself from the real world is a bit sad to say the least, still never mind, get back in the straitjacket and take your pills, Ha-Haaa, Napoleon XIV is coming to take you away.
Complain about this comment
I thought the ´Auld Alliance´ was with Scotland ?
Are the Scots still French citizens and vice versa ?
Where is Margaret for this question ?
Complain about this comment
Buzet 23
--- No, --- But he is taking you away ---according to the delusions of grandeur news reports !
----next the defense of the world ?
Still no intelligent reply ---or was that it ?
Complain about this comment
#316. At 6:49pm on 02 Nov 2010, quietoaktree
Is that all you can come up with, quite pathetic really, you are truly a basket case and not worthy of consideration, au revoir et dormir bien, fool.
Complain about this comment
301. At 3:27pm on 02 Nov 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
"""I also would argue that the production numbers of the SU were not a sign of German weakness or a sign of "what the Soviets were able to produce", but a result of a basically endless supply in raw materials from the allies."""
DurstingerMann, the reality was that not only numbers did not compare with Germans sending 3 million soldiers (the 80-85% of their total army) while Russians sent initially 4 million (the 40% of their total army) but that actually on the overall, weapon over weapon, tech over tech, Russians had the upper hand. Most of the famous German WWII weaponry (of all sorts) were all accustomed with actually came out of the factories only by late 1942 early 1943 and as such there was no time, and down to the basics no purpose anymore, sending it to the eastern frontier which had already collapsed in a tragic for the Germans manner. All pre-1943 material if anything was at best sufficient at worst really crap being the result of a re-started military industries in late 1940s. The likes of Stukhas and Messerschmidts were sufficient to bomb Poland and a surrendering France but were outdated when bombing in Russia. The late 1930s Russian planes were better, tanks were better, missiles were better with a couple of Katiusha missile launchers on lorries keeping whole German bataillions frozen. One really has to understand how the myth of the high-tech Nazi German military engine was constructed for pure propaganda reasons.
Russians had simple 3 main problems. One thing is that even if you have 4 times the numbers, you cannot easily stop just like that the initial assault of a 3 million army - the biggest military campaign ever to have been organised by human beings on earth, that was the German campaign against USSR. The other problem was that much of western Russia is simply flatlands, the perfect landscape for the WWII German machine - another problem of landscape was that Russian supply bases were behind the Ural mountains, well protected but also quite far to be able to push forward quickly stufff. The third and most important problem was that no Russian was inspired to fight for the communist regime and the communists had to stop the communist blah-blah for 3-4 years and revert to the good old glorious Russo-orthodox history of fighting against the catholic teutonic barbarians so as to mobile the Russian people to fight against the invading Germans - and it is because of that it is most appropriately to speak of Russians fighting Germans and not communists fighting Germans.
And while Germans were much better soldiers than the British and far abot the French, they really could not compare to the Russian ones for the simple reason that :
1) Russians fought for their existence
2) Russians back then (and even today) are anyway more hardened people living a much harsher life which enables them to withstand more the hardships of such horrible wars
3) Under communist regime, there was a Roman-like attitude on wasting enormous amounts of Russian troops (also a convenient way of getting rid of political enemies eg. by ordering them to walk to clear minefields etc.) which created a force which Germans were not at all prepared to fight against.
with was nothing more than early pretty crap versions
"""As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse in late 1941/early 1942, lacking not only war machinery, but also raw materials and infrastructure."""
Attention. As far as I understand you have not closely looked at the numbers.
Complain about this comment
"""The oh so glorious, simple and standardized T-34 would have never been produced in such vast numbers without allied support."""
Trust me Durstinger, until recently I had a similar viewpoint, almost identical: i.e. that Russians had some high-tech staff but lacked the supply chain to push them forward, and this is where the US & British staff aided.
All that till I spoke to some Russian guy, also lover of history who investigated things just like me, who had also the same viewpoint as you and me initially, but who then went on to find out with full details that the whole "US & British aid" is yet another great myth of the WWII as not only this aid while important in numbers actually amounted to a moderate percentage of the overall fleet of Russian trains and trucks but also what is the most incredible is that the bulk of the US and British products actually arrived by late 1943 and early 1944 i.e. at the time the westerners thought Russian would turn up the tides permitting the westerners to organise at their leasure time the Normandy landing but then Russians had already done it 1 to 2 years earlier. I.e. that aid played to near-0 and one could say it had been sent there not to aid Russians but just to guarantee than in case of Russian failure, there could be still some Russian military machine in place to move around and hassle the Germans as it was crystal clear that Russians would never capitulate to Germans. From there on one can argue that Soviet factories operated on US technology imported by US in the 1920s and 30s but then I would direct you to the funders of the Russian Revolution who were not anyone else but US, British & Swiss bankers enabled by the German secret services of the WWI.
It gets complicated maybe?
Ok, perhaps I will need to simplify things:
The military readiness of Germany in WWII is a highly debatable thingie. In fact if you ask me, the Germans were not the most effective army you could have on all terrain. It was a cost effective army, better on 1 on 1 fights against the game-playing British or the mediocre Americans but they had too their limitations.
One had to pinpoint that down to the basics Germany should stuggle to keep a front with France alone had it not been the instant treason of the French ruling class that handed over the country with the first minor German assault. After France and before Russia, Germans had no other serious opponent. It did not attack Britain. Countries like Belgium and Holland would rather fight with the incoming waves over their flatlands rather than resist the Germans. Norwegians went for skiing - speaking of their resistance makes the likes of Greeks and Serbians fall on the floor with laughters (how many Norwegians did die in this resistance?). Chechoslovakians and Hungarians had no chance we do not even discuss it. Polish showed some valiant resistance but they were also doomed, their terrain did not aid much - as the flatlands were ideal for German artillery and bombing aircraft... Germans had it easy also on very front were they met with undermotivated or underequiped or undertrained troops or of course the ever retreating British who avoided all early major conflict and preferred to stick to playing games on the map chessboard (like opening the Balkan front...).
And there Germans come to the Balkans were they meet the first serious European army that was the Greek. You laugh? You should actually cry (do not worry I am not meaning this in the sense you think, I am not speaking linearly here, I mean it in the sense that people have the completely wrong idea about WWII). And they did not meet the 120,000 main Greek army which was trashing the high-tech (but arguable undermotivated - though their Albanian allies were very much motivated, if not fanatical about it) Italian army but they met a mere reserve force of 5,000 Greek soldiers (who were the left-overs... many of them "2nd rate" soldiers (injured ones, rookies, undertrained etc.) plus 2,000 local villagers who defended the Metaxas fortresses, arguably a marvel of military defense engineering, in one of the most epic WWII battles that no other European knows because
1) British want to ignore it for obvious propaganda reasons (British had already assasinated president Metaxas to hand over Greece to Germans!)
2) Germans simply want to forget.
3) None elses care to know - particularly Greek ruling classes (who mostly come from the British/Nazi/communist collaborating class = this is 1 and the same class of course, same origins, same aims!).
... so in this "battle of the fortresses" as it is known the German military machine that was about to launch an offensive against the biggest army on the earth, attacked the 7,000 Greek defenders with a force of more than 45,000 soldiers backed up artillery, some mobile units that would try to move in the mountainous terrain as well as backed by aircrafts (mostly the slow Stukhas which were versitile aiming with their vertical jump)... and there Germans learnt the hard way what were the limitations of their army:
In 3 days of continuous battle they had managed to take over 3 fortresses......... out of some 110 ones!!! And you should call them lucky.
To get the idea of what were these 3 fortresses, in the one fortress they managed to have the soldiers inside surrender... all 3 (yes all three) of them!!! How? Simply the 3 Greek soldiers had been attacked by something like 2-3 bataillions (kind of saying) and had used all their ammo, then German officers (who thought they must had been more inside and who had even used chemicals to have them out) called them to surrender, mostly out of curiosity to see who provoked so much havoc. When the German colonel came to see his army had been fighting for 2 days only 3 men, he shook his head, asked who was the shooter of the P1 (a code...) guard and he saw the... surgeon, a guy called Itsios coming forward, he looked at him and told him: "I congratulate you for achievements but you will be executed" and took his pistol and shot him... ... why? Because while Germans never declared the number of their dead, it has been calculated that these 3 guys fighting their lonely fight might had massacred about 300 to 400 German (and possibly Bulgarians who were also around as allied of Germans) soldiers.
"""No argument here about the USA though. Like I said, they were/are the only real super power of the 20/1th century."""
Politically yes, there is no doubt. But militarily no. It is not a secret that since the late 1960s the Russian army has a slight advantage which it maintains up to today. In a face to face nuclear total war no internet spying, no satelite and no aircraft carrier will be any more usefull than a playmobile: Russian staff works with cables, satellites will be ALL blown up in the first seconds of total war and aircraft carriers will be sunk on spot with mini-nuclear warheads of the size that Russias do not even consider as American bombs - then the war will be a simple exchange of nuclear heads in which Russia will be the """least destroyed"""and for that even the most uneducated can provide you the reasoning behind (still having better missiles, still maintaining a bit more nuclear weapons, having double (2 times the US surface) while having almost the 1/3 of US population = simple maths.
See how introducing common sense and simple maths you can actually drag the right conclusions?
When WWII German military machine stopped in front of the first "little" hardle that was Greece (which it finally occupied only after implicit British help - I can speak for hours on that), when they had lost about 20,000 men in the whole battle of Greece fighting against the 2,5% of the army of Greece, there you should sit down and make the mathematics and define the limitations of the German WWWI army.
There is no other conclusion other than:
The WWII German army was simply not up to the task. It was a good army sufficient to take on either 1 great power like France or Britain alone (not both if France and Britain would send the 80% of their forces none of which ever did...), it was more than sufficient to attack powerless flat countries but it was less efficient in fighting in the Balkan terrain where Germans struggled and could proceed only thanx to the British implicit aid because British wanted them there in the first place while it was totally totally incapable of having any hope against Russia.
Germans attacking Russians was nothing more than the typical prison fight were the desperate thin weak guy who attacks the "bull"-guy while he is in bed, gives him 3-4 strong punches in the face and breaks his nose and blackens his eye, then the bull-guy stands up and chases around him eventually catching him and beating him to near-death.
Attention, I use funny language only to pinpoint you the obvious that you are not yet ready to realise - albeit I put my signature on that, Germans are more ready to realise this (and the level of treason of their leadership - and it is not just the mad dictator Hitler there but all the ruling class who pretended to as-if keep distances...) rather than the British who prefer to think of Germans as the unbeatable machine finally beaten by the heroic British in the western front... which of course was nothing else than a minor event in the WWI - with more importance actually for West Germans themselves who avoided falling under the grip of the Russians.
Complain about this comment
I might seem funny mentioning all that about the WWII but honestly 1 day I will have to write a book called :
"Debunking the WWII myth".
I will also not forget to put a special dedication to my friend CBW.
Complain about this comment
When the SU asked Britain to send condoms (to assist their war effort), Churchill told to send the largest --and label them ´small´.
--- they were the only size in Britain not rationed ?
Complain about this comment
321. At 10:53pm on 02 Nov 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"""When the SU asked Britain to send condoms (to assist their war effort), Churchill told to send the largest --and label them ´small´."""
"""--- they were the only size in Britain not rationed ?"""
Ahahahahahahahaha
Complain about this comment
#318 #319 #320
Da comrade. Everyone knows that Greece won the war and its good to see you rightly celebrating the glorious motherland too, even though Mother Russia only played a small role when compared to Greece I understand. It is an outrageous lie by the Anglo-Saxons that Greece was overrun and occupied in 2 weeks when the Germans arrived, spasibo for debunking that myth tovarisch. It is also a terrible lie that Mother Russia had to sacrifice 10 million soldiers to defeat those useless Germans. It had nothing to do with German overconfidence, bad weather, extended supply lines, lend-lease, Allied strategic bombing. and a cavalier Russian disregard for their own mens lives. NO! It was the brave Russian super soldier! Right comrade?
Complain about this comment
310. At 5:51pm on 02 Nov 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
Buzet23 wrote:
289. At 1:07pm on 02 Nov 2010, powermeerkat
"It would seem that the attack on Sarko has been repressed in France on the media, curious eh!""""
"""Unlike a small explosive charge sent from Greece to Mz. Merkel's office.
[it was discovered in the chancery's outside mailroom.]"""
Guys, these attacks are extremely interesting for various reasons:
- Already, even out of the mass of foreground politicians, actually 2 out of 3 politicians of all political parties openly claim that the theory of these bombs coming from marginal
- Some of them speak of PASOK party workings staging minor attacks easily dealt by an etremely selective in its successes police force, all that days prior to elections
- Others speak of "unamed powers" (i.e. USA) playing destabilisation games not only in Greece but around Europe sending "messages" and "warnings".
I tend to adopt a minor combination but mostly the latter. Had it been mostlt the inner Greek political machinations (which we have seen in the past, no doubt on that) they would certainly not include minor bomb parcels sent to foreign embassies addressed even to foreign presidents. On the other hand I would consider downright imbecile anyone who would imagine that this is the work of a local leftish band of extremists trying to create chaos...:
1) what the Bulgarian or the Chilean or the Mexican embassies who were among the first to receive parcels had to do with all what such a margianl band would fight against???
2) why such an as-if band does not send bomb parcels to the houses of Greek politicians which is 10 times more easy actually to do? Greek politicians who have robbed people billions go to bouzouki nightclubs with minimal protection and break plates and spent the money they stole from people and none harms them, yet for these "extremists" the Mexican and the Chilean had to be punished... whatever... sounds too 17-November.
3) why did they sent such lousy packets so easy to find and neutralise? Because they are amateurs? because they want to get arrested or something?
... whatever.
This is a very dark evolution. We had the US-paid leftish extremist 17-November group which was (as-if!) disbanded only months prior to Olympics!!! Now we have these hits and there are even arrests of some lousy loser young guys half on marijuana and narcotics and our leaders want us to believe that it is them sending these parcels... whatever. Whoever does not respect himself can believe so if he wants.
I would actually count down all the countries that received these parcels... Bulgaria, Chile, Mexico, France, Germany and would ask them "what did each of them do to enervate the big guys...". Hehe... Really it becomes comical.
Complain about this comment
323. At 11:10pm on 02 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
#318 #319 #320
"""Da comrade."""
I am neither Slav nor communist. Ask generalissimo, he is Bulgarian, he can explain you better the relationship of Greeks with Slavs and communists and as such you will avoid making futile comments.
"""Everyone knows that Greece won the war"""
Well, you claim the opposite but still we are searching to find 1 battle the Greek army lost in WWII. 1. Which one? Can you name 1?
