Merkel: an unlikely success
I've been watching Mrs Merkel, her pale pink jacket a splash of colour among all the dark suits, talking to an audience of German entrepreneurs in Berlin. Her message is that there have to be new rules for a new economic system, to establish a new confidence.
She will discuss what this means in practice in Downing Street with Gordon Brown on Thursday. Less than a year away from the German elections it is perhaps time to take stock of how she is seen, in Germany and abroad.
Her speech was certainly more polished and confident than the nervous affairs I watched during the German election three years ago. But she is still an unlikely leader of Europe's biggest and most powerful country. Politicians who walk the world stage tend to grab you by the shoulder, fix you in the eye, characters who leak vim and vigour from every pore.
Mrs Merkel is not like that. Leading a government which combines the big left and right parties of German politics perhaps she can't be. After all, having a foreign minister across the cabinet table who will lead the opposition party and try to get your job in less than 12 months' time must be a little awkward.
In his magnificently plush offices, overlooking the whole of Berlin from the very top of the Axel Springer building, the editor of Germany's influential Die Welt newspaper told me: "She has done as well as she could because a great coalition is not the place to really march through and do whatever you please.
"Wherever you go there are checks and balances and some people in your coalition are positively working against you. She has matured, become very authoritative, people trust her and trust her more than her party."
But Berlin, says Mrs Merkel, is not her political home. It is Ruegen, Germany's largest island, around 200 miles away from the capital. It is her constituency, along with a bit of the Baltic coast. In the bright autumn sunshine this part of the old communist east seems a delightful place.
Inland the forests are carpeted with golden leaves, but the fields around them are still green. There are miles of sandy beaches around the island. In the harbour of Sassnitz puffs of fragrant smoke hang over a couple of the boats, exciting the gulls overhead. The boats are selling dozens of types of smoked fish, either to take away or wrapped in a bun, to munch on the harbourside in the thin autumn sunshine.
People buying their snacks do not speak of their chancellor with much passion, but there is no vitriol.
A man from Berlin says: "I think as a woman she is doing a sensational job.
"Politically I don't agree with her but she can be very switched on, very strategic, she knows what she wants, but she needs support from her colleagues."
A woman from Brandenburg is more worried. "She should do more for the poor. Times are getting worse for the little people and she should remember she comes from ordinary folk in the east. Politicians look after themselves and it makes me angry. She shouldn't forget where she came from."
But a man from Dresden feels secure with her at the helm. "I am a mathematician and she is a scientist: she thinks before she takes action. She knows how to pull the strings from behind the scenes, but she also speaks her mind."
What is interesting about this is that if you walked along the waterfront at Grimsby or Le Havre you would find considerably less difficulty squeezing critical views out of the voters. On a national level I have had the same difficulty finding critics who are not political rivals. While many wish she had done more, they also say she is constrained by the grand coalition.
A member of her local party, Sebastian Takker - who owns a local travel business - is a fan, although he admits he would have liked the grand coalition to have done more, to have introduced more economically conservative reforms. But his comments are revealing.
"When you talk to her you never know what she is thinking. She doesn't express her emotions and keeps her feelings under control. When she came round my business she spoke to everyone, including my nine-year-old son. He's a fan of hers now."
He says she asks all the right questions, and gets to the point, she's not just saying something to be polite. "It's her big advantage. Even if at first she knows nothing about a subject she quickly follows what it's about. You know by the questions she asks that she really gets it."
This is exactly what I hear from diplomats and politicians who know her. She does her homework by asking lots of questions, discovering where her potential allies and opponents are coming from, and then uses the knowledge to cut deals. It is a way of working particularly suited both to leading a coalition and the politics of the European Union.
Her biographer Jacqueline Boysen tells me that she is convinced Germany's leader was formed by her childhood in the East, where as the daughter of a Lutheran pastor in a communist society she was stigmatised and felt like an alien.
"She knows how to hide her thoughts, how to behave in a surrounding that is not really friendly to her. She doesn't appear as a winner, even in discussions where her position is accepted. She is not addicted to a certain ideology, so she tries to find the facts and decides by arguing, not by principles."
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
But has she been less than fleet-footed of late? Her attack on the Irish for unilaterally guaranteeing their bank loans was followed a day later by announcing something that looked very similar, but turned out not to be. While President Sarkozy has been typically hyperactive during the crisis she has largely been visible by blocking his plans, without suggesting alternatives.
Indeed, she has blocked or watered down many plans that have emanated from the Elysee during the French presidency of the EU.
The Mediterranean Union has become something much less grand than the president's initial vision. Recently the suggestion of a European fund to save banks, European sovereign wealth funds to protect European companies from "foreign" takeover, and European economic governance have all been given the thumbs-down.
While her office dismisses as "nonsense, a made-up story" the article in a Swiss newspaper claiming she had made a formal complaint about the way Sarkozy pats and kisses her, she doesn't look as if she enjoys his attentions. While this is trivial, her sense of almost bafflement at the Frenchman's style is apparent.
At EU level many diplomats and commission politicians prefer Mrs Merkel's rather more level-headed approach. At home too, while of course there are political opponents, there is not a huge amount of criticism of her style. Most see it as an inevitable product of Germany's political system. Not the author of Merkelland, Richard Meng, who is now a Social Democrat member of Berlin's city government. He says "she has done better than many people thought, but this doesn't mean she is very very good.
"She's sympathetic, she does a job that is ok, but there is no big expectation. The grand coalition could have done more, I would have expected more big solutions and they've only had small solutions. Mrs Merkel is not a politician with big aims. She is not a politician who has aims, projects, I often think she knows where she wants to go today, but she doesn't think about what to do the day after."
Perhaps modern Germany is mature and, despite the downturn, comfortable enough not to look beyond managerial solutions. Perhaps next year's election will show otherwise.
This is based on a piece broadcast on Thursday morning on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Two more to come on subsequent days: on the German economy on Friday and how the country sees itself, to be broadcast on Saturday.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
It is a pity she did not do her homework before trying to revive the EU Constitutional project in the thin disguise of the Lisbon treaty. She could yet go down in history as the politician who broke the EU project.
Complain about this comment
Politicians who walk the world stage tend to grab you by the shoulder, fix you in the eye, characters who leak vim and vigour from every pore.
I honestly cannot think of a current world leader who fits this description.
Complain about this comment
Splendid to hear more about how the heart of Europe is doing.
Just a quick request for Mark, its probably too late and too soon to ask...
1) Teutonic justice has been given by Porsche to hedge funds. Is there more of this attitude to get the 'locusts' of economy crushed in Germany?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/hedge_funds_and_vw_what_a_pile.html
2) European Union and Asian countries had ASEM meeting just last week in Peking. Is there any news yet on what the Union is actually going to do? New international order in world economics, what part does the Union play.
Complain about this comment
She is part of the arrogant anti-democratic clique that wants to force a European Superstate upon us all.
Complain about this comment
State of the EU is not good, the problem is the system has got out of control, and is in a self-destruction mode...
All same old faces of politicans who support this system which supports incompetency because they all are incompetent and must resign.. new unknown people must come, and they will when things turn ugly..
in a communist country, in a third world country, in EUSSR
Complain about this comment
Beeing German I find myself in somewhat of a dilemma.
I do like Merkel for the stated reasons: she seems to think before she speaks, she never appears agressive, she uses facts and logic instead of big words to win an argument.
Sadly this can not be said about her Party.
I think Germany will end up with another grand coallition after the next vote, so that nice lady will be ours to keep for another 4 years.
@4. and 5.: the problem is, that people who really are informed about the doings of the EU never, never ever say those things.
Complain about this comment
I would question whether Germany really is "Europe's.. most powerful country." I would argue that in fact the United Kingdom is Europe's most powerful country, given out position on the world stage, our international links and powerfull financial sector. However, if you mean in terms of geographical size and size of the economy, then I concede Germany is more powerfull, but politically, Britain is easily Europe's most powerful country.
Complain about this comment
There is no question about it, France is Europe's most powerful country. You only need to look at the dynamism of its President to see that. Open your eyes everyone and stop thinking that any part of the Anglo-Saxon world could be better than France in any way!
Complain about this comment
Re post 8, close call between France and Cyprus, think you are right France is marginally better
Complain about this comment
@4,5
Yes, that's right, the EU is a massive German plot that for some reason only we British can understand. (rolls eyes)
@7
Our ability to influence on the world stage is compromised by our stand-offish relations with the EU.
Our international links are no greater than France's or Spain's, unless you mean the phantom 'special relationship' which US leaders occasionally mention when they want to pat us on the head.
Our financial system ... perhaps you need to pop over to Robert Peston's blog and see what's been happening over the past few weeks.
We're a player in the EU, and a prominent medium sized nation, but that's about it.
Complain about this comment
@4,5
Yes, that's right, the EU is a massive German plot that for some reason only we British can understand.
@7
Our ability to influence on the world stage is compromised by our stand-offish relations with the EU.
Our international links are no greater than France's or Spain's, unless you mean the phantom 'special relationship' which US leaders occasionally mention when they want to pat us on the head.
Our financial system ... perhaps you need to pop over to Robert Peston's blog and see what's been happening over the past few weeks.
We're a player in the EU, and a prominent medium sized nation, but that's about it.
Complain about this comment
#2
Sarkozy is exactly the kind to tend to grab you by the shoulder, fix you in the eye, characters who leak vim and vigour from every pore.
He's just full of sh....
#7 :))
#8 ;)
I'm glad Merkel is around to calm the dwarf masquerading as a human being.
Complain about this comment
BChilton @ #7
I don't know if Germany is Europe's most powerful country either but . . . .
I am a British Citizen and I'll argue with you that it is the UK which is "easily Europe's most powerful country based upon your own criteria!
By "Position in the world"do you really mean location? I imagine not but the UK is merely a group of islands off the coast of mainland Europe with a population of liberal do-gooders who vocally interfere in almost everything to do about how they see the world should be from torture to political imprisonment to saving the Planet.
Who really listens to the voice of the British? The Commonwealth countries? the rest of the EU? China? Russia? America even?
By "Position in the world" do you mean the UK having a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council? Poodle of the USA? A World War II historical legacy that is now an anachronism? The UN is as useful as a chocolate teapot and as effective as the erstwhile "League of Nations" - at best it can only agree to disagree and cannot act in unison making the term United Nations a play upon words. You only have to look at the Congo today to see that the UN for want of another 2000 troops cannot achieve World Peace and it is, in real term, useless. Can the UK change that - not in a million years!
What are the UK international links that give it a voice in the world - ambassadors throughout the globe and an historic link with many former colonies and commonwealth countries that either despisethe UK or think of the United Kingdom with a warm fuzzy glow as a remnant of a once powerful leading country.
The UK can pontificate but really does anyone care to hear the voice of the British anymore?
And, please, "Powerful Financial Sector"? Please get real . . . the UK's Financial Sector is going to cause the UK (and indeed the developing countries as a result) immense problems of the next few weeks, months and years and we, British, have only just started to feel the cold winds as the UK's government cannot really afford to bail out the over-inflated UK financial sector. The UK Financial Sector has been found out to be a house of cards inside of which bankers have peered out on the world with rose-tinted spectacles and thought they were safe from reality.
The fact is that the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is an anachronism and a joke.
Britain is not United and even the potential next Conservative British Prime Minister admits that although he would fight for the British Union, he recognises that Scottish independence is only a matter of time.
If Scotland goes independent how long before Wales wishes to also go independent too?
Northern Ireland is already self-governing and if they can get their act together the British Parliament would be glad to cede Northern Ireland to Eire - they just cannot admit that fact publicly.
And as to Great Britain - that is a terminology that has fallen into disuse since World War II ended - Britain is no longer "Great" and the recent social experiment in mass immigration and determined application of multi-culturism has diluted all aspects of the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh ethos that once led to 40,000 British administrators, engineers, soldiers and Generals running an Empire of 400 million souls throughout the World in it's heyday.
The one European Nation that held out from tyranny and then returned to liberate the western countries of Europe has been in terminal ill-health and moral decline since the end of the 1950's. As the United Kingdom has declined in power, authority, leverage and influence - now only able at best able to maintain a standing army of 8000 men in the field at any one time (and not able to convince the world that it's army is still the best in the world by actually doing anything other than fighting well and dying on foreign fields for no obvious achievable objective!) - one can see that countries like Germany have not only grown, developed and matured since the World War II but can be described by people like Mark, however erroneously, as Europe's most powerful nations.
On a basis of GDP per person the UK has slightly lower GDP than Germany within the context of European wealth. BUT Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have just decided to give away 40% of the UK's as collateral and intend to give away more of that wealth, year on year for the rest of eternity unless the British Taxpayers, who already pay far too much tax as it is, pay more tax at some time soon.
The UK is basically bankrupt now and will be in hock for a long, long time to come. And who can sincerely believe that a nation of bankrupt people has a commanding voice in the world of today let alone tomorrow?
Complain about this comment
#7 BChilton
#4 SuffolkBoy2
Delusional paranoia is always interesting, and seems to be most often manifested by the 'little engerlanders' amongst us. 'Britain is easily Europe's most powerful country' Really seen from where? Rutland perhaps. Seen from most of the world Britain is seen as having a powerful but flawed economy especially because of it's failure to be part of the Euro. The other part of the flaw is the slavish following of the US economic model which has now been exposed for what it really is. Basically you encourage your population to borrow more and more in order to buy more and thus artificially inflate your economic growth rate. All very good until the wheels fall off the waggon.
In terms of respect and political power I'm afraid that Britain lost most of that when it joined in the great Iraq war fraud at the behest of the US. Britain, I'm sorry to have to tell you, is viewed mainly as a sad and inconsequential puppet for the US.
I'm glad to be a European and a realist Europe is the most powerful economy in the world it might be slow and cumbersome but it's the only game we have. European power is 'soft power' to be used quietly and with discretion and, as such, ideally suited to the quiet understated behaviour of Angela Merkel.
A thought for 'SuffolkBoy2'. Britain uses a huge amount of gas and because of the 'dash for gas' policies brought on by Margaret Thatcher will need more and more gas. Even so Britain is only Russia's 6th largest customer, Europe is Russia's largest customer. The basic law of customer relationships is that it is a very bad thing to upset your largest customer. If Europe tells Russia it's not happy the Russians are forced to listen if Britain does the same it hasn't got quite the same impact.
Complain about this comment
6. At 08:14am on 30 Oct 2008, Makeze wrote:
"Beeing German ...
@4. and 5.: the problem is, that people who really are informed about the doings of the EU never, never ever say those things."
That is a standard German technique for dealing with people who disagree. They are ill-informed or they are nuts or they are evil.
I remember a phrase from an editorial in the Rheinische Post in the seventies or early eighties "All thinking Englishmen are for the EU" or whatever its name was then. So if you don't agree, then you don't think. It is an excuse for not occupying one's mind with the thoughts of others. It is an excuse for dictatorship.
I am informed. I have a degree-like qualification from a German university. I lived in Germany for ten years and learnt to speak German well enough to be taken for a German by Germans. A quote: "For the first time in my life I meet an Englishman who speaks perfect German and he has to be anti-EU. I read two Austrian news websites almost every day and German ones occasionally. I have heard the arguments for the "EU" for forty years from Germans and Brits. I held anti-"EU" "Referate" at a German university. In one case the lecturer was Klaus Haensch, later president of the "EU"-parliament.
Find another excuse!
Complain about this comment
#8 belgianfrank
If flailing your arms about and generally acting like a hyperactive child makes for good government your are quite correct. Most of the French, however, are now seriously regretting their election choice. Maybe Ms Bruni should restrict his intake of 'e' numbers.
I live in France and Sarko's popularity is non too great at this moment. He is perceived to be "all piss and wind" to translate the phrase I hear most often.
Complain about this comment
Relative to other EU 'leaders' Merkel is a colossus.
This is, however faint praise. The 'competition' is very, very poor.
Berlusconi and Sarkozy (especially Mrs Sarkozy) offer great entertainment value.
Our own Scottish Clown just isn't funny.
Complain about this comment
If I were English I'd be embarrassed by SuffolkBoy2 posts.
Complain about this comment
Re the above posts, if Britian is so insignificant and financially challenged I assume we will no longer be the second biggest net contributor to the E.U.
I am sure France will want to take up that burden.
Complain about this comment
France is actually quite similar to the US...
Rich businesses, rich State, 90% of the population on the poverty line.
The UK isn't insignificant, just not the colossus some people think. In fact, you could argue that each individual country in Europe doesn't really have that much weight, hence the idea of the EU.
The motto of Belgium is "L'union fait la force" (strength through unity). It's a shame that the political elite are making such a hash of it...
(and not only in Belgium)
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset @ #19
I think your wish has a certain inevitability about it . . . .
If the UK does not make anything, buy anything or sell anything in the next few years then VAT Receipts payable to the EU will plummet. That could be well on the cards!
The next thing to do is have the UK stop importing and then the Custom Duties that go to the EU will decrease. Being bankrupt means the UK will have no funding for buying imports . . . . . why do you think China is panicking more than any other nation about the Global Recession!
If the UK goes back to self-sufficiency in home-grown back-garden and allotment agriculture we could start to become net recipients and even get 95% funding like Malta?
There again Malta has tourism and people might not want to come, let alone stay in the UK . . . ahhhh if that were only so!
Looking on the bright side of things though, the UK could start to fall in love with the CAP as we will be getting a bigger share than France or Ireland if we go back to subsistence farming. We would even get paid money to NOT grow things if we became truly self-sufficient.
I think I'll go out and tend to my chickens, and till my back garden now! ;=)
Complain about this comment
Ticape @18 wrote,
"If I were English I'd be embarrassed by SuffolkBoy2 posts."
I'm English, and I'm not.
Are we English people fortunate that you are not English?
What is your nationality? (I'd like to know so that I can patronise you and your fellow countrymen).
Complain about this comment
#19 jordanbasset
Seems about right to me. As the second largest economy one would expect to be the 2nd largest contributor.
Britain is certainly far more financially challenged than France and Germany for certain because of the huge amounts of credit that were allowed to wash around the unregulated system. The French and Germans are much less profligate, they don't use credit cards and don't borrow anywhere near as much per capita as the Brits.
If, as I suspect, Britain ever has that referendum that you anti's want and you manage to con enough people to voting for 'Out' you will find out just how cold it really is out there, and just how little power Britain really has. That is especially so, if as in #13 Menedemus prediction of the breakup of the Union became a fact.
To sum up I'm proud to be a Brit, love it here in France and I'm proud to be a European.
Complain about this comment
I think Merkel has by far been much better than expected. She keeps her cool and is rational.
Complain about this comment
@Suffolk boy
What do you suggest? Would you agree to a European Federation that has an elected president and parliament?
Complain about this comment
#17
"our own Scottish clown"
When did Alex Salmond take centre stage in the EU?!...
Complain about this comment
# 22
Sounds Roumanian to me ....
Complain about this comment
I am a big fan of Mrs Merkel - she took Bush to her small holding (a posh allotment) in Brandenburg and served him Schnitzel. That is how she operates. Make the man look a bit silly and the big ego implodes into nothing. She had them all posed in a gigantic beach seat when the G7 came to Heiligendamm. Same with Sarkozy who is hopeless at his job. The reason why she opposed his plans for a European-wide bailout is that she was not sure of his motives. Never trust a French to offer you help! She is a smooth but efficient operator who doesn't get distracted by a big show-off.
She became head of her Party at a time when the German conservatives were steeped in a court case about black bank accounts and illegal party funding. Angela was then the only credible person to take over the Party because all the other guys were too closely involved in the scandal. She was almost pushed to take over even with the view to get rid of her later - for which there have been attempts. But she stayed and hasn't moved an inch. She has learnt very well to control her opponents. She is a doctor of Physics - it must give her a lot of self confidence to see that her high-quality education gives her the edge over all the pomp and the smoke that is modern politics.
Germany is better placed than any European country to withstand the recession. The banks did not lend stupidly (a political decision??) to borrowers and the economy has had a very good run until the last quarter. They are not yet in negative growth.
Complain about this comment
Re post 23, Timothy, where in any of my posts have I said I want the U.K. to leave the E.U. Take time if you wish to read my posts, if you find any that suggest we leave the E.U. let me know. Take my word for it, you wont. In fact if there ever was a referendum for the U.K. to leave the E.U I would campaign to stay in. To make it clear I thoroughly enjoy visiting European countries and have worked abroad before and will do again.
My position is clear, I am not anti - european or even anti - E.U. I am anti a small clique who see the only way forward for the E.U. is to become increasingly federalised. I am pro a E.U which enables free trade and movement of people.
I do object to the characterisation of every one who has a different view of the direction that the E.U. should go as being a 'little englander' or ignorant of the issue or from Luton. Post 15 makes it clear there are informed people who have a different view point to wanting a federal Europe.
Also far from being a 'little englander' issue it was France, Holland and Ireland who stopped the latest E.U. grab for power. There is a growing feeling across Europe that the E.U has become too powerful and intrusive on national issues. You do you and your cause a disservice if you fail to recognise this. Also perhaps you would do well not to make assumptions in the future without facts to back them up.
Complain about this comment
#18 - Ticape
I am not. I happen to be a supporter of the European project. I am however keen to see greater openness and transparency and more democratic accountability The eurosceptics keep us on our toes and our feet on the ground. Some of them put forward well reasoned and rational arguments and are to be taken seriously. I grant you there are others who rant rhetoric but 'twas ever thus.
Don't forget that it is not over till the fat lady sings and she hasn't even been billed to appear yet. So I say again, let's get this out into the open, elect governments which are prepared to ask the question and stand by the outcome but don't take anything for granted.
Complain about this comment
#15 Another excuse? How about deluding yourself that Britain is still a major player on the world scene? Your attitude towards the EU is a pure isolationism, based on the erroneous idea that Britain will do well, if only it was not in the EU. There have been other countries that have tried to isolate themselves before, and it never worked.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (30):
You say: "So I say again, let's get this out into the open, elect governments which are prepared to ask the question and stand by the outcome but don't take anything for granted."
Do you mean that governments should put, from time to time and from treaty to treaty, the question on to participate or not to EU integration?
I think this question has been discussed before to the death, but I just have to disagree with your view, if I correctly understood it.
Every time parliamentary elections are held and new parliament elected, the newly elected parliament asks from itself what has to change and what not. The outcome, that no government or nor parliament has legislated referendum's about EU membership or directly voting on membership shows that there is no need nor want to stop or reform the integration process.
Now you may say that the will of the people isn't expressed or put in question by noting that in elections people vote for many things and essentially make a compromise when voting. To me what this tells is that the issue of EU membership or the direction where EU is going is either not important or no concern to people, one could even say that as parties like UKIP hasn't gathered more than votes of small minority, people actually are satisfied with the EU and their governments actions with it. I also think that election results themselves have more weight than any poll on an issue as in elections people bet their money on a certain horse: in another word, complaining doesn't cost anything.
