The Poles and Russians of the early Auschwitz

[pjotr]

[valpomike]

This is hard to look at, more so, to visit, as I did, knowing I had lost many family there. We all, must make sure, this never happens again.

Mike

[pjotr]

Mike,

I visited the camp too, in 2004, it was good to be there but a tough experiance and historical lesson. Being there was differant than reading, books, articles, essays and watching documentries and movies.
I know what took place there, why it happened, what was the cause of the hatred and inhumanity behind it, and yes, that we all must make sure, as you say, this never happens again.

Pieter

[pjotr]

Sept 10, 2011 17:28:39 GMT 1 valpomike said:

This is hard to look at, more so, to visit, as I did, knowing I had lost many family there. We all, must make sure, this never happens again.

Mike

Mike,

I am sorry you lost family there. That is very sad.
I hope that your visit put things into perspective, like my visit did.
I saw the scale, I saw the two camps that were left there and I had a very good Polish guide. Good informed, factual and decent.

Pieter

[valpomike]

Just make me think, those dam Germans, and the Russians later.

Mike

[pjotr]

Mike,

How many family members did you lose in Auschwitz and the militairy battle at the start of the war in 1939? Today you have new generations of Germans and Russians who do have nothing to do with the Second World War, the Nazi or Sovjet ideology, were brought up in a democratic society, and of whom many are anti-nazi in the case of young and older Germans (not the war generation, the post-war generation and the generation who was born in the war).

Cheers,
Pieter

P.S.- Many Post-war Germans were not indoctrinated by a Hitler Jugend or Bund Deutscher Mädel upbringing and the indoctrination of the Nazi-education system. After the war the American denazification did it's work in Germany. Hating Germans and Russians today isn't reasonable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification


Diese Schandtaten: Eure Schuld! ("These atrocities: Your Fault!") One of the posters distributed by U.S. occupation authorities in the summer of 1945 for the purpose of instilling a sense of collective guilt.

[pjotr]

List of former Nazi Party members

The list of notable people who were at some point members of the Nazi Party, before it was declared illegal and disbanded upon the victory of the Allies. After 1945 many former party members had to go through a process of denazification and some were indicted and convicted at the Nuremberg Trials, or other trials, notably for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Many others evaded capture or managed to escape, in particular with the help of the ODESSA organization. In the mid-1950s, most people convicted during these trials were given amnesty and subsequently released.
Some former party members managed to obtain very important positions in West Germany after the war (e.g. Kurt Georg Kiesinger, Chancellor of West Germany from 1966 to 1969), others were recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) after the war as part of the Gehlen Organization, predecessor of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the West-German intelligence service. In East Germany, the Stasi, the GDR's intelligence service, was alleged to have employed several chief informers and agents who were former SS and Gestapo operatives.


Kurt Georg Kiesinger, Chancellor of West Germany from 1966 to 1969


Hanns-Martin Schleyer (in the Middle of the image) (May 1, 1915 – October 18, 1977) was an SS officer, a German business executive and employer and industry representative, serving as President of the two influential organizations Confederation of German Employers' Associations (BDA) and Federation of German Industries (BDI).

[valpomike]

But we must never forget, what they did to the great people of Poland.

Mike

[pjotr]

Sept 11, 2011 13:24:24 GMT 1 valpomike said:

But we must never forget, what they did to the great people of Poland.

Mike

Mike,

You are right, and we have to be care of totalitarian, anti-democratic, extremist forces that exist and are around. In the same time we have to enjoy our lives, our freedom and democracy.

We have to remember, learn from history and be aware! Sometimes I have the opinion that some youngsters don't know history and therefor repeat the things which happened in the past. Those far right nuts, hooligans, far left radicals (who don't know anything about the Stalinist, Maoist and even Che Guevara's crimes against humanity and war crimes). History should be teached propperly to our pupils and students. All facets, all shades and all elements of it, the truth and the differant perspectives.

Cheers,
Pieter

[tufta]

We have to remember, learn from history and be aware!

Pieter, yes you are right. I wonder what is your opinion on such a case.
In 1939 France, a democratic country at that time, had a treaty with Poland, which said 'we will attack Germany in case it attack France or Poland'. Germany, the totalitarian country, did attack Poland. France, which had a huge land army, did not attack Germany. Should Poland today take France as an NATO ally seriously. If yes, what has changed in France?

[pjotr]

Sept 11, 2011 16:00:18 GMT 1 tufta said:

We have to remember, learn from history and be aware!

Pieter, yes you are right. I wonder what is your opinion on such a case. In 1939 France, a democratic country at that time, had a treaty with Poland, which said 'we will attack Germany in case it attack France or Poland'. Germany, the totalitarian country, did attack Poland. France, which had a huge land army, did not attack Germany. Should Poland today take France as an NATO ally seriously. If yes, what has changed in France?

Dear Tufta,

The declaration of war towards Germany by Great Britain and France on September 3 1939 was nothing but a paper toy. It got the name Phoney War, amd that is a right description. It was called the Twilight War by Winston Churchill, der Sitzkrieg in German ("the sitting war": a play on the word Blitzkrieg), the Bore War (a play on the Boer War), the Polish dziwna wojna ("strange war"), and the French drôle de guerre ("strange/funny war"). The American news magazine TIME called the period the Lullablitz. It did not help Poland. If France and England had had the guts and will to attack Germany, the outcome of the war would have been entirely differant.
Eventhough it would have been a tough war wit a lot of casualties.
Back then, Maybe, Maybe I say, Poland together with France and England could have stopped Nazi Germany. A united French-English front on the South-German French border, British bombardements by the Royal Air Force and the power of the Polish army in the East could have stopped the continued building of a military machine and aspirations of the Third Reich. But there was no Western allied effort, non. The Poles were left alone and betrayed.

Today the world is differant, but I don't think that Poland has to trust other NATO nations to much for their support. Therefor it is important to have a strong Polish army, good equipment, the best special forces, tank brigades, the best artillery, rocket launch systems, military hi-tech, planes and fighter aircrafts (Airforce), Navy and groundforces. Poland is near Russia, near Germany, has problems with Lithuania and Belarus, you don't know the future position of Ukraine (today the Ukraine is a friend, that might change). Central Europe is secure now, but what if the economical crisis grows deeper and when old ultra-nationalist sentiments or new forms of Communism or creapy Populism destabilise the region. Poland needs to be independant, strong, self reliant, and in the same time needs good diplomacy, foreign politics and Real Politiker (realistic or pragmatic politicians) and pragmatic leaders. Poland can't trust the French and British. I don't know about the Americans today. Maybe a Polish-American Volunteer army could come to help Poland.

Cheers,
Pieter

[pjotr]

Sept 11, 2011 16:00:18 GMT 1 tufta said:

We have to remember, learn from history and be aware!

Pieter, yes you are right. I wonder what is your opinion on such a case.
In 1939 France, a democratic country at that time, had a treaty with Poland, which said 'we will attack Germany in case it attack France or Poland'. Germany, the totalitarian country, did attack Poland. France, which had a huge land army, did not attack Germany. Should Poland today take France as an NATO ally seriously. If yes, what has changed in France?

Tufta,

Pure seen in the economical and financial context. What are French interests in Poland? Ar there a lot of French investments and finances (Capital) in Poland? Is there a significant French minority in Poland, or are the Poles and French allies on many political, military and geopolitical issues? Both countries are in the Weimar Triangle with Germany. Positive for Poland in the case of an attack or new occupation is the fact that there are large Polish settlements in Europe and Northern-America. That Polish Diaspora could be a future powerbase for support in the future if Poland keeps being connected to these Polish Diaspora communities.

