Originally posted by kato
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
French Presidential Election
Collapse
X
-
Well, since the first round is complete - I'm certainly hoping Macron wins.
A Putin-Trump-Le Pen-Farage axis... I'll just call it the Axis of Putin for short - not something I'd look forward to."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostI always thought you were German, my apologies.
Nobody is pure anything, ethnic identity is arbitrarily defined, but is primarily based on language. Castille, Paris, London, Vienna/Bavaria are the origins of modern Spanish, French, English, and German, for example. Homogenization within defined boundaries with sorted populations is something that happened in the last few centuries, accelerating in the last one or two. Even some of the Chaplin-mustachoied corporal's generals had Polish or French surnames. Eastern Europe used to be filled with German cities surrounded by a much larger population of native Slavs, for example, and these intermarried. German is just really a generalization rather than something that is concrete. Perhaps a third of German people's origin are descended from Germanized Slavs over the course of over a thousand years during the days of the HRE. It's not really different anywhere else, Chinese and Russian are much bigger examples.
Long story, short - language, cultural identity, and ethnicity were extremely fluid throughout European history. Rigid definition of these things is more of a 19th century product - dating from the rise of the modern nation-state, but it is mostly artificial and was imposed from above.Last edited by Ironduke; 27 Apr 17,, 09:27."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Clarification: by forking I meant ethnogenesis when one ethnicity splits into one or several. Not the salacious. E.g. how the English represent a fork from North Sea Germans.
Anyways, I'll try to re-rail the thread here tonight back to the French election, unless someone wants to beat me to it. ;-) I am not as familiar with what's going on in France as I'd like to be."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostClarification: by forking I meant ethnogenesis when one ethnicity splits into one or several. .
Comment
-
Macron pledges to reform the EU
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39766334
An excellent strategy by Macron and of course his only one. His only problem is Failure if elected would seal the fate of the EU. This reminds me of the phrase "kicking the can down the road" something Politicians are past masters at.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostDidn't do... lose millions of lives. It wasn't our war too fight. You had 2.5 years and 80% of the global economic output either directly controlled or via trade with the US and other non-European nations and couldn't put the Germans to bed. American troops only took part in a few battles, but their presence and ever increasing foot print along with the blockade helped turn the tide inside the enemies head.
Comment
-
I was taught that borders didn't harden in Europe or around the US until the First World War, when fear of saboteurs, real and imagined, created identification systems to keep tags on foreign-citizens in a country. Border controls were created during the war and after it, whereas previously bourgeois that had the means of travel and were not tied down by internal passports could travel or even relocate freely.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostYeh both wars you buried your head in the sand....I'm surprised Woodrow turned up at the Paris peace conference, fat lot of use he was .....and the US didn't want to fight in the second world war until you were attacked by the Japanese. On our part we had to invent something called the Canadian Army to help North Americans get involved. Something we are eternally grateful for. As for the US government well they were just a bag of washing. Lets face it they didn't go to war to fight fascism, if so why did they back so many South American dictators up after the War was over???? Dictators I might add that had modelled their regimes on Nazi Germany.
The US didn't really have any incentive to stick it's hand into the European meat grinder early on and Woodrow Wilson was actually re-elected for keeping the US out of the war. It wasn't until the Germans kept torpedoing US ships and the Zimmerman telegram went public that the US got sucked into WWI.
Prior to the outbreak of WWII, Roosevelt argued for the "quarantine" of what would become the Axis powers by the international community and the use of economic pressure rather than force to bring them back into line. (sound familiar?) This time around, the US informally took sides by supplying the Allies with warfighting materials, and was essentially looking for an excuse to jump in on the side of the allies by the time Japan attacked.
The US motivations for doing so are less rooted in an allergic reaction to fascism (although there is some) and more about the fear of a single hostile power controlling Eurasia. Due to geography, the US itself is pretty well unassailable by force of arms unless a competing power were to rally the manpower and resources of the rest of the industrialized world. This is the underlying basis of US opposition to Germany in WWII, and the Soviet Union thereafter. A combined Eurasia would actually have the power to threaten the US at home.
Little South American dictatorships are mostly internal affairs that pose no threat to US interests or security, be they ever so nasty to their own people. While a Ghengis Khan II would be strongly opposed by US forces even if he sang sweet songs of democracy and brotherhood.Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 01 May 17,, 16:04.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostOf course the US was reluctant to get involved. We were operating under the Monroe Doctrine and trying to keep European powers out of the Americas and avoid overseas entanglements. It was a "stay out of my yard and leave me alone" kinda policy that reminds me a lot of the stance China has today. I wouldn't expect the Chinese to jump straight into the fray if the US and EU decided to fight over the Atlantic, would you? Unless something happens to cause them to have some skin in the game, they'd be perfectly happy to sit on the sidelines calling for peace.
The US didn't really have any incentive to stick it's hand into the European meat grinder early on and Woodrow Wilson was actually re-elected for keeping the US out of the war. It wasn't until the Germans kept torpedoing US ships and the Zimmerman telegram went public that the US got sucked into WWI.
Prior to the outbreak of WWII, Roosevelt argued for the "quarantine" of what would become the Axis powers by the international community and the use of economic pressure rather than force to bring them back into line. (sound familiar?) This time around, the US informally took sides by supplying the Allies with warfighting materials, and was essentially looking for an excuse to jump in on the side of the allies by the time Japan attacked.
The US motivations for doing so are less rooted in an allergic reaction to fascism (although there is some) and more about the fear of a single hostile power controlling Eurasia. Due to geography, the US itself is pretty well unassailable by force of arms unless a competing power were to rally the manpower and resources of the rest of the industrialized world. This is the underlying basis of US opposition to Germany in WWII, and the Soviet Union thereafter. A combined Eurasia would actually have the power to threaten the US at home.
Little South American dictatorships are mostly internal affairs that pose no threat to US interests or security, be they ever so nasty to their own people. While a Ghengis Khan II would be strongly opposed by US forces even if he sang sweet songs of democracy and brotherhood.Last edited by Toby; 01 May 17,, 19:34.
Comment
-
Two-part May Day debate special :
Current polls are 59.5% for Macron, 40.5% for Le Pen.
By metric this assumes that around one quarter of people who voted for Fillon will vote for Le Pen, while Melenchon's voters will abstain. If going by the first round and purely by which candidates endorsed whom it'd be 66.0% for Macron and 34% for Le Pen, with up to 40% abstaining. For Le Pen to win some 56% of the Fillon camp would have to go against their candidate's endorsement.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toby View PostIn the 2nd WW it was Hitler that declared war on the US first, directly after the Japanese attack (Big mistake) and began torpedoing Your shipping off the east coast.
When Pearl Harbor happened, we [Roosevelt's advisors] were desperate. ... We were all in agony. The mood of the American people was obvious – they were determined that the Japanese had to be punished. We could have been forced to concentrate all our efforts on the Pacific, unable from then on to give more than purely peripheral help to Britain. It was truly astounding when Hitler declared war on us three days later. I cannot tell you our feelings of triumph. It was a totally irrational thing for him to do, and I think it saved Europe."
Comment
-
Originally posted by kato View PostTwo-part May Day debate special :
Current polls are 59.5% for Macron, 40.5% for Le Pen.
By metric this assumes that around one quarter of people who voted for Fillon will vote for Le Pen, while Melenchon's voters will abstain. If going by the first round and purely by which candidates endorsed whom it'd be 66.0% for Macron and 34% for Le Pen, with up to 40% abstaining. For Le Pen to win some 56% of the Fillon camp would have to go against their candidate's endorsement.
Comment
Comment