Of course in many countries there are different election systems that put lower or higher thresholds on certain party coming to power, but those are unattainable if there would be real issue with the voters.
In short, in parliamentary democracies the voice and will of the people is expressed via their elected representatives.
Complain about this comment
#19 - jordanbasset
I would like also to build on JB's post a little. It seems to becoming common practice in these threads to try to categorise the UK according to views of Europe, either as a mighty global power or as an insignificant group of offshore islands. Our Finnish friend Jukka_Rohila has taken to describing the UK as a vassal state of the US. (The largest aircraft carrier in the US navy).
It is neither of these things. Geographically, she is a small group of offshore islands but, paradoxically perhaps, the world's fifth largest economy. She still commands international respect amongst those who do not have an agenda to belittle her, she remains at the top table at the UN and she remains a military power of some significance with a nuclear capability. To write her off as some anachronism from the colonial age is not only insulting but damages the arguments of those who follow this line of thought.
On the other hand, the idea that she bestrides the international stage like a collosus and can whenever she wishes drift off into a glorious sunset of splendid isolation is also plainly nonsense. We are in a globally connected environment. We need international organisations and co-operation, we probably need a co-ordinated European approach although what form it should take is still the subject of debate.
The truth is that Britain is a tier two regional power of great significance with a sphere of influence which, for historic reasons, extends way beyond Europe. It is a very foolish mistake to dismiss her as a washed up has been. She has the ability to be a good friend and a faithful ally but she still knows how to be a thorn in the side of those who would disregard her.
Complain about this comment
#31 - Isenhorn
You see what I mean?
Complain about this comment
I feel sorry for you Mark!
You place an intelligent piece on your blog, that gives a serious insight into the politics of another EU state, and our most important trading partner - frankly the sort of coverage that the BBC generally is rather poor at (it seem to be more interested in the USA than Europe).
The result is a tirade of eurosceptic rants, from little englanders, interspersed with some more intelligent postings.
Not until the rump of the UK finally gives up their collective delusions of grandeur regarding the importance of the UK in the world order will we finally start grappling with the serious issues, most of which are best dealt with on a European basis.
For instance, if the EU were to stand together and demand a more structured and ordered financial system, then we (Europe) would have a better chance of swaying the US and Asia towards our opinion. With the UK snuggling up to the Americans, as usual, the Germans making things up on the hoof, and the French, well, being French, Europe will never punch it's weight. Same goes for climate change.
As I have written before, if the UK is so anti EU, then it would be best for both sides for the UK to leave, and let those that want to be European to get on with the job. All I would ask is that those of us that believe the EU is good for us are given assylum on the other side of the channel.
Complain about this comment
#29 jordanbasset
Thank you for correcting me. I'm glad to hear you are broadly in favour of the European project. The areas of disagreement are always interesting and will continue.
Incidentally I didn't use the phrase 'little engerlander' in my post #23 I used it in post #14 to Bchilton and suffolkboy and so I think, to a degree, you do protest to much.
I'm also interested in the way you lump the Dutch and French votes against the European constitution with the Irish referendum vote against the Lisbon treaty. I do feel that it is a great criticism of the EU that a decision of this magnitude was left to the vote of a bare 1.5 million voters in a small European country with some very awkward historical baggage. I refer to abortion. the place of the Catholic Church in the Irish constitution and Irish neutrality.
Maybe it would have been better to have a EU wide vote on a one man one vote basis. Come to that do referendums work when asking people to vote on very complex subjects?
Complain about this comment
Re popst 33, Threnodio agree with what you say. We may have different views on the form of cooperation but as usual you make a perceptive contribution to the debate
Complain about this comment
#32 - Jukka_Rohila
No Jukka, I am saying exactly the opposite. This constant argument about where Britain stands in relation to Europe is muddying the waters and damaging the UK in Europe. I want a once and for all 'yes or no', binding on all parties as an absolute and ongoing commitment. Then, whatever the outcome, we can all move on.
Complain about this comment
#36 - T1m0thy
To which it is possibly worth adding that the Dutch and French results were for entirely different reasons, generally thought to be that the constitution was not integrationist enough.
Complain about this comment
People here are mixing things up. Power is not the same thing as influence; Europe is not the same as the EU. When Mark Mardell says that Germany in the most powerful nation in Europe he may (just) be correct, but I think he really means that Germany is the influential country within the EU institutions which is something else entirely.
Paul Kennedy showed (in 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers') the relationship between Gross Domestic Product (on a purchasing power basis) and power and how this had determined all major Great Power conflicts. Germany lost both world wars because she was not the most powerful country in Europe. The UK was during WW1 and the USSR was in WW2.
Foreign policy is pursued in the national interest, which is not the same thing as either power or influence. The French for example have distanced themselves for 40 years from NATO despite the cost to their influence in that body because they feel it is their national interest. We have one commentator on here from Finland who believes that Power is the ultimate end and that all other goals should be subordinated to the pursuit of power. Yet he too wants to distance his country from NATO while arguing that the UK can only achieve power (presumably he means influence) in the world through the EU.
The power of the UK is based on the strength of economy. If the UK is not yet the most powerful country in Europe it is likely to be soon because we are projected to be the most populous country in Europe (ex-Russia) by 2050, already are more productive than France & Germany, and grow on average faster.
The EU is unique in international organisation in that its law can be imposed on a country against its wishes. Influence within the EU is a double-edged sword in which you swap a great deal of influence for what happens inside your country for a small degree of influence in what happens in 27. The EU is a therefore a mechanism by which the national interest can be over ruled by that of 26 other national interests plus the bureaucratic interest of the Brussels institutions in acquiring yet more decision-making authority for themselves. If UK interest is better advanced by distancing ourselves from the EU such that it has less influence over us then it makes sense to accept this (just as the French have done in NATO) even when it comes at a cost to our influence in that organisation. Therefore in the future it is very likely that Germany or France will remain the most influential country in the EU while the UK becomes the most powerful European country and indeed the most influential after America in the West.
Complain about this comment
36, Timothy, I am in favour of 'a european project', not 'the european project'. The suggestion that there can only be one European project is what frustrates me, as it tends to suggest the peoples of europe do not have free will to decide on the direction they would like to go in.
I included the French and Dutch votes because if it was not for the good citizens of those countries the constitution may have passed and Ireland's no vote to Lisbon would not have happened. Thank heavens for the French, unfortunately Sarkozy would not allow them a vote on the Lisbon treaty, it is not the people of Europe that are the problem but some of the leaders (including the U.K.)
I suspect if the referndum went E.U. wide the result would still be the same, unfortunately our leaders were not prepared to do that. They feel the peoples of Europe would not understand the issues. I disagree, on issues conerning the transfer/sharing of sovereignity the people must have the last say through a referendum. It is up to the people in favour of such changes to make the case to their respective populations. If they cannot make it clear to the voters such changes do not deserve to be made.
Complain about this comment
#35 ATNotts
D'accord. Yes in a nutshell. If we Europeans have something to give to the world it will only be done by speaking with one voice.
We should also be very wary about the election of Barack Obama. While anything is better than another GOP Bush clone we must remember that the democrats are the party of protectionism and the US track record on protectionism is very very bad. A united European voice will be very necessary when dealing with that.
Complain about this comment
Maybe it would have been better to have a EU wide vote on a one man one vote basis.
No we shouldn't every country should be required to have a referendum on a one man one vote basis. and if any member of the E.U vote's no then the proposed Traeaty should be forgotten. As is the E.U setup.
Come to that do referendum s work when asking people to vote on very complex subjects?
I agree that universal sufferage at referendum's is risky. The Irish might vote no.
Maybe there should be some sort of aptitude test to stop ignorant people voting
( The E.U constitution is not a complex subject the answer is obious NO, NO, NO. Why seed greater powers to a democratically defunct organisation?)
Complain about this comment
The one thing that Europhile's can't agree on is whether the EU is to be a communist of fascist federation.
Complain about this comment
To WhiteEnglishProud (44):
Why not both?
As my slogan for the 2033 European presidential elections says "Gulags for some, miniature EU flags to others". As you can see this question has been already solved.
Remember to vote!
Complain about this comment
#44
That's a bit OTT isn't it?
Complain about this comment
#43 - WhiteEnglishProud
For heaven's sake WEP, how many more times? Shouting NO, NO, NO here will get the plaudits of the phobes, the derision of the philes and achive nothing. We already know what we want.
If you are going to win this you have to sell it to the British political mainstream
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (38):
Note to moderators: the link to the Wikipedia isn't direct link to a picture, but to a page that contains the image and its information including note on it being in public domain.
Having a referendum or any kind of vote in UK about the continued membership or position on further integration would not stop current complaint nor pickering about EU membership in UK. The problem that UK has is more structural.
1) Your election system, first past the post, results always to formation of governments that have less than 50% of popular vote, thus those criticizing EU can always say that the government nor the parliament majority doesn't represent truly the voice of people, thus in time governments would be accused on selling or betraying Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Popular_vote.jpg
2) Concentration of large amounts of media into ownership of few will make UK politics susceptible to abuse of media assets without laws regulating and protecting journalism. In essence, as long as somebody like Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp own and control large amounts of media and use them to influence British public for their own gains, so long you will have problem with EU politics.
3) Special relationship with the US, as you want it to be called, will always hamper down your relationships to rest of Europe. In example it can be suspected that UK will not join to build up common EU police and intelligence organizations as long as you take part to US run operations like Echelon. As you have chose to work with the US, other countries such as Germany and France have built their own programs. If and when EU becomes a federation, its unattainable that one member country participates into Echelon kind of networks. You have to make decision concerning US, continue with a special relationship or take a normal position regarding US as Germany and France have already done: no more US dollars for oil wars.
Actually the problem with structural problem view is that its wrong to say "If you don't like it, get out" as it should be more like "Fix your problems and make up your damn mind about EU".
Complain about this comment
Threnodio:
Sorry i can't help it, Millions died protecting the Freedoms of Democracy. Now there being taken away by stealth.
Not just by the E.U but by the UK Gov too.
The Political Mainstream have been moving away from Democracy for the last 20 years.
It truely is a sad state of affairs.
Complain about this comment
#40 - Freeborn-John
I think that is right.
A comparison with the State of California is interesting. It has the ninth largest economy measured in terms of GDP in the world in its own right putting it roughly in the same league as the UK, France, Germany and Italy. It would be more than capable of functioning as an independent nation should the political desire ever be there but, like Britain, it would be a second rate power (as of course would the US without California).
As a populous and economically productive state, it has very considerable influence having, for example the largest number of electoral college votes. Being a very big fish in a relatively small pond works very well for California.
Britain within a federal Europe would be in a very similar position, not especially powerful but hugely influential. As FJ has pointed out above, the UK is very powerful but her influence is limited. This basically is the decision the UK needs to make (if anyone is gracious enough to give her the chance). She can either be a hugely influential partner in a global superpower or she can be a very powerful independent voice but with limited influence.
What she cannot be is both at the same time. Neither can she cherry pick the best bits from each option. This, I think, is what this debate is about. The philes should concede that the price of further integration is a loss of power but phobes have to accept that going it alone will lead to a reduced and declining level of influence.
Complain about this comment
Remember to vote!
Whats the point when my vote will be dilluted to a point so far beyond relevence that its not even worth it.
1 vote in 50 mil is barely worth it 1 vote in 500mil is completely irrelevant.
Democracy wasn't designed to work for super-states it was designed for small city State's. Where your voice can actually make a difference.
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy @36 wrote:
"Maybe it would have been better to have a EU wide vote on a one man one vote basis. Come to that do referendums work when asking people to vote on very complex subjects?"
As a Briton, the only vote on the matter that has any validity is a vote by my fellow countrymen.
With all due respect, I don't give a tinker's cuss what the citizens of Cyprus, Malta, Lithuania, France, Germany or Spain have to say on the matter. I keep my nose out of their business and I'd appreciate them extending me the same courtesy.
Complain about this comment
#47
...and then the British people, without the Europhobic lies that abounded in Ireland...
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (40):
Just a few notes on history...
Germany lost the WW1 and WW2 not because it wasn't the most powerful and productive country, but because it was allied against countries that together surpassed its power. Germany lost WW1 because of American intervention without Americans western front would have eventually collapsed. In regards of WW2 this was largely the same case, Germany produced more coal and steel than UK and Soviet Union. UK and Soviet Union in combination non of the less produced slightly more than Germany. However that difference wasn't conclusive as differences in technology made Germans more effective in battle field. Besides American intervention other major reasons for German defeat were that they hadn't switched to war economy at the beginning of war but only at the last years of war and Hitler blocked his generals waging war rationally as can be red from the book Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Field Marshall by Erich von Manstein.
Now about power. Power enables you to be free. It enables that nobody dictates to you how you live and act in this world. My problem with NATO is that it currently isn't purely defensive organization, but its coming rapidly a tool for US to conduct military dominance in the world. Previously before US imperialistic policies this wouldn't have been an issue, but now the power gained by being in NATO is not worth the lost freedom. The best way to obtain power and keep freedoms in current and future world is to build up EU with other countries that share same values and more importantly see the world with post-imperialistic view.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @ 40
I don't want to burst your bubble as I often whole heartedly agree with many of your comments and, as a Brit, my natural tendency to be loyal to the UK says that I should support your view that the UK has the potential to be the most powerful economy in Europe and thus the second most influential nation in the West.
But . . . .
Was not the British GDP (PPP) based upon the Financial Sector far more than manufacturing. Has not the Service and Leisure Industries replaced the former key manufacturing and resource exploitation (mining, et al) employment areas of the private sectors?
Is unemployment in the United Kingdom, with its growing population (entirely driven by a net gain through immigration of foreign workers juxtaposed to a slightly smaller net loss through emigration of former white British citizens) artificailly kept low through the creation and maintenance of public sector employment substantially paid for by the UK Tax Payer?
Given the likely Recession that the UK is about to officially enter into (in January 2008 when the growth of the UK economy will for the second consecutive quarter be in decline) AND that this decline is entirely driven by the collapse fo the Financial Sector of the UK Economy, I just wonder when your ambitious hopes for the continued growth of the UK economy (to make it the second largest in the West) is going to happen?
As it happens the 2007 figures for GDP (PPP) for the UK, German and French Economies has Germany $500,000 to $700,000 million larger than the UK and the UK only about $200,000 million. (The wikipedia has the tables available for 2007 figures)
GDP (Nominal) is about the same levels of difference and the rank order the same.
I totally agree that Germany and France currently have both an economic and political mastery of the EU but I am not sure that your anticipated growth in the GDP, economic growth or growth of influence of the UK is likely to manifest itself any time soon.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
I find your anti-democratic views very disconcerting, if people like you are for the E.U project in its current form then no-one the sensible Majority either want to change it or abandon it.
Why should we submit over the E.U? Why are you so scared of debate? France and Germany share one dream to control the whole of Europe and its a very old dream. They care nothing for Democracy, All they disire is the Europran empire we never allowed them to have.
Complain about this comment
#49 WEP,
Whatever the system, there will always be something to complain about. Even if the European states disappeared to leave just regions it still would not be perfect. I personally resent being represented by politicians whose only interest (apart from their wallets, blah blah) is the very depressed areas of Charleroi, Mons and maybe Liège when the real sphere of influence in my local area is Luxembourg (no we're not washing 500 Euro notes in the river Sûre as the excitable dwarf thinks). I'm not particularly pleased that the Belgian PM's only interest seems to be protecting the assets of the Flemish region against "those scrounging" Walloons. If I moved home I'd be irate that the PM is a bloke nobody voted for, and that Leeds is still a bit of a dump.
The fact is though, The UK has been part of the EU in it's various incarnations since (just) before I was born. The UK is good for the rest of Europe, and Europe is good for the UK, a split would seriously damage both.
Complain about this comment
#50
Isn't secession illegal in the US?
Complain about this comment
G-in-Belgium
The Democretic model in Switzland seems to work well, with a good balance between vey local and National democratic government.
You may never reach perfection in anything but it doesn't mean you should stop striving for it.
Complain about this comment
#56 - WhiteEnglishProud
If, as you say, "France and Germany share one dream to control the whole of Europe and its a very old dream", then Britain and her friends in the east have the power to stop them.
I accept your thesis, but even if it were true, it is quite a persuasive argument for British involvement, I would have thought.
#58 - G-in-Belgium
No idea - probably. What did you have in mind - a second civil war?
Complain about this comment
G-in-Belgium @58
As it happens, No. And if you look at Secession in the United States you will see that it is possible.
The problem is that if, say California, were to secede there could be another Civil War.
This link shows just how many of the US States have had internal discussions that could lead to secession if the majority of the populace of the State sought to do so.
And the EU worries about why the Irish population voted "No" in the Irish Referendum on the Treaty? They should just look to the US and the EU could see that not everyone is EVER happy with an enforced Union.
You can please some of the people some of the time but you can never please all of the the people at any time.
Complain about this comment
Re my post at #55
I wrote and the UK only about $200,000 million.
That should have been typed as and France only about $200,000 million less than the UK
Just to clarify although my point was already probably as clear as mud! ;=)
Complain about this comment
Thernodio.
I have never resisted British involvement don't mistake my dislike of the E.U in it current form as Europhobia. I'm English i fear nothing.
I advicate involvement but not compliance with Jukka_Rohila's demands that we either accept the E.U as it is or leave
Complain about this comment
#59 Good point, but I suppose everyone will have a different opinion on what constitutes "better".
#60 (and 61 too in a way) Why not? :P
(only joking). Maybe it's more of a vague contingency plan if certain flag-waving nutters get their way, Belgium splits and the Walloon region is glued onto the Sarkozy fiefdom. I wouldn't be able to sell my house to get away as it would probably drop to a third of it's current value. Then I may have to resort to a life of crime, wearing a silly mask and shouting "Luxembourg for the Luxembourgers (and the foreigners that have chosen to live there)" and "Mir welle bleiwen wat mir sin!" while bombing French supermarkets. I'd have to sell my rusty Triumph Vitesse, as it'd be a right giveaway. Or maybe not. :)
#63 I'm English too, and fear having to move back to West Yorkshire and trying to survive because of UKIP/BNP supporters getting their way. I agree the EU could be better run, but maybe it'd would be better to start from the bottom up, rather than just cutting the head off and watching the body wither. (nice metaphor no?)
Either way, Merkel still has my thumbs up :D
Complain about this comment
To WhiteEnglishProud (56):
Gulags for you it is, in the mean time as we wait for your transport to Siberia, could you entertain me so much to note on from witch post you make the judgment that I hold anti-democratic views or if they come from your overall judgment, then at least give some insight on your thinking. I don't mind being called europhobe (that was the slur word EU supporters and federalists?), but I don't like being labeled anti-democratic. So the stage is your.
Complain about this comment
I find it strange that the anti Europeans who are hostile to the European Parliament have in fact created the present undemocratic EU.
The national politicians have been only too quick to exploit the anti parliament current for their own ends. They, via the council ministers, control Europe not the Parliament and this suits the European heads of state very well.
Brussels and the commission do not make the laws they merely suggest and implement them the Parliament is allowed to approve some law but the important stuff is still the province of the council.
When it works the national heads of state say 'oh look aren't we clever when it doesn't they blame the EU.
What we badly need is a much beefed up fully democratic Parliament. This would have two great effects one it would stop the council on ministers ploy and two it would stop decisions being taken on a purely national basis.
Complain about this comment
Power enables you to be free. It enables that nobody dictates to you how you live and act in this world.
An enables you to dictate to others
As my slogan for the 2033 European presidential elections says "Gulags for some, miniature EU flags to others". As you can see this question has been already solved
Governments and institutions are mechanistic in their very nature, democratic states more even.
The German speakers in Walloon constitute only 0.02% of voters, as voters of an language or cultural group they don't have meaningful relevance to the working of Walloon regional government.
For the record its 2.1%
It is also an overal impression i get this is probably partly due to your desire to push ahead with the most undemocratic institution Europe has even known.
I also get the feeling that you would have prefered it if German had won WW2 but i couldn't find the post where this was pretty explicate.
I believe i called you a Europhile if not i meant to.
We were never asked if we want Europe to Govern us. We were told it would mean cheaper goods. We were mislead. All we want is a discussion imput.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (54): It is a long time since I read Paul Kennedy?s book but I can blow the dust of it tonight and check what he said.
You and I have different notions of freedom. Mark Mardell blogged last October on a speech that EU Commission president Barosso made at Oxford University. I commented that a lecture given 50 years ago at the same place by a predecessor of his host went to the heart of the EU debate. I meant Isaiah Berlin's "Two concepts of Liberty". For me liberty is 'freedom from coercion' (including from that of the EU). For you liberty is the 'freedom to act' and you believe that if the EU can but speak with one voice to the world you will be able to act in ways you could not alone. There is no conflict between these concepts of freedom when all are in agreement but they can differ (in the EU context) when the governments of the different nations of Europe do not have the same thing to say. In that case you believe the minority should be silenced for the greater good; that they should (in Rousseau?s words) be 'forced to be free'. Isaiah Berlin showed how that fatal step of forcing people (entire nations for you) to do what they do not want to do for the sake of some higher ideal has been the start of every collectivist dictatorship from Robespierre to the communist democratic republics of Eastern Europe. Those who wish to force the EU Constitution onto countries that rejected it (or surely would reject it) would repeat that fatal step today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
Complain about this comment
#64 - G-in-Belgium
If things get that tough, I am in the market for the Vitesse - is it a drophead?
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud.
Well I guess I can see where you are coming from no surprises there.
The only problem I, as an Englishman, have with it is that most of the truly memorable things achieved by England (read Britain) were not achieved by Englishmen but by English, Scots, Welsh and Irish, working together.
To take a couple of historic examples
Henry V and the seige at Harfleur and Agincourt 'all those English who were accursed because they weren't there on St Crispin's day'. Only problem with that was that to be historically correct we have to include the Welsh who made up over 50% of Henry's archers.
Wellington's victorious Peninsula Army. The infamous scum of the earth of whom he was so rightly proud to have led. Over 30% were Scots and Irish. At Waterloo one famous Irish regiment the 27th later to become the Inniskillings lost over 70% of it's complement. Wellington was, of course, an Irishman
End of history lesson. Remember 'United we stand and divided we fall'. It's a big bad hungry world out there and I for one would rather stand united with French. German, Irish, Scots and all the other nations in Europe with whom we share a common heritage than be 'little england'.
Complain about this comment
To WhiteEnglishProud (67):
1) "Power enables you to be free. It enables that nobody dictates to you how you live and act in this world.