When I look at France I see an old imperialistic colonial power who stil thinks that way. France has interests in North-Africa (Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia), Western-Africa, Middle Africa, the Middle East (Lebanon and Syria), East Asia and Quebec (French Canada).
Brussels, the capital of Europe is a French speaking European city outside France, due to the French speaking Wallons, and next to that you have a French part of Switserland (Geneva). Next to a Financial-economical and political (strategical, energy, cooperation, agreements, military alliances) reasons there also have to be cultural and linguistic reasons to be allies between countries. How many Poles speak French and how many French people speak Polish? Look at the Netherlands. this week there was bad publicitiy on Dutch tv and written press about the image of Poles in the Netherlands and the Netherlands as settlement place for Polish newcommers. I have good ties with Poland, like Poland, have personal connections. But the majority of the Dutch don't. Germany is inbetween our countries and most Dutch have never been in Poland, don't know Poland and probably never will if they don't have an occasion or reason to go there. How is it with the French?

France and Poland have historical cultural, artistic, political, militairy ties. But France did not aid Poland at the start of the Second World war, while Polish soldiers and officers aided the French when France was attacked in 1940.

Low French morale

The French High Command, was reeling from the shock of the sudden German offensive and was now stung by a sense of defeatism. On the morning of 15 May, French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud telephoned the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill and said "We have been defeated. We are beaten; we have lost the battle." Churchill, attempting to offer some comfort to Reynaud, reminded the Prime Minister of all the times the Germans had broken through the Allied lines in World War I only to be stopped. Reynaud was, however, inconsolable.


French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud

Churchill flew to Paris on 16 May. He immediately recognised the gravity of the situation when he observed that the French government was already burning its archives and was preparing for an evacuation of the capital. In a sombre meeting with the French commanders, Churchill asked General Gamelin, "Où est la masse de manoeuvre?" ["Where is the strategic reserve?"] that had saved Paris in the First World War. "Aucune" ["There is none"] Gamelin replied. After the war, Gamelin claimed his response was "There is no longer any." Churchill described hearing this later as the single most shocking moment in his life. Churchill asked Gamelin where and when the general proposed to launch a counterattack against the flanks of the German bulge. Gamelin simply replied "inferiority of numbers, inferiority of equipment, inferiority of methods".


Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle

Charles de Gaulle

While serving during World War I, Charles de Gaulle reached the rank of captain, commanding a company, and was wounded several times. (In the Battle of Verdun in March 1916, de Gaulle was one of the few survivors of his battalion). De Gaulle continued to serve in the army, and was with the staff of General Maxime Weygand's military mission to Poland as an instructor of Polish Infantry during its war with Communist Russia (February 1919 – March 1921). During this Polish–Soviet War De Gaulle distinguished himself in operations near the River Zbrucz and won the highest Polish military decoration, the Virtuti Militari.
He was promoted to Commandant in the Polish Army and offered a further career in Poland, but chose instead to return to France, where he taught at the École Militaire. Although he was a protégé of his old commander, Marshal Philippe Pétain, De Gaulle believed in the use of tanks and rapid manoeuvres rather than trench warfare.

Would France have listened to de Gaulle and Great Britain to Winston Churchill in the thirtees (both men warned for Nazi Germany and pleaded for rearnement) the Second World war would have been different. The Brits and French should have produced a lot of tanks, modern artillery, armoured vehicles, modern rifles and guns and a strong airforce in the early and mid thirtees. They didn't. We know the result. The French and Brits allowed the nazi's to rearm Germany, while they could have stopped it. They should have prohibited Germany to produce arms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War

[pjotr]

France–Poland relations

Polish-French relations date several centuries, although they became really relevant only with times of French Revolution and reign of Napoleon I. Poles were allies of Napoleon; a large Polish community settled in France in the 19th century, and Poles and French were also allies during the interwar period. The official relations, having cooled down during the Cold War, have improved since the fall of communism. Currently both countries are part of the European Union and NATO.

Before the 18th century


Henry III of France King of Poland and King of France

Polish-French relations were limited until the 18th century, due to geographical distance and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's lack of involvement in the wars of Western Europe. A notable exception occurred in 1573, when Henry III of France was elected as the king of Poland, but he retired from that position the next year. French Order of the Holy Spirit was dedicated to the Holy Spirit for commemorating fact that Henry III was elected King of Poland (1573) and France (1574) on two Pentecosts.
Two Polish Kings Władysław IV Vasa and John II Casimir Vasa were married to a French Princess Ludwika Maria Gonzaga. After his abdication in 1668 John II Casimir returned to France, where he joined the Jesuits and became abbot of Abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris. His heart was buried there. In the late 17th century, Polish king John III Sobieski was married to a French princess, Marie Casimire Louise de la Grange d'Arquien, and tried to forge a Polish-French alliance.
Charles-Paris d'Orléans, François Louis, Prince of Conti, Henri Jules, Prince of Condé, Henri Jules, Prince of Condé, Louis, Prince of Condé (1621–1686) were candidates for the Polish elective throne.


Stanislas Leszczyński King of Poland and Duke of Lorraine and Barrois

18th century

In the early 18th century, Stanisław Leszczyński, king of Poland, who tried to continue Sobieski's efforts and align Poland with France, after losing a civil war in Poland (the War of the Polish Succession), retired to France. In the mid-18th century, his daughter, Polish princess Maria Leszczyńska was the queen consort of France, and wife of Louis XV of France.


Polish princess Maria Leszczyńska

During Anti-Russian Confederation of Bar French Court Royal supported Polish confederates by sending of French officers under Charles François Dumouriez. In the late 18th century both Poland and France entered a revolutionary period, with the French Revolution being a major influence to the reforms of the Great Sejm in Poland. There was, however, never any official Polish-French alliance; in fact France was content to deflect some of its troubles by not allying itself with Poland on purpose, as Poland's neighbors (Kingdom of Prussia, Austrian Empire and Russian Empire) expecting a formation of such an alliance, and seeing Polish reforms as a sign of Jacobinite influence, were busy carrying out the partitions of Poland and had less resources to spare dealing with events in France.

Napoleonic era


Men dressed in Napoleon era uniforms salute with arms during the unveiling ceremony of a Napoleon statue in Warsaw, Poland, Thursday, May 5, 2011. The monument was unveiled on a square in downtown Warsaw, known as Napoleon square before World War II.

Napoleon's creation of the Duchy of Warsaw gave every appearance of the resurrecting of the Polish nation from the political grave to which it had been consigned in the partitions that ended in1795, though in real terms the 'independence' was no more meaningful than that of Congress Poland, which emerged from the Vienna settlement. However, the Duchy represented the hope of true independence, whereas Congress Poland was always in the shadow of Russia.
The other lasting significance of Napoleon's Grand Duchy is that it 'cast off' the old feudal Poland, which still existed, to some degree, under the rule of the partitioning powers. Serfdom was abolished and a modern legal code, on the French model, introduced. But the truly important thing was the contribution the Napoleonic period made towards the creation of a national legend or myth, which was to sustain and comfort Poles down the decades that followed. Amongst other things, it contributed to a belief that the rest of Europe had an abiding interest in the fate of Poland, arising from Bonaparte's support in 1797 for the formation of Polish Legions, recruited from amongst émigrés and other exiles living in Italy. The Polish national anthem, "Dąbrowski's Mazurka", is really a celebration of the Legion's commander, Jan Henryk Dąbrowski, and Napoleon is only mentioned in passing. Indeed, Napoleon's treatment of these soldiers was cynical in the extreme. After the Treaty of Lunéville in 1801, they were sent to the West Indies to suppress the slave revolt in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, the future Haiti. Most never returned.
Napoleon continued to use Poles where it suited him best. Of the fresh forces raised after the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, some 10,000 were actually sent to fight against the Spanish and the British in the Peninsular War. However, it is reasonably safe to assume that the Poles were most enthusiastic about the 1812 war against Russia-which Napoleon called the Second Polish War-as they formed by far the largest foreign contingent of the Grand Army. We have no precise information on what form the peace would have taken if Napoleon had won his war against Alexander, but many Poles held to the belief that it would, at the very least, have led to a fully restored Poland, including Lithuania; a return, in other words, to the situation prior to the first partition in 1772. The whole experience of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw is one of Polish confidence in the promise of Napoleon, a promise of a better future, though there is really nothing that proves he would have fulfilled these expectations.
It really is only fair to say that Polish national determination did make an impact on Czar Alexander I, because he accepted that there could be no return to the position prevailing in 1795, when Poland truly had been extinguished. On his insistence, lands that had fallen to Prussia on the Third Partition, including the city of Warsaw, became part of his new 'Polish State', a satellite state that had a high degree of political latitude and one preserved the Napoleonic code. Alexander may have hoped to transfer some of the fierce loyalty the Poles had formerly shown towards his great rival towards himself; but he merely perpetuated a myth. The hope of a liberal Poland, of Napoleon's Poland was kept alive, until it was all but destroyed in the uprising of 1830-1. Thereafter, most of those who went into exile sought refuge in France, the home of the Napoleon myth, which gave it fresh life. In 1834, from his Paris exile, Adam Mickiewicz wrote his epic poem, Pan Tadeusz, which celebrates Napoleon's entry into Lithuania in 1812 thus; All sure of victory, cry with tears in eyes/God is with Napoleon, and Napoleon is with us!


