|
DXH posted:It tends to fall on deaf ears however; at this point it's basically impossible to do anything about it. That is the Euro zone functioning as intended. Unfortunately, the intention was a fiscal union that never happened, no one can really escape the strangle-hold Germany has over the rest of us, and ethnonationalism is raising its head across the continent. As a result of the political project that was meant to curb Hitlerism, but there you go. 
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
the introduction of a fully marketised housing system and effective abolition of housing policy is related to the EU in a slightly roundabout way (a property-owning middle class is a vital part of the universalising interest underpinning the modern EU - they and highly educated anglophone professionals are the mass base of the whole endeavour), but it's not really directly due to EU policies. rather it was an outcome of the economic shocks of the seventies and the social-democratic order meeting its end. it was just a massive privatisation of public or quasi-public assets, in accordance with good economic principles. freedom of mobility of capital and the eurozone probably accellerated this, but you see the trend of very high increases in the price of attractive housing (i.e. in at least a moderately sized city, not a slum, etc) in every country with which i'm even a little familiar, and the regime of price control and social housing has been almost completely obliterated
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:That is the Euro zone functioning as intended. Unfortunately, the intention was a fiscal union that never happened, no one can really escape the strangle-hold Germany has over the rest of us, and ethnonationalism is raising its head across the continent. As a result of the political project that was meant to curb Hitlerism, but there you go. i've never figured out where the european coal and steel community got such a lofty purpose - could you enlighten me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i've never figured out where the european coal and steel community got such a lofty purpose - could you enlighten me? You are joshing, of course, but the founding part of the Paris treaty said something to that effect. We can of course disagree on what the EEC actually accomplished, but Germany hasn't declared war on France lately, insofar as I can see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ireland's population may be growing but it's still down over a million from what it was before the Great Famine. The unaffordability is primarily driven by location and speculation, rather than raw number of butts needing beds. Rapid population growth combined with comparatively very little home building since 2014 are whats responsible for the current housing crisis in Ireland. Its really just simply a matter of not enough houses being built. Theres still more than enough unused, or underutilised, space to build on even in high demand parts of Dublin. The Irish population has been increasing by circa 100k a year in recent years (which is very substantial at a population of approx 5mn), while we're building about 30k homes a year. All analysis suggests we need to be building circa 60k housing units to account for the population increase + replacement of existing housing units + the continual shrinking of household sizes + to make any reduction prices. Thats a massive, and growing, deficit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ireland's population may be growing but it's still down over a million from what it was before the Great Famine. The unaffordability is primarily driven by location and speculation, rather than raw number of butts needing beds. mobby_6kl posted:The famine was like 180 years ago I kind of doubt there's just usable surplus housing still standing around from back then. Especially in places where people want to be, i.e., Dublin. A large chunk of housing in the areas most affected by the famine was “Fourth class”; 40% of rural Irish lived in those. “Fourth Class comprising all Mud cabins having only one room; the third, a better description of cottage, still built of mud, but varying from two to four rooms with windows; the second, a good farm-house or, in towns, a house in a small street having from five to nine rooms with windows; and the first, all houses a better description than the preceding ones.” What was Fourth class housing, you ask? Hovels, basically. Little better than holes in the ground in a lot of cases: “The least expensive, and the most common form of construction, was the sod-wall cabin. This consisted simply of large grassy lumps cut from the earth. A foundation of loose stones was laid, and the trimmed sods were piled up to form the wall. The resultant walls were weak and very apt to subside, even when supported by timber uprights. Sometimes the sods were mortared together with clay. Window and door openings were created simply by hacking out a suitable space once the building was complete. The roof was generally supported by corner posts. A sod-wall house could be erected in a day.” Just to put things into perspective, my wife’s family is from the Midlands and she grew up in a house that was classified as “Second class” back in 1841. It’s nigh unlivable by today’s standards. Very little of the mid-1840s housing stock was of First or Second class to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:You are joshing, of course, but the founding part of the Paris treaty said something to that effect. We can of course disagree on what the EEC actually accomplished, but Germany hasn't declared war on France lately, insofar as I can see. there's some pablum about world peace through economic integration, but there's nothing at all in that text about either hitler, naziism, fascism or militarism
