Memorials

While Remembrance Sunday tends to be very high profile and well marked in the UK, as you would expect it is a very much lower key affair in Germany. Understandably I think, but we should not lose sight of the fact that both the wars fought in the first half of the 20th Century began with a political assassination in Sarajevo. Then it escalated because a whole slew of family alliances, political alliances and ambitions all came together to drag Europe and then the world into a war. Even though he is often accused of being a warmonger, it is worth noting that the Kaiser sent a batch of urgent telegrams to King George V, the French and to the Tsar inviting them to stay out of "the Austrian/Serb squabble." If they would refrain from mobilising, he would not mobilise his forces.

Unfortunately the Tsar, possibly because he hadn't thought through the implications, ignored the plea and told his generals to mobilise. As a result the dominoes began to tumble, one after another, setting in train the mobilisations which became the mud of the various battlefield theaters,  and slaughter of the flower of European youth. For some it was certainly about patriotism, for others it was simply duty and for many it was a way to escape menial and degrading lives and futures.

Given that the first war ended without a clear winner, despite the propaganda from the winning side, the second was made inevitable by the draconian conditions imposed in the 'peace.' As Churchill has written, the terms imposed at the end of the first war, made the second inevitable. It paved the way for the spread and growth of ideologies that have left a terrible legacy. Russia alone lost almost 15 million men, and the German nation bled almost to death with the loss of over 8 million in 1939 - 45 and the losses in WW1 were much higher on all sides.

I am reminded of this regularly as I take a walk past the little Friedhof in Watzhahn. It is a small village now, it was even smaller in 1914 and not much bigger in 1939. The Albus family and the Debus families still live here, others have gone, their sons and fathers remembered only on the memorial below.

The fresh wreath is laid every year, quietly and without fuss, by the Village committee chairman and the families whose uncles, fathers and grandfathers names are recorded. Propaganda is a wonderful thing, it enables us to avoid looking to closely at how these things happen, what gives rise to the ideologies that drive them and at the suffering that arises on all sides.

Certainly I think, as I look at the names on this memorial for 1939 - 1945, I find myself thinking that D-Day also represented the liberation of the German people from the clutches of a tyrant. Sadly, it left others, almost as bad, in power for another 50 years.

Something a little different ...

I'm fed up with politics, politicians and political commentators, so here is something totally different for a change -

Democracy - a question of meaning ...

From Wikipedia:

Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.^[1] It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

To most of us, the above is what we think is the way things work in any "democracy" but, is it?


In most "democratic" countries (and quite a few the "West" consider undemocratic) this generally means we get to vote every few years to determine who sits in a parliament, council chamber or some other "house" of representation and run a country, city, province or county on our behalf. If you live in a country where it is "one man; one vote" and a "first past the post is elected" system there is a complication if your candidate isn't elected. It also means that a "tribal" vote for a particular party can make it impossible to change a government. This was the case in South Africa from 1948 to 1994, the distribution of constituencies meant that there was a permanent majority for the Nationalist Party, the architects of Apartheid. If you lived in a Nationalist Constituency and didn't vote for them, your vote scarcely mattered.


The big question has to be, is this really democracy? Was the "democracy" practiced by communist dictatorships any better? Did the voter really have an "equal say in the decisions that affect their lives?" Simplistically - no. The ruling party usually has enough seats to overrule any objection from anyone in opposition. OK, so this is called "majority" rule, but it is a bit of steamroller as far as anyone dissenting is concerned, especially if you have no hope of reversing whatever the decision was because you can't change the government. It gets worse where the elected "Members" of the legislature claim that their "House" is also "sovereign" and that this means they don't have to consult the electorate on anything, no matter how large an issue it might be, between elections.


Personally I don't believe that any of these systems is really democratic. Why? Because most of them contain the single flaw - the electorate really only have a say over who "represents" them and not over what the collected "representatives" can and can't enact which impacts on their electorate.


As I remarked yesterday, much fuss has been made in certain quarters about the fact that the Greek and Italian governments have been changed without an election. It is claimed that this is undemocratic, but my impression from the news channels in those two countries is that the people are overjoyed at the change. Berlusconi owned almost all the newspapers and TV stations and, as the media invariably exert a huge influence in any election, could, conceivably, have swung enough voters to hang on in power - despite having almost single-handedly destroyed the Italian economy. The Italians are quite happy that, at last, he has been forced from office.


The Greeks present another side of the coin. They elected the Papandreou government and its predecessor, both in thrall to the communist controlled Trade Unions and both far left socialist in their policies. Cue very generous social welfare, health care, civil service pay and a free spending programme for everyone - plus a lack of tax policing and collection leading to massive tax evasion. The Unions are against the cuts, the government has little choice since their loans are now due for payment and those who do pay their taxes are now feeling the pinch. A change of government is welcomed by most there as well, but, yes, there is a price to pay.


It is interesting to note that there is no universally accepted definition of democracy, which was invented in Greece, not as a means of "electing representatives" but as a way of getting people removed from office and even exiled from the city states. Perhaps that is a concept we should explore again!


