August Spies

I strongly suggest you learn a bit more about European geography. The eleven countries you list hardly makes a majority.



yes there are over 40 aren't there?

Lamunus

Most European countries are supporting America anxiously, fully aware that a continental split will not benefit them. I doubt if any actually care either awa about Iraq. Schroeder and Chirac are both following their EU-intergrationist policies - stripping the ties to NATO, speaking up for all the European peoples etc. Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi are anxious to avoid the EU being pushed into further federalism - this is done by supporting the US.

Quote:

I'm aware that many in Britian and Spain aren't enthusiastic about it, but do you have polling data for all of these countries?

68% of Britons are opposed to war unless their is a new UN resolution, 26% are opposed even then. In Spain, 75% are opposed with new UN backing, 43% even then. These are much higher than before all other wars since 1945, notably Suez and the Falklands.

Quote:

Hmm. I have yet to see a constitution requiring democratically elected leaders to do exactly what a few public opinion polls tell them to.

Of course not. But when governments become as estranged from their public as they appear to be now, they do not last long. Look at Thatcher after the introduction of the Poll Tax - she fell within months.

Quote:

If these leaders really thought their populations would hold this against them, I doubt they would be as enthusiastic about it as they are.

They're gambling on war going well and so giving them the power to implement their policies on the future of the EU.

Quote:

I think its rather misleading to compare the two. The Roman Republic had a restricted, but real democratic tradition.

This is wildly inaccurate. For a brief period, there was an all-powerful Senate, or a council of nobles. By good political management, Rome emerged as the dominant power among Latini then Italian people by an elaborate series of alliances. However, road and aquaduct networks, the great buildings and Virgil's epic all emerged under the rule of a well-meaning dictator, with a civil service like Senate.

Quote:

France surrendered when it had fight left in it.

Unlike the Americans then, who looked idly by as every Western Democracy fell to facism. At least they weren't late. The French tried to get the best deal in the face of an indefatigable foe.

Quote:

And they surrendered their Navy, the guns of the Maginot line, and more equipment than ten times that of Belgium, Poland, Norway and Cech.

Are you suggesting any of this could have been used against a well disciplined German army, when it was widely believed to be pointless. Soldiers find it hard to fight with no morale.

As to the French military being cowards, please notice the excellent French SS divisions, who were the last troops defending Berlin in 1945.

Lamunus

beyelzu

1. by brief you mean several hundred years? Rome emerged as the dominant power through military force not so much political ties.

Roads and aqueducts were built during the republic. You seem to imply that this did not occur. Furthermore, Rome's glory days were during the republic and the first hundred or so years of the empire. after that it declined. furthermore, while you did have to be rich to be a senator you did not have to be noble.


2. Maybe america learned that sitting idly by is a bad idea. I love the whole america should have attacked germany sooner. I find it amusing, considering we did attack them in the end and gave aid to both russia and britain during the war even before we declared war on germany.

theyeti

Beyelzu, the Roman Rupublic bore little resemblance to modern democratic republics. It was really an oligarchy where assasination and bribery were the norm. All Roman citizens were allowed to vote, but their votes did not count equally. The voters were split up into "tribes", with each tribe having an equal vote. Not surprisingly, over 90% of the population fit into just one tribe, whereas the patricians had several. The Republic was not any more "free" for most people than the Empire was, but it was good at preventing the abuses typical of all-powerful rulers. But then again it led to civil war...

So when Layman says, "The Roman Republic had a restricted, but real democratic tradition", he must have a different defintion of democracy than the rest of us.

theyeti

Lamunus

It was political coercion and alliance building that helped establish Rome as the primary Italian power. For instance, during the invasion of Pyrrhus (after Rome has invaded Tarentum in Southern Italy) it was Rome's ability to unite differing tribes against the Greek, rather than military prowess - Pyrrhus conquered well into Campania, after all. Rome's tactic of uniting against a common enemy was a Greek stategy used against the Persians, but it was the benefits it gave to the citizens of other tribes (Latini and Roman citizenship) that truly bound them, not crushing military campaigns.

Quote:

Roads and aqueducts were built during the republic. You seem to imply that this did not occur. Furthermore, Rome's glory days were during the republic and the first hundred or so years of the empire. after that it declined. furthermore, while you did have to be rich to be a senator you did not have to be noble.

And what is the difference between "nobles" as we understand the term and senators who control inherited land, wealth and slaves? Certainly, Rome built widely during the Republic, but it was under the determined direction of the Caesars that allowed the great undertakings that are remembered - the road systems which exist today in the motorways, the great harbour of Rome, Justinian's Market etc.

Quote:

2. Maybe america learned that sitting idly by is a bad idea. I love the whole america should have attacked germany sooner. I find it amusing, considering we did attack them in the end and gave aid to both russia and britain during the war even before we declared war on germany.

Of course, America did nothing for similar reasons to France and Britain did nothing before the invasion of Poland. It just grates that Bush then uses this as an argument for action. America only 'stood shoulder to shoulder' with Britain in the Second World War when it was in danger itself.

I do not know about Russia, but the 'aid' given to Britain was the Lend-Lease Agreement, by which the British capital reserves were irreperably drained in return for a few obselete battleships. Before 1941, there were more Americans fighting for Hitler than the Britain.

Lamunus

theyeti

There's a good article about this at Salon.com:

Europe's new world order.

theyeti

Vorkosigan

C'mon. You can't be serious. Do you think the British were cowards for handing the Axis tons and tons of war material in Malaya and at Dunkirk?

The French had a fine army with excellent equipment that was betrayed by stodgy generals, terrible intelligence services, and -- oh, I can't resist saying it -- political conservatives (sound like anyone in this conversation?) in the government and ruling parties who were more at home with Hitler than with their own government. See people like the disgusting Pierre Laval, for example. The Third Republic was rife with ideological betrayal. Everybody spied on everybody. Generals like Parisot, Faucher and Palasse who understood the strategic situation and made realistic assessments of the intentions of the powers were brushed off. The French intelligence services overestimated German strength while missing its innovative tactical advances. French codes were read by every nation in Europe except the hapless British, and at Munich, Hitler knew that the French would not support the Czechs despite their public comments.

The French Army was sold out by its leaders. Brave soldiers and, well-led in many cases (De Gaulle's armored formations, trained and led in the mobile war manner pioneered by -- of all nations -- the British -- scored local successes. They showed that the French Army, properly led, could have defeated the German.) Had the Maginot line been extended, this would all be moot; the Germans never would have entered France at all. The Maginot Line worked to perfection, as it stopped cold German and Italian forces that encountered it.

Cowards? When the government fled, it did so to recrminations. Many wanted to fight on. But the -- need I even point it out? -- right-wing was so eager to bend and spread'em for Hitler that they couldn't wait to surrender. The French Army was not betrayed by the Left, Layman, but by people of your political persuasion, who thought Hitler was the best thing that ever happened to Europe.

Vorkosigan

pz

Molly Ivins has an excellent column on this subject.

leonarde

Posted by August Spies:Well said. We political types do not have any sense of humor that we are aware of.

Cheers!

seanie

Estimates vary but considerably more than 100,000 French soldiers may have died in WWII.