The piece does not discuss the extent to which US hegemony brings with it a cultural alignment with ultra-progressive liberalism. Open borders, identity politics and the destruction of the family are themselves seen as a threat to security by countries such as Poland, Hungary and Turkey let alone Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Russia herself.
Exactly. His statement that “The idea of the “West” … is an illusion that weaponises collective paranoia for ideological unity …” is spherical-objects.
Illusion my foot.
The cultural synergies exist. I’ve travelled very widely over several decades and I know the countries where I felt foreign – often delightfully so – e.g., in Japan. But I always felt quite at home in the US and in W Europe. The differences we love to find in the US and in W Europe are mere surface cultural peccadilloes. There are large numbers of Brits and Paddies living v happily in France, Spain etc. They do so by choice, because they like it there, and they feel right at home. Can’t say the same about Russia or Iran lol.
In reality, even the Brits and the French have way more in common with each other culturally (post-Christian, largely white, democracies) than the so-called “alliances” between the Chinese, Russian and Iranians, which latter are primarily the personal conveniences of dictators and have no cultural meaning or purchase whatsoever among their respective hoi polloi.
As a young man I worked in England where the term Paddy was an insult (one was often not even asked one’s name but simply addressed as Pat.) I would prefer if you didn’t use it to refer to Irish people.
He did call his own Brits, to be fair.. it too has some negative connotations I think? I suppose he might have continued with Yanks, Ruskies though I think Frogs, and that nasty term for MEs might have been going a bit too far.. I’m not too bothered.. sticks and stones etc. ..we had plenty of those from the Brits in the past! ..oops, better not go there!!
He did call his own Brits, to be fair.. it too has some negative connotations I think? I suppose he might have continued with Yanks, Ruskies though I think Frogs, and that nasty term for MEs might have been going a bit too far.. I’m not too bothered.. sticks and stones etc. ..we had plenty of those from the Brits in the past! ..oops, better not go there!!
You make a good point. However, unlike you I found the USA, esp the East Coast a very scary place and far too engrossed in greed and consumerism fort liking.
I spend 6 months in France, Spain and (mostly) Portugal – you can probably guess where I spend my summers! I feel most at home in Portugal, then Spain and France less so. In recent years I have found England to be cold though less so, Wales..
And everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. And once we get that nice free trade deal fully signed up with USA poor people like me will be able to pig out on ample cheap meat that USA will flood our supermarkets with,I mean who needs farmers anyway. But we’ll be able to SELL THEM cars which I didn’t even know we still made some,I mean we’ll just kill that car trade in USA. Free trade is so great how it benefits both parties to a deal,in theory at least,only didn’t Mr Trump get a lot of votes from pointing out that free trade wasnt so hot when the other side ie China had got the upper hand.
As a young man I worked in England where the term Paddy was an insult (one was often not even asked one’s name but simply addressed as Pat.) I would prefer if you didn’t use it to refer to Irish people.
You make a good point. However, unlike you I found the USA, esp the East Coast a very scary place and far too engrossed in greed and consumerism fort liking.
I spend 6 months in France, Spain and (mostly) Portugal – you can probably guess where I spend my summers! I feel most at home in Portugal, then Spain and France less so. In recent years I have found England to be cold though less so, Wales..
And everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. And once we get that nice free trade deal fully signed up with USA poor people like me will be able to pig out on ample cheap meat that USA will flood our supermarkets with,I mean who needs farmers anyway. But we’ll be able to SELL THEM cars which I didn’t even know we still made some,I mean we’ll just kill that car trade in USA. Free trade is so great how it benefits both parties to a deal,in theory at least,only didn’t Mr Trump get a lot of votes from pointing out that free trade wasnt so hot when the other side ie China had got the upper hand.
That’s true. Chinese and Russian societies are, for that matter, far more culturally conservative than ultra-progressive liberalism, whatever their forms of government may be. Their economic systems are unequivocally capitalist, and what is less generally well-known, even the much-made-of military-industrial alignments in China are no stronger than they are in, say, the US. Perhaps these are even less mature, until about now.
Are you suggesting the US government is influenced by the military industrial complex? Surely not? You’ll be telling us next Wall St and Silicon valley are in on it too! Bernie Sanders described the US government as the best that money can buy!!
And surely you’re not suggesting anything of the sort influences the GB government are you? Dear oh dear.. whatever next?
Are you suggesting the US government is influenced by the military industrial complex? Surely not? You’ll be telling us next Wall St and Silicon valley are in on it too! Bernie Sanders described the US government as the best that money can buy!!
And surely you’re not suggesting anything of the sort influences the GB government are you? Dear oh dear.. whatever next?
Well, that’s a kind of no-brainer isn’t it? The question however, is rather whether Poland is happier with the US or with the EU..
It is certain that the EU isn’t very happy with Poland!..although, under US instruction I think they’re kissing and making up.
Ursula VdL sounds more and more like an American propagandist-puppet. Only Macron speaks for Europe without the US jackboot on his neck. What kind of country allows its ally to blow up its source of energy? ..none but a sycophantic slave. Sunak isn’t much better but he thinks he’s the master and the US his slave! I believe he lives in the Matrix!
He is Boris’s avatar. That summer of the tv style elimination vote,to distract all us idiots. Old Bodge was making secret deals. He is REALLY still our Prime Minister but Rishi is keeping his seat warm for him. That’s why the malignant blonde goes around the world making deals with “world leaders” like he thinks he’s the Prime Minister. After all those low turn out elections we used to have that no one bothered to turn out for,they’re time wasting and expensive,it’s much more efficient to just appoint each other and THERES A WAR ON DONT YOU KNOW.
He is Boris’s avatar. That summer of the tv style elimination vote,to distract all us idiots. Old Bodge was making secret deals. He is REALLY still our Prime Minister but Rishi is keeping his seat warm for him. That’s why the malignant blonde goes around the world making deals with “world leaders” like he thinks he’s the Prime Minister. After all those low turn out elections we used to have that no one bothered to turn out for,they’re time wasting and expensive,it’s much more efficient to just appoint each other and THERES A WAR ON DONT YOU KNOW.
Well, that’s a kind of no-brainer isn’t it? The question however, is rather whether Poland is happier with the US or with the EU..
It is certain that the EU isn’t very happy with Poland!..although, under US instruction I think they’re kissing and making up.
Ursula VdL sounds more and more like an American propagandist-puppet. Only Macron speaks for Europe without the US jackboot on his neck. What kind of country allows its ally to blow up its source of energy? ..none but a sycophantic slave. Sunak isn’t much better but he thinks he’s the master and the US his slave! I believe he lives in the Matrix!
Exactly. His statement that “The idea of the “West” … is an illusion that weaponises collective paranoia for ideological unity …” is spherical-objects.
Illusion my foot.
The cultural synergies exist. I’ve travelled very widely over several decades and I know the countries where I felt foreign – often delightfully so – e.g., in Japan. But I always felt quite at home in the US and in W Europe. The differences we love to find in the US and in W Europe are mere surface cultural peccadilloes. There are large numbers of Brits and Paddies living v happily in France, Spain etc. They do so by choice, because they like it there, and they feel right at home. Can’t say the same about Russia or Iran lol.
In reality, even the Brits and the French have way more in common with each other culturally (post-Christian, largely white, democracies) than the so-called “alliances” between the Chinese, Russian and Iranians, which latter are primarily the personal conveniences of dictators and have no cultural meaning or purchase whatsoever among their respective hoi polloi.
That’s true. Chinese and Russian societies are, for that matter, far more culturally conservative than ultra-progressive liberalism, whatever their forms of government may be. Their economic systems are unequivocally capitalist, and what is less generally well-known, even the much-made-of military-industrial alignments in China are no stronger than they are in, say, the US. Perhaps these are even less mature, until about now.
Poland clearly is much more happy with the US than Russia.
Christian Moon
11 months ago
The piece does not discuss the extent to which US hegemony brings with it a cultural alignment with ultra-progressive liberalism. Open borders, identity politics and the destruction of the family are themselves seen as a threat to security by countries such as Poland, Hungary and Turkey let alone Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Russia herself.
Fafa Fafa
11 months ago
This has been a disheartening read. All these factors mentioned here, NATO, Macron, Clinton, Bush, Washington, Sweden, “pillars on the continent”, the West, geopolitics, “the elites”, blocs, states being sympathetic to this and that, etc, etc – they describe the world as the plaything ,or chess table, of entities completely unconcerned with the actual human beings living in it. They can do it because the power of the individual has been steadily diminishing during the past century (or so) and the last time I thought I had a smidgeon of influence on, let’s say, what NATO was going to do, or what weapons the US should buy or sell, was exactly never. And the last time I believed, without instinctively wondering if it may be a lie, what I read in a newspaper, was sometime in the mid-1990s.
To me, your observation here is profoundly valid. Although, this is how geopolitical strategists view the world, forcing that on us as a reality at the state and multistate level. Like the Greek gods they subconsciously equate with.
To me, your observation here is profoundly valid. Although, this is how geopolitical strategists view the world, forcing that on us as a reality at the state and multistate level. Like the Greek gods they subconsciously equate with.
Fafa Fafa
11 months ago
This has been a disheartening read. All these factors mentioned here, NATO, Macron, Clinton, Bush, Washington, Sweden, “pillars on the continent”, the West, geopolitics, “the elites”, blocs, states being sympathetic to this and that, etc, etc – they describe the world as the plaything ,or chess table, of entities completely unconcerned with the actual human beings living in it. They can do it because the power of the individual has been steadily diminishing during the past century (or so) and the last time I thought I had a smidgeon of influence on, let’s say, what NATO was going to do, or what weapons the US should buy or sell, was exactly never. And the last time I believed, without instinctively wondering if it may be a lie, what I read in a newspaper, was sometime in the mid-1990s.
Peter B
11 months ago
Too many words. And far too many long words.
Why in 2023 can we not use diagram, maps and graphics to communicate ideas in a far shorter and easier to read format ?
There are a few key ideas hidden in here, but they don’t readily come out.
I’d highlight these (some mentioned, some not):
#1 There is a genuine divergence between “legacy” EU and the Eastern European countries.
#2 The new E Europe countries have the numbers, but the old countries still have the power – this may not be stable/durable.
#3 The E Europe countries don’t really trust the W Europe countries to defend them – and why would they ? We did an awful job in the last century. And it was only the US in 1919 who really forced through the new nations of E Europe. Poland trusts the US far more than France or Germany. And rightly so. France and Germany cannot be trusted to do the right thing – instance their initial Ukraine reactions.
#4 The French elite has an inherent dislike/jealousy of the US.
# 5 France has a huge arms export industry and wants a captive market for it.
#6 Germany doesn’t really know what it wants. Still.
#7 Europe on the whole still isn’t prepared to pay for its own defence.
One major problem, often overlooked is that post 1945 the US was FAR too generous, and should have ignored the pretensions of both the UK and France. Neither should have been permitted to develop an Atomic Bomb.
Their status as “dediticii”* should NOT have been overlooked!
The Romans would NEVER have been so generous with their ‘allies’.
How exactly would the US have been able to stop the UK and France developing atomic weapons ? They both had the scientific and technical strengths and equipment to do so (certainly the UK did).
One interesting sidelight here – I read somone the other day who pointed out that it was Western useful idiots (spies) who gave Stalin the bomb. Sadly true. Yet the useful idiots never learn.
Our development was kept v secret CH. The Atlee Govt was aware of that potential, as was Churchill when returned. The US sentiment changed anyway with Korea etc and come early 60s they were selling us Polaris.
Now where the supplication has validity is with Suez, but then interestingly not with Vietnam.
The US was aware of plans and made it quite difficult for us, thus our first ‘bomb’ wasn’t even detonated until late 1952.
However they could and should have stopped us even contemplating having the ‘bomb’ in 1946.
Nothing could disguise the fact that post 1945 we were, and still are an American helot.
The US was aware of plans and made it quite difficult for us, thus our first ‘bomb’ wasn’t even detonated until late 1952.
However they could and should have stopped us even contemplating having the ‘bomb’ in 1946.
Nothing could disguise the fact that post 1945 we were, and still are an American helot.
Our development was kept v secret CH. The Atlee Govt was aware of that potential, as was Churchill when returned. The US sentiment changed anyway with Korea etc and come early 60s they were selling us Polaris.
Now where the supplication has validity is with Suez, but then interestingly not with Vietnam.
Stalin got everything he wanted from the ‘West’ (i.e. the US). The Soviets alone would have lost WWII big time! Today, Western (useless) idiot ‘leaders’ continue to swamp Western industries, businesses and seats of learning with spies by planeloads and uneducated, uninvited ‘migrants’ invade our lands by shiploads. The more , the merrier, it seems!
All correct apart from “uninvited migrants”.
Surely huge majority of immigrants came to UK via visa route?
They are not invited by huge majority of the population by all political parties ignore this wish.
True, but far too many migrants are ‘invited’ only by their dream for a better life and do not possess a visa
It’s our government’s duty to protect borders as well as local citizen’s interests.
..a better life? Yes but only because you ruined his life in his own country over the past 200 years.. *India’s GDP was 27% of the world’s GDP before GB ruined it.. it was 4% when you left.. Hence shed loads had no option but to go to where the Indian loot was now housed, the UK. Ask Rishi Sunak!
* included Pakistan and Bangladesh at the time of course
The migrant’s source countries’ GDP from pre-colonial days is pretty meaningless (Did that even exist?) The Indian subcontinent and neighbouring countries today are overflowing with humans, bursting at the seems with well over two billion (& growing) disillusioned, undereducated, underemployed, poorly governed (English speaking) people. That’s why migrants are leaving, nothing to do with colonialism. Mostly of their own recent, corrupt governments making!
(I have lived in India for 2 1/2 years)
That is an extremely offensive comment. India’s GDP is higher than the UKs. There are problems but not what you try to depict. I dont know when you stayed here in India but it must have been ages back.
Let’s be realistic, there are more people on the Indian subcontinent living in poverty or near poverty today than ever before – in numbers. Plus, the environment is in a deplorable state. Reasons as above.
I think it’s a bit ‘offensive’ to these many hundreds of millions of poor people to deny this fact.
Which world are you in? Per capita GDP has sharp variations. Some states in North Central India are poorer while some in the South are extremely prosperous. You are obviously a reader of various agit prop polemicists who thrive on charity doles from the likes of you to sell poverty.
Go on mouthing these inane Neo colonial niceties to feel good about your sinking economy.
As for the environment that’s a challenge which the government is trying its best about by pushing solar energy etc
How patronizing. That phrase “poor people” when you get to mix with “poor people” maybe are one but it’s much more complex than it seems,all those “poor people” are individuals. Some aspire to get out of poverty,some of them by education and hard work,some by winning a lottery or pulling a successful scam. Some are actually comfortable with “poverty” of either the respectable or non-respectable kind. Some of us in the West were inculcated from infancy with certain ideas,or rather one particular interpretation of ideas posited by That Man way back in Old Judee. That Man seemed to think poverty was a blessed state of being but it’s not,it’s not even spiritually enriching. The best use of poverty is,as Pericles the Athenian said,to teach you to get out of it pdq. Which is why it always irks me when dimbos criticize Sunak et al for being rich. Far from being out of touch and having no idea what life is like at poverty level they know exactly and very well – WHICH IS WHY THEYRE RICH!
Which world are you in? Per capita GDP has sharp variations. Some states in North Central India are poorer while some in the South are extremely prosperous. You are obviously a reader of various agit prop polemicists who thrive on charity doles from the likes of you to sell poverty.
Go on mouthing these inane Neo colonial niceties to feel good about your sinking economy.
As for the environment that’s a challenge which the government is trying its best about by pushing solar energy etc
How patronizing. That phrase “poor people” when you get to mix with “poor people” maybe are one but it’s much more complex than it seems,all those “poor people” are individuals. Some aspire to get out of poverty,some of them by education and hard work,some by winning a lottery or pulling a successful scam. Some are actually comfortable with “poverty” of either the respectable or non-respectable kind. Some of us in the West were inculcated from infancy with certain ideas,or rather one particular interpretation of ideas posited by That Man way back in Old Judee. That Man seemed to think poverty was a blessed state of being but it’s not,it’s not even spiritually enriching. The best use of poverty is,as Pericles the Athenian said,to teach you to get out of it pdq. Which is why it always irks me when dimbos criticize Sunak et al for being rich. Far from being out of touch and having no idea what life is like at poverty level they know exactly and very well – WHICH IS WHY THEYRE RICH!
I think the GDP point is meant to be about GDP per head.
In fact, India is also bursting with pretty well educated people. I was surprised how many private schools there were in my brief visits. There are also lots of female engineers.
In my last job (in a US tech company), I had 3 levels of Indian-born managers above me. All very smart and very good.
In my limited experience in India (only 2 weeks in two large cities), inequality in India is far higher than anything I’ve seen in Europe – there literally seems to be no safety net at the bottom. I also got the impression that many Indians didn’t seem to feel this was a critical issue. Families with young children sleeping under concrete bridges didn’t seem to bother passers by. Perhaps that’s not representative, but it felt that way.
Povertarianism is an industry which sells well in the West to justify the loads of funding activists receive. A bit like DEI. Actually the inequality in India is mainly due to Nehruvian Socialism creating artificial shortages and an elite ecosystem. The last decade has seen a remarkable junking of this privileged ecosystem which has now found refuge chiefly in the Anglosphere to rave and rant about ” poverty”. They find lots of succour from many who abound here on Unherd who dwell in a fantasy of proto imperial notions of ” poor” people in India …especially as their comfortable affluence sinks.
You may find people living on the street in LA or San Francisco but that is ok, cause its in the First world.
And as someone rebuked me on a Facebook post,there are no people WITH JOBS,living in tents on the streets of San Francisco,that’s a media lie. I was told. By a mid-west American. Who maybe has never been to San Francisco. But doesn’t like Brits dissing USA.
And as someone rebuked me on a Facebook post,there are no people WITH JOBS,living in tents on the streets of San Francisco,that’s a media lie. I was told. By a mid-west American. Who maybe has never been to San Francisco. But doesn’t like Brits dissing USA.
Povertarianism is an industry which sells well in the West to justify the loads of funding activists receive. A bit like DEI. Actually the inequality in India is mainly due to Nehruvian Socialism creating artificial shortages and an elite ecosystem. The last decade has seen a remarkable junking of this privileged ecosystem which has now found refuge chiefly in the Anglosphere to rave and rant about ” poverty”. They find lots of succour from many who abound here on Unherd who dwell in a fantasy of proto imperial notions of ” poor” people in India …especially as their comfortable affluence sinks.
You may find people living on the street in LA or San Francisco but that is ok, cause its in the First world.
Let’s be realistic, there are more people on the Indian subcontinent living in poverty or near poverty today than ever before – in numbers. Plus, the environment is in a deplorable state. Reasons as above.
I think it’s a bit ‘offensive’ to these many hundreds of millions of poor people to deny this fact.
I think the GDP point is meant to be about GDP per head.
In fact, India is also bursting with pretty well educated people. I was surprised how many private schools there were in my brief visits. There are also lots of female engineers.
In my last job (in a US tech company), I had 3 levels of Indian-born managers above me. All very smart and very good.
In my limited experience in India (only 2 weeks in two large cities), inequality in India is far higher than anything I’ve seen in Europe – there literally seems to be no safety net at the bottom. I also got the impression that many Indians didn’t seem to feel this was a critical issue. Families with young children sleeping under concrete bridges didn’t seem to bother passers by. Perhaps that’s not representative, but it felt that way.
That is an extremely offensive comment. India’s GDP is higher than the UKs. There are problems but not what you try to depict. I dont know when you stayed here in India but it must have been ages back.
It is not Indian people that people are complaining of, I hope. They certainly had a right to come here as Commonwealth citizens & for the huge amount of assistance in the form of people who joined the UK armed services during WWI & WWII. Nor were these people either uncivilised or ignorant.
People from India,of that ethnicity are VERY SMART. And they are good with numbers. Rishi doesn’t get how us anglo-saxon types are so thick at numbers (some of us) and even proud of it. In a perverse way. I comprehend his incomprehension of this attitude. It’s only a cliche because it’s true.
Indians brains can do numbers.
People from India,of that ethnicity are VERY SMART. And they are good with numbers. Rishi doesn’t get how us anglo-saxon types are so thick at numbers (some of us) and even proud of it. In a perverse way. I comprehend his incomprehension of this attitude. It’s only a cliche because it’s true.
Indians brains can do numbers.
The migrant’s source countries’ GDP from pre-colonial days is pretty meaningless (Did that even exist?) The Indian subcontinent and neighbouring countries today are overflowing with humans, bursting at the seems with well over two billion (& growing) disillusioned, undereducated, underemployed, poorly governed (English speaking) people. That’s why migrants are leaving, nothing to do with colonialism. Mostly of their own recent, corrupt governments making!
(I have lived in India for 2 1/2 years)
It is not Indian people that people are complaining of, I hope. They certainly had a right to come here as Commonwealth citizens & for the huge amount of assistance in the form of people who joined the UK armed services during WWI & WWII. Nor were these people either uncivilised or ignorant.
..a better life? Yes but only because you ruined his life in his own country over the past 200 years.. *India’s GDP was 27% of the world’s GDP before GB ruined it.. it was 4% when you left.. Hence shed loads had no option but to go to where the Indian loot was now housed, the UK. Ask Rishi Sunak!
* included Pakistan and Bangladesh at the time of course
Of the US and UK didn’t topple progressive leaders and governments, invade, bomb, destroy and loot all those countries they’d all stay at home, wouldn’t they? ‘can’t have it both ways guys ..it’s payback time! If you burn down your neighbour’s house he’s going to shelter in yours isn’t he?
Re: the US and central and South America, it is not the US that has caused these countries to be in the economic and safety degradation they are in.
When the US held some influence on them and shored up certain “governments” in these countries there was not the drive to leave them.
It is when they were given the ability to elect their own leaders that the situation degraded because the leadership they eventually elected were corrupt! Which is what happens when you have a country of mostly uneducated peasantry attempting to establish democracy!
What we have here now, re: the US, is an organized effort by left leaning NGOs, with the complicit coordination from the regime in Washington to encourage and coerce people from many countries to attempt the dangerous and expensive journey to the US. The unspoken goal is to overload the US economy and therefor collapse it!
One must ask ones self, why all these black and brown skinned people, would want to make such an effort to come to a country that those same Leftist NGOs call a “systemically racist and white supremacists” country.
Re: the US and central and South America, it is not the US that has caused these countries to be in the economic and safety degradation they are in.
When the US held some influence on them and shored up certain “governments” in these countries there was not the drive to leave them.
It is when they were given the ability to elect their own leaders that the situation degraded because the leadership they eventually elected were corrupt! Which is what happens when you have a country of mostly uneducated peasantry attempting to establish democracy!
What we have here now, re: the US, is an organized effort by left leaning NGOs, with the complicit coordination from the regime in Washington to encourage and coerce people from many countries to attempt the dangerous and expensive journey to the US. The unspoken goal is to overload the US economy and therefor collapse it!
One must ask ones self, why all these black and brown skinned people, would want to make such an effort to come to a country that those same Leftist NGOs call a “systemically racist and white supremacists” country.
What you forget is for a large part of the post war period the migrants were British passport holders as part of the Empire. Why did they need an invite in such circumstances? Nonetheless labour shortages did lead to alot of overseas recruitment. Not much changed since then.
Because from maybe the 1940s onwards,and certainly when I was at school in the 1960s the idea that manual work,factory work,low paid work was demeaning and beneath our human dignity was totally inculcated into us at school by the teachers but also I think in subtle ways by radio,tv,and all other media. Everyone had to be a unique winner. Everyone should aspire to be famous. The idea that you spend 40 years steadily plugging away but paying for your house,with your wife you love,and your kids,so boring and bourgeois! Well,it’s now 50 years since the 1970s and most of the people I know have happily lived that life. It’s the life most people want to live but for a decade or two the liberal type intellectuals got control of the media,education etc so they could indoctrinate us with their poison.
Because from maybe the 1940s onwards,and certainly when I was at school in the 1960s the idea that manual work,factory work,low paid work was demeaning and beneath our human dignity was totally inculcated into us at school by the teachers but also I think in subtle ways by radio,tv,and all other media. Everyone had to be a unique winner. Everyone should aspire to be famous. The idea that you spend 40 years steadily plugging away but paying for your house,with your wife you love,and your kids,so boring and bourgeois! Well,it’s now 50 years since the 1970s and most of the people I know have happily lived that life. It’s the life most people want to live but for a decade or two the liberal type intellectuals got control of the media,education etc so they could indoctrinate us with their poison.
True, but far too many migrants are ‘invited’ only by their dream for a better life and do not possess a visa
It’s our government’s duty to protect borders as well as local citizen’s interests.
Of the US and UK didn’t topple progressive leaders and governments, invade, bomb, destroy and loot all those countries they’d all stay at home, wouldn’t they? ‘can’t have it both ways guys ..it’s payback time! If you burn down your neighbour’s house he’s going to shelter in yours isn’t he?
What you forget is for a large part of the post war period the migrants were British passport holders as part of the Empire. Why did they need an invite in such circumstances? Nonetheless labour shortages did lead to alot of overseas recruitment. Not much changed since then.
So, it was the US/UK that really won WW2, and they saved Russia in doing so was it?
Ha ha, ha ha.. do you have any more like that! WW2 was a skirmish in the West, a full-scale war in the East.. check the numbers of men, and equipment! You’ve read too many Battler Britten comics!
All correct apart from “uninvited migrants”.
Surely huge majority of immigrants came to UK via visa route?
They are not invited by huge majority of the population by all political parties ignore this wish.
So, it was the US/UK that really won WW2, and they saved Russia in doing so was it?
Ha ha, ha ha.. do you have any more like that! WW2 was a skirmish in the West, a full-scale war in the East.. check the numbers of men, and equipment! You’ve read too many Battler Britten comics!
Spies gave Stalin the bomb, not useful idiots. The spies knew perfectly well what they were doing and were committed Communists. “Useful idiot” was the Soviet term for those in the West who unwittingly helped the Soviet cause.
Yes and that included some of the spies !
Check what the Russians themselves said about Donald Maclean. They considered him a naive idealist. That’s a useful idiot in my book.
Yes and that included some of the spies !
Check what the Russians themselves said about Donald Maclean. They considered him a naive idealist. That’s a useful idiot in my book.
The nonsense that we can “limit” which countries can obtain nuclear weapons is elitist and foolish. The great scare that if “country X gets nukes, the world will burn” was proven wrong when India and Pakistan each developed nukes. The same breathless “chicken littles” we hear from today re; Iran, were the same screaming that the region would go up in flames when India and then Pakistan obtained nukes.
If Iran and subsequently Saudi Arabia obtain nukes, then peace is assured between these countries. To believe that the Iranian leadership is suicidal, which launching a Nuke at Israel would surely be, is again, naive. It is this same assumption that kept us on the “eve of destruction” during the cold war. We thought the Soviets were crazy and they thought the same about us! Neither were suicidal!
Stalin got everything he wanted from the ‘West’ (i.e. the US). The Soviets alone would have lost WWII big time! Today, Western (useless) idiot ‘leaders’ continue to swamp Western industries, businesses and seats of learning with spies by planeloads and uneducated, uninvited ‘migrants’ invade our lands by shiploads. The more , the merrier, it seems!
Spies gave Stalin the bomb, not useful idiots. The spies knew perfectly well what they were doing and were committed Communists. “Useful idiot” was the Soviet term for those in the West who unwittingly helped the Soviet cause.
The nonsense that we can “limit” which countries can obtain nuclear weapons is elitist and foolish. The great scare that if “country X gets nukes, the world will burn” was proven wrong when India and Pakistan each developed nukes. The same breathless “chicken littles” we hear from today re; Iran, were the same screaming that the region would go up in flames when India and then Pakistan obtained nukes.
If Iran and subsequently Saudi Arabia obtain nukes, then peace is assured between these countries. To believe that the Iranian leadership is suicidal, which launching a Nuke at Israel would surely be, is again, naive. It is this same assumption that kept us on the “eve of destruction” during the cold war. We thought the Soviets were crazy and they thought the same about us! Neither were suicidal!
Sadly, like millions of others you have been reading the wrong ‘comic’.
We ended up on the winning side in WWII thanks to the US. Otherwise we would have been defeated in late 1940, mainly because we were bankrupt!
Even so called ‘victory’ in 1945 meant destruction of our Empire and the complete evaporation of any possible claim to ‘Great Power’ status, and thus us our reincarnation as an American helot.
All this was completely predictable in 1939, if only we had eyes to see.
I prefer to look at it the other way – Britain knew full well it would lose its Empire to defeat Nazism but did it anyway. Like a bee with one sting. I don’t know if being patronising is part of your schtick, but I don’t read comics.
GB could have easily formed an alliance with Germany in 1939.. Hitler was well up for it. He knew a fellow NatC nation when he saw it. It was all Churchill’s fault.. bloody megalomaniac. lol.
Surprisingly you could be right.
If you believe Pat Buchanan ( The Unnecessary War) Churchill’s hard on for the Germans played a large part in dragging us in to WW1
Surprisingly you could be right.
If you believe Pat Buchanan ( The Unnecessary War) Churchill’s hard on for the Germans played a large part in dragging us in to WW1
Because you’re not on social media. Like a few decades ago people like you didn’t watch or own a tv set. Mostly the people who were actually on tv a lot. Writers and intellectuals,people like that. Now it’s the coolest thing to claim not to be on social media,except unless you say it on social media no one knows. SCHTICK is a Jewish or Yiddish expression and its been around FOREVER and it means spiel or spin or the story you use to present something in a particular light,like Zuckerberg tried with his meta idea that is now defunct as no one liked his Schtick on that one
Because you’re not on social media. Like a few decades ago people like you didn’t watch or own a tv set. Mostly the people who were actually on tv a lot. Writers and intellectuals,people like that. Now it’s the coolest thing to claim not to be on social media,except unless you say it on social media no one knows. SCHTICK is a Jewish or Yiddish expression and its been around FOREVER and it means spiel or spin or the story you use to present something in a particular light,like Zuckerberg tried with his meta idea that is now defunct as no one liked his Schtick on that one
Except we didn’t defeat Nazism. We stamped on it. But it,the ideology scuttled away to hide in a dark place. That place was Academia where for a little over 15 years it was worked on,remodelled and rebranded. It reemerged circa 1963 like P.Larkin recorded only now it was about freedom,choice and compassion. The people who recognised what it was,it was easy to mock and diss them. How we laughed. Malcolm Muggeridge (I loved that voice),Mary Whitehouse (shock horror,she once had an affair). As a boring,middle aged housewife what could she know about the delirious joys of sex eh.
Despite being married and even having had an affair. Oddly enough this only served to negate her warnings to some people not prove that she knew what she was talking about. A popular saying in those days was “don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it”. But if you did “try it” those same bastards would get back at you.”well you now have no moral authority”. You know why the contraceptive pill causes a lot of women health problems and pain because that is actually what it was designed for. The cover story was that it was so women could control their fertility,have agency over their own bodies but most importantly enjoy sex riotously and unreservedly. That was the cover story and a lot of chicks fell for it.
Same with euthanasia or whatever term now applies to state execution. It’s sold as compassion not murder.
GB could have easily formed an alliance with Germany in 1939.. Hitler was well up for it. He knew a fellow NatC nation when he saw it. It was all Churchill’s fault.. bloody megalomaniac. lol.
Except we didn’t defeat Nazism. We stamped on it. But it,the ideology scuttled away to hide in a dark place. That place was Academia where for a little over 15 years it was worked on,remodelled and rebranded. It reemerged circa 1963 like P.Larkin recorded only now it was about freedom,choice and compassion. The people who recognised what it was,it was easy to mock and diss them. How we laughed. Malcolm Muggeridge (I loved that voice),Mary Whitehouse (shock horror,she once had an affair). As a boring,middle aged housewife what could she know about the delirious joys of sex eh.
Despite being married and even having had an affair. Oddly enough this only served to negate her warnings to some people not prove that she knew what she was talking about. A popular saying in those days was “don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it”. But if you did “try it” those same bastards would get back at you.”well you now have no moral authority”. You know why the contraceptive pill causes a lot of women health problems and pain because that is actually what it was designed for. The cover story was that it was so women could control their fertility,have agency over their own bodies but most importantly enjoy sex riotously and unreservedly. That was the cover story and a lot of chicks fell for it.
Same with euthanasia or whatever term now applies to state execution. It’s sold as compassion not murder.
What exactly is wrong with Britain no longer being a world power and having an empire ? Plenty of countries are like this and doing very well – all the Scandis for example. And running empires doesn’t come cheap.
I really don’t get the strong undercurrent of anti-Americanism around here. What exactly is it that they prevent us from doing that we need to do ? One thing to feel a little resentful or jealous, another to actually prove that they are doing us a great deal of harm. I used to have this same distrust of the US until I got sent to work out there for a year. They are mainly successful because they work hard and do the right things (or at least did for a long period until quite recently – we all have our doubts these days). It’s hard to argue that they’ve somehow cheated their way to the top and don’t deserve it.
I first worked for an American company 35 years ago and mainly for them since. Absolute night and day compared to stodgy British companies and their appalling management.
You seem to have misunderstood me! In no way do I believe the US has somehow “cheated their way to the top”!
‘They’ got their by ‘playing their cards’ correctly, a gravure performance in fact.
‘We’ on the other have played our ‘hand’ quite appallingly from 1914 to 1939, and consequently and deservedly suffered the most humiliating collapse.
As for Empire, you are correct, by 1914 we had had our fun, and it was well beyond its ‘sell by date’ but letting go is always problematical.
Our status as a Great Power was not necessarily linked to Empire, but more to our industrial capacity or lack of. It had some globally beneficial results, but again 1914-18 finished that off as well.
Off course even the ‘Scandis’ you speak of went through this painful process in the 18th century, but they never straddled the Globe as we had done.
Sorry. But I think I still don’t quite understand.
There’s an undertone in your comments regretting “British decline”. But there’s nothing inevitable about that. We’re agreed – the empire couldn’t last. And it may have been better to lose it quickly (as we did) rathe than slowly (the Russian model). But we’re now able to make the best of what we have. I’m not sure anyone’s really stopping us here. Apart from ourselves (which we’re doing an absolutely bang up job of right now of course).
Hang on, aren’t you straying a bit off beam here?
My original premise, which you challenged, was that the US was far too generous with its treatment of both our good selves and the French post 1945, and that neither of us should have been allowed to develop an Atomic bomb.
As it was by allowing ‘us’ to develop the bomb both the British and French ‘establishments’ became delusional as to their true status, eg: “dediticci”.
I certainly do NOT regret Britain’s decline, it was entirely our own fault, but for some extraordinary reason ‘we’ seem to be in deep denial about it. (even post Suez.)
I also do not mourn the loss of Empire, it was after all a bit of a ‘basket case’ at the end, and the UK is not some form of worldwide ‘charity shop’, as some would have us.
However during its three and a half centuries or so of existence* I do believe the British Empire was a rather benign organisation, at least by comparative analysis with most of the others, with the notable exception of Ancient Rome.
As to your final point about us pressing the self-destruct button, yes it certainly looks that way at the moment. The fact that Covid has been used as an excuse to do virtually nothing about Brexit and thus leave us with BINO** is certainly not encouraging, but a short burst of Sir Kier & Co might serve as the catalyst for real change?
We can all play alternative history games but reality interferes.
It was in USA interest to rebuild Europe quickly to avoid communism, Hence the Marshall Plan.
You ignore the fact that till early 80s communist parties vote was over 30% in Italy and 20% in France.
Manace of communism had to be countered, so West Garmany had to be brought into Western alliance (no Morgenthau plan then).
Dictating directly to allies what to do about nuclear bomb was not in USA interest.
We can all play alternative history games but reality interferes.
It was in USA interest to rebuild Europe quickly to avoid communism, Hence the Marshall Plan.
You ignore the fact that till early 80s communist parties vote was over 30% in Italy and 20% in France.
Manace of communism had to be countered, so West Garmany had to be brought into Western alliance (no Morgenthau plan then).
Dictating directly to allies what to do about nuclear bomb was not in USA interest.
Hang on, aren’t you straying a bit off beam here?
My original premise, which you challenged, was that the US was far too generous with its treatment of both our good selves and the French post 1945, and that neither of us should have been allowed to develop an Atomic bomb.
As it was by allowing ‘us’ to develop the bomb both the British and French ‘establishments’ became delusional as to their true status, eg: “dediticci”.
I certainly do NOT regret Britain’s decline, it was entirely our own fault, but for some extraordinary reason ‘we’ seem to be in deep denial about it. (even post Suez.)
I also do not mourn the loss of Empire, it was after all a bit of a ‘basket case’ at the end, and the UK is not some form of worldwide ‘charity shop’, as some would have us.
However during its three and a half centuries or so of existence* I do believe the British Empire was a rather benign organisation, at least by comparative analysis with most of the others, with the notable exception of Ancient Rome.
As to your final point about us pressing the self-destruct button, yes it certainly looks that way at the moment. The fact that Covid has been used as an excuse to do virtually nothing about Brexit and thus leave us with BINO** is certainly not encouraging, but a short burst of Sir Kier & Co might serve as the catalyst for real change?
Could you care to explain how Britain played cards badly in 1914?
Should it allow Germany to defeat France and Russia and totally dominate continent?
I guess upside might be that ww2 could had been avoided.
You ignore Germany desire to achieve naval parity with Britain.
Which, having all Europe resources behind, they could had done.
Then what? You only delayed inevitable showdown with Germany.
But Germany would now had upper hand.
Shouldn’t take any longer than a few thousand years and the upcoming nuclear war.. I’ll bet you have your bunker well stocked Charlie have you? ..all those nice baked beans and jars of caviar and truffles?
Sorry. But I think I still don’t quite understand.
There’s an undertone in your comments regretting “British decline”. But there’s nothing inevitable about that. We’re agreed – the empire couldn’t last. And it may have been better to lose it quickly (as we did) rathe than slowly (the Russian model). But we’re now able to make the best of what we have. I’m not sure anyone’s really stopping us here. Apart from ourselves (which we’re doing an absolutely bang up job of right now of course).
Could you care to explain how Britain played cards badly in 1914?
Should it allow Germany to defeat France and Russia and totally dominate continent?
I guess upside might be that ww2 could had been avoided.
You ignore Germany desire to achieve naval parity with Britain.
Which, having all Europe resources behind, they could had done.
Then what? You only delayed inevitable showdown with Germany.
But Germany would now had upper hand.
Shouldn’t take any longer than a few thousand years and the upcoming nuclear war.. I’ll bet you have your bunker well stocked Charlie have you? ..all those nice baked beans and jars of caviar and truffles?
Thank you. My Dad immigrated from Canada and used to say the same thing. He said, “Americans are go getters. that’s what I want.” He never left the US. I agree that this is rapidly changing now. Sad.
My brother worked for a couple of American companies (building car plants) in the US and thought the management was a joke.
Until recent years I was pro US, but they are now a malign influence in the world and they were never a friend to GB. Of course there is no reason why they should be a friend to GB but even when we were supposed to be allies they never turned up an opportunity to shaft GB. There is a very good quote for Keynes on this point
You seem to have misunderstood me! In no way do I believe the US has somehow “cheated their way to the top”!
‘They’ got their by ‘playing their cards’ correctly, a gravure performance in fact.
‘We’ on the other have played our ‘hand’ quite appallingly from 1914 to 1939, and consequently and deservedly suffered the most humiliating collapse.
As for Empire, you are correct, by 1914 we had had our fun, and it was well beyond its ‘sell by date’ but letting go is always problematical.
Our status as a Great Power was not necessarily linked to Empire, but more to our industrial capacity or lack of. It had some globally beneficial results, but again 1914-18 finished that off as well.
Off course even the ‘Scandis’ you speak of went through this painful process in the 18th century, but they never straddled the Globe as we had done.
Thank you. My Dad immigrated from Canada and used to say the same thing. He said, “Americans are go getters. that’s what I want.” He never left the US. I agree that this is rapidly changing now. Sad.
My brother worked for a couple of American companies (building car plants) in the US and thought the management was a joke.
Until recent years I was pro US, but they are now a malign influence in the world and they were never a friend to GB. Of course there is no reason why they should be a friend to GB but even when we were supposed to be allies they never turned up an opportunity to shaft GB. There is a very good quote for Keynes on this point
The First World War and The Second Worjd War were neither of them as inevitable as we are taught. I only learned this when COVID taught me to reevaluate history. If we had responded better in 1914 the WW2 might not even have followed on. It was not a Serbian bullet that set off WW1 as we are taught. It was actually,well a lot of factors but very significant,the world money system of the time was about to crash,just like now,a nice jolly old war kicked that can down the road and took people’s minds off it for a decade or two. Neville Chamberlain who we are taught to scoff at and deride was actually a humane and very intelligent man who cared about people. He did not want to subject the British people to total war. Thats why they had to replace him with compliant Churchill who would sign the death warrants for millions of people with few qualms. And we did not eradicate Nazi ideology at all. Its now being enforced upon us in every aspect of life but it’s been refashioned and rebranded so most people don’t recognize it as Nazi ideology.
The First World War and The Second Worjd War were neither of them as inevitable as we are taught. I only learned this when COVID taught me to reevaluate history. If we had responded better in 1914 the WW2 might not even have followed on. It was not a Serbian bullet that set off WW1 as we are taught. It was actually,well a lot of factors but very significant,the world money system of the time was about to crash,just like now,a nice jolly old war kicked that can down the road and took people’s minds off it for a decade or two. Neville Chamberlain who we are taught to scoff at and deride was actually a humane and very intelligent man who cared about people. He did not want to subject the British people to total war. Thats why they had to replace him with compliant Churchill who would sign the death warrants for millions of people with few qualms. And we did not eradicate Nazi ideology at all. Its now being enforced upon us in every aspect of life but it’s been refashioned and rebranded so most people don’t recognize it as Nazi ideology.
The wrong comic is yours I am afraid, given that the USA did not enter the war until 1942.
The USA took its pound of flesh in return for any assistance it provided before this time. Those battleships did not come free.
I prefer to look at it the other way – Britain knew full well it would lose its Empire to defeat Nazism but did it anyway. Like a bee with one sting. I don’t know if being patronising is part of your schtick, but I don’t read comics.
What exactly is wrong with Britain no longer being a world power and having an empire ? Plenty of countries are like this and doing very well – all the Scandis for example. And running empires doesn’t come cheap.
I really don’t get the strong undercurrent of anti-Americanism around here. What exactly is it that they prevent us from doing that we need to do ? One thing to feel a little resentful or jealous, another to actually prove that they are doing us a great deal of harm. I used to have this same distrust of the US until I got sent to work out there for a year. They are mainly successful because they work hard and do the right things (or at least did for a long period until quite recently – we all have our doubts these days). It’s hard to argue that they’ve somehow cheated their way to the top and don’t deserve it.
I first worked for an American company 35 years ago and mainly for them since. Absolute night and day compared to stodgy British companies and their appalling management.
The wrong comic is yours I am afraid, given that the USA did not enter the war until 1942.
The USA took its pound of flesh in return for any assistance it provided before this time. Those battleships did not come free.
U.S. war aims in 1941 were these…
Defeat of the Axis powers.
Containment of the Soviets.
Dismemberment and replacement of the British Empire.
Of these tasks the last was the easiest. The British Empire was in its senility and the insistence by the US of the repayment of every cent of war debt helped it gently into the grave. By contrast the nominally defeated (Germany) were showered with aid to rebuild.
And we spent it ALL for ideological reasons on creating The National Health Service and left the task of rebuilding our economy to private businessmen.
And we spent it ALL for ideological reasons on creating The National Health Service and left the task of rebuilding our economy to private businessmen.
That Germany was given more under Marshall Plan then UK is common myth.
UK actually got double, but wasted it on social project instead on retooling industry.
All explained in Alisdair Bournett book “Lost Victory”.
Evidence the US wanted or needed to dismantle the British Empire? You do realize most Americans love the Brits. Fifty years ago, we were obsessed. I read far more British literature growing up than American. And do not say there is no American literature. We are simply taught to love and admire England – or used to be. We were even taught about the incredible British Empire.
Yet you believe we plot against you? Our leaders are people educated with the same ideas as I. Think about it.
We rebuilt Germany to bring them to our side against the Soviet. We had to win those hearts and minds. England did not need convincing back then. We were allies. Hello.
I have never read a single opinion advocating taking down the British Empire as a US strategy. And if such exists, it was a fringe idea never seriously considered.
That Germany was given more under Marshall Plan then UK is common myth.
UK actually got double, but wasted it on social project instead on retooling industry.
All explained in Alisdair Bournett book “Lost Victory”.
Evidence the US wanted or needed to dismantle the British Empire? You do realize most Americans love the Brits. Fifty years ago, we were obsessed. I read far more British literature growing up than American. And do not say there is no American literature. We are simply taught to love and admire England – or used to be. We were even taught about the incredible British Empire.
Yet you believe we plot against you? Our leaders are people educated with the same ideas as I. Think about it.
We rebuilt Germany to bring them to our side against the Soviet. We had to win those hearts and minds. England did not need convincing back then. We were allies. Hello.
I have never read a single opinion advocating taking down the British Empire as a US strategy. And if such exists, it was a fringe idea never seriously considered.
That came after WW2 when every other country in Europe spent their marshall aid USA money on rebuilding their economies but in Britain,for ideological reasons we spent EVERY PENNY of it on creating the National Health Service and I can appreciate how wonderful it was at the time for ordinary people. But really it was totally the wrong thing to do and now the NHS seems to have become sort of religious artefact we have to Revere,worship and respect and we should not get ill or actually need to use the services. It functions so much better without people clogging up those hospitals. Now I have to wait at least 3 weeks to see a doctor(at the surgery) my friend in Belgium can ring her doctors and he comes to her house about lunchtime after morning surgery. Same in France and Germany,don’t know about other European countries,but similar I think.
Sadly, like millions of others you have been reading the wrong ‘comic’.
We ended up on the winning side in WWII thanks to the US. Otherwise we would have been defeated in late 1940, mainly because we were bankrupt!
Even so called ‘victory’ in 1945 meant destruction of our Empire and the complete evaporation of any possible claim to ‘Great Power’ status, and thus us our reincarnation as an American helot.
All this was completely predictable in 1939, if only we had eyes to see.
U.S. war aims in 1941 were these…
Defeat of the Axis powers.
Containment of the Soviets.
Dismemberment and replacement of the British Empire.
Of these tasks the last was the easiest. The British Empire was in its senility and the insistence by the US of the repayment of every cent of war debt helped it gently into the grave. By contrast the nominally defeated (Germany) were showered with aid to rebuild.
That came after WW2 when every other country in Europe spent their marshall aid USA money on rebuilding their economies but in Britain,for ideological reasons we spent EVERY PENNY of it on creating the National Health Service and I can appreciate how wonderful it was at the time for ordinary people. But really it was totally the wrong thing to do and now the NHS seems to have become sort of religious artefact we have to Revere,worship and respect and we should not get ill or actually need to use the services. It functions so much better without people clogging up those hospitals. Now I have to wait at least 3 weeks to see a doctor(at the surgery) my friend in Belgium can ring her doctors and he comes to her house about lunchtime after morning surgery. Same in France and Germany,don’t know about other European countries,but similar I think.
Major problem for whom?
Dediticii? Is this a wind-up? Britain was neither conquered nor defeated and the USA did not defeat France.
The USA joined the Second World War because it was the right thing to do; it would have been strange for it then to behave badly.
Both ourselves and the French were completely bankrupt and entirely at the mercy of the US, hence I stand by the term ‘dediticii’. Do you have better one?
Incidentally the US did NOT “join the Second World War because it was the right thing to do” as you so charmingly put it!
It was dragged into it kicking and squealing by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on the 7th if December 1941, or had you missed that minor detail?
Both ourselves and the French were completely bankrupt and entirely at the mercy of the US, hence I stand by the term ‘dediticii’. Do you have better one?
Incidentally the US did NOT “join the Second World War because it was the right thing to do” as you so charmingly put it!
It was dragged into it kicking and squealing by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on the 7th if December 1941, or had you missed that minor detail?
Huh? Charlie has finally lost his marbles has he? You mean the US should have kept a brutal stranglehold on W.Europe just as the Soviets did in E.Europe? Far less costly to achieve the same end by stealth (economics) as the US did.
How exactly would the US have been able to stop the UK and France developing atomic weapons ? They both had the scientific and technical strengths and equipment to do so (certainly the UK did).
One interesting sidelight here – I read somone the other day who pointed out that it was Western useful idiots (spies) who gave Stalin the bomb. Sadly true. Yet the useful idiots never learn.
Major problem for whom?
Dediticii? Is this a wind-up? Britain was neither conquered nor defeated and the USA did not defeat France.
The USA joined the Second World War because it was the right thing to do; it would have been strange for it then to behave badly.
Huh? Charlie has finally lost his marbles has he? You mean the US should have kept a brutal stranglehold on W.Europe just as the Soviets did in E.Europe? Far less costly to achieve the same end by stealth (economics) as the US did.
Macron & de Gaulle hate US because its very existence as a real military power thwarts the big power aspirations France hopes to leverage through EU dominance. However, a country that loses WW2 in 6 weeks and all its colonies in wars shortly after, cant inspire respect in vulnerable Balt, Polish or Nordic lands – and this is independent of US capabilities. A sad loss of grandeur but sadly warranted..
France ‘lost’ I.4 million men in 1914-18 from a population of about 39 million. The UK lost about .75 million during the same period from a population of about 44 million.
Very true. As an American, we got off cheaply in WW1 compared with the European combatants. We were just in time to provide the fresh supply of manpower that Germany couldn’t hope to counter.
Keegan’s short history of WW1 has a sobering introduction, where he lays out the casualty rates by year of enlistment in France, Britain, and Germany. The French were bled white by WW1. That had to have huge psychological effects going forward.
All true, but they recovered enough to have, on paper, more powerful military than Germany. But they were deployed and led badly as if no lessons were learned from Germany invasion of Poland.
What was not helping was French Communist Party propaganda against was effort and sabotage in key industries.
All done on Komintern orders because Russia was ally of Germany in starting ww2.
Very true. As an American, we got off cheaply in WW1 compared with the European combatants. We were just in time to provide the fresh supply of manpower that Germany couldn’t hope to counter.
Keegan’s short history of WW1 has a sobering introduction, where he lays out the casualty rates by year of enlistment in France, Britain, and Germany. The French were bled white by WW1. That had to have huge psychological effects going forward.
All true, but they recovered enough to have, on paper, more powerful military than Germany. But they were deployed and led badly as if no lessons were learned from Germany invasion of Poland.
What was not helping was French Communist Party propaganda against was effort and sabotage in key industries.
All done on Komintern orders because Russia was ally of Germany in starting ww2.
France ‘lost’ I.4 million men in 1914-18 from a population of about 39 million. The UK lost about .75 million during the same period from a population of about 44 million.
Excellent.
As you say, countries like Poland could see German and French appeasement of Putin and obviously wanted better security guarantees.
The only ones on offer were from USA.
Even Finland and Sweden accept it now.
It is that simple.
No. The corrupt leaders of at least some of those countries are taking USA money,raking it in. They better not rely on USA help when the chips are down. It may not be available
No. The corrupt leaders of at least some of those countries are taking USA money,raking it in. They better not rely on USA help when the chips are down. It may not be available
A few comments on yours..
1. What about UK EU divergence?
2. I’m not sure your arithmetic is correct??
3. .and I thought ’twas the Russians liberated EE from German (sorry NatC) tyranny. Silly me.
4. …and the rest of us!
5. How ign is France ever going to achieve that?
6. Correct.. then you have two Germanies!
7. If we allign with our fellow Europeans ie the Russians we will have all the defence we need.
Russia has never been a threat to W.Europe but the opposite is true. Neither has China.. with Russia and China ‘united’ and in the ascendency we’d be complete idiots to continue as vassals of a rapidly declining (Anglo?)-American hegemony.
Sorry, I hadn’t kept up and replied sooner.
# 1 What about it ? In any case, the “EU” is not the monolithic organisation many believe/wish it to be – which was my point
#2 The numbers are going against France+Germany. E Europe is adding countries to the EU. If Ukraine gets added then E Europe is certainly the largest bloc. The core point is that France+Germany aren’t in a position to force through whatever they want any more.
#3 1919 created independent nations in E Europe. These were not actually “liberated” in 1945. They were actually conquered and de facto absorbed into the Soviet empire. And not really liberated until late 1989. They were slaves of the Soviet Union for over 40 years. Not allowed to take any significant decisions for themselves as independent countries are. Try talking to people who had to live through that.
#4 Not “the rest of us”. I quite specifically limited my comment to the French elites. At the individual level, opinions vary. I’ve been strongly anti-Armerican when younger and accepting there’s nothing better on offer now.
#5 Surely not too great a brain stretch for you. Once an EU defence organisation is formed, the next step is to limit purchases to only European suppliers. France is then in the box seat. There won’t be a lot of options.
# 6 Nothing to do with two Germanies. You miss the point, which is that there is a lack of certainty about what Germany really wants and a reluctance to even address this question by the Germans.
#7 Only if we need no real defence. Which is what your comment actually implies !!! Since we have no enemies (you claim … not Russia, not China), then what do the EU need defence for ?
China and Russia are not “united”. They are historic natural enemies and even fought in a border dispute after WWII. Russia is a useful source of cheap raw materials for Russia, nothing more. Now China’s copied and improved on Russia’s defence equipment, there’s nothing else China now needs from Russia.
Finally, it is a complete fiction that US power is rapidly declining. So many people are confusing what they want to happen with reality.
Throw away the anti-American blinkers and look at the big picture.
Sorry, I hadn’t kept up and replied sooner.
# 1 What about it ? In any case, the “EU” is not the monolithic organisation many believe/wish it to be – which was my point
#2 The numbers are going against France+Germany. E Europe is adding countries to the EU. If Ukraine gets added then E Europe is certainly the largest bloc. The core point is that France+Germany aren’t in a position to force through whatever they want any more.
#3 1919 created independent nations in E Europe. These were not actually “liberated” in 1945. They were actually conquered and de facto absorbed into the Soviet empire. And not really liberated until late 1989. They were slaves of the Soviet Union for over 40 years. Not allowed to take any significant decisions for themselves as independent countries are. Try talking to people who had to live through that.
#4 Not “the rest of us”. I quite specifically limited my comment to the French elites. At the individual level, opinions vary. I’ve been strongly anti-Armerican when younger and accepting there’s nothing better on offer now.
#5 Surely not too great a brain stretch for you. Once an EU defence organisation is formed, the next step is to limit purchases to only European suppliers. France is then in the box seat. There won’t be a lot of options.
# 6 Nothing to do with two Germanies. You miss the point, which is that there is a lack of certainty about what Germany really wants and a reluctance to even address this question by the Germans.
#7 Only if we need no real defence. Which is what your comment actually implies !!! Since we have no enemies (you claim … not Russia, not China), then what do the EU need defence for ?
China and Russia are not “united”. They are historic natural enemies and even fought in a border dispute after WWII. Russia is a useful source of cheap raw materials for Russia, nothing more. Now China’s copied and improved on Russia’s defence equipment, there’s nothing else China now needs from Russia.
Finally, it is a complete fiction that US power is rapidly declining. So many people are confusing what they want to happen with reality.
Throw away the anti-American blinkers and look at the big picture.
The article “How America weaponised the West” discusses how the US has used its power and influence to shape the Western world and its values. The article argues that the US has used its military, economic, and cultural power to promote its interests and values, often at the expense of other countries and cultures. The article also discusses how this has led to a backlash against the US and its influence, particularly in Europe. The author argues that the US needs to be more aware of the impact of its actions on other countries and cultures, and to work more collaboratively with other nations to address global challenges.
One major problem, often overlooked is that post 1945 the US was FAR too generous, and should have ignored the pretensions of both the UK and France. Neither should have been permitted to develop an Atomic Bomb.
Their status as “dediticii”* should NOT have been overlooked!
The Romans would NEVER have been so generous with their ‘allies’.
Macron & de Gaulle hate US because its very existence as a real military power thwarts the big power aspirations France hopes to leverage through EU dominance. However, a country that loses WW2 in 6 weeks and all its colonies in wars shortly after, cant inspire respect in vulnerable Balt, Polish or Nordic lands – and this is independent of US capabilities. A sad loss of grandeur but sadly warranted..
Excellent.
As you say, countries like Poland could see German and French appeasement of Putin and obviously wanted better security guarantees.
The only ones on offer were from USA.
Even Finland and Sweden accept it now.
It is that simple.
A few comments on yours..
1. What about UK EU divergence?
2. I’m not sure your arithmetic is correct??
3. .and I thought ’twas the Russians liberated EE from German (sorry NatC) tyranny. Silly me.
4. …and the rest of us!
5. How ign is France ever going to achieve that?
6. Correct.. then you have two Germanies!
7. If we allign with our fellow Europeans ie the Russians we will have all the defence we need.
Russia has never been a threat to W.Europe but the opposite is true. Neither has China.. with Russia and China ‘united’ and in the ascendency we’d be complete idiots to continue as vassals of a rapidly declining (Anglo?)-American hegemony.
The article “How America weaponised the West” discusses how the US has used its power and influence to shape the Western world and its values. The article argues that the US has used its military, economic, and cultural power to promote its interests and values, often at the expense of other countries and cultures. The article also discusses how this has led to a backlash against the US and its influence, particularly in Europe. The author argues that the US needs to be more aware of the impact of its actions on other countries and cultures, and to work more collaboratively with other nations to address global challenges.
Peter B
11 months ago
Too many words. And far too many long words.
Why in 2023 can we not use diagram, maps and graphics to communicate ideas in a far shorter and easier to read format ?
There are a few key ideas hidden in here, but they don’t readily come out.
I’d highlight these (some mentioned, some not):
#1 There is a genuine divergence between “legacy” EU and the Eastern European countries.
#2 The new E Europe countries have the numbers, but the old countries still have the power – this may not be stable/durable.
#3 The E Europe countries don’t really trust the W Europe countries to defend them – and why would they ? We did an awful job in the last century. And it was only the US in 1919 who really forced through the new nations of E Europe. Poland trusts the US far more than France or Germany. And rightly so. France and Germany cannot be trusted to do the right thing – instance their initial Ukraine reactions.
#4 The French elite has an inherent dislike/jealousy of the US.
# 5 France has a huge arms export industry and wants a captive market for it.
#6 Germany doesn’t really know what it wants. Still.
#7 Europe on the whole still isn’t prepared to pay for its own defence.
Mark Falcoff
11 months ago
The problem with this article is that–although it offers a very sophisticated discussion of Europe–it does not take into account the rise of what some pejoratively call isolationism in the United States. Putting it bluntly, many of us are weary of paying for the existence of 800 foreign military bases when our infrastructure is decaying rapidly (in some cases, dangerously), our cities are collapsing in anarchy, our young people are being poisoned by drugs, and our political class is busy debating pronouns or “gender affirming care”. The reason why the Europeans can have their high standard of living and their excellent (in some cases) public services is…they don’t have to pay the bill for a bloated military establishment. A lot of us are beginning to wonder if there isn’t a better way for the United States, a kind of post-imperial withdrawal. Who can deny, for example, that the living standards in France or the Netherlands are much better since they entered a post-imperial period of their history? Whenever one mentions these things one is tarred with being a tool of Putin, a fascist, an isolationist, or worse. We still have not had a serious debate in the US on what our role should be and what we can realistically afford. All power to the Europeans–including Macron–who want to cut tie with us. But they should be reassured that a growing number of us want to return the compliment. Nothing personal, you understand.
The countries with the highest standard of living in Europe are Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands. So as you can see, France is not even in the top 5 but as a typical American you are, of course, obsessed with France.
Perhaps I should have said “quality of life”, which in France is far far better than in the United States. I would be a very unusual American indeed if I were “obsessed with France”. Most Americans despise France.
Cultured,educated Americans LOVE France and the sensible ones are all moving there WHILE THEY STILL CAN. Where would you rather be Portland Oregon,even Walmart is leaving town – or a little village outside Paris,or near Antibes,or in the Jura mountains or down in the Languedoc.
Cultured,educated Americans LOVE France and the sensible ones are all moving there WHILE THEY STILL CAN. Where would you rather be Portland Oregon,even Walmart is leaving town – or a little village outside Paris,or near Antibes,or in the Jura mountains or down in the Languedoc.
I don’t think that most Americans despise France,only maybe trailer park trash. Paris in summer is packed with Americans who all speak French fluently and love french culture. And a lot of Americans,the ones who can,are getting the hell out of USA while they still can,and moving to live full time in France and even gain citizenship eventually. That’s the ones with brains.
I don’t think that most Americans despise France,only maybe trailer park trash. Paris in summer is packed with Americans who all speak French fluently and love french culture. And a lot of Americans,the ones who can,are getting the hell out of USA while they still can,and moving to live full time in France and even gain citizenship eventually. That’s the ones with brains.
Perhaps I should have said “quality of life”, which in France is far far better than in the United States. I would be a very unusual American indeed if I were “obsessed with France”. Most Americans despise France.
Really excellent well argued comment. Isn’t Kennedy standing as a Democratic candidate for president and putting forward this policy ie cutting the 900 billion a year military budget and using the savings to improve US infrastructure. The sooner the UK gets out of NATO- both the European and Pacific versions the better off we will be.
Nonsense.
You might be, for short time.
Do you really believe that world dominated by China and other dictators would be better for Europe?
Reality is that cost of military is much less in comparison to total costs of mass immigration of 3rd world savages into Europe.
Nonsense.
You might be, for short time.
Do you really believe that world dominated by China and other dictators would be better for Europe?
Reality is that cost of military is much less in comparison to total costs of mass immigration of 3rd world savages into Europe.
I would love the USA to stay as a leader of NATO.
I understand your argument but I am not sure it is that simple.
A lot of things we take for granted are result of USA global dominance.
If USA becomes more isolationist, someone else will dominate.
Will world dominated by China and it allied dictators be better for USA?
As I often say to people questioning help for Ukraine etc:
“you would quickly beg USA for help after 1 year of Russian occupation”.
But what you propose is likely to happen within next 50 years due to demographic changes in USA.
It is not about isolationism, it is about economics. Why should we foot the majority of the bill to protect Europe? Europe is not poor! They have taken advantage of this arrangement for decades, it is time that ended!
The same for Japan. I am aware that means a sea change in Japanese attitudes towards a military and an acceptance of a stronger Japanese military in the region, something that scares many in the region. but it is necessary!
Our current debt is 120% of GDP, we cannot do this much longer!
It is not about isolationism, it is about economics. Why should we foot the majority of the bill to protect Europe? Europe is not poor! They have taken advantage of this arrangement for decades, it is time that ended!
The same for Japan. I am aware that means a sea change in Japanese attitudes towards a military and an acceptance of a stronger Japanese military in the region, something that scares many in the region. but it is necessary!
Our current debt is 120% of GDP, we cannot do this much longer!
The countries with the highest standard of living in Europe are Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands. So as you can see, France is not even in the top 5 but as a typical American you are, of course, obsessed with France.
Really excellent well argued comment. Isn’t Kennedy standing as a Democratic candidate for president and putting forward this policy ie cutting the 900 billion a year military budget and using the savings to improve US infrastructure. The sooner the UK gets out of NATO- both the European and Pacific versions the better off we will be.
I would love the USA to stay as a leader of NATO.
I understand your argument but I am not sure it is that simple.
A lot of things we take for granted are result of USA global dominance.
If USA becomes more isolationist, someone else will dominate.
Will world dominated by China and it allied dictators be better for USA?
As I often say to people questioning help for Ukraine etc:
“you would quickly beg USA for help after 1 year of Russian occupation”.
But what you propose is likely to happen within next 50 years due to demographic changes in USA.
Mark Falcoff
11 months ago
The problem with this article is that–although it offers a very sophisticated discussion of Europe–it does not take into account the rise of what some pejoratively call isolationism in the United States. Putting it bluntly, many of us are weary of paying for the existence of 800 foreign military bases when our infrastructure is decaying rapidly (in some cases, dangerously), our cities are collapsing in anarchy, our young people are being poisoned by drugs, and our political class is busy debating pronouns or “gender affirming care”. The reason why the Europeans can have their high standard of living and their excellent (in some cases) public services is…they don’t have to pay the bill for a bloated military establishment. A lot of us are beginning to wonder if there isn’t a better way for the United States, a kind of post-imperial withdrawal. Who can deny, for example, that the living standards in France or the Netherlands are much better since they entered a post-imperial period of their history? Whenever one mentions these things one is tarred with being a tool of Putin, a fascist, an isolationist, or worse. We still have not had a serious debate in the US on what our role should be and what we can realistically afford. All power to the Europeans–including Macron–who want to cut tie with us. But they should be reassured that a growing number of us want to return the compliment. Nothing personal, you understand.
j watson
11 months ago
A counter narrative would be much more positive about how the West has something so solid at it’s core that it attracts additional partners and expanded alliances like a magnetic electric charge. The West isn’t something easily defined, but it has something and many of us who have inhabited it all our life miss grasping it until we go and live outside the West for a period. This is also why people all round the world flock to the West. They see something for their children. That is a source of unbelievable power we often miss. It gives problems of course as well, but the day people flock to Xi or Putin or the Ayatollah’s states is the day we should worry.
The counter narrative would also note that 70 years ago the historical lesson would have been international bodies would not last long, and yet here we are with multiple. No such descent into tragedy and chaos has ensured to date. That is no guarantee for the future and Alliances always involve some compromise and are inherently complex. You do not leave your marriage because of the odd row.
The final counter narrative might target the regular malign view of the US often conveyed in UnHerd articles. These often convey the impression the US is some centralised monolith with the old classic cabal theory seeking to control everything at it’s core. And yet the US is highly decentralised, much more than many other Western States. The theory doesn’t hold the moment you examine it in detail. What is constant, although often battered, is the bedrock of certain values, democracy, rule of law, etc. The magnetic charge from these remains strong.
Unfortunately, that special something associated with the west is precisely what the woke are so efficiently destroying, and progressivism emanates from America.
Precisely, because the US is rather short on intellectual thought, as pointed out by the brilliant Georges Santayana more than a century ago, they tend to take European ideas and then regurgitate them rather badly, it must be said.
Quite. I describe the woke as the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host is anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who took Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory as gospel. Unfortunately, their idiot children are most numerous in the U.S. (though I wonder whether as a percent of total population if there might not be more “woke” in some of the other countries of the Anglosphere).
I’m afraid wokery is American in the same sense that Maoism was Chinese, even though both wokery and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (to give the latter its full name) have European roots.
Our institutions, i.e. education, government, were infiltrated by Soviet spies for decades. The “labeled evil by the left” Senator Joseph McCarthy, who made a concerted effort to root out these spies in the 1950, only to be ruined by those “Soviet agents and sympathizers”, was right!
The majority of those people that the House Committee on Un-Amercan Activities accused of being Soviet spies and sympathizers, were indeed, Soviet spies and Sympathizers. This was revealed when the Vanona papers were declassified. McCarthy’s disgrace resulted in 30 years of literal free reign of Soviet influence in America.
Now those indoctrinated in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s by Soviet agents are running our institutions.
It may take 100 years to repair this damage.
Our institutions, i.e. education, government, were infiltrated by Soviet spies for decades. The “labeled evil by the left” Senator Joseph McCarthy, who made a concerted effort to root out these spies in the 1950, only to be ruined by those “Soviet agents and sympathizers”, was right!
The majority of those people that the House Committee on Un-Amercan Activities accused of being Soviet spies and sympathizers, were indeed, Soviet spies and Sympathizers. This was revealed when the Vanona papers were declassified. McCarthy’s disgrace resulted in 30 years of literal free reign of Soviet influence in America.
Now those indoctrinated in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s by Soviet agents are running our institutions.
It may take 100 years to repair this damage.
Precisely, because the US is rather short on intellectual thought, as pointed out by the brilliant Georges Santayana more than a century ago, they tend to take European ideas and then regurgitate them rather badly, it must be said.
Quite. I describe the woke as the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host is anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who took Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory as gospel. Unfortunately, their idiot children are most numerous in the U.S. (though I wonder whether as a percent of total population if there might not be more “woke” in some of the other countries of the Anglosphere).
I’m afraid wokery is American in the same sense that Maoism was Chinese, even though both wokery and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (to give the latter its full name) have European roots.
Progressivism emanates from progressives in the US, who have been in power under Clinton and Obama and especially Biden. In this regard, the US populace is evenly split, although most formerly noble institutions have sadly succumbed to the relentless March.
On the other hand, I wonder, why do YOUR elites and institutions so easily succumb? Were they subjected to Maoist struggle sessions in some basement in Washington DC?
Lack confidence there JB. The West had the same criticisms about extended franchise, votes for women, social safety-nets etc etc. It’s a long list of ‘we’re all doomed’ mantras, none of which held in the slightest. We can sensibly deal with the most outlandish woke nonsense and chill out about the rest.
Progressivism emanates from progressives in the US, who have been in power under Clinton and Obama and especially Biden. In this regard, the US populace is evenly split, although most formerly noble institutions have sadly succumbed to the relentless March.
On the other hand, I wonder, why do YOUR elites and institutions so easily succumb? Were they subjected to Maoist struggle sessions in some basement in Washington DC?
Lack confidence there JB. The West had the same criticisms about extended franchise, votes for women, social safety-nets etc etc. It’s a long list of ‘we’re all doomed’ mantras, none of which held in the slightest. We can sensibly deal with the most outlandish woke nonsense and chill out about the rest.
Yes, when I read this : “In the spiritual fires of the war, the myth of the “West” was rebaptised” … I thought, ‘parliamentary democracy isn’t a myth’. The countries of Europe that we call ‘the west’ have representative democracies, individual liberties and the rule of law. When the Eastern European countries adopted these institutions they became part of ‘the West’. Of course, with differing histories and cultures the West is still diverse, but the underlying values are similar, and should serve to keep the countries in alliance.
In some regards yes, but it remained quite conspiratorial too – e.g the US using NATO enlargement to weaken old power centres etc. Too much secret strategy stuff that I don’t think holds. Like alot of conspiracy theories there can be a grain of truth but then it’s stretched way beyond credibility. In part of course to get attention and column inches.
Hi JW, I have no idea who’s been ‘downvoting’ you though it isn’t me. I used to be deeply dismissive of elaborate theories. Despite conspiracists being occasionally right for the wrong reasons, which gives them only demerits, I was often proven naïve. What I underestimated was the fanaticism + sociopathic indifference of geo-strategists on our side, as well as theirs. A lack of empathy -> cold-blooded plans. I believe Arta is largely correct.
Hi JW, I have no idea who’s been ‘downvoting’ you though it isn’t me. I used to be deeply dismissive of elaborate theories. Despite conspiracists being occasionally right for the wrong reasons, which gives them only demerits, I was often proven naïve. What I underestimated was the fanaticism + sociopathic indifference of geo-strategists on our side, as well as theirs. A lack of empathy -> cold-blooded plans. I believe Arta is largely correct.
In some regards yes, but it remained quite conspiratorial too – e.g the US using NATO enlargement to weaken old power centres etc. Too much secret strategy stuff that I don’t think holds. Like alot of conspiracy theories there can be a grain of truth but then it’s stretched way beyond credibility. In part of course to get attention and column inches.
Unfortunately, that special something associated with the west is precisely what the woke are so efficiently destroying, and progressivism emanates from America.
Yes, when I read this : “In the spiritual fires of the war, the myth of the “West” was rebaptised” … I thought, ‘parliamentary democracy isn’t a myth’. The countries of Europe that we call ‘the west’ have representative democracies, individual liberties and the rule of law. When the Eastern European countries adopted these institutions they became part of ‘the West’. Of course, with differing histories and cultures the West is still diverse, but the underlying values are similar, and should serve to keep the countries in alliance.
But this essay is very positive about the West. One shouldn’t infer otherwise from its core thesis.
j watson
11 months ago
A counter narrative would be much more positive about how the West has something so solid at it’s core that it attracts additional partners and expanded alliances like a magnetic electric charge. The West isn’t something easily defined, but it has something and many of us who have inhabited it all our life miss grasping it until we go and live outside the West for a period. This is also why people all round the world flock to the West. They see something for their children. That is a source of unbelievable power we often miss. It gives problems of course as well, but the day people flock to Xi or Putin or the Ayatollah’s states is the day we should worry.
The counter narrative would also note that 70 years ago the historical lesson would have been international bodies would not last long, and yet here we are with multiple. No such descent into tragedy and chaos has ensured to date. That is no guarantee for the future and Alliances always involve some compromise and are inherently complex. You do not leave your marriage because of the odd row.
The final counter narrative might target the regular malign view of the US often conveyed in UnHerd articles. These often convey the impression the US is some centralised monolith with the old classic cabal theory seeking to control everything at it’s core. And yet the US is highly decentralised, much more than many other Western States. The theory doesn’t hold the moment you examine it in detail. What is constant, although often battered, is the bedrock of certain values, democracy, rule of law, etc. The magnetic charge from these remains strong.
Last edited 11 months ago by j watson
Ben Jones
11 months ago
Propeller-heads like Dr. Moeini can sit in their ivory towers all day, snarking at NATO and dreaming of Europe asserting itself as a power bloc. It’s academic onanism. Why?
Because Europe will never put the necessary investment into defence. Instead, ‘Europe’ will continue it’s slippery diplomacy with the non-democracies of Eurasia and China in order to keep the fuel flowing and the BMWs heading the Beijing. It will convince itself the wolf will always be kept from the door.
Europe’s only hope? Poland. I would love to see the Poles, one day, supplant France within the EU. Of course, the Poles (being a reality-based people, with experience of having Russia as a neighbour) have views unlikely to chime with the Dr. Moeinis of the world.
I read this article differently from you. Author does not support particular side imo.
Just explains various scenarios in a bit wordy and convoluted way.
You don’t need PhD in global policy to see that someone in Italy or Spain is not as worried about Russia as Poles and especially Balts are.
That explains why French dreams of European army are just that.
NATO is the only viable option with USA acting as a glue holding whole thing together.
I read this article differently from you. Author does not support particular side imo.
Just explains various scenarios in a bit wordy and convoluted way.
You don’t need PhD in global policy to see that someone in Italy or Spain is not as worried about Russia as Poles and especially Balts are.
That explains why French dreams of European army are just that.
NATO is the only viable option with USA acting as a glue holding whole thing together.
Ben Jones
11 months ago
Propeller-heads like Dr. Moeini can sit in their ivory towers all day, snarking at NATO and dreaming of Europe asserting itself as a power bloc. It’s academic onanism. Why?
Because Europe will never put the necessary investment into defence. Instead, ‘Europe’ will continue it’s slippery diplomacy with the non-democracies of Eurasia and China in order to keep the fuel flowing and the BMWs heading the Beijing. It will convince itself the wolf will always be kept from the door.
Europe’s only hope? Poland. I would love to see the Poles, one day, supplant France within the EU. Of course, the Poles (being a reality-based people, with experience of having Russia as a neighbour) have views unlikely to chime with the Dr. Moeinis of the world.
Simon S
11 months ago
Thank you! I have never understood why the UK has for so long, and so cravenly, lain ever more prostrate as a vassal state of the US. What is its power over us? Why have we handed it our sovereignty and sacrificed our dignity without one iota of debate? Where was our Charles de Gaulle?
Without the US we would have LOST the Great War in 1916, and similarly the next one in 1940.
Thus we became a US supplicant or indeed helot. In short on both occasions we were that revolting specimen…..’the needy beggar’!
Late to the “party” (if you want to call WW1 that) for the first, less so for WW2. And was “the arsenal of democracy” for the Allies in WW2, and did the bulk of the fighting against Japan.
Late to the “party” (if you want to call WW1 that) for the first, less so for WW2. And was “the arsenal of democracy” for the Allies in WW2, and did the bulk of the fighting against Japan.
Valid for debate and complicated history but Churchill, whose mother was of course American, loved the US (where he took his first holiday after the war) while de Gaulle was no Atlanticist at all.
I recall ‘The Jerusalem Post’ had made some interesting revelations about Churchill’s mother some thirty years ago.
Was her maiden name Jerome or Jeromski etc,if you get my drift?
Churchill was savez enough to know that US financial muscle had saved us in 1916/17, and acted accordingly in 1940. eg: He grovelled!
I recall ‘The Jerusalem Post’ had made some interesting revelations about Churchill’s mother some thirty years ago.
Was her maiden name Jerome or Jeromski etc,if you get my drift?
Churchill was savez enough to know that US financial muscle had saved us in 1916/17, and acted accordingly in 1940. eg: He grovelled!
Valid for debate and complicated history but Churchill, whose mother was of course American, loved the US (where he took his first holiday after the war) while de Gaulle was no Atlanticist at all.
At the core, money! Britain was destroyed during the war, it spend blood and treasure, the US spend nlood and treasure as well but our country was intact! Literally the only world power left intact!
Over the years, just like the rest of Europe, it was cheaper the let the US pay the bill for security so the UK could spend money on social programs. Look how successful that was! I remember being in London in the late 1970’s. What I saw was rampant unemployment and a youth with no hope!
Without the US we would have LOST the Great War in 1916, and similarly the next one in 1940.
Thus we became a US supplicant or indeed helot. In short on both occasions we were that revolting specimen…..’the needy beggar’!
At the core, money! Britain was destroyed during the war, it spend blood and treasure, the US spend nlood and treasure as well but our country was intact! Literally the only world power left intact!
Over the years, just like the rest of Europe, it was cheaper the let the US pay the bill for security so the UK could spend money on social programs. Look how successful that was! I remember being in London in the late 1970’s. What I saw was rampant unemployment and a youth with no hope!
Simon S
11 months ago
Thank you! I have never understood why the UK has for so long, and so cravenly, lain ever more prostrate as a vassal state of the US. What is its power over us? Why have we handed it our sovereignty and sacrificed our dignity without one iota of debate? Where was our Charles de Gaulle?
Last edited 11 months ago by Simon S
Mike Doyle
11 months ago
Word-salad, with no well expressed coherency, other than the garnish of the sour whine of adolescent nihilism. 3/10 could (I hope) do better.
Word-salad, with no well expressed coherency, other than the garnish of the sour whine of adolescent nihilism. 3/10 could (I hope) do better.
martin logan
11 months ago
Zzzzzz…
Another breathless prediction of the West’s decline, and a brand new “multi-polar world.”
Fact is, every single person on the planet has different interests, so the fact that Europeans have different interests isn’t exactly…new.
What the West does have going for it is the possibility of reaching consensus on most issues without either a single strong man’s decision, or overtly criminal actions. True, Birmingham might have different interests from Edinburgh. Who knew?
Sorry, the multi-polar world is already losing one of its poles: Russia in Ukraine. It’s fun to pretend that’s not happening, and that beyond-genius authoritarians are actually running rings around senile democrats. Scott Ritter says it every day–in Moscow.
But Realty seems to tell a quite different story.
The news out of Ukraine is more propaganda than news. If you believe Russia has spent itself in Ukraine then you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
Europe is holding their cards and the US is spending ourselves into bankruptcy! We don’t even have enough weapons now to defend ourselves for more than a few weeks!
If Russia can prolong this war for another year, US stockpiles will be depleted. They know Europe will not step up (why should they!). Then they will roll across Ukraine! While China takes Taiwan and possibly the Philippines!
This is dangerous, a depleted US, facing wars on two fronts, may resort the the weapons of last resort! All this because of the adventurism of Obama and the dementia of Biden!
The news out of Ukraine is more propaganda than news. If you believe Russia has spent itself in Ukraine then you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
Europe is holding their cards and the US is spending ourselves into bankruptcy! We don’t even have enough weapons now to defend ourselves for more than a few weeks!
If Russia can prolong this war for another year, US stockpiles will be depleted. They know Europe will not step up (why should they!). Then they will roll across Ukraine! While China takes Taiwan and possibly the Philippines!
This is dangerous, a depleted US, facing wars on two fronts, may resort the the weapons of last resort! All this because of the adventurism of Obama and the dementia of Biden!
martin logan
11 months ago
Zzzzzz…
Another breathless prediction of the West’s decline, and a brand new “multi-polar world.”
Fact is, every single person on the planet has different interests, so the fact that Europeans have different interests isn’t exactly…new.
What the West does have going for it is the possibility of reaching consensus on most issues without either a single strong man’s decision, or overtly criminal actions. True, Birmingham might have different interests from Edinburgh. Who knew?
Sorry, the multi-polar world is already losing one of its poles: Russia in Ukraine. It’s fun to pretend that’s not happening, and that beyond-genius authoritarians are actually running rings around senile democrats. Scott Ritter says it every day–in Moscow.
But Realty seems to tell a quite different story.
PETER THOM
11 months ago
If only there was as much financial and intellectual effort put into how we can all live together more peacefully, as opposed to power games, just maybe we could have a better world for all – or am I just being totally naive?
No, I am with you. However, the question is “How can the military/industrial complex be muzzled?”
Keep this vital question in mind, even if no answer can be coupled to it (now). There may be one tomorrow…
Science and engineering have a well tried and tested method called RootCauseAnalysis (RCA) as a problem solving discipline. This could be used by social scientists given the will to do so.
Yes. Every fule do know that the way to put out a huge fire is to pour lots more petrol on it. The bonus is that the petrol manufacturers have to produce lots more petrol which means lots more tax,and jobs. So it’s win,win..OK some people die but no American Moms are going to be camping on the White House lawn so thats OK.
No, I am with you. However, the question is “How can the military/industrial complex be muzzled?”
Keep this vital question in mind, even if no answer can be coupled to it (now). There may be one tomorrow…
Science and engineering have a well tried and tested method called RootCauseAnalysis (RCA) as a problem solving discipline. This could be used by social scientists given the will to do so.
Yes. Every fule do know that the way to put out a huge fire is to pour lots more petrol on it. The bonus is that the petrol manufacturers have to produce lots more petrol which means lots more tax,and jobs. So it’s win,win..OK some people die but no American Moms are going to be camping on the White House lawn so thats OK.
PETER THOM
11 months ago
If only there was as much financial and intellectual effort put into how we can all live together more peacefully, as opposed to power games, just maybe we could have a better world for all – or am I just being totally naive?
Malcolm Webb
11 months ago
Too many too clever words and curious phrases per paragraph. The whole thing seemed to go round round in a series of confusing circles. The Roman Empire analogy for Europe is surely wrongheaded. USSR maybe but Europe or NATO certainly not. I think this piece was meant to worry me but rather oddly it had the opposite effect as I just didn’t / couldn’t buy what I think the author was trying to say. I also smelled a strong whiff of anti-Americanism which I think, to say the least, is rather ungrateful.
Malcolm Webb
11 months ago
Too many too clever words and curious phrases per paragraph. The whole thing seemed to go round round in a series of confusing circles. The Roman Empire analogy for Europe is surely wrongheaded. USSR maybe but Europe or NATO certainly not. I think this piece was meant to worry me but rather oddly it had the opposite effect as I just didn’t / couldn’t buy what I think the author was trying to say. I also smelled a strong whiff of anti-Americanism which I think, to say the least, is rather ungrateful.
Mike Patterson
11 months ago
Not sure this is UnHerd level analysis or writing.
YES! These keep popping up in UnHerd with accelerating frequency – fancy talkin’ anti-US, oblivious to the true and enduring Western precepts of the sanctity of the individual, Rule of Law (the ideal to be strived for is equal treatment before the law based on facts and impartial judges) and well defined (and restricted, non-arbitrary) scope of authority for those in power.
YES! These keep popping up in UnHerd with accelerating frequency – fancy talkin’ anti-US, oblivious to the true and enduring Western precepts of the sanctity of the individual, Rule of Law (the ideal to be strived for is equal treatment before the law based on facts and impartial judges) and well defined (and restricted, non-arbitrary) scope of authority for those in power.
Not sure this is UnHerd level analysis or writing.
Michael Davis
11 months ago
Made the dreadful mistake of relying on France and Belgium in 1939 and sent our army and its equipment to the mainland only to see a mass surrender of said allies, in France’s case before they had lost any of their territory
Made the dreadful mistake of relying on France and Belgium in 1939 and sent our army and its equipment to the mainland only to see a mass surrender of said allies, in France’s case before they had lost any of their territory
Think we will know better next time
Christopher Chantrill
11 months ago
The purpose of NATO was to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. Been there, done that.
And it really is time for Europe and/or its nation states to find a new identity. And, do not forget the vital identity of the corps of defense analysts and power players.
I dare say that what would come out of an end to NATO is a divide between the German/French axis and the rest of the nation states that have a memory of endless French and German power meddling down the centuries. Hey but whatabout the poor Austrians? Is there no place for the dear old Hapsburgs in the future?
The purpose of NATO was to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. Been there, done that.
And it really is time for Europe and/or its nation states to find a new identity. And, do not forget the vital identity of the corps of defense analysts and power players.
I dare say that what would come out of an end to NATO is a divide between the German/French axis and the rest of the nation states that have a memory of endless French and German power meddling down the centuries. Hey but whatabout the poor Austrians? Is there no place for the dear old Hapsburgs in the future?
Jon Hawksley
11 months ago
The words in “Indeed, Macron has internalised the epistemological basis of modern international relations theory and its stubborn fixation on global realpolitik” and much else in this article are from the English language but they mean nothing to me and I doubt that they would mean anything to the majority of the MPs in the UK Parliament who have the ultimate say in UK politics. For an article like this to be effective we either need a translation to everyday english, a glossary of the meaning of the words in the context in which they are used or the author to write in everyday english. If it is suggested that everyday english cannot convey the required concepts I would challenge that with the observation that the thoughts and actions of those with political power are expressed in the everyday usage of language.
Jon Hawksley
11 months ago
The words in “Indeed, Macron has internalised the epistemological basis of modern international relations theory and its stubborn fixation on global realpolitik” and much else in this article are from the English language but they mean nothing to me and I doubt that they would mean anything to the majority of the MPs in the UK Parliament who have the ultimate say in UK politics. For an article like this to be effective we either need a translation to everyday english, a glossary of the meaning of the words in the context in which they are used or the author to write in everyday english. If it is suggested that everyday english cannot convey the required concepts I would challenge that with the observation that the thoughts and actions of those with political power are expressed in the everyday usage of language.
Liam O'Mahony
11 months ago
The whole thrust of the piece seems to be predicated on inevitable Russian invasion or otherwise control over Europe.. I cannot help thinking: What if that very concept is itself not a realistic prospect. After all, Russia’s wars were and are with it’s immediate neighbours and no further (Russia was invited into Afghanistan by that country’s government was it not?).
Russia did not invade Napoleon’s France nor Hitler’s Germany.. rather the opposite is true.
Personally I have no fear of a Russian invasion. I’m reasonably confident too that the US will not invade us but only because we are white, non Muslim and don’t have lots of natural resources.
No one in the west even tries to look at the Ukraine situation from a Russian perspective. If they do they are vilified!
The Obama regime orchestrates a civil war in Russia main ally in the Middle East, Syria. Then they orchestrate the overthrow of the legally elected, pro Russian, government in Ukraine. Then, Biden is elected President and the same foreign policy hacks who ran the Obama regime are now running the Biden regime. How is Russia to believe any talk of Ukraine NOT joining NATO, considering the track record of these people!
Thirteen bio-labs right on the border. Id beat up my neighbour if he put a bio-lab right up against my garden fence. Incidentally the COVID virus was created in one of those Ukraine bio-labs then taken to China for release for political reasons.
Thirteen bio-labs right on the border. Id beat up my neighbour if he put a bio-lab right up against my garden fence. Incidentally the COVID virus was created in one of those Ukraine bio-labs then taken to China for release for political reasons.
No one in the west even tries to look at the Ukraine situation from a Russian perspective. If they do they are vilified!
The Obama regime orchestrates a civil war in Russia main ally in the Middle East, Syria. Then they orchestrate the overthrow of the legally elected, pro Russian, government in Ukraine. Then, Biden is elected President and the same foreign policy hacks who ran the Obama regime are now running the Biden regime. How is Russia to believe any talk of Ukraine NOT joining NATO, considering the track record of these people!
Liam O'Mahony
11 months ago
The whole thrust of the piece seems to be predicated on inevitable Russian invasion or otherwise control over Europe.. I cannot help thinking: What if that very concept is itself not a realistic prospect. After all, Russia’s wars were and are with it’s immediate neighbours and no further (Russia was invited into Afghanistan by that country’s government was it not?).
Russia did not invade Napoleon’s France nor Hitler’s Germany.. rather the opposite is true.
Personally I have no fear of a Russian invasion. I’m reasonably confident too that the US will not invade us but only because we are white, non Muslim and don’t have lots of natural resources.
Jürg Gassmann
11 months ago
Too often, “power” is understood as the ability to project power; but having the power to deny others the projection of power is sufficient to preserve sovereignty. Such a stance provides stability in international relations. And it is much cheaper.
Countries should understand a basic truth.
“The only true peace is the projection of absolute power!”
When countries understand that war will not result in victory or defeat but in the complete destruction of their nation and way of life, then war becomes an unprofitable endeavor!
This is what the Biden administration failed to understand. They had an agreement to defend Ukrainian sovereignty, The message to Putin should have been simple, “We are obligated to defend Ukraine, if you invade Ukraine you will face the full might and power of the US and NATO.” Failure to state this, and the signs of weakness Biden showed, gave him the green light! Which tell me that this regime in Washington wanted this war!
Countries should understand a basic truth.
“The only true peace is the projection of absolute power!”
When countries understand that war will not result in victory or defeat but in the complete destruction of their nation and way of life, then war becomes an unprofitable endeavor!
This is what the Biden administration failed to understand. They had an agreement to defend Ukrainian sovereignty, The message to Putin should have been simple, “We are obligated to defend Ukraine, if you invade Ukraine you will face the full might and power of the US and NATO.” Failure to state this, and the signs of weakness Biden showed, gave him the green light! Which tell me that this regime in Washington wanted this war!
Jürg Gassmann
11 months ago
Too often, “power” is understood as the ability to project power; but having the power to deny others the projection of power is sufficient to preserve sovereignty. Such a stance provides stability in international relations. And it is much cheaper.
martin logan
11 months ago
This article is interesting because it shows how wrong one’s analysis can get when history is ignored.
Sovereign states ally because of common threats.
For the last 500 years, European states have consistently ganged up on any single power seeking hegemony–and those coalitions have always won.
Now, Russia and China have conveniently presented a threat to Europe and North America, and the latter have shown unprecedented unity.
And the only thing that can threaten that unity would be if China and Russia somehow faded away.
Otherwise, Putin and Xi have simply created a Super NATO.
martin logan
11 months ago
This article is interesting because it shows how wrong one’s analysis can get when history is ignored.
Sovereign states ally because of common threats.
For the last 500 years, European states have consistently ganged up on any single power seeking hegemony–and those coalitions have always won.
Now, Russia and China have conveniently presented a threat to Europe and North America, and the latter have shown unprecedented unity.
And the only thing that can threaten that unity would be if China and Russia somehow faded away.
Otherwise, Putin and Xi have simply created a Super NATO.
T Bone
11 months ago
This is some high level analysis here. Good lawd.
T Bone
11 months ago
This is some high level analysis here. Good lawd.
Christopher Barclay
11 months ago
Missing from this article is any mention of the democratic deficit of the EU, that allows the Germans to do energy deals with Russia while Russia threatens other EU countries. The only way for Poland to have its voice heard is by ramping up defence spending and thereby having its opinions heard through NATO. And possibly by helping to blow up the Ribbentrop-Molotov pipelines.
All the countries in Europe including us are still getting,buying,Russian gas,why d’you think the lights are still on. People have always found ways to obtain stuff.
All the countries in Europe including us are still getting,buying,Russian gas,why d’you think the lights are still on. People have always found ways to obtain stuff.
Christopher Barclay
11 months ago
Missing from this article is any mention of the democratic deficit of the EU, that allows the Germans to do energy deals with Russia while Russia threatens other EU countries. The only way for Poland to have its voice heard is by ramping up defence spending and thereby having its opinions heard through NATO. And possibly by helping to blow up the Ribbentrop-Molotov pipelines.
Andrew Boughton
11 months ago
A wonderful macro-analysis with appropriate historical dimensions, thank you so much.
Again, two things about the negative comments button on this otherwise excellent journal. First, – and + should be shown separately so that organised pile-ons can be identified and proper accountability guaranteed. And second, the reader ID should be visible, for accountability. Ideally a third would be that a brief rationale should accompany same. Why so in relation to this particular comment? Because it’s a simple compliment to the author and in that sense as neutral as it gets. An organised pile-on with the negatives is self-evident. There is no valid “net result” here.
Again, two things about the negative comments button on this otherwise excellent journal. First, – and + should be shown separately so that organised pile-ons can be identified and proper accountability guaranteed. And second, the reader ID should be visible, for accountability. Ideally a third would be that a brief rationale should accompany same. Why so in relation to this particular comment? Because it’s a simple compliment to the author and in that sense as neutral as it gets. An organised pile-on with the negatives is self-evident. There is no valid “net result” here.
Last edited 11 months ago by Andrew Boughton
Andrew Boughton
11 months ago
A wonderful macro-analysis with appropriate historical dimensions, thank you so much.
The piece does not discuss the extent to which US hegemony brings with it a cultural alignment with ultra-progressive liberalism. Open borders, identity politics and the destruction of the family are themselves seen as a threat to security by countries such as Poland, Hungary and Turkey let alone Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Russia herself.
Exactly. His statement that “The idea of the “West” … is an illusion that weaponises collective paranoia for ideological unity …” is spherical-objects.
Illusion my foot.
The cultural synergies exist. I’ve travelled very widely over several decades and I know the countries where I felt foreign – often delightfully so – e.g., in Japan. But I always felt quite at home in the US and in W Europe. The differences we love to find in the US and in W Europe are mere surface cultural peccadilloes. There are large numbers of Brits and Paddies living v happily in France, Spain etc. They do so by choice, because they like it there, and they feel right at home. Can’t say the same about Russia or Iran lol.
In reality, even the Brits and the French have way more in common with each other culturally (post-Christian, largely white, democracies) than the so-called “alliances” between the Chinese, Russian and Iranians, which latter are primarily the personal conveniences of dictators and have no cultural meaning or purchase whatsoever among their respective hoi polloi.
Alas! i did travel and lived far and wide. But was happy in Japan, Russia and the ME. Too old for Persia now.
Persian people LOVE roses. They’ve got CLASS.
Persian people LOVE roses. They’ve got CLASS.
‘Paddies living v happily in France, Spain etc.’
As a young man I worked in England where the term Paddy was an insult (one was often not even asked one’s name but simply addressed as Pat.) I would prefer if you didn’t use it to refer to Irish people.
He did call his own Brits, to be fair.. it too has some negative connotations I think? I suppose he might have continued with Yanks, Ruskies though I think Frogs, and that nasty term for MEs might have been going a bit too far.. I’m not too bothered.. sticks and stones etc. ..we had plenty of those from the Brits in the past! ..oops, better not go there!!
Quiet correct Liam old chap, and I very much doubt that the Chinks, Nips etc are really that bothered by such light hearted banter.
Quiet correct Liam old chap, and I very much doubt that the Chinks, Nips etc are really that bothered by such light hearted banter.
Frank is one of your lot or hadn’t you noticed?
He did call his own Brits, to be fair.. it too has some negative connotations I think? I suppose he might have continued with Yanks, Ruskies though I think Frogs, and that nasty term for MEs might have been going a bit too far.. I’m not too bothered.. sticks and stones etc. ..we had plenty of those from the Brits in the past! ..oops, better not go there!!
Frank is one of your lot or hadn’t you noticed?
You make a good point. However, unlike you I found the USA, esp the East Coast a very scary place and far too engrossed in greed and consumerism fort liking.
I spend 6 months in France, Spain and (mostly) Portugal – you can probably guess where I spend my summers! I feel most at home in Portugal, then Spain and France less so. In recent years I have found England to be cold though less so, Wales..
And everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. And once we get that nice free trade deal fully signed up with USA poor people like me will be able to pig out on ample cheap meat that USA will flood our supermarkets with,I mean who needs farmers anyway. But we’ll be able to SELL THEM cars which I didn’t even know we still made some,I mean we’ll just kill that car trade in USA. Free trade is so great how it benefits both parties to a deal,in theory at least,only didn’t Mr Trump get a lot of votes from pointing out that free trade wasnt so hot when the other side ie China had got the upper hand.
Alas! i did travel and lived far and wide. But was happy in Japan, Russia and the ME. Too old for Persia now.
‘Paddies living v happily in France, Spain etc.’
As a young man I worked in England where the term Paddy was an insult (one was often not even asked one’s name but simply addressed as Pat.) I would prefer if you didn’t use it to refer to Irish people.
You make a good point. However, unlike you I found the USA, esp the East Coast a very scary place and far too engrossed in greed and consumerism fort liking.
I spend 6 months in France, Spain and (mostly) Portugal – you can probably guess where I spend my summers! I feel most at home in Portugal, then Spain and France less so. In recent years I have found England to be cold though less so, Wales..
And everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. And once we get that nice free trade deal fully signed up with USA poor people like me will be able to pig out on ample cheap meat that USA will flood our supermarkets with,I mean who needs farmers anyway. But we’ll be able to SELL THEM cars which I didn’t even know we still made some,I mean we’ll just kill that car trade in USA. Free trade is so great how it benefits both parties to a deal,in theory at least,only didn’t Mr Trump get a lot of votes from pointing out that free trade wasnt so hot when the other side ie China had got the upper hand.
That’s true. Chinese and Russian societies are, for that matter, far more culturally conservative than ultra-progressive liberalism, whatever their forms of government may be. Their economic systems are unequivocally capitalist, and what is less generally well-known, even the much-made-of military-industrial alignments in China are no stronger than they are in, say, the US. Perhaps these are even less mature, until about now.
Are you suggesting the US government is influenced by the military industrial complex? Surely not? You’ll be telling us next Wall St and Silicon valley are in on it too! Bernie Sanders described the US government as the best that money can buy!!
And surely you’re not suggesting anything of the sort influences the GB government are you? Dear oh dear.. whatever next?
Are you suggesting the US government is influenced by the military industrial complex? Surely not? You’ll be telling us next Wall St and Silicon valley are in on it too! Bernie Sanders described the US government as the best that money can buy!!
And surely you’re not suggesting anything of the sort influences the GB government are you? Dear oh dear.. whatever next?
Poland clearly is much more happy with the US than Russia.
Well, that’s a kind of no-brainer isn’t it? The question however, is rather whether Poland is happier with the US or with the EU..
It is certain that the EU isn’t very happy with Poland!..although, under US instruction I think they’re kissing and making up.
Ursula VdL sounds more and more like an American propagandist-puppet. Only Macron speaks for Europe without the US jackboot on his neck. What kind of country allows its ally to blow up its source of energy? ..none but a sycophantic slave. Sunak isn’t much better but he thinks he’s the master and the US his slave! I believe he lives in the Matrix!
Macron does NOT speak for Europe, Macron speaks for France & France only. He would only speak for Europe if France was in total control of it!
He is Boris’s avatar. That summer of the tv style elimination vote,to distract all us idiots. Old Bodge was making secret deals. He is REALLY still our Prime Minister but Rishi is keeping his seat warm for him. That’s why the malignant blonde goes around the world making deals with “world leaders” like he thinks he’s the Prime Minister. After all those low turn out elections we used to have that no one bothered to turn out for,they’re time wasting and expensive,it’s much more efficient to just appoint each other and THERES A WAR ON DONT YOU KNOW.
Macron does NOT speak for Europe, Macron speaks for France & France only. He would only speak for Europe if France was in total control of it!
He is Boris’s avatar. That summer of the tv style elimination vote,to distract all us idiots. Old Bodge was making secret deals. He is REALLY still our Prime Minister but Rishi is keeping his seat warm for him. That’s why the malignant blonde goes around the world making deals with “world leaders” like he thinks he’s the Prime Minister. After all those low turn out elections we used to have that no one bothered to turn out for,they’re time wasting and expensive,it’s much more efficient to just appoint each other and THERES A WAR ON DONT YOU KNOW.
Only cos they’re taking the money,the backhanders,Duda and Zelensky,both total crooks.
Well, that’s a kind of no-brainer isn’t it? The question however, is rather whether Poland is happier with the US or with the EU..
It is certain that the EU isn’t very happy with Poland!..although, under US instruction I think they’re kissing and making up.
Ursula VdL sounds more and more like an American propagandist-puppet. Only Macron speaks for Europe without the US jackboot on his neck. What kind of country allows its ally to blow up its source of energy? ..none but a sycophantic slave. Sunak isn’t much better but he thinks he’s the master and the US his slave! I believe he lives in the Matrix!
Only cos they’re taking the money,the backhanders,Duda and Zelensky,both total crooks.
Exactly. His statement that “The idea of the “West” … is an illusion that weaponises collective paranoia for ideological unity …” is spherical-objects.
Illusion my foot.
The cultural synergies exist. I’ve travelled very widely over several decades and I know the countries where I felt foreign – often delightfully so – e.g., in Japan. But I always felt quite at home in the US and in W Europe. The differences we love to find in the US and in W Europe are mere surface cultural peccadilloes. There are large numbers of Brits and Paddies living v happily in France, Spain etc. They do so by choice, because they like it there, and they feel right at home. Can’t say the same about Russia or Iran lol.
In reality, even the Brits and the French have way more in common with each other culturally (post-Christian, largely white, democracies) than the so-called “alliances” between the Chinese, Russian and Iranians, which latter are primarily the personal conveniences of dictators and have no cultural meaning or purchase whatsoever among their respective hoi polloi.
That’s true. Chinese and Russian societies are, for that matter, far more culturally conservative than ultra-progressive liberalism, whatever their forms of government may be. Their economic systems are unequivocally capitalist, and what is less generally well-known, even the much-made-of military-industrial alignments in China are no stronger than they are in, say, the US. Perhaps these are even less mature, until about now.
Poland clearly is much more happy with the US than Russia.
The piece does not discuss the extent to which US hegemony brings with it a cultural alignment with ultra-progressive liberalism. Open borders, identity politics and the destruction of the family are themselves seen as a threat to security by countries such as Poland, Hungary and Turkey let alone Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Russia herself.
This has been a disheartening read. All these factors mentioned here, NATO, Macron, Clinton, Bush, Washington, Sweden, “pillars on the continent”, the West, geopolitics, “the elites”, blocs, states being sympathetic to this and that, etc, etc – they describe the world as the plaything ,or chess table, of entities completely unconcerned with the actual human beings living in it. They can do it because the power of the individual has been steadily diminishing during the past century (or so) and the last time I thought I had a smidgeon of influence on, let’s say, what NATO was going to do, or what weapons the US should buy or sell, was exactly never. And the last time I believed, without instinctively wondering if it may be a lie, what I read in a newspaper, was sometime in the mid-1990s.
To me, your observation here is profoundly valid. Although, this is how geopolitical strategists view the world, forcing that on us as a reality at the state and multistate level. Like the Greek gods they subconsciously equate with.
To me, your observation here is profoundly valid. Although, this is how geopolitical strategists view the world, forcing that on us as a reality at the state and multistate level. Like the Greek gods they subconsciously equate with.
This has been a disheartening read. All these factors mentioned here, NATO, Macron, Clinton, Bush, Washington, Sweden, “pillars on the continent”, the West, geopolitics, “the elites”, blocs, states being sympathetic to this and that, etc, etc – they describe the world as the plaything ,or chess table, of entities completely unconcerned with the actual human beings living in it. They can do it because the power of the individual has been steadily diminishing during the past century (or so) and the last time I thought I had a smidgeon of influence on, let’s say, what NATO was going to do, or what weapons the US should buy or sell, was exactly never. And the last time I believed, without instinctively wondering if it may be a lie, what I read in a newspaper, was sometime in the mid-1990s.
Too many words. And far too many long words.
Why in 2023 can we not use diagram, maps and graphics to communicate ideas in a far shorter and easier to read format ?
There are a few key ideas hidden in here, but they don’t readily come out.
I’d highlight these (some mentioned, some not):
#1 There is a genuine divergence between “legacy” EU and the Eastern European countries.
#2 The new E Europe countries have the numbers, but the old countries still have the power – this may not be stable/durable.
#3 The E Europe countries don’t really trust the W Europe countries to defend them – and why would they ? We did an awful job in the last century. And it was only the US in 1919 who really forced through the new nations of E Europe. Poland trusts the US far more than France or Germany. And rightly so. France and Germany cannot be trusted to do the right thing – instance their initial Ukraine reactions.
#4 The French elite has an inherent dislike/jealousy of the US.
# 5 France has a huge arms export industry and wants a captive market for it.
#6 Germany doesn’t really know what it wants. Still.
#7 Europe on the whole still isn’t prepared to pay for its own defence.
One major problem, often overlooked is that post 1945 the US was FAR too generous, and should have ignored the pretensions of both the UK and France. Neither should have been permitted to develop an Atomic Bomb.
Their status as “dediticii”* should NOT have been overlooked!
The Romans would NEVER have been so generous with their ‘allies’.
(* conquered/defeated peoples.)
How exactly would the US have been able to stop the UK and France developing atomic weapons ? They both had the scientific and technical strengths and equipment to do so (certainly the UK did).
One interesting sidelight here – I read somone the other day who pointed out that it was Western useful idiots (spies) who gave Stalin the bomb. Sadly true. Yet the useful idiots never learn.
Financial pressure, including ‘restrictions’ on Marshall Aid.
‘We’ were an American supplicant pure and simple, or do you deny this? And if so why?
The US needed our help, at least as much, via a vis the Soviets.
France and Italy came close to going Red.
Our only use was as an unsinkable Aircraft Carrier, anchored of the coast of NW Europe.
Sure we’d have done that for them Charlie at half the price!
‘You ‘ were too far away, and rather too pro Adolph anyway, Liam old chap.
‘You ‘ were too far away, and rather too pro Adolph anyway, Liam old chap.
Sure we’d have done that for them Charlie at half the price!
I’m sorry but the US did NOT our help, we were a ‘needy beggar’ from late 1940 onwards.
Our only use was as an unsinkable Aircraft Carrier, anchored of the coast of NW Europe.
I’m sorry but the US did NOT our help, we were a ‘needy beggar’ from late 1940 onwards.
Our development was kept v secret CH. The Atlee Govt was aware of that potential, as was Churchill when returned. The US sentiment changed anyway with Korea etc and come early 60s they were selling us Polaris.
Now where the supplication has validity is with Suez, but then interestingly not with Vietnam.
The US was aware of plans and made it quite difficult for us, thus our first ‘bomb’ wasn’t even detonated until late 1952.
However they could and should have stopped us even contemplating having the ‘bomb’ in 1946.
Nothing could disguise the fact that post 1945 we were, and still are an American helot.
You would bet the security of your nation on the fecklessness of the American government? A government that swings in policy changes like a pendulum?
I would not, and I live in the US!
You would bet the security of your nation on the fecklessness of the American government? A government that swings in policy changes like a pendulum?
I would not, and I live in the US!
The US was aware of plans and made it quite difficult for us, thus our first ‘bomb’ wasn’t even detonated until late 1952.
However they could and should have stopped us even contemplating having the ‘bomb’ in 1946.
Nothing could disguise the fact that post 1945 we were, and still are an American helot.
The US needed our help, at least as much, via a vis the Soviets.
France and Italy came close to going Red.
Our development was kept v secret CH. The Atlee Govt was aware of that potential, as was Churchill when returned. The US sentiment changed anyway with Korea etc and come early 60s they were selling us Polaris.
Now where the supplication has validity is with Suez, but then interestingly not with Vietnam.
Stalin got everything he wanted from the ‘West’ (i.e. the US). The Soviets alone would have lost WWII big time! Today, Western (useless) idiot ‘leaders’ continue to swamp Western industries, businesses and seats of learning with spies by planeloads and uneducated, uninvited ‘migrants’ invade our lands by shiploads. The more , the merrier, it seems!
All correct apart from “uninvited migrants”.
Surely huge majority of immigrants came to UK via visa route?
They are not invited by huge majority of the population by all political parties ignore this wish.
True, but far too many migrants are ‘invited’ only by their dream for a better life and do not possess a visa
It’s our government’s duty to protect borders as well as local citizen’s interests.
..a better life? Yes but only because you ruined his life in his own country over the past 200 years.. *India’s GDP was 27% of the world’s GDP before GB ruined it.. it was 4% when you left.. Hence shed loads had no option but to go to where the Indian loot was now housed, the UK. Ask Rishi Sunak!
* included Pakistan and Bangladesh at the time of course
The migrant’s source countries’ GDP from pre-colonial days is pretty meaningless (Did that even exist?) The Indian subcontinent and neighbouring countries today are overflowing with humans, bursting at the seems with well over two billion (& growing) disillusioned, undereducated, underemployed, poorly governed (English speaking) people. That’s why migrants are leaving, nothing to do with colonialism. Mostly of their own recent, corrupt governments making!
(I have lived in India for 2 1/2 years)
That is an extremely offensive comment. India’s GDP is higher than the UKs. There are problems but not what you try to depict. I dont know when you stayed here in India but it must have been ages back.
Let’s be realistic, there are more people on the Indian subcontinent living in poverty or near poverty today than ever before – in numbers. Plus, the environment is in a deplorable state. Reasons as above.
I think it’s a bit ‘offensive’ to these many hundreds of millions of poor people to deny this fact.
Which world are you in? Per capita GDP has sharp variations. Some states in North Central India are poorer while some in the South are extremely prosperous. You are obviously a reader of various agit prop polemicists who thrive on charity doles from the likes of you to sell poverty.
Go on mouthing these inane Neo colonial niceties to feel good about your sinking economy.
As for the environment that’s a challenge which the government is trying its best about by pushing solar energy etc
Not an academic world – ‘obviously’!
Certainly a milieu of envy filled ostrichdom under layers of proto- imperial fantasies and delusions are your forte.
Certainly a milieu of envy filled ostrichdom under layers of proto- imperial fantasies and delusions are your forte.
Not an academic world – ‘obviously’!
How patronizing. That phrase “poor people” when you get to mix with “poor people” maybe are one but it’s much more complex than it seems,all those “poor people” are individuals. Some aspire to get out of poverty,some of them by education and hard work,some by winning a lottery or pulling a successful scam. Some are actually comfortable with “poverty” of either the respectable or non-respectable kind. Some of us in the West were inculcated from infancy with certain ideas,or rather one particular interpretation of ideas posited by That Man way back in Old Judee. That Man seemed to think poverty was a blessed state of being but it’s not,it’s not even spiritually enriching. The best use of poverty is,as Pericles the Athenian said,to teach you to get out of it pdq. Which is why it always irks me when dimbos criticize Sunak et al for being rich. Far from being out of touch and having no idea what life is like at poverty level they know exactly and very well – WHICH IS WHY THEYRE RICH!
Which world are you in? Per capita GDP has sharp variations. Some states in North Central India are poorer while some in the South are extremely prosperous. You are obviously a reader of various agit prop polemicists who thrive on charity doles from the likes of you to sell poverty.
Go on mouthing these inane Neo colonial niceties to feel good about your sinking economy.
As for the environment that’s a challenge which the government is trying its best about by pushing solar energy etc
How patronizing. That phrase “poor people” when you get to mix with “poor people” maybe are one but it’s much more complex than it seems,all those “poor people” are individuals. Some aspire to get out of poverty,some of them by education and hard work,some by winning a lottery or pulling a successful scam. Some are actually comfortable with “poverty” of either the respectable or non-respectable kind. Some of us in the West were inculcated from infancy with certain ideas,or rather one particular interpretation of ideas posited by That Man way back in Old Judee. That Man seemed to think poverty was a blessed state of being but it’s not,it’s not even spiritually enriching. The best use of poverty is,as Pericles the Athenian said,to teach you to get out of it pdq. Which is why it always irks me when dimbos criticize Sunak et al for being rich. Far from being out of touch and having no idea what life is like at poverty level they know exactly and very well – WHICH IS WHY THEYRE RICH!
I think the GDP point is meant to be about GDP per head.
In fact, India is also bursting with pretty well educated people. I was surprised how many private schools there were in my brief visits. There are also lots of female engineers.
In my last job (in a US tech company), I had 3 levels of Indian-born managers above me. All very smart and very good.
In my limited experience in India (only 2 weeks in two large cities), inequality in India is far higher than anything I’ve seen in Europe – there literally seems to be no safety net at the bottom. I also got the impression that many Indians didn’t seem to feel this was a critical issue. Families with young children sleeping under concrete bridges didn’t seem to bother passers by. Perhaps that’s not representative, but it felt that way.
Povertarianism is an industry which sells well in the West to justify the loads of funding activists receive. A bit like DEI. Actually the inequality in India is mainly due to Nehruvian Socialism creating artificial shortages and an elite ecosystem. The last decade has seen a remarkable junking of this privileged ecosystem which has now found refuge chiefly in the Anglosphere to rave and rant about ” poverty”. They find lots of succour from many who abound here on Unherd who dwell in a fantasy of proto imperial notions of ” poor” people in India …especially as their comfortable affluence sinks.
You may find people living on the street in LA or San Francisco but that is ok, cause its in the First world.
And as someone rebuked me on a Facebook post,there are no people WITH JOBS,living in tents on the streets of San Francisco,that’s a media lie. I was told. By a mid-west American. Who maybe has never been to San Francisco. But doesn’t like Brits dissing USA.
And as someone rebuked me on a Facebook post,there are no people WITH JOBS,living in tents on the streets of San Francisco,that’s a media lie. I was told. By a mid-west American. Who maybe has never been to San Francisco. But doesn’t like Brits dissing USA.
Povertarianism is an industry which sells well in the West to justify the loads of funding activists receive. A bit like DEI. Actually the inequality in India is mainly due to Nehruvian Socialism creating artificial shortages and an elite ecosystem. The last decade has seen a remarkable junking of this privileged ecosystem which has now found refuge chiefly in the Anglosphere to rave and rant about ” poverty”. They find lots of succour from many who abound here on Unherd who dwell in a fantasy of proto imperial notions of ” poor” people in India …especially as their comfortable affluence sinks.
You may find people living on the street in LA or San Francisco but that is ok, cause its in the First world.
Let’s be realistic, there are more people on the Indian subcontinent living in poverty or near poverty today than ever before – in numbers. Plus, the environment is in a deplorable state. Reasons as above.
I think it’s a bit ‘offensive’ to these many hundreds of millions of poor people to deny this fact.
I think the GDP point is meant to be about GDP per head.
In fact, India is also bursting with pretty well educated people. I was surprised how many private schools there were in my brief visits. There are also lots of female engineers.
In my last job (in a US tech company), I had 3 levels of Indian-born managers above me. All very smart and very good.
In my limited experience in India (only 2 weeks in two large cities), inequality in India is far higher than anything I’ve seen in Europe – there literally seems to be no safety net at the bottom. I also got the impression that many Indians didn’t seem to feel this was a critical issue. Families with young children sleeping under concrete bridges didn’t seem to bother passers by. Perhaps that’s not representative, but it felt that way.
That is an extremely offensive comment. India’s GDP is higher than the UKs. There are problems but not what you try to depict. I dont know when you stayed here in India but it must have been ages back.
It is not Indian people that people are complaining of, I hope. They certainly had a right to come here as Commonwealth citizens & for the huge amount of assistance in the form of people who joined the UK armed services during WWI & WWII. Nor were these people either uncivilised or ignorant.
People from India,of that ethnicity are VERY SMART. And they are good with numbers. Rishi doesn’t get how us anglo-saxon types are so thick at numbers (some of us) and even proud of it. In a perverse way. I comprehend his incomprehension of this attitude. It’s only a cliche because it’s true.
Indians brains can do numbers.
People from India,of that ethnicity are VERY SMART. And they are good with numbers. Rishi doesn’t get how us anglo-saxon types are so thick at numbers (some of us) and even proud of it. In a perverse way. I comprehend his incomprehension of this attitude. It’s only a cliche because it’s true.
Indians brains can do numbers.
The migrant’s source countries’ GDP from pre-colonial days is pretty meaningless (Did that even exist?) The Indian subcontinent and neighbouring countries today are overflowing with humans, bursting at the seems with well over two billion (& growing) disillusioned, undereducated, underemployed, poorly governed (English speaking) people. That’s why migrants are leaving, nothing to do with colonialism. Mostly of their own recent, corrupt governments making!
(I have lived in India for 2 1/2 years)
It is not Indian people that people are complaining of, I hope. They certainly had a right to come here as Commonwealth citizens & for the huge amount of assistance in the form of people who joined the UK armed services during WWI & WWII. Nor were these people either uncivilised or ignorant.
..a better life? Yes but only because you ruined his life in his own country over the past 200 years.. *India’s GDP was 27% of the world’s GDP before GB ruined it.. it was 4% when you left.. Hence shed loads had no option but to go to where the Indian loot was now housed, the UK. Ask Rishi Sunak!
* included Pakistan and Bangladesh at the time of course
Of the US and UK didn’t topple progressive leaders and governments, invade, bomb, destroy and loot all those countries they’d all stay at home, wouldn’t they? ‘can’t have it both ways guys ..it’s payback time! If you burn down your neighbour’s house he’s going to shelter in yours isn’t he?
Re: the US and central and South America, it is not the US that has caused these countries to be in the economic and safety degradation they are in.
When the US held some influence on them and shored up certain “governments” in these countries there was not the drive to leave them.
It is when they were given the ability to elect their own leaders that the situation degraded because the leadership they eventually elected were corrupt! Which is what happens when you have a country of mostly uneducated peasantry attempting to establish democracy!
What we have here now, re: the US, is an organized effort by left leaning NGOs, with the complicit coordination from the regime in Washington to encourage and coerce people from many countries to attempt the dangerous and expensive journey to the US. The unspoken goal is to overload the US economy and therefor collapse it!
One must ask ones self, why all these black and brown skinned people, would want to make such an effort to come to a country that those same Leftist NGOs call a “systemically racist and white supremacists” country.
It’s the Revenge of History. We did it to them. Now we don’t like it when they do it to us.
Re: the US and central and South America, it is not the US that has caused these countries to be in the economic and safety degradation they are in.
When the US held some influence on them and shored up certain “governments” in these countries there was not the drive to leave them.
It is when they were given the ability to elect their own leaders that the situation degraded because the leadership they eventually elected were corrupt! Which is what happens when you have a country of mostly uneducated peasantry attempting to establish democracy!
What we have here now, re: the US, is an organized effort by left leaning NGOs, with the complicit coordination from the regime in Washington to encourage and coerce people from many countries to attempt the dangerous and expensive journey to the US. The unspoken goal is to overload the US economy and therefor collapse it!
One must ask ones self, why all these black and brown skinned people, would want to make such an effort to come to a country that those same Leftist NGOs call a “systemically racist and white supremacists” country.
It’s the Revenge of History. We did it to them. Now we don’t like it when they do it to us.
What you forget is for a large part of the post war period the migrants were British passport holders as part of the Empire. Why did they need an invite in such circumstances? Nonetheless labour shortages did lead to alot of overseas recruitment. Not much changed since then.
Had we had NOT had such an enormous National Service Army and Navy post 1945, there wouldn’t have been any “labour shortages” real or imagined.
Because from maybe the 1940s onwards,and certainly when I was at school in the 1960s the idea that manual work,factory work,low paid work was demeaning and beneath our human dignity was totally inculcated into us at school by the teachers but also I think in subtle ways by radio,tv,and all other media. Everyone had to be a unique winner. Everyone should aspire to be famous. The idea that you spend 40 years steadily plugging away but paying for your house,with your wife you love,and your kids,so boring and bourgeois! Well,it’s now 50 years since the 1970s and most of the people I know have happily lived that life. It’s the life most people want to live but for a decade or two the liberal type intellectuals got control of the media,education etc so they could indoctrinate us with their poison.
Had we had NOT had such an enormous National Service Army and Navy post 1945, there wouldn’t have been any “labour shortages” real or imagined.
Because from maybe the 1940s onwards,and certainly when I was at school in the 1960s the idea that manual work,factory work,low paid work was demeaning and beneath our human dignity was totally inculcated into us at school by the teachers but also I think in subtle ways by radio,tv,and all other media. Everyone had to be a unique winner. Everyone should aspire to be famous. The idea that you spend 40 years steadily plugging away but paying for your house,with your wife you love,and your kids,so boring and bourgeois! Well,it’s now 50 years since the 1970s and most of the people I know have happily lived that life. It’s the life most people want to live but for a decade or two the liberal type intellectuals got control of the media,education etc so they could indoctrinate us with their poison.
Has the British electorate EVER been asked it wanted mass immigration on a Biblical scale?
I think not.
True, but far too many migrants are ‘invited’ only by their dream for a better life and do not possess a visa
It’s our government’s duty to protect borders as well as local citizen’s interests.
Of the US and UK didn’t topple progressive leaders and governments, invade, bomb, destroy and loot all those countries they’d all stay at home, wouldn’t they? ‘can’t have it both ways guys ..it’s payback time! If you burn down your neighbour’s house he’s going to shelter in yours isn’t he?
What you forget is for a large part of the post war period the migrants were British passport holders as part of the Empire. Why did they need an invite in such circumstances? Nonetheless labour shortages did lead to alot of overseas recruitment. Not much changed since then.
Has the British electorate EVER been asked it wanted mass immigration on a Biblical scale?
I think not.
So, it was the US/UK that really won WW2, and they saved Russia in doing so was it?
Ha ha, ha ha.. do you have any more like that! WW2 was a skirmish in the West, a full-scale war in the East.. check the numbers of men, and equipment! You’ve read too many Battler Britten comics!
All correct apart from “uninvited migrants”.
Surely huge majority of immigrants came to UK via visa route?
They are not invited by huge majority of the population by all political parties ignore this wish.
So, it was the US/UK that really won WW2, and they saved Russia in doing so was it?
Ha ha, ha ha.. do you have any more like that! WW2 was a skirmish in the West, a full-scale war in the East.. check the numbers of men, and equipment! You’ve read too many Battler Britten comics!
Spies gave Stalin the bomb, not useful idiots. The spies knew perfectly well what they were doing and were committed Communists. “Useful idiot” was the Soviet term for those in the West who unwittingly helped the Soviet cause.
Yes and that included some of the spies !
Check what the Russians themselves said about Donald Maclean. They considered him a naive idealist. That’s a useful idiot in my book.
So they were both idiots and useful.
Yes and that included some of the spies !
Check what the Russians themselves said about Donald Maclean. They considered him a naive idealist. That’s a useful idiot in my book.
So they were both idiots and useful.
The nonsense that we can “limit” which countries can obtain nuclear weapons is elitist and foolish. The great scare that if “country X gets nukes, the world will burn” was proven wrong when India and Pakistan each developed nukes. The same breathless “chicken littles” we hear from today re; Iran, were the same screaming that the region would go up in flames when India and then Pakistan obtained nukes.
If Iran and subsequently Saudi Arabia obtain nukes, then peace is assured between these countries. To believe that the Iranian leadership is suicidal, which launching a Nuke at Israel would surely be, is again, naive. It is this same assumption that kept us on the “eve of destruction” during the cold war. We thought the Soviets were crazy and they thought the same about us! Neither were suicidal!
Reply to the wrong person ? I’m not sure I expressed any opinion on whether we can limit nuclear weapons.
Reply to the wrong person ? I’m not sure I expressed any opinion on whether we can limit nuclear weapons.
Financial pressure, including ‘restrictions’ on Marshall Aid.
‘We’ were an American supplicant pure and simple, or do you deny this? And if so why?
Stalin got everything he wanted from the ‘West’ (i.e. the US). The Soviets alone would have lost WWII big time! Today, Western (useless) idiot ‘leaders’ continue to swamp Western industries, businesses and seats of learning with spies by planeloads and uneducated, uninvited ‘migrants’ invade our lands by shiploads. The more , the merrier, it seems!
Spies gave Stalin the bomb, not useful idiots. The spies knew perfectly well what they were doing and were committed Communists. “Useful idiot” was the Soviet term for those in the West who unwittingly helped the Soviet cause.
The nonsense that we can “limit” which countries can obtain nuclear weapons is elitist and foolish. The great scare that if “country X gets nukes, the world will burn” was proven wrong when India and Pakistan each developed nukes. The same breathless “chicken littles” we hear from today re; Iran, were the same screaming that the region would go up in flames when India and then Pakistan obtained nukes.
If Iran and subsequently Saudi Arabia obtain nukes, then peace is assured between these countries. To believe that the Iranian leadership is suicidal, which launching a Nuke at Israel would surely be, is again, naive. It is this same assumption that kept us on the “eve of destruction” during the cold war. We thought the Soviets were crazy and they thought the same about us! Neither were suicidal!
Maybe I wasn’t paying attention to the part of my history class where Britain was defeated in WW2, Charles.
Sadly, like millions of others you have been reading the wrong ‘comic’.
We ended up on the winning side in WWII thanks to the US. Otherwise we would have been defeated in late 1940, mainly because we were bankrupt!
Even so called ‘victory’ in 1945 meant destruction of our Empire and the complete evaporation of any possible claim to ‘Great Power’ status, and thus us our reincarnation as an American helot.
All this was completely predictable in 1939, if only we had eyes to see.
I prefer to look at it the other way – Britain knew full well it would lose its Empire to defeat Nazism but did it anyway. Like a bee with one sting. I don’t know if being patronising is part of your schtick, but I don’t read comics.
GB could have easily formed an alliance with Germany in 1939.. Hitler was well up for it. He knew a fellow NatC nation when he saw it. It was all Churchill’s fault.. bloody megalomaniac. lol.
Surprisingly you could be right.
If you believe Pat Buchanan ( The Unnecessary War) Churchill’s hard on for the Germans played a large part in dragging us in to WW1
I’ve come to the conclusion that Churchill was a useful idiot.
Surprisingly you could be right.
If you believe Pat Buchanan ( The Unnecessary War) Churchill’s hard on for the Germans played a large part in dragging us in to WW1
I’ve come to the conclusion that Churchill was a useful idiot.
At best it was a Pyrrhic victory, at worst a national disaster, from which we have yet to fully recover.
What incidentally is SCHTICK? I have never seen that expression before?
Because you’re not on social media. Like a few decades ago people like you didn’t watch or own a tv set. Mostly the people who were actually on tv a lot. Writers and intellectuals,people like that. Now it’s the coolest thing to claim not to be on social media,except unless you say it on social media no one knows. SCHTICK is a Jewish or Yiddish expression and its been around FOREVER and it means spiel or spin or the story you use to present something in a particular light,like Zuckerberg tried with his meta idea that is now defunct as no one liked his Schtick on that one
Because you’re not on social media. Like a few decades ago people like you didn’t watch or own a tv set. Mostly the people who were actually on tv a lot. Writers and intellectuals,people like that. Now it’s the coolest thing to claim not to be on social media,except unless you say it on social media no one knows. SCHTICK is a Jewish or Yiddish expression and its been around FOREVER and it means spiel or spin or the story you use to present something in a particular light,like Zuckerberg tried with his meta idea that is now defunct as no one liked his Schtick on that one
Except we didn’t defeat Nazism. We stamped on it. But it,the ideology scuttled away to hide in a dark place. That place was Academia where for a little over 15 years it was worked on,remodelled and rebranded. It reemerged circa 1963 like P.Larkin recorded only now it was about freedom,choice and compassion. The people who recognised what it was,it was easy to mock and diss them. How we laughed. Malcolm Muggeridge (I loved that voice),Mary Whitehouse (shock horror,she once had an affair). As a boring,middle aged housewife what could she know about the delirious joys of sex eh.
Despite being married and even having had an affair. Oddly enough this only served to negate her warnings to some people not prove that she knew what she was talking about. A popular saying in those days was “don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it”. But if you did “try it” those same bastards would get back at you.”well you now have no moral authority”. You know why the contraceptive pill causes a lot of women health problems and pain because that is actually what it was designed for. The cover story was that it was so women could control their fertility,have agency over their own bodies but most importantly enjoy sex riotously and unreservedly. That was the cover story and a lot of chicks fell for it.
Same with euthanasia or whatever term now applies to state execution. It’s sold as compassion not murder.
GB could have easily formed an alliance with Germany in 1939.. Hitler was well up for it. He knew a fellow NatC nation when he saw it. It was all Churchill’s fault.. bloody megalomaniac. lol.
At best it was a Pyrrhic victory, at worst a national disaster, from which we have yet to fully recover.
What incidentally is SCHTICK? I have never seen that expression before?
Except we didn’t defeat Nazism. We stamped on it. But it,the ideology scuttled away to hide in a dark place. That place was Academia where for a little over 15 years it was worked on,remodelled and rebranded. It reemerged circa 1963 like P.Larkin recorded only now it was about freedom,choice and compassion. The people who recognised what it was,it was easy to mock and diss them. How we laughed. Malcolm Muggeridge (I loved that voice),Mary Whitehouse (shock horror,she once had an affair). As a boring,middle aged housewife what could she know about the delirious joys of sex eh.
Despite being married and even having had an affair. Oddly enough this only served to negate her warnings to some people not prove that she knew what she was talking about. A popular saying in those days was “don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it”. But if you did “try it” those same bastards would get back at you.”well you now have no moral authority”. You know why the contraceptive pill causes a lot of women health problems and pain because that is actually what it was designed for. The cover story was that it was so women could control their fertility,have agency over their own bodies but most importantly enjoy sex riotously and unreservedly. That was the cover story and a lot of chicks fell for it.
Same with euthanasia or whatever term now applies to state execution. It’s sold as compassion not murder.
What exactly is wrong with Britain no longer being a world power and having an empire ? Plenty of countries are like this and doing very well – all the Scandis for example. And running empires doesn’t come cheap.
I really don’t get the strong undercurrent of anti-Americanism around here. What exactly is it that they prevent us from doing that we need to do ? One thing to feel a little resentful or jealous, another to actually prove that they are doing us a great deal of harm. I used to have this same distrust of the US until I got sent to work out there for a year. They are mainly successful because they work hard and do the right things (or at least did for a long period until quite recently – we all have our doubts these days). It’s hard to argue that they’ve somehow cheated their way to the top and don’t deserve it.
I first worked for an American company 35 years ago and mainly for them since. Absolute night and day compared to stodgy British companies and their appalling management.
You seem to have misunderstood me! In no way do I believe the US has somehow “cheated their way to the top”!
‘They’ got their by ‘playing their cards’ correctly, a gravure performance in fact.
‘We’ on the other have played our ‘hand’ quite appallingly from 1914 to 1939, and consequently and deservedly suffered the most humiliating collapse.
As for Empire, you are correct, by 1914 we had had our fun, and it was well beyond its ‘sell by date’ but letting go is always problematical.
Our status as a Great Power was not necessarily linked to Empire, but more to our industrial capacity or lack of. It had some globally beneficial results, but again 1914-18 finished that off as well.
Off course even the ‘Scandis’ you speak of went through this painful process in the 18th century, but they never straddled the Globe as we had done.
So it’s back to little England and try again.
Sorry. But I think I still don’t quite understand.
There’s an undertone in your comments regretting “British decline”. But there’s nothing inevitable about that. We’re agreed – the empire couldn’t last. And it may have been better to lose it quickly (as we did) rathe than slowly (the Russian model). But we’re now able to make the best of what we have. I’m not sure anyone’s really stopping us here. Apart from ourselves (which we’re doing an absolutely bang up job of right now of course).
Hang on, aren’t you straying a bit off beam here?
My original premise, which you challenged, was that the US was far too generous with its treatment of both our good selves and the French post 1945, and that neither of us should have been allowed to develop an Atomic bomb.
As it was by allowing ‘us’ to develop the bomb both the British and French ‘establishments’ became delusional as to their true status, eg: “dediticci”.
I certainly do NOT regret Britain’s decline, it was entirely our own fault, but for some extraordinary reason ‘we’ seem to be in deep denial about it. (even post Suez.)
I also do not mourn the loss of Empire, it was after all a bit of a ‘basket case’ at the end, and the UK is not some form of worldwide ‘charity shop’, as some would have us.
However during its three and a half centuries or so of existence* I do believe the British Empire was a rather benign organisation, at least by comparative analysis with most of the others, with the notable exception of Ancient Rome.
As to your final point about us pressing the self-destruct button, yes it certainly looks that way at the moment. The fact that Covid has been used as an excuse to do virtually nothing about Brexit and thus leave us with BINO** is certainly not encouraging, but a short burst of Sir Kier & Co might serve as the catalyst for real change?
(* 1603-1707 English, then British 1707-1960/3.)
(** Brexit in Name Only.)
We can all play alternative history games but reality interferes.
It was in USA interest to rebuild Europe quickly to avoid communism, Hence the Marshall Plan.
You ignore the fact that till early 80s communist parties vote was over 30% in Italy and 20% in France.
Manace of communism had to be countered, so West Garmany had to be brought into Western alliance (no Morgenthau plan then).
Dictating directly to allies what to do about nuclear bomb was not in USA interest.
Yes West Germany was rebuilt and joined NATO but under NO circumstances was it allowed to have an Atomic bomb*.
The Communist menace in both Italy and France did NOT warrant either the UK or France having an Atomic bomb. The US one was quite sufficient.
The US failed to speak with ‘the voice of authority’, unlike Ancient Rome for example.
(* Nor is still allowed, or so I gather!)
Yes West Germany was rebuilt and joined NATO but under NO circumstances was it allowed to have an Atomic bomb*.
The Communist menace in both Italy and France did NOT warrant either the UK or France having an Atomic bomb. The US one was quite sufficient.
The US failed to speak with ‘the voice of authority’, unlike Ancient Rome for example.
(* Nor is still allowed, or so I gather!)
We can all play alternative history games but reality interferes.
It was in USA interest to rebuild Europe quickly to avoid communism, Hence the Marshall Plan.
You ignore the fact that till early 80s communist parties vote was over 30% in Italy and 20% in France.
Manace of communism had to be countered, so West Garmany had to be brought into Western alliance (no Morgenthau plan then).
Dictating directly to allies what to do about nuclear bomb was not in USA interest.
You forget.. no one left to prey on.. the buggers are all too strong now! ..and besides they’re aware of your motives by now!
Hang on, aren’t you straying a bit off beam here?
My original premise, which you challenged, was that the US was far too generous with its treatment of both our good selves and the French post 1945, and that neither of us should have been allowed to develop an Atomic bomb.
As it was by allowing ‘us’ to develop the bomb both the British and French ‘establishments’ became delusional as to their true status, eg: “dediticci”.
I certainly do NOT regret Britain’s decline, it was entirely our own fault, but for some extraordinary reason ‘we’ seem to be in deep denial about it. (even post Suez.)
I also do not mourn the loss of Empire, it was after all a bit of a ‘basket case’ at the end, and the UK is not some form of worldwide ‘charity shop’, as some would have us.
However during its three and a half centuries or so of existence* I do believe the British Empire was a rather benign organisation, at least by comparative analysis with most of the others, with the notable exception of Ancient Rome.
As to your final point about us pressing the self-destruct button, yes it certainly looks that way at the moment. The fact that Covid has been used as an excuse to do virtually nothing about Brexit and thus leave us with BINO** is certainly not encouraging, but a short burst of Sir Kier & Co might serve as the catalyst for real change?
(* 1603-1707 English, then British 1707-1960/3.)
(** Brexit in Name Only.)
You forget.. no one left to prey on.. the buggers are all too strong now! ..and besides they’re aware of your motives by now!
Could you care to explain how Britain played cards badly in 1914?
Should it allow Germany to defeat France and Russia and totally dominate continent?
I guess upside might be that ww2 could had been avoided.
You ignore Germany desire to achieve naval parity with Britain.
Which, having all Europe resources behind, they could had done.
Then what? You only delayed inevitable showdown with Germany.
But Germany would now had upper hand.
Well Germany does now have the upper hand does it not?
Germany abandoned the Naval Race in 1909. It was too expensive and thus incompatible with the ‘Schlieffen Plan’.
We would have remained much stronger, particularly as the greatest creditor nation since Ancient Rome had we stayed out of 1914-18.
You seem to assume a German victory was inevitable in 1914-18. It
wasn’t.
Well Germany does now have the upper hand does it not?
Germany abandoned the Naval Race in 1909. It was too expensive and thus incompatible with the ‘Schlieffen Plan’.
We would have remained much stronger, particularly as the greatest creditor nation since Ancient Rome had we stayed out of 1914-18.
You seem to assume a German victory was inevitable in 1914-18. It
wasn’t.
Shouldn’t take any longer than a few thousand years and the upcoming nuclear war.. I’ll bet you have your bunker well stocked Charlie have you? ..all those nice baked beans and jars of caviar and truffles?
And plenty of Champagne!
And plenty of Champagne!
Sorry. But I think I still don’t quite understand.
There’s an undertone in your comments regretting “British decline”. But there’s nothing inevitable about that. We’re agreed – the empire couldn’t last. And it may have been better to lose it quickly (as we did) rathe than slowly (the Russian model). But we’re now able to make the best of what we have. I’m not sure anyone’s really stopping us here. Apart from ourselves (which we’re doing an absolutely bang up job of right now of course).
Could you care to explain how Britain played cards badly in 1914?
Should it allow Germany to defeat France and Russia and totally dominate continent?
I guess upside might be that ww2 could had been avoided.
You ignore Germany desire to achieve naval parity with Britain.
Which, having all Europe resources behind, they could had done.
Then what? You only delayed inevitable showdown with Germany.
But Germany would now had upper hand.
Shouldn’t take any longer than a few thousand years and the upcoming nuclear war.. I’ll bet you have your bunker well stocked Charlie have you? ..all those nice baked beans and jars of caviar and truffles?
Thank you. My Dad immigrated from Canada and used to say the same thing. He said, “Americans are go getters. that’s what I want.” He never left the US. I agree that this is rapidly changing now. Sad.
My brother worked for a couple of American companies (building car plants) in the US and thought the management was a joke.
Until recent years I was pro US, but they are now a malign influence in the world and they were never a friend to GB. Of course there is no reason why they should be a friend to GB but even when we were supposed to be allies they never turned up an opportunity to shaft GB. There is a very good quote for Keynes on this point
Actual American people,as individuals are lovely. But something is wrong now with their political administration.
You seem to have misunderstood me! In no way do I believe the US has somehow “cheated their way to the top”!
‘They’ got their by ‘playing their cards’ correctly, a gravure performance in fact.
‘We’ on the other have played our ‘hand’ quite appallingly from 1914 to 1939, and consequently and deservedly suffered the most humiliating collapse.
As for Empire, you are correct, by 1914 we had had our fun, and it was well beyond its ‘sell by date’ but letting go is always problematical.
Our status as a Great Power was not necessarily linked to Empire, but more to our industrial capacity or lack of. It had some globally beneficial results, but again 1914-18 finished that off as well.
Off course even the ‘Scandis’ you speak of went through this painful process in the 18th century, but they never straddled the Globe as we had done.
So it’s back to little England and try again.
Thank you. My Dad immigrated from Canada and used to say the same thing. He said, “Americans are go getters. that’s what I want.” He never left the US. I agree that this is rapidly changing now. Sad.
My brother worked for a couple of American companies (building car plants) in the US and thought the management was a joke.
Until recent years I was pro US, but they are now a malign influence in the world and they were never a friend to GB. Of course there is no reason why they should be a friend to GB but even when we were supposed to be allies they never turned up an opportunity to shaft GB. There is a very good quote for Keynes on this point
Actual American people,as individuals are lovely. But something is wrong now with their political administration.
I agree, but do you suggest that not fighting was a preferable option?
Yes.
The First World War and The Second Worjd War were neither of them as inevitable as we are taught. I only learned this when COVID taught me to reevaluate history. If we had responded better in 1914 the WW2 might not even have followed on. It was not a Serbian bullet that set off WW1 as we are taught. It was actually,well a lot of factors but very significant,the world money system of the time was about to crash,just like now,a nice jolly old war kicked that can down the road and took people’s minds off it for a decade or two. Neville Chamberlain who we are taught to scoff at and deride was actually a humane and very intelligent man who cared about people. He did not want to subject the British people to total war. Thats why they had to replace him with compliant Churchill who would sign the death warrants for millions of people with few qualms. And we did not eradicate Nazi ideology at all. Its now being enforced upon us in every aspect of life but it’s been refashioned and rebranded so most people don’t recognize it as Nazi ideology.
Yes.
The First World War and The Second Worjd War were neither of them as inevitable as we are taught. I only learned this when COVID taught me to reevaluate history. If we had responded better in 1914 the WW2 might not even have followed on. It was not a Serbian bullet that set off WW1 as we are taught. It was actually,well a lot of factors but very significant,the world money system of the time was about to crash,just like now,a nice jolly old war kicked that can down the road and took people’s minds off it for a decade or two. Neville Chamberlain who we are taught to scoff at and deride was actually a humane and very intelligent man who cared about people. He did not want to subject the British people to total war. Thats why they had to replace him with compliant Churchill who would sign the death warrants for millions of people with few qualms. And we did not eradicate Nazi ideology at all. Its now being enforced upon us in every aspect of life but it’s been refashioned and rebranded so most people don’t recognize it as Nazi ideology.
The wrong comic is yours I am afraid, given that the USA did not enter the war until 1942.
The USA took its pound of flesh in return for any assistance it provided before this time. Those battleships did not come free.
By November 1940 we were bankrupt, and had the US NOT bailed us out it would have ‘game over’.
A repeat in fact of what happened in late 1916. Sadly we just didn’t learn.
By November 1940 we were bankrupt, and had the US NOT bailed us out it would have ‘game over’.
A repeat in fact of what happened in late 1916. Sadly we just didn’t learn.
I prefer to look at it the other way – Britain knew full well it would lose its Empire to defeat Nazism but did it anyway. Like a bee with one sting. I don’t know if being patronising is part of your schtick, but I don’t read comics.
What exactly is wrong with Britain no longer being a world power and having an empire ? Plenty of countries are like this and doing very well – all the Scandis for example. And running empires doesn’t come cheap.
I really don’t get the strong undercurrent of anti-Americanism around here. What exactly is it that they prevent us from doing that we need to do ? One thing to feel a little resentful or jealous, another to actually prove that they are doing us a great deal of harm. I used to have this same distrust of the US until I got sent to work out there for a year. They are mainly successful because they work hard and do the right things (or at least did for a long period until quite recently – we all have our doubts these days). It’s hard to argue that they’ve somehow cheated their way to the top and don’t deserve it.
I first worked for an American company 35 years ago and mainly for them since. Absolute night and day compared to stodgy British companies and their appalling management.
I agree, but do you suggest that not fighting was a preferable option?
The wrong comic is yours I am afraid, given that the USA did not enter the war until 1942.
The USA took its pound of flesh in return for any assistance it provided before this time. Those battleships did not come free.
U.S. war aims in 1941 were these…
Defeat of the Axis powers.
Containment of the Soviets.
Dismemberment and replacement of the British Empire.
Of these tasks the last was the easiest. The British Empire was in its senility and the insistence by the US of the repayment of every cent of war debt helped it gently into the grave. By contrast the nominally defeated (Germany) were showered with aid to rebuild.
Although the UK did receive the LARGEST single tranche of Marshall Aid. A very generous settlement under the circumstances!
And we spent it ALL for ideological reasons on creating The National Health Service and left the task of rebuilding our economy to private businessmen.
And we spent it ALL for ideological reasons on creating The National Health Service and left the task of rebuilding our economy to private businessmen.
That Germany was given more under Marshall Plan then UK is common myth.
UK actually got double, but wasted it on social project instead on retooling industry.
All explained in Alisdair Bournett book “Lost Victory”.
Also ‘The Lost Victory: British Dreams, British Realities, 1945-50,’ by the late Correlli Barnett.
ps. Are you quite sure about your ‘
Alisdair Bournett (sic) reference ?
Also ‘The Lost Victory: British Dreams, British Realities, 1945-50,’ by the late Correlli Barnett.
ps. Are you quite sure about your ‘
Alisdair Bournett (sic) reference ?
Evidence the US wanted or needed to dismantle the British Empire? You do realize most Americans love the Brits. Fifty years ago, we were obsessed. I read far more British literature growing up than American. And do not say there is no American literature. We are simply taught to love and admire England – or used to be. We were even taught about the incredible British Empire.
Yet you believe we plot against you? Our leaders are people educated with the same ideas as I. Think about it.
We rebuilt Germany to bring them to our side against the Soviet. We had to win those hearts and minds. England did not need convincing back then. We were allies. Hello.
I have never read a single opinion advocating taking down the British Empire as a US strategy. And if such exists, it was a fringe idea never seriously considered.
Although the UK did receive the LARGEST single tranche of Marshall Aid. A very generous settlement under the circumstances!
That Germany was given more under Marshall Plan then UK is common myth.
UK actually got double, but wasted it on social project instead on retooling industry.
All explained in Alisdair Bournett book “Lost Victory”.
Evidence the US wanted or needed to dismantle the British Empire? You do realize most Americans love the Brits. Fifty years ago, we were obsessed. I read far more British literature growing up than American. And do not say there is no American literature. We are simply taught to love and admire England – or used to be. We were even taught about the incredible British Empire.
Yet you believe we plot against you? Our leaders are people educated with the same ideas as I. Think about it.
We rebuilt Germany to bring them to our side against the Soviet. We had to win those hearts and minds. England did not need convincing back then. We were allies. Hello.
I have never read a single opinion advocating taking down the British Empire as a US strategy. And if such exists, it was a fringe idea never seriously considered.
That came after WW2 when every other country in Europe spent their marshall aid USA money on rebuilding their economies but in Britain,for ideological reasons we spent EVERY PENNY of it on creating the National Health Service and I can appreciate how wonderful it was at the time for ordinary people. But really it was totally the wrong thing to do and now the NHS seems to have become sort of religious artefact we have to Revere,worship and respect and we should not get ill or actually need to use the services. It functions so much better without people clogging up those hospitals. Now I have to wait at least 3 weeks to see a doctor(at the surgery) my friend in Belgium can ring her doctors and he comes to her house about lunchtime after morning surgery. Same in France and Germany,don’t know about other European countries,but similar I think.
Sadly, like millions of others you have been reading the wrong ‘comic’.
We ended up on the winning side in WWII thanks to the US. Otherwise we would have been defeated in late 1940, mainly because we were bankrupt!
Even so called ‘victory’ in 1945 meant destruction of our Empire and the complete evaporation of any possible claim to ‘Great Power’ status, and thus us our reincarnation as an American helot.
All this was completely predictable in 1939, if only we had eyes to see.
U.S. war aims in 1941 were these…
Defeat of the Axis powers.
Containment of the Soviets.
Dismemberment and replacement of the British Empire.
Of these tasks the last was the easiest. The British Empire was in its senility and the insistence by the US of the repayment of every cent of war debt helped it gently into the grave. By contrast the nominally defeated (Germany) were showered with aid to rebuild.
That came after WW2 when every other country in Europe spent their marshall aid USA money on rebuilding their economies but in Britain,for ideological reasons we spent EVERY PENNY of it on creating the National Health Service and I can appreciate how wonderful it was at the time for ordinary people. But really it was totally the wrong thing to do and now the NHS seems to have become sort of religious artefact we have to Revere,worship and respect and we should not get ill or actually need to use the services. It functions so much better without people clogging up those hospitals. Now I have to wait at least 3 weeks to see a doctor(at the surgery) my friend in Belgium can ring her doctors and he comes to her house about lunchtime after morning surgery. Same in France and Germany,don’t know about other European countries,but similar I think.
Major problem for whom?
Dediticii? Is this a wind-up? Britain was neither conquered nor defeated and the USA did not defeat France.
The USA joined the Second World War because it was the right thing to do; it would have been strange for it then to behave badly.
Both ourselves and the French were completely bankrupt and entirely at the mercy of the US, hence I stand by the term ‘dediticii’. Do you have better one?
Incidentally the US did NOT “join the Second World War because it was the right thing to do” as you so charmingly put it!
It was dragged into it kicking and squealing by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on the 7th if December 1941, or had you missed that minor detail?
Both ourselves and the French were completely bankrupt and entirely at the mercy of the US, hence I stand by the term ‘dediticii’. Do you have better one?
Incidentally the US did NOT “join the Second World War because it was the right thing to do” as you so charmingly put it!
It was dragged into it kicking and squealing by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on the 7th if December 1941, or had you missed that minor detail?
Huh? Charlie has finally lost his marbles has he? You mean the US should have kept a brutal stranglehold on W.Europe just as the Soviets did in E.Europe? Far less costly to achieve the same end by stealth (economics) as the US did.
How exactly would the US have been able to stop the UK and France developing atomic weapons ? They both had the scientific and technical strengths and equipment to do so (certainly the UK did).
One interesting sidelight here – I read somone the other day who pointed out that it was Western useful idiots (spies) who gave Stalin the bomb. Sadly true. Yet the useful idiots never learn.
Maybe I wasn’t paying attention to the part of my history class where Britain was defeated in WW2, Charles.
Major problem for whom?
Dediticii? Is this a wind-up? Britain was neither conquered nor defeated and the USA did not defeat France.
The USA joined the Second World War because it was the right thing to do; it would have been strange for it then to behave badly.
Huh? Charlie has finally lost his marbles has he? You mean the US should have kept a brutal stranglehold on W.Europe just as the Soviets did in E.Europe? Far less costly to achieve the same end by stealth (economics) as the US did.
Macron & de Gaulle hate US because its very existence as a real military power thwarts the big power aspirations France hopes to leverage through EU dominance. However, a country that loses WW2 in 6 weeks and all its colonies in wars shortly after, cant inspire respect in vulnerable Balt, Polish or Nordic lands – and this is independent of US capabilities. A sad loss of grandeur but sadly warranted..
France ‘lost’ I.4 million men in 1914-18 from a population of about 39 million. The UK lost about .75 million during the same period from a population of about 44 million.
Thus the French had NOT ‘recovered’ by 1939. QED?
Very true. As an American, we got off cheaply in WW1 compared with the European combatants. We were just in time to provide the fresh supply of manpower that Germany couldn’t hope to counter.
Keegan’s short history of WW1 has a sobering introduction, where he lays out the casualty rates by year of enlistment in France, Britain, and Germany. The French were bled white by WW1. That had to have huge psychological effects going forward.
All true, but they recovered enough to have, on paper, more powerful military than Germany. But they were deployed and led badly as if no lessons were learned from Germany invasion of Poland.
What was not helping was French Communist Party propaganda against was effort and sabotage in key industries.
All done on Komintern orders because Russia was ally of Germany in starting ww2.
France was beaten before the Wehrmacht started marching. The Maginot philosophy was a clear indication that all was not well.
We also were very fortunate that Operation Sealion was just a bluff, otherwise we would have had to sue for peace.
France was beaten before the Wehrmacht started marching. The Maginot philosophy was a clear indication that all was not well.
We also were very fortunate that Operation Sealion was just a bluff, otherwise we would have had to sue for peace.
QED what? Are they capable of leading the defense of Eastern Europe now? That is the question. Does any Euro state think that’s remotely possible?
Probably not.
Probably not.
Very true. As an American, we got off cheaply in WW1 compared with the European combatants. We were just in time to provide the fresh supply of manpower that Germany couldn’t hope to counter.
Keegan’s short history of WW1 has a sobering introduction, where he lays out the casualty rates by year of enlistment in France, Britain, and Germany. The French were bled white by WW1. That had to have huge psychological effects going forward.
All true, but they recovered enough to have, on paper, more powerful military than Germany. But they were deployed and led badly as if no lessons were learned from Germany invasion of Poland.
What was not helping was French Communist Party propaganda against was effort and sabotage in key industries.
All done on Komintern orders because Russia was ally of Germany in starting ww2.
QED what? Are they capable of leading the defense of Eastern Europe now? That is the question. Does any Euro state think that’s remotely possible?
France ‘lost’ I.4 million men in 1914-18 from a population of about 39 million. The UK lost about .75 million during the same period from a population of about 44 million.
Thus the French had NOT ‘recovered’ by 1939. QED?
Excellent.
As you say, countries like Poland could see German and French appeasement of Putin and obviously wanted better security guarantees.
The only ones on offer were from USA.
Even Finland and Sweden accept it now.
It is that simple.
No. The corrupt leaders of at least some of those countries are taking USA money,raking it in. They better not rely on USA help when the chips are down. It may not be available
No. The corrupt leaders of at least some of those countries are taking USA money,raking it in. They better not rely on USA help when the chips are down. It may not be available
A few comments on yours..
1. What about UK EU divergence?
2. I’m not sure your arithmetic is correct??
3. .and I thought ’twas the Russians liberated EE from German (sorry NatC) tyranny. Silly me.
4. …and the rest of us!
5. How ign is France ever going to achieve that?
6. Correct.. then you have two Germanies!
7. If we allign with our fellow Europeans ie the Russians we will have all the defence we need.
Russia has never been a threat to W.Europe but the opposite is true. Neither has China.. with Russia and China ‘united’ and in the ascendency we’d be complete idiots to continue as vassals of a rapidly declining (Anglo?)-American hegemony.
Sorry, I hadn’t kept up and replied sooner.
# 1 What about it ? In any case, the “EU” is not the monolithic organisation many believe/wish it to be – which was my point
#2 The numbers are going against France+Germany. E Europe is adding countries to the EU. If Ukraine gets added then E Europe is certainly the largest bloc. The core point is that France+Germany aren’t in a position to force through whatever they want any more.
#3 1919 created independent nations in E Europe. These were not actually “liberated” in 1945. They were actually conquered and de facto absorbed into the Soviet empire. And not really liberated until late 1989. They were slaves of the Soviet Union for over 40 years. Not allowed to take any significant decisions for themselves as independent countries are. Try talking to people who had to live through that.
#4 Not “the rest of us”. I quite specifically limited my comment to the French elites. At the individual level, opinions vary. I’ve been strongly anti-Armerican when younger and accepting there’s nothing better on offer now.
#5 Surely not too great a brain stretch for you. Once an EU defence organisation is formed, the next step is to limit purchases to only European suppliers. France is then in the box seat. There won’t be a lot of options.
# 6 Nothing to do with two Germanies. You miss the point, which is that there is a lack of certainty about what Germany really wants and a reluctance to even address this question by the Germans.
#7 Only if we need no real defence. Which is what your comment actually implies !!! Since we have no enemies (you claim … not Russia, not China), then what do the EU need defence for ?
China and Russia are not “united”. They are historic natural enemies and even fought in a border dispute after WWII. Russia is a useful source of cheap raw materials for Russia, nothing more. Now China’s copied and improved on Russia’s defence equipment, there’s nothing else China now needs from Russia.
Finally, it is a complete fiction that US power is rapidly declining. So many people are confusing what they want to happen with reality.
Throw away the anti-American blinkers and look at the big picture.
Sorry, I hadn’t kept up and replied sooner.
# 1 What about it ? In any case, the “EU” is not the monolithic organisation many believe/wish it to be – which was my point
#2 The numbers are going against France+Germany. E Europe is adding countries to the EU. If Ukraine gets added then E Europe is certainly the largest bloc. The core point is that France+Germany aren’t in a position to force through whatever they want any more.
#3 1919 created independent nations in E Europe. These were not actually “liberated” in 1945. They were actually conquered and de facto absorbed into the Soviet empire. And not really liberated until late 1989. They were slaves of the Soviet Union for over 40 years. Not allowed to take any significant decisions for themselves as independent countries are. Try talking to people who had to live through that.
#4 Not “the rest of us”. I quite specifically limited my comment to the French elites. At the individual level, opinions vary. I’ve been strongly anti-Armerican when younger and accepting there’s nothing better on offer now.
#5 Surely not too great a brain stretch for you. Once an EU defence organisation is formed, the next step is to limit purchases to only European suppliers. France is then in the box seat. There won’t be a lot of options.
# 6 Nothing to do with two Germanies. You miss the point, which is that there is a lack of certainty about what Germany really wants and a reluctance to even address this question by the Germans.
#7 Only if we need no real defence. Which is what your comment actually implies !!! Since we have no enemies (you claim … not Russia, not China), then what do the EU need defence for ?
China and Russia are not “united”. They are historic natural enemies and even fought in a border dispute after WWII. Russia is a useful source of cheap raw materials for Russia, nothing more. Now China’s copied and improved on Russia’s defence equipment, there’s nothing else China now needs from Russia.
Finally, it is a complete fiction that US power is rapidly declining. So many people are confusing what they want to happen with reality.
Throw away the anti-American blinkers and look at the big picture.
AI is all the rage. From perplexity.ai
The article “How America weaponised the West” discusses how the US has used its power and influence to shape the Western world and its values. The article argues that the US has used its military, economic, and cultural power to promote its interests and values, often at the expense of other countries and cultures. The article also discusses how this has led to a backlash against the US and its influence, particularly in Europe. The author argues that the US needs to be more aware of the impact of its actions on other countries and cultures, and to work more collaboratively with other nations to address global challenges.
One major problem, often overlooked is that post 1945 the US was FAR too generous, and should have ignored the pretensions of both the UK and France. Neither should have been permitted to develop an Atomic Bomb.
Their status as “dediticii”* should NOT have been overlooked!
The Romans would NEVER have been so generous with their ‘allies’.
(* conquered/defeated peoples.)
Macron & de Gaulle hate US because its very existence as a real military power thwarts the big power aspirations France hopes to leverage through EU dominance. However, a country that loses WW2 in 6 weeks and all its colonies in wars shortly after, cant inspire respect in vulnerable Balt, Polish or Nordic lands – and this is independent of US capabilities. A sad loss of grandeur but sadly warranted..
Excellent.
As you say, countries like Poland could see German and French appeasement of Putin and obviously wanted better security guarantees.
The only ones on offer were from USA.
Even Finland and Sweden accept it now.
It is that simple.
A few comments on yours..
1. What about UK EU divergence?
2. I’m not sure your arithmetic is correct??
3. .and I thought ’twas the Russians liberated EE from German (sorry NatC) tyranny. Silly me.
4. …and the rest of us!
5. How ign is France ever going to achieve that?
6. Correct.. then you have two Germanies!
7. If we allign with our fellow Europeans ie the Russians we will have all the defence we need.
Russia has never been a threat to W.Europe but the opposite is true. Neither has China.. with Russia and China ‘united’ and in the ascendency we’d be complete idiots to continue as vassals of a rapidly declining (Anglo?)-American hegemony.
AI is all the rage. From perplexity.ai
The article “How America weaponised the West” discusses how the US has used its power and influence to shape the Western world and its values. The article argues that the US has used its military, economic, and cultural power to promote its interests and values, often at the expense of other countries and cultures. The article also discusses how this has led to a backlash against the US and its influence, particularly in Europe. The author argues that the US needs to be more aware of the impact of its actions on other countries and cultures, and to work more collaboratively with other nations to address global challenges.
Too many words. And far too many long words.
Why in 2023 can we not use diagram, maps and graphics to communicate ideas in a far shorter and easier to read format ?
There are a few key ideas hidden in here, but they don’t readily come out.
I’d highlight these (some mentioned, some not):
#1 There is a genuine divergence between “legacy” EU and the Eastern European countries.
#2 The new E Europe countries have the numbers, but the old countries still have the power – this may not be stable/durable.
#3 The E Europe countries don’t really trust the W Europe countries to defend them – and why would they ? We did an awful job in the last century. And it was only the US in 1919 who really forced through the new nations of E Europe. Poland trusts the US far more than France or Germany. And rightly so. France and Germany cannot be trusted to do the right thing – instance their initial Ukraine reactions.
#4 The French elite has an inherent dislike/jealousy of the US.
# 5 France has a huge arms export industry and wants a captive market for it.
#6 Germany doesn’t really know what it wants. Still.
#7 Europe on the whole still isn’t prepared to pay for its own defence.
The problem with this article is that–although it offers a very sophisticated discussion of Europe–it does not take into account the rise of what some pejoratively call isolationism in the United States. Putting it bluntly, many of us are weary of paying for the existence of 800 foreign military bases when our infrastructure is decaying rapidly (in some cases, dangerously), our cities are collapsing in anarchy, our young people are being poisoned by drugs, and our political class is busy debating pronouns or “gender affirming care”. The reason why the Europeans can have their high standard of living and their excellent (in some cases) public services is…they don’t have to pay the bill for a bloated military establishment. A lot of us are beginning to wonder if there isn’t a better way for the United States, a kind of post-imperial withdrawal. Who can deny, for example, that the living standards in France or the Netherlands are much better since they entered a post-imperial period of their history? Whenever one mentions these things one is tarred with being a tool of Putin, a fascist, an isolationist, or worse. We still have not had a serious debate in the US on what our role should be and what we can realistically afford. All power to the Europeans–including Macron–who want to cut tie with us. But they should be reassured that a growing number of us want to return the compliment. Nothing personal, you understand.
Excellent comment.
The countries with the highest standard of living in Europe are Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands. So as you can see, France is not even in the top 5 but as a typical American you are, of course, obsessed with France.
Perhaps I should have said “quality of life”, which in France is far far better than in the United States. I would be a very unusual American indeed if I were “obsessed with France”. Most Americans despise France.
Actually, I think most Yanks barely think of France at all.
Hardly surprising given the standard of US education.
Cultured,educated Americans LOVE France and the sensible ones are all moving there WHILE THEY STILL CAN. Where would you rather be Portland Oregon,even Walmart is leaving town – or a little village outside Paris,or near Antibes,or in the Jura mountains or down in the Languedoc.
Hardly surprising given the standard of US education.
Cultured,educated Americans LOVE France and the sensible ones are all moving there WHILE THEY STILL CAN. Where would you rather be Portland Oregon,even Walmart is leaving town – or a little village outside Paris,or near Antibes,or in the Jura mountains or down in the Languedoc.
We do? I thought it was other way around. Try being an American tourist in France or Italy. You might get spit on. You will at least be sneered at.
Up until thirty years ago, Americans learned French as the language of diplomacy. French food, culture and fashion are feted.
Who despises whom?
I don’t think that most Americans despise France,only maybe trailer park trash. Paris in summer is packed with Americans who all speak French fluently and love french culture. And a lot of Americans,the ones who can,are getting the hell out of USA while they still can,and moving to live full time in France and even gain citizenship eventually. That’s the ones with brains.
Actually, I think most Yanks barely think of France at all.
We do? I thought it was other way around. Try being an American tourist in France or Italy. You might get spit on. You will at least be sneered at.
Up until thirty years ago, Americans learned French as the language of diplomacy. French food, culture and fashion are feted.
Who despises whom?
I don’t think that most Americans despise France,only maybe trailer park trash. Paris in summer is packed with Americans who all speak French fluently and love french culture. And a lot of Americans,the ones who can,are getting the hell out of USA while they still can,and moving to live full time in France and even gain citizenship eventually. That’s the ones with brains.
And where is the UK with its Anglo-American insistence that market dominated economics is only best thing for the West?
Perhaps I should have said “quality of life”, which in France is far far better than in the United States. I would be a very unusual American indeed if I were “obsessed with France”. Most Americans despise France.
And where is the UK with its Anglo-American insistence that market dominated economics is only best thing for the West?
Really excellent well argued comment. Isn’t Kennedy standing as a Democratic candidate for president and putting forward this policy ie cutting the 900 billion a year military budget and using the savings to improve US infrastructure. The sooner the UK gets out of NATO- both the European and Pacific versions the better off we will be.
Nonsense.
You might be, for short time.
Do you really believe that world dominated by China and other dictators would be better for Europe?
Reality is that cost of military is much less in comparison to total costs of mass immigration of 3rd world savages into Europe.
Europe should stand on it’s own. Currently they do not, they are defended by the US commitment to protecting them, something we can no longer afford!
Savages. Ha ha ha. How insulting. They may be inconvenient but savages they are not.
Europe should stand on it’s own. Currently they do not, they are defended by the US commitment to protecting them, something we can no longer afford!
Savages. Ha ha ha. How insulting. They may be inconvenient but savages they are not.
Nonsense.
You might be, for short time.
Do you really believe that world dominated by China and other dictators would be better for Europe?
Reality is that cost of military is much less in comparison to total costs of mass immigration of 3rd world savages into Europe.
I would love the USA to stay as a leader of NATO.
I understand your argument but I am not sure it is that simple.
A lot of things we take for granted are result of USA global dominance.
If USA becomes more isolationist, someone else will dominate.
Will world dominated by China and it allied dictators be better for USA?
As I often say to people questioning help for Ukraine etc:
“you would quickly beg USA for help after 1 year of Russian occupation”.
But what you propose is likely to happen within next 50 years due to demographic changes in USA.
It is not about isolationism, it is about economics. Why should we foot the majority of the bill to protect Europe? Europe is not poor! They have taken advantage of this arrangement for decades, it is time that ended!
The same for Japan. I am aware that means a sea change in Japanese attitudes towards a military and an acceptance of a stronger Japanese military in the region, something that scares many in the region. but it is necessary!
Our current debt is 120% of GDP, we cannot do this much longer!
It is not about isolationism, it is about economics. Why should we foot the majority of the bill to protect Europe? Europe is not poor! They have taken advantage of this arrangement for decades, it is time that ended!
The same for Japan. I am aware that means a sea change in Japanese attitudes towards a military and an acceptance of a stronger Japanese military in the region, something that scares many in the region. but it is necessary!
Our current debt is 120% of GDP, we cannot do this much longer!
Excellent comment.
The countries with the highest standard of living in Europe are Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands. So as you can see, France is not even in the top 5 but as a typical American you are, of course, obsessed with France.
Really excellent well argued comment. Isn’t Kennedy standing as a Democratic candidate for president and putting forward this policy ie cutting the 900 billion a year military budget and using the savings to improve US infrastructure. The sooner the UK gets out of NATO- both the European and Pacific versions the better off we will be.
I would love the USA to stay as a leader of NATO.
I understand your argument but I am not sure it is that simple.
A lot of things we take for granted are result of USA global dominance.
If USA becomes more isolationist, someone else will dominate.
Will world dominated by China and it allied dictators be better for USA?
As I often say to people questioning help for Ukraine etc:
“you would quickly beg USA for help after 1 year of Russian occupation”.
But what you propose is likely to happen within next 50 years due to demographic changes in USA.
The problem with this article is that–although it offers a very sophisticated discussion of Europe–it does not take into account the rise of what some pejoratively call isolationism in the United States. Putting it bluntly, many of us are weary of paying for the existence of 800 foreign military bases when our infrastructure is decaying rapidly (in some cases, dangerously), our cities are collapsing in anarchy, our young people are being poisoned by drugs, and our political class is busy debating pronouns or “gender affirming care”. The reason why the Europeans can have their high standard of living and their excellent (in some cases) public services is…they don’t have to pay the bill for a bloated military establishment. A lot of us are beginning to wonder if there isn’t a better way for the United States, a kind of post-imperial withdrawal. Who can deny, for example, that the living standards in France or the Netherlands are much better since they entered a post-imperial period of their history? Whenever one mentions these things one is tarred with being a tool of Putin, a fascist, an isolationist, or worse. We still have not had a serious debate in the US on what our role should be and what we can realistically afford. All power to the Europeans–including Macron–who want to cut tie with us. But they should be reassured that a growing number of us want to return the compliment. Nothing personal, you understand.
A counter narrative would be much more positive about how the West has something so solid at it’s core that it attracts additional partners and expanded alliances like a magnetic electric charge. The West isn’t something easily defined, but it has something and many of us who have inhabited it all our life miss grasping it until we go and live outside the West for a period. This is also why people all round the world flock to the West. They see something for their children. That is a source of unbelievable power we often miss. It gives problems of course as well, but the day people flock to Xi or Putin or the Ayatollah’s states is the day we should worry.
The counter narrative would also note that 70 years ago the historical lesson would have been international bodies would not last long, and yet here we are with multiple. No such descent into tragedy and chaos has ensured to date. That is no guarantee for the future and Alliances always involve some compromise and are inherently complex. You do not leave your marriage because of the odd row.
The final counter narrative might target the regular malign view of the US often conveyed in UnHerd articles. These often convey the impression the US is some centralised monolith with the old classic cabal theory seeking to control everything at it’s core. And yet the US is highly decentralised, much more than many other Western States. The theory doesn’t hold the moment you examine it in detail. What is constant, although often battered, is the bedrock of certain values, democracy, rule of law, etc. The magnetic charge from these remains strong.
Unfortunately, that special something associated with the west is precisely what the woke are so efficiently destroying, and progressivism emanates from America.
I’m not sure it does emanate from America. Most of the ideas America productionises originate from Europe.
Yes, Marcuse and Gramsci were not Americans!
But then Marks and Engels were not Russian but communist idiocy prevailed there first.
Ah, but the Frankfort School wound up at Columbia, in NYC and, now, here we are, in full take over mode by that very ideology.
But then Marks and Engels were not Russian but communist idiocy prevailed there first.
Ah, but the Frankfort School wound up at Columbia, in NYC and, now, here we are, in full take over mode by that very ideology.
Precisely, because the US is rather short on intellectual thought, as pointed out by the brilliant Georges Santayana more than a century ago, they tend to take European ideas and then regurgitate them rather badly, it must be said.
The old ‘Romans to us Greeks’ Harold Macmilian belief CS. Not sure it held then or now.
Yes what a patronising remark, and one that showed that Macmillan was clearly “rising above his station”.
Had Kennedy been a decent classicist he would have cut him down with a choice quip from Polybius.
Yes what a patronising remark, and one that showed that Macmillan was clearly “rising above his station”.
Had Kennedy been a decent classicist he would have cut him down with a choice quip from Polybius.
The old ‘Romans to us Greeks’ Harold Macmilian belief CS. Not sure it held then or now.
Quite. I describe the woke as the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host is anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who took Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory as gospel. Unfortunately, their idiot children are most numerous in the U.S. (though I wonder whether as a percent of total population if there might not be more “woke” in some of the other countries of the Anglosphere).
I’m afraid wokery is American in the same sense that Maoism was Chinese, even though both wokery and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (to give the latter its full name) have European roots.
Ergo, the term, the West. Western Civilization. Contrary to popular belief, Americans over 40 know where Western Civilization comes from.
However, without the US, would the West as a power, a force, a dream to pursue, exist today?
Our institutions, i.e. education, government, were infiltrated by Soviet spies for decades. The “labeled evil by the left” Senator Joseph McCarthy, who made a concerted effort to root out these spies in the 1950, only to be ruined by those “Soviet agents and sympathizers”, was right!
The majority of those people that the House Committee on Un-Amercan Activities accused of being Soviet spies and sympathizers, were indeed, Soviet spies and Sympathizers. This was revealed when the Vanona papers were declassified. McCarthy’s disgrace resulted in 30 years of literal free reign of Soviet influence in America.
Now those indoctrinated in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s by Soviet agents are running our institutions.
It may take 100 years to repair this damage.
Our institutions, i.e. education, government, were infiltrated by Soviet spies for decades. The “labeled evil by the left” Senator Joseph McCarthy, who made a concerted effort to root out these spies in the 1950, only to be ruined by those “Soviet agents and sympathizers”, was right!
The majority of those people that the House Committee on Un-Amercan Activities accused of being Soviet spies and sympathizers, were indeed, Soviet spies and Sympathizers. This was revealed when the Vanona papers were declassified. McCarthy’s disgrace resulted in 30 years of literal free reign of Soviet influence in America.
Now those indoctrinated in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s by Soviet agents are running our institutions.
It may take 100 years to repair this damage.
Yes, Marcuse and Gramsci were not Americans!
Precisely, because the US is rather short on intellectual thought, as pointed out by the brilliant Georges Santayana more than a century ago, they tend to take European ideas and then regurgitate them rather badly, it must be said.
Quite. I describe the woke as the idiot children of the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Derrida and a host is anti- and post-colonialist thinkers who took Lenin’s provably wrong imperialism theory as gospel. Unfortunately, their idiot children are most numerous in the U.S. (though I wonder whether as a percent of total population if there might not be more “woke” in some of the other countries of the Anglosphere).
I’m afraid wokery is American in the same sense that Maoism was Chinese, even though both wokery and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (to give the latter its full name) have European roots.
Ergo, the term, the West. Western Civilization. Contrary to popular belief, Americans over 40 know where Western Civilization comes from.
However, without the US, would the West as a power, a force, a dream to pursue, exist today?
Progressivism emanates from progressives in the US, who have been in power under Clinton and Obama and especially Biden. In this regard, the US populace is evenly split, although most formerly noble institutions have sadly succumbed to the relentless March.
On the other hand, I wonder, why do YOUR elites and institutions so easily succumb? Were they subjected to Maoist struggle sessions in some basement in Washington DC?
Lack confidence there JB. The West had the same criticisms about extended franchise, votes for women, social safety-nets etc etc. It’s a long list of ‘we’re all doomed’ mantras, none of which held in the slightest. We can sensibly deal with the most outlandish woke nonsense and chill out about the rest.
I’m not sure it does emanate from America. Most of the ideas America productionises originate from Europe.
Progressivism emanates from progressives in the US, who have been in power under Clinton and Obama and especially Biden. In this regard, the US populace is evenly split, although most formerly noble institutions have sadly succumbed to the relentless March.
On the other hand, I wonder, why do YOUR elites and institutions so easily succumb? Were they subjected to Maoist struggle sessions in some basement in Washington DC?
Lack confidence there JB. The West had the same criticisms about extended franchise, votes for women, social safety-nets etc etc. It’s a long list of ‘we’re all doomed’ mantras, none of which held in the slightest. We can sensibly deal with the most outlandish woke nonsense and chill out about the rest.
Yes, when I read this : “In the spiritual fires of the war, the myth of the “West” was rebaptised” … I thought, ‘parliamentary democracy isn’t a myth’. The countries of Europe that we call ‘the west’ have representative democracies, individual liberties and the rule of law. When the Eastern European countries adopted these institutions they became part of ‘the West’. Of course, with differing histories and cultures the West is still diverse, but the underlying values are similar, and should serve to keep the countries in alliance.
But this essay is very positive about the West. One shouldn’t infer otherwise from its core thesis.
In some regards yes, but it remained quite conspiratorial too – e.g the US using NATO enlargement to weaken old power centres etc. Too much secret strategy stuff that I don’t think holds. Like alot of conspiracy theories there can be a grain of truth but then it’s stretched way beyond credibility. In part of course to get attention and column inches.
Hi JW, I have no idea who’s been ‘downvoting’ you though it isn’t me. I used to be deeply dismissive of elaborate theories. Despite conspiracists being occasionally right for the wrong reasons, which gives them only demerits, I was often proven naïve. What I underestimated was the fanaticism + sociopathic indifference of geo-strategists on our side, as well as theirs. A lack of empathy -> cold-blooded plans. I believe Arta is largely correct.
Hi JW, I have no idea who’s been ‘downvoting’ you though it isn’t me. I used to be deeply dismissive of elaborate theories. Despite conspiracists being occasionally right for the wrong reasons, which gives them only demerits, I was often proven naïve. What I underestimated was the fanaticism + sociopathic indifference of geo-strategists on our side, as well as theirs. A lack of empathy -> cold-blooded plans. I believe Arta is largely correct.
In some regards yes, but it remained quite conspiratorial too – e.g the US using NATO enlargement to weaken old power centres etc. Too much secret strategy stuff that I don’t think holds. Like alot of conspiracy theories there can be a grain of truth but then it’s stretched way beyond credibility. In part of course to get attention and column inches.
Unfortunately, that special something associated with the west is precisely what the woke are so efficiently destroying, and progressivism emanates from America.
Yes, when I read this : “In the spiritual fires of the war, the myth of the “West” was rebaptised” … I thought, ‘parliamentary democracy isn’t a myth’. The countries of Europe that we call ‘the west’ have representative democracies, individual liberties and the rule of law. When the Eastern European countries adopted these institutions they became part of ‘the West’. Of course, with differing histories and cultures the West is still diverse, but the underlying values are similar, and should serve to keep the countries in alliance.
But this essay is very positive about the West. One shouldn’t infer otherwise from its core thesis.
A counter narrative would be much more positive about how the West has something so solid at it’s core that it attracts additional partners and expanded alliances like a magnetic electric charge. The West isn’t something easily defined, but it has something and many of us who have inhabited it all our life miss grasping it until we go and live outside the West for a period. This is also why people all round the world flock to the West. They see something for their children. That is a source of unbelievable power we often miss. It gives problems of course as well, but the day people flock to Xi or Putin or the Ayatollah’s states is the day we should worry.
The counter narrative would also note that 70 years ago the historical lesson would have been international bodies would not last long, and yet here we are with multiple. No such descent into tragedy and chaos has ensured to date. That is no guarantee for the future and Alliances always involve some compromise and are inherently complex. You do not leave your marriage because of the odd row.
The final counter narrative might target the regular malign view of the US often conveyed in UnHerd articles. These often convey the impression the US is some centralised monolith with the old classic cabal theory seeking to control everything at it’s core. And yet the US is highly decentralised, much more than many other Western States. The theory doesn’t hold the moment you examine it in detail. What is constant, although often battered, is the bedrock of certain values, democracy, rule of law, etc. The magnetic charge from these remains strong.
Propeller-heads like Dr. Moeini can sit in their ivory towers all day, snarking at NATO and dreaming of Europe asserting itself as a power bloc. It’s academic onanism. Why?
Because Europe will never put the necessary investment into defence. Instead, ‘Europe’ will continue it’s slippery diplomacy with the non-democracies of Eurasia and China in order to keep the fuel flowing and the BMWs heading the Beijing. It will convince itself the wolf will always be kept from the door.
Europe’s only hope? Poland. I would love to see the Poles, one day, supplant France within the EU. Of course, the Poles (being a reality-based people, with experience of having Russia as a neighbour) have views unlikely to chime with the Dr. Moeinis of the world.
I read this article differently from you. Author does not support particular side imo.
Just explains various scenarios in a bit wordy and convoluted way.
You don’t need PhD in global policy to see that someone in Italy or Spain is not as worried about Russia as Poles and especially Balts are.
That explains why French dreams of European army are just that.
NATO is the only viable option with USA acting as a glue holding whole thing together.
I read this article differently from you. Author does not support particular side imo.
Just explains various scenarios in a bit wordy and convoluted way.
You don’t need PhD in global policy to see that someone in Italy or Spain is not as worried about Russia as Poles and especially Balts are.
That explains why French dreams of European army are just that.
NATO is the only viable option with USA acting as a glue holding whole thing together.
Propeller-heads like Dr. Moeini can sit in their ivory towers all day, snarking at NATO and dreaming of Europe asserting itself as a power bloc. It’s academic onanism. Why?
Because Europe will never put the necessary investment into defence. Instead, ‘Europe’ will continue it’s slippery diplomacy with the non-democracies of Eurasia and China in order to keep the fuel flowing and the BMWs heading the Beijing. It will convince itself the wolf will always be kept from the door.
Europe’s only hope? Poland. I would love to see the Poles, one day, supplant France within the EU. Of course, the Poles (being a reality-based people, with experience of having Russia as a neighbour) have views unlikely to chime with the Dr. Moeinis of the world.
Thank you! I have never understood why the UK has for so long, and so cravenly, lain ever more prostrate as a vassal state of the US. What is its power over us? Why have we handed it our sovereignty and sacrificed our dignity without one iota of debate? Where was our Charles de Gaulle?
Without the US we would have LOST the Great War in 1916, and similarly the next one in 1940.
Thus we became a US supplicant or indeed helot. In short on both occasions we were that revolting specimen…..’the needy beggar’!
The US was late to the party on both occasions and in the meantime continued to trade with Germany
The US was late to the party on both occasions and meanwhile continued to trade with Germany
Quite right to!It was a neutral nation and entirely within its rights.
There is no good getting sentimental about all this.
Late to the “party” (if you want to call WW1 that) for the first, less so for WW2. And was “the arsenal of democracy” for the Allies in WW2, and did the bulk of the fighting against Japan.
You are really delusional.
You should be grateful that USA came to the rescue.
Otherwise you would be writing in German or Russian.
Quite right to!It was a neutral nation and entirely within its rights.
There is no good getting sentimental about all this.
Late to the “party” (if you want to call WW1 that) for the first, less so for WW2. And was “the arsenal of democracy” for the Allies in WW2, and did the bulk of the fighting against Japan.
You are really delusional.
You should be grateful that USA came to the rescue.
Otherwise you would be writing in German or Russian.
The US was late to the party on both occasions and in the meantime continued to trade with Germany
The US was late to the party on both occasions and meanwhile continued to trade with Germany
To answer your question, our “Charles de Gaulle” was called Winston Spencer Churchill.
Valid for debate and complicated history but Churchill, whose mother was of course American, loved the US (where he took his first holiday after the war) while de Gaulle was no Atlanticist at all.
I recall ‘The Jerusalem Post’ had made some interesting revelations about Churchill’s mother some thirty years ago.
Was her maiden name Jerome or Jeromski etc,if you get my drift?
Churchill was savez enough to know that US financial muscle had saved us in 1916/17, and acted accordingly in 1940. eg: He grovelled!
I recall ‘The Jerusalem Post’ had made some interesting revelations about Churchill’s mother some thirty years ago.
Was her maiden name Jerome or Jeromski etc,if you get my drift?
Churchill was savez enough to know that US financial muscle had saved us in 1916/17, and acted accordingly in 1940. eg: He grovelled!
Valid for debate and complicated history but Churchill, whose mother was of course American, loved the US (where he took his first holiday after the war) while de Gaulle was no Atlanticist at all.
Too much SM in the schools your so called “élite” was traumatised.
At the core, money! Britain was destroyed during the war, it spend blood and treasure, the US spend nlood and treasure as well but our country was intact! Literally the only world power left intact!
Over the years, just like the rest of Europe, it was cheaper the let the US pay the bill for security so the UK could spend money on social programs. Look how successful that was! I remember being in London in the late 1970’s. What I saw was rampant unemployment and a youth with no hope!
Without the US we would have LOST the Great War in 1916, and similarly the next one in 1940.
Thus we became a US supplicant or indeed helot. In short on both occasions we were that revolting specimen…..’the needy beggar’!
To answer your question, our “Charles de Gaulle” was called Winston Spencer Churchill.
Too much SM in the schools your so called “élite” was traumatised.
At the core, money! Britain was destroyed during the war, it spend blood and treasure, the US spend nlood and treasure as well but our country was intact! Literally the only world power left intact!
Over the years, just like the rest of Europe, it was cheaper the let the US pay the bill for security so the UK could spend money on social programs. Look how successful that was! I remember being in London in the late 1970’s. What I saw was rampant unemployment and a youth with no hope!
Thank you! I have never understood why the UK has for so long, and so cravenly, lain ever more prostrate as a vassal state of the US. What is its power over us? Why have we handed it our sovereignty and sacrificed our dignity without one iota of debate? Where was our Charles de Gaulle?
Word-salad, with no well expressed coherency, other than the garnish of the sour whine of adolescent nihilism. 3/10 could (I hope) do better.
Where did you ‘pinch’ that from, may I ask?
Doesn’t matter. He’s right.
My own humble efforts.
Excellent! Thank you.
Excellent! Thank you.
Doesn’t matter. He’s right.
My own humble efforts.
Where did you ‘pinch’ that from, may I ask?
Word-salad, with no well expressed coherency, other than the garnish of the sour whine of adolescent nihilism. 3/10 could (I hope) do better.
Zzzzzz…
Another breathless prediction of the West’s decline, and a brand new “multi-polar world.”
Fact is, every single person on the planet has different interests, so the fact that Europeans have different interests isn’t exactly…new.
What the West does have going for it is the possibility of reaching consensus on most issues without either a single strong man’s decision, or overtly criminal actions. True, Birmingham might have different interests from Edinburgh. Who knew?
Sorry, the multi-polar world is already losing one of its poles: Russia in Ukraine. It’s fun to pretend that’s not happening, and that beyond-genius authoritarians are actually running rings around senile democrats. Scott Ritter says it every day–in Moscow.
But Realty seems to tell a quite different story.
The news out of Ukraine is more propaganda than news. If you believe Russia has spent itself in Ukraine then you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
Europe is holding their cards and the US is spending ourselves into bankruptcy! We don’t even have enough weapons now to defend ourselves for more than a few weeks!
If Russia can prolong this war for another year, US stockpiles will be depleted. They know Europe will not step up (why should they!). Then they will roll across Ukraine! While China takes Taiwan and possibly the Philippines!
This is dangerous, a depleted US, facing wars on two fronts, may resort the the weapons of last resort! All this because of the adventurism of Obama and the dementia of Biden!
It was supposed to be over by Xmas.
2022. They actually said that.
They think we’re stupid and don’t know any history.
Because we are!
It was supposed to be over by Xmas.
2022. They actually said that.
They think we’re stupid and don’t know any history.
Because we are!
The news out of Ukraine is more propaganda than news. If you believe Russia has spent itself in Ukraine then you are drinking the Kool-Aid.
Europe is holding their cards and the US is spending ourselves into bankruptcy! We don’t even have enough weapons now to defend ourselves for more than a few weeks!
If Russia can prolong this war for another year, US stockpiles will be depleted. They know Europe will not step up (why should they!). Then they will roll across Ukraine! While China takes Taiwan and possibly the Philippines!
This is dangerous, a depleted US, facing wars on two fronts, may resort the the weapons of last resort! All this because of the adventurism of Obama and the dementia of Biden!
Zzzzzz…
Another breathless prediction of the West’s decline, and a brand new “multi-polar world.”
Fact is, every single person on the planet has different interests, so the fact that Europeans have different interests isn’t exactly…new.
What the West does have going for it is the possibility of reaching consensus on most issues without either a single strong man’s decision, or overtly criminal actions. True, Birmingham might have different interests from Edinburgh. Who knew?
Sorry, the multi-polar world is already losing one of its poles: Russia in Ukraine. It’s fun to pretend that’s not happening, and that beyond-genius authoritarians are actually running rings around senile democrats. Scott Ritter says it every day–in Moscow.
But Realty seems to tell a quite different story.
If only there was as much financial and intellectual effort put into how we can all live together more peacefully, as opposed to power games, just maybe we could have a better world for all – or am I just being totally naive?
No, I am with you. However, the question is “How can the military/industrial complex be muzzled?”
Keep this vital question in mind, even if no answer can be coupled to it (now). There may be one tomorrow…
Science and engineering have a well tried and tested method called RootCauseAnalysis (RCA) as a problem solving discipline. This could be used by social scientists given the will to do so.
Yes. Every fule do know that the way to put out a huge fire is to pour lots more petrol on it. The bonus is that the petrol manufacturers have to produce lots more petrol which means lots more tax,and jobs. So it’s win,win..OK some people die but no American Moms are going to be camping on the White House lawn so thats OK.
No, I am with you. However, the question is “How can the military/industrial complex be muzzled?”
Keep this vital question in mind, even if no answer can be coupled to it (now). There may be one tomorrow…
Science and engineering have a well tried and tested method called RootCauseAnalysis (RCA) as a problem solving discipline. This could be used by social scientists given the will to do so.
Yes. Every fule do know that the way to put out a huge fire is to pour lots more petrol on it. The bonus is that the petrol manufacturers have to produce lots more petrol which means lots more tax,and jobs. So it’s win,win..OK some people die but no American Moms are going to be camping on the White House lawn so thats OK.
If only there was as much financial and intellectual effort put into how we can all live together more peacefully, as opposed to power games, just maybe we could have a better world for all – or am I just being totally naive?
Too many too clever words and curious phrases per paragraph. The whole thing seemed to go round round in a series of confusing circles. The Roman Empire analogy for Europe is surely wrongheaded. USSR maybe but Europe or NATO certainly not. I think this piece was meant to worry me but rather oddly it had the opposite effect as I just didn’t / couldn’t buy what I think the author was trying to say. I also smelled a strong whiff of anti-Americanism which I think, to say the least, is rather ungrateful.
Too many too clever words and curious phrases per paragraph. The whole thing seemed to go round round in a series of confusing circles. The Roman Empire analogy for Europe is surely wrongheaded. USSR maybe but Europe or NATO certainly not. I think this piece was meant to worry me but rather oddly it had the opposite effect as I just didn’t / couldn’t buy what I think the author was trying to say. I also smelled a strong whiff of anti-Americanism which I think, to say the least, is rather ungrateful.
Not sure this is UnHerd level analysis or writing.
the other concern is that it is typical….
YES! These keep popping up in UnHerd with accelerating frequency – fancy talkin’ anti-US, oblivious to the true and enduring Western precepts of the sanctity of the individual, Rule of Law (the ideal to be strived for is equal treatment before the law based on facts and impartial judges) and well defined (and restricted, non-arbitrary) scope of authority for those in power.
YES! These keep popping up in UnHerd with accelerating frequency – fancy talkin’ anti-US, oblivious to the true and enduring Western precepts of the sanctity of the individual, Rule of Law (the ideal to be strived for is equal treatment before the law based on facts and impartial judges) and well defined (and restricted, non-arbitrary) scope of authority for those in power.
the other concern is that it is typical….
Not sure this is UnHerd level analysis or writing.
Made the dreadful mistake of relying on France and Belgium in 1939 and sent our army and its equipment to the mainland only to see a mass surrender of said allies, in France’s case before they had lost any of their territory
Think we will know better next time
We won’t.
We won’t.
Made the dreadful mistake of relying on France and Belgium in 1939 and sent our army and its equipment to the mainland only to see a mass surrender of said allies, in France’s case before they had lost any of their territory
Think we will know better next time
The purpose of NATO was to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. Been there, done that.
And it really is time for Europe and/or its nation states to find a new identity. And, do not forget the vital identity of the corps of defense analysts and power players.
I dare say that what would come out of an end to NATO is a divide between the German/French axis and the rest of the nation states that have a memory of endless French and German power meddling down the centuries. Hey but whatabout the poor Austrians? Is there no place for the dear old Hapsburgs in the future?
HABSBURG!
Yes, don’t forget the Habsburg’s. The dynasty is well and thriving!
Did you downvote that Chantrill because you can’t spell?
Yes, don’t forget the Habsburg’s. The dynasty is well and thriving!
Did you downvote that Chantrill because you can’t spell?
HABSBURG!
The purpose of NATO was to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. Been there, done that.
And it really is time for Europe and/or its nation states to find a new identity. And, do not forget the vital identity of the corps of defense analysts and power players.
I dare say that what would come out of an end to NATO is a divide between the German/French axis and the rest of the nation states that have a memory of endless French and German power meddling down the centuries. Hey but whatabout the poor Austrians? Is there no place for the dear old Hapsburgs in the future?
The words in “Indeed, Macron has internalised the epistemological basis of modern international relations theory and its stubborn fixation on global realpolitik” and much else in this article are from the English language but they mean nothing to me and I doubt that they would mean anything to the majority of the MPs in the UK Parliament who have the ultimate say in UK politics. For an article like this to be effective we either need a translation to everyday english, a glossary of the meaning of the words in the context in which they are used or the author to write in everyday english. If it is suggested that everyday english cannot convey the required concepts I would challenge that with the observation that the thoughts and actions of those with political power are expressed in the everyday usage of language.
The words in “Indeed, Macron has internalised the epistemological basis of modern international relations theory and its stubborn fixation on global realpolitik” and much else in this article are from the English language but they mean nothing to me and I doubt that they would mean anything to the majority of the MPs in the UK Parliament who have the ultimate say in UK politics. For an article like this to be effective we either need a translation to everyday english, a glossary of the meaning of the words in the context in which they are used or the author to write in everyday english. If it is suggested that everyday english cannot convey the required concepts I would challenge that with the observation that the thoughts and actions of those with political power are expressed in the everyday usage of language.
The whole thrust of the piece seems to be predicated on inevitable Russian invasion or otherwise control over Europe.. I cannot help thinking: What if that very concept is itself not a realistic prospect. After all, Russia’s wars were and are with it’s immediate neighbours and no further (Russia was invited into Afghanistan by that country’s government was it not?).
Russia did not invade Napoleon’s France nor Hitler’s Germany.. rather the opposite is true.
Personally I have no fear of a Russian invasion. I’m reasonably confident too that the US will not invade us but only because we are white, non Muslim and don’t have lots of natural resources.
No one in the west even tries to look at the Ukraine situation from a Russian perspective. If they do they are vilified!
The Obama regime orchestrates a civil war in Russia main ally in the Middle East, Syria. Then they orchestrate the overthrow of the legally elected, pro Russian, government in Ukraine. Then, Biden is elected President and the same foreign policy hacks who ran the Obama regime are now running the Biden regime. How is Russia to believe any talk of Ukraine NOT joining NATO, considering the track record of these people!
Thirteen bio-labs right on the border. Id beat up my neighbour if he put a bio-lab right up against my garden fence. Incidentally the COVID virus was created in one of those Ukraine bio-labs then taken to China for release for political reasons.
Thirteen bio-labs right on the border. Id beat up my neighbour if he put a bio-lab right up against my garden fence. Incidentally the COVID virus was created in one of those Ukraine bio-labs then taken to China for release for political reasons.
No one in the west even tries to look at the Ukraine situation from a Russian perspective. If they do they are vilified!
The Obama regime orchestrates a civil war in Russia main ally in the Middle East, Syria. Then they orchestrate the overthrow of the legally elected, pro Russian, government in Ukraine. Then, Biden is elected President and the same foreign policy hacks who ran the Obama regime are now running the Biden regime. How is Russia to believe any talk of Ukraine NOT joining NATO, considering the track record of these people!
The whole thrust of the piece seems to be predicated on inevitable Russian invasion or otherwise control over Europe.. I cannot help thinking: What if that very concept is itself not a realistic prospect. After all, Russia’s wars were and are with it’s immediate neighbours and no further (Russia was invited into Afghanistan by that country’s government was it not?).
Russia did not invade Napoleon’s France nor Hitler’s Germany.. rather the opposite is true.
Personally I have no fear of a Russian invasion. I’m reasonably confident too that the US will not invade us but only because we are white, non Muslim and don’t have lots of natural resources.
Too often, “power” is understood as the ability to project power; but having the power to deny others the projection of power is sufficient to preserve sovereignty. Such a stance provides stability in international relations. And it is much cheaper.
Countries should understand a basic truth.
“The only true peace is the projection of absolute power!”
When countries understand that war will not result in victory or defeat but in the complete destruction of their nation and way of life, then war becomes an unprofitable endeavor!
This is what the Biden administration failed to understand. They had an agreement to defend Ukrainian sovereignty, The message to Putin should have been simple, “We are obligated to defend Ukraine, if you invade Ukraine you will face the full might and power of the US and NATO.” Failure to state this, and the signs of weakness Biden showed, gave him the green light! Which tell me that this regime in Washington wanted this war!
Don’t you mean the “… rejection of absolute power”?
With projection the statement clashes with the paragraph that follows it.
Don’t you mean the “… rejection of absolute power”?
With projection the statement clashes with the paragraph that follows it.
Countries should understand a basic truth.
“The only true peace is the projection of absolute power!”
When countries understand that war will not result in victory or defeat but in the complete destruction of their nation and way of life, then war becomes an unprofitable endeavor!
This is what the Biden administration failed to understand. They had an agreement to defend Ukrainian sovereignty, The message to Putin should have been simple, “We are obligated to defend Ukraine, if you invade Ukraine you will face the full might and power of the US and NATO.” Failure to state this, and the signs of weakness Biden showed, gave him the green light! Which tell me that this regime in Washington wanted this war!
Too often, “power” is understood as the ability to project power; but having the power to deny others the projection of power is sufficient to preserve sovereignty. Such a stance provides stability in international relations. And it is much cheaper.
This article is interesting because it shows how wrong one’s analysis can get when history is ignored.
Sovereign states ally because of common threats.
For the last 500 years, European states have consistently ganged up on any single power seeking hegemony–and those coalitions have always won.
Now, Russia and China have conveniently presented a threat to Europe and North America, and the latter have shown unprecedented unity.
And the only thing that can threaten that unity would be if China and Russia somehow faded away.
Otherwise, Putin and Xi have simply created a Super NATO.
This article is interesting because it shows how wrong one’s analysis can get when history is ignored.
Sovereign states ally because of common threats.
For the last 500 years, European states have consistently ganged up on any single power seeking hegemony–and those coalitions have always won.
Now, Russia and China have conveniently presented a threat to Europe and North America, and the latter have shown unprecedented unity.
And the only thing that can threaten that unity would be if China and Russia somehow faded away.
Otherwise, Putin and Xi have simply created a Super NATO.
This is some high level analysis here. Good lawd.
This is some high level analysis here. Good lawd.
Missing from this article is any mention of the democratic deficit of the EU, that allows the Germans to do energy deals with Russia while Russia threatens other EU countries. The only way for Poland to have its voice heard is by ramping up defence spending and thereby having its opinions heard through NATO. And possibly by helping to blow up the Ribbentrop-Molotov pipelines.
All the countries in Europe including us are still getting,buying,Russian gas,why d’you think the lights are still on. People have always found ways to obtain stuff.
All the countries in Europe including us are still getting,buying,Russian gas,why d’you think the lights are still on. People have always found ways to obtain stuff.
Missing from this article is any mention of the democratic deficit of the EU, that allows the Germans to do energy deals with Russia while Russia threatens other EU countries. The only way for Poland to have its voice heard is by ramping up defence spending and thereby having its opinions heard through NATO. And possibly by helping to blow up the Ribbentrop-Molotov pipelines.
A wonderful macro-analysis with appropriate historical dimensions, thank you so much.
Again, two things about the negative comments button on this otherwise excellent journal. First, – and + should be shown separately so that organised pile-ons can be identified and proper accountability guaranteed. And second, the reader ID should be visible, for accountability. Ideally a third would be that a brief rationale should accompany same. Why so in relation to this particular comment? Because it’s a simple compliment to the author and in that sense as neutral as it gets. An organised pile-on with the negatives is self-evident. There is no valid “net result” here.
Again, two things about the negative comments button on this otherwise excellent journal. First, – and + should be shown separately so that organised pile-ons can be identified and proper accountability guaranteed. And second, the reader ID should be visible, for accountability. Ideally a third would be that a brief rationale should accompany same. Why so in relation to this particular comment? Because it’s a simple compliment to the author and in that sense as neutral as it gets. An organised pile-on with the negatives is self-evident. There is no valid “net result” here.
A wonderful macro-analysis with appropriate historical dimensions, thank you so much.