"""and its good to see you rightly celebrating the glorious motherland too,"""
I spoke of no glorious motherland. Motherland was and is a small country that is dragged to war for breakfast. Britain has still to account for its crimes against humanity on those events - Greece's inclusion in the WWII was 100% a British machination.
"""even though Mother Russia only played a small role when compared to Greece I understand."""
Greeks fought for Greeks having their leadership half assasinated by the British, half abducted (and by 1945 imposed a new British one - the name of Papandreou should tell you something). Russians fought for Russia albeit serving a deeply anti-Russian communist regime. And British & Germans simply fought for the bankers as no army did ever fight for its own country.
"""It is an outrageous lie by the Anglo-Saxons that Greece was overrun and occupied in 2 weeks when the Germans arrived, spasibo for debunking that myth tovarisch."""
Haha... can you tell us the whole narrative please? How did this happen exactly? Nope? You do not know? It seems that anglosaxon mind has selective memory, then! We have seen it with others here too. Things like 60,000 British troops chased out of Greece by the sight of the first 12,000 Germans coming down trying to ride their motorbikes on the empty goat-roads without falling down - you know, that is why they had also the... boat, haha! Your British guys who imposed their presence upon Greece after having assasinated the president, thus bringing in the German attack, then disorganising the Greek resistance by refusing to set up a proper defense line but only running back as fast as they could opening the space for the Germans...).
Too much for you to remember eh? How come 7,000 Greek second rate reserved kept 45,000 Germans stuck to the borderline crying 1000s of dead and 60,000 of your lot were running chased by 12,000 Germans without a single German being dead till Athens? Or have you ever been to Crete and have you ever asked the Cretans to tell you the whole narrative of how the battle of Crete went on and how the British handed in the island to Germans by the usual "selective British lack of coordination" we saw so often in "selected battlefields"?
"""It is also a terrible lie that Mother Russia had to sacrifice 10 million soldiers to defeat those useless Germans."""
Communist leaders waged at the same time war and political opponents extermination. None ever doubted that, why do you remind us the basics?
"""It had nothing to do with German overconfidence, bad weather, extended supply lines, lend-lease,
Yes indeed, weather was bad for the Mediterranean suntanned hot latino Germans while the weather was extremely good for the white-bear Russians. Right! Only Germans had extended supply lines? Not Russians whose bulk of military industrial production was placed east of Urals. Unless you think Russians had their supply lines in Latvia or Ukraine or something. What is closer to Minsk? Berlin or Novosibirsk? What is easier to do? Move trucks over Bielorussia? Or over the Urals?
"""Allied strategic bombing"""
You are extremely amusing. What did the bombing of German civilians has to do with the campaign in Russia? In Germany? Mate, wake up: the 85% of the German army was in Russia and it was more than fully equiped (with all what Germans could had ever produced plus the whatever local stuff they could get). Will you start another myth now? Do you want me to come back on you with the huge list of references for you to read how out of all the bombings over Germany, the 95% of the industrial capacity of the Germans had miraculusly remained intact? Apparently anglosaxon pilots are half blind and had mistaken people's houses for military factories. I let it to you.
""". and a cavalier Russian disregard for their own mens lives. NO! It was the brave Russian super soldier! Right comrade?"""
Who spoke of bravery? I noted the facts - and the battle of the Fortresses in Greece or the battle of Stalingrad in Russia are well documented for anyone interested. In the battles between the German and the Greek army, the latter simply won in a spectacular way - it is not us saying so, it was Germans of that time claiming so quite openly, this including mad-proud Hitler himself. On the other hand, I have already spoken on the communists waging a double war, against Germans and against their political enemies at the same time - and that explaines a large % of the dead already - the other is simply down to Russians trying to defend some difficult positions at all costs while Germans when they had their backbone broken with one hit they were running back faster than their BMW could run... (explaining why they were not all annihilated on spot: they fleed, as simple as that - but oh the crypto-german soul of the anglosaxon cannot accept that simple reality: anglosaxonogermans do not flee... well yes they do flee, they flee and very well: that is what British did in Greece, the country they consciously put in war).
I like to tease you. I know anyway there are few chances of you having any genuine will to learn the reality about WWII. So I have better to stick to throwing you the info, hard, raw and stinky as it is.
Imperial Britain = Nazi Germany = the two faces of the same coin. Put it good to your mind. Germany had been the "convenient idiot" for Britain (and by WWI, earlier than WWII, for US as most of the ruling classes of Britain had invested there) to yield control over the whole world. Communism on the other hand has been another fantastic way of indirectly taking apart and isolating the greatest enemy of the last 200 years for the British, i.e. the Russians. Keep sleeping dreaming of WWII being a war among sovereign nations - as if there was ever anything like that in human history.
Complain about this comment
@318 Nik
"DurstingerMann, the reality was that not only numbers did not compare with Germans sending 3 million soldiers (the 80-85% of their total army) while Russians sent initially 4 million (the 40% of their total army) but that actually on the overall, weapon over weapon, tech over tech, Russians had the upper hand. Most of the famous German WWII weaponry (of all sorts) were all accustomed with actually came out of the factories only by late 1942 early 1943 and as such there was no time, and down to the basics no purpose anymore, sending it to the eastern frontier which had already collapsed in a tragic for the Germans manner. All pre-1943 material if anything was at best sufficient at worst really crap being the result of a re-started military industries in late 1940s. The likes of Stukhas and Messerschmidts were sufficient to bomb Poland and a surrendering France but were outdated when bombing in Russia. The late 1930s Russian planes were better, tanks were better, missiles were better with a couple of Katiusha missile launchers on lorries keeping whole German bataillions frozen. One really has to understand how the myth of the high-tech Nazi German military engine was constructed for pure propaganda reasons."
There is no doubt that the Luftwaffe lacked a capable long distance bomber. This already proved disastrous during the Battle of Britain.
The Wehrmacht also was not nearly as mobile as Nazi propaganda suggested.
No secret here was well.
As for tanks, aircraft and weaponry, however, you are on the wrong track.
While it is true that the Wehrmacht was not nearly as well equipped as many people still seem to think, the German equipment during the early stages of the war was neither bad nor generally inferior to Russian, French or British designs.
The PzIV for example was not the strongest tank 1on1, but it was capable and with upgrades even a serious threat to the oh so famous T-34.
As for the often mentioned Karabiner 98: Wehrmacht doctrine revolved around squads supporting a heavy machine gun such as the MG34 or MG42 (both in production well before 1943). Often, most or all squad members would carry ammo belts and even gun barrels in order to ensure the machine gun to stay operational.
Until the end of WWII, no Soviet infantry weapon came even close to the firepower of an MG42, whose basic design is still in operational use today.
Other examples would be the MP-40 and its family.
The ME109 was quite an ok aircraft and I don`t see a reason why it would have been inferior to Russian models.
"And while Germans were much better soldiers than the British and far abot the French, they really could not compare to the Russian ones for the simple reason that :
1) Russians fought for their existence
2) Russians back then (and even today) are anyway more hardened people living a much harsher life which enables them to withstand more the hardships of such horrible wars
3) Under communist regime, there was a Roman-like attitude on wasting enormous amounts of Russian troops (also a convenient way of getting rid of political enemies eg. by ordering them to walk to clear minefields etc.) which created a force which Germans were not at all prepared to fight against."
I don´t like this kind of discussion. Soldiers of nation x are better than those of nation y and stuff blabla. How cynical.
To me, the vast majority of soldiers in WWII were poor devils whose lifes were wasted and thrown away by unscrupulous maniacs.
In an industrialized war of attrition such as WWII, it does not matter who has the better soldiers.
Complain about this comment
@319 Nik
"All that till I spoke to some Russian guy, also lover of history who investigated things just like me, who had also the same viewpoint as you and me initially, but who then went on to find out with full details that the whole "US & British aid" is yet another great myth of the WWII as not only this aid while important in numbers actually amounted to a moderate percentage of the overall fleet of Russian trains and trucks but also what is the most incredible is that the bulk of the US and British products actually arrived by late 1943 and early 1944 i.e. at the time the westerners thought Russian would turn up the tides permitting the westerners to organise at their leasure time the Normandy landing but then Russians had already done it 1 to 2 years earlier. I.e. that aid played to near-0 and one could say it had been sent there not to aid Russians but just to guarantee than in case of Russian failure, there could be still some Russian military machine in place to move around and hassle the Germans as it was crystal clear that Russians would never capitulate to Germans. From there on one can argue that Soviet factories operated on US technology imported by US in the 1920s and 30s but then I would direct you to the funders of the Russian Revolution who were not anyone else but US, British & Swiss bankers enabled by the German secret services of the WWI."
You see, I have one principle with Russians: never discuss with them the Russian history. The amount of fairy tales they will usually reproduce is nothing short of staggering.
Food as well as important materials and chemicals such as copper, aluminium, non-ferrous metal, steel kept the Russian industrial output from collapse as early as 1942.
Who helped the Bolshevik into power is of no importance here.
Soviet factoories largely worked with American and British raw materials.
Personally, I`d go as far as to say that without the lend-lease act industrial output of the SU would have been 1/4 at most.
I stand with my point:
The USA were the only industrial and financial superpower of the 20th century.
Russia was up on par with other great powers such as GB, France, (Germany) or Japan at best.
Complain about this comment
@319 Nik
"Trust me Durstinger, until recently I had a similar viewpoint, almost identical: i.e. that Russians had some high-tech staff but lacked the supply chain to push them forward, and this is where the US & British staff aided."
I never thought that the Russians had some high-tech suff but lacked the supply chain.
They had some very good, simple designs. Not high-tech.
Russia was no global player in science or technology during the 20th century.
Complain about this comment
#325
Nik;
The Battle for Greece WAS the War for Greece. They are one and the same. You cant lose a war so quickly and then say, oh but we never lost any battles! Should you wish to continue re-writing the outcome, let me show you a picture:
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/3239717/Hulton-Archive?language=en-GB&location=GBR
(ps. any sarcastic comments directed at Brits are wasted on me, I'm not British)
Complain about this comment
durstigermann:
"Russia was no global player in science or technology during the 20th century."
Compared to whom?
Just off the top of my head I can think of the fact that they were the first in space with Sputnik, they invented the nuclear power reactor, they are miles ahead of everyone with regard to the physics of fusion.
Going backwards to the very early part of the 20th century, they were amongst the numerous inventors of radio. n music, the ruskis invented the synthesizer.
I'm sorry, but this claim that Russia "was no global player in science or technology during the 20th century" is childish and more than a little ridiculous. Russian is RIGHT NOW the language of space, and all astronauts learn it.
Typical that such a weird comment would come from a german. Germany, that great inventor of things!
Like the curry wurst.
Complain about this comment
#327
"You see, I have one principle with Russians: never discuss with them the Russian history. The amount of fairy tales they will usually reproduce is nothing short of staggering."
I think that condition is rife in the Balkans too.
Complain about this comment
#330. At 07:44am on 03 Nov 2010, democracythreat
You are as bad as MAII in his USA invented 'this, that and everything else' theories. Certainly Russia were very good in rocket and nuclear technology, just as the USA were, but after WWII just where did many of the leading scientists come from and were they not the spoils of war i.e.German? It is therefore disingenuous to claim that Russia or USA did xyz as without the help of the German experts they may not have succeeded.
Complain about this comment
#330
"Just off the top of my head I can think of the fact that they were the first in space with Sputnik, they invented the nuclear power reactor, they are miles ahead of everyone with regard to the physics of fusion."
The Americans "stole" every piece of German technology that they could find and were handed billions of dollars worth of British intellectual property for nothing. The Russians then proceeded to steal everything the Americans knew! Its no coincidence that the first Russian atomic bomb was a carbon copy of the one dropped on Nagasaki. To the victor goes the spoils.
Complain about this comment
"Soviet factoories largely worked with American and British raw materials."
Not only that.
When Nikita Khrushchev visited East Berlin he got furious noticing that most of Soviet forces Katyusha rocket batteries were still installed on American Studebacker trucks. In 1960!
And so called "gaziks" were in reality American jeeps from Lease&Lend days.
Etc., etc. ad nauseam.
[Of course British convoys shipping en mass American food, ammo, trucks and whole plane kits through Cruel Sea to Murmansk (and suffering great losses in the process) did not exist: they were merely phantoms, according to historical revisionists]
Durstiger: "never thought that the Russians had some high-tech suff but lacked the supply chain.
They had some very good, simple designs. Not high-tech.
Russia was no global player in science or technology during the 20th century."
Even famous Kalashnikov (now known as AK-47) was a version of German Sturm Geweher simplified to a point that it has become idiot-proof and thus it has later become a weapon of choice of assorted terrorists and rebels world over.
[if one skips Semtex from Czeska Zbrojovka]
Complain about this comment
Re #333 "Its no coincidence that the first Russian atomic bomb was a carbon copy of the one dropped on Nagasaki. To the victor goes the spoils."
It was not a result of victory.
It was a result of a massive spying on its war ally DURING WWII.
[granted, a theft of thermonuclear weapons's designs from US national labs took place already after the war. :)]
Complain about this comment
@ 328
DurstigerMann, have a drink (send the bill to Buckingham Palace).
powermeerkat, you do like to spin a yarn don't you
Complain about this comment
#335
"It was not a result of victory."
I beg to differ. Not only did Russia steal its share of German scientists directly from Germany (20,000?) but significant technological advances were made by German scientists working for Russia in East Germany after the war. For example, it would have been impossible for Russian MIGS to appear in 1947 simply based on industrial espionage, they clearly needed the Germans themselves to expedite the work.
Complain about this comment
Espionage by Russia? There was no espionage, it's just that various and entirely different individuals gave Russia all those secrets (especially nuclear weapon wise) because they clearly didn't trust the US of A and the Anglo-Saxon world in general, to be the sole possessors of this new devastating weapon.
And by and large they were right! Because the only thing that stopped America and its allies from using nuclear weapons was and still is Russia's super powerful nuclear deterrent.
And we know the US wanted and actually prepared to use them on many occasions -- they wanted to use them as early as against Germany in 1944-45, especially when they were routed during the Ardennes offensive, against China during the Korea war, they wanted to give them to the French to use during their Vietnam war, they wanted to use them themselves later again in Vietnam, they even wanted to use nuclear weapons as late as during the first Gulf War!
And some neo-cons are still mumbling darkly about going to use them even in this day and age.
