Tacitus
26 Oct 2020
Genealogy / Are Sorbs Polish? Does anyone know about Sorbish enthnicity? [62]
I wonder how BB feels about that.
I wonder how BB feels about that.
Tacitus
26 Oct 2020
Genealogy / Are Sorbs Polish? Does anyone know about Sorbish enthnicity? [62]
I would argue that every indicator points in the opposite direction. East Germany has a tremendous rising in living standards, income and life expectancy. Was everything handled perfectly? Of course not, but that is to be expected by a project of that scale and which is unprecedented in history. If we are looking for losers, they might be found in e.g. the Ruhr Valley, whose cities were already in debt and had to take on even more debt to finance the transfer payments, not to mention all the Western money that could have been invested in the crumbling infrastructure of Western Germany.
. In hindsight, the rapid unification was a total economic disaster and much of Eastern Germany still hasn't recovered from it.
I would argue that every indicator points in the opposite direction. East Germany has a tremendous rising in living standards, income and life expectancy. Was everything handled perfectly? Of course not, but that is to be expected by a project of that scale and which is unprecedented in history. If we are looking for losers, they might be found in e.g. the Ruhr Valley, whose cities were already in debt and had to take on even more debt to finance the transfer payments, not to mention all the Western money that could have been invested in the crumbling infrastructure of Western Germany.
Tacitus
24 Oct 2020
News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]
Which is why I wanted a source because every article I found indicates a reliability over 90%.
It actually does, because in a proper democracy, the majority can not impose every kind of law on the minority without restriction, otherwise we have a tyranny of the majority. Laws need to be justified and provided with proper arguments, not just with something one may call a superstition.
None of those points are related to forcing someone to carry a child against their will.
I really wanna see you try that.
The foundation of your argumemts appear to be really poor if you have to use such false equivalences and exaggerations.
(I read about it in so many sources
Which is why I wanted a source because every article I found indicates a reliability over 90%.
I mean that argument doesn't carry any weight.
It actually does, because in a proper democracy, the majority can not impose every kind of law on the minority without restriction, otherwise we have a tyranny of the majority. Laws need to be justified and provided with proper arguments, not just with something one may call a superstition.
Are you for the right to own a gun, dismantle of a welfare state, low taxes and a small government?
None of those points are related to forcing someone to carry a child against their will.
Hell, I have made even a stronger case for a bank robber using YOUR 'logic'.
I really wanna see you try that.
The foundation of your argumemts appear to be really poor if you have to use such false equivalences and exaggerations.
Tacitus
24 Oct 2020
News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]
I would like a source for that.
This is easy to say from a position of someone who never faced the consequences of doing so, or ever will.
Indeed. Religion should not have any place in setting laws since not everybody believes in it and expecting non-believers to carry a baby becausw of religious sentiments is wrong. In question of moral, it depends on whether someone believes that a lumb of celle can already be considered human and whether it is justified that the state gets so much power over the female body. In my opinion, forcing women to carry children against their will is only befitting a dictatorship.We allow contraception, we allow people to prevent sperm and egg from meeting each other, but immediately after they do it this is supposedly a different story?
Banning abortion is wrong, both ethically and practocally (nvm cases where it should be available without discussion e.g. rape or birth defects). It allows the state control over womens' bldy to an undue degree and it forces women into illegal abortions that may endanger their life.
Wait, this is debateable in your opinion? I mean even Aristotle pointed out before the birth of Christianity that this is indeed possible.
still, we have to remember that about 50%
I would like a source for that.
How generous of them!
This is easy to say from a position of someone who never faced the consequences of doing so, or ever will.
but a moral one
Indeed. Religion should not have any place in setting laws since not everybody believes in it and expecting non-believers to carry a baby becausw of religious sentiments is wrong. In question of moral, it depends on whether someone believes that a lumb of celle can already be considered human and whether it is justified that the state gets so much power over the female body. In my opinion, forcing women to carry children against their will is only befitting a dictatorship.We allow contraception, we allow people to prevent sperm and egg from meeting each other, but immediately after they do it this is supposedly a different story?
Banning abortion is wrong, both ethically and practocally (nvm cases where it should be available without discussion e.g. rape or birth defects). It allows the state control over womens' bldy to an undue degree and it forces women into illegal abortions that may endanger their life.
whether one can have sound morality
Wait, this is debateable in your opinion? I mean even Aristotle pointed out before the birth of Christianity that this is indeed possible.
Tacitus
23 Oct 2020
News / Abortion still under control in Poland [2986]
I can understand the reasoning behind banning abortions for healthy babys. I don't agree with it but I can see why people would see it as wrong.
However forcing mothers to carry baby's to term who might have severe birth defects seems wrong to me. Because in the end, this is not just a question of convenience. Having healthy children is a large commitment, but it is one that can be calculated and usually has a happy ending once they move out when they are old enoguh. Depending on the kind of birth defect, this is far from guaranteed for children who are born with them. They might remain in need of care for their entire (hopefully long life) which often falls to the responsibility of their parents. The problem is in my opinion, that often people who are against abortions might do so on sound principles, but don't have any experience what it is like to raise a child like this. They have no idea what it may mean for everyone involved. It can become a rewarding experience, but it can also utterly destroy a family.
I'd like to share a personal story regarding this.
Two friends of my parents - who were very religious - decided to have a baby that was predicted to have severe birth defects. The doctors told them that children like this one have an average life expectancy of 10 years, but they nevertheless wanted one. The conditions were seemingly good. Both were teachers, thus had a secure job, and one son already. The mother decided to stay mostly at home for a few years and care for the child. The first months were rough, the baby needed several surgeries, but it recovered and developed decently (under those conditions, it still needed around the clock care) for the first few years until it was old enough to go to school. The parents had hopes that it might have a relatively normal childhood, and thanks to medical advances, it might even become an adult. But than it started to regress. The parents had to watch as their child declined steadily, it stopped walking, speaking, became almost blind and so on. It spend the last two years in a hospital until it finally died before its' tenth birthday. It was a horrible time for them. I've met them only a few times, but as their boy grew worse, so did they. Especially the mother looked at the end as if she had aged twice as fast, and the father developed an alcohol problem. Their older child became troubled, partly because their parents were forced to divert their attention almost exclusively to their youngest child, and partly because it was also horrible for him watching his younger brother slowly die. He managed to turn it around and now goes to university, but he lost his faith in god and e.g. refused to have a confirmation ceremony. He supposedly told his parents when asked "There is no god, because why would a benevolent god make my poor brother suffer like this? And if there is one, he must be pure evil and does not deserve my worship." An understandably point of view from his perspective if you ask me.
Bottom line, the decision to have this baby not only caused the child a lof of suffering, it also destroyed their family and marriage. Again, this was not even a matter of finances, but the stress and emotional pain to have a child and watch it suffer and die. If a family has the courage to take on such a burden, they are deserving of any praise and assistance one can offer. But nobody should be forced to do so.
I can understand the reasoning behind banning abortions for healthy babys. I don't agree with it but I can see why people would see it as wrong.
However forcing mothers to carry baby's to term who might have severe birth defects seems wrong to me. Because in the end, this is not just a question of convenience. Having healthy children is a large commitment, but it is one that can be calculated and usually has a happy ending once they move out when they are old enoguh. Depending on the kind of birth defect, this is far from guaranteed for children who are born with them. They might remain in need of care for their entire (hopefully long life) which often falls to the responsibility of their parents. The problem is in my opinion, that often people who are against abortions might do so on sound principles, but don't have any experience what it is like to raise a child like this. They have no idea what it may mean for everyone involved. It can become a rewarding experience, but it can also utterly destroy a family.
I'd like to share a personal story regarding this.
Two friends of my parents - who were very religious - decided to have a baby that was predicted to have severe birth defects. The doctors told them that children like this one have an average life expectancy of 10 years, but they nevertheless wanted one. The conditions were seemingly good. Both were teachers, thus had a secure job, and one son already. The mother decided to stay mostly at home for a few years and care for the child. The first months were rough, the baby needed several surgeries, but it recovered and developed decently (under those conditions, it still needed around the clock care) for the first few years until it was old enough to go to school. The parents had hopes that it might have a relatively normal childhood, and thanks to medical advances, it might even become an adult. But than it started to regress. The parents had to watch as their child declined steadily, it stopped walking, speaking, became almost blind and so on. It spend the last two years in a hospital until it finally died before its' tenth birthday. It was a horrible time for them. I've met them only a few times, but as their boy grew worse, so did they. Especially the mother looked at the end as if she had aged twice as fast, and the father developed an alcohol problem. Their older child became troubled, partly because their parents were forced to divert their attention almost exclusively to their youngest child, and partly because it was also horrible for him watching his younger brother slowly die. He managed to turn it around and now goes to university, but he lost his faith in god and e.g. refused to have a confirmation ceremony. He supposedly told his parents when asked "There is no god, because why would a benevolent god make my poor brother suffer like this? And if there is one, he must be pure evil and does not deserve my worship." An understandably point of view from his perspective if you ask me.
Bottom line, the decision to have this baby not only caused the child a lof of suffering, it also destroyed their family and marriage. Again, this was not even a matter of finances, but the stress and emotional pain to have a child and watch it suffer and die. If a family has the courage to take on such a burden, they are deserving of any praise and assistance one can offer. But nobody should be forced to do so.
Tacitus
19 Oct 2020
Off-Topic / DALMATIA - How much Poles love Dalmatia ? [123]
What is that supposed to mean?
Croats are first mentioned in ancient Byzantine sources from the 7th century as part of the Byzantine Empire. An independent duchy of Croatia is confirmed for the 9th century, more than half a century before the same is known about Serbia. Croats precede Serbs by all accounts.
grawe
What is that supposed to mean?
Croats? Its project old about 200 years
Croats are first mentioned in ancient Byzantine sources from the 7th century as part of the Byzantine Empire. An independent duchy of Croatia is confirmed for the 9th century, more than half a century before the same is known about Serbia. Croats precede Serbs by all accounts.
Tacitus
19 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
What are you talking about? There has been a conservative majority of 5:4 judges for as long as I can remember. Which just goes to show how broken the US system is, in which a minority can dominate the system.
weighted Party for the last 150 years in the Supreme Court.
What are you talking about? There has been a conservative majority of 5:4 judges for as long as I can remember. Which just goes to show how broken the US system is, in which a minority can dominate the system.
Tacitus
19 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
@Michel88
I can't really speak for Western Europe, but migration to Germany is particulary high from Hungary. In 2019 we had 35k migrants from Hungary and e.g. 130k from Poland. Thus in relation to population size, we had more migrants from Hungary than Poland.
de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/157446/umfrage/hauptherkunftslaender-der-zuwanderer-nach-deutschland-2009/
The issue is the rule of law. When Poland joined the EU, it pledged to remain a state in which the rule of law is respected and in which the government would not take undue influence on the judiciary. The justice reform has put this in jeopardy. Even if you believe that the current government won't abuse the power it has given itself, it still opens the door to future transgressions. It is just not a good idea to give a simple majority the power to appoint judges without any compromise, as evidenced right now in the USA.
@Michel88
Correct me if I'm wrong but there are almost no Czechs and Hungarians in Western Europe.
I can't really speak for Western Europe, but migration to Germany is particulary high from Hungary. In 2019 we had 35k migrants from Hungary and e.g. 130k from Poland. Thus in relation to population size, we had more migrants from Hungary than Poland.
de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/157446/umfrage/hauptherkunftslaender-der-zuwanderer-nach-deutschland-2009/
nothing about judiciary in Poland
The issue is the rule of law. When Poland joined the EU, it pledged to remain a state in which the rule of law is respected and in which the government would not take undue influence on the judiciary. The justice reform has put this in jeopardy. Even if you believe that the current government won't abuse the power it has given itself, it still opens the door to future transgressions. It is just not a good idea to give a simple majority the power to appoint judges without any compromise, as evidenced right now in the USA.
Tacitus
18 Oct 2020
Off-Topic / DALMATIA - How much Poles love Dalmatia ? [123]
Croatia in fact precedes Serbia by more than half a century.
Croatia in fact precedes Serbia by more than half a century.
Tacitus
16 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
Not really, this just sounds like a lot of paranoia to me, unless you can actually back it up with some tangible examples when Germany formulated policies to this effect. As if Berlin was constantly plotting to keep the Eastern Europeans down.
The main problem from a German point of view is that Poland under PiS has stopped playing a constructive role and indeed stopped playing an active role at all in Europe. That is regrettable because Poland could be an invaluable partner but I fear that won't be possible for as long as PiS under the great chairman rules Poland.
Don't mix up different issues. 1. That Poland is seen as in violation with the rule of law on several issues has nothing to do with Germany, but with the Polish governments' willingness to breach those rules. 2. If Poland is decisvely declared to be in violation by the EuGH which may happen soon than it will be necessary to talk about the EU funds going to Poland. 3. This comment was directed at Hungary, which - while not the best choice of word - is rather justified. Orban and his cronies have grown rich by using the EU funds for their own means, building train and big stadium in Orban's home town, and of Orban's relatives becoming one of the richest men in Hungary by receiving government projects funded by the EU.
I hope it's clear so far?
Not really, this just sounds like a lot of paranoia to me, unless you can actually back it up with some tangible examples when Germany formulated policies to this effect. As if Berlin was constantly plotting to keep the Eastern Europeans down.
from a German point of view?
The main problem from a German point of view is that Poland under PiS has stopped playing a constructive role and indeed stopped playing an active role at all in Europe. That is regrettable because Poland could be an invaluable partner but I fear that won't be possible for as long as PiS under the great chairman rules Poland.
ways which you can use against Poland
Don't mix up different issues. 1. That Poland is seen as in violation with the rule of law on several issues has nothing to do with Germany, but with the Polish governments' willingness to breach those rules. 2. If Poland is decisvely declared to be in violation by the EuGH which may happen soon than it will be necessary to talk about the EU funds going to Poland. 3. This comment was directed at Hungary, which - while not the best choice of word - is rather justified. Orban and his cronies have grown rich by using the EU funds for their own means, building train and big stadium in Orban's home town, and of Orban's relatives becoming one of the richest men in Hungary by receiving government projects funded by the EU.
Tacitus
16 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
What identify as Germany's supposed interest is based on your own sentiment and not reality. Germany wishes to see Eastern Europe prosper, and has in fact invested more into this project than any other country. This is not some zero sum game but one where everybody wins. There is no need for any clash and I doubt there will be one in the first place.
What "new political change" are you talking about?
What identify as Germany's supposed interest is based on your own sentiment and not reality. Germany wishes to see Eastern Europe prosper, and has in fact invested more into this project than any other country. This is not some zero sum game but one where everybody wins. There is no need for any clash and I doubt there will be one in the first place.
new political change
What "new political change" are you talking about?
Tacitus
16 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
The EU treaties allow each country to have a minimum wage and grant them the ability to enforce it.
That is not what is happening. Polish companies are not forced to pay the same as German companies, they are just bound to the same rules as German companies are. It prevents them from exploiting their workers. I mean let us be clear here. The minimum wage in Germany is very low. It barely allows for a living. Forcing your qorkers to go below that while they live in Germany is exploitation.
You keep saying that, but so far you haven't really pointed out those fundamentally different interests.
And as side note, even if Poland had different interests, it could not do a worse job to realize them if they tried. Self-isolation is never a smart move in European politics.
Any ideas how? I mean the basic idea behind the minimum wage is to assure that workers can actually live from the work they are doing without government aid. The only alternative would have been to allow German companies to undercut it and for the state to pay the difference. However this not only would have defeated the purpose of minimum wage, it would also have been illegal state aid. If you look at it ovjectively, this was the only legal and fair solution. Honestly, I dont want to think that the guys working at a local construction site are doing their backbreaking work for like 2€ an hour.
The EU treaties allow each country to have a minimum wage and grant them the ability to enforce it.
pay the same wages
That is not what is happening. Polish companies are not forced to pay the same as German companies, they are just bound to the same rules as German companies are. It prevents them from exploiting their workers. I mean let us be clear here. The minimum wage in Germany is very low. It barely allows for a living. Forcing your qorkers to go below that while they live in Germany is exploitation.
is usually bad for German interests
You keep saying that, but so far you haven't really pointed out those fundamentally different interests.
And as side note, even if Poland had different interests, it could not do a worse job to realize them if they tried. Self-isolation is never a smart move in European politics.
that you could have sorted this
Any ideas how? I mean the basic idea behind the minimum wage is to assure that workers can actually live from the work they are doing without government aid. The only alternative would have been to allow German companies to undercut it and for the state to pay the difference. However this not only would have defeated the purpose of minimum wage, it would also have been illegal state aid. If you look at it ovjectively, this was the only legal and fair solution. Honestly, I dont want to think that the guys working at a local construction site are doing their backbreaking work for like 2€ an hour.
Tacitus
16 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
It is hardly outrageous that if you compete on a foreign market, you have to follow the same legal requirements that your competitors must obey. That is just common sense. It would be outrageous if foreign companies were forced to pay MORE than the native companies do. This also protects foreign workers from being exploited, because previously a lot of people from Eastern Europe worked in the German delivery service for foreign sub contractors, and thus did not receive minimum wage, despite living most of the time in Germany.
agree to that outrageous dictate
It is hardly outrageous that if you compete on a foreign market, you have to follow the same legal requirements that your competitors must obey. That is just common sense. It would be outrageous if foreign companies were forced to pay MORE than the native companies do. This also protects foreign workers from being exploited, because previously a lot of people from Eastern Europe worked in the German delivery service for foreign sub contractors, and thus did not receive minimum wage, despite living most of the time in Germany.
Tacitus
15 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
And is this based on any observable policies towards Poland or just your typical antigerman paranoia?
To my knowledge the only recent steps taken against Polish companies was an initiative backed by several West European countries and spearheaded by France was to make sure that Polish companies active in Western Europe have to pay their workers who are active there the minimum wage each country demands which I believe everybody agrees is a sensible position.
Aside from that I am not aware of any steps taken against Polish companies who try to break into the high-level production. Truth be told, German companies are currently occuppied with non European competition, especially from China and the USA.
And is this based on any observable policies towards Poland or just your typical antigerman paranoia?
To my knowledge the only recent steps taken against Polish companies was an initiative backed by several West European countries and spearheaded by France was to make sure that Polish companies active in Western Europe have to pay their workers who are active there the minimum wage each country demands which I believe everybody agrees is a sensible position.
Aside from that I am not aware of any steps taken against Polish companies who try to break into the high-level production. Truth be told, German companies are currently occuppied with non European competition, especially from China and the USA.
Tacitus
15 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
What was beneficial and what can Germans supposedly not understand?
What was beneficial and what can Germans supposedly not understand?
Tacitus
15 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
Why? It is in Germany's direct interest that Poland gets wealthier
Obviously, Germany will try their best to stop it.
Why? It is in Germany's direct interest that Poland gets wealthier
Tacitus
15 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
Not really. He is the man who popularized the term as name for an economic system for which he also delivered a specific definition for. Claiming that any country "invented" Capitalism is a silly idea since a) capitalist societies have always existed and are a fixture of human life, b) the UK was not inherently more capitalist than any other societies, particulary the Dutch and c) other countries have also produced important economists who contributed to understanding capitalism, with Marx among them.
Well... he is the most important and famous person buried there. Although if I were to visit the graveyard, I'd probably also try to visit a few other graves.
Btw. keep in mind that the grass is always greener in other gardens. The Scots and Rish people do not always consider themselves as fortunate for being nwighbour of the Ebglish.
I did not know that having a peaceful, prosperous and enlightened Central Europe was against Polish interest. Or why it as an Eastern European country would be concerned about supposed designs for Central Europe.
confused the title of Marx's
Not really. He is the man who popularized the term as name for an economic system for which he also delivered a specific definition for. Claiming that any country "invented" Capitalism is a silly idea since a) capitalist societies have always existed and are a fixture of human life, b) the UK was not inherently more capitalist than any other societies, particulary the Dutch and c) other countries have also produced important economists who contributed to understanding capitalism, with Marx among them.
weren't interested in anything
Well... he is the most important and famous person buried there. Although if I were to visit the graveyard, I'd probably also try to visit a few other graves.
