Europe-is the crisis fatal?
Europe is in the middle of process of unification that started with careful unpretentious steps between post war France and Germany. Europe was divided and in continuous conflict since the Roman times. This conflict peaked with WWII horrors. The aim of all this wars was reunification.Charlemagne, Bonaparte, Hitler, all these considered themselves as the unifiers of Europe and failed. And here few years after the end of WWII a certain R.Schuman a Frenchman with German name, came with an idea to unify the coal and steel market between the Franco-German nations. This humble step, (opposed by many politicians, who embraced it later due to its success), that at the end put down the last empire of evil, USSR. Not the US H-bombs, but the envy of the population in USSR of the EU wealth and well being had broken this Satanic political and economic system. Encouraged by their success, the EU made the natural next step. Common currency. Not everybody joined it. The Scandinavians, as to their national tradition, trying to benefit from all world, without to pay the price, have not joined. Also some small countries, like Czech R. ruled to suffocation by the new local plutocracy, did not join. On the other hand, Spain, that needed Euros for its huge white elephant projects, (viz. examples of airports in Madrid and Valencia etc.), Greece, its plutocracy wanted to enrich itself, and Italy where the population just don’t like to pay taxes, did join the Euro club. Surprise, surprise, Germany-France did not like it and made end to it. So the EU project started to shriek and be shaken. All the shrews suddenly appeared out of their holes. No solutions, no reason, no wisdom, just loud unbearable shriek.
From → Euro Crisis, Geopolitics, MENUE
EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן 
Marcus Aurelius son Commodus was a disaster. Not so with Charlemagne’s son. However, the latter’s three sons “inherited” the empire, which was divided in three pieces, the central one going to Lothair (hence “Lorraine”). At the time, the European empire was under massive attacks from all corners: Vikings, Muslims, Avars, etc. This was not terminal. The Franks were able to fend them all, and domesticate their remnants.
What became terminal was the refusal by by the Parisians to take part in the elections of the emperor, and conduct their own election of Hugh Capet.
I have argued that Marcus Aurelius was a disaster. He was. In particular in his oppression of Christians and the corrupting of his very young son.
LikeLike
Thanx for your detailed response. Of course transfer of power to the next generation is always
LikeLike
Dear Eugen:
Charlemagne did not fail. Simply the Roman empire did not have a succession mechanism. So, when the Franks “renovated” the Roman empire, they kept the election mechanism of the Frankish army., mixed with the Salic law (equal succession of material goods, hence properties). Thus, it was a mess.
To make succession clear, in the middle Middle Ages, the Western Franks went to hereditary kinship, as implemented by a Council of the Kingdom. The rest of the Roman-German empire stuck to election, now reserved to “grand electors”.
After a large Republic was established on September 22, 1789, we went back to the old Greek Republican model for the executive.
Calling the self-obsessed Napoleon a unifier of Europe is curious: how could he unify Europe by gifting it to his own family? How unifying was that? Agreed, lots of people say this.
Hitler was no unifier, but a certified destroyer. He did not just destroy the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and Slavs. He destroyed as much European diversity as he could put his claws on. Although he finished, unsurprisingly, yet ironically enough, protected by French speaking SS mostly…
The mood of unification of France and Germany is as old as the Franks (who were a confederation from “Germania Inferior” who wanted to civilize themselves through romanization). The Franks, after taking control of Roman northwest Europe, discarded Augustus’ idiotic advice, and went all out to conquer Germany (something they had mostly done by 600 CE). Charlemagne completed the work in 800 CE, but, in the Tenth Century, the Western Franks, as arrogant Parisians, decided to discard the rest of Francia. The result was 1,000 years of wars.
After the First World War, this was understood, and a first attempt of French-German unification was tried, broken by the Anglo-Saxon plutocrats and their Nazi pets (please forget my neat and striking rewriting of history as it really happened). During the occupation of France, which started to end in 1943 when French troops reconquered Corsica, the Nazis themselves observed the futility of fighting the French. A tiny French army had inflicted a severe strategi defeat to Rommel’s Afrika Korps and the entire Italian army, in June 1942. That saved (the future) Israel, and condemned the Nazis to drive desperately to Stalingrad (as they could not drive anymore to Iraqi oil).
In the end, the Nazis themselves, defeated by the French again in 27 years, had admitted that fighting with France was self-destroying. After the war, the German Bundesrepublik copied the French Republic, and that was that. Ever since, the two have gotten closer.
In the last three decades, though, stubborn sabotage by the British of the European Monetary Union, has led to a debilitating stasis. The Brits, operating on plutocratic order, partly of American origin (Boris Johnson is American born), blocked the construction of the structures the Euro currency needed.
The solution is obvious: kick Britain out of the European Monetary Union. If britain votes to “Brexit”, it will be a perfect opportunity to do so in the unavoidable renegotiation that will follow. Hence “Brexit” may well lead to further Franco-German union…. Which is all which matters.
[This is going to be beefed up in an essay on my site]
LikeLike
Sorry it slipped. Successful leaders like Marcus Aurelius and Charlemagne failed in this task.
LikeLike