As the sculpted head of Winston Churchill has been moved back into the Oval Office and our new PM Theresa May has just visited the USA I thought that I would ask about this relationship, beyond the very nice ones that exist in the GMG Forum (and with many other nationalities too). Did Mrs May's visit get much coverage in the USA? The British press made a lot of the photo of President Trump and Mrs May holding hands. Personally I thought that Mrs May seemed a bit 'out of her depth' and uncomfortable during the visit. Is the 'Special Relationship' an unrequited love affair, perhaps best characterised by President Roosevelt's comment during World War Two that: 'I like Winston [Churchill] but not as much as he likes me.'?
Forgive me if we've done this before but it seems especially apposite now.
The May visit got a decent amount of coverage, and generally there is positive coverage about the so-called special relationship, but the Roosevelt statement still more or less holds true. It is not a relationship of equals. I certainly hope it remains positive, as the US has closer security ties with the English speaking world than the non-English speaking world.
Quote from: Todd on January 29, 2017, 02:20:32 PM
The May visit got a decent amount of coverage, and generally there is positive coverage about the so-called special relationship, but Roosevelt statement still more or less holds true. It is not a relationship of equals. I certainly hope it remains positive, as the US has closer security ties with the English speaking world than the non-English speaking world.
Thank you Todd. That is very much my take on it too.
Frankly, it was pretty painful to watch May pleading with Trump for closer relations, "especially now we are leaving the EU"...
Trump thought that Brexit would be "great" for the UK and he was "a 100% behind Nato".....according to May... ::)
Somehow the UK government hopes that Trump is going to offer them a trade deal that is more advantageous to the UK than the deal that is already in place between the EU and the US. And the improved deal is supposed to make up for the economic loss on the altered trade relations with the EU.
Highly unlikely (or rather: delusional):
1) As Todd already pointed out the US and the UK are on unequal footing.
This will not be a negotiation but a situation in which the US will be stating the terms, and protectionist "America first" Trump is not going to hand out any favours....
2) The EU is a far more important trading partner to the UK than the US.
UK trade with rest of EU: 53% of imports, 44% of exports.
UK trade with US: 8.4 % of imports, 16.6 % of exports
Bottom line: due to the strong position of the EU there already is a very good trade deal with the US, how is the UK going to get a better deal from a weakened position?
In the US there is a new name for this kind of fantasies: "alternative facts"... 8)
UK-US trade deal will have 'very small upsides' for Britain, says former Bank of England economist (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-us-trade-deal-donald-trump-theresa-may-meeting-benefits-eu-single-market-small-upsides-bank-of-a7546866.html)
Q
I almost forgot: the embarrassing scene is set to be repeated on a grander, more "royal" scale....
Britain has a tradition of controversial state visits – Trump will fit in well (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/30/donald-trump-state-visit-uk-controversial-tradition)
You have to admire the ability of the UK government of making the worst of a bad situation....
Q
1) An area of dilemma and conflicts these days, immediately after May´s visit, is Trump´s travel ban, which he claims was set up for security reasons. It also affects at least some people with dual citizenship, or even people just born in one of the blacklisted countries; for example it is estimated that the travel ban seems to immediately hit up to 57,000 people from Denmark too. If such numbers hold, it will be significantly more people as regards the UK. Apparently, there is now a lot of confusion whether UK citizens are excepted from the procedures or not - the UK foreign minister Boris Johnson has claimed they are, but this was then rejected by the US embassy in the UK. Johnson had already taken to Twitter to say: "We will protect the rights and freedoms of UK nationals home and abroad. Divisive and wrong to stigmatise because of nationality." He avoided mentioning the religious aspect, though.
2) Another, if minor, source of political troubles domestically in the UK, is the petition for not receiving Trump on a planned state visit, which so far has received 1 mio signatures, probably reaching a good deal further signatures in the end.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/british-dual-citizens-will-now-allowed-travel-us-boris-johnson/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/muslim-ban-exemption-donald-trump-theresa-may-fall-out-a7552321.html
BTW, everything points to a worsening of the US-Germany relationship during a Trump presidency, which I personally wouldn´t rule out could last for 8 years, unless he is caught in obviously illegal actions.
I dont know if it is because of her personality but each time I listen to Theresa May, I have the definite impression that deep down in her she does not believe in her own politics. I always feel her expression contrived, uncertain. Giving such an impression is not good as she wishes to lead negociations with the EU, or US, or Switzerland, or Turkey.
My feeling is her days at 10 Downing street are counted.
Quote from: Spineur on January 30, 2017, 06:51:29 AM
I dont know if it is because of her personality but each time I listen to Theresa May, I have the definite impression that deep down in her she does not believe in her own politics. I always feel her expression contrived, uncertain. Giving such an impression is not good as she wishes to lead negociations with the EU, or US, or Switzerland, or Turkey.
Right, her expressions and body language seem to be at odds with what she is saying.
Or maybe the rest of us has just become too alienated from the traditional manners of the British upper classes ...
Thank you very much for all the replies and I'm inclined to agree that everything that has been said so far. It's all kicking-off here on the BBC Radio this morning over the state visit for President Trump, which some commentators have considered as premature, putting The Queen in an 'embarrassing situation' etc.
Quote from: vandermolen on January 31, 2017, 01:08:00 AM
Thank you very much for all the replies and I'm inclined to agree that everything that has been said so far. It's all kicking-off here on the BBC Radio this morning over the state visit for President Trump, which some commentators have considered as premature, putting The Queen in an 'embarrassing situation' etc.
Without commenting on the specifics of any of this, I would have thought that it was up to the Queen and no one else to decide whether, to what extent and for what reasons she might consider herself to be put in an "embarrassing situation" over the impending state visit either by Theresa May or by anyone else; the only questions might be whether Ms May announced that state visit without first consulting the Queen on it and whether she then insisted that it would not be cancelled having first discussed
that with the Queen.
Quote from: ahinton on January 31, 2017, 01:19:18 AM
Without commenting on the specifics of any of this, I would have thought that it was up to the Queen and no one else to decide whether, to what extent and for what reasons she might consider herself to be put in an "embarrassing situation" over the impending state visit either by Theresa May or by anyone else; the only questions might be whether Ms May announced that state visit without first consulting the Queen on it and whether she then insisted that it would not be cancelled having first discussed that with the Queen.
Good point - I don't feel that strongly about it personally - many here have no problem with it.
Quote from: Turner on January 30, 2017, 06:46:43 AM
1) An area of dilemma and conflicts these days, immediately after May´s visit, is Trump´s travel ban, which he claims was set up for security reasons. It also affects at least some people with dual citizenship, or even people just born in one of the blacklisted countries; for example it is estimated that the travel ban seems to immediately hit up to 57,000 people from Denmark too. If such numbers hold, it will be significantly more people as regards the UK. Apparently, there is now a lot of confusion whether UK citizens are excepted from the procedures or not - the UK foreign minister Boris Johnson has claimed they are, but this was then rejected by the US embassy in the UK. Johnson had already taken to Twitter to say: "We will protect the rights and freedoms of UK nationals home and abroad. Divisive and wrong to stigmatise because of nationality." He avoided mentioning the religious aspect, though.
(....)
Information by US authorities now seems to suggest that dual citizenship will not qualify for a travel ban, apparently concerning a lot of countries.
Quote from: Turner on January 31, 2017, 08:42:25 AM
Information by US authorities now seems to suggest that dual citizenship will not qualify for a travel ban, apparently concerning a lot of countries.
Indeed and this is just one of the "exceptions" that continue to rise to the surface...
Doesn't seem to be going very well at the moment. Any views?
"Donald Trump Could Run Afoul of U.K. Law for Retweeting British Fascists"
The demands for legal action (banning Trump) are certainly there, from some people.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/29/president-united-states-spent-morning-retweeting-british-fascists/
Quote from: Turner on November 30, 2017, 11:58:21 AM
"Donald Trump Could Run Afoul of U.K. Law for Retweeting British Fascists"
The demands for legal action (banning Trump) are certainly there, from some people.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/29/president-united-states-spent-morning-retweeting-british-fascists/
This seems rather fanciful. Perhaps an actual expert on UK law, particularly pertaining to diplomatic immunity and international relations, would be able to explain how the president, who is the chief diplomat of the United States, as well as the Head of State, has "veered into dangerous territory" in the UK. The attempted analogy with someone like Geert Wilders seems pretty flimsy. Given the UK's current status, and its apparent desire to craft a trade agreement with the US, this looks to me to be grandstanding and nothing more.
Quote from: vandermolen on November 30, 2017, 11:47:33 AM
Doesn't seem to be going very well at the moment. Any views?
The ironic aspect is that the American right constantly complained about the (mostly imaginary) snubs Obama inflicted on the British...now of course they are cheering for Trump's snubs because he's snubbing the right sort of people.
The Royal wedding should patch things up.
8)
The British are discovering, like all of us, that the postwar world as we once knew it is coming to an end....
The parallel with the 1930's is striking.... Not that we are going another rise of fascism or another world war (well let's hope so...perhaps a war).
But the similar unravelling of current global power structures and alliances, traditional political and social values is uncanning... And in several quarters the hardright has taken power.
No UK, there is no special relationship with the US anymore....
And the US government no longer stands for traditional Western values anymore. I wouldn't even call its leadership halfway decent and it is definitely not reliable, which is the basis of any international alliance. So you might not even consider yourselves allies anymore...
So, who are the UK's allies....now it is burning its bridges with the European Union? ::)
The UK has lost its course... In the bad times ahead, you'll need all the friends you can get. And it will not be the US.
Q
Quote from: Spineur on January 30, 2017, 06:51:29 AM
I dont know if it is because of her personality but each time I listen to Theresa May, I have the definite impression that deep down in her she does not believe in her own politics. I always feel her expression contrived, uncertain. Giving such an impression is not good as she wishes to lead negociations with the EU, or US, or Switzerland, or Turkey.
My feeling is her days at 10 Downing street are counted.
She's only still there cos no one else wants the gig currently. The Tories are publicly divided and Brexit looks a bigger shambles by the day. No Tory wants that job currently.
As to her politics. Who knows what they are. She is a schemer, a liar and incompetent. She's PM through luck and doing whatever she felt was needed. She quietly supported Remain prior to the referendum (cos she thought that was the winning side). Then, given the result, instantly became a Leaver. She has no fundamental principles, or at least any she is prepared to act upon if they get in the way of her scheming. Her lack of compassion, empathy and warmth are further reasons why her popularity has fallen off a cliff (probably the same cliff the selfish, incompetent Tories are prepared to take us over in the name of personal ambition and keeping in "power.")
So that's the UK's contribution to the special relationship. And then there's the vile abomination on the other side. As a minor detail, hopefully he won't be coming over to the UK. If he does he really will draw the largest crowd ever, period. But it won't be a welcome.
Quote from: Que on November 30, 2017, 10:30:47 PM
The British are discovering, like all of us, that the postwar world as we once knew it is coming to an end....
The parallel with the 1930's is striking.... Not that we are going another rise of fascism or another world war (well let's hope so...perhaps a war).
But the similar unravelling of current global power structures and alliances, traditional political and social values is uncanning... And in several quarters the hardright has taken power.
No UK, there is no special relationship with the US anymore....
And the US government no longer stands for traditional Western values anymore. I wouldn't even call its leadership halfway decent and it is definitely not reliable, which is the basis of any international alliance. So you might not even consider yourselves allies anymore...
So, who are the UK's allies....now it is burning its bridges with the European Union? ::)
The UK has lost its course... In the bad times ahead, you'll need all the friends you can get. And it will not be the US.
Q
Sadly I totally agree with you.
Quote from: ahinton on January 31, 2017, 01:19:18 AM
Without commenting on the specifics of any of this, I would have thought that it was up to the Queen and no one else to decide whether, to what extent and for what reasons she might consider herself to be put in an "embarrassing situation" over the impending state visit either by Theresa May or by anyone else; the only questions might be whether Ms May announced that state visit without first consulting the Queen on it and whether she then insisted that it would not be cancelled having first discussed that with the Queen.
Liz has to shake hands with whoever is put in front of her (e.g. Mugabe). Likewise, at the state opening of Parliament: she reads out what "My Government" is going to do but it is just words given to her.
If Trump does visit (May won't lose face by cancelling it) I think it will be downgraded to a swift "business" visit, to try to avoid 1m people descending on Downing Street. Trump can sneak in the back door, tell her how brilliant he is then fuck off back to his golf course.
Quote from: nodogen on December 01, 2017, 02:49:01 AM
Liz has to shake hands with whoever is put in front of her (e.g. Mugabe). Likewise, at the state opening of Parliament: she reads out what "My Government" is going to do but it is just words given to her.
If Trump does visit (May won't lose face by cancelling it) I think it will be downgraded to a swift "business" visit, to try to avoid 1m people descending on Downing Street. Trump can sneak in the back door, tell her how brilliant he is then fuck off back to his golf course.
It was a big mistake for the PM to arrange a full State visit - can't see that happening now. There would be too many demonstrations.
Quote from: vandermolen on December 02, 2017, 07:20:45 AM
It was a big mistake for the PM to arrange a full State visit - can't see that happening now. There would be too many demonstrations.
But she has a pair of pure tin political ears. She appears not to be able to accurately anticipate the consequences of anything. Come hell or high water, she'll have Trump's state visit. Because that'll smooth a trade deal, won't it. Won't it?
Quote from: Turbot nouveaux on December 02, 2017, 12:01:56 PM
But she has a pair of pure tin political ears. She appears not to be able to accurately anticipate te consequences of anything. Come hell or high water, she'll have Trump's state visit. Because that'll smooth a trade deal, won't it. Won't it?
Interesting and you could be right - we will see!
Quote from: Turbot nouveaux on December 02, 2017, 12:01:56 PM
But she has a pair of pure tin political ears. She appears not to be able to accurately anticipate te consequences of anything. Come hell or high water, she'll have Trump's state visit. Because that'll smooth a trade deal, won't it. Won't it?
That must be the trade deal that will allow the US to dump cheap food on the UK market? ::)
I'm sure British farmers will be absolutely delighted... ;)
Q
Trump dumps: the not so special relationship
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d701e608d215383b8567b31a58a93a0871148f9f/21_12_4687_2601/master/4687.jpg?w=940&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=6c2125363773646cf41004d1f88fa8fc)
Q
Apart from the historical connection and common (ish) language, I'm not sure there is much of a "relationship", special or otherwise. There seems to be a real cultural chasm between the two countries. The fact that Trump can get wide support in one of the countries is symptomatic of this, I believe. Each day, looking at the press I regularly see examples of this cultural divide. Just a couple at random, today:
A tweet from Trump in support of a candidate:
"Doug Jones is Pro-Abortion, weak on Crime, Military and Illegal Immigration, Bad for Gun Owners and Veterans and against the WALL. Jones is a Pelosi/Schumer Puppet. Roy Moore will always vote with us. VOTE ROY MOORE!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322293 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322293)
(oh dear, I've just read "10 things Roy Moore believes." I wish I hadn't)
and on a personal "street-level" experience:
"I had also been reliably informed, and indeed had formed the impression myself, that LA represented the most liberal corner of North America and if I was going to be welcomed anywhere it would be there. I was involved in a racial incident within the first 24 hours of my arrival." ...continues...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/12/how-did-i-handle-casual-racism-in-los-angeles-awkwardly (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/12/how-did-i-handle-casual-racism-in-los-angeles-awkwardly)
Whether or not these two things seem "ok" or defensible to you, probably shows which side of the "special relationship" you are on.
Quote from: nodogen on December 12, 2017, 08:02:41 AM
Apart from the historical connection and common (ish) language, I'm not sure there is much of a "relationship", special or otherwise. There seems to be a real cultural chasm between the two countries. The fact that Trump can get wide support in one of the countries is symptomatic of this, I believe. Each day, looking at the press I regularly see examples of this cultural divide. Just a couple at random, today:
A tweet from Trump in support of a candidate:
"Doug Jones is Pro-Abortion, weak on Crime, Military and Illegal Immigration, Bad for Gun Owners and Veterans and against the WALL. Jones is a Pelosi/Schumer Puppet. Roy Moore will always vote with us. VOTE ROY MOORE!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322293 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42322293)
(oh dear, I've just read "10 things Roy Moore believes." I wish I hadn't)
and on a personal "street-level" experience:
"I had also been reliably informed, and indeed had formed the impression myself, that LA represented the most liberal corner of North America and if I was going to be welcomed anywhere it would be there. I was involved in a racial incident within the first 24 hours of my arrival." ...continues...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/12/how-did-i-handle-casual-racism-in-los-angeles-awkwardly (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/12/how-did-i-handle-casual-racism-in-los-angeles-awkwardly)
Whether or not these two things seem "ok" or defensible to you, probably shows which side of the "special relationship" you are on.
Observation 1
The same sort of people who support Trump here are the same sort who support Jacob Reese-Moog (I'm too lazy to look up his actual name) there. And remember only about one-third of the electorate actually support him.
Observation 2
LA is a big city, with plenty of conservative voters in the outlying areas, and California actually has plenty of conservative voters despite progressive dominance, especially in the northern half of the state. San Francisco (home turf of Nancy Pelosi and former turf of Colin Kaepernick) is much more liberal, in part because it has a much higher percentage of gays than most cities (or at least, used to).
Observation 3
Until the current generation, immigrants/visitors from South Central Asia were not terribly common, and it's quite possible many Americans have interacted with South Asians only as people on the other end of a call to a customer service center in Bangalore or Lahore, and not in the flesh
I didn't realise "South Central Asians" were such a rarity in the US!
Quote from: nodogen on December 12, 2017, 11:29:42 PM
I didn't realise "South Central Asians" were such a rarity in the US!
Compared to East Asians--that is, China, Korea, Japan--and Southeast Asians--that is, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Malayasia, Indonesia and the Philippines--yes. Which is logical. If you live in the former Raj, you will probably focus on the UK in preference to the US. In fact, a considerable number of Hindus in the US are actually immigrants from Trinidad and other parts of the former British West Indies, descendants of those who immigrated out of India to the BWI a century or more ago.
Is there, btw, a better term to refer to those who come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 13, 2017, 05:32:47 PM
Is there, btw, a better term to refer to those who come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka?
Looking at Wiki confirms what you made me realise, the terms vary depending on where you live. 🧐
In the UK I think I may be typical (but I could be wrong!). "Asian" would be taken to mean the region you ask about (India etc). It is also common to use the term "Indian" to mean people from that whole region.
For East Asia - we might call the region "the Far East", but the term "Far Eastern" (!) is not used in reference to the people of those countries.
Generally, in common speech we don't use any identifiers souch as East, South etc, unless the context of the conversation requires.
Plenty of threads to post this:
(This one, the Royal wedding thread, the Brexit thread and the Trump thread)
Trump may deny the UK a Brexit trade deal if he's snubbed from Prince Harry's wedding (https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-brexit-deal-harry-meghan-markle-wedding-2018-1/)
A "friend" that considers to be your master and expects subservience.
Now, the Anglo-American relationship was, after the British lost their empire, never on equal footing... But this is taking it to another level altogether... One would almost forget that the US is quickly loosing clout on the international stage itself....
Note the alleged view of Trump of the British monarch.... 8)
Q
Quote from: Que on January 07, 2018, 04:18:49 AM... But this is taking it to another level altogether... One would almost forget that the US is quickly loosing clout on the international stage itself....
Note the alleged view of Trump of the British monarch.... 8)
Q
But remember that Trump is a genius of
- imposture ?
- provocation ?
- megalomania ?
- unreason ?
Quote from: nodogen on December 12, 2017, 11:29:42 PM
I didn't realise "South Central Asians" were such a rarity in the US!
They are not - about 1% of the population vs Chinese Americans about 1.5%.
Quote from: Que on January 07, 2018, 04:18:49 AM
Plenty of threads to post this:
(This one, the Royal wedding thread, the Brexit thread and the Trump thread)
Trump may deny the UK a Brexit trade deal if he's snubbed from Prince Harry's wedding (https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-brexit-deal-harry-meghan-markle-wedding-2018-1/)
A "friend" that considers to be your master and expects subservience.
Now, the Anglo-American relationship was, after the British lost their empire, never on equal footing... But this is taking it to another level altogether... One would almost forget that the US is quickly loosing clout on the international stage itself....
Note the alleged view of Trump of the British monarch.... 8)
Q
Just when you think it can't get any worse! What a perfect storm; royalty, poltics and the Orange man-child.
May's idiotic visit invitation is looking set for a February date. Which will it be - brief, private and brilliantly successful, or full, public, massive protests and brilliantly successful?
Quote from: nodogen on January 07, 2018, 08:27:39 AM
Just when you think it can't get any worse! What a perfect storm; royalty, poltics and the Orange man-child.
May's idiotic visit invitation is looking set for a February date. Which will it be - brief, private and brilliantly successful, or full, public, massive protests and brilliantly successful?
Poor prince Harry.... I would resist inviting Trump at any cost....
Turning it into a private wedding for close friends & family and perhaps foreign royalty might be the best option...
Q
Quote from: Que on January 07, 2018, 04:18:49 AM
Plenty of threads to post this:
(This one, the Royal wedding thread, the Brexit thread and the Trump thread)
Trump may deny the UK a Brexit trade deal if he's snubbed from Prince Harry's wedding (https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-brexit-deal-harry-meghan-markle-wedding-2018-1/)
A "friend" that considers to be your master and expects subservience.
Now, the Anglo-American relationship was, after the British lost their empire, never on equal footing... But this is taking it to another level altogether... One would almost forget that the US is quickly loosing clout on the international stage itself....
Note the alleged view of Trump of the British monarch.... 8)
Q
While it's believable, the source is Wolff's speculation. I suggest taking it with more than a few grains of salt.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 07, 2018, 09:35:58 AM
While it's believable, the source is Wolff's speculation. I suggest taking it with more than a few grains of salt.
True comment on the source... But as you say - it is entirely plausible, even likely IMO.
Q
I foresee a second Burning of Washington in the making - the remaining Trump clan (two interns courageously led by Stephen Miller) fleeing to Brookeville, Maryland, restoring it once again as the United States Capital: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington :D
Quote from: vandermolen on December 02, 2017, 07:20:45 AMIt was a big mistake for the PM to arrange a full State visit - can't see that happening now. There would be too many demonstrations.
O, but he will be very happy to see these "big, big crowds, really BIG" all coming out in admiration for his genius. :laugh:
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bbf3be7428f9888643e95e6d5784616336cdd0db/53_50_1617_2173/master/1617.jpg?w=780&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=87a3b6316013da591e931b8e46611436)
Looking in all respects as the Putian agent he may in fact be.
Yes, no more 'Special Relationship' if one ever existed.
Let me tell all you Brits something which is merely a repetition of something you likely already know: every single word that comes out of that man's mouth is a lie. I know The Mail lies a lot anyway, so you have pre-filtered it for that, but if he actually spoke to them, and that's what he said there in the headlines? It's a fucking lie, he said nothing of the sort to Teresa May except in some fantasy wet dream world he occupied during his sleep last night. BoJo indeed... ::)
8)
Quote from: vandermolen on July 13, 2018, 03:21:46 AM
Yes, no more 'Special Relationship' if one ever existed.
Many American feel a deep kinship with Brits that goes beyond present circumstances.
Trump makes claims about European NATO expenditures being owed to the U.S., a bizarre notion, but note he can't be appeased by increases in those expenditures, and his attempts to destroy the alliance actually run contrary to the idea that he has a practical goal at all. In this he is acting exactly as he does on policy generally, as each issue is used for the purpose of exacerbating divisions and not at all for arriving at a consensus on any of them.
Quote from: drogulus on July 13, 2018, 08:23:02 AM
Many American feel a deep kinship with Brits that goes beyond present circumstances.
Nice to hear - thanks.
:)
Quote from: drogulus on July 13, 2018, 08:23:02 AM
Trump makes claims about European NATO expenditures being owed to the U.S., a bizarre notion
Bizarre???
Who saved Western Europe from Hitler? The USA. (any notion that the USSR could have done it alone is insane; leaving aside they could not have done it alone militarily, if the USSR had had their way the regime they would have imposed on WE countries would not have been any better than the Nazis, not even for the Jews).
Who rebuilt the economy of the WE countries from scratch, starting with Germany and Italy? The USA through the Marshall Plan.
Who contained the USSR threatening of, and expansion into, WE countries? The USA through NATO (any notion that the Red Army would not have victoriously marched as far as Lisbon absent the USA firmly establishing a red line more or less west of Vienna --- Prague is actually west of Vienna --- is idiotic).
So yes, in this respect Trump is absolutely right: Western Europe has a human, moral and material debt to the USA --- and simply spending 2% of their GDP on NATO is actually not even the beginning of repayment.
Quote from: Florestan on July 13, 2018, 01:45:05 PM
Bizarre???
Who saved Western Europe from Hitler? The USA. (any notion that the USSR could have done it alone is insane; leaving aside they could not have done it alone militarily, if the USSR had had their way the regime they would have imposed on WE countries would not have been any better than the Nazis, not even for the Jews).
Who rebuilt the economy of the WE countries from scratch, starting with Germany and Italy? The USA through the Marshall Plan.
Who contained the USSR threatening of, and expansion into, WE countries? The USA through NATO (any notion that the Red Army would not have victoriously marched as far as Lisbon absent the USA firmly establishing a red line more or less west of Vienna --- Prague is actually west of Vienna --- is idiotic).
So yes, in this respect Trump is absolutely right: Western Europe has a human, moral and material debt to the USA --- and simply spending 2% of their GDP on NATO is actually not even the beginning of repayment.
Agree with you about the Marshall Plan and the debt to the USA but don't agree that the Jews would not have been better off under a soviet regime. Stalin was an anti-Semite but there was no plan of mass extermination as far as I can see. There were leading Jewish communists but not Nazis of course. Also I'm not sure that Stalin would have pushed further west although he did say (at Yalta I think) 'Tsar Alexander got to Paris' when congratulated by one of the western allies on the achievement of the Red Army! Also, Finland, who had assisted the Germans in invading Russia, were not occupied by Stalin and nor was Greece which had a strong communist presence. My own view is that Stalin was only really interested in countries with a border with the USSR. I agree of course that one form of totalitarian tyranny was replaced by another in these countries and about the western debt to the USA and USSR at this time. Obviously there are many different views on Stalin's motives here. Also, of course the USA remained neutral until attacked by the Japanese and then Hitler declared war on the USA. The USSR remained allies of Hitler until attacked. Without wishing to overstate Britains's contribution it was the only country to fight against the Nazis from September 1939 until 1945 along with their Dominion allies.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 14, 2018, 01:09:45 AM
Agree with you about the Marshall Plan and the debt to the USA but don't agree that the Jews would not have been better off under a soviet regime. Stalin was an anti-Semite but there was no plan of mass extermination as far as I can see. There were leading Jewish communists but not Nazis of course.
Fair enough.
QuoteFinland, who had assisted the Germans in invading Russia, were not occupied by Stalin
Finland is a special case in that they are the only country that defeated the Red Army in one war and succesfully resisted it in another. A tough nut to crack and Stalin got his lesson.
Quoteand nor was Greece which had a strong communist presence.
Greece was actually exchanged for Romania by Churchill and Stalin who agreed on 90% Western influence in Greece against 90% Soviet influence in Romania --- which in practice meant 100% in both cases. An immoral but completely understandable bargain: Greece was strategically much more important than Romania. Also, the communists were crushed in a bloody civil war.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement)
Quote
My own view is that Stalin was only really interested in countries with a border with the USSR.
Hungary or Czechoslovakia had only very tiny borders with USSR and Yugoslavia and Bulgaria had none.
Stalin was actually interested in whatever he could grab without much trouble.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 14, 2018, 01:09:45 AM
Without wishing to overstate Britains's contribution it was the only country to fight against the Nazis from September 1939 until 1945 along with their Dominion allies.
The Yugoslavian and Greek partisans deserve to be mentioned too in this respect.
Quote from: Florestan on July 14, 2018, 01:27:09 AM
Fair enough.
Finland is a special case in that they are the only country that defeated the Red Army in one war and succesfully resisted it in another. A tough nut to crack and Stalin got his lesson.
Greece was actually exchanged for Romania by Churchill and Stalin who agreed on 90% Western influence in Greece against 90% Soviet influence in Romania --- which in practice meant 100% in both cases. An immoral but completely understandable bargain: Greece was strategically much more important than Romania. Also, the communists were crushed in a bloody civil war.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement)
Hungary or Czechoslovakia had only very tiny borders with USSR.
Stalin was actually interested in whatever he could grab without much trouble.
I do agree about Finland being a special case. My understanding was that Czechoslovakia went communist in 1948 following an internal communist coup, although I suspect the soviets played their part ('suicide' of Jan Masaryk for example). I take your point about Churchill and Greece/Romania - no excuse for him dividing up British and Soviet 'interests' with a pencil at Yalta.
Quote from: Florestan on July 14, 2018, 01:30:56 AM
The Yugoslavian and Greek partisans deserve to be mentioned too in this respect.
Of course, not to mention French/Polish/Dutch/Czech/Danish resistance etc.
Quote from: Florestan on July 13, 2018, 01:45:05 PM
Bizarre???
Agree with everything Jeffrey wrote, including the Marshall aide and indebtedness of Western Europe - not only moral, but also in many other respects.
Yet that doesn't make Trump - who has no clue about all this - less bizarre. NATO is a treaty, not an intergovernmental organization like the EU. There's no contribution, there are only commitments being made - as indeed the 29 members did again, last week. European military spending is actually higher than the American. And Eurooea money is often spent in the American military industry - which has always been one of the main beneficials from NATO. That the US invest more of their GNP in the military has more to do with a) the interests of this military complex and b) the unjustified wars it choose to fight against Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (the latter with some European support), So far, NATO did perhaps serve American interests more than European. Though I agree NATO is absolutely important in areas like the Baltics, the Balkans and the Aegean.
Countries never act out of altruistic motives, I'm afraid... ::)
Britain took the lead in WWII because German domination was a direct thread to its interest as a major global and European power. But it looked the other way when Germany violated the Versailles Treaties by rearming, and again when Germany overtook Austria, and sacrificed the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia in Munich.
The US, as mentioned, looked the other way untill it was attacked.
Stalin knew Hitler was a thread but struck a deal to buy time by carving up Poland.
The post war Marshall aid that was so benificial to Western European countries, was part of the US policy to resist Soviet domination in Europe - for its own benefit. Did British resistance and US intervention and subsequent support save Europe and Western democracy? Yes of course it did. But both the US and the UK acted to safeguard their own empires, their gobal power.
Freedom in Europe, including the later expansion of NATO and the EU to Eastern Europe, is "just" a byproduct of a global powerstrugle.
As post war history has demonstrated, the US and other Western powers had no problem whatsoever to undermine democracy in certain countries and violate the rule of (international) law when it suited them.
Of course nobody told that to the soldiers dying in the battle field of WW II. They died for freedom and democracy, and my personal gratitude goes out to them instead of the politicians that send them - and contributed to the mess in the first place.
Q
Quote from: vandermolen on July 14, 2018, 01:38:58 AM
My understanding was that Czechoslovakia went communist in 1948 following an internal communist coup, although I suspect the soviets played their part
Of course they did, just like in Romania where the (in)famous Andrey Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky (nicknamed Jaguaryevich ;D ) pounded the table in front of King Michael and forced him to dismiss the prime-minister in order to install a puppet of the Soviets (March 6, 1945). After 2 years of hopeless resistance (the King went so far as to declare strike, refusing to sign into law the governmental decrees and the legislation passed by the Parliament resulted from the 17 November, 1946 rigged elections) he was forced to abdicate at the point of a gun and Romania went fully communist (December 30, 1947).
Quote from: Florestan on July 13, 2018, 01:45:05 PM
So yes, in this respect Trump is absolutely right: Western Europe has a human, moral and material debt to the USA --- and simply spending 2% of their GDP on NATO is actually not even the beginning of repayment.
I usually stay away from this thread, the other is too exhausting.
However, sure, all of Europe would have been divided into who was speaking German and who, Russian.
(My Romanian informant tells me that Russian was a favored language to learn in the 60's or so.)
Instead, in the near future Europeans will be speaking Arabic, or at least that will become an official language in quite a few countries.
Quote from: Christo on July 14, 2018, 01:46:59 AM
European military spending is actually higher than the American.
False. As per 2017:
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2018/07/20180710_NATO_Expenditure-3.jpg)
US expenditures: 685,957 million US $
All European countries together: 233,081 million US $, i.e. three times less.
Quote from: Que on July 14, 2018, 01:48:15 AM
Countries never act out of altruistic motives, I'm afraid... ::)
Britain took the lead in WWII because German domination was a direct thread to its interest as a major global and European power. But it looked the other way when Germany violated the Versailles Treaties by rearming, and again when Germany overtook Austria, and sacrificed the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia in Munich.
The US, as mentioned, looked the other way untill it was attacked.
Stalin knew Hitler was a thread but struck a deal to buy time by carving up Poland.
The post war Marshall aid that was so benificial to Western European countries, was part of the US policy to resist Soviet domination in Europe - for its own benefit. Did British resistance and US intervention and subsequent support save Europe and Western democracy? Yes of course it did. But both the US and the UK acted to safeguard their own empires, their gobal power.
Freedom in Europe, including the later expansion of NATO and the EU to Eastern Europe, is "just" a byproduct of a global powerstrugle.
As post war history has demonstrated, the US and other Western powers had no problem whatsoever to undermine democracy in certain countries and violate the rule of (international) law when it suited them.
Of course nobody told that to the soldiers dying in the battle field of WW II. They died for freedom and democracy, and my personal gratitude goes out to them instead of the politicians that send them - and contributed to the mess in the first place.
Q
Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I wrote. I focused on actions, you focused on the motives behind them. :)
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on July 14, 2018, 02:36:50 AM
My Romanian informant tells me that Russian was a favored language to learn in the 60's or so.
Actually, it was more like "compulsory" than "favored". ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 14, 2018, 02:56:58 AM
Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I wrote. I focused on actions, you focused on the motives behind them. :)
Correct, and I was not trying to contradict. :D
However, the motives behind these benign historical actions
do matter when reflecting on the degree in which "we Europeans" need to
feel indebted to the US and UK. The US has for a long time considered the EU instrumental in its power base.
The UK, its then junior ally and soon-to-be "vassal state", pushed EU expansion on its behalf to further its geopolitical powerstrugle with Russia.
Why does the US spend more on defence than all its NATO allies? Because it wants to remain the most powerful country in the world.
Why? Amongst other things, to remain the wealthiest nation on the planet. America = no. 1.... ;)
So, on topic:
Rees-Mogg and his Brexit croonies urgently need to reflect in wether they want to be "a colony" of the EU or a (real) vassal state to the US. Membership of the EU in actual fact means for the UK being a major player in a ruled based political and economic alliance of global importance. Though some compromising and loosing a court case now and then is part of the package.
The alternative is being pushed around by the US, which will treat the UK as an extended market for its products and a puppet on the international political stage.
Though choice, because neiter option involves the revival of the British Empire..... >:D
The Empire is
gone, deal with it!
Q
the US Empire is fading fast
Quote from: Que on July 14, 2018, 01:48:15 AM
Countries never act out of altruistic motives, I'm afraid... ::)
Britain took the lead in WWII because German domination was a direct thread to its interest as a major global and European power. But it looked the other way when Germany violated the Versailles Treaties by rearming, and again when Germany overtook Austria, and sacrificed the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia in Munich.
The US, as mentioned, looked the other way untill it was attacked.
Stalin knew Hitler was a thread but struck a deal to buy time by carving up Poland.
The post war Marshall aid that was so benificial to Western European countries, was part of the US policy to resist Soviet domination in Europe - for its own benefit. Did British resistance and US intervention and subsequent support save Europe and Western democracy? Yes of course it did. But both the US and the UK acted to safeguard their own empires, their gobal power.
Freedom in Europe, including the later expansion of NATO and the EU to Eastern Europe, is "just" a byproduct of a global powerstrugle.
As post war history has demonstrated, the US and other Western powers had no problem whatsoever to undermine democracy in certain countries and violate the rule of (international) law when it suited them.
Of course nobody told that to the soldiers dying in the battle field of WW II. They died for freedom and democracy, and my personal gratitude goes out to them instead of the politicians that send them - and contributed to the mess in the first place.
Q
Oh yes, of course Britain went to war in 1939 to protect the interests of the British Empire and try to prevent the complete domination of Europe by Nazi Germany. However, they did, together with their French and Dominion Allies, go to war. I agree about the betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich but for various reasons it would have been difficult for Britain to declare war on Germany then and, for one, it would have split the Empire. However, it was still a betrayal of the Czechs. The French came out of it even worse as they were allies of the Czechs.
As for Marshall Aid one of my students, in answer to my question as to whether or not it was an act of selfless generosity by the Americans replied by saying 'it was generous but not selfless' which I thought was a very good answer and it is my opinion as well.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 14, 2018, 05:40:32 AM
As for Marshall Aid one of my students, in answer to my question as to whether or not it was an act of selfless generosity by the Americans replied by saying 'it was generous but not selfless'
Excellent and spot on!
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on July 14, 2018, 02:36:50 AM
Instead, in the near future Europeans will be speaking Arabic, or at least that will become an official language in quite a few countries.
There is one already: Malta. As for the rest, this prediction is so ot of touch with reality, it tells all about the fake news you rely on.
Arabic is not a language spoken by the Maltese. They wouldn't recognize it if they heard it. Maltese is a descendant of a now extinct siculo-arabic branch spoken in Sicily until around 1300 AD, that got latinized in the last 800 years. It uses the same alphabet as the romance languages, with a few extra letters or diacritics unrelated to the arabic.
Quote from: André on July 17, 2018, 05:46:54 AM
Arabic is not a language spoken by the Maltese. They wouldn't recognize it if they heard it. Maltese is a descendant of a now extinct siculo-arabic branch spoken in Sicily until around 1300 AD, that got latinized in the last 800 years. It uses the same alphabet as the romance languages, with a few extra letters or diacritics unrelated to the arabic.
In short: Malti - or Maltese - is an Arabic language (and easily recognizable as such, which is big fun once you're in Malta): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_language :)
Quote from: Florestan on July 13, 2018, 01:45:05 PM
Bizarre???
Who saved Western Europe from Hitler? The USA. (any notion that the USSR could have done it alone is insane; leaving aside they could not have done it alone militarily, if the USSR had had their way the regime they would have imposed on WE countries would not have been any better than the Nazis, not even for the Jews).
Who rebuilt the economy of the WE countries from scratch, starting with Germany and Italy? The USA through the Marshall Plan.
Who contained the USSR threatening of, and expansion into, WE countries? The USA through NATO (any notion that the Red Army would not have victoriously marched as far as Lisbon absent the USA firmly establishing a red line more or less west of Vienna --- Prague is actually west of Vienna --- is idiotic).
So yes, in this respect Trump is absolutely right: Western Europe has a human, moral and material debt to the USA --- and simply spending 2% of their GDP on NATO is actually not even the beginning of repayment.
No, NATO expenditures are alliance commitments, not owed to a country. Trump thinks any international agreement is someone else getting the better of the U.S. It's part of his mental carnage.
Quote from: Florestan on July 14, 2018, 02:44:36 AM
False. As per 2017:
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2018/07/20180710_NATO_Expenditure-3.jpg)
US expenditures: 685,957 million US $
All European countries together: 233,081 million US $, i.e. three times less.
How much of U.S. expenditure is NATO related? I don't break it down that way because I know why U.S. expenditure is so high, but for those of you who don't it might be worth considering that U.S. military requirements include a large, very expensive navy and air force with world wide reach. We get the most benefit and pay the highest cost. For us the whole world is essentially forward defense. What price should a country be willing to pay so wars would not be fought on its own territory?
Quote from: Christo on July 17, 2018, 12:38:32 PM
In short: Malti - or Maltese - is an Arabic language (and easily recognizable as such, which is big fun once you're in Malta): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_language :)
I know, I've been there. It has evolved way too much to be regarded as arabic in the modern sense.
Very funny! It's the first time I hear Maltese and I can understand a lot of this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/zhGUTLsGgbM
but next to nothing of this:
https://www.youtube.com/v/9h0ff77q1jc
What a strange language.
Now that I think of it, an Italian would understand quite a lot listening to a Romanian documentary about painting but very little listening to two Romanian peasants talking about crops and harvests --- and viceversa. :D
'Mutual intelligibility', which is said to be somewhat between 30 and 40 percent between Maltese and neighbouring Tunesian Arabic, is a very tricky criterium BTW: e.g. as West Germanic languages English and Dutch are close relations, but the 'mutual intelligibility' could be under 5 percent (I could literally make nothing of English when I first saw it). One reason being the 60 to 70 percent of Romance (French and Latin) vocabulary in English, just like there's a high (but lower) percentage in Maltese. Yet that doesn't make English less Germanic, nor Malti less Semitic/Arabic.
Quote from: drogulus on July 17, 2018, 02:39:48 PM
How much of U.S. expenditure is NATO related? I don't break it down that way because I know why U.S. expenditure is so high, but for those of you who don't it might be worth considering that U.S. military requirements include a large, very expensive navy and air force with world wide reach. We get the most benefit and pay the highest cost. For us the whole world is essentially forward defense. What price should a country be willing to pay so wars would not be fought on its own territory?
Now
that is the rub as I see it as well.
How did the UK into this mess? ???
How Trump's arch-hawk lured Britain into a dangerous trap to punish Iran. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/britain-lured-into-deadly-trap-on-iran-by-trump-hawk-john-bolton)
1. These oil supplies have been going on for quite some time, and nobody has lifted a finger. Another country that buys Iranian oil is... China....
2. John Bolton is a known warmonger.
Did the UK want to get in Trump's good book? Because it feels vunerable due to Brexit? ::)
Anyway, John Bolton is laughing his ass of....
Q