An enables you to dictate to others"
So its better just sit down, do nothing, and let first USA, Russia, China and India put the world in order and dictate others. Have you thought that maybe, just maybe, we European could have learned something from world wars and just maybe we could form a super state without imperialistic policies?
2) "As my slogan for the 2033 European presidential elections says "Gulags for some, miniature EU flags to others". As you can see this question has been already solved"
My god! Don't you people watch Simpsons? What has this world gone to, oh the humanity!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYCMxD4pylM
3) "The German speakers in Walloon constitute only 0.02% of voters, as voters of an language or cultural group they don't have meaningful relevance to the working of Walloon regional government.
For the record its 2.1%"
Yes it is, was in too hurry to when looking my calculator. Non of the less in the context of conversation about the deadlock Belgium, a federation of two regions, Flemish and Walloon, the German minority doesn't have a meaningful relevance to workings of the federation. If the German minority had their own region and the federal goverment would consist of three parts then the German minority would have relevance.
4) We share a different opinion about the EU and its nature
5) "I also get the feeling that you would have prefered it if German had won WW2 but i couldn't find the post where this was pretty explicate."
Have you ever thought that you can talk about historical things as historical things and that not all people share the propaganda image of "brave Americans, British and Soviets fighting together against evil Nazis bringing democracy and justice for all!". If you don't share that poster image or if you see history more grayer and more raw, it doesn't mean that you support some other end to the war.
6) "We were never asked if we want Europe to Govern us. We were told it would mean cheaper goods. We were mislead. All we want is a discussion imput."
Yes yes, we all have missed the small print some time of our life or at least later want to believe that we were the victims and never understood where we were putting our heads. Vote for UKIP in the next elections, become a candidate yourself, you have the determination, now go and make yourself prime minister of UK. As the Americans say, if you believe in it, you can do it.
Where there something else that I missed?
Complain about this comment
T1m0thy
I am well aware of your Historical examples there are many others which you could have mentioned but thankfully didn't.
I understand your confusion. Whilst I am English first i am British Second and European Third. IN the same respect i understand that if you were Scotish you May wish to be Scottish First and British second (or not at all) I hope you can understand and respect my feeling on this.
I am Pro UK and Pro European Co-operation (read pro EEC, anti EU in current form)
Whilst i agree we need to keep close ties with our European Brethren I see no need for a European Superstate which has not been properly discussed. IMO the British Government has no mandate from the British people to sign a document which in for all practical purposes crates a European Constitution.
We have an Elected EU parrliment which carries no real weight, an EU commision which imposses Directives which we have to implement . But which other countries largely Ignore.
I could go on and on but i won't as it will on make me appear a ERurophobe which i'm really not I just want a free( read 'freedom from coercion' ) EU where there is a real consultive process. Not one that wants to rush into a Federal Europe whether we have the correct structure in place or not.
Another concern is that if we are frightened into making the wrong choices then the Terrorist will really have one. (read the anti terror laws and America patriot act etc.)
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (68):
I have the same book so if you don't mind.
Concerning the WW1, key statistics:
Page 255: Total population
In 1913 Germany had 66,9 and Austria-Hungary 52,1 million compared to Britain 45,6 and France 39,7 million, of course Russia and US where in the league of their own.
Page 257: Iron/Steel production
In 1913 Germany produced double the amount than UK, and quickly calculated more than other allies, except the US.
Page 259. Total industrial potential
In 1913, Germany 137.7, Britain 127.2, France 57.3, Russia 76.6 and Austria-Hungary 40.7. US in its own league.
Overall Germany defeated Russia in the eastern front totally, even before Russian revolution, Russians were suffering. In the western front Germany was still fighting in France and only the prospect of US turned Germany to give up.
Concerning the WW2, key statistics:
Page 430: Relative War Potential 1937
United States 41,7%
Germany 14,4%
USSR 14,0%
UK 10,2%
France 4.2%
Japan 3,5%
Italy 2,5%
Page 455 about Aircraft production illustrates how slowly Germany reverted to war production.
But that is enough about the WW2...
Now about freedom and EU constitution / the Lisbon Treaty, no, I don't want to force some country to accept the treaty against their will. However my point is that while in practice EU moves as a collective and as one member country can block and has right to block the ascension, nothing is free. If Ireland, UK or some other country wants to stop integration, it has to accept that in current EU setting, that decision costs other countries that can't go further. In some point the costs go to a point were radical change of politics may happen, be it founding of a new organization or ejecting one country's membership. You just can't have cake and eat it too, that is in practice impossible.
From my point of view, every country and nation should be free to choose their destination, but what they are not free are the costs of their decisions.
Complain about this comment
#70 - T1m0thy
Perhaps we need to make up our minds otherwise "our passports shall be made" but I don't hold out a lot of hope of "crowns for convoy" being put into our purse.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
"My god! Don't you people watch Simpsons? What has this world gone to, oh the humanity!"
Not if I have anything to do with it.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
(point 1)
Unless you want to rule the world why are you worried about USA, Russia, China and India. The Spread of power round the world is a good thing it prevents any one becoming to strong. I fear most of all that if you make the E.U to strong we'll have to play the Superpower role and try and keep the world on an even-keel like America have tried and unfortunately mostly failed to do for the last 80 years.
(Point 2)
I accept
(point 3)
Your wrong they could tip the balance in either favour if the number of people in each of the other groups if roughly equal. so in some respects there more important.
(Point 4)
Obviously this is the case however i shal strive to help you see the light
(Point 5)
So long as you don't think Nazi domination of Europe would be a good thing, then I will not argue with you on this point. History is written by the victor and no doubt there is hidden History which has been erased or at least convienently hidden.
(point 6)
Usually when you miss the small print it doesn't impact on generations that haven't yet been born. I will not sell my children down the river, I never got to vote on any European integration, yet it seem I am binded to this project whether I want it or not. Wars have been fought over much less in the past.
I will not vote or stand for UKIP as there is no chance of them being elected. Our best hope for salvation is convincing Camron we must have a choice.
Complain about this comment
You just can't have cake and eat it too, that is in practice impossible.
I beleive the reason any country can stop further intergration is to ensure a proper check and balance on E.U legislation. This is one of the more Democratic parts of the E.U which you seem to want to remove.
It means that if the document proposed is a rushed botch job ( read The Lisbon Treaty) then it shouldn't be passed by every country. It means that a proper E.U will have to work together to agree better legislation. All good the only thing that i would change is to make a refurendum compulsary in every member state.
Talk about proper checks on and balances of power.
You remember the power you wanted to protect so badly
Complain about this comment
To WhiteEnglishProud (76):
1) When you have less power than other the terms you are presented are worser than what would you get if had power.
Few points...
The US dollar as an reserve currency is the same as what were the unequal trade treaties that Britain dictated to China. US externalizes its inflation to others and it coerces other to US dollars as a trade currency with a deterrent of invasion as happened to Iraq.
US currently has information superiority because as the largest power has unmatched ability to invest in different ventures to gain information, just look at Echelon and NSA, nothing compares to them. The difficulty with these is that nobody knows how much US can gain from these ventures in reality, the French has at least complained that they have lost commercial deals in the last minute to American competitors making just barely a better offer.
US currently is deploying continental missile defense system. It may work as planed, it may even scale out, nobody knows for sure. The point is that only a super power can obtain ability and cover like this which in the future may give US ability to wage nuclear war without impunity. Of course they have had rational leadership to this date, but their ability to act without fear, leads to more imperialistic ventures.
When India and China will rise to super powers they will obtain the same abilities that the US has. If we in Europe doesn't have these abilities from ourselves we have to redeem ourselves by allying one of these super powers and what that means is unequal relationship that in the end costs money and freedom.
I would also not worry about Europe abusing its power. Europe is now in relative decline and that decline will not be stopped. In the 22th century we are behind China and US and with luck ahead of India thus leaving no room for imperialistic plays. Uniting Europe is defensive not offensive project.
3) Germans vote in Walloon. Their vote can't go to Flemish side.
5) History shouldn't be written by the victorious alone as sooner or later those who were defeated start asking about the history. I have spoken with many young German and thought they don't regret that Germany was defeated and Nazis thrown away, what they don't anymore accept is the story of innocent allies that had nothing to do with the war and did no wrong during the war. Nazis weren't the only ones looking for war and not only ones making war crimes and causing the deaths of millions, all allied powers have their hands in German blood, and if history is not looked as history and acknowledged as it is, there will be resolved issues and thus possibility to future conflicts.
6) We are governed by the laws of death people.
Mark my words, Tories nor Cameron will not take UK out of EU nor negotiate better deal with it, what they will make is further integration and join UK to Euro. Both Tories and Labor are more of regents of state and act as so.
Vote for UKIP may not take UK out of EU for now, but at least they are honest on what they want and how will they act when given power.
I don't know how parliament in UK works, but doesn't an individual member of parliament have a right to propose new legislation? If yes, shouldn't the UKIP propose in every parliament a law on resigning from EU and register and publicize on how every party and member of parliament has voted and start ousting those who promise something but act differently. That's usually the procedure to act.
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud.
I have the same feeling.
That Jukka - sorry - Jukka - that's exactly what scares me in you - makes his points in the manner of machine going.
When you see that motion, the step, the clang, the ticking, I, for one, don't want anymore to think about what's in those points. I am raised up in a dictatorship. Can recognise it, no need to lift up the visor on the face of the knight.
Have you seen cats going bushy, when all individual hairs raise up in alarm? That's how I look now! (exactly so, Jukka, FYI).
This is the problem with those who want to be more Germany than Germany itself. Its whole-hearted admirers torn away in history by vicious cold winds. Same German complex with the Baltics as with Finland.
(We also have now Transdnistria willing to be "USSR". Very pleased. But we can't give them what they want.)
Likewise I think Germany is, pleased with Finland and the Baltics. But can't give them what they want.
Jukka, once again - mechanistic approach is death. That democracy, as you wrote, is pretty mechanistic in nature (but the least evil, I guess, you would have added) - invent a new "democracy".
On one point I agree with you wholeheartely - power ensures freedom.
I agree with the first part of what you said, this far.
That to have power and not applying it to squeeze others is possible in reality (part 2)... We haven't seen yet. But one can always try, not forbidden.
In fact you can be oriented in terms of perfection by the Soviet/Russian Navy fleet... Who didn't fire one real shot at an enemy btw 1943 and 2008. No Chechnya, no Afghanistan, no Prague, no nothing.
But I know this is Gulags Gulags and once again Gulags, you won't look for uncompromising ideals by your kitchen door, you'd serach for them in the ? how did you call it - "the world capital" - or "the capital of the world" ? Berlin.
Far more important advantage of power - in my view - is that it makes one free from decisions of alien idiots! In Russia's case - thanks, we have enough our own. I'd run like from plague from being governed by foreign duplicates.
________
threnodio , you've forgotten to list 2 minor constituencies in British influence in the world.
English language - 1 - for all occasions.
The fact that Russian elites hold stakes in the shape of property in London - in case of Russia thinking along the lines of getting naughty again - 2.
__________
Forgot to address the topic! Angela Merkel.
The answer to the question put by Mark - "is simply an honest and a good person enough for the future challenging times for Germany" - depends on the definition what these times and challenges will be.
For some types - yes, for some - no.
Who knows what our future would look like in a year?
Overall I would say that "you don't look for good from the good" (running away from current good after something "more good")
and
I think Germans can be rightly proud of her, to say nothing of comparing their ruler to others in this continent.
smart a - plenty on board!
try to find a decent woman!
Complain about this comment
78, Jukka, with every word you write I become more convinced I do not want a european state, all be it you say it would be used for defensive priposes. It is a pity you are not the official E.U spokesperson, you would make the case against inccreasing federalism for me and millions of others across Europe.
Do not want to relive the arguments about the second world war but to suggest other countries were looking for war is a travesty. With the exception of Russia (who for the first two years were allies of Germany, Japan and Italy I can think of no other countries wanting war. Britain was keen to appease Germany to prevent it, France simialrly had no wish for it. The U.S were opposed to it and only came in when directly attacked by Japan. Yes of course in war attrocities were committed and I have no doubt some were done by tha allies. But (excluding Russia) they were dwarfed by the carefully planned industrial extermination of Jews and other groups by Germany.
The cause of the second world war lies with a meglomaniac who sort to control Europe and perverted Germany, who had been one of the most advanced and civilised countries in the world up to then.
This will be my last post on the subject of the second world war as do not think it relevant to this issue, but you keep bringing it up, both in this thread and others, and I could no longer bear this rewriting of history. The responsibility for the loss of German blood lied, in that terrible war, with that evil nazi regime and those that supported it or stood by and did nothing to stop it.
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset,
please be more careful, about Russia, in the 2ndww.
Complain about this comment
#80 - jordanbasset
Like you, I have no wish to drag the last war into this. I would say only that the original thinking that lay behind the formation of the iron steel and coal federation that would eventually become the EU was to ensure that western Europe would never turn against itself again militarily. It has worked to it's credit and we should not lose sight of this.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (79):
Passion and feeling belongs to arts. When we look and think about politics, economics or other affairs of the state, then there is no other solution to deal but to gather facts, valuate them and start counting costs. From my view passion and feelings are the root cause of misery and most ideologies that the 21th century had and many situations even today are caused by relying too much on passion and feelings and too less on just calculating costs in short and long term. Yes, its mechanic, but what other solutions there are?
When thinking about your reaction my estimate for your hair raising reaction is that both Nazis and Communist regimes used to describe themselves as machines and mechanistic without passion or feeling, the great lie in this image was that they used these this imaging to project feelings as rational thoughts. The thing however is that both regimes and as dictatorships usual are illogical and irrational as they don't do cost counting at all.
Of course there is one issue too that should be mentioned. We are no discussing on the Internet via text, what this does in communication barrier. In normal circumstances we could with our body language and with our voice express more about our thought processing and valuations. When we are in the Internet things change as we text only interface which more or less make our opinions to look more extreme or more softer, it also adds up risk misconception, add to this language and cultural differences and you got yourself a mixed up soup.
That is why I usually like to just look on the facts and argue about them and throw all emotions away. Of course throwing emotions away is impossible so I too have many times either used too harsh language or used offending labeling or just get stuck on repeating same things over and over again.
Oh... and those gulags... I still count on Russia joining the EU, where else I can sent unwanted Eurosceptics after my reign starts? ...did I mention that my reservist rank is lance corporal.. just a history question, name one famous lance corporal that has influenced heavily on Russian history ;) and gulags... as I noted before, reference to Simpsons.
To jordanbasset (80):
I don't know how your thinking and logic goes, but my I would say my many points about the US and world politics are exactly of those that make many to support and to believe in the project called EU.
And hey please, look at the posts...
Menedemus noted about the WW2 in 13
Freeborn-John noted the WW2 in 40.
I replied to Freeborn-Johns post 40 with my reply 54.
World war 2 is part of the collective memory of Europe and its effects are still felt today. The EU was an project that was sparked from the ruins of post-war Europe. The war is still here and if it comes up, we must talk about it and shouldn't be afraid to talk about it.
Now, if you organize an famine where millions die, its a crime, if you forcibly relocate tens of millions of people its a crime. Please, look at the Morgenthau Plan and its implementation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan
Now about those looking for war, have you ever looked at what was happening in the Pacific Ocean before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. US had put Japan on embargo and it was more or less looking ways to strike Japan, Japan just moved first.
Point in here is, there were no good guys in the war.
Complain about this comment
Mr Mardell really loves the European project.
His admiration for all things European knows no bounds. He appears oblivious or chooses to ignore the rampant EU corruption both financial and political. Can he bring himself to be just a tiny bit critical of this non democratic organisation.
Complain about this comment
#84 - kcband8
No he can't. He's a journalist, not a pamphleteer. You want to bash the EU, feel free. Plenty of others do.
Complain about this comment
Re post 83, I will have to break my promise not to talk about the second world war to respond to the riddiculous phase that 'there were no good guys in the war'.
The good guys included German Protestant pastors Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller and the Catholic Bishop Clemens von Galen, and their example inspired some acts of overt resistance, such as that of the White Rose student group in Munich. Many involved in these groups of resistance were impriosned and or were killed by the this evil regime. Similar resistance groups appeared through out occupied europe, many paying with their lives. Then there were the miilions of allied soldiers, airmen and sailors who gave their lives to bring the nazi terror to an end.
You dishonour their memory and your self by suggesting that all were bad in that awful war, which was engineered by an evil nazi regime. I am not saying there were not individuals on the allies side who did bad things, but they were not in the same league as nazi Germany. They were responding to a ruthless war mongering ideology to esnure the freedom of Europe. Their sacrifice enables us to have this discussion, we should never forget them or what they did for us.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, I will not let you in the blog with a finishing phrase "there were no good guys in the war."
I think it'll look better like this:
"there were no good guys in the war" said Finn who joined Germany and is still disappointed with the results.
By the way, what about Germany?! How did it happen they were not good? That's
bordering with treason. Poor Germany. Do you judge them as well? Do they know?
Also, how about Finns? Loyal to Germany, gentlemanly with Britain, sat and observed.
Can it be I found the real good guys.
Who speak about the 2nd WW now with the fluency, and from the heights, of moral superiority.
In cool mind, dissecting facts from nonsense.
Emotions belong to art. Serious matters are to be dealt with in cool accountant-type mind. Cost analysis - that's what the 2ndWW was always lacking.
An empty heart - it always beats even. The pistol will not shake in hand. "
Jukka, wake up from your accounting! Is the world so repulsive you decided to approach it from cold numbers base.
It does not work this way, no cost-analysis will help you. All accounting in the world won't produce one lady-bird. Science is still far behind wild nature. You won't measure politics by geometry. You'll end up in a wrong corner. Don't drag others in there, what's the chair you sit on, that you feel so high to justify decisions by running numbers. Numbers are run by finance departments. Decisions are taken by GMs.
Feed them 10 kilos of spread-sheets - they'll do what they want anyway.
No, thank you for the invitation of course, Russia won't join Europe. You want only half of it, up to Urals, and we still cherish the break-neck ideas to keep the whole lot.
Thus far your wildest imagination does not stretch.
When it will - we will talk.
We want the whole. You are prepared to surrender half to China. Now, "Russian navy - they don't surrender". (only drown heroically from time to time).
If China will advance - there will be a battle. And you will sit like you always did - observing from the heights, which spider will win. Later on you'll justify it again, that "both sides were way too bad.
No heroes in that war."
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (86):
If the context of discussion and comments were about nations, countries and states in the WW2, what do you think the phrase "there were no good guys in the war" deal with?
A) Nations, countries and states
or
B) Joe six packs caught in the war
Complain about this comment
#86 - jordanbasset
AMEN to that.
Complain about this comment
Jukka (73): I find the costs you associate with abandoning Lisbon interesting. For me there are no costs; just gains in 'freedom from coercion' (i.e. less QMV) and more representative government. The problem with your costs is that they (a) are in a currency ('freedom to act') I do not value as highly as you and (b) they come with big hidden cost in a currency ('freedom from coercion') that I prize.
I would even question if the EU really does enhances the UK 'freedom to act'. Let's take for example an area where the EU should deliver benefits. I.e. trade negotiations. This is an exclusive competence of the European Union and the relevant EU Commissioner for the last four years has been British. Mr. Mandelson is very pro-EU arguing much like you do. He wanted to negotiate a WTO trade deal not just to benefit the British and European economies but also to demonstrate the EU?s worth. Had he been a British trade minister he would have tried to negotiate a WTO deal that was directly in the UK national interest. His goal would have been to try to get other nations to lower their tariffs on our main exports (i.e. services). However he could not do this as EU trade commissioner and instead had to negotiate in the interest of a protectionist agricultural lobby so he ended up trying to negotiate a trade deal which was actually against the UK interest (because it would keep our food prices up). My point is that the enhanced ?freedom to act? from EU collective EU action that you prize only really exists when there is a natural affinity between 27 national interests and that is rarely the case.
In a previous thread I set out the priority that I attach to different 'ultimate ends'. In the terms of the vocabulary I am using in this thread they are:
1. Freedom from coercion,
2. Representative government (democracy),
3. Equality/fairness,
4. Influence ('Freedom to Act') in the national interest.
I would support the EU if it enhanced the UK 'freedom to act' in the national interest without any nasty side-effects in terms of those things I value more highly. The problem is that EU collective action does have a very nasty side-effect. It can only increase our influence of all member states speak with one voice, but this really means that dissenting minorities must be silenced (e.g. by a qualified majority vote) and that silenced minority will quite often include the UK. Therefore 'freedom for action' very often also means coercion which is a violation of what I believe to be real freedom.
If the EU ALWAYS acted in the British interest (as the British Empire did) then it would certainly be a considerable boost to our influence in the world without any cost to ?freedom from coercion? in the UK. But obviously this would be objectionable from the point of view of fairness and representative government in the other 'member states' and is not acceptable.
When I imagine leaving the EU the costs that concern me are probably quite different from those that would worry you if Finland were to leave. For me the greatest potential losses would be the 'four freedoms' of the original EEC which are all 'negative liberties' (i.e. freedom from coercion) in the terms used by Isaiah Berlin.
Complain about this comment
Jukka @78 wrote:
History shouldn't be written by the victorious alone as sooner or later those who were defeated start asking about the history. I have spoken with many young German and thought they don't regret that Germany was defeated and Nazis thrown away, what they don't anymore accept is the story of innocent allies that had nothing to do with the war and did no wrong during the war. Nazis weren't the only ones looking for war and not only ones making war crimes and causing the deaths of millions, all allied powers have their hands in German blood, and if history is not looked as history and acknowledged as it is, there will be resolved issues and thus possibility to future conflicts.
Trying to establish some kind of 'moral equivalence' between the Nazis and the allies is disgusting.
With the exception of the Soviet Union (which was just another version of 'socialism' and tended to destroy its own people rather than others) please tell us who other than Nazi Germany set out to conquer great swathes of Europe for 'living space' (leibenstraum), categorised whole races of people as sub-human, and then proceeded, in a calculated and methodical way, to establish 'industrial murder' and kill millions in a manner and on a scale beyond the comprehension of most sane people?
The firestorms of Dresden and Hamburg and other allied actions that caused the deaths of many civilians, while regrettable in retrospect, were part of a pattern of total war which Germany brought upon itself (as did japan).
You really ought to reset your moral compass - or get one, pronto.
Complain about this comment
threnodio what a commission! you fight here for the EU like I do for Russia.
"eternal fight, about the peace - we can only dream to"
______
Towards your point, I once saw a EU in action. Well, a miniature copy. I worked for a company where the top mngmnt team was the whole palette. Not "27" of course, not so many departments, but one French, one Belgium, one English, one Irish, one Austrian, one Finn, one American (yeah, what to do, you can't without), one Russian. Forgot who was one more. Plus an array in nationalities in the 2nd layer, a bit.