The great Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz who lived in exile in Paris.

Although the legend declined over the years, especially as Napoleon III offered no support to the Polish rising of 1863, it did not altogether die. It received fresh encouragement in 1918, as France was the only western power that offered unqualified support to the newly independent Poland. May 5, 1921, the hundredth anniversary of Napoleon's death, was formally marked by commemorations across the new nation. And he lives, and will continue to live, in the national anthem.


The Legion's commander, Jan Henryk Dąbrowski

Great Immigration

The Great Emigration was an immigration of political elites from Poland from 1831–1870, particularly after the November Uprising and January Uprising. Since the end of the 18th century, a major role in Polish political life was played by people who carried out their activities outside the country as emigres. Because of this emigration of political elites, much of the political and ideological activity of the Polish intelligentsia during the 18th and 19th centuries was done outside of the lands of partitioned Poland. Most of those political émigrés were based in France, seen by the Poles - freshly influenced by Napoleon - as the bastion of liberty in Europe.
It was during that era that some of the greatest Polish-French personalities lived, such as the composer Frédéric Chopin or the scientist Maria Sklodowska-Curie (Marie Curie).

Interwar period

During the interwar period, Poland and France were political and military allies. The cooperation between them was established under the political agreement signed in Paris on February 19, 1921. Starting with the Blue Army that aided France in World War I and French Military Mission to Poland during the Polish-Soviet War (1919–1921), Franco-Polish Military Alliance was signed in 1921 and continued until German invasion of Poland.

World War II

After Nazi Germany's invasion and occupation of Poland, a new Polish Army formed in France under the command of General Władysław Sikorski in late 1939. Polish units included the 1st Grenadiers Division and others. Polish-French relations were however soured due to French unwillingness to aid Poland (the "Western betrayal"). After the fall of France in 1940 Polish-French relations were mostly ceased, but some Poles became part of the French Resistance.

Cold War

During the Cold War, Polish-French relations were poor, due to both countries being on the opposite sides of the Cold War. However France was - again - a site of a thriving Polish emigrant community (see Kultura and Jerzy Giedroyc). Other prominent members of the Polish community in France of that period have included Rene Goscinny.


Jerzy Giedroyc, (1906 - 2000) was a Polish writer and political activist. A conservative in interwar Poland, after World War II he published and edited a leading Polish-émigré literary-political journal, Kultura (1947–2000). In 2006 the Polish Sejm declared the year 2006 to be the "Year of Jerzy Giedroyc."


René Goscinny (1926 – 1977) was a French-Jewish author with Polish-Jewish parents, editor and humorist, who is best known for the comic book Astérix, which he created with illustrator Albert Uderzo, and for his work on the comic series Lucky Luke with Morris (considered the series' golden age) and Iznogoud with Jean Tabary.

Post-1991


Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Polish Prime Minister, on the left, and French President Jacques Chirac on the right.

Polish-French relations have improved after the fall of communism. France, as a founding member of the European Community, European Union, and NATO, as well as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a nuclear power, is one of Poland's principal political, economic, cultural, scientific and technological partners. The year 2004 marked a breakthrough in Polish-French relations. After a period of tension caused by different approaches to the Iraq crisis and the European Constitution negotiations, relations improved. After the accession of Poland to the European Union on May 1, 2004, meetings of the heads of state from both countries have been organized yearly.





France is the largest contributor of foreign direct investment in Poland. The French companies with the largest presence in Poland include France Télécom, Vivendi, Carrefour, Casino, Crédit Agricole, Saint Gobain and Auchan.
Controversy was caused by the phrase "Polish Plumber", which appeared in France around 2005.
About one million ethnic Poles live in France, concentrated in the Nord-Pas de Calais region, in the metropolitan area of Lille and the coal-mining region (bassin minier) around Lens and Valenciennes. Polish mineurs' descendants are also found in Auberny.
Polish-French intergovernmental consultations have taken place three times. Last such summit took place on November 5, 2009 in Paris with President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister Donald Tusk.


President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister Donald Tusk in Paris on November 5, 2009

[pjotr]

Weimar Triangle


Political map of the "Weimar Triangle"

The term "Weimar Triangle" refers to a loose grouping of Poland, Germany, and France. The group is intended to promote co-operation between the three countries. It exists mostly in the form of summit meetings between the leaders of these three countries, the most recent of which occurred on February 7, 2011. Previous meetings took place in Poznań, Poland (1998), Nancy, France (1999), Hambach, Germany (2001) and Nancy, France (2005). The Weimar Triangle also involves lower-level connections, such as the annual meeting between Foreign Ministers.
The most recent leaders' summit was hosted by President Bronisław Komorowski of Poland and attended by President Nicolas Sarkozy (France) and Chancellor Angela Merkel (Germany). Issues of renewing regular Weimar Triangle meetings, the Egyptian situation and improving relations with Russia were discussed (Among other topics). Both Germany and France urged Poland to join the pact for competitiveness.
The Weimar Triangle was established in the German city of Weimar in 1991, aimed at assisting Poland's emergence from Communist rule. Attending the meeting were the Foreign Ministers of each state: Roland Dumas of France, Hans-Dietrich Genscher of Germany, and Krzysztof Skubiszewski of Poland.
Thursday, May 19, 2005, the three leaders, Schröder, Chirac and Kwaśniewski met again in the French town of Nancy to discuss EU topics.


The Founding Fathers of the Weimarer Triangle: the foreign ministers Krzysztof Skubiszewski (Poland), Hans-Dietrich Genscher (Germany) and Roland Dumas (France) at a meeting which commemorates the 15 year existance of the Weimar Triangle in 2006. Photo: Candy Welz

On July 5, 2011, Poland, France, and Germany signed an agreement in Brussels to put together a unit of 1,700 soldiers, called the Weimar Combat Group, that will be ready to deploy in crisis zones starting in 2013. The EUbusiness newsletter reports that Poland will command the group, providing the core combat troops and a mechanised battalion, Germany will provide logistical support, and France will contribute medical support. The operational command centre will be based in Mont Valerien, located in a Paris suburb.


The German, Polish and French leaders at a Weimar-Triangle-summit


On January 13 the Weimar Triangle Chiefs of Defence (CHODs) Session was held in Warsaw.


The ministers of foreign affairs of the Weimar Triangle, Bernard Kouchner of France, Guido Westerwelle of Germany and Radoslaw Sikorski of Poland, and their Russian guest, Sergey Lavrov (Paris, June 23, 2010)

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trójkąt_Weimarski

[uncltim]

Tragedy-Unity-Corruption-Tragedy. Seems to be the human political cycle. Just a thought.

[pjotr]

Sept 11, 2011 16:00:18 GMT 1 tufta said:

We have to remember, learn from history and be aware!

Pieter, yes you are right. I wonder what is your opinion on such a case.
In 1939 France, a democratic country at that time, had a treaty with Poland, which said 'we will attack Germany in case it attack France or Poland'. Germany, the totalitarian country, did attack Poland. France, which had a huge land army, did not attack Germany. Should Poland today take France as an NATO ally seriously. If yes, what has changed in France?

Tufta,

There was an agreement a treaty between two nations. One of them did not act according the agreement on a certain issue of the treaty. The important issue was the treaty itself, which said 'we will attack Germany in case it attack France or Poland'. France did not keep its promise and that changed the outcome of the war dramatically.

France was not a reliable allie of Poland in 1939, and therefor Poland had to face the consequences of the lack of support of this allie (and the futher allie Great-Britain). Poland was abandoned, left allone, left for the wolves from the West and the east.

Cheers,
Pieter

[pjotr]

Sept 12, 2011 10:40:55 GMT 1 uncltim said:

Tragedy-Unity-Corruption-Tragedy. Seems to be the human political cycle. Just a thought.

Tim,

You could be right, but maybe I am a foolish idealist, a naive democrat and European. Throught the centuries we, the offspring of the old Europeans, built a civilization in the West, in Europe, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These are wonderful countries on wonderful continents, who were shaped by the systems, the structures, the rule of law (a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through a set of institutions), very advanced means of transportation, infrastructures, tools, machinery, education systems, states, entreprices, cooperations and Federations, negociations and treaties, human progress, establishing peace (for longer periods in Europe and the USA, Canada and New Zealand), and developing strong ties and connections to one-another.

Maybe we have reached the top level of our civilization and are we in the period where the Roman empire was in it's final fase. I don't hope that we get another Middle Ages with medieval developments (the loss of knowledge, information and technology), because the European Middle ages were a setback of Europe after the Great culture and civilization of the Roman empire. It was a dark period of the primitive feodal society, religious extremism (the totalitarian Roman Catholic system with it's crussades and fundamentalist Monotheism -inquisition, progroms, witchhunts and persecution of heretics = Cathars, Hussites, Mennonites - Christian Anabaptist denominations-, Lutheranians and Calvinists). History never repeats itself the same way. Today we fear islamism, but who knows the danger will come from a differant angle, from movements, parties, ideologies and groups of people we don't know yet, we do not know that they exist or will exist in the (near) future.

The economical downfall of the Capitalist system in Europe and the USA will cause great turmoil in Europe and the USA. To many people have no job and no bright future expectations. These unrestful, frustrated, angry, disturbed, vengeful people will cause trauble soon.
A lot of them have mental and physical problems, due to stress, bad life stiles, clashes with other people, to much worrying, lack of education and life perspective and due to the fact that they have no direction in life. The mass of these people in Europe and America are a danger to the people who have a life, job, family and a future.

You saw these people in France and in London, destroying their own neighbourhoods, shopping malls, shops, factories, companies and government buildings.

Cheers,
Pieter

[tufta]

Pieter, no need to get emotional about that ;-) Poland was too gullible to believe the French. Who in turn did not respect the signed treaty. I believe in this and other forums we have discussed that thoroughly. What I am really interested is your opinion today. When you say 'we should learn from history', and then 'Poland shouldn't trust UK and France' - what is the practical meaning of that? Is Poland too gullible again about NATO, is France still the first to betray? Your opinion especially in synthesis with what you write today in another thread "a civilization in the West, in Europe, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These are wonderful countries on wonderful continents".

In other words - how do you see our, European, not just Polish, future in our continent, which is wonderful, yet betrayal is part of it (since I.e. Poland shouldn't trust France and UK).

[pjotr]

Sept 13, 2011 20:44:53 GMT 1 tufta said:

Pieter, no need to get emotional about that ;-) Poland was too gullible to believe the French. Who in turn did not respect the signed treaty. I believe in this and other forums we have discussed that thoroughly. What I am really interested is your opinion today. When you say 'we should learn from history', and then 'Poland shouldn't trust UK and France' - what is the practical meaning of that? Is Poland too gullible again about NATO, is France still the first to betray? Your opinion especially in synthesis with what you write today in another thread "a civilization in the West, in Europe, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These are wonderful countries on wonderful continents".

In other words - how do you see our, European, not just Polish, future in our continent, which is wonderful, yet betrayal is part of it (since I.e. Poland shouldn't trust France and UK).

Tufta,

I think we are more on one line than you might think on this issue. I am moving more towards the Polish point or view in the years that past. I even might say that I am often more on the Polish side of opinion than the Dutch one. Yes, I am a Dutchman and a Dutch Patriot, but due to my mixed heritage I am more European than most Dutch people who are 100% Dutch by both parents. Due to my Central-European roots I think more continental than many Western-European Dutch who think more regional (North-West-European perspective, West-Germanic culture, and British, Felmish-Belgian and German influences). I will need more time to answer you propperly and therefor have to return here later. My ideas about our shared future in Europe is to complex to say in a few words. I will come back to this subject. First I have to arrange a meal for the Wednesday evening Bachelors dinner evening with special Belgian and Dutch beers (from small breweries) and a movie (DVD) my guest may choose. (Every week we have our bachelors dinner, one week - today - at my house, the next week at his. Ofcourse every now and then we invite a nice girlfriend or two ladies! This week it is just the two of us)

Cheers,
Pieter

P.S.- Have a good meal and evening yourself in Warsaw!

[pjotr]

Sept 13, 2011 20:44:53 GMT 1 tufta said:

Pieter, no need to get emotional about that ;-) Poland was too gullible to believe the French. Who in turn did not respect the signed treaty. I believe in this and other forums we have discussed that thoroughly. What I am really interested is your opinion today. When you say 'we should learn from history', and then 'Poland shouldn't trust UK and France' - what is the practical meaning of that? Is Poland too gullible again about NATO, is France still the first to betray? Your opinion especially in synthesis with what you write today in another thread "a civilization in the West, in Europe, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These are wonderful countries on wonderful continents".

In other words - how do you see our, European, not just Polish, future in our continent, which is wonderful, yet betrayal is part of it (since I.e. Poland shouldn't trust France and UK).

Tufta,

I am not emotional about the past anymore, because I read about the betrayal of the Poles to much. Thank you that you are interested in my opinion today. When I say 'we should learn from history', I mean that 'Poland shouldn't trust UK and France' entirely. The NATO, EU-membership, and bilateral, multilateral, trade- and diplomatic ties between the European countries are stronger today than in the thirtees of the Twentieth century today, but in the same time the mentality is stil that most countries look after their own interests. So again Poland should take care of it's own interests and rely mostly on it's own. Be strong, be organised, be ready for whatever may happen. Have good ties with the 20 million strong Polish diaspora, like Israel does with the Jewish Diaspora via the jewish Agency. The Polish Americans could learn form the jewish lobby in the USA. There are more Polish Americans than Jewish Americans, but stil the Jewish Americans are a stronger and more powerful group. Poland in the past was strong, Poland today should be strong and Poland should even be stronger in the future. And therefor Poland should be a strong element in the EU, and very integrated and assimilated into the EU (simply from the perspective of Polish interest). If Poland is very European, very well presented in Brussels (in the European commission, with public officials and civil servants, good European parlaimentarians, and political journalists who monitor the European parlaiment and European commission), and has strong Diaspora communities in the memberstates with good and strong ties to Poland, than Poland is rooted in the continent and has the backup of European partners in difficult times. Succesful Polish diaspora members are also good advocates and supporters of the Polish cause in Europe. In the same time the United Europe and the Polish membership of the European Union has proven to be good for Poland. The European structural funds have helped to improve Polish infrastructure, poorer regions, agriculture and probably education too.

It is a fact that European countries are devided by history, by ethnicity, by languages (language groups also), by cultures, by influence spheres and by Euregions (Economical and political regions which are larger than countries, and which represent local, regional and national interests in that region). Wat non-Europeans do not understand is the fact that in a large continent like Europe people think so local and regional. More than in the USA, where the English language is the uniting factor and where people move from state to state, and so where the society is more Federal oriented and united about the unity of the 50 states. The EU with it's 27 memberstates does not have this unity. It is a devided, segregated, non-integrated Union or Economical Federation of people, who have no external (physical and materialistic) border, but stil have their internal borders, because although the borders who have disappeared are invisible due to shengen, mentally people live in between these borders. Drive by car for instance from Arnhem to Düsseldorf. There is no visible border, no gate, no border, no Customs, but you know when you cross the border, because the roads are differant in the Netherlands and Germany. The people are differant, the language is differant, the mentality is differant, the atmosphere is completely differant, and on both sides of the border the people feel differant. We are united Europeans, but we are differant in mentality, in tradition, in the way we do things, in subtle things and in clear obvious things too. The German is stil strict, grundlich (precise, reliable), law abiding, used to a class society (Herr doctor Schuhmacher, Frau Schmidt and etc.). The Dutch society is informal, egalitarian, but in the same time more individualistic than the collectivistic and centralistic Germany. Socially, cultural and psychological the Dutch society is maybe more complicated or complex than other societies, due to heritage of pillarisation and the social climate. In Germany, Great Britain and Belgium for instance the class society is more clear, in the Netherlands it exist on a more invisible level. Refined maybe, but very difficult for outsiders, foreigners to understand. It is for instance sometimes not easy for some Germans to live, work and be socially fully accepted in the Netherlands. Why? Due to stereotypes, subtle discrimination, linguistic differances, a German name, the past (historical difficulties, due to Dutch people who can't forget the period 1940-1945), and simply the fact that Germans do things slightly differant than Dutch people. Don't get me wrong, there are very integrated and even assimilated Germans overhere who chose to be Dutch, learnt Dutch, and speak Dutch with the (in my view) charming accent of German in it (the same way some Dutch-Poles have a charming element or accent of Slav in their Dutch). Some Germans even speak Dutch without an accent. You have exellent Dutch-German couples (husbant and wive), Dutch-German work relations, Dutch-German Joint-Vetures (Companies, firms, businesses), bands (there is a lot of musical cooperation; I know Dutch-German bands and Polish-German-Dutch bands), and a lot, really a lot of German students study at Dutch vocational universities and Universities. IN Arnhem Germans study Economics, Public administration, Administration of business, Technological studies, agriculture, fine art (my former study direction has a lot of Germans, Swiss Germans, Austrians, and also Poles, and other European and international students), architecture, design, music, dance and theatre. Germany is a beautiful country and so many Dutch people like to go to German mountain area's, to German cities and in the same time like to go shopping in Germany or live on the German side of the border. (The travel to the Netherlands every day to work in the Netherlands and go back to their often Dutch neighbourhood in Germany - Dutch settlement-). The same is the case with Poles living in Polish communities all over Europe. I read recently about the settlement of Poles and Czechs in Eastern-Germany. The Poles love to go there and buy a house and propperty there, because it is cheaper than in Poland. In that way slowly Europe is changing, but the ehtnic, cultural and historical borders within the European people do not. People are not Europeans, but they are Poles, Czechs, Slowaks, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, Slovenians, Cypriote Greeks, Greeks, English, Welsh people, Scottish, Irish, Portugese, Spanish, Flemish, Wallon, French, German, Danish, Dutch, Lëtzebuergesch (Luxembourgian), Swiss, Austrian and Maltese people.
Maybe a minority of Cosmopolitan people with roots in two or more Euroepan countries feel European. Due to Polish roots and family and friends (I consider you as a Polish friend and/or social-cultural connection), and family ties and settlement in Belgium, France and Denmarks I feel European. I love the variety, the pluriformity, the hetrogenous character of the European continent and the fact that we managed to form an European Economical Union, a large European innermarket which benefits all Europeans, and that we managed to establish European institutions, a European form of democracy with the European parlaiment in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg, European legislation, the cooperation, negociations and connections between European governments and nations. We managed to maintain peace for almost 76 years on a continent with a bloody past of continental wars, civil wars, wars between individual nations, religious conflicts, ethnic conflicts, and etc. For hundreds of years or maybe thousands of years Europe was a continent of conflict, unsafety, and a battle ground for large powers and smaller warlords.
Underneath the layers of civilisation, the rule of law, democracy, the Trias Politica principle (The separation of powers), Humanism and Enlightenment, Human rights and equality, and reasonable ideas of (European) Liberalism (which ofcourse has nothing to do with the American liberalism, because the Polish PO and the Dutch VVD are European liberal), Conservatism, Christian-democracy, Social-democracy and environmentalism (the Greens), social security, good governance, wealth, good education and peace lie the old dangers of the Beast within Europe. Anti-democratic powers and desires under the have nots and the frustrated amongst the old powers (aristocratic monarchists, far right elitist thinkers, islamophobes, ultra-nationalist powers and in general the fierce anti-European New Populists). You have a lot of people who have nothing with Europe and simply reject the idea of a united Europe. These people feel themselves locally rooted, regionalists or Nationalists who reject the larger European idea. They only see their nation, their language, their history, their culture, their mentality, the atmosphere, the environment of their past and present. Other European people are differant people.
Fortunately tourism, educational exchange programs for students (Erasmus program), young and older people who work in other countries than their own, the contacts between European leaders and politicians, and the settlement of Europeans of all kinds in other parts of Europe than the place they were born will change Europe and did change Europe. But stil most people live in their own country and region and speak their own national language and feel mostly connected to their own part of Europe, their nation, their country, their flag, their culture, society, media, cinema, entertainment and people. I think because of Global changes, due to the fact that China, India, Brasil and the USA will be strong economical and united powers in the near future, Europe will be forced to be more united economically, Financially (Monetary), politically and even also military.
To be a stronger Federation in the sense of Foreign politics, diplomacy, competition, economical growth, technological innovation and development, becoming a global player of importance, and a Federation of scientific and cultural importance, Europe has to be integrated even further, the EU has to become stronger and more United, and therefor we have to overcome the differances of the past.
We must be united in our diversity, and use the best tools, knowledge, experiance and talents of every people and nation of this continent. To survive in my opinion Europe must do more its best to be one Nation, to be a European Federal State.

Yes, I support the United States of Europe!

Tufta, Europe has changed a lot since the Second World War, from a class society before the Second World war under the influence of Social-democracy in Western-Europe and Communism in Central- and Eastern-Europe we have moved to a much more egalitarian societies. We both know what drawbacks or disadvantages this brought, because the benefits of the old class society were gone. The quality and pride of skilled working class people, the farmer class, the traditional middle class and the old ancien riche of the nobility, aristocracy, old intelligentsia (the refined class of old school professors, thinkers/philosophers, teachers, academics, artists and so forth). The egalitarian society of Communism and the West-European social wellfare state, with it's forced equality brought more the same, one kind of equal people. But in the same time it brought benefits for some on the downside of the class society. Via the Unions, Socialist, communist and Social-democratic parties and youth and women movements working class kids and youth developed themselves and evolved towards middle and high class in one and a half century (19th, 20th and 21th century). Today the old elite of the old Pre-war class society and the new (Nouveau riche and New left intelligentsia offspring) merge into the new elite of Western, Central- and Eastern-Europe. The beginning of this century is a difficult start for Europe, but we have to continue the path of the European integration, European cooperation, European Unity and European Democracy.
We have to overcome our Communist, fascist, crual and brutal past and move on to a new era. Our nations Poland and the Netherlands play in that an important task, because of our Financial-Economical importance, and in the case of Poland due to it's political, diplomatic, military, social-cultural and geographic importance. Poland is important in Europe due to it's labourmarket and thus workforce. Eventhough there is resistance in the Netherlands against the Polish newcommers by Rightwing and Leftwing Populists and the government, the Dutch economy NEEDS Polish construction workers, Polish agricultural workers, Polish truckdrivers for the large Dutch transport sector (The Netherlands is an export country), Polish nurses, Polish shops for the Polish diaspora and Polish priests for the expanding Polish expat community in the Netherlands. Poland and the Netherlands may not like the immigration of Poles to the Netherlands and Germany, but it is a fact that it is happening. My and your concern should be, can these people create Polish settlement in the Netherlands and Germany like the Turkish and Moroccan people did in the Netherlands and Germany. Fact is that Poles are no threat to the Dutch or German society, because they have a Roman-Catholic culture which is more connected to the West (Rome) than to the East (the Bysantian -Istanbul-: of the Eastern-Orthodox culture and religion, which is alien, exotic and strange to the Western-European Roman-Catholics and Protestants). Polish immigrants could for instance settle easily in Roman-Catholic area's of the Netherlands and Germany, even if there is resistance of the local population. Why? Because demographically like Eastern-Germany these Roman-Catholic area's have a decreasing population, a lot of old people (we use the Dutch term 'vergrijzing', 'Population ageing' for it) move out to the North, have less kids (then their parents in the past) and some professions have a shortage of being maintained. Dutch employers love Polish workers, Dutch Unions support and in some cases even protect Polish workers rights, and Dutch media and politicians point at abuses of Polish workers. In fact you have negative, positive and neutral/indifferant opinions about Polish workers, students and entrepreneurs in the Netherlands. In a United Europe we should think less National and more Federal and continental. It is good that there is freedom of travel, settlement, trade, exchange and entrepreneurship ove the borders. Polish settlement in the Netherlands is OK and Dutch settlement in Poland is OK, if these people contribute to the new society, country and region they move too. If Europe in that way becomes more mixed, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, crossover, cosmopolitic, flexible, dynamic, open, free minded, prosporous, liberal, progressive, smarter, faster and more United in diversity (with mutual interest and respect between people) than I am not against such a Europe of a United European people.
Another aspect about that United Europe from a Western-European perspective is that the ethnic, racial, religious and human fabric of that Federal European society will be much more multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and diverse than in the past. It will change Central- and Eastern-Europe too. Next to the Roman-Catholic culture, you will have secular-humanist-atheist and agnostic cultures, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist minorities, and ethnic christian religions and cultures which are differant than the European ones. We are used to our Turkish, Kurd, Moroccan, Iranian, Afghan, Iraqi, Somalian, Indonesian and Surinamese and Moluccan Muslims, and Surinamese and Indian Hindu's, Chinese and Korean Confucianists and Taoists, and Native African and Middle-Eastern Chrisitans (the Syrian-orthodox, the Egyptian Copts, the African Evangelical churches from Ghana and Nigeria). That is part of Europe too, and the Czechs, Poles and Hungarians will have to get used to that, because with a united Europe those ethnic minorities will settle in Poland too. Now I know you have Vietnamese people in Poland and some Black Africans and foreign Muslims from Arab countries and North-Africa. I know that the ties between Turkey and Poland are historical good and in the present too. The new Europe will benefit from its diversity, it's connection to the world, and it might be even more diverse and prosperous than the USA. Europe is a continent with a Greek-Roman, Judeo-Christian, Islamic (Moorish influence in Spain and on European science and medicine and maths in that perspective), Renaissance and Enlightenment (Humanism) heritage and the cradle of democracy and Freedom. Europe is a very rich continent in the sense of human capital, culture, intelligence, knowledge, history, political system, it's economy, high quality of infrastructure and attraction to the tourists of the world.

Cheers,
Pieter

P.S.- Tufta, I am sorry I need so manny words, I am not a writer, and English is not my first language. I am better at reading and conversation than writing.

[pjotr]

Poland and Germany as driving forces behind European economy

Polish stock market in the past year was the best in Europe. Increases are also expected for 2011. Strong neighbor – writes German “Die Welt”. The financial crisis has plunged into recession all European Union countries, except Poland.

- Together with Germany, Poland is the driving force of Europe – said Christoph Witte, head of the German branch of Kreditversicheres Delcredere. – In the third quarter of 2010, the Polish economy in comparison with the previous year grew by 4.2 percent. “Die Welt”, points out that the Warsaw Stock Exchange in 2010 was one of the best in Europe, and forecasts for 2011 are also positive.



According to chief economist of Bank Pekao Marcin Mrowiec next year’s growth is estimated at 4.4 percent. Support for the stock market will be, inter alia, the European Championships in football in 2012 and German labor market, opened in May. Increased mobility of employees should raise the wages in Poland.


Chief economist of Bank Pekao Marcin Mrowiec

Paper draws attention to the threat, which the budget deficit of 7.9 percent and 3.1 percent inflation, much higher than estimated by the NBP (target 2.5 percent). Investors still have to attract the strong zloty. – The trend towards strengthening of the zloty against the euro, which has lasted 12 months, will continue – said Raffaella Tenconi with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.


Raffaella Tenconi, Bank of America Merrill Lynch


pl2011.eu/en

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegrád_Group
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEFTA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_triangle

An old document from before Poland joined the EU
ideas.repec.org/p/ant/wpaper/2001023.html

[pjotr]

Ukraine – European Union relations


Euro-Ukrainian relations

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_–_European_Union_relations


Angela Merkel (German Federal Chancellor) in Conversation with Yulia Tymoshenko (Prime Minister of Ukraine) during the 45th Munich Security Conference (7 February 2009)


The members of the Eastern Partnership consists of Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia (in orange) and the the European Union (in blue)

[tufta]

Hello Pieter. What I am now preoccupied with that you will feel disappointed, because you have used so many words as you say, while I at the moment don't have the time to at least discuss the hallmarks you've made. I hope you don't mind, especially that a large part of them we've had discussed already in Jagahost forum, this one and in private. You'll agree that some discrepancy do exist, since if Poland was to learn from history, it should trust only one country in EU - itself.

If you really don't mind my miserable answer to your long essay, and would like to talk how do you see United States of Europe, how do you see the fate, self-independence of your country - the Netherlands, in such an entity, I would be very eager to read it. Most of all do you agree with financial transfers your country would be obliged to make into less wealthy parts of the United States of Europe, like Greece or Portugal.

[pjotr]

Sept 16, 2011 10:50:40 GMT 1 tufta said:

Hello Pieter. What I am now preoccupied with that you will feel disappointed, because you have used so many words as you say, while I at the moment don't have the time to at least discuss the hallmarks you've made. I hope you don't mind, especially that a large part of them we've had discussed already in Jagahost forum, this one and in private. You'll agree that some discrepancy do exist, since if Poland was to learn from history, it should trust only one country in EU - itself.

Tufta,

Don't worry, I understand your position. You have your job, your family and therefor limited time. That is justifiable. Yes, we have discussed a large part of it already in the Jaga Forum, but sometimes it is good to repeat some things, subjects or issues to refresh the memory. I do agree with you that to a great extend Poland should only rely on itself. And doing so means that Poland prepares a new generation of Poles on life in Poland in the present and near future with good history lessons, education, Research and Development, innovation, creativity (the Poles must be creative and inventive), flexibility, a dynamic and energetic attitude and a spirit of competition and entrepreneurship. Good governance is important for Polands position in present day Europe and in the world. Therefor the Polish Democracy must function well, it's institutions must be solid and clear, and the Polish political system must be transparent, well organised, ballanced and fair. An open, free and pluriform society is the best way to reach that goal. And I think Poland is on that track as a mature and responsable Euroepan country with firm foundations in the EU.

Sept 16, 2011 10:50:40 GMT 1 tufta said:

If you really don't mind my miserable answer to your long essay, and would like to talk how do you see United States of Europe, how do you see the fate, self-independence of your country - the Netherlands, in such an entity, I would be very eager to read it. Most of all do you agree with financial transfers your country would be obliged to make into less wealthy parts of the United States of Europe, like Greece or Portugal.

I see the United States of Europe as a Federal State with English as the communication language between countries and people, French as the diplomatic lnaguage, German as a technological and philosophical language, and the other languages as the languages of the national states. The Federal government in Brussels should focus on Foreign affairs, large infrastructural works, the European innermarket, the European defense, monetairy, financial and economical affairs of the whole union. Within this Federation countries (memberstates) and Eurregions should get a lot of authonomy on Internal Affairs, Justice, education, agriculture, housing and health care. The fate, the self-independence of my country - the Netherlands, in such an entity, will be less independant, and more legislation and policies will come from Brussels, where Dutch Euro parlaimentarians will have less influence than in the National parlaiment in the Hague. But the Netherlands will benefit from a stronger EU, which has a firm foreign policy, a larger Innermarket, the European economy and a stronger position of the USE in the world. In this new Europe Dutch communities will erect all over Europe, like the Polish Diaspora will grow too. Because it is in the interest of the Dutch trade, agriculture and financial institutions to have Dutch settlement abroad. Other countries will benefit from Dutch investments, entrepreneurship, craftmanship and ingenuity.
Ofcourse like any minority the Dutch will face problems abroad, but that problems will fade away. The same is the case with the Polish communities all over Europe, which will contribute Polish labour, investments, their cultural identity and quality to the places they settle. Europe will become more pluriform and a mix of European peoples and immigrants from other parts of the world, because due to aging and a lack of workers and middle class, Europe will need people from abroad. I do agree with financial transfers my country would be obliged to make into less wealthy parts of the United States of Europe, like Greece or Portugal. But in the same time these countries must be controlled by a legal guardian. They must realise cut backs, spend less, invest in profitable sectors and reform their economies, financial systems. First Greece has to prove that it has reformed its system. There should be a European Marshall plan and New Deal kind of policy for the poorer European regions and countries. There should be solidarity with and support for the poorer countries by the richer countries.

Cheers,
Pieter

[tufta]

Sept 18, 2011 3:00:40 GMT 1 pjotr said:

Sept 16, 2011 10:50:40 GMT 1 tufta said:

I see the United States of Europe as a Federal State with English as the communication language between countries and people, French as the diplomatic lnaguage, German as a technological and philosophical language, and the other languages as the languages of the national states.

Pieter, does it mean that a Polish diplomat speaking to a Dutch diplomat would speak French? Or Polish engineer speakin to a Dutch enginer would speak German?
Also, I have an impression that Dutch people in their mass seem to want something opposite to US of Europe, they seem to want Netherlands for the white, protestant, native Dutch.

[pjotr]

Sept 20, 2011 21:01:26 GMT 1 tufta said:

Sept 18, 2011 3:00:40 GMT 1 pjotr said:

Sept 16, 2011 10:50:40 GMT 1 tufta said:

I see the United States of Europe as a Federal State with English as the communication language between countries and people, French as the diplomatic lnaguage, German as a technological and philosophical language, and the other languages as the languages of the national states.

Pieter, does it mean that a Polish diplomat speaking to a Dutch diplomat would speak French? Or Polish engineer speakin to a Dutch enginer would speak German?
Also, I have an impression that Dutch people in their mass seem to want something opposite to US of Europe, they seem to want Netherlands for the white, protestant, native Dutch.

Tufta,

That would be my ideal, in the old civilized and sophisticated world and time when educated people stil knew their languages the language of the Corps Diplomatique (CD) (the diplomats of most countries) spoke French. Today the world is different, and the diplomatic world isn't filled with aristocrats, the old ancien riche elite and solid trained diplomats anymore. In contrast to the anti-monarchist and anti-artistocrat Kaima (of the other Forum), I liked this old class and the diplomatic role they played. Maybe today English is not only the political and economical language but the diplomatic language too, because for most nationalities and people it is easier to learn, understand, read, write and speak. So if for instance for some nations and people English is easier or more pragmatic as a communication tool, English could also be the diplomatic language. In the same time I know that in many Central-European, Eastern-European and Southern-European countries (especially the Southern-Slav East-South-European nations of former Yugoslavia, Albania, Rumania and Bulgaria) German is also widely spoken (that's the influence of the Austrian-Hungarian Habsburg empire, which ruled these countries for a long time). French will stay a communication tool and diplomatic language on higher levels of diplomacy in contacts between for instance European countries and former French colonies like Algeria, Tunesia, Morocco, French Africa and Indochina (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam). But before I go to much in details, Modern diplomacy, due to the increasing role of the English speaking world, the Spanish and Portugese speaking worlds (In Southern-Europe, Latin and Southern-America and Africa) and the Chinese world has decreased the influence of French as diplomatic communication tool.

In the reality of today it is true that a lot of professional communication between Polish and Dutch people is done in German. I often hear Polish workers or negociators speak German with Dutch business partners. But next to that you have Dutch poeple and Poles who speak English with eachoter. I witnessed the fact that older gereration Poles in Communist times and Post-communist times often knew/know German, and that the younger generations were/are better at English. They are international oriented, got English at school, live in the English language digital age of Internet and Social Media. So maybe today it is easier and better for a new generation Polish engineer to speak English with a Dutch engineer.

Tufta, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly. According to the most recent Eurobarometer poll 2005, 34% of the Dutch citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 37% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force", and 27% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".
Currently, Roman Catholicism is the single largest religion of the Netherlands, forming the religious home of some 28% of the Dutch population in 2011. The Protestant Church of the Netherlands follows with 16% of the population. It was formed in 2004 as a merger of the two major strands of Calvinism: the Dutch Reformed Church (which represented roughly 8.5% of the population), the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (3.7% of the population), and a smaller Lutheran Church. Other Protestant churches, mostly orthodox Calvinist splits, represent 6% of the population. From the 80.7% Ethnic native European Caucasian Dutch, a minority belongs to the Protestant Christian faith.
That the Dutch people in their mass seem to want something opposite to US of Europe, has monetarian (the Euro made everything more expensive than in the Gulden - Dutch Guilders- time), Financial-economical and secular populist roots more than Calvinist or traditional values roots. The White, Protestant, Native Dutch are to devided to make a United stance and the Catholic South and Northern enclaves are to powerful to make the Netherlands an exclusive Protestant nation. We are a to secularised Melting pot for that.

The USA is to a large degree a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) nation, because the majority of the Americans is white and Protestant. 51.3% of all Americans is Protestant christian and 23.9% is Roman Catholic. White evangelicals, make up 26.3% of the population, as the country's largest religious cohort; another study estimates evangelicals of all races at 30–35%.

Cheers,
Pieter

[valpomike]

You know a lot on the U.S.A. for one not living here.
You do your research, but the best way is to live here, and talk with the people.

Mike

[tufta]

Dear Pjeter, the good old idealist I know your ideal vision by heart. Unfortunately the very example of the Netherlands, a country which for many years always stood at the first line of tolerance, openess, liberalism, proves that United States of Europe is impossible. At the first blow of the hard wind (economic crisis, problems with immigrant, united Germany coming to terms with own complexes and starting to behave as a normal country, Central Europe becoming part of the game)the Dutch turned to the values of 'country dwellers of the past times', where prejudice, some sense of populist xenophobia surfaces. I am sure you know what I mean. Of course not just Netherlands. The side effect of that is that in larger countries, including Poland, even those who did think USof Europe is a feasable, turn their backs to it and look for ways to construct intraEuropean alliances inside EU. So, I very much respect your vision, but it is not feasable. Poles are unwelcomed in Netherlands (NL as an example of course. I mean 'poor & ugly' Poles (and not just Poles, but people from many other EU member-states) and not the rich and beautiful, these are welcome everywhere. So how do you think United States of Europe can work facing these problems. Why should all the 'new' countries care about forming some solidarity with Netherlands (always, as an example, nothing personal) and not just turn to the heavyweights in Europe.

[pjotr]

Sept 21, 2011 10:07:29 GMT 1 tufta said:

Dear Pjeter, the good old idealist I know your ideal vision by heart. Unfortunately the very example of the Netherlands, a country which for many years always stood at the first line of tolerance, openess, liberalism, proves that United States of Europe is impossible. At the first blow of the hard wind (economic crisis, problems with immigrant, united Germany coming to terms with own complexes and starting to behave as a normal country, Central Europe becoming part of the game)the Dutch turned to the values of 'country dwellers of the past times', where prejudice, some sense of populist xenophobia surfaces. I am sure you know what I mean. Of course not just Netherlands. The side effect of that is that in larger countries, including Poland, even those who did think USof Europe is a feasable, turn their backs to it and look for ways to construct intraEuropean alliances inside EU. So, I very much respect your vision, but it is not feasable. Poles are unwelcomed in Netherlands (NL as an example of course. I mean 'poor & ugly' Poles (and not just Poles, but people from many other EU member-states) and not the rich and beautiful, these are welcome everywhere. So how do you think United States of Europe can work facing these problems. Why should all the 'new' countries care about forming some solidarity with Netherlands (always, as an example, nothing personal) and not just turn to the heavyweights in Europe.

Tufta,

Again thank you for your direct and conftonting reply. It tells the truth from the Polish perspective from Poland and the Polish newcommers in Western-Europe (the Netherlands.). I read your reply with understanding and an analythical eye. I have no time now to respond but will return to this subject/issue soon. Prejudice and some sense of populist xenophobia are present in the Dutch society yes. I don't know where this superior behavior or fear for the unknown is caused by the propaganda of the West during the Cold War, or that the Berlin wall separated people fro to long. Fact is that the new migrants of the central- and Eastern-European countries are the new scapegoat, because they still look differant, live in Getto's , often refuse to integrate and cause problems. Both sides are to blame, the Dutch government, employers and population on the one hand and the Polish and other Central- and Eastern-European work immigrants on the other side. Local populations feel overcrowded by an alien speaking langue people.

Cheers,
Pieter

[pjotr]

Sept 21, 2011 10:07:29 GMT 1 tufta said:

Dear Pjeter, the good old idealist I know your ideal vision by heart. Unfortunately the very example of the Netherlands, a country which for many years always stood at the first line of tolerance, openess, liberalism, proves that United States of Europe is impossible. At the first blow of the hard wind (economic crisis, problems with immigrant, united Germany coming to terms with own complexes and starting to behave as a normal country, Central Europe becoming part of the game)the Dutch turned to the values of 'country dwellers of the past times', where prejudice, some sense of populist xenophobia surfaces. I am sure you know what I mean. Of course not just Netherlands. The side effect of that is that in larger countries, including Poland, even those who did think USof Europe is a feasable, turn their backs to it and look for ways to construct intraEuropean alliances inside EU. So, I very much respect your vision, but it is not feasable. Poles are unwelcomed in Netherlands (NL as an example of course. I mean 'poor & ugly' Poles (and not just Poles, but people from many other EU member-states) and not the rich and beautiful, these are welcome everywhere. So how do you think United States of Europe can work facing these problems. Why should all the 'new' countries care about forming some solidarity with Netherlands (always, as an example, nothing personal) and not just turn to the heavyweights in Europe.

Dear Tufta,

Yes, I am an idealist, because I have my ideals. But in reality I am a pragmatist, in the sense that I am a realist. I have my ideas which I share here. But in the reality of being a voter and local journalist I am not the same idealist. My voting pattern is that I vote for the most realistic candidate for the field he or she is candidate. For local elections I look at the city interest of Arnhem and it's surroundings. For provincial elections I vote for the interest of my province Gelderland in the East of the Netherlands ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelderland ), in the National elections I vote for the party which has the best balance of internal and foreign affairs (mostly Pro-European centrist parties of the Centre-left) and in the European elections I vote for parties who want a stronger European democracy, democratic control on European institutions and so the European commission, parties who want to reform Europe and a transparent, clear and limited power to the European Union. Like I told you before, the European Federation or United States of Europe in my opion may have the decisive power on foreign affairs, defense and financial affairs. A strong Union is however built on the strong foundation of the member states. And only memberstates with strong authonomy and selfrule can create and maintain a strong European Federal state.

The Netherlands stood at the first line of tolerance, openess, liberalism for decades turned it's back on these values. It embraced or adobted the Populism, nationalism and isolationalism of other nations. But maybe it is better to say that the Nertherlands invented it's own Populism by Pim Fortuyn's LPF (List Pim Fortuyn) in 2002, and that Wilders PVV, profitted from the fundament Fortuyn laid, but totally professionalised, disciplined and reformed that movement. Geert Wilders is influenced by Israeli Nationalism (the rightwing Revisionist branch of Zionism), American conservatism and Patriotism. In the same time due to the Fortuynist influence the moderate democratic parties moved to the right (from the right) or to the centre from the left. The left became more centre-left and the centre-left became more centrist (with conservative and European liberal influences).The climate became more strict and conservationalist, more focussed on internal matters than on the world. Less international, less cosmopolitan, more closed, selfcentred and a little bit isolationalist. But in the same time the new authorities, the populist movement and the isolationalist sections of society could not undo the changes of the past. The fact that a lot of people have a mixed cultural and ehtnic past, the fact that a lot of Dutch people (employers, business people, citizens and politicians) have an international orientation, contacts and their influence which is not compatible with the general mood.

For newcommers like Poles, people from the Baltic states, Bulgarians, asylumseekers (refugees) and others the climate can be harsh, hostile and unhospitable.

Maybe you are right Tufta, that these hard facts and reality proves that the United States of Europe is an impossible goal. The economic crisis will gorw deeper and will have more far reaching side effects and create more problems (mass unemployment, growing mental problems, more crime, less safety, deteriorating innercities of large cities and towns and villages in decline), problems with immigrants will grow towards a segregated society with getto's, no go area's, ethnic enclaves and conflicts between differant ehtnic and cultural (also political, social and economical level) groups. The United Germany coming to terms with it's own complexities will have it's own Patriotism and nationalism again. It already has started to behave like a normal country. It is a competing power with Great Britain and France in Europe despite the fact that it is part of the Berlin-Paris axis, the Weimar Triangle, the European Union and NATO. Central Europe is already part of the game in my view (that proces started long before Poland and other states joined the EU in May 2004).

You sociological and psychological analysis of the Dutch is correct. The Dutch turned to the values of 'country dwellers of the past times', where prejudice, some sense of populist xenophobia surfaces. Tufta, we have a history of Nationalist wars, colonialism (the Imperialism of a small country. Portugal has the same thing). Yes, I do know what you mean. The construction of intraEuropean alliances inside EU will lead to future conflicts and tensions between these intraEuropean alliances. Why or how? We have had these alliances in the past, Catholic and Protestant alliances, trade alliances, regional empires and unions of kingdoms. These differant entities led to clashes, friction and wars.

Poles are unwelcomed in the Netherlands, because the Dutch government and parliament want to force the Dutch unemployed to work (get them out of their Unemployment benefits, and so to disconnect them from thier longtime use of social security, the Dutch state and local authorities can't afford to pay anynore). And yes, secondly there is the xenophobe, populist and anti-central European and anti-Eastern-European climate, because the foreign workers are alien, and have a differant language, culture and mentality than the Dutch. The Poles, Baltic people and the Bulgarians are the new Italians and Portuges/Spanish people (the first wave of immigrants in the fiftees and early sixtees) and Turks and Moroccans (who came in the late sixtees, seventees and eightees, and stayed).
I literary heard a Turkish or Moroccan fellow say this a few weeks ago, the Poles are the new scapegoat. We were the scapegoat of the past. But the Poles are with to many, they have the European legislation behind them and the support of the employers who want them, Dutch civilians who liked their skilled workers qualities and professionalism and the Dutch agriculture and industry who needs them.

The United States of Europe can work facing these problems by unfortunately by going first through a difficult transition period, which will be pianful for the poorer regions of Europe and the immigrants (settlers) of internal European migration. Everywhere people in Europe today are selfcentred and don't want neighbours, fellow Europeans or non-European migrants. The 'new' countries do not have a reason to care about forming some solidarity with Netherlands, when their citizens are treated baldy and if the relations on government level are bad. It is perfectly reasonable, pragmatic and from strategic, tactical and financial-economical point of view to turn to the heavyweights in Europe. Germany, France and Great-Britain.

The Netherlands and other smaller West-European countries are to selfcentred, selfabsorbed and closed to be an attractive political, diplomatic, military (huge cutbacks on the Dutch defense) and maybe even an economical partners. But Tufta, I am not a national expert on Dutch issues or European affairs. I am a local radio and tv journalist, who knows a lot about the Arnhem region and a little bit about the Province Gelderland.
I have general information about the Netherlands, Europe and the world, and probably read the same local, national and European media you do. (You in the Polish perspective and me in the Dutch perspective)

Cheers,
Pieter

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geldria
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnhem