Posted on 12/15/2011 2:21:36 AM PST by Kaslin
The rise of a German Europe began in 1914, failed twice, and has now ended in the victory of German power almost a century later. The Europe that Kaiser Wilhelm lost in 1918, and that Adolf Hitler destroyed in 1945, has at last been won by German Chancellor Angela Merkel without firing a shot.
Or so it seems from European newspapers, which now refer bitterly to a "Fourth Reich" and arrogant new Nazi "Gauleiters" who dictate terms to their European subordinates. Popular cartoons depict Germans with stiff-arm salutes and swastikas, establishing new rules of behavior for supposedly inferior peoples.
Millions of terrified Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Portuguese and other Europeans are pouring their savings into German banks at the rate of $15 billion a month. A thumbs-up or thumbs-down from the euro-rich Merkel now determines whether European countries will limp ahead with new German-backed loans or default and see their standard of living regress to that of a half-century ago.
A worried neighbor, France, in schizophrenic fashion, as so often in the past, alternately lashes out at Britain for abandoning it and fawns on Germany to appease it. The worries in 1989 of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President François Mitterrand over German unification -- that neither a new European Union nor an old NATO could quite rein in German power -- proved true.
How did the grand dream of a "new Europe" end just 20 years later in a German protectorate -- especially given the not-so-subtle aim of the European Union to diffuse German ambitions through a continent-wide super-state?
Not by arms. Britain fights in wars all over the globe, from Libya to Iraq. France has the bomb. But Germany mostly stays within its borders -- without a nuke, a single aircraft carrier or a military base abroad.
Not by handouts. Germany poured almost $2 trillion of its own money into rebuilding an East Germany ruined by communism -- without help from others. To drive through southern Europe is to see new freeways, bridges, rail lines, stadiums and airports financed by German banks or subsidized by the German government.
Not by population size. Somehow, 120 million Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese are begging some 80 million Germans to bail them out.
And not because of good fortune. Just 65 years ago, Berlin was flattened, Hamburg incinerated and Munich a shell -- in ways even Athens, Madrid, Lisbon and Rome were not.
In truth, German character -- so admired and feared in some 500 years of European literature and history -- led to the present Germanization of Europe. These days we recoil at terms like "national character" that seem tainted by the nightmares of the past. But no other politically correct exegesis offers better reasons why a booming Detroit of 1945 today looks like it was bombed, and a bombed-out Berlin of 1945 now is booming.
Germans on average worked harder and smarter than their European neighbors -- investing rather than consuming, saving rather than spending, and going to bed when others to the south were going to dinner. Recipients of their largesse bitterly complain that German banks lent them money to buy German products in a sort of 21st-century commercial serfdom. True enough, but that still begs the question why Berlin, and not Rome or Madrid, was able to pull off such lucrative mercantilism.
Where does all this lead? Right now to some great unknowns that terrify most of Europe. Will German industriousness and talent eventually translate into military dominance and cultural chauvinism -- as it has in the past? How, exactly, can an unraveling EU, or NATO, now "led from behind" by a disengaged United States, persuade Germany not to translate its overwhelming economic clout into political and military advantage?
Can poor European adolescents really obey their rich German parents? Berlin in essence has now scolded southern Europeans that if they still expect sophisticated medical care, high-tech appurtenances and plentiful consumer goods -- the adornments of a rich American and northern Europe lifestyle -- then they have to start behaving in the manner of Germans, who produce such things and subsidize them for others.
In other words, an Athenian may still have his ultra-modern airport and subway, a Spaniard may still get a hip replacement, or a Roman may still enjoy his new Mercedes. But not if they still insist on daily siestas, dinner at 9 p.m., retirement in their early 50s, cheating on taxes, and a de facto 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. workday.
Behind all the EU's 11th-hour gobbledygook, Germany's new European order is clear: If you wish to live like a German, then you must work and save like a German. Take it or leave it.
When the Krauts took back their commie brothers, everyone here thought it would be the kiss of death. No one seemed to be able to read the facts. East Germany was an economic powerhouse, even if it was living off the "markets" in the rest of the COMBLOC. It was populated by real Germans, after all, had a for-real infrastructure, and its people were starving for high-quality consumer goods. Such a deal!
As a wise sage wrote on this site, this "Re-Union" will make the Germans the most powerful country in Europe. On a global scale, paying the bill for the Re-unification was the wisest investment any country had made since the fall of the Roman Empire.
Think long-term. Cheapest car you can buy? Mercedes at least until they started looking like Jap clones, minus the reliable electronics. And also remember, that while Germany certainly has more than its share of "Green," Marxist ass-hats, they would never elect someone like the Mombasa MF. The German Left and the German Right both consider this guy a fool and will take shameless advantage of his international stupidity where and when they can.
You want me to talk about so-called "German elite" while you sit in a country as the subject of Her Majesty The Queen?
LOL that's a good one!
Now excuse me, but I sign on to FR to build conservative ideas with fellow Americans. NOT to be the target of anti-German spittle from the living cartoon caricature of English hatred towards Germany and who sports a Troll name.
I Mean, Really!
I'm not in Britain. I'm in the USA. (Maybe being in Berlin has made the two look the same to you? Those that decry the "Anglo-Saxon capitalist model" don't see a difference, certainly.)
You want me to talk about so-called "German elite" while you sit in a country as the subject of Her Majesty The Queen?
Supporting the social market economy is not a conservative idea. Nor is anti-monarchism except for the USA in particular (whose Founding Fathers regarded Jesus Christ as the country's only rightful monarch)—the USA was not set up to depose monarchies around the world, as was the case with the French Revolution and its bastard child the Russian Revolution, and all other such leftist revolutions. No, not very conservative to go after monarchs, especially constitutional monarchs whose legislatures are of a republican nature.
I sign on to FR to build conservative ideas with fellow Americans
Herbert Hoover's surname was originally Huber, but his family was Swiss-German rather than German-from-Germany German.
Other notable German Americans were John Peter Altgeld, Governor of Illinois, Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel, and William Oldfather (Altvater), a noted classicist.
Again, my only point was that “You take the money you take the terms”. NOBODY forced Greece to give bloated pensions and benefits to its citizens for 40 years, while expecting little in return. Neither Germany or any other country ran Greece’s economy into the ground, the Greek Government did that. And far from forcing Usry type loans on the Greek Government, I believe the terms Greek has received from the EU not just Germany has been much more favorable than any individual. Just to be clear, I don’t think Germany or any other country should give Greece a dime, or loan Greece a dime. Just as I think no other American State should have to bail our California or Michigan for decades of socialist policies that have run those states into the ground.
As for strenthening of an anti-US Social Market Economy, what the ______ are you talking about. I certainly don’t wish any country or region’s economy to fail, because when that happens, it tends to suck the U.S. down as well.
But for what I hope is the last time, my only point was that when you request a loan, whether it be from your credit card, credit union, or a soverign country. They put out the terms and conditions. If those terms are unacceptable, don’t take the money. If you do take the money, then nobody wants to hear your whining about the terms you freely agreed to.
And nobody demanded the Greek government sell it’s possessions. However, anybody giving Greece money that will likely never be reapaid, has every right to SUGGEST not DEMAND that the government sell some of its own assets to raise money first.
You shouldn't act like they were the only country in the eurozone to do that, never mind the world at large. Germany's no stranger to doing the exact same thing.
NOBODY forced Greece to give bloated pensions and benefits to its citizens for 40 years, while expecting little in return
. . .and who told you that? The Greeks don't control their own economy anymore. Germany does. They control the European Central Bank. If Greece still had the drachma and their economy fell, then they certainly would be solely to blame. But they're not in that situation anymore.
Neither Germany or any other country ran Greece’s economy into the ground, the Greek Government did that
You can thank the liberals for that. And why are you in fear of that? You'd be for strengthening communism around the world if it would save the US economy?
As for strengthening of an anti-US Social Market Economy, what the ______ are you talking about. I certainly don’t wish any country or region’s economy to fail, because when that happens, it tends to suck the U.S. down as well
It's not as simple as that. When both loan and terms are forced on you, that's a completely different story. You should really increase your understanding of the European Union and what they're about.
But for what I hope is the last time, my only point was that when you request a loan, whether it be from your credit card, credit union, or a soverign country. They put out the terms and conditions. If those terms are unacceptable, don’t take the money
Really?
And nobody demanded the Greek government sell its possessions
Yes, other countries have bloated pensions, and benefits and in a few years they may collapse and look for hand outs as well, and I will say the same thing about them then that I am saying about Greece now. Bill Gates, spends a lot more than I do, but guess what He can afford it, and he doesn’t come asking me for a handout. And Germans don’t retire in their early 50’s and they work many more hours than the Greeks (Didn’t you read the article) But for all those countries that spend like Greece and then need a handout, I say the same thing. Accept the handout and accept the terms.
As far as the Greeks not controlling their economy, you really don’t understand economics. Yes, now that Greece is in debt up to the countries collective eye-balls, they must start living within their means. However, the terms demanded in exchange for the loans, are the tough political choices necesscary to save the Greek economy. Much like an out of control teenager, that has her credit card taken away by mommy and daddy. Still, it was the collective decisions of the Greek people that put them in this position. The U.S. now owes so much to China that China can influence our policy, but it is not China’s fault that we got where we are.
Your line about me wishing Communism to succeed, if I don’t wish for a collapse of the Eurozone is absurd. Communist economies always fail whether I want them to or not, obviously I was referring to not wanting to see the collapse of any major economy that is intertwined with the U.S. economy.
Again, the loan was not forced on Greece, in fact they went to Germany / the EU hat in hand and begged for it. But like all beggers, they quickly resent the hand that feeds them.
And the title of your link is “German MP’s SUGGEST” Do you understand the difference between DEMAND and SUGGEST. I only ask because you seem to have difficulty with understanding the definition of the word forced.
What article? Germans can't work any more hours than the laws allow. Ever heard of the Working Time Directive?
And Germans don’t retire in their early 50’s and they work many more hours than the Greeks (Didn’t you read the article)
No, Greece's debt wasn't as bad as the news made it out to be. And frankly, Greece had initially wanted to default rather than take those loans.
As far as the Greeks not controlling their economy, you really don’t understand economics. Yes, now that Greece is in debt up to the countries collective eye-balls, they must start living within their means. However, the terms demanded in exchange for the loans, are the tough political choices necessary to save the Greek economy
Well, it's easy to call something I never said "absurd", isn't it?
Your line about me wishing Communism to succeed, if I don’t wish for a collapse of the Eurozone is absurd
No they absolutely did not. You can't make this suddenly come true by repeating it several times. The elites who run the EU foisted these bailout loans (not grants) on Greece because they were scared that Greece's problems would reflect on the entire eurozone, in spite of the fact that Greece only represents 2.5 percent of the entire eurozone economy—which means that they weren't looking out for Greece at all, and bespeaks some ulterior motives.
Again, the loan was not forced on Greece, in fact they went to Germany / the EU hat in hand and begged for it
There's a history there that makes such a suggestion tantamount to demand. It's not a history that one ought to blind oneself to. How would it be interpreted if Russia "suggested" that we sell Alaska back to them?
And the title of your link is “German MPs SUGGEST” Do you understand the difference between DEMAND and SUGGEST
I'm not in Britain. I'm in the USA. (Maybe being in Berlin has made the two look the same to you? Those that decry the "Anglo-Saxon capitalist model" don't see a difference, certainly.)
Who said I support a social market economy?
I posted information about German Americans, and true to your anti-German sourness, your response was "So what?..." with some odd reference about "elites". And you were the only one to be sour about it I might add - no surprise there.
You may want to keep up with the times, there have been many fiscal conservative changes to the German economic system. Germany has insisted on conservative economic changes to the bailout agreements and is forging ahead with conservative fiscal policy in fixing and reshaping Europe. The problem with you - is that you obviously exist in the past.
While on the other hand, if Britain would adhere to a reasonable facsimile of the "Anglo-Saxon capitalist model" then maybe there would not be regular news reports like this.
You say you are in America but you don't say you are American. That brings us to your rather weird defense of living as a subject (whether you are in America, England or Guatemala doesn't matter) under the biggest welfare Queen in the world, as being something conservative.
Pointing to some Germans wanting their own monarchy back is revealing of the trouble that some subjects seem to find themselves in having to witness the modern Free Western World around them, and the mental contortions needed to feel comfortable in their own skin. I don't see why else you would mention such a silly bit of trivia. Evidently, being a subject of the British Queen is some kind of extension of royalty unto the subjects over the rest of us poor knuckle dragging slobs who can only wish and hope we had a queen of our own. Which explains why they refer to themselves as "a Queen's royal subject". Funny, that. LoL!
Abuses by the all powerful yet uncaring monarchy is what brought about leftist revolutions and constitutional monarchs. A constitutional monarch is a civil war gone bad. It is not like a Monarch ever said "Let's have a constitutional monarchy." BTW when did Britain get a constitution? Was that last year or are they still working on it?
I do not hate the English. I have posted many times about British fighting forces and often refer to English humor. I cheer when England scores a goal against some other teams. Can you say the same about Germany? I seriously doubt it. So don't act so surprised when you get called out on your anti-German bias and where that is obviously coming from. Unchain yourself from the past, seek and examine updated information.
Not me. Did someone say you did?
Who said I support a social market economy?
No they aren't. Are they getting rid of the "social federal state" clause in Article 20 of the Basic Law? Not that I've seen. They sure aren't making the elimination of the "social market economy" a tenet of the "treaty change" they want to effect with the Treaty of Lisbon.
You may want to keep up with the times, there have been many fiscal conservative changes to the German economic system. Germany has insisted on conservative economic changes to the bailout agreements and is forging ahead with conservative fiscal policy in fixing and reshaping Europe
All of Britain's problems have stemmed from trying to keep up with what the EU requires of them.
While on the other hand, if Britain would adhere to a reasonable facsimile of the "Anglo-Saxon capitalist model" then maybe there would not be regular news reports like this
I'm an American; born in Queens NY. Lived in the USA for 33 out of my 42 years. That good enough for you?
You say you are in America but you don't say you are American
. . . because you brought up the British monarchy for some unknown reason. And seemed to construe it as some kind of aberration, unless I misinterpreted you, and if so, then why did you mention it?
Pointing to some Germans wanting their own monarchy back is revealing of the trouble that some subjects seem to find themselves in having to witness the modern Free Western World around them, and the mental contortions needed to feel comfortable in their own skin. I don't see why else you would mention such a silly bit of trivia
Hmm. There you go seemingly attacking the British monarch again, without cause. Not conservative. Perhaps the Queen's biggest mistake was giving Royal Assent to a form of market that is alien to her country.
That brings us to your rather weird defense of living as a subject (whether you are in America, England or Guatemala doesn't matter) under the biggest welfare Queen in the world, as being something conservative
You seem to have no sense of history. The kingdoms on the British Isles had parliaments dating back to the 11th century at least—they were not formed as the result of any stymied revolution. It was actually the continental monarchs that tended towards absolute monarchy, and the Roman influence tried to do the same on the British Isles. (This is what led to the split between Henry VIII and Rome.) So I'd say that there were kings that did indeed say "let's have a constitutional monarchy", and they even encouraged strengthening of the parliaments that made the laws.
Abuses by the all powerful yet uncaring monarchy is what brought about leftist revolutions and constitutional monarchs. A constitutional monarch is a civil war gone bad. It is not like a Monarch ever said "Let's have a constitutional monarchy."
About the same time that Germany did, if you want to know. (The Grundgesetz is not a constitution. The presence of a Constitutional Court doesn't make it one either.) Do you mean to say that the USA is superior to either country in this regard, and that they hold the standard—or that you just need the word "constitution" attached to the code of law? (Remember, the USSR's unjust plethora of laws were also called a "constitution".)
BTW when did Britain get a constitution?
WADR, for a conservative, you do talk like a liberal. You can't call me out on anything I haven't exhibited. And all my info is up to date—as is the info that others here post.
I do not hate the English. I have posted many times about British fighting forces and often refer to English humor. I cheer when England scores a goal against some other teams. Can you say the same about Germany? I seriously doubt it. So don't act so surprised when you get called out on your anti-German bias and where that is obviously coming from. Unchain yourself from the past, seek and examine updated information
Just saw that you replied and am letting you know there is nothing worth reading further here from you.
You are a Troll. Your name is Troll. Please.
I am uneducated on the subject and curious. What is the difference according to what you know?
Troll is behavior, not handle. I’m waiting for something conservative out of you, frankly.
i prefer the term Germanics — people from what is now Germany, Austria, SchwiezerDeutsch, Dutch and Flemish peoples.
well the Greeks don’t have to accept the terms and the handout. They could reject both and be reduced to Zorba the Greek levels. But no, they prefer to attack those who are helping them out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.