Jukka, simply mind it - it worked without policing and disciplining and any crap about "you have to." Nobody said a word about team-building. (ab team-building I heard later in another organisation, where there was no trace of it).
French-phobes will have to disappoint - the GM was French. And what a damn nice climate company it was! Russians, as minimum, you won't be able to kick out of it for no money. When children of the employees graduated from places - they stood in lines to join the parents. Didn't notice any desire in the expatriate side to leave either. I worked there 5+ years approx., and all this time the company was my home, and home - a temporarily place to call in.
As to the accounting, Jukka, nearly forgot about cold numbers dear to your heart, I can assure you we were the unquestionable market leader all this time, and the flow in was very very healthy. And it was a big gang, 350 to 500 employees in Moscow only, to say nothing of the offices in the Baltics, Ukraine, Uzbek, Belarus, Georgia - the whole ex-USSR which was no more USSR long at all.
The Christmas cards to the customers
I printed in 16 languages.
The GM there - who engineered the whole int'l gang - is worth his weight in gold.
When he was in Moscow passing by 6 years later, the word got around and ex-employees came to the railway station just to tell him how they miss him.
Jukka, he never said anything what you say.
I mean not the words, it works in another spirit.
So it works, it can work, threnodio. I've seen it only once, but it can work.
And ! oh! nearly forgot! it all took place in Russia of course! so you'll have to join Russia - that's it - if you wish to succeed! :-)
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (87) and threnodio (89):
You both jumped too hastily to conclusions. My reflection in comment 88. Enough said.
To MaxSceptic (91):
I'm not trying to establish moral equivalence between Nazis and allies. What I'm doing is to acknowledge that the war was not the propaganda image sold to previous generations as the fight between good and evil. The allied were not that good during the war and especially not after the war. If you don't acknowledge facts of history, if you you are taking a blind eye on some crimes that happened, you diminish every other crime as well. Crime is a crime, war crime is a war crime be it done by the loser or by the victor.
To WebAliceinwonderland (87):
You probably were irritated when making your comment, still shortly responding to few points.
No. Not making judgment from morally superior position. There is no such thing.
Yes, Germans were and are judged in almost every history page concerning world war 2. That is actually coming very boring and tiring as anytime you try to talk about the war, for political correctness and for not to be accused on diminishing what ever people might be thinking on, you have to in some sentence judge Nazis and in other make a note about Holocaust. It really hampers down the conversation as nobody usually is saying "Oh those Nazis were great" or "Holocaust, that is a myth", unfortunately every time you take brake from official liturgy people straight away make an assumption that you are doing so.
And Germans... Well. Personally I like them as I have liked on all the different nationalities that I have met and there are a lot of them. Of course, as these discussions have shown, "Don't mention the war!" seems to work also in reverse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgAi7DYHA94
And well... emotions... people jump to conclusions hastily because of... emotions. There is nothing wrong on having emotions and emotions themselves are very important tool of mind. What one must ask from him or herself when having a strong emotion, what is the real reason, what is the story behind the emotion, as the mind in reality doesn't work in random or mysterious ways, thus emotions should be used as reflections to get to root of the issue in hand.
The reality, the world, is very very dark and vile place, of course there warmth, happiness and love everywhere an experienced all the time. Still when you start acknowledging everything that is and has happened, you have too options: 1) react with emotions or 2) to look at the issue as an issue itself.
To quote one of my favorite movies, Star Wars, Yoda: "Fear is the path to the dark side: fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
Anger, hate, suffering, all common, all recognizable. The only thing people usually don't recognize is the fear itself as usually that fear is connected to the essence of being a human, to the very core of the biological machine the evolution has produced.
And those numbers... costs costs costs... not all costs are expressed on numbers... and not costs are valuated to numbers at least in conscience. Things don't work just because they work, there are reason for them to work.
And policing and disciplining... Only team with poor build up needs visible policing or disciplining, usually values, valuations and common practices are rooted to each individual, but that as I said before doesn't just happen, there is alway a reason and logic behind, somewhere hidden.
And teams... Hofstede's framework for assessing culture explain very much how and why teams and individuals from different behave and act on the way they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Hofstede
I'm surely forgotten something, some thing that I should have mentioned, but not everything can be assessed in one time...
Complain about this comment
#84 kcband8
'Mr Mardell really loves the European project.
His admiration for all things European knows no bounds. He appears oblivious or chooses to ignore the rampant EU corruption both financial and political. Can he bring himself to be just a tiny bit critical of this non democratic organisation.'
Rampant EU corruption both financial and political. Rhetoric or truth? If this is the truth prove it. I don't believe it, I believe it's just anti EU rhetoric and that you have not one shred of evidence to back up your statement.
Prove it's not just straight bananas or shut up.
Complain about this comment
To Freeborn-John (90):
You have expressed the issue at hand very elegantly in your comment. I have red in already many times it throe, and agree with many things it. I have few notes already in my head and few ideas that should be noted, but I have to at least sleep the night before even trying to reply.
Complain about this comment
#92 - WebAliceinwonderland
One Europe reaching all the way from the Atlantic to the Urals, eh Alice?
Putin the control freak, Medvedev the glove puppet, Yeltsin the town drunk. Only one good man, Alice. Let him pick up his Nobel Prize then pack him off to the wilderness. Poor Mikhail Sergeyevich. Everyone cheered but nobody listened. What a waste of a good man.
Complain about this comment
threnodio,
one Eurasia (let's say for the time being. I hope we don't object to geographic names) reaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I think we can do with more people. 500,000 you said?
And you can do with more space, from what I saw. (how only your cars manage to turn around in such streets!)
In the list above no admirers of such an idea you bet. But mustn't we have a future?
and don't offend my Yeltsin. was my favourite president so far (with one defect which is not drinking but not hard to tell. Chechnya.) The only one in 1000 years who never closed one newspaper or cornered any journalist or allowed himself to complain about whatever anyone wrote or told about him in media. and he was getting buckets of dirt. you've missed one man for the freedom of speech, and we'll remember, a rare occurance in our quarters)
Gorbi alas only West likes true.
Yesterday an Azerbajanee gasterbeiter drove me (like a taxi. anyone is a taxi here who you wave and he stops to give a lift and earn money) and we discussed matters on the way. I asked what language he speaks on the mobile (we nearly clashed into another car), he said it is Azerbajanee, so we discussed Iran, and Georgia of course, and who his son is who is born in St. Petersburg (we agreed he is of a St. Petersburger nationality) - and oh you should have heard him when he switched onto Gorbi compliments. All gasterbeiter talks here end up by Gorbi. "we lived at home and the idiot ruined everything now we are gasterbeiters where did you take such a man from Russia and how did you allow him).
Complain about this comment
BTW, threnodio. See - we've already have a common political figure in mind. I think when Eurasia is packaged he can be called back to power and collapse us into consistuencies again!
Complain about this comment
"In the list above no admirers of such an idea you bet. But mustn't we have a future?"
Actually Alice, the Atlantic to the Urals is a direct quote from Gorbachev.
Complain about this comment
threnodio, some men are good for collapsing, some for creating. some for control, I'd say.
for the collapsing you've chosen the tops. no denial. nobody else would be able to do it. one hit in a million. the whole probability theory will give up.
for the control we've got.
(you simply never ruled Russia.
Far East for centuries fulfills Moscow orders with a 20 year delay. papers "get lost on the way". horses, snow-storms, a tsar fires a governor, governor "doesn't know about it" for 3 years. now e-mails get lost.
and Russians. by the zebra where dacha village crosses the road to the sea, there is a pile of metal, collected by villagers.
after you stand 25-30 minutes by the road you can't cross on zebra - because no car stops, you take a metal thing, like a piece of an old bicycle, and indicate the first car you'll throw it under his wheels if it doesn't stop. local invention. helps.
for the creating missing.
Complain about this comment
I work with Germans. When I asked them about Merkel what they told me was a) she has a background in science and therefore knows nothing about government and b) she from the former East Germany and not to be trusted.
Complain about this comment
Notice how Suffolk boy started it and hasnt commented ever since..
Complain about this comment
#69 Yep.
If you're in a hurry I can find you another though ;)
Complain about this comment
Because I was courious about this German female chancellor,so I read this article. But what surprised me is people's comments to the contents of it. I cannot help to be one of them,so I join in .
In regard to Miss Merkel, her impression to me is wise and moderate. Even after reading this article,my opinion is still the same. I donnot know whether she will win in the next year's election, what I can do is just wish her good luck.
Towards the EU , people's comments really diverse greatly. But I think EU is not so bad as some bloggers have mentioned. She still has her meaning of exitence.
Complain about this comment
@15
You look splendid in that academic cloak of yours. No honest, really wonderful...
...why not use all that knowledge to form an argument?
Mr S,
München
Complain about this comment
As abrit living in germany since 1989 i have to make a few comments here about the political situation in germany.
1.A lot of people in germany are anti EU-In fact 66% of germans never wanted the Euro!
The problem ist NO political party is euro sceptical and no one tries to restrict the EUs undemocratic power!
2. Frau Merkel is a bad Chancellor!
Her policy is like Helmut Kohl-Sit it out and wait-Do nothing for ordinary workers(apart fron always raising taxes and giving tax giveaways to the rich!)-any critism say nothing or waffle past the subject!
3.What a lot of Brits don´t know is while Labour has reduced poverty in Britain,in Germany it has exploded!
1 in 8 Germans are classed as POOR!
Because of no minimum wage and "forcing" people with "Hartz 4"(The social reform von the social democrats) to take extremley low paid jobs or face losing your benefits totally(Some people have died of starvation already through this!)like 2 quid an hour in some jobs.
And this in the richest nation in Europe!
In the city where i live 1 in 4 children are classed as poor!
Even last week as Frau Merkel announced the increase in child benefit-every child with Hartz 4 would have that increase taken away!
4.The Left Party(Die Linke) are to gain massive new voters at the next election(Ex communist party)-A lot of people i know will vote for them(and i live deep in the west) and Christian Democrats/Social Democrats will lose massive amounts of voters.
Germans dont protest much but many are very angry!
Funny how 500 billion euros can be found for ailing banks but nothing is there for poor children.
Worst of all if you write to your local CDU MP you just get an answer which thinks is ok for the 500 bilion Euros but refuses to answer any questions about social equality!
5.What a lot of Brits also dont know that the ordinary worker pays tons more taxes the any Brit ever will!
When i earn 1 Euro mehr i get 53% taken off me!
If i´ve got a firm or have investments i pay a lot less!
The newest OCED report revealed that the ordinary German worker pays 52,2% of his wages in taxes.
Taxes from wealth amount to only 2,9% of taxes as compared to 11,5% in the UK and 12,2% in the USA!
They want to abolish inherentace tax but at the same time increase penalties when you refuse to take a "Hungerlohn" Job!
Sometimes i wish i´d stayed in Britain.
All you lot moan about Brown-At least he´s got more guts than this goverment ever will have!
Complain about this comment
Mar, Mark, Mark, Mark!!! You are a brilliant and entertaining correspondent, but I can't imagine how or why the BBC appointed you to the job you are in if you have no concept of how to pronounce basic German words. There was a time, when the BBC was the Gold Standard of the world, when an Europe correspondent would have been expected to be fluent in German. Now I think it would be reasonable to expect him at least to be able to PRONOUNCE the name of one of Germany's best-known newspapers correctly - the 'Die' in 'Die Welt' does NOT sound like the English word meaning 'to pass away', but rhymes with 'me' or 'fee'. Please, please sign up for some German evening classes if you are to maintain credibility in your role - it's not a lot to ask, and as I said, there was a time when it would have been a sine qua non (I think David Willey can speak Italian, for example...). If you are in England any time you can sign up for the German evening classes I run (I'm in Exeter, which might not be convenient for you, but I do my best to make German entertaining and accessible). Best wishes - Alan Wesson
Complain about this comment
Re post 106, I always thought that Germany got the worst deal in Europe re net contributions to the E.U. and am surprised their politicians do not make more of a fuss over this. Again there appears a disconnection between main stream parties and the population on this matter -
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @93 wrote:
"The allied were not that good during the war and especially not after the war."
No they weren't 'good'. But they (with the exception of the Soviets) were angels in comparison to the Nazis.
Jukka adds:
"If you don't acknowledge facts of history, if you you are taking a blind eye on some crimes that happened, you diminish every other crime as well. Crime is a crime, war crime is a war crime be it done by the loser or by the victor.
Pick-pocketing is a crime.
Theft is a crime.
Murder is a crime.
Genocide is a crime.
But genocide is not the same as pick-pocketing.
Get a sense of proportion.
Complain about this comment
102. At 07:39am on 31 Oct 2008, Gheryando wrote:
"Notice how Suffolk boy started it and hasnt commented ever since.."
SB":
There is this thing called money. I need to work to earn some to pay the bills. I am trying to catch up now whilst eating.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando @ #102
I think it is called "throwing a hand-grenade into the conversation and then running away!"
On the other hand, it is painful to bang your head aganst a brickwall - just once gives you a headache, more than that does not take the pain away! ;=)
Complain about this comment
sidevalve @ #107
I am sorry but the BBC have got much more important things to deal with than have their staff learn to pronounce words not common to their first language.
They have got to teach some of their staff not to use some of the words that, whether pronounced well or not in their first language, can cause over 10,000 complaints 5 days after they are uttered!
Apparently that Course takes 12 weeks without pay!
Complain about this comment
blue_american @ #101
Good feedback from her fellow countryfolk.
All I can do is shout "Snap!" for the British.
(a) Our Leader has a degree and knows nothing about governing!
(b) Our Leader is from Scotland and not to be trusted!
They could have been twins if they had not been born in different countries!
Complain about this comment
#108
Yes a lot of germans know that we pay the most but the worst effected are the Dutch per head and their feelings were well documented in the NO to the European Treaty
Talk about the EU another thing in german politics it could be a situation like the Austrian election with far right parties gaining 30% of the vote BUT with the left party.
Both Oscar Lafontaine and Gregor Gysi(Die Linken) are unlike Angela Merkel and Walther Steinmeier very charismatic politicians!
They both can energise voters and are both populists but to the left.
The CDU ist not that poular and the SPD have lost voters in droves because of their Social reforms which have basically hit all their working class voters.
I will even go this far to say because of the banking bailout the Left party could even get with a decent campaign 25% of the vote...
Voters are angry.
I still maintain Merkel is a very bad Chancellor...
Complain about this comment
31. At 12:26pm on 30 Oct 2008, Isenhorn wrote:
"#15 Another excuse? How about deluding yourself that Britain is still a major player on the world scene? Your attitude towards the EU is a pure isolationism, based on the erroneous idea that Britain will do well, if only it was not in the EU. There have been other countries that have tried to isolate themselves before, and it never worked."
Isenhorn! You are trying to put words into my mouth or into my computer.
I have not claimed that Britain is a major player on the world scene. I suspect that that comment says more about you than about me. Wanting to be a major player on the world scene is one of the objectives of the megalomaniac, anti-democratic "EU".
"... isolationism..." Rubbish! I want to cooperate with the "EU" from outside of it. I want improved language learning in schools and have ideas in that direction. I want everybody doing a degree in the UK to be able to translate from a major foreign language into English in their subject using a dictionary and to be able to understand lectures on their subject in that other language.
"...based on the erroneous idea that Britain will do well, if only it was not in the EU." Again, you think you have a god-like ability to read my mind. You haven't. I have heard this ludicrous assertion in Germany on a number of occasions. Loads of "EU"-loving Germans say what the British think without asking them and without being prepared to listen when you try to tell them what you really think. A whole load of things in the UK are rubbish. We need to change a whole load of things. We do not need the additional complication/burden of the "EU". I have no desire to be isolated, just free.
Complain about this comment
18. At 10:31am on 30 Oct 2008, Ticape wrote:
"If I were English I'd be embarrassed by SuffolkBoy2 posts."
Ticape! Please give me at least one example of one of my posts that the English should be embarrassed about and tell me why.
Complain about this comment
25. At 11:31am on 30 Oct 2008, Gheryando wrote:
"@Suffolk boy
What do you suggest? Would you agree to a European Federation that has an elected president and parliament?"
SB2: No!
I do not wish to be in a political union with the continentals. I do want to be friendly with them, co-operate with them, learn their languages, learn from them, copy the things they do well, help them in time of need even if they do not help us in return, love some of their food (Only some!!), admire their architecture, dance with them, watch their films etc.
I want to be independent of them!!!!
I demand to be independent of them!!!!
Complain about this comment
Have I caught up now?
I apologise if you have any toast, mushrooms, courgette, garlic, olive oil, coffee or butter on your screen.
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset @ #108
Is there not a disconnect between the fact that the Germans pay what seems a huge tax burden on their earned income and the fact that the EU Contribution is sized upon VAT receipts and customs duties receipts.
It has always been my impression that if a member state imported less and their inhabitants actually spent less then their EU Contribution would actually reduce as the amount of VAT and Customs Duties received by that government would be less in due course.
Nay?
Complain about this comment
Jukka -
There has been n equally heated but much more academic debate going on in Paul Masons' blog about the holocaust. To try to relate it to pickpocketing is absurd.
Starting from false premises - Jews had a disproportionate role in the economy which they were using to promote international Bolshevism, homosexuals were perverse because their relationships did not result in progeny necessary for the growth of the nation and Roma were an alien race of thieves - the Nazis went on to promulgate a cult of hatred based on the supremacy of the Aryan races and used it as an excuse to gas, shoot or otherwise dispose of 6.5 to 7.5 million innocent human beings.
To describe this as mere crime is to willfully understate the case. It is a monstrous perversion of the human condition itself unique in modern history not for its intention so much as the scale and sheer efficiency of it all.
The Germans have paid their penance and rejoined the human race in a spectacularly successful way. They are to be congratulated for this and for the decent civilisied society they have put in its place. The time for forgiveness came a long time ago but the day we forget should never dawn.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (119) and jordanbasset (108):
Just to add to your discussion...
Shortly, most of the EU budget comes from GNI resources, large minority from VAT and duties and small minority from other revenues.
EU Budget (shortly):
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
About GNI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_per_capita
Complain about this comment
119, Menedemus, hi, trouble is one of the few good things that should come out of the E.U. is free trade between nation states. If we stop importing and exporting it kind of makes the E.U. redundant.
There is a solution, which involves cutting expenditure by the E.U. For example we could scrap the C.A.P. completely. Germany and our own net contributions would be reduced considerably. Would also help the third world countries who find it difficult to compete with the level of farming subsidy the E.U ccurrently gives. This could allow the third world countries to get richer and may mean we can cut down the amount of aid europe gives to them. Sounds a virtual circle to me.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (120):
Okey... do people actually read comments or follow threads any more?
To keep it short, no, I didn't equate holocaust to pickpocketing, that was just MaxSceptic's view of my commenting.
Yes, holocaust was very unique on history of mankind. Now, I'm sorry, I prefer to use word crime when describing holocaust, I really don't think that it is necessary to use an paragraph of text describing the vile and disgusting nature of it to always accompany any referents to holocaust. Like I commented to Alice before, it really kills the conversation when you have to in all posts remember to use official liturgy. Or maybe I should just add an signature to every end of message which uses the official liturgy to describe and give context to any sensitive issue. That's Americanism at its best.
Yes, Germans have been very active on looking at their history and looking and asking on what role did the culture play, as in what is the question of collective quilt. Now, did I make any comments about Germans? No I didn't.
I'm sorry, but you and many others are over sensitive. As I said, Don't mention the war, seems to work also in reverse.
Now can we move on or is there any other issue or place where I haven't used official liturgy and thus should make a new comment and add the politically correct phrases to just make sure nobody is offended?
Complain about this comment
@119
VAT/custom duties are federal taxes,where income tax is distributed between the federal ,state and local governments.
@122
CAP will never go away -as long as the CSU in Bavaria keep moaning about how poor(which they are not) farmers are and there is virtually no poltical opposition to the EU structures nothing will change!
And not to mention the french....
As Tony Blair statet before the EU parliment at the beginning of Britains prescidency of the EU in 2006-90% of the EU budget goes to 10% of the people of the EU-enough said or not....
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset @ 122
I suspect you misunderstand me.
The UK has historically always been a BIG importer of raw materials form all around the World and now a much bigger importer of foreign foodstuffs and finished goods form outside of the EU.
It is not the Cutoms Duties upon the goods coming from the EU that is the problem (there are none) - it is the duties paid on goods imported from outside of the EU, e.g. China, India, the remnants of the Commonwealth and the USA that give rise to the UK's high level of customs duties reciepts which are then assigned as Contributions to the EU.
Self-sufficiency thus becomes the key to reducing the EU Contribution.
If the UK were capable of returning to manufacturing products instead of importing them from outside of the EU then the level of imports would drop and customs revenue fall - the result is a fall in EU Contribution from the UK.
Similarly, if we could obtain the goods we currently obtain from countries outside of the EU from within the EU then again our customs revenues would fall and our EU Contributions reduce quid pro quo.
VAT receipts, which also go to the heart of the EU Contribution, are only ever maximised on final sale of the goods. The Recession will help but if the UK populace were generally to consume less then their spending would reduce, VAT receipts would reduce and again the UK's EU Contribution fall.
The disconnect is between the Tax-payer thinking they fund the EU and the fact that it is the consumer demand for non-EU products and their willingness to spend, spend, spend (and thus increase VAT receipts) that leads to the UK contributing so much to the EU.
That is my point.
I accept that this may be me misunderstanding the mechanism behind how the EU is funded but, if I am right, then it is the UK People who could determine - through lifestyle choice - a reduction in the UK's EU Contributions.
I also accept that is quite a radical idea but hey what, it might work!
Complain about this comment
Jukka, re post 123 and others, it may be a problem of interpretation, but when you say things such as there were no good guys in the second world war you are wrong. Unless and until you recognise that then people will have trouble understanding where you are coming from. There is no need to self flagellate, just recognise where the blame for that terrible war lay with nazi Germany.
By way of example, a man in a hotel starts murdering men, women and children without cause or reason. Another man sees this and manages to hit the man over the head with an ax several times and kills him. It could be argued he should have hit him only once, or tried to persuade him to give up. But what cannot be argued is that the bad guy was the man who murdered innocent people. The guy who stopped him was the good guy.
The same applies in the second world war, the allies had to put down an evil twisted regime. To do that they sometimes did things which with the marvelous benefit today we may look back at and say did they have to do that (such as the fire bombing of Dresden). But what should not be in doubt is the western allies were good guys who were protecting the world from a murderous regime. They were in a life and death struggle. in which the fate of the whole world rested, and did what was necesary to win.
As freeborn John put it, there is no moral equivalence between the allies responding to the terrorist nazi regime and that regime itself.