Btw. keep in mind that the grass is always greener in other gardens. The Scots and Rish people do not always consider themselves as fortunate for being nwighbour of the Ebglish.
Germany in Central Europe stood, and still stand, against the best interest of Poland
I did not know that having a peaceful, prosperous and enlightened Central Europe was against Polish interest. Or why it as an Eastern European country would be concerned about supposed designs for Central Europe.
Tacitus
15 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
Didn't know that Karl Marx was British.
Well, not always, but after WWII certainly. The high esteem we held the UK makes it all the more puzzling to us that the British would undertake something so stupid and self-destructive as Brexit. Or indeed, their bungled response to Covid
As one observer pointed out, the Brits have sadly lost their famed pragmatism at some point.
Who has invented capitalism?
Didn't know that Karl Marx was British.
Germany has always looked with admiration and envy t
Well, not always, but after WWII certainly. The high esteem we held the UK makes it all the more puzzling to us that the British would undertake something so stupid and self-destructive as Brexit. Or indeed, their bungled response to Covid
As one observer pointed out, the Brits have sadly lost their famed pragmatism at some point.
Tacitus
13 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
Yeah, but those constellations were far from inevitable. Only a few years before the first parition Prussia and Russia had been on opposite sides in the most destructive war of the 18th century. And Stalin and Hitler were far from natural allies. In both cases Polish diplomacy played a part in bringing those two actors together.
Initiatives that de facto only exist on paper. Some of the Visegrad members even said that they won't follow Polands' anti-Eu path. The truth is that Poland nowadays is completely sidelined from any European policy discussion, even those that should be of great interest to them like Brexit.
At least she stands up for election. She is in power because like her and vote for her, fully knowing what they are voting for. The most powerful man in Poland is afraid to stand in the spotlight, and instead rules via puppets. Not exactly a shining example of democratic conduct.
Didn't you have a bomb explosion in Wroclaw only a few years ago.
Polish diplomats didn`t have a chance against such a duo.
Yeah, but those constellations were far from inevitable. Only a few years before the first parition Prussia and Russia had been on opposite sides in the most destructive war of the 18th century. And Stalin and Hitler were far from natural allies. In both cases Polish diplomacy played a part in bringing those two actors together.
maintaining Visegrad 4 and 3 Seas Initiative
Initiatives that de facto only exist on paper. Some of the Visegrad members even said that they won't follow Polands' anti-Eu path. The truth is that Poland nowadays is completely sidelined from any European policy discussion, even those that should be of great interest to them like Brexit.
Too similar to totalitarian leaders
At least she stands up for election. She is in power because like her and vote for her, fully knowing what they are voting for. The most powerful man in Poland is afraid to stand in the spotlight, and instead rules via puppets. Not exactly a shining example of democratic conduct.
A bomb
Didn't you have a bomb explosion in Wroclaw only a few years ago.
Tacitus
13 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
The HRE was the most highly decentralized state of its' time, particulary from the 1500s onwards. It consisted of up to 350 states,each of whom owed allegiance to the Emperor but were de facto almost independent. Which meant that they formed often alliances with foreign powers against the emperor.
History tells a different story, Germany has prdouced some of the finest diplomats of their time. Frederick the Great, Metternich, Bismarck...
And later the chancellor's of the FRG achieved some significant diplomatic achievements. Adenauer's redemption of the FRG in the West, Brandt's Ostpolitil, Kohl masterfully handling the negotiations for German reunification. Merkel herself showed great skill in handling the Euro crisis, brokering the Minsk II peace agreement and now with the coordination of a European response to Corona.
I mean no offense, but when I think about a country that has a historical lack in diplomacy I think of Poland. Over the ages Polish leaders haf a strange fixation in leading their country in diplomatic isolation, with PiS following this tradition.
Could you please explain to all of us how centralized the HRE was?
The HRE was the most highly decentralized state of its' time, particulary from the 1500s onwards. It consisted of up to 350 states,each of whom owed allegiance to the Emperor but were de facto almost independent. Which meant that they formed often alliances with foreign powers against the emperor.
Yes, diplomacy was never Germany's strong point
History tells a different story, Germany has prdouced some of the finest diplomats of their time. Frederick the Great, Metternich, Bismarck...
And later the chancellor's of the FRG achieved some significant diplomatic achievements. Adenauer's redemption of the FRG in the West, Brandt's Ostpolitil, Kohl masterfully handling the negotiations for German reunification. Merkel herself showed great skill in handling the Euro crisis, brokering the Minsk II peace agreement and now with the coordination of a European response to Corona.
I mean no offense, but when I think about a country that has a historical lack in diplomacy I think of Poland. Over the ages Polish leaders haf a strange fixation in leading their country in diplomatic isolation, with PiS following this tradition.
Tacitus
11 Oct 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
It would be great if Germany had even a fraction of the power some people attribute to her.
It would be great if Germany had even a fraction of the power some people attribute to her.
Tacitus
18 Sep 2020
News / E.U. Denounces Poland's Authority on LBGTQ Free Zones [150]
Well, so far no one on this side has ever cited a rational reason for this descrimination so... .
Well, so far no one on this side has ever cited a rational reason for this descrimination so... .
Tacitus
18 Sep 2020
News / E.U. Denounces Poland's Authority on LBGTQ Free Zones [150]
What facts? There is nothing rational behind this. Just pure hatred against a minority.
What facts? There is nothing rational behind this. Just pure hatred against a minority.
Tacitus
16 Sep 2020
News / E.U. Denounces Poland's Authority on LBGTQ Free Zones [150]
Preaching hatred is the opposite of wholesome. Not to mention that some of them are bound to have gay children who will directly suffer from this.
Preaching hatred is the opposite of wholesome. Not to mention that some of them are bound to have gay children who will directly suffer from this.
Tacitus
16 Sep 2020
News / E.U. Denounces Poland's Authority on LBGTQ Free Zones [150]
There is nothing "decent" about this at all. There is no justification for it whatsoever, just catering to bigotry and hatred.
and decency flushed down the sewers
There is nothing "decent" about this at all. There is no justification for it whatsoever, just catering to bigotry and hatred.
Tacitus
16 Sep 2020
News / E.U. Denounces Poland's Authority on LBGTQ Free Zones [150]
Human rights violations and forms of stigmatizations are of course of greatest concern to the EU because they directly violate its' core values.
The EU has been silent on this topic for way too long. By speakibg out against this it helps Poland regaining its' honour and sanity.
that is of no concern to the E.U. regulations as a Union.
Human rights violations and forms of stigmatizations are of course of greatest concern to the EU because they directly violate its' core values.
The EU has been silent on this topic for way too long. By speakibg out against this it helps Poland regaining its' honour and sanity.
Tacitus
15 Sep 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
So you admit that EU ascenssion did have aomethibg to do with it? We can argue about the degree, but the prospect of EU membership certainly helped in this endeavour.
You make it sound so negative, as if trade with the SU wasn't a way to decrease tensions in Europe and thus the danger of war, not to mention a tool to get the SU to agree to important treaties like the Helsinki accords? Not to mention that trade between the SU and West Germany remained on a very low level during most of the Cold War, even the gas imports to WG only really picked up in the last 1980s. Therefore the "bottomless German desire for gas" had no real impact on the Soviet Union's economic model.
EU accession had almost nothing to do
So you admit that EU ascenssion did have aomethibg to do with it? We can argue about the degree, but the prospect of EU membership certainly helped in this endeavour.
aided and abetted by bottomless German desire
You make it sound so negative, as if trade with the SU wasn't a way to decrease tensions in Europe and thus the danger of war, not to mention a tool to get the SU to agree to important treaties like the Helsinki accords? Not to mention that trade between the SU and West Germany remained on a very low level during most of the Cold War, even the gas imports to WG only really picked up in the last 1980s. Therefore the "bottomless German desire for gas" had no real impact on the Soviet Union's economic model.
Tacitus
15 Sep 2020
News / Years of Poland in the EU - assessment of pros and cons [1199]
Indeed. The prospect of EU membership already did a lot of good for the country, encouraging its' politicians to implement the necessary reforms and increasing the trust of foreign investors. Particulary Germany agreed alread during the negotiations for reunification that the government would encourage credits to Poland. And the reforms prevented the rise of corrupt Oligarchs like in the Ukraine or Russia.
Just goes to show how invaluable the EU has been for Poland.
Poland economy was growing faster before become a member of the EU.
Indeed. The prospect of EU membership already did a lot of good for the country, encouraging its' politicians to implement the necessary reforms and increasing the trust of foreign investors. Particulary Germany agreed alread during the negotiations for reunification that the government would encourage credits to Poland. And the reforms prevented the rise of corrupt Oligarchs like in the Ukraine or Russia.
Just goes to show how invaluable the EU has been for Poland.
Tacitus
14 Sep 2020
History / Battle of Vienna - history movie about Poland / Commemoration [36]
It is interesting to see how much the perception of historical events can differ between countries. In Europe the siege of Vienna is often seen as a pivotal moment, while e.g. from a Turkish point of view, it is oftwn seen as a minor setback. This view is supported by the fact that the Ottoman Empire was capable of conducting a succesful war against Russia only a few years later. Instead Turkish historians often view the the the Austro-Ottoman war of 1716-1718 as the decisive moment, because it not only lead to the most humiliating military defeat in Ottomam history, but also definitely showed that the Ottoman Empire no longer required a large coalition against it.
One way to reconcile those views may be to speculate about what would have happenes if the Ottoman army had taken Vienna. No doubt that the Ottomans would have been able to gain favourable peace terms, but would they have been able to demand the city? And if they did, would they have been able to hold on to it? As historians have pointed out, the Balkans were always an unprofitable part of the Ottoman Empire and a drag on its' ressources. Pacifying a conquered Austria might have been even more taxing. Adding to that the Ottoman Empire faced several internal and external threats, thus making holding on Vienna even more untenable. Furthermore if we look on how politics unfolded at this time, a great deal was placed by the actors to prevent too large gains by a single party, thus upsetting the balance of power. It is thus entirely possible that an Ottoman victory at Vienna would have lead to a bigger anti-Ottoman coalition down the line.
Personally I suspect that an Ottoman victory would have benefited France the most, and allowed it to make even bigger gains into Germany than it already did.
It is interesting to see how much the perception of historical events can differ between countries. In Europe the siege of Vienna is often seen as a pivotal moment, while e.g. from a Turkish point of view, it is oftwn seen as a minor setback. This view is supported by the fact that the Ottoman Empire was capable of conducting a succesful war against Russia only a few years later. Instead Turkish historians often view the the the Austro-Ottoman war of 1716-1718 as the decisive moment, because it not only lead to the most humiliating military defeat in Ottomam history, but also definitely showed that the Ottoman Empire no longer required a large coalition against it.
One way to reconcile those views may be to speculate about what would have happenes if the Ottoman army had taken Vienna. No doubt that the Ottomans would have been able to gain favourable peace terms, but would they have been able to demand the city? And if they did, would they have been able to hold on to it? As historians have pointed out, the Balkans were always an unprofitable part of the Ottoman Empire and a drag on its' ressources. Pacifying a conquered Austria might have been even more taxing. Adding to that the Ottoman Empire faced several internal and external threats, thus making holding on Vienna even more untenable. Furthermore if we look on how politics unfolded at this time, a great deal was placed by the actors to prevent too large gains by a single party, thus upsetting the balance of power. It is thus entirely possible that an Ottoman victory at Vienna would have lead to a bigger anti-Ottoman coalition down the line.
Personally I suspect that an Ottoman victory would have benefited France the most, and allowed it to make even bigger gains into Germany than it already did.
Tacitus
28 Aug 2020
News / What should Poland do with the problem of Belarus? [1800]
He justified paying women less because they are "smaller, weaker and less intelligent" than men. If you read his English Wikipedia entry, he seems to have a seriously scr*wed up picture of women in general.
What point exactly was he trying to make with that?
He justified paying women less because they are "smaller, weaker and less intelligent" than men. If you read his English Wikipedia entry, he seems to have a seriously scr*wed up picture of women in general.