Complain about this comment
#338. At 09:55am on 03 Nov 2010, Norman Conquest
When is espionage not espionage, in your somewhat warped mind (judging by previous posts) it's when a traitor is content to betray his country, his countrymen, his colleagues and is content that they may be targeted for arrest, torture and assassination. All because the traitor believes that the repressive doctrine of communism is all important and that all deaths are just a means to an end and so justifiable in the great communist revolution.
Your claim it was because of fear the US would use nuclear weapons is fatuous and a disingenuous attempt to justify traitors who did not have the courage of their convictions to simply leave the west and live in Russia. As for Russia just providing a counter balance you conveniently forget that communism is not a pacifist politic, it is a revolutionary politic, and Cuba is one very communist inspired flashpoint that springs to mind many years back, remember how close the world came to disaster then?
Complain about this comment
@ 334
Buzet23,
Treachery or loyalty/patriotism are but subjective concepts; what is absolute however is the good of the people/s, of mankind, of humanity. And those people whom you label "traitors" have in fact contributed greatly to peace, friendship among nations, human rights by denying one country or even a group of like(bloody)minded countries a dominant position by virtue of having a uniquely devastating weapon which they would have likely abused. There is not much doubt about that, is there? It's well documented. Therefore those people, far from being traitors betraying their countries, were in fact heroes to humanity.
Also consider Stauffenberg for example, he plotted to kill his own head of state, to whom he had sworn loyalty; technically he was a traitor to Hitler, Germany and the German people. Yet he is now celebrated as a hero in Germany.
As for communism being revolutionary, that's not true either. You see, the concept changed and developed during its life time (as any concept does). The communism's international revolutionary wing was represented and headed by Trotsky (Bronstein). In the 1920s he even called for Soviet Russia to send a strong cavalry corp via Afghanistan to India to liberate Indian peasants from the British occupation -- how daft was that? (from a practical point of view; not that there was anything wrong with it in principle).
Curiously, Richard Pearle, Horowitz, Ignatjeff, Kagan, Powermeerkat and other notorious American neo-cons were left-wing radicals in their youth, and not only that but outright Trotskyists, that's why they still can't forgive Stalin the Trotsky icepick.
Complain about this comment
#340. At 11:22am on 03 Nov 2010, Norman Conquest
Your statement is based almost entirely on presumption, that this or that MIGHT have happened if your hero traitors had not carried out their traitorous and dirty deeds. To link that to the assassination of Hitler is off track to say the least.
You said "as for communism being revolutionary, that's not true either.", would you like to inform us of any communist led country that does not talk of 'peoples' revolution all the time. Sure the exact politics they follow have evolved as has technology etc, but when you look at such revolutionary communists you are struck by one inescapable fact, they all have extremely large military forces (far far larger than the west's) and they use them both internally or externally as nothing must be allowed to detract from the Socialist revolution.
Complain about this comment
@330 democracythreat
"Compared to whom?
Just off the top of my head I can think of the fact that they were the first in space with Sputnik, they invented the nuclear power reactor, they are miles ahead of everyone with regard to the physics of fusion.
Going backwards to the very early part of the 20th century, they were amongst the numerous inventors of radio. n music, the ruskis invented the synthesizer.
I'm sorry, but this claim that Russia "was no global player in science or technology during the 20th century" is childish and more than a little ridiculous. Russian is RIGHT NOW the language of space, and all astronauts learn it.
Typical that such a weird comment would come from a german. Germany, that great inventor of things!"
Well, they certainly invented the first nuclear reactor to experience a core melt accident. How innovative.
Isn`t it kind of sad that you have to mention the space programme as a defense for Russian science and at the same time rave about "Germany, that great inventor of things!"?
Come on, don`t make it so easy for me. =(
A quick check at the list of nobel laureates until 1940 (with respect to the iron curtain) will give you a rough impression of where Russia stands.
Complain about this comment
326. At 02:23am on 03 Nov 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
DurstMann, you can't drag a boat that has strayed too far from its point by by dragging the rope downwards or upwards. You have to drag to the opposite direction to bring it to the middle point.
"""There is no doubt that the Luftwaffe lacked a capable long distance bomber."""
This would be good for Germans invading Britain, but they could so without neeeding bombers - even if they sent swimming all those 3 million soldiers that they sent in Russia, they would eventually get Britain. The long distance bomber would aid but not decisevely in the campaign against USSR.
"""The Wehrmacht also was not nearly as mobile as Nazi propaganda suggested. No secret here was well."""
"""As for tanks, aircraft and weaponry, however, you are on the wrong track. While it is true that the Wehrmacht was not nearly as well equipped as many people still seem to think, the German equipment during the early stages of the war was neither bad nor generally inferior to Russian, French or British designs."""
Pre-1943 German equipment was just ok for the initial phases of the war and against a betrayed capitulating France or other smaller powers. German equipment fell short in the campaigns against Greece and gave no advantage over the Russians. Top-quality German equipment came only after late 1942 early 1943 at a time Germans had lost the war already, but even that is doubtful if would had changed anything. Afterall victory was never played singlehandedly on the quality of weapons for any war I can remember in history. What I wanted to say is that there is the myth that German machine was a fantastic one and a high-tech one while the Russian one was a low-tech and crap being able to beat only based on their large numbers. Russian's problem was more that communists had decided to get rid of political opponents at the same time - how convenient!
"""The PzIV for example...Until the end of WWII, no Soviet infantry weapon came even close to the firepower of an MG42, whose basic design is still in operational use today.cOther examples would be the MP-40 and its family."""
I do not counterargue with that. I am also one who says that German engineers had done some top quality work working in extremely compact project periods making leaps to complete the gap of 10-15 years lack of work in the field of military armaments. But on the overall, taking things one by one there was never any clear advantage of Germans over the Russians and even over French (did Germans beat the French on the Mazinot line? no they beat them with a stratagem - but then had French not been betrayed and capitulated, if they went on fighting from the basis of the Mazinot line it is doubtful whether Germans, in their turn invaded at their mid-west frontier, would had ever had the will to invade even the likes of Poland)... All I am saying is that the whole war had been orchestrated.
"""The ME109 was quite an ok aircraft and I don`t see a reason why it would have been inferior to Russian models."""
Actually Russian aircrafts of the late 1930s early 1940s are the most underrated. In fact, who of you know that the first real "modern aircraft" with retractable wheels and all the gear was a Russian one, designed in late 1920s and made in early 1930s? British, US and Germans had followed with a delay of more than 2 years.
"""I don´t like this kind of discussion. Soldiers of nation x are better than those of nation y and stuff blabla. How cynical.
To me, the vast majority of soldiers in WWII were poor devils whose lifes were wasted and thrown away by unscrupulous maniacs."""
To me too Mann. I did not evaluate the quality of German and Russian men as men. I only said the logical - that fighting for one's existence makes a better fighter than fighting for an imperialist conquest while men that lived all their lifes a difficult life are statistically more prone to fight harder than men who were brought up in an easy life. On both accounts Russians completed the prerequisites, Germans not. In fact, the best fight German men showed was only when they defended inside Germany, were they resisted for considerable time enormous quantities of armies invading from all sides.
"""In an industrialized war of attrition such as WWII, it does not matter who has the better soldiers."""
Yes. It does not matter also who has the better weapons. The only thing that matters is who has better connections with the international bankers.
Complain about this comment
328. At 03:00am on 03 Nov 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
"""I never thought that the Russians had some high-tech suff but lacked the supply chain.
They had some very good, simple designs. Not high-tech."""
Simple designs? In what way the MEs were better than the MIG's? Or the panzers better than the T-'s. Or the V2 long range rockets more effective than the Katiusha short range rockets? I really cannot comprehend that kind of evalutation.
"""Russia was no global player in science or technology during the 20th century."""
Aaaaa DurstMann I thought you were more knowledgeable than that, or you are just joking now. Really, do you think that technology is all about BMWs and Mercedes? I am sorry but then Ferraris and Lamborginis are 10 times better cars and as such Italians are light years ahead of Germans in technology.
But let us speak of technological leaps? Where did Russia lack in 19th and 20th century? Perhaps because it did not have a dense network of rails and car-roads? Well I suggest you go built it over 12,000 km of steppes then! Speaking of true science and technology, the Russians since late 18th, early 19th century had been in the forefront of the human discoveries with an impressive array of scientists - I will not mention the full list, I will simply remain on the quality of research and on the foreground work they did in fields that Germans, French and Americans all together were still far from even imagining. Wanna speak of rocketry & jet engines? ALL the US and German and British rocket programmes were based on the Russian early works. Russians had worked on rocket engines since the late 19th century at a time Europeans and Americans were struggling with the most low tech - sold high tech technology ever, the petrol engine. And moving on in the 20th century, Russians remained on top in scientific fields of their interest, which due to the communist regime revolved around the military and space. On space they were and still are the undisputed pioneers. Do I need to tell you that right now they are the ones that provide access of humans on space? When Russians had operational space-stations on space Americans had just just rather failed show-off experiments to show - and I won't continue to argue that still we do not have any undisputed scientific proof that Americans eer fared on the moon (I am not abiding necessarily to the conspiracy theory but I am abiding to science: formally there is still no scientific proof that Americans ever set their foot on the moon). One has to make the distinction of things. A space-station is not a playstation!!!
Is it that Russians are too un-European for the tastes of westerners to admit their technological and scientific superiority? Perhaps some people abide to the first protestants (the hard working ones), the catholic (the followers), then orthodox (the marginal ones) and the rest order of the world (the copyists) on ordering scientific progress by culture... well I say whatever: the greatest mind of the last 300 years has been Nicola Tesla, the guy that formed our modern world, and he was an orthodox (Serbian) you know. Second greatest was Einstein who however aditted (much to his own honour) that much of his groundbreaking work on the theory of relativity was actually thanx to Karatheodoris (a Greek, one of the greatest minds of late 19th, early 20th century - a true personification not just of science but of total human intellect)... Karatheodoris being another orthodox you know.
See... the world of today has not exactly been built the way you really think it has. And no, BMWs and playstations do not account for technology more than chinese porcelain and silk did in the past - I hope you realise the distinction. There is no doubt that on many civilian sectors Russians never showed any particular interest since they lacked the market motive, hence, eg. they kept their cars basic or their electronics simple and functional and had no interest in moving to complex computer systems and networks like the Americans did, who of course gained unquestionably for the past 30 years the first place in such terms but at the end, computer systems are not anymore any core technologies but applications, applications that can be reproduced almost in no time by any world player with substantial interest: - as proven by the fact that the current most powerfull computer system is a Chinese one while some of the most evolved hackers internationally are the Russian ones. And if you insist on the relative hysteresis of Russians at low-tech commercial products of consumption (fridges, cooks, tvs, computers etc.), you have always to remain focused: these are low, non-critical tech. We have to remain on the critical high-tech not the side applications.
Complain about this comment
331. At 07:51am on 03 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
""""You see, I have one principle with Russians: never discuss with them the Russian history. The amount of fairy tales they will usually reproduce is nothing short of staggering.""""
"""I think that condition is rife in the Balkans too."""
Yes. Apparently it is out of mimetism of out western friends who are the champion of the fairytale. Do you want me to restart with the fairytale of the Battle of Britain and the Normandy landings - altogether a tiny minor part of the WWII that British and Americans wanted to make us belief that this was what the WWII was all about...
DIfference is that I speak with easily proven facts - you speak in the air. How many Germans & their allies were in France? 300,000? And what kind? Soldiers or aristocrat officers partying with French girls in the cabarets? How many Germans & their allies were in USSR? 3 million? 10 times more? Which means that all those millions of Americans, British, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, "free French", "free Polish", "free Greeks" and the rest of the endless list of people that took part actually fought the 9,09% of the critical phase of WWII while Russians dealt with the 90,9% of it. And in that account, I do not even count that the true German army was in the east, not in the west.
Go read the numbers and then come back to talk.
Complain about this comment
338. At 09:55am on 03 Nov 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
"""Espionage by Russia? There was no espionage, it's just that various and entirely different individuals gave Russia all those secrets (especially nuclear weapon wise) because they clearly didn't trust the US of A and the Anglo-Saxon world in general, to be the sole possessors of this new devastating weapon."""
There was no espionage by anyone on that aspects. Both USA and USSR had the same origins = the old-school European internationalist bankers (by then US-based) whose only aim was and remains global domination. It was to their interest to have the 2 blocks: suddenly from a fragmented world, the world was divided into 3 large surfaces: the eastern, the western and the middle ones. International bankers just made sure that none got the upper hand and that they remained in equilibrium. It is the good old bet on all dogs game. It is easy when you make money out of thin air afterall.
Russians spying network was never up to the level of the British and US one for the simple reason that even today American and British citizens know more about Russian epsionage rather than their own one without the corresponding thing being true for Russians. Russians never gained any more knowledge from westerners than westerners gained from them. If Russians gained any helpful knowledge for their anyway on-going nuclear programme, Germans had earlier (pre-WWII) gained knowledge from their rocket programme while Americans later gained knowledge from their hydrogen bomb programme (Russians built a hydrogen bomb pretty much as soon as they built the nuclear one, Americans followed) and spatial applications. The whole transfer of east-to-west knowledge via espionage is a largely misunderstood issue and treated superficially - only need to name 2 typical examples:
1) The Tupolef copy of Concorde: in fact the similitude was only external and quite on non-critical issues - afterall the planes were supposed to serve an identical role (i.e. a supersonic passanger aircraft) and as such they were bound to most likely look alike just like any subsonic passanger Airbus or Boeing plane looks more or less the same. It is known that Russians found their way into the Franco-British project but then the had done this actually on the first year of the project where things were on the preliminary design. From there on, the 2 airplanes had different architectures even at basic systems, the Russian aircraft was an even larger and more ambitious one (larger, more spacius, more powerful, faster), yet was completed in less time due to political pressure which of course had a detrimental effect to the success of the plane - in the long run the Concorde plane won as being in terms of engineering, the most successful plane ever built (and would be also commercially if it was permitted to fly on all destinations). 30 years of service is no little feat.
2) The US Challenger series and the Russian Buran. The US Challenger was the US space programme by excellence - it remains to our day the most complex system to send men on space (it is much more simple to use an expendable aircraft and get the men in capsules back). Russian military felt the Americans were about to acquire a military spacecraft that could return to earth carryng eg. an intact Russian captured satelite - a feat that Soyuz cannot do. And so they wanted to have the same thing despite the Russian space engineers were of opposite view - i.e. that it would waste time and effort that would not pay off. Hence, the Buran started as an anti-Challenger programme, necessarily giving birth to the external resemblance of the Buran to the Challanger but there all similarity ends. Buran has a radically different architecture with an emphasis on automatic unmanned robotic flight - actually the manned part of it which delayed so much the project (6 to 8 years in comparson to Challenger) had never been been installed as the craft was tested only in its unmanned version and it made only 1 (successful but not at all advertised in a ready to fall USSR) flight to space doing the round of the earth and returning all by itself landing on a Russian airport. Due to the 6 years delay Buran ended of course as a much more advanced spacecraft than the Challenger, yet the similitudes of the spacecrafts are only superficial - they are two distinct projects with radically different architectures.
"""And by and large they were right! Because the only thing that stopped America and its allies from using nuclear weapons was and still is Russia's super powerful nuclear deterrent."""
A nuclear deterrent is always a nice guarantee of peace. Just like on those Texas towns where everyone carries weapons, people tend to be particularly "gentle" to each other. Hehe!
Complain about this comment
#345
"DIfference is that I speak with easily proven facts - you speak in the air. How many Germans & their allies were in France? 300,000? And what kind? Soldiers or aristocrat officers partying with French girls in the cabarets?"
If they are easily proven facts, do it. Show me that only 300,000 Germans invaded France in 1940 and I'll go away.
Complain about this comment
"Until the end of WWII, no Soviet infantry weapon came even close to the firepower of an MG42, whose basic design is still in operational use today.cOther examples would be the MP-40 and its family"
Who wrote that? Wow, I've seen some rubbish posted here but this tops it all.
As regards the MG42 thing, the Soviets captured literally hundred thousands of them, starting from the very beginning of the war, 850 MG42 in good working order were captured during the Battle of Moscow alone. Yet, the Soviets never used them and never even tried to copy them. The reason? Because they were inferior even to the good ol' Maxim let alone other machine guns that the Soviets had at their disposal.
The same goes for the MP-40 whatever.
German soldiers, on the hand, are known to have armed themselves with Russian PPShs, PPSs whenever they could lay there gnarly hands on them. A significant number of them was modified to fire German ammunition, they even gave it their own designation. Here's what Wikipedia say on the subject: "The Wehrmacht officially adopted the converted PPSh-41 as the MP41(r); unconverted PPSh-41s were designated MP717(r) and supplied with 7.63x25mm Mauser ammunition (which is dimensionally identical to 7.62x25mm, but somewhat less powerful). German-language manuals for the use of PPShs were printed and distributed in the Wehrmacht".
German technological prowess then and even more now is a myth, just like the supposed invincibility of their Army during WWII was a myth and was debunked (and how!), and is the only thing they can still brag about. Whilst I don't begrudge them that and am not hating, if we (or especially the Chinese) stop buying all those horrible-looking German cars (bmws, benzes), where will Germany find itself then?
Complain about this comment
Also I find ironic that the Germans -- who so recently thought of themselves as the Super Humans and were fighting to bring a good part of the world under their control -- are now reduced to being the "industrial powerhouse of the world", or in other words, a nation of slaves laboring hard for the benefit of the foreign buyers of their products and not even knowing that things could be very different and even asking for more work lolol.
Germany arise!
Complain about this comment
@344 Nik
"Simple designs? In what way the MEs were better than the MIG's? Or the panzers better than the T-'s. Or the V2 long range rockets more effective than the Katiusha short range rockets? I really cannot comprehend that kind of evalutation."
Well, I`d argue that the ME262 and aerunautical research by Messerschmitt and his colleagues was lightyears ahead of allied aircraft and research. That`s why German jets were reverse engineered and tested extensively by both Americans and Soviets. Ever heard of the Focke-Wulff Ta183? Oh what a coincidence that it closely resembles the Sabre and Mig-15.
The V2 rocket was the first human artifact to achieve sub-orbital spaceflight and had quite an accurate targeting mechanism.
As for tanks, I won`t even bother to explain. The kill-loss statistics speak for themselves.
I just can`t help but wonder why you pick some of the technologies and arms Germany was world leading in at that time and try to suggest that Russia was better in that exact field.
Why not pick some strong points of Russian RND?
"Wanna speak of rocketry & jet engines? ALL the US and German and British rocket programmes were based on the Russian early works. Russians had worked on rocket engines since the late 19th century at a time Europeans and Americans were struggling with the most low tech"
Ever heard of Hermann Oberth or Robert H Goddard? They are as much the founding fathers of rocketing as Tsiolkovsky(?) was.
Oberth was the influencing factor for Wernher von Braun anyway.
Do you have a lot of Russian friends? Just asking.
"See... the world of today has not exactly been built the way you really think it has. And no, BMWs and playstations do not account for technology more than chinese porcelain and silk did in the past"
You clearly ignored the list of nobel laureates.
Also, please take a look at the number of patents and scientific publications.
A technological global player cannot just excell in just one area.
German and Japanese basic research is amongst the top of the world.
"There is no doubt that on many civilian sectors Russians never showed any particular interest since they lacked the market motive, hence, eg. they kept their cars basic or their electronics simple and functional and had no interest in moving to complex computer systems and networks like the Americans did, who of course gained unquestionably for the past 30 years the first place in such terms but at the end, computer systems are not anymore any core technologies but applications, applications that can be reproduced almost in no time by any world player with substantial interest"
You see, a scientific and technological global player does not copy, but invent stuff for the most part.
It`s kind of ridiculous how you limit Germany and Japan to BMW and Playstation and how this is not a representative display of technological advancement of a nation, while you`re accepting the lack of Russian/Soviet RND in major scientific fields as no problem at all.
Complain about this comment
@348 Norman Conquest
"Who wrote that? Wow, I've seen some rubbish posted here but this tops it all.
As regards the MG42 thing, the Soviets captured literally hundred thousands of them, starting from the very beginning of the war, 850 MG42 in good working order were captured during the Battle of Moscow alone. Yet, the Soviets never used them and never even tried to copy them. The reason? Because they were inferior even to the good ol' Maxim let alone other machine guns that the Soviets had at their disposal."
You are the one posting rubbish, my Russian friend.
Nuff said.
The PPSH was a different weapon than the MP-41, albeit a very good one.
"German technological prowess then and even more now is a myth, just like the supposed invincibility of their Army during WWII was a myth and was debunked (and how!), and is the only thing they can still brag about. Whilst I don't begrudge them that and am not hating, if we (or especially the Chinese) stop buying all those horrible-looking German cars (bmws, benzes), where will Germany find itself then?"
The discussion revolved around Russia and not Germany. It`s just that some people are so obsessed with the idea of Russia as a technological and scientific superpower that they don´t even stop from blantant lies.
Nobody believes that the Wehrmacht was invincible. Germany lost the war, stupid. How can a losing army be invincible?
At least think for one or two seconds before posting.
Complain about this comment
"Also I find ironic that the Germans -- who so recently thought of themselves as the Super Humans and were fighting to bring a good part of the world under their control -- are now reduced to being the "industrial powerhouse of the world", or in other words, a nation of slaves laboring hard for the benefit of the foreign buyers of their products and not even knowing that things could be very different and even asking for more work lolol."
Yep. Merely 70 years ago I was there, fighting for my superhuman arian race. I remember as if it was yesterday.
Oh wait.
I won`t answer to your little comment about economy though.
Your knowledge in economics basically reflects your brain capacity quite nicely. :)
Complain about this comment
#350
Nik is the poster boy for Russian propaganda. He will post that black is white, and day is night if it achieves his goal of inciting anglos to take his bait. Its probably because the Russians are traditional foes of the nations he calls "enemy", namely Britain and Turkey. Its a simple case of brainwashing, the enemies of my enemy are my friends. As for Germany, well, you are also guilty by association, part of the germananglosaxon club, (whatever the hell that is) that was "invited" by the British into Greece. The only other person on Nik's level is NormanConquest who , of course, is Russian. Neither accepts the current state of their respective nations in the world, both invent histories to make the pain a little easier.
Complain about this comment
@ 352
DurstigerMann -- Haben Sie getrunken noch?
Actually I only wanted to point out that while Germany is definitely more of a technological and scientific powerhouse (at least in some things like automotive things, green energy) maybe it doesn't matter.
Even being a technological and scientific superpower has its drawbacks because you then produce lots of products and natuerlich begin to depend on the foreign consumers of those products. In this way another kind of dependency is borne and brings with it its own problems.
So in many ways it's better not to be too much of anything.
Salute, Kamerad
Complain about this comment
349 Norman wrote about Germany:
".....are now reduced to being the "industrial powerhouse of the world", or in other words, a nation of slaves laboring hard for the benefit of the foreign buyers....."
Considering the high standards of healthcare and general quality of life this 'enslavement' brings, they are quite happy with their lot. As for Russia, you can only dream!
Complain about this comment
#DurstigerMann
Don't worry the low life are crawling out of the gutters at the moment and trying to re-invent everything to their bizarre designs. The only objective thought is that whilst history can be re-written by the clowns they can't erase it until all those with a memory are long gone.
I also saw the Scottish, proof that Socialist education is a failure, MH, has just posted, as always she has lost the plot.
Complain about this comment
@ 356
Buzet23,
You've been out of the gutters for a long time already, addle-brain, ever since you were born or since you learned to type and started posting on this blog?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#357. At 10:35pm on 03 Nov 2010, Norman Conquest
It would appear the mods don't like the truth about you, so be it.
Complain about this comment
# 358. At 10:44pm on 03 Nov 2010, Buzet23 wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
++++++++
I gets it.
Thank you, Buzet.
Complain about this comment
#360. At 10:53pm on 03 Nov 2010, Norman Conquest
Maybe you can inform us lesser mortals just what language is "I gets it", oh I forgot, the other post you lectured someone on the English language, rofl.
Complain about this comment
328 DrustigerMann wrote:
"They had some very good, simple designs. Not high-tech.Russia was no global player in science or technology during the 20th century."
When a Russian cosmonaut was admiring an American astronaut's superior equipment the American said: "Our German scientists were better than your German scientists."
Complain about this comment
354 Norman wrote:
"@ 352 DurstigerMann -- Haben Sie getrunken noch?"
I see your German is no better than your English.
Complain about this comment
353. At 5:58pm on 03 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
"""Nik is the poster boy for Russian propaganda."""
Champagne_Charlie, the man that cannot tell Dom Perignon from Champomy.
I will inform you once again: I am Greek. Being Greek means not only that I am not Slav but I actually belong to a nation that is inherently suspicious of Slavs whatever the circumstances. There are Russian and Bulgarian contributors here, excellent people and extremely educated (of that kind of intellect you rarely find nowadays elsewhere...) and they can better enlighten you on the relation of Slavs and Greeks. Here I am sold by others as chauvinist (most amusing idea, really). How can I be Greek chauvinist and poster boy for Russian propaganda is something it escapes my imagination.
I only speak reason fighting against absurd statements. Russians have been a most "civilised" and "scientific" nation by excellence exemplifying what is best in human intellect all that while historically having to defend one of the most sauvage regions of the planet against the most barbaric of invaders - namely the teutonic Germans, the Mongols and the descendants of the former and the later, Ottomans and Germans, the one more barbaric than the other... all while having to deal with foreign induced communism upon them and suffering a genocide of the extend that no other nation in Europe could had ever withstood - and still there are there and ready to go on. Hating them is understandable, being jealous of them is understandable, being afraid of them is also understandable but coming out to say that "Russians afterall were not in the forefront of technology" is simply one nice big lie. Do not even get into the effort to count the contribution of Russians alone in comparison to the contribution of Germans alone, British alone and French alone because there is no comparison at all, numbers of different scale.
"""He will post that black is white, and day is night if it achieves his goal of inciting anglos to take his bait."""
Anglos are typically diplomatic. They will never enter a discussion they are bound to lose. CBW is rather the exception, he enters, he naturally loses (I should direct you to a fuller discussion we had on WWII, the Balkans and the role of the British where I was forced by him to come down with full references and then after all the work, he left discussion without commenting a single point mentioning religious prayers about it all being "the demon's sayings". That is some Anglosaxon science, hehe!!!
"""Its probably because the Russians are traditional foes of the nations he calls "enemy", namely Britain and Turkey."""
Ottoman Empire was no Turkey, Turkey has been the creation of Britain, France and Italy and is a stooge enemy, the real enemy had been - at least for the last 300 years - the British who orchestrated also the genocides. Do you find it accidental that the next most denialist nation on earth regarding the genocides in Minor Asia that wiped out 4,5 million people and cleared another 3 (on total eliminating the 45% of the unwanted population there) are the British?
"""Its a simple case of brainwashing,"""
I was brainwashed by whom? Zeus?
"""the enemies of my enemy are my friends."""
Where did I show I abide to that?
"""The only other person on Nik's level is NormanConquest who , of course, is Russian."""
He is Russian? Haha, if anything he is an excellent commentator. Very true and very amusing!!!
"""Neither accepts the current state of their respective nations in the world, both invent histories to make the pain a little easier."""
Give me a reason to accept the recent and current state of Greece as a protectorate state of anglosaxons. Just one reason. Why do I have to accept American prime ministers? And why do I have to accept governments where the 70% of the people are of almost no Greek ancestry (but american - in some ministries they speak only english...), all that governments on a country that up to now has been habitated by 98% Greek people. I do nothing else than state the reality, that the country is a protectorate and it has been all along since WWII and the assasination of the then president by the British so as to impose the German attack. The reality is that the prosperity of my country will necessarily demand the geopolitical demise (as for the financial prosperity I wish them all the best!) of Britain and USA unless the geopolitical plans of these two change dramatically overnight - something it has not happened in the last 300 years - so why should I expect anything different now? I have every interest, not only as a Greek but also as a European (i.e. Italians and French and even Germans have the same interest down to the basics) to see a more powerfull Russia and a less powerfull US. There is nothing civilisational out of it, it is pure geopolitical interest. For the region, anglosaxon intervention means war and genocide. Tell me a reason to be supportive of this worst aspect of humanity.
But such geopolitical views have nothing to do with our little side discussion about the Russian technological groundbreaking work of the last 200 years or the fact that in WWII the 90% of war in Europe occured between Nazi Germans and communist Russians. My views on an issue are not distorted so easily as you think by my geopolitical positioning - which is far from being pro-Russian down to the basics... it is you rather out of your blind fanatiscism that you cannot accept the slightest of critiscisms and the realition that things are not at all as you imagine since 1+1+2 and 300,000 is definitely 10 times smaller than 3,000,000 and as such you should not even be trying to discuss on it. Get it?
Complain about this comment
348. At 3:53pm on 03 Nov 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
"""Who wrote that? Wow, I've seen some rubbish posted here but this tops it all."""
Haha, oh now, I have seen more rubbish. Even in this thread. You tell people: "Look, in France there were 300,000 Germans while in Russia there were 3,000,000 of them with all the weaponry and all the staff they had". Yet they are so stubborn to believe their lie that they cannot admit that the 90% of the war theater evolved in the eastern front and not in the wesern one which was a minor case.