"Majority" rule has, in recent times, been declared by various liberal thinkers as the only acceptable form of democracy, yet the same group are quite happy to impose "minority rights" giving minorities power to frustrate a majority wish expressed in a "democratic" manner. Personally I find it disturbing that a system that was totally unacceptable in Africa, is now imposed in the name of "fairness and justice" to "protect ethnic minorities" in a sort of reverse apartheid. "Minority rights" are important, but should they be able to overturn the rights of a majority? Those who argue they should are, ironically the same people who fought to have the apartheid regime isolated and driven from government.


The EU is promoted as a "democratic" institution, but how much influence do the individual voters actually have? The answer is very little, certainly in terms of the definition with which I started. We "elect" the Strasbourg Parliament, but that's about it. The Council of Ministers appoints the Commissioners who actually make the laws - and it is claimed that this is a "democratic" process because the Ministers are "elected" by the voters and therefore empowered to make these appointments ...


Democratic? In my view, marginally. Very marginally. Frankly, its corrupt.


Is Britain's much vaunted system any better? Roughly a third of the seats at present can be described as "tribal" (The correct term is "Safe" meaning one Party enjoys an unasailable majority in that constituency) and in reality only the "marginal" seats ever change hands. Add to that the "Whips" who enforce "Party Discipline" and make sure all their MPs vote as they are told to by "The Leader" and you have to wonder if your voice is ever heard at all.


The explanation (excuse) is that we live in a "Parliamentary Democracy" and that "Parliament is Sovereign" and therefore free to do as it pleases once elected. You, the voter, have given them your approval and proxy to rule you as they see fit. Is it really democratic? It is argued that we can change the government, but the UK system (and most of those modelled on it) really only offer a choice of two Parties and, if neither happens to represent your ideals or views - well, tough.


I suppose we are left with Sir Winston Churchill's famous line - "Democracy: The worst of all systems of government. Except for all the others."

Different points of view ...

I have watched and read with interest a number of different blogs, news items and newspapers in recent days all with different points of view on the €uro and the efforts to save it and prevent the debt crises in Greece, Italy and other southern European countries, from getting out of hand. Many of the British blogs and newspapers seem to be following the theme of "good riddance to the €uro, no body wants it," or "EU/Brussels/France/Germany have removed the democratic rights of Greece and Italy" or "Germany is trying to takeover Europe ..."

It is very interesting to note that there is a strong anti-German theme in many of these posts, most of which focus on the attempt to bail out the various governments whose profligate spending has precipitated the crisis. All the old propaganda is being paraded again. Germany wants to suppress democracy, Germany wants to control Europe, Germany wants ... Living in Germany I can only say that the Germans are themselves utterly bemused by all this.

As for those claiming that the Italians have been denied a "democratic right" that certainly isn't the impression one gets watching them celebrating Berlusconi's departure. Anyone would think, watching Italian, Swiss and German newscasts, that the Italians felt that his being forced to resign by the EU rescue deal was a good thing. Interestingly, this is not what is being reported (I can't watch BBC or UK Channels because they don't allow people outside the UK to do so!) in the UK according to the online newspapers. Is this just a different perspective, or is it a deliberate attempt to put a different spin on things?

An interesting question. But what is the motive behind it?

As far as I can see from the news reports and blogs I follow, it is all about forcing the UK Government to hold a Referendum on membership of the EU. It seems the bloggers and the media want to see the UK out of Europe, many with the fond idea that the former colonial and Dominion members of the Empire that form the Commonwealth will welcome them back with open arms and help form an anti-Europe trading bloc. Some might, but I suspect that a majority won't.

I also find the glee with which many of these reports contemplate the "failure of the €uro" disturbing. They seem to have no concept of how the money values work or what and who is likely to suffer most if it does - and it certainly won't be any of the political classes or the really wealthy. No, it will be the ordinary people, the workers, the Middle Classes who will suddenly find that everything they have worked for has collapsed around them. Do these reporters and "experts" ("x" is an unknown factor and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure) really want to see this happen?

Much was made last week of warnings from Germany that allowing the collapse of the €uro might see wars break out in Europe again. This was trumpeted by some as "proof" that "German militarism" was rising and a "threat" to stability. In fact, Germany has cut its armed forces even more drastically than the UK at the moment, scrapping all seven of an entire class of frigates in its Navy and slashing the number of soldiers, sailors and airmen to less than half the figure they were. Reading the full German text of the speech so badly reported in the UK presents a slightly different picture. The reference was to a rise in civil strife which could overspill borders once the economies of some of the states just emerging from the Communist desert collapse. It was not a reference to the sort of wholesale conquests attempted in the last century at all.

Much is made in some quarters about the "lack of democracy" in Europe, yet almost all of Europe uses Alternative Voting or some variant of Proportional Representation. In the UK, if you don't vote according to the "tribal preference" of your local constituency, you might as well not bother - and many don't. I would agree that the Commission should be directly elected and perhaps certain other key posts as well, but here comes the difficulty. It would have to be done on some sort of "Collegiate" system such as that used in the US for presidential elections and we all know the problems that can arise from that! The UK population is currently 62 million, Germany some 85 million, France about the same. It figures that if you get "bloc" voting, your population counts, but is a Collegiate system going to equilise or further disadvantage member states and their voters? Interestingly the German population is declining by about 0.1% per year, while the UKs is rising by 1% per year. Changing demographics can change the voting patterns as well as the economics of a situation. And, how democratic is democratic? Or better still, how do we define it? Let us not forget that all the Communist regimes did, and some still do, claim to be the only democratic states in the world ...

This leads on to one of the things so exercising the UK media and blogs at the moment. As Mr Cameron discovered in his very own "West Lothian" moment - the seventeen €uro States in the EU are not about to take any advice from him or anyone else who isn't in the €uro about how to save it, manage it or work with it. And why should they? After all, the UK has made it clear it is staying out, the Pound is a rival currency and the UK hopes in some quarters, that the failure of the €uro will somehow strengthen the Pound isn't likely to endear then to it or him. In fact the consensus among economists seems to be that the failure of the €uro will damage everyone, perhaps bringing a total failure of the economies of a large number of struggling states.

Sometimes I have the very clear impression that some commentators live on a planet where the view is very confined, so confined that it could almost be unrealistic. There is a larger picture here, one that is slowly becoming clearer. No one seems to have asked why the UK is running its armed forces to such a low ebb. Despite the government's protestations that they are as big and strong as they need be to meet the UK Defence needs, the truth is that they are not. Numerous defence experts have pointed this out and so have the armed forces themselves. But across Europe Defence forces are being reduced and the only conclusion one can draw is that somewhere in this are a bunch of bureaucrats beavering away and planning for a single European Army, Navy and Airforce. Similar activity is affecting police services and many other services - so just how "independent" is anyone these days.

The same applies to may EU member economies, they are now so intertwined that the events in Greece threaten everyone, not just the Eurozone members. Ah well, as a small player and a single vote in a very big pond of voters, I guess I, like everybody else, will just have to wait and see. I just hope the more vociferous among the anti-€uro, anti-EU lobbies are wrong ...    

Perspectives ...

Earlier this week the Postulant copied me into a link for a brochure the Metropolitan Police were distributing to the "Occupy London" rent-a-mob. It was a great piece of PR and advice, it contained such gems as  -

... if an officer is wearing his riot helmet with the visor down he may not be able to hear you unless he is facing you. He may also shout at you to make sure you hear him ...

As they had gone to some trouble to make clear that the policemen and women would not be wearing these helmets unless faced with a situation that called for it - as in someone has started throwing things or attempted something naughty - I rather thought the gentle hint was "don't even attempt to talk to him - just do as you're told. NOW!"

The Postulant was also engaged with a chat forum and following a clash with some young person whose ignorance obviously exceeds his personality she sent me the following comment -

I really enjoyed seeing an example of the police still managing to do their job well and in a creative way, despite all of the obstacles that get put in their way. We are fortunate that there are still people who are prepared to wear uniform and fight bureacracy to keep us safe - and I would be happy to be quoted on that, at any time and however publicly it needs to be said.  I also pointed out to an anonymous little twerp who insulted a copper on a large online forum with the usual "I pay your wages" garbage that the police and other emergency services are remarkably good value for money. I reminded him that before Robert Peel, the only people who could afford to have someone go after a thief who stole their treasured possessions were the extremely rich (I omitted criminals with heavies - but the price of having a gang of heavies is that sooner or later they get you, so I don't count that as equal protection).  Considering the relatively small amount that we all pay in tax (and probably tiny percentage of our tax that goes to fire, police and health services), we should be extremely grateful to have the kind of protection that used to require a personal army. Any prat who mocks the emergency services deserves the experience of needing them - and then feeling the worst kind of shame over being helped by people who are far better than them. And before you say they wouldn't feel shame, they do in their shrivelled little souls - they just don't always know what the feeling's called ;)

That's my girl all right.

Remembrance Day

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We shall remember them.

They shall not grow old

As we that are left grow old.

Age shall not weary them

Nor the years condemn.

They gave their today

So that we might enjoy our tomorrow.

My grandfather, A/Sgt Henry Nelson Heron (18yrs), Royal Garrison Artillery, 36th Ulster Division, recalled that the silence which descended on the Front at 11 o'clock on the 11th November, 1918 was the most eerie thing he had ever experienced. He never forgot the friends, most of them school boys like himself, he left behind on Flanders fields.

On Flander's fields, where poppies grow,

Between the crosses, row on row ...

The flower of Europe's youth lies beneath those and all the other battle fields from that war and the subsequent one. We should never forget the sacrifice they made. Even those who survived carried the scars to their graves and some of those scars were not visible to the eye, but were indelibly etched on the hearts and minds of the men who fought them.

A sensible rejection ...

As usual there are all the "free lunch" socialist types demanding a "tax on wealth" to pay for, International AID, Climate Change, Wealth Redistribution and Job Creation. The Chancellor of the UK, the number 2 man in the government if you count the incumbent of No. 10 Downing Street as No.1 (I don't, to me the Sovereign is always No. 1 so George Osborne is No. 3) may not be everyone's favourite person, but in this videoed session of the EU Ministers, he is making a damned sight more sense than most of his detractors ...