So please there is no need for Germans or any other nation to beat themselves up over this. It is in the past and has nothing to do with the current generation. But to parahrase threnodio , we should not forget who was the bad guys here, (or we may relive it.)
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset @ #122
As an aside, it also struck me as an oddity from your assumtion that, if the 93billion Euros dispensed by the EU as CAP Subsidy payments was reduced by revision of the CAP, the individual nation EU Contributions would fall.
That doesn't sound to me to be what actually happens?
My understanding is that the EU Member State EU Contribution is based upon Treasury Receipts for VAT and Customs Duties, i.e. the EU funding is given over from a form of tax that the consumer pays anyway (on most goods) and customs revenues for imports from Rest of the World.
Thus, it follows that the countries with the largest populations have more people consuming and paying VAT (which seems very logical) and possibly the largest populations also import more raw materials and finished goods than the smaller nations and so also have higher Customs Revenues (again which seems very logical to me).
This is a variable revenue and thus influenced by the member states population and their spending behaviours.
On the other hand the EU has all these funds coming in as EU Member State Contribution and then through the Common Agricultur Policy spends, currently 47% upon the EU Farmers.
If the 93billion Euros was not spent entirely upon the Farmers under the CAP but, say spent upon the Manufacturing Sector or Free Healthcare from cradle to grave or on EU Research and Development for new drugs or whatever . . . . then the contributions would not reduce but the EU spending pattern alter.
That is entirely my take upon the situation as the CAP Subsidies have reduced over time and the money "saved" has simply been spent elsewhere. I am very open to contradiction.
Complain about this comment
Ticape! Please give me at least one example of one of my posts that the English should be embarrassed about and tell me why.
e.g. #4 "She is part of the arrogant anti-democratic clique that wants to force a European Superstate upon us all." Stuff like that (I've seen you post worse in the other entries) having said that post #15 was much, much, much better, I'm embarrassed by the fact my post came after #15 even though I was referring to post #4.
22. MaxSceptic wrote:What is your nationality? (I'd like to know so that I can patronise you and your fellow countrymen).
Being a 2nd generation immigrant (from two west Europeans countries) where I don't feel at home at the place I grew up nor the place where I'm suppose to come from I simply consider myself European. :)
Complain about this comment
Re 125, Menedemus, a radical idea that may work. But if it does and all countries do likewise that will mean the E.U would receive far less revenue. How will it fund, amongst other things the CAP, Parliament and attendent bureacracy of the commision. Would it mean they would have to stop the CAP, sell the Parliament and sack the commisioners. If yes I could be persuaded.
I suspect, but again can't be sure, there would be a claw back mechanism to get money back from countries in another way and so would be no better off. Worse because we would become an isolated trading block cut off from world markets. But I could be wrong and if your plan did work it would be interesting times for the E.U. ! - best wishes
Complain about this comment
#57 g-in-belgium
It just happens to be that it are those flemish assets that keep belgium afloat financially.
It just happens to be that no party other than the VB wants to end solidarity with the walloons.
It just happens to be that the francophone part of the country could do with with some good flemish management cause their own people have been incapable of doing so for the past few decades, while continuing to be a bunch arrogant asses that think they have some godgiven right to the billions of euros each year that the Flemish send their way (not to mention a misplaced feeling of cultural superiority towards everything that is Flemish/Dutch. Well, guess what. If they're so superior then why is their part of the country -excuse me the word- a shithole? Though it's only fair to say that it is mostly the francophone bruxellois who have that, and they have the sameattitude towards wallonia. But then again, Brussels musn't be -isn't- that super too if you know that every francophone with some money into his pockets leaves the place to live in Flanders. The hypocrits.)
In other words, it just happens to be that the Flemish people demand accountability from the walloons and francophone bruxellois for all that money. An accountability they also ask from their own Flemish politicians.
Sadly, it just happens to be that accountability is not a word that is written in the lexicons of Belgian politicians.
Anyways, I believe this topic was about Germany. Let me end by saying that without Germany there wouldn't be a Union, seeing as it Germany that pays for most of it in absolute numbers.
Complain about this comment
Re memedemus, post 127, hi, you make my point for me. The best people to spend the money collected by Nation states, is the nation state. If a Nation state want's cradle to grave health care let them fund it. Alternatively if they want to give the money back to the people who earned it by way of tax cuts fine. If their respective populations do not like the choices their national Governments have made, they can always vote them out at the next elections. It should be nothing to do with the E.U. People should not try to impose one size fits all on the whole of Europe and add another layer of bureacracy as well.
The E.U should be there to facilitate free trade and movenment of people, no more no less. The revenue and spending of the E.U needs drastic reforming, this will not happen over night. It may take a generation, but that is the european project I want to see. - best wishes
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (126):
Dude, it seems this is more of an not knowing history. War doesn't end to an defeat of the enemy, it continues with occupation. There were were war crimes committed by allied forces during war but most of the crimes started with the surrender and occupation of Germany.
From my point of view these things are crimes...
1) Expulsion of Germans, and no, you can't just fault Soviets with this. Expulsions killed in recent estimates from half million to one million Germans.
2) Collapsing German monetary and economic system after the war to punish Germans by lowering their living standards. What this did was to cause hunger and malnutrition in population that lead in to very high mortality rates. The situation in Germany wasn't bad in 1945, it became very bad in 47 and 48, what this means is that the occupation authority was largely responsible for this. Just look at Morgenthau plan and its implementation in form JCS 1067.
3) Labeling German prisoners of war as Disarmed Enemy Forces to avoid abiding with Geneva convention and enable their usage as forced labor. In 1947 there were still over 4 million German POWs outside Germany in forced labor.
4) Organized destruction and de-industrialization of Germany in an effort to destroy German industrial and economic capabilities.
The point here isn't equating different crimes. No no no. What I'm putting finger is that what happened during and especially after the war can't just be justified with any reason. Allied forces committed war crimes during and after the war. That is fact, not something that you can justify on saying that Germans were Nazis or that they deserved it. The thing is, when you cross a line you cross a line, the means you do your bid doesn't matter only the results of your actions.
What we have to remember that all participators to the war committed crimes and some of these crimes were crimes against humanity. If you look at history and just see it with an half an eye you make disservice to history. I remain in my point.
PS. It was not Freeborn-John who said that there are no equivalence with Nazi committed war crimes and other crimes committed during the war, it was MaxSceptic in his comment 91 that made that comment or did I miss some comment?
PS2. If you don't address all sides and acknowledge everything that happened and condemn all crimes, you are bound to make the same crimes again and again, and that is exactly the path to Guantanamo.
Complain about this comment
To jordanbasset (129) and Menedemus (125):
Just to add to your conversation...
From EU budget over 60% comes from GNI (Gross National Income) contributions, the rest comes from VAT and duties.
Unfortunately BBC doesn't allow linking an PDF file an comment, so I just can give to Google parameters "eu contribution vat duties" the file is is www.eu-upplysningen.se which is a site hosted by Swedish government.
An interesting note on it was sentence...
"Included in the new agreement was a provision that the annual budget reduction that had been granted to the United Kingdom since 1984 is to be partially phased out."
PS. To BBC, you should really put some info on your House Rules on which conditions you allow adding links to files and what additional information would should provide when doing so. My comment at 121 is still not re-moderated which as usual, kills the conversation.
Complain about this comment
Ticape @128 wrote:
"Being a 2nd generation immigrant (from two west Europeans countries) where I don't feel at home at the place I grew up nor the place where I'm suppose to come from I simply consider myself European. :)"
You may consider yourself whatever you wish.
Whenever asked by the 'authorities' about my religion, I answer that I consider myself a Jedi Knight'. They are amused (or not!) but have to accept my reply.
When they ask for my nationality, I answer 'British'.
If I were to reply 'European' they would not be impressed - or accept this as a valid response.
Complain about this comment
jordanbasset @ #131
I entirely agree with you that it should be the Nation States duty to determine how to spend any funds saved by reducing the CAP Subsidies in the form of increased national budget through reduced EU contributions.
Unfortunately the CAP has been reduced as a share of the overall EU Spend over time BUT the level of EU contributions has not reduced accordingly.
It is not even clear to me where the saved CAP Subsidy Spend has subsequently been spent as it is now wrapped up in a high-falutin' set of schemes called Regional Policies which are undecipherable as to how, why and what they are supposed to achieve but, in any case, as voting individuals, we certainly did and do not have any electoral choice in where the EU money has gone.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @132,
You really don't get how wrong and outrageous your statements are, do you?
If your points no.1 to 4 are the sum total of the 'crimes' committed by the allies against the Germans in the years immediately after the war, then I have to say that they - all Germans who had reached adulthood up until 1945 - got off relatively lightly.
For example: you say "4 million German POWs outside Germany in forced labor"
And...? Who else would rebuild the damage they caused? At least they were fed and looked after - unlike the slave labour the Nazis used. In the nearby Channel Islands the fortifications of Hitler's 'Atlantic Wall' were built by Russian prisoners of war who were worked - literally - to death. Many thousands are buried deep in the reinforced concrete fortifications.
Please show just one example of such planned and sustained atrocity by the Western allies.
Finally, and without wishing to detract from the industrious and determined nature of modern Germany, if the Western allies were so criminal and so destructive of German industrial, then how did West Germany resurrect itself within the short time of just 15 years. Surely the nasty allies would have ensured that West Germans would suffer and remain firmly under the thumb (like the East Germans were under the Soviets).
----
(This comment - as all my previous comments on this subject excludes the Soviet Union when discussing allied 'crimes').
Complain about this comment
Re post 132, Jukka, there is no moral equivalence (it was said by Max sceptic, my apologies this is the one thing you are right on)
Following the end of the second world war peoples across all of Europe were starving and people continued to die in large numbers due to malnutrition (one of the worst affected countries was Holland post liberation). The allies tried their best to help, it could be argued they could have done more and Germany did suffer during that time. But again there is no comparision between the allies mistakes then and the
pre-planned agrresive war and extermination of millions of people committed by the nazis.
People were displaced on all sides, many Jews were unable to return to their homes. Germans suffered as well, this was the chaos of post war europe.
Mistakes were made in the months after the war, but the allies recognised it and agreed the Marsall Plan in 1947. Even then it did not work as well or as fast as it should, but as a result of this plan and the hard work of the German people we did not see the same situation that occured post first world war. The assistance of the allies continued with the Berlin air lift and Germany did enter a new age of propsperity.
Again I never said the allies did not make mistakes or do bad things over the period of the war and it's aftermath. The difference is they tried hard not to do them. Unlike the nazi regime which always planned to do them and they carried out their plan with ruthless efficiency.
Complain about this comment
To Jukka and others have a good weekend I am off to the lovely city of Barcelona for a couple of days - Europe at it's best (ecxluding Milton Keynes of course!)
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #133
As I recall Tony Blair agreed to a 20% reduction in the UK Rebate when there was last discussion about revising the CAP.
I believe the plan is that the CAP (which was not due for review at the time that the UK Rebate came up for discussion and the 20% reduction agreed!) will be reviewed in 2013 and the remaining UK Rebate will be the UK's quid pro quo offer for removal IF the CAP is reduced to a minimal level.
It should be remebered that the UK Rebate was argued on two grounds - (1) the existence of the CAP which was (and has been) detrimental to the efficiency of the UK's agricultural methods; and (2) the fact that, at the time the UK Rebate was agreed, the UK Economy was 10th in the list of EU Member States GDP.
Clearly #(2) has been completely overturned as the UK is, arguably, either the 2nd Richest or the 4th Richest EU Nation depending upon which tables to which you may refer.
#(1) remains the pain, and it was notable that at the time of the 20% Reduction it was eminently clear that all countries, apart from France, were prepared to agree to the CAP Revision versus the UK Rebate cancellation.
No doubt 2013 will have to be another Waterloo for the French as it is our 3 Billion GDP and the EU ain't going to get it unless the French surrender!!!! ;=))
Complain about this comment
#130 BernardVC
I agree with everything you say, except the francophone superiority complex (unless you only mean the politicians) There again, I don't live in Brabant, but 50 metres from the border with the Grand Duchy, so don't have the same experience. The parallels are similar though; without the Luxembourgish economy, Belgian Luxembourg would be poorer than Albania.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (139) and to jordanbasset:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_budget
I was thinking about the conversation you had on EU budget contributions. I think one thing that goes false when calculating contribution of different countries is that import duties on raw materials and industrial goods and equipment shouldn't be contributed to a certain country's budget contribution.
My reason for this is that as we live in highly networked economy the manufacturing process with most products is cross-national. In example Germany has large scales of raw material processing industries from steel mills to chemicals. The products of these are not however used necessarily in Germany but imported in example to assembly into other EU countries.
The other reason, thought I don't know about legislation so I don't know if this is correct, is that when goods arrive to in example Rotterdam and are from there shipped to Germany, aren't the import duties collected in Holland and thus those duties contributed to Hollands contribution? This would in my opinion explain why Denmark and Netherlands contribute more to EU budget (by calculation of Open Europe) per capita than Germany.
Of course I have no slightest notation on how taking these things into account would change budget contributions. I suspect contributions of countries serving as transportation hubs would decrease and countries with more assembly than process industries to be increased.
Complain about this comment
Rusian patience has expired and I didn't have much in the first place.
jordanbasset @80
with the exception of Russia, Japan and Italy I can think of no other country wanting war
Yes of course in war attrocities were committed and I have no doubt some were done by the allies. But (excluding Russians) they were dwarfed etc.
with the exception of Soviets
MaxSceptic @91
Trying to establish some kind of "moral equivalence" btw the Nazis and the allies is disgusting. With the exception of Soviet Union please tell me who oh but Nazi Germany set out to conquer great swathes of Europe for "living space"
MaxSceptic @109
" the allied were not that good" - "no, they weren't "good". But they (with the exception of the Soviets) were angels... etc.
jordanbasset @126
but what should not be in doubt is the western allies were good guys. who were protecting the world from a murderous regime. they were in a life and death struggle. in which the fate of the world rested. and did what was necessary to win.
but to paraphrase threnodio, we should not forget who were the bad guys
MaxSceptic @91
The firestorms of Drezden and Hamburg...though regrettable in retrospect were part of a pattern of total war ...brought upon themselves
jordanbasset@137
the allies... the difference is they tried hard not to do them (mistakes)
MaxSceptic @136
(this comment - as all my prev. comments on this subject - excludes the Soviet Union.. where discussing allied "crimes"
jordanbasset@86
then there were the millions of allied soldiers, airmen and sailors who gave their lives to bring the nazi terror to an end. You dishonour their memory. They sacrifice enables us to have this discussion.
Complain about this comment
138. At 3:15pm on 31 Oct 2008, jordanbasset wrote:
To Jukka and others have a good weekend I am off to the lovely city of Barcelona for a couple of days - Europe at it's best (ecxluding Milton Keynes of course!)
I totally agree with your opinion of Barcelona, although i shouldn't say that: enjoy my city!
Complain about this comment
I asked an Australian, about their army loss in the 2nd WW. They have a big memorial, he looked up in there. then looked in the web. didn't find so far. Jukka might know.
those "millions of soldiers, airmen and sailors" , jordan basset, that "their sacrifice enables us" and that otherwise you "dishonour their memory"
Britain lost 257,000 - army - in the 2ndWW.
USA ? those "western good guys" "western allied" to who we all own. Jukka, remind me the USA number.
who are those millions then? French army must be. No, this won't make half a million together.
ah! that's the Polish - them, their army loss was counted in millions.
Now I know who we shouldn't forget, and to who jordanbasset and MaxSceptic own.
silly me. I thought it is 8,5 million of those russkies, who did the dirty work.
such a shocking lack of white gloves!
but, since "in a life and death struggle" , good Western guys might forgive us.
for miniscule participation , in their glorious war.
jordanbasset and MaxSceptic will confidently list on the "good guys" a German pastor. saving people. other groups in Europe. handful in each.
28,5 mln Russians - killed in occuptation - because they resisted - that's pea-nuts.
live and learn.
"in which the fate of the world rested"
rested in the western allied, good guys, those reliable hands.
Lucky world.
Who else here - At you! - in this glorious thread (with the exception of jordanbasset and MaxSceptic of course) is so skilled in maths?
Jukka, you are an invaluable source of factual data. How many Russians were re-located to permanently settle in the Eastern Europe post war, as we intriduced into life our evil plan to get more "living space".
Especially like this "living space" need, for Russians.
damn, we were so blood-thirsty. who else but us wanted that war. Jukka will help me in that as well. he has already explained at lengths how Stalin wanted to attack Hitler.
the only sad thing in his arguments is Stalin didn't attack. but on a large scale of history this matters nil. wanted! and didn't. aj aj jaj
wants! and cannot. what a shame
when good westerners strike a deal with the devil - they pursue divine goals of saving the world.
when Stalin strikes a deal with another devil - he doesn't want to buy time, no no, he acts from his villain grounds, no doubt.
And how exactly hard the good allied tried to avoid the mistakes! dear to remember!
the pilots flying to Drezden, virtually turned their wheels off, couldn't stand it, so depressing. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki - blown up by a shaky hesitant hand. Am I doing a mistake? what if I do? oj oj oj
But I am sure that the amount of raped and looted Germans by the dirty Red Army in Germany - exceeds - and ten-fold exceeds - the civillians loss in just these 3 cities, no in even one of them!
a dozen rapings outdwarfed, how to say, and will confidently outdwarf - in all the text books in the West in future. any Drezden no doubt. (does it say in the small print anyplace the looters and rapists were shot, by the Red Army, on the spot? no? that they paid by lives? commandment took measures? nevermind.)
what a pleasant place for a russky a European blog is. who to blame? right, no one, but ourselves. on one high chair broadcasts Jukka, on two others - jordanbasset and MaxSceptic.
from their moral superiority heights.
unattainable by Russians.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila (#141)
It is unclear to me whether Rotterdam, which is the main hub port for the European Continent mainland countries does lead to the Nederlands seeming to contribute more to the EU?
I suspect that it does but I am open to correction. ;=)
Customs Revenues are easily put into one pot and transferred to the EU so it is not as though it is the Dutch tax-payer who is directly contributing.
On the other hand, and one reason why I think the Dutch, above almost all of the original 6 EEC countries, probably always enjoyed their ownership of the Rotterdam Port Customs Revenues as a little golden treasure chest and that the 'loss' of those revenues is a big and always has been a big "give-away" by the Dutch.
Maybe the Dutch get back a lot out of the EU through CAP and Regional Subsidies that offset the loss of the Rotterdam Treasure Chest?
Clearly raw materials bound for Germany accrue no further customs duties so there is no charge upon the Nederlands for receiving the materials and despatching them to Germany for use within the German Manufacturing Sector. That is probably fortunate for Germany as their EU Contributions might even be seen to be larger that they actually appear to be.
As someone has already mentioned in Mark's next topic, without Germany there probably would not be a functioning EU as the Germany economy is undoubtedly the powerhouse that keeps the EU in the the green.
Complain about this comment
I am glad to see that political discourse is alive and well in Europe. This discussion is both very broad (geographically) and deep (historical). It is easy to forget that the comments sprang from an article about Ms. Merkel.
Since the U. S. has been mentioned more than once, I would like to contribute a few comments. I am an ordinary citizen of the U. S. I would probably be described as a conservative although I will not claim to be a Republican or Democrat. Instead, I wish we had more political parties like most of the European states, since I cannot see how a country as large and diverse as ours can be adequately represented by only 2 parties. RE: The credit crisis, both parties are responsible and a plague on both their houses.
I am afraid that Germans will be dealing with their country's role in WWII for a long time. The reason I say so is because I am from one of the southern states that was on the losing side of our Civil War. As one of the primary issues was the enslavement of Africans, we continue to be reminded of our guilt even though the vast bulk of southerners were poor farmers and tradesmen and the actual number of slaveholders was very small.
I voted for Bush and understand the reasons for our involvement in the Afghan war but do not understand Iraq. I wish us to be disentangled from both as soon as possible. In fact, I wish that the whole idea of a "superpower's" "duty" as "world policeman" could be dropped and our government would concentrate on our own affairs, leaving the rest of the world to do the same. I doubt this will happen, no matter who our next president is.
I am uncomfortable with an unequal "special relationship" with the U. K. I assume it must proceed from the fact that Britain was the only launching pad for U. S. forces into Europe in WWII and, in Churchill's words, we became "mixed up a bit", which continues to this day. That, and of course, our common language. Please bear in mind that up until that time, Great Britain was the superpower and the U. S. only a third-rate world power with a population still primarily engaged in agriculture, valuable mostly for its army and the fact that its factories were beyond the range of Axis warplanes. The American cemeteries in various places in Europe are mostly filled with young farm boys who probably never travelled 50 miles from home before the war.
I offer apologies for this current financial crisis, for what it's worth. By way of explanation, you must understand that our government and the financial interests have conspired to encourage U. S. citizens to borrow, rather than to save or invest. Bankers even encouraged loan applicants to exaggerate their household incomes greatly in order to secure loans on homes that they could not possibly afford. Almost daily, I receive offers for high-interest credit cards which I cannot possibly need. I have one credit card with a much higher spending limit than I need and I use it as seldom as possible. If I were to cancel it, they would lower my credit score.
We do not have a national health care scheme outside of those for the poor, the retired, and military veterans. These are not administrated particularly well. All others who can afford to do so must rely on private insurance, which is not perfect, but, as taxpayers, we fear the mess our goverment would make.
Regarding the European Union, which appears the central discussion point here, that matter is so complicated from what I have read that I cannot possible figure it out from here, and I have tried. Regarding comparisons to the United States, we do have 50 separate states, regarded as "sovereign" but the Federal government is supreme, make no mistake. States have definite powers but they are limited. In any conflict between the federal and state levels of government, the federal usually wins.
I don't mean to butt in, and I hope my comments regarding my country are helpful.
Complain about this comment
Alice (#142 and #144)
I will say it again for the record.
If it were not for the Red Army of Soviet Russia, Europe and the world would be a very different place from what it is today.
The sacrifice of millions of soldiers (both men and women) who died in battle or in capitivity was extraordinary and alongside them, the deaths of civilians killed on the Soviet side adds to the poignancy.
Alas, the world strives to never forget the Holocaust and the loss of somewhere between 3 and 7 million people in the NAZI Extermination Camps and other places of execution but we, in the West, do not ever celebrate the sacrifice of 20 million Russian souls.
The simple reason for this is the propaganda of the post-1945 Cold War Years.
From 1945 until the present day, Russia's amazing feat of being one of the only two invaded countries (the other being the former-Yugoslavia) to successfuly repulse the Germans has been reduced to the backpages of all history writings as the world concentrated on it's fear of the spread of Communism and the threat that an emergent Soviet Empire posed to the West. ( Jukka, please note I do not mention Finland's amazing Continuation War feats only because your nation was not repulsing the Germans!!)