"""German technological prowess then and even more now is a myth, just like the supposed invincibility of their Army during WWII was a myth and was debunked (and how!), and is the only thing they can still brag about."""
Eveyone - and first of all Germans - fooled the poor Italians but in 1941, 45,000 Germans supported by full range of artillery and airforce and backed by the extremely motivated (and highly capable) Bulgarians sworn on revenge against Greeks, managed to get stuck for a week in front of 5,000 2nd rate Greek reserves (among them many injured, not apt to carry weapons etc.) + 2,000 local Greek villagers defending an unfinished construction of a line of some 120 fortresses which was meant to operate with a minimum of 50,000 soldiers (more than 300 fortresses should be in place in the final plan and should be defended by some 80,000 troops) designed against the tactical capacity of the then Bulgarian army (i.e. fortresses did not even possess any anti-air artilery worthy of this name). And what did the German machine do? They managed to "win" against 2-3 out of the 100-120 fortresses concerned.
1 by using chemicals to get the defenders out.
1 by sending in a suicide squadron that lost 20 for 1 (worse than Russian communists!!!).
1 by having all...3 Greek defenders surrender after their ammo was finished - it is believed Germans had lost 300 to 400 men in that assault thinking they fought against a whole Greek batallion or something.
Finally the German breakthrough came when the British having imposed their leadership over the operations placed aside most Greek generals and refused to set up defense lines, taking out all supply lines between the center and the north and leaving empty space to Germans to enter from the center north - them fleeing to the south and leaving in peace without a single decent battle, their role being evidently to clear all Greek resistance and to enable the easy German occupation of Greece. How else to explain that:
1) the distance between the borders of Yugoslavia and the capital Athens was 2 days by the fastest motorbike!!!!!!!!
2) Germans did 2 days to reach Athens!!!!!!!
3) Greeks having the 90% of their army in Albania fighting an immense force of 550,000 Italians, were defended by a force of nearly 60,000 British (ANZAC) troops.
4) The German force that reach Athens in 2 days were 12,000, motorised.
Sorry. Even if Germans were 500,000 driving Ferraris they should not had been able to reach Athens in 2 days if facing an army of 60,000 decided to fight against them. Yet Germans did it in 2 days. All while having lost every single battle against the Greek army wherever it was present in the borderline between Greece and Bulgaria, losing a tragic number of soldiers that has never been published - well 300 to 400 Germans died fighting against 3 men guarding a fortress so we can imagine the rest.
Now you now what the "German military machine" was all about and how they advanced where they advanced.
"""Whilst I don't begrudge them that and am not hating, if we (or especially the Chinese) stop buying all those horrible-looking German cars (bmws, benzes), where will Germany find itself then?"""
Hehe!
349. At 4:58pm on 03 Nov 2010, Norman Conquest wrote:
"""Also I find ironic that the Germans -- who so recently thought of themselves as the Super Humans and were fighting to bring a good part of the world under their control -- are now reduced to being the "industrial powerhouse of the world", or in other words, a nation of slaves laboring hard for the benefit of the foreign buyers of their products and not even knowing that things could be very different and even asking for more work lolol."""
Precisely that is the reason that French should lead Europe. Not Germans. French have it right, Germans not. French top it with access to space and military tech as well as the most operational (along with British) army in Europe. Where is Germany? If it is to built BMWs, know that Italians do it much better.
"""Germany arise!"""
They do have to wake up from their sleepy state. They are as much victimised as all the surrounding nations of Europe right now.
Complain about this comment
#364
The German invasion of France involved 93 divisions from Army Groups A, B and C. A typical German division of the time had about 17,000 personnel, which suggests a force of 1.5 million from the Channel to Switzerland.
The Italian army on the French border was 32 divisions strong. I dont know the size of an italian division but lets say 15,000 making about 480,000.
Show me why I am wrong.
Complain about this comment
@364 Nik
""The only other person on Nik's level is NormanConquest who , of course, is Russian."""
He is Russian? Haha, if anything he is an excellent commentator. Very true and very amusing!!!"
maybe if his comments about history were filtered out by some kind of bbc-staff.
:)
Complain about this comment
@364
"Give me a reason to accept the recent and current state of Greece as a protectorate state of anglosaxons. Just one reason. Why do I have to accept American prime ministers? And why do I have to accept governments where the 70% of the people are of almost no Greek ancestry (but american - in some ministries they speak only english...), all that governments on a country that up to now has been habitated by 98% Greek people. I do nothing else than state the reality, that the country is a protectorate and it has been all along since WWII and the assasination of the then president by the British so as to impose the German attack. The reality is that the prosperity of my country will necessarily demand the geopolitical demise (as for the financial prosperity I wish them all the best!) of Britain and USA unless the geopolitical plans of these two change dramatically overnight"
How about: you people of Greece take responsibility for the future of Greece?
It`s so easy to blame it on some mysterious foreign power, instead of doing something that matters yourself/yourselves.
Complain about this comment
@364 Nik
"Precisely that is the reason that French should lead Europe. Not Germans. French have it right, Germans not. French top it with access to space and military tech as well as the most operational (along with British) army in Europe. Where is Germany? If it is to built BMWs, know that Italians do it much better."
Well, I guess even the Italians are more capable at engineering and manufacturing than the Greek.
And that`s supposed to mean something!
:)
By the way, your little "history" of the Battle of Greece sounds nice and all, I guess. Problem is, it`s completely off track and wrong.
But keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
And now Croatians are apologizing for a Vukovar massacre with their nationalistic parties objecting.
Almost an exact situation like in Serbia.
BTW. Nik, have you managed to find gen. Ratko Mladic yet?
Perhaps he's hiding in some country's (which will remain anonymous) embassy in Kenya, like terrorist PKK leader - Ocalan was?
And sends letter bombs from there?
Complain about this comment
"And we know the US wanted and actually prepared to use them on many occasions -- they wanted to use them as early as against Germany in 1944-45, especially when they were routed during the Ardennes offensive"
And of course generalissimus Stalin would have vehemently objected, right?
On humanitarian grounds, I guess. :)
Complain about this comment
"Precisely that is the reason that French should lead Europe. Not Germans."
And it's the French who should bail out Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain.
Right?
Had I been German I'd have suggested just that. :)
[money talks, s..t walks]
Complain about this comment
366. At 08:01am on 04 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
"""The German invasion of France involved 93 divisions from Army Groups A, B and C. A typical German division of the time had about 17,000 personnel, which suggests a force of 1.5 million from the Channel to Switzerland.The Italian army on the French border was 32 divisions strong. I dont know the size of an italian division but lets say 15,000 making about 480,000."""
Correct.
"""Show me why I am wrong."""
You are correct. Simply in "Italian" we have to add too the Albanians who were their allies. This should make it more or less the force of 550,000 mentioned in texts. And if Italians can be treated as uninterested in that war, Albanians showed a particular interest ending up, during only 2 years of Italian occupation of Greece of killing by arms as many civilians as Germans alone and Bulgarians alone had killed in their respective sectors. Mind you, along with the Germans there followed behind the Bulgarians and these were much more interested and as such much more dangerous for the Greeks than the Germans. However the biggest danger for the Greeks were obviously the """"""""allies"""""""" British. You have to understand that the 1 and only reason that Germans finally decided to attack the Balkans, was the fact that Greece accepted British """""""""""""""""aid"""""""""""""" passing over its strict neutrality following Metaxas murder by the British. It is there where you have to put in context what did those 60,000 British troops that were supposed to keep off the German army while the Greek army kept off the Italians.
You have at some point to enter in the real game. British did not think and did not act at all according to what our ridiculously false history books tell us. In Balkans they worked hard to make the Germans enter and stay - not only enabling the first entry but also enabling their stay by crippling the defenses of the people to resist by paying the communists (who? the British? whom? communists, well yes... that is the way it went).
Complain about this comment
#366
@Nik
"Show me why I am wrong."
You were talking Normandy, I was talking battle of France. I withdraw my comments. Crossed wires, sorry.
Complain about this comment
#373
And for the record, I'm not British, in case our paths cross again :)
Complain about this comment
368. At 1:19pm on 04 Nov 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
"""How about: you people of Greece take responsibility for the future of Greece?"""
Greeks are comparatively much more responsible people than the likes of German, British or French and I can show 1000 examples on that:... wanna talk about weapons of mass destruction? The public opinion on the break up of Jugoslavia?
The fact that they have no respect for the joke of a state called Greece, a state organised as a protectorate by British, French and Austrians in the early 19th century, means absolutely nothing on their responsibility. You western Europeans define yourselfs by your state, us we define ourselfs by our nation. For us, nation and state are 2 things different. We wished that our state served our nation but this has never occured and as such we have been all along obliged to take care of ourselfs. But when the nation has been directly hit, Greeks were there showing their responsibility. Responsibility is all about kicking out the Italians and the Germans and trying to protect the Jewish despite the fact that the latter had never done that in the past with the Ottomans (quite the contrary!) - unlike the 80% of Europeans that bent I won't commend what. Responsibility is not obeying to an illegal state that imposes unconstitutional laws for which the people have absolutely no means of doing anything apart taking it to the streets. What do you want Greeks to do? Assasinate ruling political families? Such things though indicated will mathematically turn as boumerang against Greeks anyway. If Greeks vote well, then we will have fires burning the remaining of our forests, we will have ships accidentally exploding in the Aegean and uprises of Albanian and other asiatic muslim illegal immigrants and Turkey intervening to make war. Don't you know how the game is played? The current crisis is the price Greece pays for having signed gas and ports deals with Russians and Chinese. We have discussed this months ago.
From there on, compare Greeks one on one with either Germans, British r French - and Greeks are by far more educated, by far more hard working (work 30% more than Germans or British), and down to the basics by far more competent at the rare cases where they are given the same tools and funding as others. The fact that there is no
"""It`s so easy to blame it on some mysterious foreign power,"""
I do not know where you saw the mystery. It is all in front of your eyes. Britain, USA or Germany are not mysterious countries. Nor are the likes of mafia-Siemens and Camora-Mercedes haha!!! Amazing!
"""instead of doing something that matters yourself/yourselves."""
We do. We raise our families in the best way we can. Despite the obvious effort of the Greek state to change that, the Greek youth is one of the top quality youths you can find around and in that take just any measurable quantity you want to take: alcohol and drugs abuse or crimes or educational standards or monoparental families etc. etc.
And it is not me saying so. It is foreigners that lived along with Greeks. What you ignore about Greece is that it actually had higher educational % among its population than the likes of a country France even back in late 19th century - belle epoque!!! That should explain to you why it is the smallest and poorest nation with that amazingly high % of scientists, artists, philosophers etc. The reason it is poor and small is the result of differential investment (of all sorts) on Greece in comparison to other countries. International investors would rather invest in ocuntries like Germany or Japan for obvious geopolitical reasons but not in countries like Greece. Now take away this investment and I will show to you what Germans or Japanese can do. No money, no honey dear.
To understand this, you have to add state and private debt togther. Right now, Greece is one of the least indebted countries in Europe. Its debt is concentrated only in the state debt. On the private sector, Greeks are the least indebted all while having high % of private ownership. And it seems that this might enervate a lot.
369. At 1:36pm on 04 Nov 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
@364 Nik
"""...If it is to built BMWs, know that Italians do it much better.""""
"""Well, I guess even the Italians are more capable at engineering and manufacturing than the Greek. And that`s supposed to mean something!"""
You are German so you would have to know that built something (eg. a product) you have to have first something (a raw material). Greece has not much of iron or carbon deposits. It has however aluminium. Have you ever checked the classification of Greece in the aluminium industry? It has a highly corrupted (due to the political environment - however not more corrupted than the likes of Siemens or Mercedes) but also extremely capable civil engineering sector - and there you must note that Greece is one of the most seismogenous regions of the world, yet the country with the least of trouble over it (less than Japan - with our Asiatic friends visiting us to get an idea or two...). In the past we had quite some armements industry too, Americans though thought we should close it and the Papandreou clan acted on that way in the 80s. In 1980s the best Nissan plan operated in Greece, not in Japan, not in Germany - Papandreou clan made sure it went out by inciting strikes and agumenting taxes in "imported industrial parts" of the equivalent of a new imported car!!!! Do you want me to apply the same tax in Germany? Should I measure the time your industrial capacity would disappear in the matter of years or... months????????????????????? I can continue giving you 1000s of examples of Greek excellence and how this has been countered by negative international geopolitics.
That is the way. Now before you say something measure it first. Like I do. I measure dirst then speak. 300,000 Germans in France, 3,000,000 in Russia. 120,000 Greeks stop 550,000 Italians, then 5,000 Greeks stop 45,000 Germans but 60,000 British can't stop the vanguard of 12,000 Germans riding on their motorbikes to Athens in the minimal time of 2 days. I speak with measures, it is you (not only you) to explain to me these numbers.
"""By the way, your little "history" of the Battle of Greece sounds nice and all, I guess. Problem is, it`s completely off track and wrong."""
I spoke. The distance between the northern borders and Athens was 2 days road. 60,000 British could not prevent 12,000 Germans riding the distance in 2 days. You explain it to me. The only reason of British there was to fight the Germans while Greeks fought the Italians on the western front. The only reason of the German attack was the presence of Germans in Greece.
You understand or what? How much more explicit I have to make it to you?
"""But keep up the good work."""
I ll do do not worry. I know it hurts you when you are told that the role of Germany in WWI and WWII was that of the "useful naif", but that is what is was all about. I do not understand however where you find it unacceptable the fact that Germany was pushed and implicitly aided by Britain to invade the Balkans. This is exactly what had happened. Which part of the story remains difficult for you to comprehend? Why don't you go back to your archives and see what was the real reason (and it was precisely what had been mentioned in the official German statements afterall, your leaders had not lied about the fact that they would attack Greece only if it would go to the side of British, which finally happened in late January 1941 under "amazingly extraordinary circumstances").
Or perhaps are you offended by the fact that I do not accuse Germany of initiating that invasion but Britain - namely Churchill and all his lot? Are you used to the role of the "bad guy" so much that now I reveal it was Britain behind all the way, you protest or something??? This is tragicomedy!
What can I say!
Complain about this comment
#376
but 60,000 British can't stop the vanguard of 12,000 Germans riding on their motorbikes to Athens in the minimal time of 2 days.
Is this what you are referring to?:
"After abandoning the Thermopylae area the British rear guards withdrew to an improvised switch position south of Thebes, where they erected a last obstacle in front of Athens. The motorcycle battalion of the 2d Panzer Division, which had crossed to the island of Euboea to seize the port of Khalkis and had subsequently returned to the mainland, was given the mission of outflanking the British rear guard. The motorcycle troops encountered only slight resistance, and on the morning of 27 April the first Germans entered the Greek capital. "
Complain about this comment
@Nik
you see, I have no problems with accepting anything.
And while it might sound a little bit like that, I do not intend to promote any idea of German absolute technological or military superiority. It largely is a myth, as I already stated.
Remember: I argued that Russia was no industrial and scientific global player with which i meant "superpower". That doesn`t mean that it was a low-tech 3rd world nation.
The problem I have with your history of the Battle of Greece is quite simple: you are glorifying Greece and the Greek common people as well as soldiers. This makes your assessment unserious.
Look at your paragraph in which you only intent to belittle other nations and people in comparison to the Greek.
Bottom line: the Greek are abused and robbed by the "international capital" and the Germans, British or Japanese would have been completely unsuccessful without this ominous "international capital" and its investment.
This adds an even more sour taste to your comments about how Britain and the USA are at fault for Greeces situation right now.
Tell me, is the entire Greek bureaucratic apparatus occupied by sharks from the Anglo-American capital, backed by a corrupt military in order to bring down the great nation of Greece?
Complain about this comment
378. At 5:56pm on 04 Nov 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
"""you see, I have no problems with accepting anything.
And while it might sound a little bit like that, I do not intend to promote any idea of German absolute technological or military superiority. It largely is a myth, as I already stated.
Remember: I argued that Russia was no industrial and scientific global player with which i meant "superpower". That doesn`t mean that it was a low-tech 3rd world nation."""
Perhaps you meant that the scientific progress in Russia - no matter its achievements - was not as much diffused to the rest of the world as it was the combined German, French, British & American, so called "western" one. To this you find me more or less ok - evidently Russia had no colonies in Africa or no touch with Latin America to diffuse anything.
"""The problem I have with your history of the Battle of Greece is quite simple: you are glorifying Greece and the Greek common people as well as soldiers. This makes your assessment unserious."""
Hehe... I hope you realise that I am not unlike Marcus or Powermeerkat. I like to drag the rope and I like also to be ironic and to joke. In reality I do not believe that Greek common people are extraordinarily better soldiers than Germans or other. Greeks simply fought for their country and their very own existence. I direct to you Sun Tzu, chapter 5 or 6 (do not remember), where he mentions about "giving the enemy a chance": Greeks due to their geographical, geopolitical and historical context cannot be given a chance: once you attack them they will mathematically become a lion cornered in its own territory. Combine this with an extremely rugged terrain and a very hard life for Greeks - just got out of the most horrible up to then genocide ever commited (Minor Asia) and this gives you a nice answer as to why Greeks fought like that. You have also to note that especially for Germans, Greece was the very first country they invaded on which they had absolutely no past history of ethnic rivalry - on the opposite they felt quite guilty of doing so. German soldiers had the least of motivation they could have attacking Greece dragging behind the lot of Bulgarians sworn to commit genocide on Greeks and Albanians sworn to loot Greeks (finally also commiting a regional genocide) as well as the looser Italians.
To understand better how Mr. Itsios and his gun had killed an uknown 3-digit number of German soldiers and how the 5,000 men and 2,000 villagers kept a technologically and numerically superior army of 45,000 Germans, infantry, artillery, mobile units & airforce (+ utilisation of chemical warfare - myth that this was not used in WWII battles...) you have to know a bit better of what had been the Metaxas Defense Line, a defense line that is said by many to be a military miracle of the 20th century, the right balance of complex defense works without unecessary gimmicks, a defense line whose most parts are useable even today although today our friends Bulgarians would not ever think of attacking us - probably the next war we fight it together.
"""Look at your paragraph in which you only intent to belittle other nations and people in comparison to the Greek."""
No I do not. I highly esteem Bulgarians ans Serbians - and I would rather face in battle 1000 Germans, 10,000 British and 100,000 Turks all together rather than have to face again 100 Bulgrarians & Serbians... haha...
"""Bottom line: the Greek are abused and robbed by the "international capital"""
They are. I never said they are the only ones there. You Germans have also been robbed. British too. US citizens right now area under a vicious attack. All the world is under attack by ruling elites that are traced up to a tiny small circle of interests, downright a small bunch of families. It is just that most of the world is not ready and down to the basics not willing to make this realisation. Now Greece and a rather large list of countries have been and still are in the first line of fire. You have to realise that in the international game the main game is the center game, not the edge game, and the center of the world is Balkans, Caucasus & Egypt to Afganistan and Pakistan. Do you find it accidental that in there there is not a single "normal-type" country since WWI? Not even 1? The one country is more paraplegic than the other. Some at war, some under medievalist dictatorships (but for democracy speading US no problem), some with dire financial problems while "sitting on goldmines", some are simply forgotten etc. etc. You think it is all accidental? All these millions of people decided collectively to keep the middle of the earth down or something? So does this has to do with Greeks or something?
"""and the Germans, British or Japanese would have been completely unsuccessful without this ominous "international capital" and its investment."""
Yes. Definitely. Given the development of the international financial scene since the 19th century.
You even have the example in your own country - what is the difference of a BMW and a Wartburg? Same for Japan. Japan rose out of it medievalist obscurity thanks to the intervention of Europeans and Americans that needed a new local force to check Russians and Chinese alike. And as such they kept it post-WWII. Both Germans and Japanese have the common thing that whatever they did in post-WWII they did it singlehandedly thanks to foreign intervention and am not at all referring to Marshal plan. I am referring to the fact that in 1945 only the 5% of the German industrial capacity (built by Hitler using also secret foreign investments in the 1930s via Switzerland) had been destroyed while in terms of population it had lost about 10% while having fought with half the world. Compare that to Greece, an extremely modest country which lost 15% of its population (comparable only to Soviet Union, but there a lot was thanx to their leader communists too - in Greece it was thanx to Germans, Italians, Bulgarians & Albanians) and the 80% of its production capacity (the country had been returned to middle ages...) then start deducing whether international games favoured or not Germany and Japan. You made war against the whole world yet your treatment was 10 times more lenient than the treatment guys like Greeks or Serbians had by the "international scene", see anglosaxonic block.
"""This adds an even more sour taste to your comments about how Britain and the USA are at fault for Greeces situation right now."""
I told you. I like to add vinegar so as you feel how it is like in reality. It is much worse in reality. Much worse than you think. And I speak for us only. In reality it is much worse for a large number of countries as well as for the bulk of the citizens of all countries all over the world, depending on what levels we talk evidently.
"""Tell me, is the entire Greek bureaucratic apparatus occupied by sharks from the Anglo-American capital,""
Yes it is. The main political fractions centered around 3 families:
Pap-family
who are not even Greeks, brought forward by British after the assasination - by them of course - of president Metaxas. They are linked with
1) initiating the Greek civil war
2) pushing the political scene to provoke the dictatorship
3) the destruction of the Greek state in the 1980s and the shutting off of the economic life
4) the strategic treason of the 1990s
5) the recent total failure and the treacherous handling
Mitso-family
descendants of biggest Greek (of fuzzy ancestry by the way) traitor ever Venizelos. They are linked with
1) pushing the political scene to provoke the dictatorship
2) the deconstruction of the Greek state in the 1970s and the shutting off of the economic life
4) strategic treason in the 1990s
Kara-family
odd kids out, brought forward after the assasination of prime minister Papagos (the man that set the basis for the post war development of Greece), by guess who, the British. they are responsible for:
1) the destruction of the Greek state in the 1970s and the shutting off of the economic life
2) the strategic treason of the 1970s (Cyprus, geopolitical position of Greece etc.)
3) the recent financial dire conditions
And from there on some other 2nd rate ones like the best case of:
Panga-family
Produced right wing populist dictators, Nazi collaborators and communists alike ending up in the one that recently got fighting with you (Germans) though as a kid he got raised with Gestapo milk and Wermacht chocolates.
Not to forget the unforgetable """Greek royal family""" that struggled to learn how to speak Greek.
But there are really many of them... a whole "gentry" most of whom have only partial Greek ancetry (with most having foreign spouces, preferrably US, British, Dutch and German ones...) and some of whom have only a Greek name and a basic handling of the Greek language (thanx to the efforts of private teachers) to make the basic connection with the country - best example the current prime minister.
And do not get me wrong. There were indeed some governments led mostly by Greeks (though never entirely). Down to the basics, over the last 100 years, out of some 30 governments, these were... around 3!!!! To realise what is going on, the only Greek-Greek leadership Greece had in the last 100 years were the following 3 governments:
1) the government of Metaxas in the 1930s
2) the government of Papagos in the early 1950s
3) the dictatorship of 1967-1973 (attention, not the second one of 1973-1974).
In case 1, under Metaxas developed properly in its first time since its creation.
In case 2, under Papagos redeveloped after the destruction of WWII and the British imposed civil war.
In case 3, under dictator Papadopoulos it reached its highest social development phase (no matter the absence of "democracy").
In case 1, 2 & 3 Greece not only manged to develop but these also where the periods that funnily Greece had the minimal external debt. Now you explain it to me. You also explain to me what followed them:
1) In case 1, there followed the German invasion induced by the British
2) In case 2, there followed the initiation of the Cyprus division
3) In case 3, the Cyprus division was formalised and there was initiated the offensive in Aegean
1) In January 1941, Metaxas was murdered during war by the British for wishing to remain neutral.
2) In September 1955, Papagos was murdered by the British on the month when Turks completed the pongrom of Greeks of Constantinople formalising also their demand of "taxim" i.e. division of Cyprus for wishing to retaliate to the Turkish unprovoked (but British induced) aggressiveness.
3) Papadopoulos was jailed by the US-watchdog Ioannidis dictator when he fell out of favour with the US when he refused to collaborate in the division of Cyprus as well as in the use of the US base in Crete for the Middle East warfare.
Note that I am not glorifying any dictatorial regime here - Papadopoulos himself thought he served his nation but in reality he was a "usefull fool" for the Americans and did thanx to his violent end in the long run fragilise the geopolitical position of Greece (above I speak only on the social-financial levels).
This to start getting a bit deeper into how things go in other countries.
Perhaps you might learn something about how things go on in your country too. Who knows?
Complain about this comment
377. At 4:21pm on 04 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
"""Is this what you are referring to?:
"After abandoning the Thermopylae area the British rear guards withdrew to an improvised switch position south of Thebes, where they erected a last obstacle in front of Athens. The motorcycle battalion of the 2d Panzer Division, which had crossed to the island of Euboea to seize the port of Khalkis and had subsequently returned to the mainland, was given the mission of outflanking the British rear guard. The motorcycle troops encountered only slight resistance, and on the morning of 27 April the first Germans entered the Greek capital. """"
Yes this was part of the whole picture but actually my statement is generic. You might not know me well, but DurstMann should already have understood that I am in no mood speaking plain seriously - I love to add sauce and vinegar or to drag the rope excessively and people often accuse me of deliberately delegitimising my own speech.
I am not here to convince you on anything. You are free to dedicate as much time as you want to verify details and to search for the bigger picture.
What I tell you is that:
Greeks blah blah ok brave supermen and all that for good or for bad they had owned 550,000 Italians using their whole 120,000 army. As such, last thing they needed was to have another enemy. As such they would never become allies of the British who had to offer them only 1 thing: the attack of the Germans. Then Metaxas """"died""" in hospital after the visit of a British medical team sneaked in by pro-british pseudo-greek pseudo-king George.
Germans had no reason to attack a neutral Greece and neutral Balkans for the simple reason that there was nothing for them there. What Germans cared was their Romanian allies and the Black Sea oil. Neutral Greece was actually an ally of Greece since Britain would have first to pass over the Greek resistance to get to Romania. When Italians - under the incitement of guess whom! - attacked Greece, Hitler and German leadership were tearing their moustaches and they started smiling again ony when Italians started being chased by Greeks. However with Greece being allied to Britain, Britain had a nice base to attack Romania and as such Germans were forced to attack Balkans to invade Greece and forbid British use it as a base for lauching attacks.
Now, the single reason Germany attacked Greece was the fact that it allied to Britain. Greece allied to Britain in early February 1941 2 weeks after the assasination of president Metaxas.
Now, since the alliance was formalised, the attack of the Germans was also formalised. The British sent 60,000 troops and the role of that force was to keep off the Germans while Greeks kept off the immense Italian army. However, the British generals refused to even discuss a defense line in Macedonia and Thrace and kept their army south of Olympus working effectively to even cut the supply lines of the Greek army present in North Epirus (modern day Albania) fighting the Italians all while leaving alone the small task force of the Greek army, about 5,000 soldiers and 2,000 local villagers defending the Metaxas Fortresses in the Greek-Bulgarian frontiers - and these guys managed to keep off 45,000 invading Germans. The German vanguard that enterred Greece via the Axios unprotected thanx to the British valley was 12,000. In 2 days they drove down to Athens all while the British kept running back dragging with them the remaining Greek forces (by then led by a small fraction around king Georges... so you get the idea) with evident "maneurisms", then getting all the lot to Crete and from Crete, staying there only to delay and harass a bit the Germans (while they could easily keep the island like they kept Malte which was subject to 10 times more danger by Germans and Italians!!!) they left to Egypt abducting the remaining Greek army and officers. In Egypt they bred the new class of Greek leaderhip including the Pap-family all while they paid the rise of the communists during occupation. When the Paps returned to Greece in 1945 with the British army (really... what was the need for the British to return to Greece? have you ever asked yourself???), the civil war started.
Does it make sense for you or not?
Check the numbers. Check the events. Check everything you want. I throw you raw smelly and disgusting data. Keep it in the back of your head and verify it whenever you have the chance.
I have told people here again that this is no critiscism to the British people as people - it is the British geopolitics I am talking. In reality digging the British archives you may read tons of material written by the mid-rank and even some generals of the British army asking themselves """what on earth are we doing here?""". British military generals (including Montgomery if I am not mistaken) were puzzled as to the urge of Churchill and his team to push Greece to the side of Britain while it would complicate things even more for the British army already under possible danger in North Africa. It is noteworthy that Australians and New Zealanders had loved the idea of fighting in Greece against Germans and when they left they fell utter shame of what had happened - simple people, simple minds but deep down in their minds they had a doubt that all that had happaned for "other reasons", not just to aid the Greeks and protect the country.
Do not know if Sun Tzu wrote on this, but British geostrategy has been never been surpassed to our days - it makes modern US games seem like childish approaches. The way the British diplomacy acted was unseen by any other Empire or state. I honestly have an admiration of it even though to our case it has been gravely fateful.