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there's some pablum about world peace through economic integration, but there's nothing at all in that text about either hitler, naziism, fascism or militarism No great men in history, then. It seems silly to dismiss quote:The treaty was intended to bring diplomatic and economic stability in western Europe after the Second World War. Some of the main enemies during the war were now sharing production of coal and steel, the key resources which previously had been central to the war effort.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:No great men in history, then. It seems silly to dismiss there's no connection made between the "paix mondial" of the treaty and hitlerism, which was the specific claim to which i objected this time. on a more general note i don't think that integrating the coal and steel sectors of western europe was primarily motivated by a desire for peace, but that is indeed a case that has to argue against the text of the treaty of paris which is an effort i don't want to make at the moment
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
i should've been more precise; given my history itt it was reasonable to interpret my statement more broadly
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
I suppose we are all creations of our national histories. Paasikivi said that "Germany has begun two world wars, and it will begin the third too", and I view all European politics through that lens. Norway has been a vassal state of the United States for far longer, and you obviously have a different view on how German militarization impacts us all. The "no great men in history" bit was a part of that, too. If Adolf Hitler had not existed, then Germany would have re-armed itself and assaulted other nations of Europe, as was testified by German generals and business men of the time. We can quibble about how much those guys were interested in saving their own necks, but it seems to be the shared opinion of various Hitler biographers that Germany as a nation was keen on having a war all over again, they just didn't agree with Hitler's schedule. European unification, as a political project, is about keeping the Napoleons in check, ultimately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
Its better we as a contintent suffer from the German fetishization of austerity and schwarze null than we suffer from their previous fetishization of militarism, racial hierarchies, and expansionism, to be fair. The EU has suceeded wildly in that aspect for past 75 years at least. They're a bad influence now, but they would almost certainly have been much worse kept outside the tent left to their own devices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
Blut posted:Its better we as a contintent suffer from the German fetishization of austerity and schwarze null than we suffer from their previous fetishization of militarism, racial hierarchies, and expansionism, to be fair. The EU has suceeded wildly in that aspect for past 75 years at least. Also, Germany still clearly operates under the assumption that racial hierarchies are real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 06:34
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I suppose we are all creations of our national histories. Paasikivi said that "Germany has begun two world wars, and it will begin the third too", and I view all European politics through that lens. I feel this is a little harsh - the German Empire was involved, but it's pretty reductive to say 1914 was a German action. They certainly share the blame for joining in, but it was a complicated situation driven by multiple factors. And Austria-Hungary shot first, so to speak. ...I mean obviously Princip shot first but he wasn't a state actor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I feel this is a little harsh - the German Empire was involved, but it's pretty reductive to say 1914 was a German action. They certainly share the blame for joining in, but it was a complicated situation driven by multiple factors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
Ofcourse they did`nt mention Hitler by name in a treaty. They were trying to look forward and build something better. Namedropping Hitler would accomplish little expect to embarass the Germans which was perhaps deserved but not in the spirit of the post-war cooperation. Why harsh the vibe you know? The EU deserves a good portion of the honor for the peace we had in western europe since 1945. But giving it sole credit goes too far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:Ofcourse they did`nt mention Hitler by name in a treaty. They were trying to look forward and build something better. well i mean if your founding purpose is to combat hitlerism one might think that mentioning hitler, naziism, fascism or other such things might be pertinent e. "peace" is mentioned twice in the treaty itself: CONSIDÉRANT que la paix mondiale ne peut ótre sauvegardée que par des efforts créateurs ŕ la mesure des dangers qui la menacent; SOUCIEUX de concourir par l'expansion de leurs productions fondamentales au relčvement du niveau de vie et au progrčs des oeuvres de paix; meaning (my french is not great, so this is likely clunky): CONSIDERING that world peace cannot be safeguarded but through the creative efforts matching the dangers which threaten it (...) ANXIOUS to contribute through the expansion of fundamental production to the increase of living standards and to the progress of works of peace (...) basically what it's setting up a theory of peace through increased consumption. the rest of the document as far as i can tell is mostly practical on matters of setting up a forum for discussion and co-ordination, and integrating the western european coal and steel sectors, those sectors being important to military production in ways which are understood but as far as i can tell never mentioned in the actual document itself. from my perspective - and, i'm sure, of communists at the time - what this is doing is in fact integrating the bourgeois interests of the area under french supervision to establish a united economic front and a more efficient armaments industry against the communist bloc, with increased consumption for the popular classes. in practice, it's setting up for europe to be a more reliable anticommunist stronghold. the Union is aimed at "peace" insofar as "peace" is internal to the Union - it is in fact a recognition that power has shifted away from europe and that the european bourgeoisie have to integrate in order to assert themselves on the world stage. this, to be sure, is a perfectly fine political project and may even have helped prevent some conflict between these countries (though i really do think that the whole geopolitical situation of the post-war era and the Cold War played an immeasurably bigger part). what i don't like is the imbuing of the EU with all these grand ideals that people keep wanting to do - and i find the idea that it was meant as a bulwark against fascism specifically objectionable as well, given the integration of unrepentant fascists in high levels of at least the biggest of the founding states during the period in question. V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jan 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:The EU deserves a good portion of the honor for the peace we had in western europe since 1945. But giving it sole credit goes too far. If a hypothetical 60s or 70s Germany did try to do a Schlieffen Plan on France, what did they think would happen 20 minutes later?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Actually, it's like that saying about slavery being the cause of the Civil War. First you think it was about slavery, then you realize it was more complicated, before finally realizing it was actually just slavery all along. Just replace slavery with "the Germans started it" (when they pushed the Austrians to go to war). I feel WW1 was more complicated than America's racists trying and failing to Triumph of Their Will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:La paix nucléaire deserves some portion of the credit too. France would probably have been safe with their nuclear weapons. Though you never know with Prussians, they may have decided a limited nuclear war was worth the Alsatian lebensraum. Its some combination of the residents of Brussels, Amsterdam, Gdansk, Prague, Vienna and Padborg who would might have had a rather more problematic later 20th century with a back to business as usual expansionist, revanchist, militaristic, Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Blut posted:France would probably have been safe with their nuclear weapons. Though you never know with Prussians, they may have decided a limited nuclear war was worth the Alsatian lebensraum. it remains to be explained how such a germany would have re-emerged in the context of the cold war, of course, but that's a mere detail
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
Germany was occupied and without sovereignty until the 90s and the occupation only ended after Kohl committed to the founding of the EU and a common currency. Nobody was gonna let Germany off the leash that easily again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, still shame on you. But, well, you can't get fooled a third time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:La paix nucléaire deserves some portion of the credit too. that hypothetical Germany would also have nukes
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
Germany going nuts again was definitely a concern during reunificationquote:One of the most difficult questions facing the negotiators was the question of the German relationship to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) after reunification. The United States was anxious to ensure German involvement, which would provide an avenue for continued U.S. engagement in Western Europe and ideally keep a united Germany from pursuing expansionist goals. At first, Gorbachev opposed German membership in NATO. However, as German Reunification began to appear inevitable in mid-1990, he eventually agreed to a compromise in which the unified state would become a member of NATO, but would also agree to sharp reductions in the size of its combined military forces and to refrain from engaging in military exercises in eastern Germany. These conclusions, along with a German commitment to refrain from developing weapons of mass destruction and to respect the border with Poland (established after the Second World War and codified in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act), proved sufficient for the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe to accept the reunification of Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it remains to be explained how such a germany would have re-emerged in the context of the cold war, of course, but that's a mere detail Presumably the exact same way Hitler's Germany was allowed re-emerge in the context of the 1930s. An enthusiasticly militarist West Germany, making noises about reclaiming Berlin (and later Breslau), would not have been discouraged in any way, shape, or form from spending vast sums on military hardware by the US in the 1970s/1980s, even if it was making the occasional side-eye at Strasbourg while doing so. The commies are the only real threat you see. Blut fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 18, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah I can see a hardline anticommunist West Germany with some very familiar faces in high positions being allowed some rearmament. I can't see the US/France/UK allowing them even a limited independent nuclear program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
Blut posted:Presumably the exact same way Hitler's Germany was allowed re-emerge in the context of the 1930s. An enthusiasticly militarist West Germany, making noises about reclaiming Berlin (and later Breslau), would not have been discouraged in any way, shape, or form from spending vast sums on military hardware by the US in the 1970s/1980s, even if it was making the occasional side-eye at Strasbourg while doing so. The commies are the only real threat you see. please connect this with Blut posted:France would probably have been safe with their nuclear weapons. Though you never know with Prussians, they may have decided a limited nuclear war was worth the Alsatian lebensraum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it remains to be explained how such a germany would have re-emerged in the context of the cold war, of course, but that's a mere detail I realize Norway had a special relationship with the A-treaty from the get-go, but do you really consider all of Soviet foreign policy in Europe during the Cold War as some kind of Asiatic fluke? The idea of a resurgent Germany seemed big in someone's minds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 22:47
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:please connect this with I'm not sure how the connection needs explaining, but if you apparently don't get the rather simple concept... The implication is that a more militaristic, revanchist Germany would invade its near neighbours to violently claim their land. In much the same way as they, or their Prussian predecessors, did for hundreds of years, repeatedly, before 1946.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I realize Norway had a special relationship with the A-treaty from the get-go, but do you really consider all of Soviet foreign policy in Europe during the Cold War as some kind of Asiatic fluke? The idea of a resurgent Germany seemed big in someone's minds. the idea of germany asserting itself as an independent power with ramstein airbase right there to the point of invading other NATO countries is nonsense, yes. the BRD was never a fully independent actor during the cold war because the US basically held a gun to its head for the whole period. Blut posted:I'm not sure how the connection needs explaining, but if you apparently don't get the rather simple concept... you're saying (if i'm being charitable), that anticommunism would've seen germany allowed to re-arm under american auspices; i agree that this is not inconceivable in and of itself. there is a very long road from there to invading the low countries, which is your claim and what i'd like you to expand upon. please without weird racial theories about sonderweg and prussian genetic militarism if you can manage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 10:07
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the idea of germany asserting itself as an independent power with ramstein airbase right there to the point of invading other NATO countries is nonsense, yes. the BRD was never a fully independent actor during the cold war because the US basically held a gun to its head for the whole period. We have come a long way from discussing what the EEC was about, but are you arguing right now that the Soviet Union did not exist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 10:24
|
|
|
Maybe it didn't, did you consider that? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 10:28
|
|
|
I didn't realize we'd come this far from the ETYK peace conference, but it seems I am naive when it comes to foreign politics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 10:33
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:The EU deserves a good portion of the honor for the peace we had in western europe since 1945. But giving it sole credit goes too far. Yeah, some portion for sure, but Europe being divided between NATO and WarPac seems like a way bigger cause in my opinion. Post-1991 might be a beginning of another era that could be evaluated differently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 11:57
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you're saying (if i'm being charitable), that anticommunism would've seen germany allowed to re-arm under american auspices; i agree that this is not inconceivable in and of itself. there is a very long road from there to invading the low countries, which is your claim and what i'd like you to expand upon. please without weird racial theories about sonderweg and prussian genetic militarism if you can manage. You're rather ruining the joke here, are you quite sure you aren't German? They tend to be this level of borderline autistic about the whole alien concept of 'humour'. That aside, I was saying that none of Germany's neighbours would likely be safe from being invaded if Germany weren't currently tied into the EU. Based on the previous few hundred years of German, and Prussian history. During which time they repeatedly invaded the low countries, alongside many others. This is the first time ever that they've managed to go 80 years without invading someone. The very well accepted fact, and history, of Prussian militarism really shouldn't be an alien concept to anyone on a political forum. Does that break it down clearly enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 12:23
|
|
|
You say Germany hasn't invaded and annexed countries and yet Nigel Farage assures me that you did so via the ECB.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 13:24
|
|
|
Blut posted:You're rather ruining the joke here, are you quite sure you aren't German? They tend to be this level of borderline autistic about the whole alien concept of 'humour'. Please list the invasions being done France, UK, Spain, Poland, Russia, Austria. Maybe also add the rest like Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden. Italy was too fragmented to really participate (same as Germany prior to like 1800). Hint: prior to ~1850 invading neighboring countries was a hobby for everyone. Germany just got "unlucky" that the focus is on the big WWs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
They also set a whole bunch of records on the amounts of corpses. OK, you have Napoleon on the other side, but sheesh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:We have come a long way from discussing what the EEC was about, but are you arguing right now that the Soviet Union did not exist? i don't understand where that comes in here? NATO is premised on the existence of a soviet union and communist geopolitical threat to stay together. the existence of the soviet union and its sphere is a necessary part of the geopolitical picture which made it impossible for the BRD to rearm and invade belgium, because it presents an external threat which makes a general subordination to the americans necessary or desirable. the EU is not such a necessary part. i am addressing blut's hypothetical in which the EU does not exist and therefore the bonn government annexes the low countries. Blut posted:You're rather ruining the joke here, are you quite sure you aren't German? They tend to be this level of borderline autistic about the whole alien concept of 'humour'. so was "germany would've invaded belgium if not for the EU" a joke or was it in earnest? i'm afraid this is all too close to your normal mode of analysis for me to discern, so you are going to have to be very literal and explicit with me. V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Rappaport posted:They also set a whole bunch of records on the amounts of corpses. OK, you have Napoleon on the other side, but sheesh. Napoleon was at least somewhat less monstrous than even WWI Germany, nevermind WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2024 18:35
|
|
