Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

Post EUphobia: My Perspective
Created by John Eipper on 10/15/17 4:56 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:


EUphobia: My Perspective (Boris Volodarsky, Austria, 10/15/17 4:56 am)

A very nice post from Nigel Jones (13 October) about the EU.

To my mind, the EU is an absolutely disgusting creature. Among one of my acquaintances, but not friends, is an MEP representing the UKIP in the European parliament. We first met exactly ten years ago and I see he is still there, a prominent member of their 20-member delegation. Once at lunch I asked him about his work. He said, "You know what, I wake up in the morning, take a Eurostar business class, go to Brussels, listen to what they have to say, have a beer and come back to London. To be honest, I cannot do anything else and I do not want to." And I guess his salary is very fat and his pension is going to be extremely satisfactory.

During those ten years I have asked him two or three times to do this or that, like, for example, to help arrange a viewing of the Andrei Nekrasov's documentary about Bill Browder and the Magnitsky case (scheduled to be shown to the MEPs but then suddenly forbidden) and he always answered, "Look, none of us can do anything at all. We are here to be present, to show that we are here and that is all." Finally, I gave up.

About the family business. I come from Russia, was born on the Volga, a very Russian river where they used to have Beluga, Ossetra, Sturgeon and Sterlet caviar and fish (not anymore). My father was Russian and my mother ethnic German. I am married to a Polish lady and have lived for 20 years in Vienna and ten in London. My son is Austrian and is trilingual while I guess many of us WAISers, are multilingual. So, like Nigel, I love Europe but absolutely dislike that "faceless bureaucratic morass, the EU."

Nigel, your son's wedding in Vienna to a Russian woman sounds good, congratulations, but if I were you I would check her out--maybe her real name is Anna Chapman or similar. Vienna is a very special city. Anyway, if you are going to attend the event, just let me know and I shall be happy to invite you for a Wiener Melange at the Landtmann. At the same time, Tim Ashby has already invited me to the London's famous Carlton Club in St James's so in case it all works there will be some photos that our esteemed editor wants to see.

JE comments: Will the British MEPs still be getting their pensions post-Brexit? I suspect they somehow will.  I'm never one to sing the praises of bureaucrats, but isn't a UKIP MEP something of a kosher pork chop?  He would say he can't do anything in Brussels and doesn't want to, wouldn't he?

I checked out the Landtmann menu last night.  Scrumpdillyicious.  Boris, do they send carry-out across the Pond?

Rate this post
Informational value 
Reader Ratings (0)
Informational value0%

Visits: 131


Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Brexit: Ideological Passions and Economic Realities (Tor Guimaraes, USA 10/16/17 3:41 AM)
    I have been following from a distance the WAIS discussion on Brexit, which it is beginning to remind me of some sort of Greek tragedy. It is a very complex situation and it seems ridiculous when some unprofessional (uninformed, irresponsible, superficial, etc.) commentator blurts out sharp personal opinion without backup evidence to support it.

    One thing is for sure, if I were a Brit (and unfortunately I cannot be that too), I would be greatly worried about what Timothy Ashby said: "Close to 80 percent of British food imports (worth around £20 billion per annum) come from EU member states, and if no trade agreement is reached Britain and the EU would have to treat each other as World Trade Organization members following WTO rules, which would mean average tariffs of 22 percent, with some as high as 46 percent for Italian mozzarella cheese, and 40 percent for Irish beef."

    I would be less worried about smoke-blowing ideologues and personal opinions on politics and politicians.

    We all seem to be cursed by irresponsible and corrupt leaders. It is a horrible thing that we seem to tolerate because we don't have what it takes to fix our political leader election process. But a 20-40 percent increase in food prices will sting much of the population, and will significantly reduce the standard of living. What are the social political implications? What will Britain do in return?

    JE comments:  A 20%, or even 40% tariff on imported foods will no doubt change consumption habits.  Won't UK food producers see this as a windfall?  Less wine, more beer?

    On post-Brexit air travel between the UK and the Continent, see Ángel Viñas (next).

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • Food Tariffs Post-Brexit? (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 10/16/17 2:32 PM)
      Tor Guimaraes quoted Ángel Viñas on October 16th:

      "Close to 80 percent of British food imports (worth around £20 billion per annum) come from EU member states, and if no trade agreement is reached Britain and the EU would have to treat each other as World Trade Organization members following WTO rules, which would mean average tariffs of 22 percent, with some as high as 46 percent for Italian mozzarella cheese, and 40 percent for Irish beef."

      WTO rules do not require tariffs--on the contrary, they limit them. Why in the world would the UK impose tariffs on imported food? I think someone has the wrong end of the stick here.

      JE comments:  Can't we be fairly certain that a wrathful EU will slap a tariff on British foodstuffs, which can only result in retaliation?  Granted, the proof will be in the (hasty) pudding.  

      What the heck is hasty pudding anyway?

      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • Will There be a Food Tariff War Post-Brexit? (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 10/17/17 7:52 AM)
        When responding to my post of October 16th, JE wrote: "Can't we be fairly certain that a wrathful EU will slap a tariff on British foodstuffs, which can only result in retaliation? Granted, the proof will be in the (hasty) pudding."

        No, I don't think we can be certain of this, not at all.

        On the contrary, I think we can be fairly certain that there will be no broad-based trade war between the UK and EU in the food sector. The UK's not being "self-sufficient" in food means that the UK is a net importer of food. That means that a trade war would hurt EU producers more than UK producers. Add to that the precarious financial position of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, and throw in the fact that French farmers are one of the most powerful political forces in the EU, and you can see that a trade war in food with the UK would be suicidal for the EU.

        The EU may or may not be as evil as our friends Nigel Jones and others believe, but it is certainly not so stupid as this. If the EU does attempt to squash French farmers, or German machine-tool builders, the way it did British fishermen once upon a time, it will simply cease to exist. One should not underestimate the existential risk to the EU of getting Brexit wrong--the EU actually has more to lose than the UK does, because the EU can be dissolved tomorrow, if the broad mass of Europeans see it as hurting their jobs and pocketbooks, but the UK government cannot.

        Trade in agricultural products is actually the UK's ace in the hole, in its trade negotiations with the EU. The EU needs uninhibited trade in agricultural products with the UK far more than the UK does, for political (French farmers; viability of the EU Common Agricultural Policy) as well as economic reasons.

        In general, broad-based trade wars no longer occur between civilized countries, because they cause so much harm to both sides of them, including political harm. There are few countries on the earth, in this age of globalism, even with non-democratic forms of government, which are able to bear the political consequences from imposing broad-based suffering on their populations and large-scale economic harm, by engaging in broad-based trade wars--Putin's Russia after the 2014 sanctions being a practically unique exception. Trade wars, when they occur between civilized countries, occur over narrowly targeted, symbolic sectors.

        So I would advise taking the bluster and posturing presently going on in the Brexit negotiations with a big grain, nay a box of salt. The UK and EU are highly interdependent and neither side can afford a big trade war, least of all, the EU, which cannot survive without the support of the myriad industries, and their employees, which depend on exports to the UK.

        JE comments:  Cameron Sawyer makes a strong case, but aren't we underestimating the spite factor? France's farmers notwithstanding, Brussels will want to put some hurt on the British, even if it ends up costing them more in strictly economic terms.  Must make other potentially straying members think twice.

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

  • Questions for the EUrophobe (Istvan Simon, USA 10/16/17 12:26 PM)
    I am always fascinated by Boris Volodarsky's informative posts and his perspective is always insightful. Once again, I'd like to say that I do not have a horse in the EU debate either. I have a favorable opinion about the EU, but if member countries do not think so, I am equally happy with a non-united Europe. That is, I am pretty dispassionate and flexible about the organization of Europe's structure.

    The EU may be unredeemable as Nigel Jones and Boris Volodarsky say. I may not be sufficiently well informed about its supposedly unredeemable features. Still I think it would be useful to discuss this in more dispassionate terms than what Nigel's hatred of the EU has revealed. So I ask Nigel to put his passions in the back burner for the moment and let us talk as civilized people respecting the views of the opposition.

    I have something to ask Boris about his story about the British UKIP MEP. With all due respect I think his friend was profoundly dishonest in being an MEP for UKIP. And with all due respect, to be part of an organization to undermine it is in my view morally despicable. So his views may have been colored by this desire to undermine the European Parliament. From this point of view I am more interested in what Ángel Viñas has to say about the EU, because at least he is a believer in its usefulness and worked for what he believed in. One cannot say the same about the British UKIP MEP. I ask Boris if he agrees with what I said in this last paragraph, and in either case, whether he agrees or not, why.

    Further, I would like to ask both Nigel and Boris the following questions. Before I ask the questions I would like to set the framework with my view of the EU.

    The EU was formed after the Common Market was a huge success for the original 6 countries. It was born of the idea that Europe could be more important on the world stage if it was a united conglomerate of states bound by certain common values together. Even though culturally very different, as Nigel correctly says of the member states, still it is a fact I think that there are certain important common values as well. These values are:

    1 A belief in democratically elected governments.

    2. A belief in free markets, including a common labor market.

    3. A belief in competition (by the way, this is a profoundly non-Marxist view, Nigel).

    4. A belief that the defense of Europe can be more effective in a union than separately. NATO is more effective if a member country is also a member of the EU than would be otherwise. The United States government under president Obama agreed with this last point, and this is the reason why President Obama stated clearly that we were opposed to Brexit.

    So preliminarily, I want to ask Nigel and Boris if they agree with the above 4 points in the abstract--that is disregarding for the moment whatever failures the EU has in its actual current implementation. So I propose that we discuss these four points in the abstract first. Do Boris and Nigel agree with my 4 points in the abstract? If they don't, why not?

    After we discuss these ideas in the abstract we can turn the discussion to the failures of the EU in its actual implementation, and why a better implementation is possible or not.

    I would like to add a few comments about the current flawed implementation of the EU and yet defend its usefulness. I also ask Nigel and Boris to comment on my ideas, and explain why they disagree or agree with what I say in my comments below.

    Let's look at the EU from the perspective of Google or Microsoft. Both of these American companies have had problems with the EU, in that the EU sued and fined both of them for what they considered anti-competitive practices. Still, I would like to propose the idea that even though, if I am Google or Microsoft I'd rather be dealing with the troublesome EU authorities than if they did not exist. Why? Because if the EU did not exist, I would have to deal with 28 different bureaucracies. This way, at least I only have to satisfy one bureaucracy, and once they are satisfied I can do business in all 28 member countries unmolested. The value of this for Google or Microsoft, Boeing, Lockheed, Apple, Motorola, Linux, etc. is obvious.

    JE comments:  I can confidently anticipate Nigel Jones's responses to 1 and 4:  First, #1:  if the individual EU member states believe in democracy, why then should they tolerate the non-democratic superstructure that is the EU?  And #4:  NATO has the military muscle, not the EU.  (These are Nigel's views, not mine.)

    Still, I hope Nigel and Boris will give their responses to Istvan's thoughtful questions.

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • Why I am a EUrophobe: Response to Istvan Simon (Nigel Jones, UK 10/17/17 4:44 AM)
      I would like to thank Istvan Simon (16 October) for his questions on the European Union, and will do my best to answer them, in the hope that it will disabuse him--and maybe other interested WAISers--of the vague view (so common among Americans) that the EU is a benign, progressive, peace-loving, economically efficient organisation when in fact it is the opposite of all these things.

      Let us begin with the so-called European Parliament. This is not a Parliament in any meaningful sense of the word since it cannot initiate, pass, or reject laws, but is merely there to rubber stamp the decrees of the unelected European Commission (the EU's real rulers), and to give a democratic fig leaf to the profoundly undemocratic EU. It is akin to the old Supreme Soviet. It is, moreover, outrageously expensive, as the whole show moves periodically between Brussels and Strasbourg merely to satisfy the amour propre of France, one of the original six founding members, which insists that it must meet in a French city. If you imagine Congress moving every few months between Washington and, say, Milwaukee, you will get the general idea about this absurd institution.

      Istvan and John Eipper have both expressed surprise that members of an anti-EU party like UKIP should stand for and be elected to the European Parliament, but this is easily explained. If you wish to expose a fraud, where better to do so than from the inside?

      Think of UKIP and other anti-EU parties as the Trojan Horse inside the EU's corrupt citadel. Or, as one UKIP MEP put it to me: "Taking Satan's money to do God's work."

      Now to answer Istvan's specific numbered points:

      1. Istvan says the EU is based on a "belief in democratically elected governments." This is completely untrue and Istvan is utterly mistaken or misinformed in this belief. The whole ethos of the EU is anti-democratic, being based on the idea that democracy is dangerous as occasionally the "wrong" parties get elected by stupid voters. Instead the EU is run by a self-perpetuating oligarchy: a bureaucratic elite similar to the old apparatchiks who ran the Soviet empire (which Istvan is all too familiar with). To take a couple of examples of the EU's anti democratic ethos in practice:

      A) The EU regularly ignores or overrides democratic referendums that run counter to its aims. This has happened in Ireland, France, the Netherlands and Greece and an effort is currently underway to reverse Britain's Brexit decision.

      B) The EU has actually displaced democratically elected Governments in Greece and Italy and replaced them with its own puppet placemen.

      So much for Istvan's illusions about the EU's democracy.

      2. Far from believing in "free markets" as Istvan claims, the EU is a protectionist bloc which erects tariff barriers against world trade.

      3. Likewise, the EU does not believe in competition or capitalism. As one would expect of an organisation run by Marxists like Barroso, or Socialists like Schulz, it believes in just the opposite: statism.

      4. Again, Istvan's belief that the EU helps defend Europe is entirely erroneous. As John Eipper has rightly stated, Europe's defence is in the hands of NATO, an organisation that the EU is doing its best to undermine with its plans for a European army. One of the persistent myths perpetrated by the EU is that it has helped maintain peace in Europe, whereas (again) the exact opposite is the case.

      Here are some examples of the EU's contribution to social instability and conflict in Europe.

      --Germany's recognition of Croatian independence caused the breakup of Yugoslavia and a bitter civil war costing many thousands of lives.

      --The EU's encouragement of Ukrainian hostility towards Russia directly contributed to the still unresolved conflict there.

      --The fraudulent cooking of the books to allow Greece to enter the Eurozone caused that country's catastrophic bankruptcy, only postponed by unrepayable bailouts.

      --The introduction of the Euro has impoverished southern Europe, depriving the young in Italy, Spain, and Portugal of any chance of a decent job in their own country.

      --The abolition of internal EU borders has facilitated mass migration from the Middle East, helped acts of mass murdering terrorism in Europe and planted a demographic time bomb in Europe and consequently caused inevitable future civil strife.

      --A new central European bloc of Poland, Hungary, and (since the weekend's elections) Austria has emerged of conservative-ruled countries determined to resist the EU's suicidal policy of encouraging more mass Islamic immigration.

      Need I really go on?

      In short, whatever the idealistic intentions of the EU's founders, the European project, like all empires, has morphed into a monster which is increasingly meeting resistance from its subjects. I hope what I have written is enough to convince Istvan to have second thoughts about his support for it.

      JE comments:  It's hard for an outsider to accept that the EU hasn't maintained peace in Europe, especially between ancient enemies France and Germany.  Correlation of course does not prove causality, but prior to the Common Market (and the Coal and Steel Community before that), France and Germany had to fight it out every generation or so.  Not only has there been no war since 1945, but a Franco-Prussian rematch is no longer imaginable.

      "Taking Satan's money to do God's work"--I'll remember that one!

      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • EUphobia, EUphilia, EUphoria; from Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA 10/18/17 5:09 AM)

        Ric Mauricio writes:

        EUrophobia or EUrophoria, that is the question. I have to admit that when I first read a WAIS post that included the word EUrophobia, in my forever optimistic mind, I saw EUrophoria.

        Many of the WAIS posts are slanted towards a negative point of view of the EU, emphasizing especially the anti-democratic governing of its members. But one only need only look at the economic prosperity enjoyed by many of its members. Yes, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and others do enjoy a greater freedom of trade amongst its members and thus the EU is the second-largest economy in the world, second only to the AU (the American Union, aka USA).

        Aha, but what about Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain, (PIGS)?

        Now let's look at the EU not as a community of countries, but rather as a family. Those of us who have families know that we do not practice democracy within the family. There is the mother and father, and the children. Now some spouses exhibit varying amounts of strengths, discipline, financial abilities, taking care of the home and cars, etc. Some may even exhibit a strong domineering spouse and a docile spouse and not a partnership. Within the EU, you have the two strongest spouses, Germany and France. Obviously very different in personalities, but thank goodness, they do somehow balance each other out. Now the children may also have their own very distinct personalities. Some are hard workers. Others are lazy. Some are respectful. Others are rebellious. Some are savers. Others are spenders (Greece?). And the leaders in the family need to govern the household and many times, it requires a strong hand. But as parents can sometimes be, they will reluctantly continue to give money to the free spender. This is what you have in Greece, where money flows from the coffers freely every so many years, with nary the expectation that the money will ever be paid back.

        If you think that the EU can exist democratically, then unfortunately you may be smoking whatever is left of California cannabis crops. The EU cannot exist as a democratic state. On the other side of the world, China can never exist as a democratic state. There may be some day where democratic elections can happen on the local level and the people may enjoy some freedom of expression, but the Chinese do not like chaos, so they will continue to prefer their fascist state. Mind you, this is not in defense of fascism, indeed, fascism to the extreme leads to the likes of Mao, Hitler and Stalin. No, you do not want that at all. That would like a mother or father abusing their kids. Although it may seem that the EU oligarchy may be taking to the "switch discipline" every now and then, per Nigel.

        How about those who take God's Money to do Satan's Work?

        JE comments:  Family analogies are handy for explaining larger societal issues, but are they accurate?  The paternalism argument was used in its day to justify slavery and colonialism.  And EU nations on the "periphery" probably don't appreciate being likened to profligate teenagers.  Still, doesn't everyone from time to time need a taste of Mother Merkel's harsh but loving rod?

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • EU and the Family Analogy (Tor Guimaraes, USA 10/19/17 6:20 PM)
          I enjoyed immensely reading Ric Mauricio's last post (18 October). Ric's family analogy was entertaining and constructive, a breath of fresh air from WAIS posts that see the EU as some sort of evil empire by corrupt bureaucrat with no redeeming value. Just like most big nations (let alone conglomeration of historically different nations cobbled together) today, the political leaders are all stinkers one way or another.

          I do have one question about the analogy: If Germany and France are the parents, what role did Britain play? or will play if they in the end decide against Brexit?

          Since my Zodiac sign is Libra, I am very pleased that Ric balanced the innuendos by asking about the other side "How about those who take God's Money to do Satan's Work?"--thus referring to the fact that some commentators can only see one side.

          JE comments:  Germany and Frau Merkel have to be the mom, so France is Dad?  Perhaps Britain is the distant stepfather, denied visitation but forced to pay child support?  I guess these analogies only go so far.

          Tor, Libras are celebrating their birthdays this month.  Congratulations to you, and many returns!

          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Fun with Analogies: What if US Functioned Like EU? (John Heelan, UK 10/21/17 12:43 PM)
            As Tor Guimaraes (19 October) has taken the discussion into the murk of deductive reasoning via analogy, how acceptable would it be for US WAISers if EU principles were applied to "America First"?  Anything could happen with Trump.

            1.  US states suffering unemployment and economic woes (see bottom 27 on Wiki) have to be funded by the top five.

            2.  For four days every month, the denizens of Capitol Hill have to move to Canada for their parliamentary meeting.

            3.  The Trump Administration creates rules, policies and procedures to hamper the Senate and Congress exercising their democratic duties.

            4.  The Washington "gravy train for officials" emulates the EU one in Brussels and Strasbourg.

            5.  States wishing to secede from the US are castigated with as many legal and other obstacles placed in their way by the Administration as possible.

            6.  Legal decisions (other than SCOTUS) override local State legislation.

            People will say (rightly) that the saving grace for the US is the Constitution. National referendums in Ireland and others on the euro and the EU "constitution" (aka the Lisbon Treaty that altered the voting weight of Member States) and changed the Voting principle to a "qualified majority voting" system were dismissed by the EU Commission, which told recalcitrant Member States to go back and do it again until it got the answer the EU Commission wanted.

            The saving grace for the US is its 200-year-old Constitution that underlines its democracy. The 10-year-old EU constitution does not.

            JE comments:  Several of the above, especially 3 and 4, are already applicable.  Right?

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • Fascism is Historically and Culturally Specific (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 10/20/17 1:13 PM)
          A few comments in response to Ric Mauricio (18 October):

          The characterization of various dictatorships as "fascist" is a derogatory political catchword devoid of scientific precision. It tends to be used among so-called democrats to refer to any system which displaces popular representation.

          It is only when viewed as peculiarly Italian phenomenon that the essence of Fascism become clear. The ideology of Fascism viewed historically is a peculiar fusion of syndicalist theory and Italian nationalism.

          The nation becomes transfigured into a "corpus mysticum," an unbroken chain of generations, armed with a mission which is fulfilled through the course of the historical process. The duty of the individual is to elevate himself or herself to the heights of the national consciousness, and individual rights shall not conflict with the needs of the sovereign state--meaning, the nation.

          The historical beginnings of the Fascist movement are comprehensible only in the light of the severe political and economic crisis which Italy faced after WWI.

          The corporate state, later completed or "corrected" by the Socializzazione, joins state administration and private enterprise while preserving the capitalist order. The former (state administration) is understood to be the most practicable and feasible means of serving national interests, the latter (capitalism) the best adapted method of production. In a striking contrast to the laissez-faire doctrine of economic liberalism, Fascism set forth the right of the state to intervene in the process of production whenever private initiative was not up to the task at hand. The emphasis on the supremacy of the state was an effort to transcend the disastrous economic and political effects of class conflicts by focusing on the solidarity of capital and labor in the production process.

          Corporations were entrusted with the important functions of drawing up a list of candidates for the second chamber of Parliament, which would be submitted to a vote of the entire population. And since the majority of deputies came from the vocational associations, the body of popular representatives was capable of providing expert support to the work of economic legislation.

          The cultural reforms of Giovanni Gentile with his philosophy of actualism strove for the development of youth personality according to Socratic precepts, which at the same time emphasized tradition as one of the great cultural forces. Fascist educational legislation made religious education obligatory in the schools. International relations were guided by geographical location and historical traditions. Diplomacy revealed few changes from previous governments and remained empirical and realistic; what changed was the vigor with which Fascist Italy made her diplomatic claims into action.

          Fascist Italy attempted to continue and deepen the traditional friendship with England and also with France. However, the attempt to denationalize the 100,000 Italian settlers in Tunisia proved to be a serious problem complicated by sanctions from the great colonial empires against a relatively minor colonial Italian action.

          The above is a free elaboration from an article in the pre-WWII American Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

          JE comments: Whenever a WAISer blurts out the "fascist" label for an unpleasant or authoritarian regime, we get chastised by Eugenio Battaglia, who reminds us of the historical and cultural specificity of Italian Fascism. I hope Eugenio doesn't mind my quoting one of his off-Forum comments: "I write so that WAISers will understand Fascism better and stop calling 'fascist' any damned fool from Mao to Stalin, from Pinochet to Idi Amin Dada...and why not Donald Trump?"

          Many (not Eugenio!) would include Mussolini on the "damned fool" list, but Eugenio's point is well taken. Why has "fascist" become a catch-all epithet? Think of the "Antifa" movement rising at present in the US.

          If we read Eugenio's description literally, couldn't we call a state like South Korea "fascist"--corporatist, strongly nationalist, with a strong alignment of government, labor, and capital?

          Be warned, WAISers: Misuse the fascist label, and Eugenio will hold you accountable.

          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Economics of Fascism; From Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA 10/25/17 3:34 AM)

            Ric Mauricio writes:

            Eugenio Battaglia (October 20) wrote, "In a striking contrast to the laissez-faire doctrine of economic liberalism, Fascism set forth the right of the state to intervene in the process of production whenever private initiative was not up to the task at hand. The emphasis on the supremacy of the state was an effort to transcend the disastrous economic and political effects of class conflicts by focusing on the solidarity of capital and labor in the production process."

            I would like to thank Eugenio for his clarification on what Fascism is. But I believe he unfairly chastises me for my use of the word "fascism" and equating it with Mao, Hitler and Stalin. If you look at my post, I stated "extreme fascism." The opposite would be "extreme democracy" or anarchy, which leads to the tyranny of the masses. The problem, of course, is who decides that "private initiative is not up to the task at hand." And who focuses on the "solidarity of capital and labor in the production process."

            If I read Eugenio's definition correctly, that definition fits the founding of the People's Republic of China to a T. Because of the failures of laissez-faire economics and the imbalance of wealth amongst its citizens, Mao instituted the Marxist government to intervene in the process of production. There was an emphasis on the supremacy of the state over the individual. And in order to do that, he had to purge (yes, murder) millions of his own people and attempt to destroy the cultural history of China. I call this extreme fascism. Today, the Communist Party does use censorship and a heavy hand in governing its citizens, and the largest companies in China are SOEs (State-Owned Enterprises), so they do still practice, if I am not mistaken, the definition that Eugenio provides, "fascism." That is not being derogatory, it is just stating a fact.

            Here in California, we have the opposite. We border on extreme democracy. But is it really democracy? For example, Governor Brown just made California a "sanctuary" state, meaning that our law enforcement does not have to comply with ICE. I do not recall ever being asked to vote on this or my opinion on this. Is this an emphasis on the supremacy of the state over the individual? Wait, that's not democracy. What is it? Is Governor Brown deciding on his own that private citizens are not up to the task?

            JE comments:  Eureka, therein lies the rub.  Who decides when private initiative is "not up to the task"?  And perhaps more importantly, how do you ensure "solidarity" from the top down?  Coercive solidarity?

            In practice if not in theory, is today's China the ultimate fascist state?  Discuss.

            It's shaping up to be Fascism Wednesday.  Next on the subject:  Istvan Simon.

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • China as a Fascist State? (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 10/26/17 4:11 AM)
              Eugenio Battaglia, who sometimes apologizes for his English (although he obviously speaks it better than most of us native speakers), has produced a superb formulation of Fascist economics, actually one of the clearest and best I've ever seen.

              This formulation underlines the fact that Fascism, in economics, as in other things, is the opposite of liberalism. It is the State unbound and freed from any subordination to liberty. The State so unbound becomes Total--and that's Totalitarianism; the total subordination of the individual to the State.

              I think we can all agree that extreme degrees of economic liberty do not produce ideal results--even most libertarians agree that some degree of regulation, including taxation, of some kinds of economic activity, is necessary. But the absence of any economic freedom has also been shown, by extensive experimentation during the 20th century, to produce poor results. The lack of liberty, in the economic sphere too, degrades the quality of human life in non-material ways, and illiberal economies don't work economically. The market, in some role or another, is essential to economic progress and growth--to the creation of wealth in the first place, which we now know pretty well can't be produced by decree, by central planning, by top-down organization by the State.

              China is not at all an example of Fascism--China has extremely illiberal politics, and is a quite oppressive state in my respects, but economic freedom is probably greater than in the US, and the Chinese (and the world) are reaping the rewards of this.

              Of course there are different definitions of "economic freedom," and I am using the term strictly defined--the right to engage in economic activity, negotiate prices, and to reap the rewards of that activity, with minimal interference by the State.*

              *I disagree with the Heritage Foundation's definition of economic freedom which includes many non-economic factors like freedom of expression, environmental problems, etc., all of which are important issues but not part of economic freedom per se.

              JE comments:  With China's heavy reliance on SOEs (state-owned enterprises) and the ubiquitous cronyism and graft of the 10 million party members who run them, can we really call its economic system liberal or "free"?

              Has anyone in WAISworld done business in China?  I'd love to hear an anecdote or two.

              Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • Doing Business in China: A Friend's Saga (Nigel Jones, UK 10/26/17 6:10 PM)
                It's a while back now, but a Californian friend in the mortgage business saw the crash of 2008 coming and while standing by the Pacific one day decided to relocate to China.

                He went to live in a provincial Chinese city, and before succumbing to a fatal heart attack, experienced a mix of personal freedom and business frustration. On the one hand he acquired two Chinese girlfriends and roared about the country on a vintage WWII Nazi motorbike, proudly sporting Iron Cross livery; on the other, he found it impossible for a Westerner to get a business off the ground.

                His conclusion was that the Chinese are great at business..but only for the Chinese.

                JE comments:  What a sad ending for an intrepid soul.  The chutzpah required to pilot a 70-year-old motorcycle in Chinese traffic speaks volumes.  Nigel's friend experienced personal freedom and business frustration; the stereotypical image for China is the other way around.

                Did you friend ever write about his adventures, Nigel?

                Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • Doing Business in China (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 10/27/17 10:15 AM)
                John E asked, "Has anyone in WAISworld done business in China? I'd love to hear an anecdote or two."

                I visited China twice in the last year, and have done some business there.

                I think it's fair to say that corruption degrades economic freedom, and significantly. But conditions for entrepreneurship in China are amazing.

                Here is a good article on it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tseedward/2016/04/05/the-rise-of-entrepreneurship-in-china/#498b9eff3efc

                State-owned enterprises (SOEs) employ only 16% of Chinese workers, and their role in the Chinese economy is shrinking.

                JE comments:  Istvan Simon has also written on business and entrepreneurship in China.  His take is less sanguine.  I'll try to post Istvan's comment before the end of today.

                Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • Doing Business in China: Frustrating (Istvan Simon, USA 10/28/17 7:55 AM)
                I have done business in China, and given that I have lived in China and that my wife is Chinese, I could probably say that I am fairly well informed about the country. Though I am sure that Cameron Sawyer is well informed about China as well, I'd have to say that I disagree with Cameron (October 26th) that China is a freer market than the United States. That is not even close to the truth in my opinion.

                The Chinese economy is a mixture of statism and free enterprise. The government reserves to itself large sectors of the economy which it considers strategic assets. Thus all communications in China are under government control, including telephones, the generation and distribution of energy, roads, the famous disgraceful attempt to censor the Internet, and all banking.  Together that must be more than 50% of the economy I'd say, though I do not have exact statistics at the moment. This is a subjective but well-informed personal assessment.

                The fact that all banking is in the government's control is particularly disastrous to the Chinese economy. That is because small businesses do not have access to capital, which is dispensed by political influence, and is essentially a corrupt system. Those who have access to the Communist Party bigwigs, have everything. Those that do not, are up the famous Sh*t Creek.

                As WAISers who have followed my activities know, I have researched renewable energy for the past 15 years or so. I had a supplier in China that made the prototypes of my Solar Collecting Panels, which was a very high technology contraption, that followed the sun, and had 1 cm square "panels" which worked with highly concentrated solar radiation at 1000 suns. A 1 cm square "panel" would produce 25 watts of energy all day long, from sunrise to sunset, as long as it received direct sunlight. The company that made my prototypes was a small company that made Chinese telescope parts. The technology for telescopes is the same as what I needed for my panels, because to watch a star one needs to compensate also for the rotation and movement of the Earth in its orbit.

                This company is everything that proves how wrong Cameron Sawyer is in his assessment. Because there is no venture capital in China, and because the banking system is corrupt, as I explained above, this small company struggled against incredible odds. They succeeded, but their survival is hardly an advertisement for the Chinese economic model and system.  Much to the contrary.

                I'd like to add a few more observations about China. After Deng Xiaoping started the ground-shaking capitalist reform that ended the disastrous reign of Mao Zedong, Chinese universities recovered from the terrible depredations of Mao's criminal cultural revolution which destroyed a whole generation. Chinese universities are very good at some things, but not so good at other things. The Chinese are practical people. So they educate fabulous engineers, but not-so-fabulous scientists. Considering that China has 1/5 of the world's population, one could expect about 1/5 of the World's Nobel Prizes to go to Chinese scientists. Yet that is not at all the case, almost all Chinese Nobel Prize winning scientists live in the West. I think that this is due to the cultural character of the Chinese. The Chinese are not curious, and they do not routinely ask why something works the way it does. They are happy that it works and do not usually ask the question why. This leads to great engineers but lousy scientists.

                Russia is almost the exact opposite of the Chinese. Russian scientists are great, but Russian engineers are usually lousy.

                Finally, I enclose the following reference that has some interesting commentary on what has been happening with China's economy in recent years, and sheds further light on my qualitative comments above. It includes some statistical data relevant to our discussions. In particular it points out falling growth, problems of the banking sector with bad loans, and an excess in real estate inventory.


                Cumulatively these problems are very significant, because China's economy since Deng Xiaoping has used a model of economic growth primarily fueled by taking land away from peasants and building real estate on it, apartments, offices, etc., coupled with enormous investments in infrastructure. This model has reached its limits which points to the need for a major change in China's economic model of development. At this point this is not yet happening. Xi Jinping has used an anti-corruption crackdown within the Communist party as an excuse to consolidate his powers. There is a danger that China will revert to an even more authoritarian government than in recent years. Xi Jinping might change the healthy major reform first introduced by Deng Xiaoping that limited the term in office of the top leader, and established procedures on how the next leader was to be chosen.

                JE comments:  Istvan Simon raises a point for further discussion:  is the Chinese development model at its limits?  Even more fundamentally, is Istvan's description of this model (confiscate land, build stuff) accurate?

                (Istvan, one of my best friends is a Russian engineer.  And he's really good at it!  He probably designed the seating in your car.  Maybe it's because of his 20 years in the US?)

                Please login/register to reply or comment:

                • Attempting to Do Business in China; from Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA 10/29/17 8:17 AM)

                  Ric Mauricio writes:

                  I too have attempted to do business in China. My clients have done or attempted to do business in China. However, not being a good little Communist, I found it to be extremely challenging. Like Istvan, my wife is Chinese, but that did not help at all, since she is as American as one can be (San Francisco-born). I guess since I am also as American as one can be, it would in itself be challenging.

                  My client shared with me the nuances of owning property in the PRC. Unlike the US (which is why many PRC citizens love to buy US real estate), you cannot own the land. You just own the property on the land. The land belongs to the "people." She told me that the escrow process is fraught with danger, with escrow officers taking the funds and investing elsewhere while waiting for the sale to close.

                  By the way, in a previous post, someone stated that China has no venture capitalists. Ah, but there are. You see, China's VCs are based in Taiwan. So the saber-rattling that you see is just that--all show, no substance.

                  The PRC, although Communist in government, is one of the most capitalistic societies today. When I was last in Beijing, in 2012, my tour group was approached by a gentleman selling doodads, and I blurted out, "Good ole capitalism." Oops.

                  It is possible to do business in China, but you must have a trustworthy Chinese partner. Hmm.  It is easier to just buy Alibaba.

                  BTW, 67% of China's GDP is attributed to the SOEs (State Owned Enterprises).

                  JE comments:  Cameron Sawyer recently wrote that the SOEs employ just 16% of China's population.  Are both numbers correct--meaning, do 16% of the Chinese produce 67% of the GDP?  This doesn't make sense, especially given the assumption that the SOEs are less productive than their private-sector counterparts.

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Fascist as "Catch-All Epithet" (Istvan Simon, USA 10/25/17 4:05 AM)
            When commenting on Eugenio Battaglia's post of October 20th, John E asked: "Why has 'fascist' become a catch-all epithet?"

            Here's a quote from Eugenio:

            EB: "I write so that WAISers will understand Fascism better and stop calling 'fascist' any damned fool from Mao to Stalin, from Pinochet to Idi Amin Dada...and why not Donald Trump?"

            This came after Eugenio reproduced an article from an encyclopedia explaining the specific characteristics of Italian fascism under Mussolini. I'd like to have a crack at both of these questions.

            Fascism came to represent murderous dictatorships in general because in most people's minds the particular characteristics of Italian Fascism that Eugenio so stubbornly clings to do not matter. There is in fact not that much that distinguishes Pinochet's regime from Mussolini, except perhaps the number of victims, which is much much larger for Mussolini than it is for Pinochet. Clearly, if we are meticulous, we can point to differences. But the general flavor of Pinochet's regime was similar to that of Mussolini. The commonality is much greater than the differences, and the differences much less important to the average citizen than the commonality.

            The key commonality is the belief that the state is more important than the individual, that an individual's life is unimportant, and that the state can in fact take his/her life at will, if the individual becomes a nuisance to the state. Thus neither Mussolini nor Pinochet would blink at murder if that was in their interest. Orlando Letelier was murdered by Pinochet's regime in Washington, DC, much like Anna Politskovskaya or Alexander Litvinenko were murdered by Putin's regime, much like over 100,000 people were murdered by Mussolini's regime, more than 30,000 Ethiopians murdered during the occupation of Ethiopia. Pinochet's victims were of course merely about 3,000. The Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic fascist in my view, murdered 30,000 Iranians during a two-month period.  He declared them enemies of "God," and ordered them murdered, and murdered they were.



            Eugenio might ask in response about the difference between the United States and Mussolini's regime. Did not we kill Anwar al-Awlaki? And I answer, yes we did kill Anwar al-Awlaki, but he was waging war on the United States, and was responsible for the murder of dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of innocent Americans, whereas Orlando Letelier to my knowledge did not kill anyone, nor was inciting others to kill anyone. Nor were the 30,000 Ethiopians killed by Mussolini's regime waging war on Italy, nor the other countless thousands of Italians murdered victims of Mussolini's bloodthirsty rage. Nor was Anna Politskovskaya nor Alexander Litvinenko waging war on Russia or inciting others to kill and maim Russians. One could say that al-Awlaki was executed, not murdered, whereas Orlando Letelier, Anna Polistkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, the more than 100,00 Italians, more than 30,000 Ethiopians, more than 30,000 Iranians, were all simply murdered.

            Of course if we are talking about really big murderers, we should add to the list Hitler, Stalin, Mao ZeDong, and Pol Pot, for their victims were in the millions, or tens of millions.

            JE comments:  A regime can be murderous without being fascist, but can a fascist regime exist without being murderous?  I can't answer that.  In my view Iran is an oppressive theocracy, not a fascist state.  But do these distinctions ultimately matter?

            Let's discuss the first link, above, about the 30,000 prisoners allegedly executed by Khomeini in the wake of the Iran-Iraq war (1988).  Some of the victims were as young as 13.  Can our Iran-watchers give us more details?

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • How Many did Mussolini Kill? (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 10/26/17 12:24 PM)
              Where on earth did Istvan Simon (25 October) arrive at the figure of 100,000 people murdered by Mussolini?

              According to authorities in postwar, antifascist Italy, the killing of only three men is attributed to Mussolini:

              Matteotti, murdered by some fascist men who were caught and sentenced to jail.  The order may have come from many, including some Socialist extremists (and Fascist extremists?) who did not want the realization of Mussolini's idea to form a government with the Socialists.

              Matteotti's son later said it was not Mussolini's fault, and the same Socialist leader Silvestri who at first accused Mussolini, after the war and therefore in completely free conditions, said that Mussolini was not culpable.

              The Rosselli brothers were killed by the French Cagoule group.  It is said that Ciano asked for the favor of the French extremists, but the Communists may also have been involved, as the Rossellis were apparently returning to Italy from Spain to denounce the useless massacres carried out by Communists and Anarchists.

              The Ethiopians were killed in a war that could have been avoided if the regime of the Negus acted differently and if some European countries had not pushed him to antagonize Italy.

              During the "Biennio Rosso" (the Red Biennium) in Italy there was a civil war in which Bolsheviks, Fascists and civilians were all killed, and then we had WWII and the Civil War, but nowhere you can find the figure of 100,000 murdered.

              Of course if you base your information only on biased propaganda, it is useless to debate the subject.

              JE comments:  On a whim I Googled "How many people did Mussolini kill?"  Quora.com is far from definitive or scientific, but the first response claims 900,000--over 600,000 in Ethiopia alone.  Add to this the mass deportations to Hitler's extermination camps.  The grim semantics of death, as Gary Moore reminded us yesterday, complicate any kill tally.  By the same calculus, Truman killed 220,000 Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


              Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • How Many did Mussolini Kill? (Carmen Negrin, France 10/27/17 3:20 AM)
                To JE's numbers of those killed by Mussolini (26 October), add the forgotten ones of Spain, in particular those killed by the aerial bombing of civilians.

                If I read Eugenio Battaglia's argument carefully, I could summarize by saying that poor Mussolini was a victim of all those who forced him, by provocation or other means, to do what he really didn't mean to do!

                I have to admit that this gives a truly new perception of the Duce!

                JE comments:  Eugenio has argued many times that Mussolini was manipulated and unfairly maligned by his enemies, not to mention his underlings and supposed "friends"...Il Dupe?

                Unsurprisingly, Eugenio's post has inspired some forceful rebuttals.  Next, Istvan Simon.

                Please login/register to reply or comment:

              • How Many did Mussolini Kill? (Istvan Simon, USA 10/27/17 3:59 AM)
                Now come on, Eugenio. I did provide sources for my post of October 26th. Your saying that something is propaganda does not make it so. WAIS is full of serious, professional historians. They can correct me if I am wrong.

                But as John Eipper noted, I am not wrong about Mussolini's death toll. You're the one who is mistaken, with your rose-colored glasses about a bloody dictator.

                By the way, Mussolini in the Salò Republic was just a puppet of Hitler. And he allowed Hitler to deport and kill Italian Jews. How can you excuse such a murderer and justify all the fascist propaganda that you have been sending to WAIS?

                JE comments:  My first "encounter" with the Salò era was Pasolini's vile film 120 Days of Sodom, so it's been an eye-opener to read Eugenio Battaglia's praise of the short-lived Social Republic.  Little facts stick in my mind from Eugenio's posts, such as the Republic's extensive laws in defense of workers' rights, and the balanced budget.  How could such things happen in a stillborn country at war and largely under occupation?  Still, how can the Socializzazione ever be justified, given the deportations and its prolonging a war already lost?

                The "W" of WAIS could, or perhaps should, stand for "wide tent."  I recently rediscovered a quip I first made in 2010, and it's truer now than ever:  if you agree with every posting you read on WAIS, you must be at some other website.


                Please login/register to reply or comment:

                • Mussolini's Death Toll (Nigel Jones, UK 10/28/17 8:48 AM)
                  As someone who has devised and will lead a tour next year on the rise and fall of Italian fascism (details on www.historicaltrips.com), can I contribute my bit to the debate on the number of deaths Mussolini caused?

                  I find myself, as I will try to explain, somewhere midway between Eugenio Battaglia's low "score" of three and Istvan Simon's hundreds of thousands.

                  During Fascism's rise to power in 1919-22, scores of Italians died in brawls between Fascists and their equally violent Socialist opponents. This was par for the course in political battles in many European states between the wars--e. g. Germany and Spain.

                  Mussolini, before he became disastrously entangled with Hitler, was a relatively benign dictator by Latin standards. It is true, as even Eugene admits, that Fascist thugs murdered the prominent Socialist leader Giacomo Matteotti, but it is unlikely that Mussolini ordered the killing as it nearly caused his downfall.

                  Significantly, and typically for the regime, Fascism's internal enemies were not killed, or sent to concentration camps, but were exiled to Italian islands where they lived fairly comfortably. Prominent post-war Italians who experienced this and lived to tell the tale included later Premier Pietro Nenni, later President Sandro Pertini, and the poet Cesare Pavese. The Communist theorist Antonio Gramsci was even allowed to write his most important works from a Fascist jail cell. (Unfortunately, given the disastrous current influence of his Cultural Marxism.)

                  The Rosselli brothers, one of whom led the main anti-fascist movement abroad, Justice and Liberty, were murdered in France in 1937 by the French fascist Cagoule group, but on the orders of Count Ciano, Mussolini's foreign minister and son-in-law, rather than the Duce himself.

                  It was only when Mussolini let himself fall under the baleful influence of Hitler that the body count started to mount, but the thousands of dead in the Ethiopian, Spanish, Albanian, Greek and WWII conflicts occurred in war; they were not ordered by Mussolini, though his policies undoubtedly caused or contributed to them.

                  As Istvan says, Mussolini's greatest crime was to allow the deportation to their deaths in German camps of some 9,000 Italian Jews. Though this was done under Nazi influence when Mussolini was little more than a puppet, this is no excuse for such a crime.

                  To get a second opinion I phoned a friend who wrote a biography of Mussolini and lives in Italy.  He opined that Il Duce was directly responsible for the deaths of 17 opponents--including his own son-in-law Ciano: bad enough, but low on the genocidal scale of other 20th-century tyrants. Among them, Communist dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Mengistu & Co. killed 100 million people.

                  JE comments:  Nigel Jones's characterization of a "relatively benign dictator" sounds about right for Mussolini--at least for inside Italy.  Ethiopia and Spain certainly missed the "benign" part.

                  Thank you for phoning your biographer friend, Nigel!   This is WAIS investigative prowess at its best.  Next up:  Eugenio Battaglia responds.

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:

                • Mussolini's Death Toll, and Deportation of Jews (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 10/27/17 5:00 PM)
                  In response to Istvan Simon (27 October), first of all we cannot consider killing in war murder. Otherwise, what should we say about the US killings during the 93% of its history that it has been at war? How many millions of deaths have been caused?

                  The Repubblica Sociale Italiana (John, please do not use the ridiculous name Salò Repubblica) continued the war, because a people with dignity cannot accept a shameful change of sides, even if historically this was a practice for the Savoys. Furthermore the RSI returning as an ally of the Axis prevented, as far as possible, a German occupation of Italy.

                  Mussolini never allowed the deportation of Jews. The infamous and terrible deportation of 1023 Jews from Rome on 16 October 1943 happened when the rule of the RSI was not yet in full force. Only 17 of those deported returned alive. We may say the same thing about the deportations from Fossoli, among whom was the writer Primo Levi (1919-1987).

                  The total of Italian Jews who died, included those who joined the partisans and those deported to Germany, were about 8000. This was from a population of 58,500 Jewish Italians, plus several thousand foreign Jews who arrived in Italy before the war and the closing of borders.

                  On Mussolini's orders, the Italian troops in Greece, France, Tunisia and Yugoslavia were ordered to protect the Jews. None were handed over to the Germans, the Vichy collaborators or the Croatian Ustasha, in spite of various notes of protest from the Germans authorities and actions of the German Ambassador.

                  On 21 March 1943 the High Italian Command confirmed to all troops, "As per order of Il Duce, the Action No. 1 is to save the Jews who live in the area of Italian occupation, whatever nationality they may be."

                  You may refer to the accounts of Simone Veil plus Professor Robert Paxton and Michael Marrus in their book Vichy, France and the Jews, and the books of Leon Poliakov. The British historian Nicholas Farrel wrote that the Italians under Mussolini did much more than the British of Churchill in saving Jews. Furthermore, you may consult the books of Renèe Poxzanski, and articles by Yehoshua Porat. Let me also mention Menachem Shelac in his book A Debt of Gratitude:  History of the Relations between the Italian Army and the Jews in Dalmatia 1941-43.

                  I could go on.

                  Finally about the numbers we use, how accurate are they? For instance, how many Germans were killed at Dresden by the Allied bombing--25,000 or 200,000? Sources give conflicting numbers.

                  JE comments:  I'll avoid calling the RSI the Salò Republic.  I thought this was a neutral term, like Vichy France.  A curiosity:  beyond Salò and Vichy, can WAISers think of any other minor cities that became infamous as capitals of failed or unsavory regimes?  Weimar, sort of, but it was never a capital.

                  Please login/register to reply or comment:

                  • Top-Ten Genocidal Demons; from Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA 10/30/17 2:33 PM)

                    Ric Mauricio writes:

                    This string on Mussolini's "death toll" is getting "Curiouser and curiouser!"

                    I find Eugenio's response to Istvan (October 28) that "we cannot consider killing in war murder" quite intriguing.

                    I beg to differ. I would define murder as the taking of lives not in defense of your own life.  When the Japanese killed captured Filipino POWs in Bataan, beheading them to make a point, that I call murder.

                    When someone knowingly sends people to camps where they will be exterminated, that I call murder.

                    But looking at the list of dictators, Mussolini doesn't even make the Top Ten.

                    Kim Il Sung of North Korea, the father of the current crazy one, killed 1.6M of his own people. That is murder.

                    Ismail Pasha of Turkey killed 800,000 to 1.8M in the Armenian genocide. Murder.

                    Vladimir Lenin, through his war killed 7 to 12M, but according to Eugenio, that is not murder.

                    Hideki Tojo killed 5M Japanese, millions in China and thousands of POWs. That is murder.

                    Emperor Hirohito killed 8 million, although part of that is a war that he started. The Rape of Nanking is part of that. I classify these events as murder.

                    Chiang Kai-Shek, leader of the Kuomintang that lost to Mao and went to Taiwan and committed genocide there is responsible for 10M Chinese deaths. I would say that is murder.

                    King Leopold II of Belgium is responsible for working to death 8M in the Congo and 15M total in Africa. Absolutely murder.

                    Then, of course, there is Adolf Hitler, who started WWII and was then responsible for millions of deaths. Taking Jews and their protectors to extermination camps is murder, plain and simple. 6M murdered. Lesser known is his genocide of Slavs, whom he felt were inferior. 4.5 to 13.7M. Overall, 30M deaths due to his insanity.

                    Josef Stalin, committed genocide of his own people, sending them the Gulags. He is responsible for 40 - 62M deaths. Murder.

                    But numero uno is Mao, responsible for 80M Chinese deaths. Definitely murder. And yet, his visage is plastered all over China and to the entrance to the Forbidden City. My wife, when we were in Beijing, asked me if I was going to buy anything with Mao on it. I told her the only I will have with his picture is the yuan. I could never be a good Communist.

                    If one studies the history of the rise of any of the above, one is sure to spot certain characteristics of why these men came to power. There is a commonality. Can anyone spot it?

                    JE comments:  We shouldn't overlook Pol Pot and his 1 to 3 million killed out of Cambodia's small population of 8 million.  WAISers will certainly have others to add to our List of Infamy.

                    So what is it that makes the genocidal demon "click"?  Extreme paranoia?  Some sort of messianic complex?  I hope Leo Goldberger, WAISdom's dean of psychologists, will weigh in.

                    Please login/register to reply or comment:

                    • Death Tolls and War Crimes (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 10/31/17 7:39 AM)
                      Responding to Ric Mauricio (30 October), I have clearly stated in previous WAIS posts that all acts in war contrary

                      to the international Conventions of Geneva and The Hague are crimes.

                      These criteria are much more important then the various a posteriori calculations of death tolls. No country is innocent.

                      JE comments:  For his part, Ed Jajko forwarded this quote from Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen: “The murder of a man even in wartime, is still murder."

                      Who is versed on the Red Baron?  Does the quote come from Christian convictions, or some other perspective?

                      Please login/register to reply or comment:

                    • Visiting Mao's Tomb (Istvan Simon, USA 11/02/17 5:00 PM)
                      I enjoyed Ric Mauricio's list (30 October) of genocidal maniacs of the 20th century, a terrible century by any human standards.

                      Though I believe some of Ric's numbers may be a bit on the higher end of the true figure, his general ideas are absolutely right. He forgot Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, the Rwanda horrors, the Ibos in Nigeria, the current terrible persecution of Rohynga, the horror story and terrible tragedy of the Yazidis whose persecution by ISIS, but also previously by Iraq's Sunnis, should weigh on any decent person's conscience. Though their numbers may be small because their overall numbers are small, yet percent-wise this qualifies as a terrible genocide.


                      Regarding the arch murderer Mao Zedong, I may have already mentioned in WAIS my experience in 2004, but perhaps it is worth repeating.

                      I went to see Mao's rotten corpse in his Mausoleum on Tiananmen square. The Mausoleum itself sticks out as an ugly sore thumb and an intrusion on the beautiful buildings on this immense square in Beijing. I went to see the Chairman not because of any morbid interest on his rotten corpse, but to observe the people, and how they would react to this terrible murderer. I had a fanny pack that I had to leave behind with my wife, for obviously the Chinese authorities are afraid that someone will blow this arch murderer to smithereens. There is a kind of marked path on the pavement, where people can walk to their encounter with the Chairman in rows of four people. When one enters the complex, there is a place to buy flowers. First observation post for me of the people. About half of them bought flowers. One man, was trying to be nice to me and he bought two bunches of white flowers, and offered one to me. It was a nice gesture, and I felt bad that I had to refuse it, because under no circumstances I would ever put flowers on this mass murderer's site, so though I felt bad for having to refuse such a nice and undoubtedly friendly gesture, I did refuse it. One continues to the next stop, which is an immense counter where the people deposit the flowers in front of a giant statue of the mass murderer. Then the people are divided in two rows to file past the corpse in a glass casket, and immediately they are ushered out between 2 machine-gun armed soldiers back to Tiananmen square.

                      Later when we traveled back to Nanning and I resumed my daily routine of walking a 6-mile circuit from our apartment to a park and back every early morning, I met many of the regulars who also exercised in the park. They greeted me with glee, and one that spoke English much better than the others asked me where had I been. I told him we were in Beijing and that I had visited the Mausoleum of Mao. He contorted his face, and said to me "a terrible man, a Saddam Hussein."

                      A few days later, in the same park, I was approached by a man holding the hand of his 2-year-old little son. He was an economist and we started to chat. At one point he looked at his son sadly and movingly said: "I'd like him to grow up in a free country." I said I thought he would grow up in a free country. He asked why I thought so. I said, look at the tremendous progress that has been made since Mao's time. He said, yes true, but the same way the government gave these freedoms, they can take them away. I said I did not think that would happen.

                      He asked why I thought so. I said for 2 reasons: as the economy grows and diversifies, to continue the economic progress would require the government to grant more and more freedoms; and the second reason was the Internet. The Internet cannot be successfully censored, and so it would become kind of like the free press in China. He looked at me admiringly and said: China needs people like you who can think. I thanked him for his compliment and we parted. That young boy should be now 15 years old, and I am sorry to say that he is growing up in a country no freer today than in 2004. I had grossly under-estimated the time it would take for China to become a multi-party democratic society. In spite of the fact that the two reasons I gave were both correct, even if Beijing tries to censor the Internet, it is truly unable to do so very effectively, just as I predicted that it would not. But the Communist Party is still entrenched as ever before on maintaining by hook or crook its monopoly grip on power.

                      JE comments:  I do not recall Istvan Simon telling us this story before.  But even if he did, it deserves a replay.

                      What can our China-watchers tell us about the recently concluded Party Congress?

                      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • How Should a New European Union be Constructed? (Istvan Simon, USA 10/19/17 7:57 AM)
        I thank Nigel Jones for his interesting post of October 17th, which explains the many flaws of the EU as currently implemented. But one thing he did not do is to respond to any of my questions, because I explicitly asked him to discuss my points in the abstract, without referring to the current implementation. Yet every one of his answers is about the current implementation.

        So, once again I ask him to please respond to my questions without ever mentioning the EU as it is today. Because for the purposes of my questions it is completely irrelevant how terribly flawed the EU is.  If he wants to respond to my questions, he must do so without ever mentioning today's EU or its flaws. Frustrating as this may be for Nigel, because of his profound hatred of the EU, it is the only way that he can actually respond to the questions I posed.

        So, please Nigel, imagine that you have the job of envisioning a New European Union, which hopefully will not have any of the defects of the current one, which would be a conglomerate of countries with common values as I stated in my 4 points. The NEU will be democratic, and will be for competition, and will have whatever democratic structure and powers it should have in the design of Nigel Jones, and will be helpful for the common defense of Europe.

        Its advantage will be that Europe can speak with a more unified voice in the world stage rather than as 28 separate independent countries. The 28 countries will not be completely independent, but rather dependent on each other in a limited way. Beyond their commitment to the limited ways that they'd agree to be dependent on each other, they would be completely independent otherwise.

        I hope I made myself clear in what I am asking. I certainly tried my best to make it clear.

        JE comments:  I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I can see Nigel advocating a return to the old Common Market as a trade agreement.  Low or no tariffs and nothing more.

        Istvan Simon's exercise could get WAISers talking for a long time.  What should a New European Union ("NEU," I like the ring of it) look like?

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • What the EU Could Be vs What It Is (Nigel Jones, UK 10/21/17 4:23 AM)
          Istvan Simon (October 19th) wants me to discuss the EU in the abstract--i.e., how it could be rather than how it actually is.

          Although this seems to me to be a rather pointless exercise, I am happy to do so as it does show that Istvan has shifted his position from support for the EU as it is to a theoretical discussion of what it might have been. I hope he has done so after hearing the arguments of WAISers like myself, John Heelan and Boris Volodarsky who actually live in the belly of the beast.

          As John Eipper anticipates, I am not in principle opposed to a Common Market in Europe, to co-operation in trade, defence, security and other matters of common interest. This is exactly what Winston Churchill recommended after WWII to prevent a recurrence of the two world wars.

          (Churchill did, however, explicitly caution that Britain, with its exceptional maritime position, Parliamentary history, Anglo-Saxon laws and insular detachment, did not belong in such a union, which is why we have never fitted in the EU and our membership has been an irritant since the day we belatedly joined.)

          So much for the theory. Now for the reality.

          The EU--as has become ever more obvious--is not the benign democratic body that Istvan imagines that it could be. Nor is it the purely economic and trade union that was lyingly sold to British voters by politicians when they joined in the 1970s. Its founders, Monnet and Schumann, specifically stated that it should be non-democratic. They distrusted democracy because they thought that fascist dictators like Hitler and Mussolini had come to power democratically. Instead they advocated that an unelected elite should secretly, without the peoples of Europe noticing, build a federal European state step by step that would do away with Europe's ancient nations.

          This script has been followed faithfully by the EU ever since. But because--like all top-down theories cooked up by intellectual elites (Marxism for instance)--it flies in the face of human nature, history, and common sense, it has recently run into increasing trouble. If we look around Europe today we see nothing but crisis, conflict and dissent. Brexit, Catalonia, Greece, Islamic immigration, terrorism, the rise of populism, are all symptoms of this rising resentment against EU diktats. The EU is crumbling because its heart is rotten.

          Now that I have answered Istvan's hypothetical question--hopefully to his satisfaction--I hope he will answer mine.  (I note that he did not answer it the first time I posed it so I will repeat it.) If the US were to join an amalgam of the OAS and Canada ostensibly to facilitate trade, let us call it the "American Union" or AU, and over the next forty years the AU replaced Congress, bypassed the Presidency, overruled the Supreme Court, overrode elections, deposed governments, bought politicians, tried to abolish the dollar, and announced the beginning of a ' post-democratic era, would Istvan support replacing the USA with the AU?

          If in all honesty he would not, he really should not expect the people of Britain and Europe to support the EU and the extinction of democracy and their nations.

          JE comments:  Istvan might counter that the US track record with democracy hasn't been so stellar (or even democratic) in recent years.

          Let's discuss Nigel Jones's remark on populism (above).  Nigel, do you see populism as a reaction to the EU's heavy hand?  Meaning, that populism wouldn't be so, well, popular if the EU were more benign or didn't exist at all?  If so, how does one explain Trumpism in the US?

          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • How is the EU Antidemocratic? (José Ignacio Soler, Venezuela 10/22/17 4:33 AM)
            Nigel Jones wrote on October 21st: "I am not in principle opposed to a Common Market in Europe, to co-operation in trade, defense, security and other matters of common interest. This is exactly what Winston Churchill recommended after WWII to prevent a recurrence of the two world wars."

            Regarding the same subject, in 2014 I wrote pretty much the same thing:  "The European Union itself, which at the beginning was only intended to be a free trade agreement... proved to be good contingency measures to reduce international conflicts." And "We should remember that at the very beginning, the EU's purpose was only economic, the so-called European Common Market."

            I recall that Nigel at that time mentioned that what prevented war in Europe was NATO alone; apparently he did not give credit to the EU for this result. I am glad he somehow changed his mind.

            I also wrote that "I do not recall that...the EU... was ever intended to be a consolidated supranational state, a nation with its own national identity. To transform a set of different countries, with so many cultural differences and languages into such an entity, would be a miracle and, if ever possible, it would have taken a long time." To this I added, "In a continent with a long history of conflicts, wars and social, political and economic disputes, to practically get rid of frontiers is a success to me, not a failure. I am sure that if Russia or Ukraine had been members of the union, the current conflict would not have taken place."

            The political or economic success of the EU is maybe still to be seen, despite its current problems. Nevertheless it is evident that even in the so-called poorest (PIGS?) member countries the level of life has improved markedly, and every member of the EU has benefited since its creation, even the British, the Germans and the French. To achieve a common identity is another matter, because the diversity of cultures is hard to integrate.

            Now, regarding Nigel's question to Istvan Simon about the US hypothetically joining an amalgam of the OAS and Canada ostensibly to facilitate trade, I feel he is completely distorting the issue with this analogy. Maybe he could explain how the British parliament or any other European country has been replaced, what president has been bypassed, what Supreme court has been overruled, or what elections has been overridden, etc.

            If I understand correctly, the EU´s three main institutions are:

            1. The European Council, whose function is to set the general political directions and priorities of the Union, gathering together its member states' heads of state and governments (elected chief executives). The results of its summits (quarterly) are adopted democratically by consensus.

            2. The European Parliament: 751 members, all directly elected. This is the EU's lower house of its bicameral legislature. It shares with the EU Council equal legislative powers to amend, approve or reject Commission proposals for most EU laws, rules and legislation. Its powers are strictly limited in areas where member states' sovereignty is their primary concern (i.e. defense). It democratically elects the Commission's President, it must approve the College of Commissioners, and may democratically vote to remove them collectively from office.

            3. The European Commission, the "Guardian of the Treaties," consists of an executive cabinet of public officials, led by an indirectly elected President (elected by the Parliament). This College of Commissioners manages and directs the Commission's permanent civil service. It turns the consensus objectives of the European Council into legislative proposals.

            Besides some other institutions, there is the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank, and the European Court of Auditors.

            I believe it is very clear that the EU's institutional structure does not seems to be antidemocratic, nor even autocratic or authoritarian, as Nigel seems to claim or as he seems to depict with his unfortunate analogy.

            JE comments: Nigel's biggest complaint (shared with many Euroskeptics) is with the Commission.  I should brush up on my EU Civics, but are all the Commissioners chosen by the Parliament, or only the President?

            A big thanks to José Ignacio Soler for walking us through the EU governance system.  Most of us have strongly formed opinions about the Union, but few really know how it works--or is supposed to work.

            A parallel question:  Do European schools include EU "Civics" in the curriculum?

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • Churchill, Kaiser Wilhelm, and a "United States of Europe" (John Heelan, UK 10/23/17 4:32 AM)
              Just a slight correction to José Ignacio Soler (22 October).

              Churchill actually promoted a "United States of Europe" in his speech at the University of Zurich, Switzerland (9 September 1946), preferring the "unionist" position rather the "federalist position" preferred by Monet and his successors.

              Churchill (and Monet and today's EU institutions) perhaps overlook the thought of Kaiser Wilhelm II when he said, "the hand of God is creating a new world and working miracles. ... We are becoming the United States of Europe under German leadership, a united European Continent." And "If a British parliamentarian comes to sue for peace, he must first kneel before the imperial standard, for this is a victory of monarchy over democracy."

              The EU institutions are making "Kaiser Bill's" words come true.

              JE comments:  I was curious, and the Kaiser's words were actually those of an ex-Kaiser.  The first statement was made in 1940, from Wilhelm's Dutch exile, in the wake of the German blitzkrieg.  The second quote must have come much earlier, when the German monarchy still existed.  (The Kaiser died in 1941 when Germany was still riding high in the war.  Did he feel vindicated on his deathbed?)

              Just to clarify:  Churchill's "USE" was not to include Britain, correct?

              Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Populism and the Rise of Right-Wing Parties in Austria, Czech Republic (Nigel Jones, UK 10/22/17 7:22 AM)
            Our esteemed editor John Eipper (October 21) solicited my views of populism, asking whether it is a reaction to the undemocratic, dictatorial EU, and if so, how that explains Trump's triumph in the US.

            My own view is that since roughly 1990, government, civil service, the media and academia in both Europe and the US have been increasingly controlled by those who in shorthand, can be characterised as a PC elite.

            Socially liberal, militarily inexperienced, inclined to scorn their own countries and cut slack to their enemies, non-ideological and financially greedy, the electoral success of their centre-left parties have made them both arrogant and out of touch with the concerns of their electorates--particularly among the working class.

            This has led, on both sides of the Atlantic, to the remorseless rise of populist parties and politicians, of which Donald Trump is the prime exemplar--or perhaps the reductio ad absurdum!

            Until the so-called mainstream starts addressing these concerns and actually does something about them, I see no prospect of such populism losing...well, popularity!

            [JE:  Nigel Jones further wrote in a separate e-mail]:

            A few weeks ago we were being told on WAIS that Marine Le Pen's failure to win the French Presidency meant that the populist wave in Europe had peaked.

            Since then the disastrous decision of the frumpy Empress of the EU, Frau Merkel, to open the doors to a million unchecked migrants from the Middle East, has come back to bite her backside in the form of the populist anti-Islam AfD party winning seats in the Bundestag in Germany's elections and leaving her fatally weakened.

            Then last weekend Austrian elections returned the reinvigorated Conservative OVP party to power. They are pledged to resist further Islamic immigration imposed by the EU. The OVP were compelled to adopt this policy by pressure from the populist right-wing Freedom Party, runner-up in the elections and their likely future coalition partners.

            Now this weekend, in a similar pattern, elections in the Czech republic have returned the ANO party as the strongest force, with yet another right-wing populist party, the SDP, breathing down their necks. ANO ("Yes") is similar to Italy's Forza Italia, the creation of Silvio Berlusconi, in that it is the vehicle of a media and business tycoon, Andrej Babis, Czechia's second-richest man. He has also pledged to resist EU pressure to admit more Muslim migrants, remarking "Brussels may soon have a Muslim majority but it won't happen here."

            So now we have a large bloc of Central/Eastern Europe--Poland, Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic--all ruled by conservative parties adamantly opposed to the suicidal EU policy of encouraging Islamic immigration. This is scarcely surprising as these are the very countries with their own experience of Ottoman invasion who know that Islam and any semblance of Western civilisation are incompatible. Western Europe is now learning that lesson the hard way.

            Yet another crack opens in the EU's edifice, and I am very surprised there has been no discussion of this on WAIS. Could it be that some WAISers are wedded to, if not employed by, the manifestly collapsing EU?

            JE comments:  Central Europe is turning to the right, and hard.  One irony here:  with the possible exception of Austria, the European nations most resistant to Muslim immigration are the ones to which Muslims by and large aren't emigrating anyway.  How do we explain this? Nigel Jones cites the Ottoman example--Turks at the gates of Vienna.  But that was 350-500 years ago.  What other factors come into play?

            Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • NATO is as American as the National Guard (John Heelan, UK 10/17/17 7:28 AM)
      JE commented on October 16th: "NATO has the military muscle, not the EU."

      True! However that "muscle" is built on the steroids provided by the US military-industrial complex that could be withdrawn should the US retreat (again) into Trumpish isolationist and "America First" policies.

      As I commented before, the UK's shiny new aircraft carrier has no aircraft to carry, as it is still waiting for the Lightning V-35s to be supplied by Lockheed Martin. And don't even mention the tariff the US wants to put on Bombardier production in Northern Ireland.

      I have also argued that NATO is as much a part of the US military conglomerate as the National Guard.

      JE comments:  I was paraphrasing Nigel Jones's position with my NATO comment.

      The US service personnel I've spoken with say that NATO missions are anything but extensions of US foreign policy.  They have multinational commands and serve the interests of a variety of NATO states, often to the frustration of the troops on the ground.  This is the impression I always got from my conversations with the late Bob Gibbs, who served in the Balkans in the 1990s.  Bob would be able to state this much more colorfully than I can.  I miss him terribly.

      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • How NATO Commands Worked in the Balkans (Brian Blodgett, USA 10/19/17 4:42 AM)

        I served as a member of two NATO missions in the 1990s, one in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the other in Kosovo.  In both I was with the NATO command headquarters and both were led by US and British officers, Admiral Leighton Smith in Bosnia and Lieutenant General Sir Michael Jackson in Kosovo. The staffs were also predominately US and British, mainly because the troops component that other NATO countries assigned to these units (Allied Forces South [AFSOUTH] and the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps [ARRC]) in peacetime were likewise heavily from these two countries.

        In reference that NATO was an extension of US foreign policy, I recall one incident in Kosovo which defined the mission and likely changed the entire 21st century.  That was when Sir Jackson received an order from General Wesley Clark, NATO's commander at the time (remember that the commander of NATO has always been an American) to immediately send NATO forces to the Pristina airport in a race against Russian forces for control of the airport. Sir Jackson refused to follow Clark's order. Speaking for myself and many others who were in the unit, we were both surprised at an officer flatly refusing an order but also impressed. Jackson's reasoning was that not only would the NATO force not make it to the airport first, but that it had the potential for starting a war with the Russians. Jackson then worked with the Russian general and his detachment who occupied the airport and actually provided a small contingent of British troops to protect the Russians. The British troops' commander was Jackson's son.

        Another sign of displeasure with the mission and how the US was not running it with the rest of NATO tagging along was when President Clinton visited Zagreb where the AFSOUTH HQ forces were staging while awaiting orders to enter Bosnia. When asked to attend a speech that Clinton was going to give that evening, most of the Americans that I knew did not want to attend, and did not.

        Throughout my nearly six years with NATO, roughly three with both AFSOUTH and the ARRC, the US and the UK played the largest role in both peacetime planning and actual missions. While the US did have the military muscle, it by no means had the total control of the military. In our various plans, we incorporated all forces equally based on their capabilities and the terrain that they would occupy. In actual deployments, the two missions' only difference was the general composition of the HQ, with Bosnia being more of a US-led mission due to AFSOUTH being largely US, and Kosovo being more British due to the composition of the ARRC. The troops themselves in country were a mixture but once again, largely US and British, as well as the other major European nations making up the bulk of the forces.

        I also recall that in the case of the deployment to Bosnia, that AFSOUTH was woefully unprepared for any type of deployment and we lacked many of the simple office supplies needed on a mission.  My British Colonel asked me to round up supplies that our intelligence section would need in order to operate and I wondered around our base for two days, "picking" up supplies as I found them, from seeing a footlocker sitting unattended full of office equipment and procuring it as well as talking to individuals and leaving them short a stapler or something when I walked away--that is how bad it was. Regarding plans, I am not going to discuss those but I am sure you can imagine a unit not expecting to deploy suddenly finding itself tasked to rapidly deploy and its own readiness.

        In regards to Bosnia, I recall one incident that I found amusing, our gate guards were just soldiers with rifles and when Smith inquired if we could have a stronger guard, the answer was swift. Our Turkish Brigadier General who led our intelligence section made a quick call to a nearby Turkish unit and within hours we had two Turkish armored vehicles parked outside of the gates. This was much to the chagrin of the French, who were actually in control of the sector where our HQ was located. When ordered to move, the commander of the Turkish unit refused, after all, his general ordered his troops there and unless told to move by the same general, he was not about to relocate.

        JE comments:  Well done.  Brian Blodgett reminds us that wars are won with logistics.  (He also reminds us to watch your stapler if he drops by the office to say hello.)  Given its complexities of command and the crazy-quilt of nationalities, it's quite amazing that NATO works as well as it does.  Would you agree, Brian?

        A further question:  is the stereotype true that the Turks are some of the most zealous and effective soldiers you'll find anywhere?  This is an especially relevant matter at present, as Trump and Erdogan are doing their best to nurture a clash of egos.

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

        • UN Missions in the Balkans; from Gary Moore (John Eipper, USA 10/20/17 3:55 AM)

          Gary Moore writes:

          My thanks for Brian Blodgett's inside look (19 October) at NATO operations in the
          time of the Balkans conflicts--and his memory of astute scrounging
          (he seized the moment to "procure" an unguarded footlocker of office

          I can add from the UN side in Kosovo the sense of free-fall on
          arrival to find empty offices in the ruins--as we foraged into an abandoned
          basement for old plywood as desktops. A cadre of fastidious Croatian
          translators turned up their noses and said they weren't going to work
          amid plywood splinters.

          But my question for Brian is more serious, dealing with his vignette of a key
          moment in the Kosovo war that he feels helped set a course for a new century:
          the refusal by a British commander to follow NATO commander Wesley Clark's
          order to try to race to the Prishtina airport so as to beat the Russians, a refusal,
          Brian said, that was reasonable and judicious, helping not to impose undue
          tensions, as I gathered it.

          So: does this imply flawed or myopic judgement
          on Clark's part? The question resounds because Clark was later an American
          presidential candidate, and in general his view seemed to represent the outlook
          of the Clinton administration that brought us into the war in the first place.
          Could Brian tell us more about his inside view of that picture?

          JE comments:  I'll append my own question:  was Sir Michael Jackson, the general who disobeyed the order, ever disciplined or subjected to a "full and impartial" inquiry?  (Strains of "Thriller" are running through my brain.)

          Please login/register to reply or comment:

          • Pristina Airport: Did General Jackson Prevent a War with Russia? (Brian Blodgett, USA 10/21/17 4:47 AM)

            In answer to Gary Moore's question of October 20th, the inside view of everyone that I knew at that time in theater with the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) HQ was that Jackson was correct in his decision. This would include our American senior officer (Deputy Chief of Staff - Operations), who shortly after became a Major General before retiring and served as the Deputy Commanding General in several theaters of operation. I cannot think of anyone who did not cheer at Lieutenant General Jackson's decision, since it was viewed as a wise and practical decision and not one based on political motivations simply to hold ground instead of the Russians holding it.

            Also from my readings, both Jackson and Clark sought political backing for their decision, but only Jackson received the backing, indication that Clark's orders were effectively overruled by the US. Clark was later rebuked by our nation for his aggressive military stance and ordered to relinquish command of NATO two months earlier than scheduled, which may not seem like much, but it was. Clark, after being told of Jackson's refusal, "asked" Admiral Ellis, his commander of Allied Forces South (my old unit from three years earlier), to have helicopters land on the runway to stop the Russian transport plane from being able to land but Ellis refused, stating that Jackson would not like it.

            Also, Clark was replaced by an Air Force General, only the second one in the history of NATO up to that time--also an important note is that prior to Clark, the command had been a series of Army Generals with the exception of USAF General from 1956 to '63. After Clark, the position of Supreme Allied Command - Europe changed from the generally consistent Army commander to include 4-star officers of all the US military branches.

            Regarding John E's question, Jackson did offer his resignation to the UK during the dispute when Clark actually flew down to Pristina to confront him, but the British were not about to lose him over the political dispute and Jackson remained the commander of the mission. After his command of the ARRC, he was promoted to General and Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, the second most senior position in the British Army. Thee years later he became the Chief of the General Staff, the head of the British Army until his retirement in 2006 after serving 45 years in the British Army.

            JE comments:  Jackson reportedly told Clark, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you."  See below.  Note the casualty figures for the 1999 "Incident at Pristina Airport":  none.  If only we could resolve all conflicts this way.


            Please login/register to reply or comment:

            • Wesley Clark and Pristina Incident; from Gary Moore (John Eipper, USA 10/22/17 11:16 AM)

              Gary Moore writes:

              Thanks to Brian Blodgett (21 October) for further elucidating the Pristina airport incident in Kosovo.
              Could this background shed light on Wesley Clark's later sudden withdrawal from the US
              presidential race?

              And is it coincidental that this seemingly avoidable or ill-informed
              confrontationism sounds a bit like a related figure: Hillary Clinton on Libya and the Middle East?

              JE comments:  Who can refresh our memory on the '04 Democratic primaries?  My recollection is that Clark withdrew the old-fashioned way:  because of a lack of votes.

              Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • Why I am Anti-EU: Response to Istvan Simon (Boris Volodarsky, Austria 10/18/17 11:57 AM)
      Answering Istvan Simon's queries of 16 October, I first of all want to thank him for his kind words. Regarding Ángel Viñas's views, we should not forget that Ángel is not only an eminent historian of the Spanish Civil War but also an EU professional, and if one may say so, an insider, and his informed opinion must of course be considered and respected as that of an expert.

      Regarding my acquaintance, a UKIP MEP, I have to say that it was just a talk during a pleasant lunch in London and I didn't even know he was a MEP. We had first met at the Sasha Litvinenko funeral in December 2006 and Oleg Gordievsky introduced him to me as a UKIP politician. This man's views were certainly not intended to undermine the European Parliament. He was simply saying what he thought about his work. And what he said was "We come there only to vote. This is my job." Naturally that was rather cynical and immoral but he simply felt like that. I am sure he is not an exception and many like him are still thinking that their well-paid job is to come to Brussels and vote. That's it. I know some Austrian politicians like, for example, Werner Faymann, a former Chancellor. After he had to resign from both posts (as Chancellor and the Socialist party leader) after losing confidence from a large number of party officials, he was struggling for quite a while to get a commissioner job at the EU.  He ended up as the United Nations' Special Envoy on Youth Unemployment, whatever that may mean, an even more lucrative job than the EU commissioner.  It carries a salary like a private banker, diplomatic passport, first-class travels and everything tax-free in addition to a very high pension as a former Chancellor. (Yesterday, I was in the UNO shop in Vienna--a one litre bottle of best vodka is 3 euro, but who can get there?)

      Regarding the four points, "important common values," as Istvan has put it, I like the beginning of each of them --a "belief." For the rest, I'd be happy to hear an expert. With that, I am very skeptical regarding point 4 because the notion "defence of Europe" needs an explanation. Is somebody going to attack Europe? Maybe Moldavia or Belarus or Lichtenstein?

      A question whether "a better implementation" is possible or not is in itself very debatable. The EU has degraded from its former self or, rather, from the Common Market of the original six members, into a bureaucratic system, which, on the one hand, became so highly ineffective that even such a great European power as Britain now wants to leave it. On the other, as I have illustrated with examples, since it became a multi-European conglomerate it attracts incompetent former politicians of its member states who want only benefits for themselves and do not care about Europe.

      Finally, Istvan's example with Microsoft, Apple or whatever is again not so good, in my view, because apart from the 28 European states they anyway have to deal separately with 100 or more other states.  So why should we think of what is a little bit more convenient for them in this case?  Who actually cares when we talk about one trillion in turnover! Twenty-eight more or 28 less does not matter. And, of course, it is not our problem to contemplate what is better for them.  It's the multinationals' problem.  I do not think they will ask us to give them advice, and we won't be able to, anyway.

      I hope I have satisfied Istvan's curiosity at this stage. And, of course, JE's comment to Istvan's post is, as usual, very wise.

      And, finally, I fully agree with Nigel Jones's response to Istvan and in particular with Nigel's "In short, whatever the idealistic intentions of the EU's founders, the European project, like all empires, has morphed into a monster which is increasingly meeting resistance from its subjects."

      JE comments:  This is not the point of Boris's post, but what about the UN shops?  Do they have closed shopping havens like the Soviet Beryozka or Polish Pewex shops of yore?  What is their purpose and why on earth do UN officials need yet another perk?  (Perhaps I've misunderstood, but good vodka for €3 is hard to ignore.)

      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • UN Shops: A (Closed) Shopper's Paradise (Boris Volodarsky, Austria 10/20/17 3:07 AM)
        Our esteemed editor understood it correctly. At least in Vienna (but I am sure in Paris and in New York, too--Ángel please tell us about NY) there is a very special closed shopping haven inside the well-guarded UN headquarters that sells goods at prices about 10 times cheaper than in the city. Primarily, this concerns liquors and cigarettes, which reminds me of the old duty-free shops that do not exist anymore.

        But this is not like the Soviet valyutnaya Beriozka.  John and others may not know that in the Soviet Union there were three types of Beriozkas: valyutnaya for foreign tourists, diplomaticheskaya for diplomats and chekovaya for Soviet citizens who had worked abroad earning hard currency that they had to exchange for artificial money called cheki (cheques).

        Unlike the Pewex shops in Warsaw, which traded in US dollars, or Intershops in East Berlin selling goods for West German marks, or even valyutnaya Beriozkas that accepted all hard currencies as payment for the local souvenirs and some Western products like drinks, cigarettes and garments popular with the Russian hookers, chekovaya Beriozkas sold good Western clothes, household appliances and even cars against the valuta cheques. That is, if one had been working in Nigeria or Cuba as a Soviet advisor earning, say, 2,000 US dollars a month, he paid 50% to the state and back in the Soviet Union received 50% of his former salary in cheques for which he could buy Western goods or sell them at whatever rate he could. That is, for 100 cheques one could get from 100 to 500 Soviet roubles.

        Thus, our UN guys decided to follow the Soviet example and established a kind of a Beriozka shop for a limited number of the UN officials where they can buy a Mercedes for 3,000 instead of 30,000, a bottle of Remy Martin XO for 10 instead of 100, and Smirnoff Red Label 1 Litre bottle for 3.00. For what they do (or do not do) every day this is probably the only consolation. And, of course, brothels. But that costs...

        JE comments:  Jeez, who knew about these places? How on earth are they justified, given the healthy compensation UN officials already receive?

        Does the UN need to be bankrolling diplomatic booze and smokes? I guess the answer is yes.

        Oh Lord, won't you subsidize me a Mursaydeez-Benz?

        Please login/register to reply or comment:

Trending Now

All Forums with Published Content (42281 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications


Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy


Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series


Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust


Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire


Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 Violence War War Crimes Within the US


Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)


Geography Maps Tourism Transportation


1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who