Complain about this comment
#380
Deep breath here goes.
I wont talk much about the Metaxas line stuff, you keep your legends and heroes thats your prerogative. I will remind you that although individual forts held on for a long time, the strategy of defending them at all was flawed and irrelevant to the outcome. The Germans simply outflanked them and then brought up artillery and used tear gas (chemical weapons lmao!). The Greek 2nd Army surrendered within 3 days.
I dont agree that it was the British fault that there was no coordinated strategy with the Greeks. The Greeks didnt want to admit that their strategy of staying in Albania and defending at the Metaxas line was fatally flawed. 60,000 commonwealth troops were never going to stop the Germans and the British knew that. Greek machismo cost them the war, it was all about saving Greek honour and pride. It was Papagos who asked the British to leave the country, they abandoned their positions at Thermoplae on the 23rd, leaving two divisions to shield the withdrawal. This is 17 days after the invasion started..NOT TWO. By then, both the Greek 1st and 2nd armies had surrendered and the British were on their own.
There was NEVER a situation where 12,000 motorcycle troops reached Athens in 2 days from the Yugoslav border. That simply did not happen. For three reasons. First, the Werhmacht only had motorcycle troops attached to Panzer divisions in battalion strength (ie 500 per division). They would never have combined for an attack in one big mass of motorbikes lol. The British faced XL Panzer Corps - the vanguard was 9th Pz division and the SS Leibstandarte, not motorcyclists. Second, the British line was still intact, NORTH of Olympus on (at least) the 15th, which is NINE days after the invasion. Athens was not entered until the 27th, 21 days after the invasion. Third, no one would use motorcycle troops to assault ANY army, or even drive headlong at them,they are used for outflanking maneuvers only as part of a Panzer division assault. Hence why, 2 Pz motorcycle battalion was used to outflank the small British rearguard north of Athens. They were not on the Yugoslav border, they had just returned to the mainland from Khalkis which is is 77.7 km by road..approximately :)
(I use British and Commonwealth interchangeably, no intention to offend anyone)
Complain about this comment
#380
Phase II lol
"Germans had no reason to attack a neutral Greece and neutral Balkans for the simple reason that there was nothing for them there. What Germans cared was their Romanian allies and the Black Sea oil."
Germany and Italy were actually hell bent on knocking Britain out of the Mediterranean, period. Capturing Greece was a perfectly obvious thing to do to further that aim. The Germans had seen the performance of the Italian army in Africa and KNEW they shouldnt attempt to invade a fortified, mountainous country but the idiot Mussolini did it anyway.
"When Italians - under the incitement of guess whom! - attacked Greece, Hitler and German leadership were tearing their moustaches and they started smiling again ony when Italians started being chased by Greeks. "
The Italians made that mistake on their own, incited by their own Mediterranean machismo. This is crucial to your theorising. You cant prove that the British incited Mussolini to attack Greece. His tiny involvement with the British in WW1 was nothing compared to the puffed up fascist he was to become decades later. Without the belief that Mussolini attacked Greece because of the British, all your theories fall apart.
"However with Greece being allied to Britain, Britain had a nice base to attack Romania and as such Germans were forced to attack Balkans to invade Greece and forbid British use it as a base for lauching attacks."
Britain was hanging on by the skin of its teeth in April 1941. It was in no position to attack anybody, let alone Romania. How could Britain, barely able to defend what it had, invade and capture or destroy the Romanian oilfields? You think the Germans would let that happen anyway?The pitiful rag bag army sent to Greece should remind you of the situation in North Africa at the time - the siege of Tobruk had begun on April 11 and the British were rebuilding in Egypt. Sending a force to Greece was madness, if the British had lost those 60,000 troops they would have lost north africa, lost the entire Empire east of Gibraltar and lost the war. Britain gained nothing from the war in Greece, except the humiliation of Dunkirk II.
"Now, the single reason Germany attacked Greece was the fact that it allied to Britain. Greece allied to Britain in early February 1941 2 weeks after the assasination of president Metaxas."
Germany always planned to take Greece. It was just a matter of when. If you think that Germany would have left Greece alone you are just kidding yourself. Germany came to aid its foolish ally because Mussolini started a war before the Germans wanted it. But dont be mistaken, they were always going to attack. The Greeks KNEW this! You're a Greek student of history, YOU should KNOW this! Thats why they attacked the Italians in Albania in January 1941, they KNEW this was their last chance to kick the Italians out before the Germans arrived. This was BEFORE the alliance with the British in February!
Complain about this comment
381. At 08:01am on 05 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
"""Deep breath here goes. """
...for a change.
"""I wont talk much about the Metaxas line stuff, you keep your legends and heroes thats your prerogative."""
Thanx.
"""I will remind you that although individual forts held on for a long time, the strategy of defending them at all was flawed and irrelevant to the outcome."""
Really? I have even heard things like the Greeks would had rather buy tanks and not built the fortresses. In what sense where the fortresses flawed? In the sense that 45,000 Germans lost an uncountable (due to its 4 digit number which had to be shushed, trying to get these fortresses when these were unfinished, often underquiped in comparison to the final plan, without serious anti-airforce equipment and manned at the amazingly low level of less than 10% their expected manpower?).
"""The Germans simply outflanked them and then brought up artillery and used tear gas (chemical weapons lmao!)."""
Tear gas is a chemical and it is chemical warfare. The fact that it is low scale one changes nothing in terms of its classification which was changed in post WWII for reasons of civilian utilisation. Game of words mate.
"""The Greek 2nd Army surrendered within 3 days."""
It did not even surrender properly. They learnt that British had betrayed the Greeks and that the bulk of the remaining (pro-British) military leadership had betrayed and abandoned. Pro-British & Nazi-collaborator Tsolakoglou had issued formally that any other action from the Greek army was to be "illegal" and treated as mutiny. Inside the fortresses men had heated discussions in what to do and the general consensus was to continue fighting till their last bullet. However, as time passed and news were coming that the Bulgarians were also enterring - and you know very well what that means (fears verified since Bulgarians went on to perform a mini-genocide on the lands they occupied - only in Thrace they exterminated nearly the 30% of the population, do you know any other place where that happened in Europe?), this created a paranoia among Greek soldiers who overwhelmingly were Macedonians and Thraecians and who wished to return to protect their helpless families. Fighters of the fortresses, as soon as they surrendered they formed the first resistance groups - and these were the first resistance groups in all of Europe mate. I did not expect you to acknowledge such but anyway... now you note it and do not say whatever you read in encyclopedias.
"""I dont agree that it was he British fault that there was no coordinated strategy with the Greeks. The Greeks didnt want to admit that their strategy of staying in Albania and defending at the Metaxas line was fatally flawed."""
Greeks had trapped the 90% of their army (a front line of 120,000 that faced the first Italian attack of around 350,000 Itamians and a second line of about 200,000 who came to reinforce to keep out the 550,000 men strong spring offensive by the Italians. What did you expect them to do? To send troops down risking collapsing the defense line? I.e. to keep out the Germans and risk losing to Italians? The Greek strategy was 100% correct :
since the whole German attack was solely provoked by the presence of British, it was the absolute responsibility of British to set up a second defense line in the border region. The 60,000 strong British plus the 30,000 remaining Greek force was more than enough to successfully resist at least the initial 45,000 strong attack of the Germans - what is so difficult for you to comprehend?
I am amazed that even after all that explanation you fail to see the basics.
"""60,000 commonwealth troops were never going to stop the Germans and the British knew that."""
Yes they could stop if they wanted. Then Germans would sent 300,000 troops and annulate completely the offensive against Russia at least for 1942-1943. And even if you think of the possibility of British saying - as you say - "afterall sooner or later Germans would bring down more troops and prevail"... what was the point of doing all that since the beggining? What was the point in forcing Greece to ally with Britain while remaining neutral it would had never received a German attack and it would had successfuly kept of the Italians?
You given the answer yourself by mistake but then turn your look away.
"""Greek machismo cost them the war, it was all about saving Greek honour and pride."""
Bulgarians genocided the 30% of Thraecians and Albanians the 25% of Epirots not to mention the slaughters of Italians and Germans. Are you really so mad to speak about fighting all about honour and pride?
"""It was Papagos who asked the British to leave the country, they abandoned their positions at Thermoplae on the 23rd, leaving two divisions to shield the withdrawal."""
Papagos was one of the generals who was in general rather pro-British but he could not understand all the farce with the British intervention in Greece and somehow had his knowledge of what had happened to Metaxas (he was sufficiently well placed to know the sordid details). As a general he had discussed with the British but he had told them that all their plan was the least weird and not only it endangered Greece but also seemingly the British battle plan in the N. African frontline. When British came in Greece, their gameplaying made every war effort impossible. Papagos simply stated the natural "that get them out of there, no point dancing around a dead body". Therea are suspicions that many Greek officers (and underground even the ideologically pro-British Papagos) hoped that the Germans who had not any historic fight against Greece, would be lenient and would not permit either the Italians or the Greek local enemies, Bulgarians and Albanians to enter so by showing to Germans the capacity of the Greek army and by remaining strong in North Epirus Greeks might as well had gained something and pass-over the WWII relatively ok. You have to understand that such thoughts were mainly among leadership that had to calculate all possibilities but that in no sense these undermined the struggle of Greeks against Germans as shown from day Alpha to day Omega. Of course the fact that these hopes were unfounded does not mean that were not plausible.
"""This is 17 days after the invasion started..NOT TWO. By then, both the Greek 1st and 2nd armies had surrendered and the British were on their own."""
The motorbike thingie was an ironic reference obviously. So not 2 days, 2 weeks - enormous difference really when Greeks kept out half a million Italians for 5 months. None of it would had happened had British kept out their stingy tail. If you read the details you will see that Germans had moved at leasure speed. Whenever they faced British they were advancing in a matter of hours no matter if Australians and New Zealanders really wished to fight the batte - orders were orders and British had only orders of retreat. It took 17 days to chase off the Greek bits and parts of the remaining army scaterred all over the surface. For example in the battle of the Fortresses the point of entry-attack of Germans there were around 7,000 Greeks but as a second line that was still coming (it took time due to the Greek terrain and the lack of transports, there were coming some thousands more. These had not capitulated and even some of the fortresses continued the fight against orders and they spread on the mountains, some of them (the southern originated troops) finally being evacuated by ships without capitulating or falling in the hands of Germans.
"""There was NEVER a situation where 12,000 motorcycle troops reached Athens in 2 days from the Yugoslav border. That simply did not happen. For three reasons. First, the Werhmacht only had motorcycle troops attached to Panzer divisions in battalion strength (ie 500 per division). They would never have combined for an attack in one big mass of motorbikes lol. The British faced XL Panzer Corps - the vanguard was 9th Pz division and the SS Leibstandarte, not motorcyclists."""
Big deal. Germans brought tanks in Greece as if they could anything with those. Had British kept their positions at Aliakmon, none of that would had happand unless Germans trapped more than 300,000 troops.
"""Second, the British line was still intact, NORTH of Olympus on (at least) the 15th, which is NINE days after the invasion."""
So why where they fleeing?
"""Athens was not entered until the 27th, 21 days after the invasion."""
Because Germans went down at leasure speed apparently. It is known that they waited before enterring Athens to leave the dust settle down. Refer, Sun Tzu 6th chapter or something: "...always leave the enemy have one direction to flee, since encircling them means you will spend your forced exterminating them and it does not always pays off". Last thing Germans wanted was to encircle the fleeing British and pressure them give a fight. They mostly drove them off.
"""(I use British and Commonwealth interchangeably, no intention to offend anyone)"""
Me too I take this liberty.
Complain about this comment
#383. At 10:01am on 05 Nov 2010, Nik
A boring, inaccurate, extremely long piece of pure imagination and fiction with the odd tiny piece of fact slipped in to make it look to the not indoctrinated that there might be a basis of truth. Why Nik is given the ability to cut and paste his invented history is incredible, just look at the length of his posts, it must be like a chant to him each day, keep chanting and eventually it must be true, your problem Nik, is that because they are largely invented they will never be true.
Now come on Nik, keep your posts short and keep chanting (to yourself), Greece is the greatest, Greeks are the best, Greeks are the most intelligent, Greek debt is the best.
Complain about this comment
Now let us see how British saw this, before and after. Take some considerations (quick source wikipedia).
"""The Greek campaign ended in a complete German victory. The British did not have the necessary military resources in the Middle East to permit them to carry out simultaneous Iarge-scale operations in North Africa and the Balkans."""
So what was the whole point since the beginning? Germans would not had staged an attack if British had not landed troops in Greece after the assasinatin of Metaxas in January 1941!
"""Moreover, even if they had been able to block the German advance into Greece, they would have been unable to exploit the situation by a counterthrust across the Balkans."""
Most p r e c i s e l y. So what was the point?
"""The British came very near to holding on to Crete and perhaps some other islands which would have been extremely valuable as airbases from which to support naval operations throughout the eastern Mediterranean."""
Apparently they could keep Malta which was 10 times more threatened but they would not keep Crete. What can I say... Naivety has its limits too...
"""In enumerating the reasons for the complete German victory in Greece, the following factors seem to have been of the greatest significance:
1) Germany's superiority in ground forces and equipment;[113]
Italians had this too. In fact the Italian campaign was better equiped and 10 times more numerous than the German one.
2) German supremacy in the air combined with the inability of the Greeks to provide the RAF with more airfields;[114]
Italians had air superiority too.
3) Inadequacy of the British expeditionary force, since the Imperial force available was small;[113]
So? What was the whole point then?
4) Poor condition of the Greek Army and its shortage of modern equipment;[114]
Invalid point. Greek army beat the Germans badly in the single battle it gave on the Metaxas Fortress line.
5) Inadequate port, road and railway facilities;[115]
Fine. So much better for resistance.
6) Absence of a unified command and lack of cooperation between the British, Greek, and Yugoslav forces;[114]
Irrelevant.
7) Turkey's strict neutrality;[114]
Absolutely irrelevant. The last thing Greeks would tolerate is having Turks who had not yet finished cleaning the blood off their knifes enterring Greece as "allies" to help. The paranoia of Greeks was not the Germans but the Bulgarians and the (down to the basics turk-)Albanians.
8) The early collapse of Yugoslav resistance.[114]
Indeed this was not expected to that extend and it did not give any time to fully deploy the remaining forces. Yet even that was not critical.
------------------------------
All these reasons are side excuses.
The reality was that the war between Germany and Greece was orchestrated by British since it would had never erupted if the British had not sent that expendition force in Greece. Their initial plan was since the beginning to make it fall to Germans.
"""After the Allies' defeat, the decision to send British forces into Greece was met with fierce criticism in the UK."""
Not only after but also before.
"""Field Marshal Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff during World War II, considered intervention in Greece to be "a definite strategic blunder", as it denied Wavell the necessary reserves to complete the conquest of Italian-held Libya, or to successfully withstand Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps March offensive. It thus prolonged the North African Campaign, which otherwise might have been successfully concluded within 1941.[116]"""
Evidently the continuation of war in the Mediterranean was to the interests of the British. But it was not only that reason. The main point was to maintain a touch with the inner evolutions in the countries there. Forcing Germany to attack Greece tied Britain permanently with the political evolution of Greece post-WWII and never permitted it to "stray".
"""In 1947 de Guingand asked the British government to recognize the mistakes it had made when it laid out its strategy in Greece.[117]""""
In other words, implicitly to recognise the cimes against humanity.
"""Buckley, on the other hand, argued that if the UK had not honored its commitment of 1939 to defend Greece's independence, it would have severely damaged the ethical rationalizations of its struggle against Nazi Germany.[118]"""
Ah! Who asked them to honour the commitment of a theoretical agreement between Metaxas and British prior to eruption of WWII?
"""According to Professor of History, Heinz Richter, Churchill tried through the campaign in Greece to influence the political atmosphere in the United States, and he insisted on this strategy even after the defeat.[119]"""
In other words, he might as well took 1 million dead Greeks to his neck, just like that, just for fun, to say he did something.
"""According to John Keegan, "the Greek campaign had been an old-fashioned gentlemen's war, with honor given and accepted by brave adversaries on each side", and the Greek and Allied forces, being vastly outnumbered, "had, rightly, the sensation of having fought the good fight."[82]"""
Absolutely ridiculous. Greeks fought for their survival. It was not to play the gentleman. They cared not about what others would say. Loss meant not just Italians and Germans in but above all Bulgarians and (turk)Albanians in and that meant a new oncoming genocide which of course indeed materialised.
"""In 1942 members of the British Parliament characterized the campaign in Greece as a "political and sentimental decision"."""
Yes yes, sentimental, how nice! British did it to redeem the souls of their grandmothers or something. Whatever...
"""Eden rejected the criticism and argued that the UK's decision was unanimous, and asserted that the Battle of Greece delayed the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union.[124] This is an argument that some historians such as Keegan have also used in order to prove that Greek resistance may have been a turning point in World War II.[125] According to the film-maker and friend of Adolf Hitler Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler said that "if the Italians hadn't attacked Greece and needed our help, the war would have taken a different course. We could have anticipated the Russian cold by weeks and conquered Leningrad and Moscow. There would have been no Stalingrad".[126]"""
This is one explanation often sold and it has passed even in Greece - i.e. that British dragged down the Germans to delay them from other actions on the western or eastern front. It might as well have a basis in the British reasoning (while I personally think the Greek resistance had minimal effect on the failure of the German Barbarossa campaign against USSR), but the deeper reality is that Churchill had much deeper plans - the whole idea was for British to maintain a grip over the future evolution of the Balkans. Balkans out of war and eolving their own way peacefully was out of question for British. It was not about Greeks or Serbians or something - it was about the most sensitive point of Europe and bridge to the Middle East remaining under strict control. The most easy way to do is to implicate it into a war. In the British plan, the Italians SHOULD enter Greece so as that British invade it in turns as "allies" installing their puppet governments. From Greece British could dictate much of the evolutions in the eastern Mediterranean at a time the genocide of the Minor Asian 45% of the population was still fresh, there were still 250,000 Greeks in Constantinople and Turks the good old British tools had not yet started getting out of their middle age. Italians failed to do something and as such British employed the Germans and the only way to do so was to sent theselfs a small expendition force. If for example Germans for any reason failed and called back their army the British would finally have to invade Greece simply as an invader using some puppet internal political fraction... and that is what they had exactly done back in WWI by invading Greece, bombarding Athens and instaling the puppet political figure of Venizelos.
Complain about this comment
#383
. "In what sense where the fortresses flawed? In the sense that 45,000 Germans lost an uncountable (due to its 4 digit number which had to be shushed"
Very simple, and for exactly the same reason as the Maginot line! The forts were build to stop a Bulgarian invasion, but there none defending from Yugoslavia. So the Germans just bypassed them and carried on south, cutting off the whole Greek 2nd Army (70,000) which surrendered in 3 days, and carried on to attack the British. The mopping up operation against the forts may have been a heroic defense but strategically IRRELEVANT.
Complain about this comment
#385
Apparently they could keep Malta which was 10 times more threatened but they would not keep Crete. What can I say... Naivety has its limits too...
Malta was more important than Crete.If you see what forces operating from there did to Axis shipping, especially in disrupting supplies for the Afrika Korps you will understand why. The whole British war effort depended on it and the effort taken to keep it from falling was monumental. Greece was a sideshow.
Complain about this comment
384. At 10:26am on 05 Nov 2010, Buzet23 wrote:
"""#383. At 10:01am on 05 Nov 2010, Nik
A boring, inaccurate, extremely long piece of pure imagination and fiction with the odd tiny piece of fact slipped in to make it look to the not indoctrinated that there might be a basis of truth."""
So, Buzet, could I be indoctrinated? By whom. Is what I say any position of:
1) Of Germans? I do not think so.
2) Of British? Evidently not.
3) Of Russians? They have no clue about it.
4) Of Greeks? I do not think so (neither the right or left wing ones).
5) Of Greek extra right or extra left? I do not think so.
Apparently the only people that maintain the correct perspective of what exactly has happened in WWII on this corner are the true Greek patriots, a rising force in Greece right now (and this has evidently nothing to do with any typical european right wing patriotism and such) since it is to the interest of Greeks to find out what has happened and why things evolved later like that.
My approach is the correct approach because it is 1+1=2. British deliberately enterred Greece and the Balkans in WWII for their own geopolitical games. What is so difficult for you to comprehend in that?
"""Why Nik is given the ability to cut and paste his invented history is incredible, just look at the length of his posts, it must be like a chant to him each day, keep chanting and eventually it must be true, your problem Nik, is that because they are largely invented they will never be true."""
I can keep my posts smaller if you want. Will it change the role of the British in WWII?
"""Now come on Nik, keep your posts short and keep chanting (to yourself),"""
I type faster than you imagine and as such I have the luxury to write what I think directly without treating which adds fuzziness in my texts. But I am not here to convince anyone. I am here to drop a line. Take advantage of it whenever you happen to listen to an information that verifies what I am saying. Remember - you might have not been around in early 2010 but I can direct you back to tell you how many times I have commented on political evolutions and predicted things that actually were happening in front of our eyes*.
"""Greece is the greatest, Greeks are the best, Greeks are the most intelligent, Greek debt is the best."""
Point to me 1 point where I said Greeks are the best. The fact that 120,000 Greeks trashed 350,000 Italians in October 1940 or that 7,000 Greeks trashed 45,000 Germans in March 1941 is a record of history, there is nothing to say on that. The fact that 19th century little Greece had more univestity graduates on average than the likes of belle epoque France is also a record on which nothing can be said. The fact that today Greece continuously has the highest average educational level in Europe and one of the highest in the world are also well recorded and there is nothing for me to boast about as this never prohibited Greeks to be ruled by foreign powers and installed fractions (eg. current government consists at the amazing rate of 70% by people of partial or directly non-Greek ancestry, do you understand what this is all about? The country historically has been under direct occupation at all times).
So where exactly the above insists that "Greeks are the best"? If anything it points out to the other direction saying they are good old eternal fools opening the doors to their own exploitation by letting themselves being manipulated expetly by the likes of British or others. We are not the first and not the last that fall in that category. The list of manipulated countries is endless.
Complain about this comment
#388. At 1:09pm on 05 Nov 2010, Nik
Oh dear, you're still incapable of a short response, that is the inevitable sign of someone that can't tolerate another opinion because you cannot accept another opinion. Whatever education you were subjected to was an indoctrination, by whom I have no idea, but your educators were severely lacking.
Complain about this comment
386. At 12:39pm on 05 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
"""#383
. "In what sense where the fortresses flawed? In the sense that 45,000 Germans lost an uncountable (due to its 4 digit number which had to be shushed"""
""""Very simple, and for exactly the same reason as the Maginot line! The forts were build to stop a Bulgarian invasion, but there none defending from Yugoslavia. So the Germans just bypassed them and carried on south, cutting off the whole Greek 2nd Army (70,000) which surrendered in 3 days, and carried on to attack the British. The mopping up operation against the forts may have been a heroic defense but strategically IRRELEVANT."""
You fail to see that the mobilisation of the 2nd Greek Army was "strategically sabotaged" by the presence of the British force of some 60,000 troops - a presence which was the root cause of that German attack!
Now let us talk of real strategy. 70,000 Greeks and 60,000 British were more than enough to defend a largely mountainous country of fantastic terrain for defense like Greece. Germans would have to dedicate an immense force to have any hope. It was clear that the fortresses were unfinished but then it was crystal clear for British that they were 100% effective (I hope you do not consider the British idiots and not knowing the value of the fortresses) and that the German airforce and mobile warfare superiority would not count that much in the rough terrain of Greece.
There was not magic:
1) The 300,000 Greek army had to remain in North Epirus (Albania) in order to keep off the 550,000 strong offensive of the Italians. Any weakening risked evidently the total collapse of all the frontline. British were not supposed to sent any aid there as Greeks did just fine but they were not supposed either to demand Greeks geopardise the successful frontline to go set up a defense line south of Olympus as British wanted... 70,000 + 60,000 = 130,000 should had been more than enough to fend off at least 300,000 Germans and equivalent material.
2) The main part of the British army had to be set in the frontier line with Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. And while the Yugoslav frontier line is difficult to defend since it includes the "soft" Axios river valley the most indicated strategy would be actually to have most British stationed in the very easily defendable Eastern and western Macedonia and of course in the Fortresses and so when Germans would enter via the valley they would fall in a 3-cornered trap with British attacking them from the north east, from the west and from the south - a bit like the Marathon type of stratagem. Eventually Germans would not even try and they would try to neutralise the defenses first which would take time and effort and as said, much more than 300,000 soldiers.
British sabotaged the defense by:
Refusing to set up a defense line in the Greek-Bulgarian frontier line. What they proposed to the Greeks was effectively to give without battle Macedonia and Thrace to Germans. Something that Greeks would never accept since for Germans the no-battle conquest of Macedonia and Thrace was already 80% of the task of protecting Romania and hence Germans could even sit down there and do nothing else other than directly giving Macedonia and Thrace to Bulgarians. Bulgarians would do a genocide on Greeks, colonise the lands and keep them for ever theirs while Greeks would remain with empty hands consoled with the amazing love and affection of the British... absolute rubbish.
Absolute rubbish to the power of 1000. British knew very well that when they were proposing their rubbish plan of letting Germans enter and take without battle Macedonia and Thrace they were proposing something which had absolutely no logic not only for the Greeks who could never accept something like that but also in terms of pure military sense.
So the question remains - and it is there that I want you to concenrate:
Why on earth British proposed their aid to Greeks causing the German attack if they were not able to do anything about it?
387. At 12:58pm on 05 Nov 2010, champagne_charlie wrote:
"""Malta was more important than Crete.If you see what forces operating from there did to Axis shipping, especially in disrupting supplies for the Afrika Korps you will understand why. The whole British war effort depended on it and the effort taken to keep it from falling was monumental. Greece was a sideshow."""
Ok, taken for granted that Malta was the prime show - why on earth did British deflect 60,000 of their troops from North Africa to create a new front in Greece when this was neither needed in military terms and in fact not at all asked by Greeks who were WINNING the war up there alone?
I want you to search this question because that is the whole heart of the whole issue. Why did British intervene in Greece? WHAT was their problem there with Greeks winning over the Italians? WHY did they sent those troops that made Germans decide invade the Balkans?
Start thinking over it. You will eventually make some very interesting conclusions about what the WWII farse has been all about.
Complain about this comment
Nik,
Lets let this page your page to write your long "missives"
We'll move on to the other page, but keep writing...
I actually learn what may be believed to be true
Elsewhere,
If I'm ever rude is the Anti-Americanism/Anti-British person thingy,
But, that is no never theee mind,
Keep on posting its "kind a interestin"
You really should write your memoirs (memories of your perspective on history)...so what if its not published--you can pay to see it sold:)
They do that here (USA)...alot!
Complain about this comment
Sage of the Swiss and his highly imagiative, protest-too-much #230:
Quote, "..I was there. I served.."
Yeah right, if You say so.
Only I recall and will happily quote for You if need be Your claim to have been around for the Marshall Plan relief of Europe.
Similarly, I recall and will quote Your personal reference to having served in the US Forces in South East Asia.
Finally, I recall and anyone on this blog can look up Your assertions about various conflicts/campaigns etc. of which You claim some sort of experience.
Now, I don't lay claim to any of that extensive bravado, and nor to any 'nationalist', 'flag-waving', 'imperial', 'gung-ho' experiences during my 10 years of UK Armed forces service (circa 1972-1981). I did get to see bits of all the continents & met many other nations' armed froces personnel. My 'active' servcie was limited to 3 toursd of Northern Ireland - - an experience than left me aghast at the depths to which Humans could sink in relation to each othere - - during which I did come under fire a very few times, I had 1 close comrade shot & killed by a sniper, 2 acquaintances blown up & killed with others in a van in Belfast, and I along with other of my unit shot at, punched, kicked, swore & generally aggressed any number of Northern Irish from all persuasions/classes/sex etc. In the same periods I was shot at, kicked, punched, spaton, had excrement thrown in my face by little kids with their mothers' encouragingthem to do so, witnessed a RC Priest refuse the last sacrement to a dying woman, saw a pregnant woman with her legs blown off and grown men & women from allsides cry bucket-loads.
And all for what?
You're the wisest fool in christendom if You think Your pontificating on here even scratches the surface of the Humanity behind such things.
But then, You're nothing of the sort are You, DT!? No, You come a lot cheaper on the scale of contributions to these debates.
All of those experiences informed my opinions: Some of those experiences coloured my opinions of entire peoples (as doubtless did their experience of me & my comrades) to the extent I am still working through what I really feel about it.
I've read every one of DemocThreat's contributions on these 'conflict' & 'service' issues and I have yet to read one that RINGS TRUE in any way, shape or form.
In short: From my perspective You have didöy squat experience of any 'active' service outside of duping elderly, impressionable ladies to part with money for dubious öegal advice.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS