EU Spectacle
The word spectacle is carefully chosen, since this is what the current drama of which Greece is the symptom, not the cause, has become. It no longer bears any relationship to coherent democratic leadership or process of governance in a workable political and currency union. The cancellation at a moment’s notice of a summit of all EU leaders is extraordinary.
There is a problem with Greece, but it is not that difficult to solve. Indeed this blog working alone would be able to negotiate a workable solution. What is proving impossible is to find an acceptable solution, because the institutions normally established to process decision making at national and international levels are not there, or there in such abundance nobody can detect who is in charge. And to make matters worse the structure of the currency itself is unsustainable as it lacks a treasury and a finance minister answering to an elected government. A committee of finance ministers at loggerheads, elected by only one member state in each case, on conflicting mandates and to differing electoral timetables will work only in the good times and becomes dysfunctional under pressure.
So all we know at this moment is that Greece may or may not go bust tomorrow, the euro looks more like an impediment to growth than an engine of it, and the reputation of the EU as a coherent political union is severely damaged. Beneath that a big gap is developing between the north and the south of Europe, between the politicians and their electors everywhere and between those in the eurozone who want to stand firm to high principle even if it brings the whole thing down, led by the Germans, and by those who feel pragmatic reality demands compromise, led by France and Italy.
At the heart of of this crisis now engulfing the whole EU are three violated principles. You cannot have a democratic political union without an elected forum from which all authority flows. You cannot have a currency which cannot be printed. You cannot have capitalism which does not permit debtors to go bust. The first is violated because the whole EU is wrongly configured. The last two are rescinded because Germany says No.
Linda wrote: "In spite of the attacks spurred by the Internet in the West, there still is a Middle Eastern nexus to all this. They still have taken territories in the Middle East. This could be fixed by an occup..."No they have not 'taken' territory. They have taken it back. That's the problem. Occupation would be like oil onto petrol. And it did not work either in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Linda wrote: "In spite of the attacks spurred by the Internet in the West, there still is a Middle Eastern nexus to all this. They still have taken territories in the Middle East. This could be fixed by an occup..."The Chinese can control the internet for ordinary punters but any serious people can get behind the controls.So it would make no difference. The plus is if you break into their communications you know what is going on.
You say that your laws allow greater surveillance on the internet than in the US. How so? Give an example. Could your laws in Britain allow surveillance of what is going on in a Goodreads discussion like this one? How about email?One thing I found out from the Russian expert. Supposedly Facebook hires translators to translate people posting to each other in foreign countries in foreign languages. I thought this was rather shocking.
You say it didn't work in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's like saying Vietnam didn't work either. It doesn't work if you quit and withdraw your troops that's for certain. In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan troops were withdrawn only because Bush was no longer in office. The troops have to stay there for decades while you set up a government and while you set up businesses that employ people.I'm beginning to think that the real reason behind all this has nothing to do with who is President and more to do with lack of economic incentives. The British were in India because of the East India Company. They had economic incentives. The Romans expanded into western Europe for economic reasons. Since the US is all but energy independent, the Middle East doesn't hold much of an allure I guess. And they don't have anything but oil. What the moral of the story comes down to is that countries don't fight wars and don't tend to occupy countries for idealistic reasons.
Of course you might say that should occupy the Middle East for defensive reasons. But do I have an example of this in history that worked? The Chinese had the Great Wall. There was the Berlin Wall. The US has built a few walls on its southern border to keep Mexicans out. But these are all failures.
Instead efforts seem to be concentrated on keeping the Middle East out of the US by cracking down on the borders and on the US population, which to me seems dead wrong. I do think it could be fixed by an occupation of the Middle East. But it seems that nobody can get motivated because there is no compelling economic motive. So it is hard to say what will happen.
I see a danger here. There may not be many examples in history of countries doing a long term occupation for reasons other than economic ones. But I do know of a few examples of countries dealing with external powers or cities or regions that they think are a danger short of occupying the area. Have you heard of Hannibal, the one who supposedly crossed the Alps with elephants to invade Rome? This had to do with the Punic Wars that ended in 143BC before Caesar and company. The Roman general here was Scipio Africanus. What happened to Carthage where Hannibal came from? It was destroyed by the Romans. Apparently they even salted the earth around it so that no one could ever again grow crops. Ancient Carthage was a city that in effect ceased to exist.
You don't want this to happen to a city in the Middle East.
Linda wrote: "You say that your laws allow greater surveillance on the internet than in the US. How so? Give an example. Could your laws in Britain allow surveillance of what is going on in a Goodreads discussio..."If there is a perceived threat to national security and a judge signs a warrant, yes.
Also any bright 15 year old can hack into most things. The internet is not secure unless very complex encription is used.
Linda wrote: "You say that your laws allow greater surveillance on the internet than in the US. How so? Give an example. Could your laws in Britain allow surveillance of what is going on in a Goodreads discussio..."I always regard Facebook as a public forum.
Linda wrote: "You say it didn't work in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's like saying Vietnam didn't work either. It doesn't work if you quit and withdraw your troops that's for certain. In the case of Iraq and Afghan..."Armies of occupation work only in the short term. The British Empire was built on trade by traders. The Army had nothing to do with it other than to protect interests which had been established. The Navy was to protect the trade routes.
That has always been America's problem. It relies on force to project power and gets into fights which cannot be won. The Pentagon has too much influence. American diplomacy is very weak. That is why Kissinger became a legend because he understood diplomacy. Also the Pentagon thrives on tension. Without that it would suffer budget cuts.
But then even in the case of Carthage, Carthage was an economic rival of Rome at the time. So that analogy isn't exact either. It's hard to think of an historical analogy for what is going on now.
Agree.What is needed is the combination of Nixon and Kissinger, but there is nothing like that in sight at the moment.
Yes, you might regard Facebook as a public forum. And public pages are. But these are translations of private pages where somebody just has a small group of "friends". They think that nobody is reading it except those friends. Facebook is misleading them.
When you say armies of occupation work only for a small time, what about the Roman Empire? That lasted for hundreds of years. What about Wellington in India? He was fighting a lot of battles. It depends what you mean by an army of occupation. I don't see it as what occurred after WW2 which was short. By an army of occupation I mean setting up a government and setting up trade and commerce as well as businesses and jobs at the same time and staying around to supervise it. You British were doing this all over the place and not just India either. What about Egypt? Kenya? Hong Kong? If something went wrong the army or navy appeared. Remember Mid-East Headquarters in Cairo where Edward reported to work? That was around for decades. The British didn't leave until about 1956 and I think that it would have been better if they had stayed. Cairo was a far better place when they were still there. Safer, too. And it's good that they took lots of things back to the British Museum to preserve the stuff.
Your view of American foreign policy is certainly original. You think the Pentagon has lots of influence? America has a long tradition of Isolationism. It is very reluctant to get into what Jefferson called "foreign entanglements". And it got into very few before WW1. The American connection with Britain led it right into the position it now occupies. Churchill cemented it. But it doesn't have the British tradition of Empire and foreign occupation that worked splendidly for hundreds of years.
I agree that according to what I've heard Nixon was the most influential and greatest American President of the second half of the twentieth century. And as far as Kissenger goes, he might be the greatest Secretary of State ever. I don't know of anyone more famous. The Chinese family we knew thought of Nixon as some sort of god because he opened up China and enabled them to see their relatives again and to make trips back and forth to China.
Gary says that the Gulf War during the term of the first Bush was successful only because back then we weren't energy independent.
Gary says that Neo-Nazis are marching in Leipzig near where we were 3 years ago when we were in East Germany. There were counter rallies. It sounds like post WW1 with Communists and Nazis fighting each other in the streets of Munich. School children have even attacked each other. Have you read about this?
Linda wrote: "When you say armies of occupation work only for a small time, what about the Roman Empire? That lasted for hundreds of years. What about Wellington in India? He was fighting a lot of battles. It de..."British occupation was much more civilian than miltary. Its army was tiny by comparison to continental armies. It did have a huge navy but the real strength came from its Colonial Civil Service which reached to every corner of the globe. Britain did not 'occupy' it ran everything and built everything especially railways, schools etc. And it built trade.
America has this vast military but it saps both its strength and its power. Its real power stems from the fact that in energy, technology, science,industrial production and academic research it is completely self sufficient. It depends on nobody else for ideas and hardware. This should give it huge weight in international affairs and well as even greater wealth.
Instead it is seen as a threat by almost everyone except the Brits and although loads of countries line up behind the US dutifully to show solidarity, too many laugh about the US behind its back. Yes it has power but it no longer enjoys the respect that it once had. You had a taste of that over the Liverpool incident. That was because you were an American. Ten years ago nobody would have taken any notice.
Linda wrote: "Gary says that the Gulf War during the term of the first Bush was successful only because back then we weren't energy independent."Gary is bang on the money! I fully agree.
Linda wrote: "Gary says that Neo-Nazis are marching in Leipzig near where we were 3 years ago when we were in East Germany. There were counter rallies. It sounds like post WW1 with Communists and Nazis fighting ..."The far right will never get anywhere in Germany.The Nazi ghost is just too big a spectre. But France is another matter. The far right has just won a third of the local elections and its leader, a very astute woman, is seen as a real contender in the next presidential race which I think is 2017.
I'm glad the British were building so many things abroad in their colonies during the time of the British Empire. That's what the Romans did, too. I call that empire and occupation at the same time. Here we are sparring at definitions of words. If you have enough civilians there, they can occupy, too, as well as the army and navy. And the British did fight battles when they needed to also.
Saying that America's vast military saps both its strength and power is an odd notion. But everybody voices all sorts of opinions about America including Americans. I don't see where money spent on the military has anything to do with the rest of the economy unless you are a defense contractor like McDonald Douglas or Boeing. In American life the military figures hardly at all. But if everyone around the world is criticizing America that defines its power and its position in the world. It is only to be expected. I don't see what the problem with that is. Let them criticize and speak out instead of whispering behind your back.As far as Liverpool goes, I don't know if they were deciding to pick on my review because I was an American or because I didn't like the acrobatics in the harbor and on the quayside. I could have been British, Danish, German, or whatever. But if they were deciding to pick on my review because I was an American so be it. I think it is kind of bizarre, but I suppose it is protected by freedom of speech. In the US I've encountered a couple of attacks in the past. One came from a fellow by the name of Rattlesnake (my nickname) inspired by the emblem on his website which really was a rattlesnake. He was an Aussie, I think, and a self-styled "top Amazon reviewer". He was picking on my book Dark 1, the paperback edition put out by Scholastic UK. At first he was accusing me of self-publishing junk. I finally got him to concede that it was published by Scholastic, but he refused to concede anything else. Oddly enough the thrust of his criticism was that it was "juvenile". I kept on telling him that it was YA and not adult. He didn't seem to know what YA was. This went on for about a week or so several years ago. I bet the discussion thread it still up on Amazon.
A year or so later I encountered an attack by a bunch of groupies for my review of the novel Killer Honeymoon. I gave the novel a three star review and made a mild criticism of the book saying that it was more romance than mystery though it was catalogued as a mystery. But I also said that it showed lots of promise. These "friends of the author" came down on me like a nest of hornets. I debated them on Amazon for about two weeks before they went away.They started engaging in all sorts of ad hominem attacks which are probably still there in the comment section. P.S. This discussion did spill over onto Facebook, too.
But the Liverpool attack was unprecedented in its size and scope. It went on the whole time I was crossing the Atlantic and for about a week after that once I was ashore. Then they all decided to disappear. The legacy left from that attack are all these Romeos online still attracted to Helga's photo. Too bad they don't also want to buy Helga's books.
P.S. Oddly enough we never have bothered to try to find the Liverpool tabloid responsible for all this nonsense.
Looking towards the future we plan to upgrade our insurance. We've already purchased litigation insurance. Now we're going to get libel and slander insurance under our homeowner's policy. P.S. I should show you a picture of my gift tag for Christmas this year for the purpose of wrapping gifts. It was inspired by the Liverpool episode. I'll have to send it by email.
Observations:You say the Nazi ghost is too big a spectre in Germany. That's probably true for the generation that remembers WW2. But once they are gone all bets are off. That's the dramatic thing to say.
Of course you could also say that the only reason Hitler got a foothold in Germany was because of the stock market in the 1920's and because the US cut off aid. It has been a major industrial power for a long time. And for it to go Nazi was the exception that proved the rule. This is probably where the truth lies.
Both France and Austria have tendencies to the right. The way I see it during WW2 the entire Continent was under the sway of the Nazis and the far right.
As far as Germany going Nazi again that is also something that the US could never permit no matter who occupies the White House.
All these are reasons why the US should do something about Syria, etc.
Gary says there are other rightists in Germany besides the Nazis. He thinks Germany could go to the right. He thinks Merkel is in trouble. He doesn't think the deal with the Turks will work.
Linda wrote: "Looking towards the future we plan to upgrade our insurance. We've already purchased litigation insurance. Now we're going to get libel and slander insurance under our homeowner's policy. P.S. I ..."
I think in the US situation you are wise to upgrade your insurance cover.
Linda wrote: "Observations:You say the Nazi ghost is too big a spectre in Germany. That's probably true for the generation that remembers WW2. But once they are gone all bets are off. That's the dramatic thing ..."
Austria is far to the right of Germany. I am not sure that the left and right definitions work as well as they did. Essentially what is happening in Europe is people are fed up with the established political class and regard it as self- interested, corrupt, incompetent and spineless. Hence new parties are making inroads everywhere. They tend to be socially to the right on issues like immigration, but economically well to the left.
The business of being fed up with the political establishment is what Corbyn is all about here, and in America Trump and Bernie Sanders. It is possible now to detect a trend amounting to a change of political 'weather', but it is too early to predict how it will play out.
Linda wrote: "Observations:You say the Nazi ghost is too big a spectre in Germany. That's probably true for the generation that remembers WW2. But once they are gone all bets are off. That's the dramatic thing ..."
I can assure you Europe itself would never permit Germany to go Nazi. Both the UK and Russia would be proactive in that.
It is only natural for Europeans to reject the influx of so many refugees and try to preserve their native cultures. They are mostly Christian countries, not Muslim countries. And this idea of colonials is not native to them as it is to the British and Americans. But even in Britain and America lots of people don't want so many refugees. They are afraid of terrorists, etc. Don't you think it would be easier to make the Middle East safe for them to return to?
Yes but that can only be done by sorting out a political settlement. And a big aid programme, with bounties for returning to help rebuild viable countries.Forces must be local not Western.
Being socially to the right and economically to the left is how you describe modern rightist movements in Europe. I'm not sure what you mean by economically to the left, but if you mean socialism that's core Europe. It's even traditional in places like Germany which seems to have invented socialism I think somewhere in the late 18th or early 19th centuries --- I'm not sure when exactly. As you know Hitler believed in economic socialism and the common working man. That's why you have National Socialism. And the Nazi Party was certainly perceived as being socially to the right on issues such as immigration. What of course is missing from the equation in a place like Germany is the "nationalism" part. However when I was visiting the Varusschlacht this summer I was amazed at the degree of interest by Germans just for the reason of nationalism. I asked my friend, Gertrude, and she says it's part of the eighth grade curriculum and every German or Austrian knows about the Teutoburg Forest. Hitler didn't use the Romans much but he did use medieval German mythology as a point of German nationalism.
Part of the interest in going to Europe is trying to figure out what makes modern Europeans tick. Obviously I've noticed a lot of American influence in things like fast food in Germany. But other things are harder to explain. I don't know much German. Gary knows more. But I'd love to know why everybody seemed to be talking about Hitler this summer. We heard the name come up in I don't know how many conversations that we couldn't translate. And there was the TV documentary during dinner and the Hotel zur Linde on the outskirts of Hamburg with the Nazi memorabilia in the basement. We were the only Americans in the hotel. Everyone else was German. NO one spoke a word of English. It was all very curious. I understand that Amazon has a TV program based on the Nazis. Can I explain the craze this way? Is everybody interested in finding out about the past? Do they relate to the fantasy TV program? (I haven't watched it, but I've heard it described to me). Or is it something else?
If all this "Hitler stuff" had been going on in the UK when I was visiting I would just have asked someone about it. That's the advantage of speaking the same language.
You say Europe itself would prevent Germany from going Nazi? Why didn't Britain in particular do that in the 1920's and 1930's when it was in charge? As far as Russia goes, they are always complicit in what Germany does and visa versa. Remember how Stalin at first was perfectly happy and willing to go along with Hitler and all his plans. If Hitler had not invaded Russia because of the British, all bets are off. Hitler and Stalin would have divided up Eastern Europe. If in a mythical futuristic drama Germany did it again, Putin would probably be right there with the German leader dividing up territory. They wouldn't try to prevent anything. And France was largely pro-Nazi. There were only a few free French under De Gaulle. Even the Spanish under Franco had their own brand of Fascism that lasted well after WW2. And you had Mussolini in Italy. No one could have done it except England, and that's what happened under Churchill who pulled the US into the war to help him.
This was what made me start writing the Edward Ware Thriller Series. Before that I didn't realize that the Continent was largely Nazi. I was fascinated to find out how much influence Hitler had in Britain. And I don't mean just with Mosley and the British Fascists. I mean with the King, with certain members of Parliament, with the upper classes, etc. This and Churchill's underground spy ring was what lured me in. If it had been Hitler and the USA I would never have written the series. The US was BORING at that time period. They didn't like Hitler because they didn't like dictators. It was that simple. The strongest influence he had with the US was the America First Movement and the Isolationists.
How can you make a political settlement with IS? How can you deal with international pirates?
Linda wrote: "Part of the interest in going to Europe is trying to figure out what makes modern Europeans tick. Obviously I've noticed a lot of American influence in things like fast food in Germany. But other t..."I am not sure there is any more talk of Hitler now than before. This year was the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, that may have helped. But you must remember these wars are remote to Americans. Many do not even know where some of the countries are. In Europe it is local.
Linda wrote: "You say Europe itself would prevent Germany from going Nazi? Why didn't Britain in particular do that in the 1920's and 1930's when it was in charge? As far as Russia goes, they are always complici..."No you are wrong about this. The Russians lost 40 million dead in WWII fighting the Nazis. The Brits took the full weight of the German bombing offensive.
Neither would be willing to go through that again. If some re-militarized aggressive expansionist Nazi state reappeared Russia and Britain would nuke it, believe me. And if Russia did not Britain would.
There's is no point anyway. For practical purposes Germany controls Europe now. The EU now has roughly the same borders as the Reich before it invaded Russia. That's what people talk about. The Germans did with money what they could not do with arms.
Linda wrote: "How can you make a political settlement with IS? How can you deal with international pirates?"You don't settle with IS. You sort out a settlement for the Sunnis. Then IS would fizzle out. Remember they only exist because the Sunnis let them, not because they are a military force.
They are not pirates anyway. Pirates do it for money.IS does it for perverted religious ideology, like the various incarnations of blood thirsty Christians of old. It is quite a different thing altogether. They have loads of money.
Linda wrote: "You say Europe itself would prevent Germany from going Nazi? Why didn't Britain in particular do that in the 1920's and 1930's when it was in charge? As far as Russia goes, they are always complici..."Agree with some of this but Hitler planned to attack Russia from the very beginning. It had nothing to do with Britain. The nostrum put out by historians that Hitler attacked Russia to defeat Britain is utter and complete rubbish and always has been. But then I know. They just guess. My father always said that Hess said Hitler wanted Britain to join the attack on the Soviets, but was willing to settle for us keeping out of the way and not launching a second front.
In Europe it is certainly very real. Here you might find it in a textbook. There you find it in someone's basement. Even with a time period as remote as the Romans you find it right in front of you. The Varusschlacht in 9 AD seemed very real. You walked through the woods of the Teutoburg Forest. You could imagine the Romans walking through the same woods especially when the re-enactors managed to place wooden traps in the trees of the types that the Germans used to catch the Romans.
Hitler began to seem all too real to me when I read first hand sources such as the memoirs of those who worked at the Berghof, For the first time he began to seem like a real person. He must seem real to the Germans, too. They must have family memories of him as well as stories. To Americans Hitler is a cartoon character.
I am not wrong about the Russians and the Germans. They are always conspiring together. Even during WW2 there was something dark going on in Eastern Europe with the Nazis and the various groups of Eastern Europeans and Russians. The Nazi Germans under Himmler were somehow getting various groups to do their dirty work for them. Russia supposedly won't even allow anyone to look at its records about camps. In fact, it has supposedly destroyed them. When you say that Russia lost millions of people, it is true. They suffered the worst of any country in both world wars. But those in control don't care. The people are cannon fodder. Stalin liked to conduct campaigns like that. Stalin would much rather have gone along with Hitler than fought him. The reason is that Germany has been Russia's chief European interface for centuries. They can barely function without the Germans and they know it. Germany is greatly admired. Even Hitler was admired though they fought him. Various Russian ladies including Nina Petrovna who is coming back to Tucson this winter from St. Petersburg have admired my son, Kenny's looks. Why? They say unabashedly that he looks German. Another Russian lady that we were talking to said that she checks the backgrounds of various applicants who want to rent her apartments. She runs credit checks on most people but never if they are Germans or look like they have German ancestry.
East Germany was the backbone of the Soviet Union. When it fell the Soviet Union fell. Remember that "communism" was invented in Germany.
The British would never "nuke" anybody in Europe let alone the Germans. They are too close by. You would kill yourselves off by doing that. Think of nuclear clouds and radioactive wastes. And besides the British would never act independently of the US in this matter. The US would have other ways of dealing with the Germans other than nukes. I agree that the EU is Germany and another attempt at a German Empire done through economics instead of conquest. The Russians think this, too. And you notice how Putin likes to deal with the Germans nowadays.
All the historians agree that Hitler attacked the Russians because of the British. I don't have time now. I have to make breakfast. But I'll summarize it later.
Anybody who acts outside the power of an established state is a pirate by definition. Maybe most pirates act for money and ransom but they don't have to. And don't deceive yourself about motives. Perverted religious ideology is a veneer for somebody in the background grabbing power and money.
Linda wrote: "All the historians agree that Hitler attacked the Russians because of the British. I don't have time now. I have to make breakfast. But I'll summarize it later."Please don't waste time quoting more historians to me. I have read the very best and I know what the accepted line is. But my information comes from outside the historians' sphere.
You and Gary will find this short blog, Brit Into Space, amusing.http://www.malcolmblair-robinson.co.u...
Linda wrote: "The British would never "nuke" anybody in Europe let alone the Germans. They are too close by. You would kill yourselves off by doing that. Think of nuclear clouds and radioactive wastes. And besid..."I agree I exaggerate, but believe me the Brits would stop at nothing to prevent the rise of a re-militarised Nazi state. So would the French, as well as the Russians. The Germans know it is not even a fantasy option. But they could end up with a stronger far right essentially against too much immigration. But not Nazi. The French far right was beaten in the second round of voting for the regions and did not win a single one. But their total votes was the highest ever. They are very anti EU.
Opinion polls now show a majority of UK voters proposing to vote to leave the EU. That would be a bigger disaster for Europe than for the UK.
Can you imagine the British nuking the Germans with the Americans still in both countries? The Americans can't fight themselves. Besides, if the two leading powers in Europe started going at it again, America would have to make them stop.
Yes there is a lot of truth in what you say. But there are not many orders issued. Most of it is locally planned by self starters. They are never members of IS. They are supporters. There is sometimes coordination, but it is not centrally controlled.