Alas, the success of Gorbachev in dismantling the Soviet Communist Regime through the wisdom of recognising that stalemate was not good for Russia was never recompensed by fully bringing Russia in from the cold and treating the Russians, as a people, with the respect they are due.
Yes, Russia invaded the Baltic States, Yes Russia unsuccessefully tried to recapture a part of Finland and fought a losing war with the Finns and, yes the Yalta Pact gave Eastern Europe to the domination of the Communists of the Warsaw Pact countries for far too long, but I still think that 20 million souls lost to death to save ALL of Europe by defeating Germany was a sacrifice that should be praised and applauded.
Sadly we don't and all because we, in the West, have grown up with the Spectre of Russia invading Western Europe.
Why they would want to I have never understood - Russia has far more untapped natural resources available to it than Europe and yet we still fear an emergent Russia invading Europe.
On a practical note, I think the West, and in particular the USA, missed a trick in not treating Putin's Russia with more respect after Yeltsin's death - now the world is going to have to face down the Kremlin Hawks who want and seek confrontation with the West. This is the West's biggest error of judgement of recent times and it will be to everyone's regret as, undoubtedly, a new Cold War is entirely possible.
In some ways in an effort to contradict Jukka to show that Germany was the bad guy, some people have inadvertently recalled the bad things that Russia did but that is history and in War and in defence of Peace before and after the War sometimes the greater good is served by sacrificing decency and good behaviour.
It does not make the Russians good or bad people, it just makes them human beings trying to do the best for their country . . . . and in the same circumstance and in the same situations, would we not have done the same things in seeking the greater good by firstly defending oneself against an Aggressor Germany and then puling out all the stops in order to defeat Germany. A Germany that was publicly avowed to simply kill Russians as sub-humans in those war years.
Complain about this comment
WebAliceinwonderland @142 and 144
Firstly, I didn't intend to insult the memory millions of Russians and others within the Soviet Union who died in the war against Nazi Germany.
My sincere apologies if that is the impression I gave.
In my argument with Jukka_Rohila I put to him that the 'western' allies did not intend to commit war crimes, while the Nazis did.
Unfortunately one cannot exonerate the Soviet Union from such charges. At the start of the Second World War the peoples under the rule of Stalin and his henchmen had just emerged from two awful decades that included the Famine caused by forced collectivisation and the Great Terror. This same regime then started an expansionist war against Finland, while cynically agreeing a non-aggression pact with Hitler. (Stalin's 'bought time' wasn't used very well as he refused to believe that Hitler would attack him).
Stalin's many crimes against his own people and those that he conquered (Katyn 1939, Warsaw 1944, Berlin 1945) are well documented.
Some newer books that may be of interest include Antony Beevor's Berlin: The Downfall 1945 and Simon Sebag Montefiore's Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar.
Peace.
Complain about this comment
Responding to Mendemus in #147, we are told over here that the USSR lost approximately 1/3 of its population. I would further agree that the Cold War, following so closely behind WWII, has obscured that. We are also told that until it could not possibly be denied, Stalin refused to believe that Hitler had indeed broken the "Pact of Steel", marking intelligence reports of German activity as provocations.
Some have also stated that the horrific USSR fatalities can partly be laid at Stalin's feet as he had decimated his officer corps in his purges, crippling the Soviet military leadership. This is also evident in Russia's loss of life in the Winter War against gritty and determined Finland. It is my understanding that the USSR technically won that war.
I hope Putin & Company do not turn back the clock and that the Russian people will be allowed a long-overdue chance of prosperity.
Complain about this comment
mlmiller1959 @ #149
Hi and welcome and thanks for your ealier Post. The Americans have no need to apologise - they do what they must to defend themselves from what they see as threats to them and their way of life. If I were American, I would want my President to do whatever was necessary to protect me - even if it gives the US bad press.
In the absence of Jukka and Alice to offer you a reply on behalf of Finland and Russia respectively . . . this is my opinion:-
The Winter War of 1939 - 1940 was arguably won by Russia because Finland did cede territory and signed the Moscow Peace Treaty (1940).
The Continuation War of 1941-144 was a real war of attrition and it was not until 1944 that Finland started to lose because the German support was waning and again the Finns agreed to an Armistice and ceded territory and resources under the Moscow Armistice (1944).
Arguably the war was not won but a stalemate that advantaged the Russians.
Actually, something that is overlooked and not often mentioned is that the stalemate of both wars with the Finnish troops firstly showed Stalin that aggressive war in the middle of winter could be used against the Germans and, secondly, the Russian losses and military defeats proved to Stalin that he did need an Officer Corps and so from 1942 onwards the Russian Army started to decorate their troops and the new younger Officers like Zukov were allowed to wear brocade and the Regiments given battle honours - a very uncommunistic behaviour implemented as a needs must to achieve honour before dishonour.
No one could say that Stalin was not a pragmatist and in fact he was so much more pragmatic than Hitler that, in Stalin and Churchill, the world probably had the best counterfoils for the most destructive megalomaniac the world has ever produced.
Sadly Uncle Joe, for all his bad press due to post-War Western Nations propaganda has never been seen to be anything other than cruel Dictator and the West still does not look back to the fact that it was Stalin who refused to leave Moscow and showed his true courage to his nation by saying he would rather die in Moscow than run . . . a phenomenon in his own lifetime - just like Winston Churchill!
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (150) and mlmiller1959 (149):
Actually I was trying to think on how to write an epilogue to the saga of world war 2 discussion without irritating new replies nor offending anybody and keeping my position. But of course this can wait as there is nothing more interesting and more important to discuss than the war... ;)
You are right about the winter war and continuation war. In both wars Soviet Union was victorious. The Finnish view however is that both wars were defensive victorious as they ended on Soviet Union not succeeding on its aims. The country stayed independent without occupation and democracy and market economy were also saved. From those countries who were in war, Helsinki was the only capital besides London and Moscow that was not occupied.
Now the aim of the Soviet Union in both wars was to occupy the whole country and to overthrow the government. Actually there were even worser fears in population on what would happen if the war was lost, one possibility could have been the exposition of whole nation to Siberia. In view of history this could have been an end result as Volga Germans Chechen's both were relocated during Soviet times. There however is no evidence that this could have happened.
In case of winter war Finland consented to peace when military estimated that there were only few weeks left before the front would collapse totally. For luck Stalin didn't know this and he was preoccupied by threat of France and Britain coming into aid of Finland (actually not to aid, but to occupy northern Finland and secure mines in Kiruna) and as he had bigger worries in the central Europe. Of course Germans pressured Finns to concede to peace as soon as possible as they guaranteed that all lost would be reclaimed later.
In continuation war the situation was little bit more difficult. In 1941 it seemed that Hitler and Nazi Germany had good chances on winning the whole war and as Soviet Union had occupied Baltic's, the only side to choose if war was to brake was with Germany. I say this because if Finland had not allied with Germany there was a real threat of Germany making an offensive against Finland. So the war started with both Finnish and Germans fighting together. Eventually after Germans had suffered losses in eastern front, the government and military started to look for peace, however as long as Germany had forces near Finland, peace was out of reach. After Stalins last attack to brake Finnish front hadn't succeeded, he agreed on peace with Finland.
Now, in these discussions that we had about world war, I think one thing to note is that Finnish view about the war may differ because even thought Finland in the continuation war was in Axis side for conditional reasons, it didn't loose completely but didn't win either. Finland wasn't totally innocent as, well when you are fighting along with Nazis... This may make my view gray regarding the world war and detach from the general war.
Alice usually quotes poems and so do I. This is from the book Unknown Soldier by Vaino Linna, describing the end result of the war...
"They had lost. They had got their punishment. For where had it come, there certainly would be many kinds of answers. However, it had at least one positive thing. Destiny had released them from all that responsibility by giving them a beating. What would it have mean to win. Responsibility. Responsibility for actions which one day would have demanded retribution. (narrator)"
PS. Welcome also from my behalf also. As Menedemus said earlier, Americans have no need to apologize, to that I whole heartily concur and add that same goes for all in here. Facts, views and discussion, no retribution.
PS2. Buffet23 was by the way right about me and the war. Even if I don't start a thread about it I whole heartily jump into one. That I try to stop or at least decrease as the fact seems to be, Don't mention the war!
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic
and Menedemus
and mlmiller1959 (From Russia with love)
but especially MaxSceptic
Look here. I was looking found it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJxR3mF47_Y&feature=related
I will just see if moderators behave and then will translate in the next post or something.
This will give you a feel what Russians did in that war, and how they feel about it.
I can write a million lines, but these 5 minutes will tell you all.
If your PC speaks. Mine doesn't. But I know what's in there.
And overall, have a look at the man. Here is a Russian to you, to consider, because you only see our various muzzles and politicians, and i am afraid your picture is a bit distorted.
Not very handsome man, and not very high or anything, but he symbolises Russia.
In the recent "name of Russia" this small man beat up all tsars from both dynasties, various Peter the 1st and Catherine the greatest, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Lenin and Stalin by one hand, regret to tell you Gorbi in the national mindset as well, to say nothing of minor Tchaikovsky-s and Zhukov and Gagarin etc.
Complain about this comment
Vladimir Vysotsky
SOS
We're going under.
In neutral waterland!
We can, for a year, for the weather not care
And - if they will spot us
Locators will howl
Of our
Bad luck.
Save! our souls.
We are hallucinating from the lack of air.
save. our. souls.
Hurry up to us!
Do hear us, on the mainland!
Our call is lower, lower
And horror
Cuts our souls
Into two parts.
And aortas are breaking apart.
But - up there - don't even dare!
There, along the port side
There, along the star board
Is blocking the passage
Horned death.
- - -
But here, below - we are free.
For this is - our world.
Are we nuts, or what? to surface in the mine field?
"Hey, stop the hysterics, we'll smash into the shore" said the
Commander.
We'll surface at dawn.
An order is an order.
To die, in the bloom of the years -
Far better at day-light!
Our way on the water is not marked
We have nothing to mark it with.. nothing..
But do remember!
Us.
Here, we've got up.
But there is no way out.
Now - "full speed at the dockyards",
Nerves are pulled tight.
End to all sorrows,
ends and beginnings
We are tearing towards the piers
Instead of
Torpedoes.
Save! Our souls!
We are hallucinating, from the lack of air.
Save Our Souls
Hurry up to us
Do hear us on the mainland
Our call
is lower, lower
And fear
Is cutting our souls
In-to two-parts.
Save
Our
Souls
Save
Our
Souls
Sa
There, on the
Complain about this comment
#130, BernardVC,
Oh my here we go again, I'm just glad you live in your perfectly boring Flemish paradise, LOL, and I live in friendly picturesque Wallonia, as your comments are not just insulting but mostly pure fantasy.
As for wonderful Flemish management I've worked for both Flemish and Walloon managers and to be quite honest, in the main I found the Walloon ones were better as they tended to think far more laterally. Whilst some workers have been very lazy due to the rampant Socialism of Di Rupo, managerial skills are something that Wallonia has despite him, it's just a shame that the politicians are from the bottom of the barrel across the whole of Belgium.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic,
mlmiller1959 (from russia with love)
menedemus darling
and Jukka_Rohila (don't stand in the way btw Russia and Germany and you won't be beaten. besides, you weren't. light scratch.)
Mods licked away Youtube direct reference, like a cow passing by again. If your PC speaks, dial up in the Youtube search line
visotsky SOS
not normal Vysotsky but vi
I tried this is enough. Will give you a black and white picture of a man's face in half-turn, states 4:25 min
placed by "Iliaden" someone
views 35,315
____________________
I don't think I can recommend you a better way to get the feel of Russian 2ndWW.
I looked, thought about it, and I found.
I can write a million lines but these 4 minutes 25 will tell you all there is.
Besides, it might be instructive to simply look at the man. Verse above is "flowers".
Words, mean nothing.
"Berries" - are there.
If you wish to know how Russians fought, and what they feel about the war - look up there.
Besides, this not very handsome man stands up for "Russia", as simple as that.
In the recent "name of Russia" project he has overcome all tsars from both dynasties combined, Peter the firsts and catherine the greatest, beat up Stalin and Lenin by one hand, about various minor competitors like Zhukov, Tolstoy and Gagarin we won't even speak, to say nothing about other impertinent applicants to the symbol of Russia position like Gagarin and Dostoyevsky and Tchaikovsky and other polished and full of accomplishments etc.
Since you normally see only various military muzzles and politicians from our side, I think your picture of us just might be somewhat distorted.
Complain about this comment
In addition to @155
Sorry, had to put the verse in Youtube itself. In "comments", under the film screen, click "view all comments", and "Alice" will be in the beg.
(In an upside down order of appearance, of course.)
But what to do moderators here licked my translation of the verse away. I guess they watch for the authorship rights of the original in Russian (50 yrs).
So either you wait 22 years more or go to Youtube.
Complain about this comment
Alice,
Thank you.
Fortunately I am literate (just enough!) to enjoy watching dancing, listening to music and singing, reading and having a good conversation. I also like good food and a good drink.
My view of Russians is not that of a Russian Bear armed with a gun but a human being who can enjoy the simple pleasures in life the same as me.
If I understood the Russian language, your YouTube snippet would be grrrreat! But, sadly, I don't. Your translation is of great help though! :o)
Like the young guy that Inga gave me the link to singing about the sentiments of Georgia, I imagine this young man is singing of his feelings about a Russian naval attack or disaster? I see and hear the passion and I can empathise with that. It is enough that I can do that.
I understand that it must be hard for you to read so many comments about Russia and the Second World War and forget that Russia also has a history of great writers, fantastic musicians and composers, and fabulous ballet dancers and not just a nation shaped by war, famine and disasters.
Complain about this comment
ChrisPBacon: Where is the line that defines poverty in Germany, say in euros per week or per month ? Do you consider Merkel to be a bad chancellor because she governs as a typical CDU chancellor might, or because she governs from within a grand CDU/CSU/SDP coalition ? Would you have preferred to see her govern from within the 'Jamaica coalition' ?
WebAliceinwonderland: I can only echo Menedemus' eloquent comment 147. Just as children in the USSR were taught to be scared of the NATO bogeyman, so were children in the West taught to be scared of the Soviet bogeyman. Perhaps it will take further years for us to come to terms with our bogeyman fears.
mlmiller1959: Welcome, and thank you for your perspectives. You may be surprised by reading the last paragraph of this archived page to learn the percentage of slaveholders amongst the free population in 1860.
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptic (148):
Intent. You have captured the very essence of this debate. In my view western allies committed war crimes with very clear intent to do so. Now if we go back to my original arguments written to jordanbasset at my comment 132.
1) Expulsion of Germans were planned and agreed by all Allied powers in Potsdam Agreement which called for orderly population transfers. The problem here is that the leaders and the states behind should have known that relocating over 10 million people has high costs. You might argue that the intent of the allies were not to put 5% to 10% of relocated Germans to their deaths, but that is what happened. Is it a war crime or criminal negligence from the part of allies, that is good question.
3) Labeling German POWs as Disarmed Enemy Combatants is a clear violation of Geneve convention add to this years spent in forced labor in inhuman conditions and you got a war crime. There is also noway on rationalizing on trying to circumvent Geneva convention nor is there no economic rational on using POWs as forced labor. If the intent of allies were to repair and Germany repay for damages done to other countries then putting POWs to work in German industries would have been the right answer. In here what happened was a clear war crime with an intent to do it.
2 and 4) The Morgenthau plan was planned well before the German final defeat and thus was no accident. Actually Morgenthau plan and its implementation as JCS 1067 were just a compromise of different views. We should remember that at the time Germany and Germans were viewed as an problem an a final solution to this problem was debated: even castration of all German men was proposed.
What the Morgenthau plan contained was the idea to to make Germany a pastoral state. To make German pastoral state German heavy industries would have to be destroyed.
Just few quotes from Wikipedia to illustrate:
Unhappy with the Morgenthau-plan consequences, in a March 18, 1947 report former U.S. President Herbert Hoover remarked: "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it."[3]
The Western powers worst fear by now was that the poverty and hunger would drive the Germans to Communism. General Lucius Clay stated "There is no choice between being a communist on 1,500 calories a day and a believer in democracy on a thousand."
When you design a policy that results into a possible death of tens of millions of peoples you are in territory of human crimes. When you are treating occupied civilians in your own occupation zone worser than the other dictatorial occupier which had suffered more in the war, then there is no denying that there was strong intent.
Now for luck the implementation of Morgenthau plan and JCS1067 were tried to water down in many levels and thus they were not implemented in their full extend. That still doesn't exonerate allies, its the same thing as if after the first train load of Jewish had been gassed in death camp, the official policy would have been revised. Serious crime against humanity would still have been committed.
The problem with this and other conversations about the war is that either people are misinformed or they hold a dogma about the war that inhibits them from looking it with clear eyes. The fact is, where is there is crime, there has to judgment, if you turn your eye away from view crime you will take eye away from the other, if you defend one crime you will eventually diminish all crimes.
The countries that part took in world war 2 all committed war crimes and some committed serious crimes against humanity. Acknowledging it doesn't make Nazi Germany any better, but what it means that there are essentially no good in war, no side is innocent.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #159
You are reading textual history as if the black and white of what you read reveals the whole truth before your eyes.
In reality, the Europe of 1945 was a complete desolation with no productivity of foodstuffs and the basics for living were non-existent.
Many, many Germans (both Military and Civilian) had been fleeing westwards for months in preparation for the end of the war that came in the Spring of 1945.
This led to a sizeable proportion of mouths to feed to the west of Germany and less of a problem for the Russians who had their own problems to deal with.
Eisenhower had closed the access to the west early on and the decision was simply one of trying to feed everyone but with not enough to sustain life or send some of the German mouths back eastwards into the hands of the Russians - leaving the US and Allied powers the capability of feeding sufficient to maintain as many lives as possible.
You see it as a crime but you were not there and would not understand the choice as you look back with the aid of hindsight.
Europe was dying from the scorched earth policy of the Germans and the Allies had to be cruel to be as kind as they could in the circumstances. Damned for what they did they would have been damned if they hadn't.
That is why there was forced repatriation of Germans.
From the cosy civilised society armchairs of 2008, we can look back and see it either as a crime or as a hard choice between that of a rock and very hard place.
I am not sure that, in the same circumstances, even in these enlightened times that we think we live in, that the officials in charge would not make exactly the same cruel choice of forced repatriation.
As to the Morgenthau Plan this was just the bare draft of what eventually became the Marshall Plan and the partition of Germany which had been first discussed and agreed between Great Britain, Russia and the USA at Yalta.
Thankfully, Eisenhower pushed for the Partition of Germany that was to actually derive from the Morgenthau Plan and actually brought more Germans under the control of the USA and her allies and that many more mouths to feed.
In many respects it was the generosity and kindness of the Americans and not their "war crimes" (that you allege) that saved many lives and kept more of Germany from out of the direct control of the Russians.
The American Marshall Plan was then offered to those European Nations who wanted the cash and despite its requirements of US influence (such as the French having to watch Hollywood films! Gee Whizz!!) the reality is that it was the Americans who saved Europe from dying from starvation in 1945/1946 and allowed for Europe to recover from the ashes of the World War II.
Complain about this comment
Europe. Loss. As submitted by countries, visiting Moscow on the 60th anniversary of the end of the disaster.
Army
Red Army 8,600,000
Germany 3,050,000
Austria 230,000
Romania 200,000
Hungary 140,000
Finland 82,000
Bulgaria 10,000
Britain 326,000
Jugoslavia 300,000
Checkoslovakia 150,000
Poland 100,000
France 250,000
Belgium 12,000
Luxembourg 4,000
Italy 330,000
Norway 6,000
Denmark 4,000
Holland 12,000
Greece 20,000
Civillians
SU terr. under occup. 19,400,000
Poland 4,200,000
Germany 2,450,000
Jugoslavia 1,400,000
France 350,000
Hungary 280,000
Romania 260,000
Checkoslovakia 215,000
Holland 198,000
Greece 140,000
Austria 104,000
Italy 80,000
Belgium 76,000
Britain 62,000
Bulgaria 10,000
Norway 4,000
Finland 2,000
Luxembourg 1,000
Denmark 1,000
Also:
Poland said it has a separate number to add on top. 1,500,000 dead and vanished in uprisings against Soviet Union and Germany combined, starting from 1939 "to this day".
Germany said their army/military loss number is particular is currently being reviewed and will reflect more millions likely,
by the next anniversary.
Complain about this comment
PS
Spain visited but didn't give their numbers, being reviewed.
Baltics didn't attend, likewise most of Red Army ex-constituencies, in the mood they wish to have nothing in common with russkies and their damn victory (ex. Ukraine and Georgia).
So I guess it's all ours.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @160, I would also add to this that not only German civillians ran to the West as you wrote, long before the end of the war - this was on your side of the fence and really I am not aware.
When the metal slammed down we were cut of comms for decades on. And the war wasn't analysed by a combined effort once since that. No round tables - to this day.
Surprise surprise. West missed the time "Yeltsin to Putin transition" as you wrote, and now we seem in bad form to sit down together yet again!
Trying now to compare numbers and check what in fact took place "over yonder".
What I wanted to add is ha ha civillians! we had whole German armies running away from us days before victory was singed,
to surrender to anybody on the planet, to flying sauces green cockroaches!
-anybody - but not to surrender to the Russians. Zhukov was at fits that whole armies flee to France, because he liked to collect their banners. Germans, however, became very quick-feet-ed, as - unlike you in the West - they were very aware what they've done at homes and villages and families of those very soldiers, to who to surrender.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @159,
You say: " In my view western allies committed war crimes with very clear intent to do so."
I reject this view as a gross distortion of events.
We shall have to agree to disagree.
I can only conclude by saying that any comparison between Nazi crimes and those committed by the western allies is odious.
Complain about this comment
Total civillian loss in USSR countries - 28 mln. This is more than 19, because accounts for places not occupied but simply bombed, and Leningrad in particular.
____________
Menedemus, curious you know Stalin allowed epaulettes and decorative badges etc. to lift up the army spirits, when we were cornered in war. Now you can enhance your knowledge with the info he got so chickened out and scared for his skin, that he also allowed church back!!!!
Opened all churches closed up for good since revolution, and converted into various swimming pools and warehouses, called priests back, but found nearly nil, because he forgot he put them all into concentration camps. So - released all priests! Of all religions combined! Asked them to hold services immediately. In Leningrad alone down town at once was opened our mosque, sinagogue, baptist church, lutheran! catholic and our old prehistoric buddhist temple. to say nothing of Rus. Orthodox. He wanted absolutely all to prey for our liberation and preservation of precious him.
Around Moscow down-town, before the battle for Moscow - the first priests were called back. He allowed and asked for "the cross walk" - carrying of the Kazan madonna icon, around down town Moscow - they walked full 3 circles! Because it saved us in the battle with mongols at Kulikov field, and in the Borodino battle with Napoleon. So he decided it's been tried twice and ought to help the 3rd time.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @159
I should add that I disagree with your conclusion:
"but what it means that there are essentially no good in war, no side is innocent."
This is a fallacy.
Such sentiments have been the 'mantra' of well-meaning but naive pacifists since the dawn of time. All it does is ensure that evil prevails.
Complain about this comment
@158
Poverty in the EU is defined as having less than 50% of the average income.
Poverty is defined as when you have less than approx. 740 euros per month.
This definition was REDUCED by the Govt. from 931 euros and there was still MORE poverty than before!
I think Merkel is a bad chancellor because she does nothing!
Everything she does comes from her ministries and her vision of the Health funds(which essentially is money coming in from taxes/insurance contributions and will be distrubuted to the heath insurers on with a fixed sum per person-similar to the principle of the pool tax!) which is a burocraticnightmare,in which the insured have to pay even more than before(in germany workers get screwed enough).
In germany there are about 6,5 million jobs with very low pay(less than 9,30 euros per hour!) which contributes to poverty a lot here.
2 million workers earn less than 5 euros(before tax!) an hour!
Complain about this comment
Alice @ #65
Yes, I do know about the reactivation of the Russion Orthodox churches expressly at Stlin's permission.
He was a supreme pragmatist and knew that the people were tutrning to God in those dark days anyway but he specifically allowed the Churches to open and the Priests to administer to the faithful.
There was a TV Series made for British Television called "The World at War" which use archive film material and televised narratives from eyewitnesses who intersperse the narrative by our now-late famous actor, Laurence Olivier, who described the event of the Second WOrld War form the rise of the NAZI party to the fall of Berlin and the defeat of Japan.
I do not vouch for "The World at War" being absolutely unbiased but I do recall that in one of the episodes describing the imminent fall of Moscow and the first German Retreat that Stalin did give sustenance to the souls of his people by allowing religion to resurface. And thank goodness for that small mercy - they must have been dark and very bleak times!
Complain about this comment
To MaxSceptix (164) and (166):
The problem you have is that you insist that acknowledging one crime automatically means comparing it into another crime. What you want to do is to look history and learn from it, if you close your eyes from some crimes you are bound to mistake them.
Its not fallacy to say that there is no good in war. There is no good in war. With luck people mixed in the mids of war can stay in the gray area, with bad luck they are staunchly stuck in the dark side. Acknowledging that isn't idiocy. It doesn't ensure that evil prevails, it guarantees that we see the evil laying in all of us.
We disagree on this subject.
To Menedemus (160):
This is not about us, this is not about what we would have done in the very same situation. This is about looking history objectively and trying to learn from it. If people would actually read history and not just look on quick facts some thing like the whole Iraq war and Iraq re-construction scam could have been avoided.
Now 1945 was a good year in comparison. The problematic years for Germans were 1946 and -47.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_and_German_POWs
To quote:
General Lucius Clay, then Deputy to General Eisenhower, stated: ?I feel that the Germans should suffer from hunger and from cold as I believe such suffering is necessary to make them realize the consequences of a war which they caused.[12]
General Lucius Clay stated in October 1945 that:?undoubtedly a large number of refugees have already died of starvation, exposure and disease?. The death rate in many places has increased several fold, and infant mortality is approaching 65 percent in many places. By the spring of 1946, German observers expect that epidemics and malnutrition will claim 2.5 to 3 million victims between the Oder and Elbe.[14]
"The German food situation became worst during the very cold winter of 1946-1947, when German calorie intake ranged from 1,000-1,500 calories per day, a situation made worse by severe lack of fuel for heating.[20] Average adult calorie intake in U.S was 3,200-3,300, in UK 2,900 and in U.S. Army 4,000.[21]"
"The historian Nicholas Balabkins notes that the Allied restrictions placed on German steel production, and their control over to where the produced coal and steel was delivered, meant that offers by Western European nations to trade food for desperately needed German coal and machinery were rejected. Neither the Italians nor the Dutch could sell the vegetables that they had previously sold in Germany, with the consequence that the Dutch had to destroy considerable proportions of their crop. Denmark offered 150 tons of lard a month; Turkey offered hazelnuts; Norway offered fish and fish oil; Sweden offered considerable amounts of fats. The Allies were however not willing to let the Germans trade.[23]"
How much more is needed to show you that hunger and actions taken by allied in Germany were to punish the population or take revenge?
And no. Marshall plan wasn't continuation to Morgenthau plan. The US administration was divided into to two blocks, those who were anti-German like Morgenthau and Eisenhower and those who wanted to follow more human like, those included in example General Patton.
Right after the war allied chose to follow hard line. Later on when that line was noted not to be working, the restrictions on German economy were lifted and plans like Marshall's were put together.
Now the problem is that what happened from 1945 to 1947 was the responsibility of allied occupiers. All of it. They made choices that led to people to suffer and to their deaths. They had other alternatives put they chose to use hard line on Germans to punish them all collectively. If that isn't wrong, if that isn't a human crime then what is? I would like to add that it wasn't the Marshall Plan that took Germany back, it was the uplifting of restrictions on German economy that were put by allied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_economic_miracle
The problem here is you have to look at history at whole. You just can't leave stuff out. If there is a human crime, you condemn that crime, always, if you don't do that you are half way to either Guantanamo or to be gassed.
Complain about this comment
# 160 Menedemus
A good summoning up of the situation after the second world war. It is very true that American cash and resources saved Europe from catastrophe.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #169
I am sorry but you are seeing in black and white and defining what you see as the absolutism of someone who has the benefit of hindsight. I think you read articles and draw conclusions that are not based upon the reality of the time and place but impose your 21st Century idealism upon events that are beyond your understanding.
Can you not see that in 1945, the common view of everyone in Europe was that the cause of the famine and total destruction of the infrastructure of France, the Benelux Countries, Italy, Germany itself as far as the River Elbe and beyond was that "the Germans were responsible?"
Of course, with hindsight, we know that it was the nature of war and it was not Nazis who had been destroying whole villages such as Lidice and Oradur-sur-Glane, or executing the 1944/45 Scorched Earth Policy, or starving and maltreating prisoners in the camps such as Belsen captured by the Allied troops . . . it was Germans acting upon orders to do so.
Faced with the task of salvaging what they could from the wreckage of Europe and the famines of 1945 and 1946/1947 - the Allied warrior-administrators had to do what they thought best for all of the living.
I think it was only natural that sympathy for the Germans at that time was secondary to feeding everyone else or trying to help everyone else get themselves fed, watered and provisioned.
As time moved on the harshness with which the Germans were being treated was replaced with sympathy but it took at least two years to move from them having to "take the pain" to being treated with some dignity.
I don't think that the decisions of the Americans and British or French were particularly good but they were the best options taken in the worst of all possible scenarios - a totally devastated Western Europe devoid of all human sympathy for the Germans after a Total War.
You choose to read about those days? articles written on the Wikipedia by people who were not there and had to experience those events and presume that they could do better. You have that luxury as you are living in a world that, by comparison is a million times more civilised, but you don't know of real starvation other than what your read or see on television, you do not know of the hardships faced by the civilians living in France, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Yugoslavia and you do not understand there anger towards the Germans at that time . . . . . .
What you do is postulate that you would do better and that is hypocritical.
You entirely miss the point - if the Allies treated the Germans kindly and "innocent" civilians died from starvation, the Allies would have had been criticised unmercifully until this day.
The Allies may have discussed things like castration and German pacification and such things but they were never implemented for all I know but I have never seen any evidence of this actually being pursued. Nor have I seen anything that indicates to me that the Morgenthau Plan was any more than an initial plan for the Partition of Germany that had already been agreed at Yalta between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
The use of Captured Prisoners of War to rebuild some of the European Infrastructure was essential (who would you have used?), as was the forced repatriation of many, many Germans back across into Russian administered Germany ? but again, I suggest the choice was simply the lesser of two evils.
To try and correlate the best efforts of the Allies in 1945-1947 as war crimes with the horrors during the Second World War committed by Germans on the orders of the NAZI regime is a travesty of the truth.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (171):
I'm sorry, but then you abandon humanistic idealism what you get is such travesties as holocaust and overall suffering and dying of all civilians in the war. Essentially, when you abandon such idealism, you are no better than Nazis or Communists.
You say that we from hindsight can't understand or judge the past from our own standards. That maybe what we have to acknowledge that even in 1945 there were many voices that didn't accept plans drawn up for the future of Germany and who saw the treatment of Germans as wrong thing to do.
You also say that the allies had no choices. No, they had choices and their choice was to abandon idealism and revert to usage of the very same methods that they were fought against. This, as I said before, was acknowledges even then.
If you judge Germans and their crimes done at the war, you have no choice but to acknowledge and condemn all crimes done at the war and after the war. If you don't do that then you are falling to victors justice.
Now if we look at the post war Europe in 1945, I must disagree with many things strongly. For once western European infrastructure wasn't destroyed badly. Yes, many downtowns of many cities were nothing else than a pile of ruble, but power generation and networks, roads and railroads, and factories were largely intact. Even Germany that allied had bombed had 70-80% of its infrastructure intact. What that is saying is that there was no need for forced labor and if there were, then the labor should have been used in German industries to produce industrial and infrastructure goods and materials. The thing is, in western Europe infrastructure wasn't destroyed at the scales of scorched earth policy and especially in Germany no real infrastructure was destroyed.
The Morgenthau plan was put in motion in post-war Germany and destruction and repatriation of industrial plants and works were stopped only in 1951 and all restriction lifted from German industries in 1955.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindustrialization#Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_industrial_plans_for_Germany
You don't get A+ with this kind of treatment...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/03/uk.freedomofinformation
My point where I remain that what the allied chose to do wasn't the only option they had. Yes of course things could have been lot worse and its luck that policies were revised, that still doesn't mean that you can just forget on what happened then. If you do that you are doing a disservice to the history. You are also doing a disservice to all other people who suffered and died in the war. You either judge all, or don't judge anybody. I rather judge and condemn all than try to find pure excuses for unexcused actions.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ 172
I am sorry that you do not understand me.
I certainly do not understand you.
I find that your idealism is laudable but, in the stark realities of 1945, I think that idealism had to be replaced by pragmatism and that, where you have read that 70-80% of the German Infrastructure was intact, this is simply a fallacy that you choose to have read and believed.
In the dark days of March 1945 the head of the German Manufacturing and Engineering War Effort, Albert Speer, went to Hitler and told him that the war in Europe was lost as Germany had no oil fuel to speak of and that the infrastructure of Germany was less than 15% of minimum capacity needed to maintain a war - the German War Effort had gone to to Total War Manufacture in 1942 and the capability of Germany in 1945 to produce aircraft and munitions was finally at zero.
Germany was on it's leather uppers and had no self-sufficiency to continue the war.
To argue that the Allies should have put Germany back on its feet immediately after having defeated her in a Total War which would have inevitably had resulted in continued starvation of the liberated peoples of the Western European Nations would have been crass, idiotic and something for which the Allied Troops, themselves, would not have condoned.
As it is the Germans showed remarkable fortitude and recovered from 1951 onwards and today have no apparent resentment for the way they were treated by the Allied Forces in the immediate aftermath of 1945.
Thus, I wonder if you are deliberately seeking to find post-war crimes committed by the Allied Forces in Europe when in fact there was just grim reality and a necessary pragmatism required for doing the best for the majority in the worst of times and conditions.
Trying to correlate the post-war efforts of the Allied Forces as Crimes as a comparison with the War Crimes of the NAZI Germany atrocities, committed prior-to and during WWII, I find deplorable.
If you choose to hold that view then good luck to you my friend. I simply feel sad that you should think that way.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (173):
It seems that we disagree in this subject.
Either way. When you we talk about infrastructure and production we should notice difference between 1) there is no infrastructure and 2) infrastructure can't be used. In the case of Germany the later was the case. The production of Germany collapsed when it couldn't anymore get raw materials from other European countries. When after JCS 1067 was lifted and Germany was allowed to trade and get supplies to its industries, the industrial production raised starkly. Its not fallacy that 70-80% of German industry was intact. It was intact. If real scorched earth policy would have been followed in Germany, Nero decree, as was the case in Soviet Union under Stalin, then yes, then there wouldn't have be no infrastructure left, in Germany however infrastructure was left and intact.
I also disagree with your view about treatment of post-war Germany. If German industries and production would have been revived instantly then rest of Europe would have been spared too from continued suffering. What you have to remember that now and then Germany was the industrial heart of Europe and the revival of Europe and general living conditions happened only after revival of German industries.
And no, I'm not deliberately seeking to find post-war crimes committed by allied forces. The thing is that crimes were made and they shouldn't be forgotten. There wasn't any pragmatism in allied forces, if there would have been there wouldn't have been any policies to punish Germans as collective. If you look at Morgenthau plan that was put in motion and other policies that restricted any kind of help to Germans, you can't find any excuse for them.
And no, for the last time, and I'm getting impatient too here, I'm not comparing Nazi war crimes to Allied war crimes. What I'm pointing that there allied too did mistakes, they too had irrational policies and politics and amounted to crimes against humanity. You can't disclose that part of history.
You know obviously we disagree in this subject, no question about it. I will remain in my points and view and so can you. I have no qualms on with allied victory, I have no qualms on recognizing Nazi atrocities, what I have qualms is not recognizing one side of the war and crimes it committed. MaxSceptic many times mentioned Soviet atrocities, from my point it seems like you and him deny completely allied action "yes, Nazis and Soviet did war crimes, but we didn't, not us, no sir". If you take that view then I feel sad that you should think that way.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila #174
Trueman rescinded the 1945 Directive to pastoralise Germany and which stated that German manufacturing should be deterred for the 1947 Directive which, in the Narional Interest should promote German Industrial regeneration.
The first is hardly a crime given that the Allied Forces ahd just taken 6 years of war to get to the hert of Germany and uttelry need to destroy Germany in the first ever Total War where no quarter was given on either side but that it was absoulutely necessary to destroy Germany in order to win the war.
What on earth would be the point of defeating Germany and then saying, "Right Hans, you can go back to do what you've been doing, just please don't go back to war, there's a good chap!" That would be illogical!
Yes, there were incidents like the Bad Nenndorf interrogation and deliberate starvation of prisoners suspected to be NAZIs between 1945 and 1947 (the link to which you provided earlier) but for heavens sake - 347 people starved and beaten by the British during the first 2 years after the war ended hardly equates to 6 million innocents starved, beaten and exterminated by the Germans in Auschwitz and other Extermination and Concentration Camps.
It certainly does equate to the mass killing such as Lidice and Oradur-sur-Glane where individual groups of Germans executed whol villages or carted the inhabitants off to Concentration Camps and, in the case of Lidice, systematically raised the village to the ground and then bull-dozed it into obliteration.
People are mistreated, beaten and starved all over the world every day due to the stupidity and criminal behaviour of people today, yesterday and since 1945 but they are crimes committed in Peace Time as was the Bad Nenndorf crimes.
These crimes of individuals just cannot simply be correlated with the industrial style execution of Russians, Jews, Slave, Romany Gypsies, and others people defined as sub-humans such as the dim-witted, malformed and lunatic who all died due to the NAZI mentality that the Germans were an Aryan Race that had the right to conquer the world and destroy anyone who was inferior.
Trying to find fault with the Americans and her European Allies in how they treated Germany and Germans in the period 1945 to 1947 is to try to justify the inhumanity of the crimes of the Third Reich and that I can never accept!
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (175):
The thing is, nothing can justify when you hop a border between what is good and what is not. You either walk the walk or you don't. We certainly disagree in this subject so strongly that there is no point on going on details and what happened and how to interpret it. All I can say is that you are dead wrong in interpreting that critic or laying blame on allies gives any justification to other crimes. The thing is, if you justify one wrong then you are falling into the same trap that those who try to rationalize or give justification for actions of either Nazis or Soviets. There is never justification for doing the wrong thing, this is something that should be held up by us, only high standards on what is acceptable can prevent same abuses to be repeated.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila
It's the difference in scale of industial genocide by the Germans under the Third Reich being an atrocity in face of all that counts for common humanity and the other simply being a crime (as with Bad Nenndorf between 1945 and 1947) or, in my view, when it came to the displacement of excess numbers of Germans and using Germans to rebuild the Europe that they had destroyed or caused to be destroyed - all being for the greater good of liberated Europe, a pragmatic need and not a crime in my view.
It requires a sense of proportion and a sense of perspective which you seem to not possess when seeking to decry the activities of the Allied Forces immediately post-1945.
I don't condone any crimes but the collective destruction on an industrial scale of 6 million innocents in the Holocaust cannot be equated with one instance of 347 men beaten and starved in captivity immediately after the war when the moral climate was significantly diiferent to what it is today.
The other issue is you often use the phrase War Crime when in fact the "crimes" to which you are so keen to draw attention were crimes that occurred in Peace Time.
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (177):
Where does this insistence come from that any mentioning of allied crimes leads to comparison or equation to holocaust or other crimes made in the war or after the war? I'm sorry, but you have an issue when you start denying, belittling or rationalizing crimes that the allied undertook during the war and after the war in occupation. I'm sorry, but your argument about proportion is just distorted and completely wrong. If you look at proportion then you wouldn't be looking at holocaust but to eastern front where 28 million Russians died. If we look at proportion, then answer me this, does 28 million death Russians forgive war crimes and other human crimes committed by Red Army? Are you really sure that proportion has any meaning in this conversation?
Complain about this comment
Jukka, what we say here, (if to judge) "by the Hamburg account" (something connected with chess).. You are right.
In insisting "nothing to neglect, not a detail, all matters". 1 man killed - crime. 1 mln - crime. In either case you cross the line "not to kill".
You must be an engineer who read too much Dostoevsky.
"Is the tear of one infant worth shedding when on the other side of the weighs are likely deaths of the whole world?"
Is it justified to offend a baby to one tear conditions, saving the world at such a cost??!!
Only Dostoevsky could write volumes analysing all pro-s and contra-s.
In abstract terms sure thing, no baby tears, you bet!
Practically, where are you now? Put yourself in the context. BBC. Angry Alice with her millions, "don't you dare mention Russia". Menedemus who is encountering such an attack on the Western allied forces end of the war and post-war behaviour probably first time in his life.
Mind it, Russia was always eager to agree with you (I mean our historians, all you write is not fresh news and not a Newton's binom). But never had leverage to broadcast its opinions in the Anglo-Saxon world. And doesn't have now. If you noticed how we waged the recent propaganda war.
Besides. Russians think that before speaking up, it is kind of normal to measure against own behaviour. Not all have this as a starting point, but we do.
In this lay-out a couple of memoirs of our Stalin heroic deeds - towards ever uprising Poles - and we don't and won't squeak on the subject of the behaviour of others.
Unless cornered.
"Russians are not aggressors." - we like to think. Or, if you like - "Just you give us a reason."
So who else in the world now is likely to speak in unison with Jukka_Rohila? Argentina cares, you think?
Germany, eager to establish accord in/with the EU members?
Modern context is not fit for your disoveries of America.
Let's look at the old context, war.
There simply forget about it. Menedemus pointed directly, that well-being of post-war Germans strangely was not the key concern of the victorers - who were simultaneously the close escape type survivors.
Why should Germans have been fed and fare better than the victorers - beyond comprehension.
And yes, many actions had 3 base reasons behind. Revenge - in individual cases. To ensure they don't have capacity to start all over again, "pragmatic" considerations, as menedemus puts it. And "to scare such that they would never ever again as a nation, teach a lesson "to measure 7 times, before cutting once."
Drezden I'd list in the last category, or 1+3 combined. I heard the decision was taken because of some silly tourist travel directory, where Hitler took the habit about to mark most historical and national-treasure type English cathedrals and places of attraction - for bombing and total destruction.
Like, this directory became his action plan.
For which he got a reply of Drezden.
Japanese cities had an additional factor of USA willing to try the new equipment. Hello from Pearl Harbour (reason category 1). To expediate Japanese surrender (reason category 2/pragmatic considerations). And No 3 applies as well - "beware in future".
I mean it's not all falling onto Germans from the blue skies all of a sudden. It is from the skies, but it is a reply, not the initiation.
What makes you think that defeated nation, who began the war, so far the most horrible war in the modern history, has to be treated with full respect and being full of concerns for their well-being? The driving force from 1943 on was NOT to preserve
Germany for any price in all its beauty.
But to destroy it. I don't know about others, but we wished it with all our heart.
Why I and Menedemus should weep over over-worked German captives? You are looking for the sympathy to Germans in wrong quarters.
What about ? millions of Russians, exported by cattle trains for slave work in Germany?
I don't know how many millions were originally. I only know 4.7 mln of these are alive on this day!!! There was an int'l process where Germany paid reparations, 4 years ago - silly amounts - but to 4.7 mln still with us. These are documented cases of all of them being children, 10 years old +, exported to Germany and given away for free at slave show markets, each German household could take several and work to death. In agriculture. In cleaning the house. In full control to kill to beat to starve.
And slaves were found fit for work, starting from the age of 10!
Oh, I have an example for you. that cosmonaut Gagarin, his own sister. She looked big for her age, good teeth, strong hands, a sturdy peasant girl, and was packaged away at 9.
We had German captives in Leningrad. Only we didn't cattle them here. We fought them here, on own land, and defeated, in breaking the siege ring. And they worked till end of the war, and 2 years more. Built 2 streets in St. petersburg, called german houses. Still called so. All know. And while Russians were not supplied on our ration cards, captives were fed.
There were Russian children, asking for bread from the captives.
Why should I forget this and worry myself to death together with you for Germany?
Your famous objectivity - somehow doesn't make you to worry for someone but precious Germany. May be it does. But I haven't noticed yet.
Complain about this comment
I got it!
Jukka, on your patented scales
one tear of Germans is heavier than 40 plus million victims of Germany !
You've missed the chance to win Nurenberg process. Was simply born too late.
(menedemus, we should both come back to our senses).
And please mentally add to the Russian crimes one more that we missed to do. On an individual basis of course. I consider reason category 3.
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (179):
The original point of discussion here was my point that there were 'no good guys in the war' referring to countries and nations taking part in the war.
To this date we have processed German crimes in the war, and rightly so. The reason why I'm not in every turn bringing up German crimes in the war is that there is no doubt in them. Holocaust is a fact. 28 million Russians and plenty of others is a fact. There is no justification for their perishing.
Recently we have started to process Soviet Union crimes in the war, and rightly so. They have been studied and they have been condemned. In west, as you surely have noted from other commentators comment, there is no doubt that Soviet Union was guilty of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity.
What hasn't been discussed in the west is the extend of crimes committed by the western allies. If you condemn Nazis, and then go to condemn Soviets then there is really no justification on looking on what happened in the west.
Of course proportions varies between countries. Nazi Germany can be contributed for deaths of tens of millions, Soviet Union can be contributed for death of millions? and western allies can be contributed from hundreds of thousands to millions?. So where should we draw a line in here? Where we can just say that it doesn't matter. To me we can't do that.
Now why should you or Menedemus or somebody else weep for few Germans getting some bad time or early death so to say. Well, as humans we should weep and mourn for all, not just those belonging to our tribe. Of course we as humans fail to do that all the time, still that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. I don't know where we should stop, where we should draw the line. What I know is that we can't just blind our eyes or search justifications for unacceptable things.
So, what about the original phrase, 'there were no good guys in the war'. Well in my mind this phrase is still true. Yes, to said it again and again, it was good riddance that Nazis lost, that allied won the war. Still, if you profile yourself as a good guy, what is expected from you is to do what good guys do, make good deeds. What happened is that western allies didn't just do good deeds in Germany, they took to themselves to revenge and to punish Germany and Germans. Of course in lesser extend, but still, that is not what 'good guys' do.
In last, no, this whole discussion is not about diminishing or belittling losses and suffering that was done by the Nazis. I don't know what it is, I have written it so clearly so many times, and no response to it. This is not about scaling, comparing or equaling one crime to another. I don't know is this continued insistence because you start replying before you reach the end of my message or just disregarding what you read. When you have crimes committed you look at them all, you judge and condemn them all, there is no excuse for not doing so. I really don't know how I could myself more clear on this issue.
Complain about this comment
Just a little thought Jukka_Rohila, one of the forced labour tasks I have heard about in Belgium was to make German prisoners help rebuild a church that was in the centre of a town not so far from me. The centre of the town was attacked for little military reason other than crap intelligence, but it's rebuilding has given a sense of justice and closure to many Belgians that I've spoken to over the years, so please don't say that they should have been left to rebuild Germany.
As for bomber Harris and his campaign to both destroy the infrastructure and eliminate its workforce, quite justifiable in a war BTW as the workers were active in the war effort, I find it a bit hard to believe your claim that 70-80% of the German industrial infrastructure was intact, I would be very interested to discover where you came up with that little figure, especially when considering the bomb load even one Lancaster could drop.
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #178
Methinks you protest too much my friend.
You wrote, "I'm sorry, but you have an issue when you start denying, belittling or rationalizing crimes that the allied undertook during the war and after the war in occupation."
Exactly what crimes do you think the Americans and British and their immediate allies committed in the West of Europe?
Failure to give the Germans back their manufacturing capacity? You think that was a crime? That order was recinded in 1947 almost exactly 2 years after the Unconditional Surrender of German Forces in the West of Germany.
Do you honestly think that Eisenhower was going to defeat the Germans and then let them carry on as if nothing had happened?
You uncovered a hidden report of 347 people starved and beaten (but alive) in a British controlled post-war Interrogation Centre? That is a huge Peacetime crime that deserves investigation and justice but it is not a War Crime!
Relocating many Germans who had travelled west to avoid capture by the Russians were relocated back to behind the Russian lines. You see this as a crime, I see this a s necessary means to reduce the numbers of starving people in the western Europe region - if they had remained where they had escaped too then the ALlies would have had too many mouths to feed and many more people would have perished in the famines of 1945 and 1946/7.
You see the enlistment of forced labour of German Soldiers to help rebuild the infrastructure of the devastation as a crime. I do not. It was a necessary means and the discharged German soldiers were a ready and willing workforce given the means and the time to help rebuild their countries and others.
As an anecdote, many Italian Prisoners of War were used in Great Britian in the Bedford area of the country - many of those Italians actually stayed and remained in the country after they were discharged from enforced labour - so much for them having been badly treated by Britain I ask myself?
The Morgenthau Plan you see as a War Crime - I see it as the preliminary plan for the partition of Germany and that had already been agreed at Yalta. To the Victors the choice of how to manage the Peace.
In itself, the Morgenthau Plan was no crime as the Allies had to deal with a Germany that had not surrendered until it was beaten into submission and more people died in 1994 than in any other years of the long Second World War.
Is there anything else you see as Western Allies War crime post-1945?
I say get some perspective and sense of proportion but you seem intent on decrying the Western Allies efforts to sustain life in the aftermath of the war in western Europe to the best of the collective ability.
In addition, please do tell me what war crimes were committed by the Western Allies before General Jodl (for the Germans) signed the Peace Treaty with Field Marshall Montgomery (for the Allies) on the Western Front? You did write, "...that the allied undertook during the war ..."!
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (183) and but mainly to WebAliceinwonderland (179):
This is a so called half-time comment. I won't touch directly the issues being discussed, but give some background on my own thinking and acknowledge somethings.
Alice, do you remember when you told me that your concierge was a child in Finnish concentration camps? You know what, I lamented in my reply. I knew about the concentration camps already, I knew about children being locked there and being starved. I lamented. You know what, it was a war crime, no buts. You know what else, I'm sorry, I'm saddened on what your concierge and others in those camps had to go throe, no buts.
The thing is, second world war is an open wound. It has been only halfway processed. Let me reflect...
When I was younger, a child, in 90s, Finnish television voiced an interview of an woman from Russian Karelia. She told, or almost cried, that she had been raped by a Finnish soldier. My and others initial reaction was that "who is this woman, who is this woman blaming us, it wasn't us that started the war, it was you Russians, you started the war, your own fault". That's not right! This woman was raped, she didn't deserve it, she was a victim and apparently she suffered still from the trauma. She was a victim of a war crime, no buts.
One reason why second world war is still open wound is that we just recently started see it as it was. During Soviet Union the official truth in Finland was that it was Finland that started the winter war, that it was fault of Finland to go into a continuation war. When Soviet Union collapsed, collapsed the official history writing about Finnish wars. The official truth was replaced by view that Finland was innocent not only to winter but to continuation war also. It was like Finland was totally innocent, no fault, no handing of jewish to Nazis, just a country fighting a separate war against Soviet Union. Now this obviously wasn't the complete truth.
In 90s the official history writing started step by step to notice and acknowledge other things. It was acknowledged that there were Finnish concentration camps in Karelia. It was acknowledged that there were serious abuses performed. Eventually discussion started about jewish. Remember that at first the truth was no jews were handed, but this is wrong. First it was admitted that at least 6 jewish refugees were turned back to Germany and that they perished in holocaust.
Lately in 2003 there was a journalistic research done about Finnish war prisons and what happened there. That started an official government investigation on to these things named Finland, war prisoners and handing of humans 1939-55. One of the first results of this investigation was an dissertation that was introduced in last September. The shocking revelation of this study was there were Einsatzkommando Finnland that operated two war prisons. Finnish official gave over 500 hundred war prisoners to it who were either jewish or communists: these prisoners were executed instantly. That again is a war crime and a serious one.
Now I could continue with naming and cataloging other war crimes that were committed by either Finnish state or army and individual soldiers. That's beside the point. The point that should be acknowledged, and one thing that maybe hasn't been discussed in public, is hatred against Russians before and during the war. If you take that as an context, then war crimes that were committed were no accident or occurred because of conditions. They occurred because of ill hatred against Russians. We should also not forget that there were many in Finland that admired Nazis openly and were ready to follow them.
You know, I'm indebted to my grand parents generation that fought the war, that defended our nation and country, they did a tremendous sacrifice. I feel pride for my republic, I feel pride that it treated its citizens equally during the war, I feel pride that it did many things right. But I feel shame and I'm sorry for many actions that the state and people in this country did. Serious war crimes where done and there are no excuses for them.
I don't know what part should I or my generation play, what I know is that we can't just turn blind eye to the past and pretend that everything was alright. Actually, to tell you the truth, the thing I feel pride is that we are ready to look onto our history and acknowledge and make public even its darkest hours. The investigation to our recent history is ongoing and maybe someday we can conclude that all things that are possible to find out has been written and publicized. Maybe in 2045, when hundred years from the end of the world war has gone, when I'm just 65, the wound of world war two has been healed.
My main points are: 1) no war crime is too small to be acknowledged and condemned, and 2) where there is hate there are crimes. That is why I and everybody else should look on to their respected histories with an open and critical eye.
PS. Alice, you should say to your concierge that his and others faith is not unknown in Finland completely. He may never get, at least in his living life, an official apology from the Finnish state, but that doesn't mean that people here wouldn't feel sorry what he and others has been throe.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, my head is going round, I will write to you of course, but not this time, OK?
I can't think of serious matters right now. I feel a temporarily need for a break here, something easier for us to talk about.
We all look like, you wouldn't know, but typical Russian anecdote characters -"Once upon a time, "russky", "nemets" and "polyak"...
Russian, German and a Pole ...
(German is named such since times immemorial, means - numb - as can't speak Russian! unlike the other traditional neighbour, Pole, who always could.)
These modern days the traditional lay-out for cracking a joke might become:
Russian, English and a Finn. Once upon a time...
Complain about this comment
And hey, menedemus, wow, I thought all Britain celebrates the victory the American way, German surrender to the Americans, taken in France. What's that French city with the old famous cathedral, forgot the name?
In all the US sites (well, not all. say, many)
the only text of Germany's surrender given is the surrender to the Americans. Many sites even suggest to send it to you, nicely framed, a ready pack.
With a transient mention of the first German surrender, to the English, like "there was also something like that a little bit."
And about Germany's surrender to the Russians in Berlin - simply don't even hope to hear about it.
And only in German sites, in German, you'd get the texts of the whole 3 "surrenders" clipped together, and in the time order:
First - to Britain
Second - to the USA
Third - to Russia
First time see an Englishman who considers the surrender to Montgomery as end of the war.
I do start thinking that we in Russia have a less biased picture of war affairs (in the European fronts) that "the West" as a whole.
We do not diminish the importance neither of the 1st nor the 2nd one. Even that the world is stubbornly blind with regards to the real surrender to Russia, in Berlin.
Every year Russans start drinking from Montgomery - because we find it fine and wonderful that Britain began first, so reached the finish line first, continue with the Americans, and get totally happy by our own on the 8th.
Indeed 8th did become 9th, but this is technicalities, because it was signed Central European time, Berlin, 8th, Moscow time simultaneously already first minutes of May 9th. Even better, one can confidently toast for 2 days.
watymjein surrender to the 8th of you why don't you celebrate the V-4th of May
Complain about this comment
Alice,
This is a useful link to see the sequence of the major surrenders:
German Instruments of Surrender
I was not seeking kudos, I just recalled Montgomery signing the first major surrender instrument but knew that the Americans and Russia each had their day of
importance and took Instruments of Surrender in sequence on 8 May 1945.
The sequence was:
The main thing was that the Allies were able to celebrate the Victory in Europe and the guns fell silent on 8th May 1945.
That was the cause for celebration, not who signed what and when as far as I am concerned.
Strangely enough, we do not celebrate the end of the war in Europe within the UK, we simply remember our war dead from both World Wars on the first Sunday after the 11 November of each year. The majority of people all wear poppies to show our sorrow at the loss and their sacrifice they made.
Lest we forget!
Complain about this comment
I know Menedemus, about that in the UK you mark the end of both wars combined, in late autumn.
Still, I think you are missing a lot, on skipping the 8th/9th in all its splendour.
As many English I had coming here around the V-day, were absolutely charmed and expressed a regret they don't do this at home. That is, I mean, St. Petersburg way.
Moscow is also fine, with Red Square parades and night fireworks, but kind of official.
St. Pete also has military trampling the square in the morn., but that I never went to see in my life, safely sleeping so early thank God.
We have the key thing at 5pm, in Nevsky Prospekt. City mayor closes the street for traffic and for all, only veterans are allowed to walk it. So they walk, from the beg. of the prospekt, 2-3 miles? to the end of it, to the Palace Square. Those who can't walk are driven in slowly moving open trucks, because they are all very old and falling into pieces, and every year the amount shrinks awfully.
Meanwhile the whole city stands crowds lining the side-sides, both sides of the streets, with children, from 1 month to 2 years. Early beginnings. And tell children - look! remember! look while you can!
And waits, for the next group to pass by, cheering, and throwing flowers under their feet, and children are allowed to run over out into teh street, give flowers, and return back to the parents.
And each year it's less and less people. Somebody one carries a flag "Marines special brigade No whatever." An old man all in medals. And 3 behind him.
A large poster "childen of the siege"
"Leningrad front No " etc.
Very few people around each flag.
And at 6 pm we always have a concert on the Palace Square, war time songs, all sing and dance. It is because there was a film done in 1942, where a pair in love parts, he goes to the war, she goes to the war, and they ask each other - oh when shall we meet.
And she says "At 6 o'clock. After the war. Here."
So it became a saying - "see you at 6 o'clock
after the war."
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (185) and also to Menedemus:
No problemo. I'm just happy that I got all those things sorted out that were in my head that I had not gotten fully sorted out before. That's the best about discussing things, you not just learn from others, but eventually you learn new things from own thinking when pressed.
I fully agree with you. We need lighter things to discus. Maybe Mark could go US to make an interview with Obama and McCain about their views on EU. Then we could complain about American presidential candidates ;)
One thing I still have to note, or ask conformation, in UK you have November 11th as an holiday because of ending of first world war, in Russia you have victory day in May 9th, in both countries these are big days. Now I haven't never really understood that, but it just occurred that are those days big as you don't have Independence Day celebrations like we have here in Finland and in USA? As we don't celebrate, at least nobody takes notice, about any other day than Independence day and in US too they have the same thing besides having Veterans day. The thing here is that, while we and Americans celebrate our republics and independence in overall, your celebration days are more tied to national tragedy and survival. That in my opinion tells something about national psyche.
Now, Menedemus, I'm sicken and tired of discussing about world war two. I accept that you don't accept my view on it. I will make few points and you are welcomed of course to counter act them, but I will not reply to those as I'm just tired of discussing.
About western allied war crimes and crimes after the war.
What you see in the case of interrogation center is an individual case. What I see in the same is the tip of the ice berg. These things doesn't just happen, these things happen because hate against the enemy and dehumanization of the enemy go over a certain point. Ask yourself, is Abu Grabi an individual case or does it represent just the tip of ice berg of an systematic and organized human crimes violations?
Now what about other western allied crimes, especially crimes during the war. Well, for instance all killings of SS and Waffen-SS soldiers were war crimes. The real crimes, crimes against humanity start with the occupation. Eisenhower violated Geneva convention, prisoners of war were used as forced labor when the right thing would have been to release them as the war was over. The problem with allied war crimes is that as Germans have felt guilty they have never started to ask questions.
The first one to ask questions was James Bacque in his book Other losses. He concluded that over million German POWs were killed by western allied. His book and conclusions have been disputed, non of the less, you can't just turn blind eye to it when you have these kinds of statements told:
Colonel Ernest F. Fisher, 101st Airborne Division, Senior Historian, United States Army.
"Starting in April 1945, the United States Army and the French Army casually annihilated one million [German] men, most of them in American camps . . . Eisenhower's hatred, passed through the lens of a compliant military bureaucracy, produced the horror of death camps unequalled by anything in American history . . . an enormous war crime."
Even thought Bacque's conclusions have been disputed, when you have these kind of allegations you have to ask how much truth they have in them. Even Stephen Ambrose who disputed all Baque's conclusions didn't completely deny what may have happened.
"We as Americans can't duck the fact that terrible things happened. And they happened at the end of a war we fought for decency and freedom, and they are not excusable."
Of course proving these things are very difficult, that shouldn't stop people from asking. Actually people will start asking these questions. The German goverment still have over 1 million of its citizens missing. They are now collecting together with Russian goverment a database about to solve what happened to those caught by Russians. If as an result of this data collection the German goverment can locate a large number of its missing citizens, then the only option is look on what happened to people caught by western allies. Did something happen there.
Now if we jump to Morgenthau plan, its main content wasn't the partition of Germany but pastoralization of it. What Morgenthau and all who that approved the plan and its later implementation as JCS 1067 knew that it meant serious suffering and deaths of Germans. To illustrate:
?After a brief trip to Normandy, Morgenthau held a meeting on August 12 [1944] with several American officials in England to acquaint himself with is government?s thinking about the treatment of Germany. . . . After the intermission, Morgenthau opened the discussion with a brief and unordered statement of his views. ?From all the evidence I have been able to gather in both the United States and England,? he has been quoted as saying, ?I am not at all convinced that a realistic program is being followed which will result in Germany?s inability to wage war again.? [n.120] . . . Serious consideration should be given to the reduction of Germany to an agrarian economy, he stated, so that Germany would be a land of small farmers with no large-scale industry, comparable to the farm plan in Denmark. Since the United States would be unwilling to keep troops in Germany for a very long period to control her, this seemed to be the only way to prevent her further aggression. . . . While Morgenthau had at this meeting evidently approached the subject of his current concern with considerable restraint, in the course of the ensuing conversation he revealed the extent of his commitment to the agrarianization thesis. When confronted with the problem of what to do with the population which could not be supported by farming in Germany, he suggested dumping it in North Africa.?
I'm sorry, but when you have total disregard for human life and when you suffering people and people dying in great length it doesn't matter do you gas them, execute or stave them. What you have is the same results.
Ok, I will give some up say this. There were lots of individuals who where good guys, lots of who were fighting only to defend, only to bring freedom and justice and who didn't commit war crimes, as were actually with all armies, Soviets too had good people fighting. The war crimes and crimes against humanity, they were taken by small number of people in the higher levels of goverment. History will not be full before adequate answers are given to all this doubts about what happened, that is for certain.
Complain about this comment
Jukka, you may like this:
So what's from that that I was there.
I was - long time ago. I all forgot.
Do not remember days. Do not remember dates. Do not remember those rivers forced.
I'm - an unrecognised soldier.
I'm - rank and file. Such and such, so and so.
I'm - of well-aimed bullet - underflight.
I'm - ice in blood in January.
I'm firmly forged into this ice.
I'm in it - like a fly in amber.
So, what's from that that I was there.
I - outlived all. I all - forgot.
Remember no dates. Remember no days.
Can not remember any names.
I'm - exgausted horse trampling.
I'm - a husky call, on the run.
I'm - a moment of an un-lived day.
I'm - a fight on the far-away line.
I'm - a flame of the eternal fire.
And a flame of the cartridge in the dug-out.
So, what's from that that I was there,
In that threatening to be or not to be.
I nearly all of it forgot.
I all of it want to forget.
I don't participate in war!
The war participates in me.
And flame of the eternal fire
Is trembling on my cheek-bones.
By now - you can not exclude me
From those years, from that war
And you will not be able to cure me
From that winter, those snows.
And with that ground, with that winter - you will not separate me
Up to those snows - where my steps - won't be recognisable any more.
So, what's from that that I was there!..
Complain about this comment
Jukka_Rohila @ #189
Just to clarify with you.
We do not have a Public Holiday to match the day we call Rememberance Day which for us in the UK is every year on the 11th November.
The tradition is for those who want to do so can quietly stop for a minute from what they are doing at 11 am GMT on the 11th Day of the 11th Month of every year to remember the loss of life of everyone who has died in the First World War, the Second World War and all wars since 1914.
On the next following Sunday, what we call "Rememberance Sunday", the whole nation is allowed to stop at 11am GMT to quietly remember the dead and their sacrifice of dying. It is a tradition for ex-soldiers, seamn and airman to march past a monument that can be found in most towns and villages throughout the land and slaute the monument. The monument is called a Cenotaph and is usually engraved with the names of the boys and girls who died fighting in service of the Country.
It is by no means a holiday or a celebration but it is something very British when we do this. Just a quiet moment to think of the boys of just 17 to 25 mainly who had everything to live for but died in war. Such a loss and such a tragedy for us all.
There are just 3 British soldiers alive who served in the First World War as volunteers and, when they do finally pass away, so will the real memory of how dreadful it must have been to have served in the the Trenches of Flanders, the mud, the gore, the gassing, the first use of tanks, the barbed wire and the simple loss of human souls to the machinery of war.
We all simply mourn the passing away of those young mens and womens lives to a tragedy that we never learnt from then and will probably never learn from in the future and that is the real tragedy.
Complain about this comment
Democracy is a wonderful thing.
Everybody can voice their opinion, say what they think (ok - not if you are Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross) and insist that everybody pays attention to your opinion. It also means that nobody actually has to pay any attention to what other people say, unless you want to insult or ridicule them.
And the best thing is: we can always fall back on the War when we run out of proper arguments or may have to concede that somebody else may actually have a point.
Viva democracy!
Complain about this comment
kauri92 @192
I think you are mistaken?
Democracy means that all of the people can choose to elect their government to govern the people for the people and, if the people do not like the government, they can have the regular opportunity to replace that government by voting in a new government in its place.
What you are talking about is freedom of speech. That is something entirely different and means that a person shall be able to speak, write and read without fear of restriction other than in accordance of rules set by ettiquette and commonly held sense of decency, propriety and morality.
The only connection between the two ideas is that you are more likely to be able to have the freedom of speech within a democracy.
As to Viva democracy. Absolutely!
Complain about this comment
Menedemus at 193
I can assure you that I am not mistaken: freedom of speech is part of democracy. If we were in a totalitarian state, we couldn't even write freely on this blog. The blog wouldn't even exist and if it existed most of the comments would be censored.
Complain about this comment
kauri92 @ 194
My point is that the Democracy and Freedom of Speach generally go hand in hand but this is not always the case.
In a democracy, where the people choose to limit freedom of speech then freedom of speech would be curtailed. The level of curtailment is decided by the people.
In Britain the freedom of Brandt and Ross was curtailed by 10,000 peolpe who complained many of them possibly without even seeing the program.
In another country, Brandt and Ross's schoolboy antics might well have been seen in a different light and applauded.
In one democracy a party political broadcast may be allowed but in another forbidden as the constitution, agreed by the people, deplores such blatant advertising.
In one democratic country, cigarette advertising maybe proscribed, in another democratic country such prohibitions are not publicly tolerated.
Democracy can be separated from Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Speech can be limited within a Democracy.
The good thing is, I suppose(?), is that the democratic majority define the level of freedom of speech within the democracy.
Complain about this comment
I'd grab most EU leaders, Brown included, by the lapels, and throw them head first off a cliff!
Merkel is dull doing ok. However, like Sarkozy, she is not a democrat. Nobody other than Luxembourg voted by a majority for the EU constitution.
The French, of course, voted against and now Sarko has deprived them of a vote on Lisbon just in case they got the "wrong answer".
As usual, the Germans are never allowed to vote at all - their MPs must do it all for them.
But naturally, a majority favoured the loss of the Deutschmark, funding unification and the CAP for the French as well as most of the rest of the EU behemoth/white elephant.
When the people have no voice that is not democracy.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS