# A new treaty in Europe



## Ancutza (11 Dec 2011)

Could somebody in the know, governmental or otherwise, please explain in point form exactly what they signed up to at the recent meeting of the EU heads of state?

Did our representatives ask for a reduction in the interest rate applied to our bail-out as a precondition of us supporting a new treaty?  If so what, specifically, was the response?  Bear in mind that Greece got one.  Enda told us all on his TV address that we're not to blame so I suppose he will explain that to Nicholas S. and Angie and negotiate better rates.

Did our representatives sign-up to a transaction tax?  I suppose that would be of interest to anyone in the IFSC?

Enda is a clown. End of.  Send him back to school. 

We need a statesman at the moment.  It doesn't matter a tinkers curse what party he comes out.


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> Could somebody in the know, governmental or otherwise, please explain in point form exactly what they signed up to at the recent meeting of the EU heads of state?


I doubt they know themselves what they signed up to; the agreement is whatever Merkozy says it is.


----------



## BillK (12 Dec 2011)

michaelm said:


> I doubt they know themselves what they signed up to; the agreement is whatever Merkozy says it is.


 
And that, I would suggest, is one of the reasons why David Cameron refused to go along.

Sarkozy etc should also be reminded that this would not be the first time that the UK stood alone against German takeovers of Europe.


----------



## Ancutza (13 Dec 2011)

> Sarkozy etc should also be reminded that this would not be the first  time that the UK stood alone against German takeovers of Europe.



If you just stand back and think about what is going on in Europe at the moment then it is very interesting indeed.  Why has France thrown her hat in the ring with a neighbour who so recently has done her so much harm? And more than once indeed! 

I don't like Merkel at all but I'm actually starting to feel sorry for the germans in that they will end-up being demonised for the 3rd time in less than 100 years and this time *only* for being parsimonious whilst everyone elses plastic burnt a hole in their pocket!

A much stronger Europe would be one which was influenced by an English/German partnership and I use the word 'partnership' very loosely.  Better to describe the relationship as each being a foil to the others expansionism.

Sarkozy is an irritating sideshow.  All mouth (and plenty of it!) and no trousers as the english would say.


----------



## Rovers1901 (13 Dec 2011)

BillK said:


> And that, I would suggest, is one of the reasons why David Cameron refused to go along.
> 
> Sarkozy etc should also be reminded that this would not be the first time that the UK stood alone against German takeovers of Europe.



Ah yes, the old bulldog spirit. Down with Johnny Foreigner!


----------



## Firefly (13 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> Sarkozy is an irritating sideshow.  All mouth (and plenty of it!) and *no trousers* as the english would say.



The opposite I would have thought..they're Toulon & Toulouse


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2011)

Firefly said:


> The opposite I would have thought..they're Toulon & Toulouse



To short and toulouse?


----------



## Firefly (13 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> To short and toulouse?



Bof


----------



## Ancutza (13 Dec 2011)

> Ah yes, the old bulldog spirit. Down with Johnny Foreigner!



I understand where you're coming from but without them you'd now be speaking german as your first language with the obligatory option of taking french for your Abitur.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> I understand where you're coming from but without them you'd now be speaking german as your first language with the obligatory option of taking french for your Abitur.



That's not true; we'd be speaking Russian (D-Day etc was to stop the Russians, Germany was defeated by late 1943).


----------



## Firefly (13 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> That's not true; we'd be speaking Russian (D-Day etc was to stop the Russians, Germany was defeated by late 1943).



Do you have a link for this as it goes against conventional wisdom and I'd love to read more on this?


----------



## BillK (13 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> That's not true; we'd be speaking Russian (D-Day etc was to stop the Russians, Germany was defeated by late 1943).


 
In 1944 my father and his comrades were trying (and eventually succeeding) to throw the Germans out of the monastery at Monte Cassino and thus open the road to Rome.


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2011)

By June 1944 the Soviets had over 2.3 million men facing the 20 or so under strength German divisions. The Germans were outnumbered 7:1 in aircraft and 10:1 in tanks (the Russian T34 was the best tank of the Second World War). The Soviet industrial machine had been dismantled and re-assembled east of the Urals and was now working at near maximum output. There was no way that the Germans were ever going to stop them.
At the same time the British, American, Free French and Polish, ANZAC and Canadians troops faced 6 divisions in northern France. It was a side show. That’s not to take away from the bravery and accomplishments of the Allied troops in Normandy but the Germans were beaten (they just didn’t know it yet). It was about stopping the Russians reaching Western Europe because Britain and America (Churchill in particular) knew they’d never give back what they’d taken. He knew Stalin was as bad as Hitler.

For the record when the British say it was their finest hour I agree 100%. They stood alone for over a year against pure evil.
As for D-Day; if it wasn't for those brave men we'd have been enslaved by Communism instead of National Socialism. Two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Ancutza (13 Dec 2011)

That was then and this is now.  I think the germans have sort of accidentally 'captured' Europe this week and I'm not convinced that that is what they wanted at all, at all.


----------



## Firefly (14 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> By June 1944 the Soviets had over 2.3 million men facing the 20 or so under strength German divisions. The Germans were outnumbered 7:1 in aircraft and 10:1 in tanks (the Russian T34 was the best tank of the Second World War). The Soviet industrial machine had been dismantled and re-assembled east of the Urals and was now working at near maximum output. There was no way that the Germans were ever going to stop them.
> At the same time the British, American, Free French and Polish, ANZAC and Canadians troops faced 6 divisions in northern France. It was a side show. That’s not to take away from the bravery and accomplishments of the Allied troops in Normandy but the Germans were beaten (they just didn’t know it yet). It was about stopping the Russians reaching Western Europe because Britain and America (Churchill in particular) knew they’d never give back what they’d taken. He knew Stalin was as bad as Hitler.
> 
> For the record when the British say it was their finest hour I agree 100%. They stood alone for over a year against pure evil.
> As for D-Day; if it wasn't for those brave men we'd have been enslaved by Communism instead of National Socialism. Two sides of the same coin.



Innnteresting. Must read more!


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> That was then and this is now.  I think the germans have sort of accidentally 'captured' Europe this week and I'm not convinced that that is what they wanted at all, at all.



I agree. I think Merkel is being short sighted and playing to her electorate but I don't for a minute think they want to control Europe.


----------



## BillK (14 Dec 2011)

Are you serious, Purple?


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2011)

BillK said:


> Are you serious, Purple?



Yep


----------



## Ancutza (14 Dec 2011)

> I agree. I think Merkel is being short  sighted and playing to her electorate but I don't for a minute think  they want to control Europe


. 

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.  I think that deep, deep down in their souls the germans would *definitely* like to control Europe.  Even the world if that was ok with everyone else.  It's in their nature.  They are an expansionist nation. That doesn't make them bad or dangerous.  It's just the nature of the beast.  I'm saying that as someone who has been through their public (read private) secondary system if only for 18 months and spent hours shooting basketball hoops over countless long weekends and, obviously, discussing with the german kids how they viewed themselves and their station in the world.

Likewise the British are an expansionist nation whom, through their maintenance of the commowealth are, shall we say, a little more 'rounded'.  They haven't really got to prove anything to anyone having handed the germans their backsides twice in the last 100 years. 

Germany is frustrated on a number of fronts.  It wants to be in control but, for the remainder of my generation ( in our 40's) it will be too 'embarrassed' (if that's the right word) by it's recent history to be more assertive.  In fact there was an interview in the english 'Independent on Sunday', was it 2 Sundays ago?, with one of their senior politicians (can't remember who it was and too lazy to look back through my history), who made exactly that point.

It's the british and the germans who will decide the direction of Europe, make no mistake.  []


----------



## The_Banker (14 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> By June 1944 the Soviets had over 2.3 million men facing the 20 or so under strength German divisions. The Germans were outnumbered 7:1 in aircraft and 10:1 in tanks (the Russian T34 was the best tank of the Second World War). The Soviet industrial machine had been dismantled and re-assembled east of the Urals and was now working at near maximum output. There was no way that the Germans were ever going to stop them.
> At the same time the British, American, Free French and Polish, ANZAC and Canadians troops faced 6 divisions in northern France. It was a side show. That’s not to take away from the bravery and accomplishments of the Allied troops in Normandy but the Germans were beaten (they just didn’t know it yet). It was about stopping the Russians reaching Western Europe because Britain and America (Churchill in particular) knew they’d never give back what they’d taken. He knew Stalin was as bad as Hitler.
> 
> For the record when the British say it was their finest hour I agree 100%. They stood alone for over a year against pure evil.
> As for D-Day; if it wasn't for those brave men we'd have been enslaved by Communism instead of National Socialism. Two sides of the same coin.


 

One of the things Stalin was looking for at the WWII conference in Tehran in late Nov, early Dec 1943 was a committment from the western allies that they would open up a second front. In fact he was looking for it earlier but he got the commitment at that conference. 
Roosevelt gave Stalin that commitment at the conference and it was one of the things he was happiest about going back to Russia.

While I suspect the western allies had the idea of spoiling the soviet plans of expansion in their minds when D-Day was planned it was a very poor second to defeating Nazi Germany. As momentum gathered after the allies broke out of Normandy the race was certainly on between the allies and the soviets to reach Berlin first and gain as much territory as possible. 
Indeed there was an internal battle between Patton and Monty to see who could gain more territory but that was more an ego thing rather than any strife between the USA and the UK. 

But the fact remains that Stalin was putting a lot of pressure on Roosevelt and Churchill to open up a second front.


----------



## shnaek (14 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> . I think that deep, deep down in their souls the germans would *definitely* like to control Europe.  Even the world if that was ok with everyone else.  It's in their nature.


If someone said this about 'The Blacks' or 'The Muslims' there'd be outcry. Haven't we learned that we can't make generalisations like this? Some Germans would tell you that there is no real notion of 'Germany' amongst even the Germans themselves, and if you ask them what it means to be German they will give you a variety of answers.


----------



## BillK (14 Dec 2011)

Who was it said "If you don't learn the lessons of history you will be condemned to repeat them?"


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Dec 2011)

All credit to Third Reich theories, but could it be a bit more basic. If you were agreeing to bankroll your extended family wouldnt you like to have some idea as to how they are going to spend in the future?

I dont think this Euro uncertainty is to Germany's benefit or that they see it as their chance, given the choice I think they'd happily roll back the clock to before this mess started.


----------



## Ancutza (14 Dec 2011)

> If someone said this about 'The Blacks' or 'The Muslims' there'd be  outcry. Haven't we learned that we can't make generalisations like this?  Some Germans would tell you that there is no real notion of 'Germany'  amongst even the Germans themselves, and if you ask them what it means  to be German they will give you a variety of answers.



Okay.  I apologise for not making myself clear.  I'll try again (and probably really screw it up!)  What I was trying to say is that the german psyche, as a whole, is preoccupied with expansion.  Likewise the British, the French, the Japanese etc.  It's just the way they are as a people.  Whereas other peoples (like us for example) could be left with the neighbours garden gate left open for a considerable amount of time before we'd even _think _to mooch up to the boundary to see what's up.


----------



## Rovers1901 (15 Dec 2011)

BillK said:


> Who was it said "If you don't learn the lessons of history you will be condemned to repeat them?"



John Redwood and the rest of 1922 Club of Tory Backbenchers?


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2011)

The_Banker said:


> One of the things Stalin was looking for at the WWII conference in Tehran in late Nov, early Dec 1943 was a committment from the western allies that they would open up a second front. In fact he was looking for it earlier but he got the commitment at that conference.
> Roosevelt gave Stalin that commitment at the conference and it was one of the things he was happiest about going back to Russia.
> 
> While I suspect the western allies had the idea of spoiling the soviet plans of expansion in their minds when D-Day was planned it was a very poor second to defeating Nazi Germany. As momentum gathered after the allies broke out of Normandy the race was certainly on between the allies and the soviets to reach Berlin first and gain as much territory as possible.
> ...



Stalin arrived at the Tehran conference just after crushing the Germans at Kursk (the biggest Tank Battle in History). He bullied and dominated Roosevelt, by then a very sick man,  while Churchill concentrated on British interests in the Middle East and Mediterranean (despite what his officials advised). Stalin got just about everything he wanted; a chunk of Poland, a puppet government in Yugoslavia and permission to dominate Eastern Europe. Roosevelt was a weak man, mentally as well as physically, but that doesn’t excuse the sell-out of millions of people. If the British and Americans hadn’t opened a second front the whole of Europe would have been under Stalin’s boot. There’s no chance Churchill didn’t know that before he arrived in Tehran (after Kursk).


----------



## DrMoriarty (15 Dec 2011)

Anyway, back to the present.

What do you make of the proposed new Euro coin? 

[broken link removed]


----------



## The_Banker (15 Dec 2011)

Purple said:


> Stalin arrived at the Tehran conference just after crushing the Germans at Kursk (the biggest Tank Battle in History). He bullied and dominated Roosevelt, by then a very sick man, while Churchill concentrated on British interests in the Middle East and Mediterranean (despite what his officials advised). Stalin got just about everything he wanted; a chunk of Poland, a puppet government in Yugoslavia and permission to dominate Eastern Europe. Roosevelt was a weak man, mentally as well as physically, but that doesn’t excuse the sell-out of millions of people. If the British and Americans hadn’t opened a second front the whole of Europe would have been under Stalin’s boot. There’s no chance Churchill didn’t know that before he arrived in Tehran (after Kursk).


 
I agree with all of that but why would Stalin want the western allies to invade Europe if his intention was to take over all of it?


----------



## Ancutza (15 Dec 2011)

> I agree with all of that but why would Stalin want the western allies to  invade Europe if his intention was to take over all of it?



I don't think that Stalin gave two hoots if the western allies invaded or not.  In fact it probably would have suited him much better if he was just let alone to get stuck into the germans on his own terms.


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2011)

Ancutza said:


> I don't think that Stalin gave two hoots if the western allies invaded or not.  In fact it probably would have suited him much better if he was just let alone to get stuck into the germans on his own terms.



He was insisting that they open a second front from late 1940. He didn't want his army weakened more than necessary by having to defeat Germany on it's own for the Americans and British to then invade and force his troops back.


----------



## BillK (15 Dec 2011)

That's brilliant Doc!


----------



## BillK (15 Dec 2011)

Rovers1901 said:


> John Redwood and the rest of 1922 Club of Tory Backbenchers?


 
Actually, George Santanyana.


----------

