This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Is France's 'Germany-Containment' Strategy At Risk?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

In a little under two minutes, Stratfor provides a succinct primer on 'France'. Its natural (ocean, river, and mountain) geographic 'barrier' borders, its major agricultural industry, and significant social cohesion. But, there is one weakness - the North European Plain - which remains France's main challenge - safe-guarding its north-European border, on the path of a historic invasion route. The most critical existential threat to France has come from its Eastern neighbor Germany and after three significant wars from 1871 to 1945, France attempted to 'contain' Germany largely through economic and political union. The most recent economic and political crisis (and the growing schism between Hollande and Merkel) suggest France's containment-strategy may be in question.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:34 | 2561451 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

that's where the dutch boys come in!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:36 | 2561464 BandGap
BandGap's picture

Paint them into a corner?

 

 

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:45 | 2561502 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

This time is different.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:58 | 2561859 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

This time the French will welcome the Germans who will no doubt bail them out.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 15:32 | 2562583 Fortunate Fool
Fortunate Fool's picture

The big difference is France is now a Nuclear Power. Its policy for its use is as clear as crystal: the first foreign soldier to step in France territory without authorization will trigger the use of the nuclear power against the aggressor. 

 

Do you actually believe anyone will ever dare to invade France? If so, look at the attitude of everybody towards North Korea...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:45 | 2561503 Rubicon
Rubicon's picture

They will fart in their general direction.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 15:33 | 2562588 Carl Spackler
Carl Spackler's picture

Fechez la vache !

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:44 | 2561496 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

that's where the dutch boys come in!

 

SD - you watchin' video transcripts from Sandusky's trial again?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:50 | 2561819 brooklynlou
brooklynlou's picture

I doubt Germany will let France take a shower first ...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 13:19 | 2562160 hansg
hansg's picture

What, you expect us to defend the French from the Germans? With what army, exactly? And why would we defend the French, given that they have invaded us three(?) times while the Germans have only done it once?

Also, haven't the French heard of planes? It's been all the rage in warfare this last century... Worrying about "plains" is so pre-20th century...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:34 | 2561456 Hermann
Hermann's picture

I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of Germany invading France.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:37 | 2561467 BandGap
BandGap's picture

That's what they said last time.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:44 | 2561494 Hermann
Hermann's picture

well yeah, but there's no point this time. They're in the same boat, both victims of an international cabal

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:03 | 2561579 DogSlime
DogSlime's picture

France didn't have nukes last time.  I imagine that any nation with nukes would most likely use them if the alternative was being overrun by a foreign juggernaut... probably why there is such hysteria over the idea of Iran becoming a nuclear power - it's a lot harder to just roll straight over someone if there's a good chance they'll nuke you for it.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:44 | 2561790 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

nuclear weaponds do NOT give the ability to project power directly and unilaterrally. While they act as a detterant to aggression---they DO give you the power to project SOFT indirect power by funding your enemies' enemies. 

Nuclear weapons are why The united states had to draw a line north of vietnam where they would not attack because they didn't want an escalation with the group funding vietnam with weapons and food---the russians. 

 

ultimately, having nuclear weapons allows you as a country to have a firm stable footing from the END run of a full frontal assualt. with such a SHIELD in place, you have what ultimately guarantees long term stability against foreign direct aggression. Of course, other countries can fund insurgents and psyops in your country, but the attempts to foment internal revolution are never as threatening as direct warfare. Thus----in the new world we are living in. the Power of Empire and of Aggresion is going to be benchmarked against who you CANNOT afford to bomb directly---which means there is an inevitable race to build up nuclear weapons. 

Iran is pursuing the bomb , everyone knows this. for israel , the fear is that once they get the bomb there will be a radical and long term escalation of lebanese attacks. because even if israel can bomb lebanon every 5 years----the iranians will just keep giving them money and weapons and nothing can be done to stop this. The bombings of lebanon will result in a permanently impoverished state of people who view israel as the enemy , thus setting the stage for a major conflagration one day with lebanon. At some point----a major conflagration must result in the full scale destruction of a City which will leave at least 10,000 to 20,000 dead. and this will be the departure point for international sanctions on israel which will begin the economic crippling of the state----without solid economic footing , the military apparatus begins to crumble. 

 

the alternative is that Iran is prevented from getting a nuke -----until the country collapses internally or through outright warfare by the U.S. ------and a friendly regime is installed which stops providing weapons and support to hizbollah. 

This seems VERY unlikely because China holds U.S. treasuries and Russia could be crazy enough to start world war iii in the face of persistent unchecked american aggression. 

 

Iran is not really the problem here however. Nor is Israel for all you zionist Israel Haters out there. Of course, superpowers are more to blame than anyone. Blaming smaller countries makes no sense when the only powers capable of 'stopping' aggression are the bigger ones. The superpowers are the only countries that can alter conflict in any meaningful sense, if at all.

The intractable problem is that low level conflict ---inside smaller countries, and between small countries-----always exists, and by virtue of this----major superpowers will always be taking advantage of it to satisfy their own lust for power. THere is no way out of this trap, and nuclear proliferation is THE tactic defining the post wwii period.

At some point due to nuclear proliferation, a nuclear war MUST happen. lt's just hope it is of limited scope.  I personally believe a nuclear engagement is most likely to happen in the least stable countries with leaders who may be able to rationalize nuclear bombing because they have such large POPULATIONS that they can 'sacrifice' people. ---not iran versus israel, and not north korea versus south korea, but most likely ---pakistan versus india. 

remember a nuclear weapon of low kilotonnage is going to kill most of the people in a city with a radius of 2-3 miles. if done during the day time in a city center. you're going to kill maybe 100,000 people to 3 million people depending on the city. 

pakistan has 180 million people india over a billion. I could see military planners agreeing to go forward with a strike in that situation. 

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 13:31 | 2562197 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Germany will not invade France because they don't have the tank divisions necessary to pull off such an invasion.

Plus they have the US albatross still hanging around their necks making sure that not only do the Russians not invade but that the Huns don't rearm and re-militarize.

"In Germany alone, the United States army has over 50,000 military personnel in over 20 different bases."

Read more: American Military Bases in Germany | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6139391_american-military-bases-germany.html#ixzz1yvBKu5pM
Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:13 | 2561645 czarangelus
czarangelus's picture

*cough* Just like last time

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:21 | 2561685 Matt
Matt's picture

France has Nukes, Germany doesn't. Of course, Hollande does not seem to be quite the same as Chirac, so who knows if the will would be there if needed.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:04 | 2561586 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Germany has no need to invade France.  And while were speculating, let's not forget the last time France was invaded.  England and USA sailed across a very narrow channel.  Another interesting invasion was the one that defeated Napoleon.  Not the much over-hyped battle of Waterloo.  But the coalition led by Russia.  So France has been targeted by various forces.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:15 | 2561660 123dobryden
123dobryden's picture

at the moment there is exactly oposite threat, the frogeater's euros are about to invade saving accounts in germany

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:45 | 2561498 kito
kito's picture

ha ha ha ha...too funny, perhaps they can fight each other with pea shooters.....thanks to their over reliance on the american military, europes armed forces is the most emasculated its ever been. they couldnt even finish off libya without our help...they ran out of bombs for jeeezes sake!!!!! puhlllleeeeaseeeee.............

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:58 | 2561532 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Germany can build war materials and I'm sure the MIC of the US would love to sell materials. In this age of remote controlled drones, even emasculated cultures can go to war.

That said, still not a snowball's chance.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:06 | 2561599 Cast Iron Skillet
Cast Iron Skillet's picture

But I'm sure the U.S. will be perfectly willing to help both sides of any potential conflict ...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:48 | 2561511 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Did the Capetians ever really go away?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:05 | 2561589 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Correct, France has nukes.  They will never be invaded while they have nukes.  

The real threat faces the other way, toward the non-nuclear armed Germany.  But NATO would have to fall apart first.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:12 | 2561631 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

A real possibility, by the way.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:52 | 2561826 brooklynlou
brooklynlou's picture

Why invade something you'll soon own?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:35 | 2561457 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

You mean those pesky Germans are up to no good.....again?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:36 | 2561463 Gypsyducks
Gypsyducks's picture

Before ze Germans get here

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:40 | 2561482 ChubbNut
ChubbNut's picture

Proper fucked.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:52 | 2561528 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

The French have repatriated the 'Coneheads' who will successfully defend their motherland this time around...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:52 | 2561531 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Lock Stock and Smoking Merkels...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:53 | 2561829 12ToothAssassin
12ToothAssassin's picture

Merkel's Snatch

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:41 | 2561486 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

My point and question would be: do people actually pay for this kind of insight?

God, send France a rush copy, they may not know.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:56 | 2561549 Bob
Bob's picture

Lookin' for happiness in all the wrong places, maybe. 

Strongly recommend for you a movie, Happy:

http://www.theultimateanswer.org/the-happy-movie-review.html

Sounds pretty lame; if it hadn't been the 99 cent special at Vudu over the weekend, I never would have bothered. 

One of the most radical movies I've ever seen . . . and right in your bailiwick, CD.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:36 | 2561460 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

We surrender!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:37 | 2561466 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 We surrender!

 

That's the French national anthem, n'est-ce pas?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:55 | 2561541 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

You would not be so unkind to the French if you had ever known one of their women.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:09 | 2561613 RoadKill
RoadKill's picture

Are the wemon the ones with the moustaches or the underarm hair?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:41 | 2561773 RichardENixon
RichardENixon's picture

Both, usually.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:10 | 2561622 TahoeBilly2012
TahoeBilly2012's picture

I agree. I have spent some long nights down in San Sebastian, best time ever!!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:53 | 2561832 brooklynlou
brooklynlou's picture

Their women are fantastic. Unfortunately they're not running the show.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:38 | 2561469 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Wars and rumors of wars.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:44 | 2561495 Confused
Confused's picture

Funny. German people didn't show any nationalism until the world cup victory. Now all of a sudden I am to believe that they have the desire to go steam rolling through Europe? This is nothing more than fear mongering. Certainly no German citizens want to go to war.

 

 

I'm sorry. I keep forgetting. Its never up to the citizens.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:11 | 2561932 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

France declared war on Germany in 1870, 1914 and 1939. Britain declared war on Germany 1914 and 1939. Germany declared war on the USA in 1941 AFTER Pearl Harbour

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:24 | 2561980 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 and in 1870, the only "German" that was "prepared to go to war" was the Prussian Chancellor Bismark, in 1914 just simply nobody, and 1939 "it was way too early". It just leads to think how history could have been different if the Germans would ever have seriously planned to go to war against France and the UK, instead of looking suspiciously in the direction of Russia.

Which just leads me to think: who is feverishly hoping for some diversion, this time? The EuroTrashing propaganda is reaching the shrieking level. Stratfor seriously discussing France and Germany? This is more then childish and just shows no knowledge of the two countries, at all.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:32 | 2561997 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

The EuroTrashing propaganda is reaching the shrieking level. Stratfor seriously discussing France and Germany?

Do you think these divisions are being sown for play? It's not a game man.

This is it. This is all they have left.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:38 | 2561472 Bokkenrijder
Bokkenrijder's picture

Is this part of the series "geography for dummies?"

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:38 | 2561474 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

I would like to ask the team what changes they would make if they were Hitler?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:40 | 2561483 malikai
malikai's picture

Invade Russia first.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:17 | 2561672 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Build a strong military and focus on economic reforms and freedom for my people.  If I couldn't get over my bullshit racism, then I would send all the Jews elsewhere, potentially sacrificing one of my overseas posessions to be their new homeland rather than giving them an excuse to adopt Nazi policies without criticism for the next hundred years.

A stong economy would have ensured their ability to destroy any invading armies.  By refraining from overextending themselves in a war around the world, they would have been unassailable.  No entangling alliances would have meant the US would have gone to war with Japan alone.  Our strong capitalist policies might have even caused the US to become friendly to us.

Further actions taken would have included the formation of a nation-wide militia, with all adult males free to own and use any type of weapon they like, and government subsidized rifles and ammunition, and free sharpshooter training for all able bodied men and women.  Next would come the slow process of trimming down the state until it was vestigial, funded by a poll tax to elect a head of state who was a mere figurehead, with excess funds going to support continued militia equipment and training.

Probably could have made it happen by 1970 or so.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:39 | 2561477 Abraxas
Abraxas's picture

Why are the PMs down again? Nadler? Anybody?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:46 | 2561501 RoadKill
RoadKill's picture

Deflation, debt defaults, freeze up in the vellocity of money due to interbank lending and shadow banking.

The Fed is out till at least August. The ECB seems to be leaving the next step up to Brussels.

Without central bank printing their is no value to Gold and silver and plat are even worse because industrial demand is collapsing.

Thimgs have to get worse before FED & ECB have cover to print. So PMs will go down with stocks.

Sorry you bought into the LIE that PMs benefit from inflation and deflation.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:55 | 2561537 BBullionaire
BBullionaire's picture

So PMs will go down with stocks.

 

You mean like yesterday?

http://bulletsbeansandbullion.blogspot.co.uk/

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:03 | 2561577 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Great. Another flat earth deflationist. Wonderful...where were you when the Golden Bull rose from 2001-2008 without QE and much higher rates?

 

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:55 | 2561836 Chump
Chump's picture

Don't lump deflationists all together, please.  I am one, and I also hold a large percentage of what little wealth I have in PMs, mostly silver (poor man's gold and all that).

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 13:08 | 2562083 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

No, I dont do that. That's why I said "flat earth". I posted at Mish's site for years. Rick Ackermans too. I am well acquainted with the deflation view.

Edit: It would be nice if junkers would focus on the content of the post and respond accordingly. Reason is, they cant and wont.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 16:19 | 2562743 Chump
Chump's picture

Thanks for the clarification.  I mistook the intent of the flat earth qualifier.  Don't know why you were junked but it wasn't me.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:48 | 2561810 Chump
Chump's picture

Without central bank printing their is no value to Gold

That has to be the single dumbest thing you've ever written here.  Even ignoring the fact that physical holders of PMs should not care about fiat valuation except for the purposes of purchasing, you have topped even AnAnonymous with this comment.  Your prize is to EABODADIAF.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:55 | 2561544 Hermann
Hermann's picture

because they have to make it look like PMs are not the only life raft to financial safety for the little man, especially so pre-QE3. Remember what happened yesterday? It will be that x10000 within 2 months IMHO. Don't let ANYTHING make you sell now.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:39 | 2561478 RoadKill
RoadKill's picture

This is idiotic.  Mountians and rivers are no longer defences against modern weaponry.  The threat now comes from the skies.  You bomb and rocket the shit out of the opposing millitary installations and the para-drop in elite units.  You will never see another tank brigade assault, just like you will never see a face-off between gigantic battleships.

Also, who the hell think Germany wants to invade France?  They can just buy them (if their was anything there worth buying).  Much more resources East of Germany.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:46 | 2561504 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

I DK - I'd take a case of Calvados.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:48 | 2561508 Bob
Bob's picture

The wars change, but we're gonna keep fighting and--By God--we're gonna one day win yesterday's war . . . even if it takes forever!

Funny we can't seem to ever get around to the necessary wars never yet fought:

The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.

          Baron Acton

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:53 | 2561533 SilverRhino
SilverRhino's picture

>>  You will never see another tank brigade assault,

You were doing fine until you decided to state this idiocy.  Armored warfare is going to be around for a long time.  

 

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:23 | 2561694 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

Seen it as recently as 1991 in Iraq, and in the Falklands campaign there was actually a bayonette charge.

That is why the experts still buy tanks and bayonettes for the military.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:55 | 2561543 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Financial Facism is indeed superior to the old methods of military conquest, which had the undesirable side affect of destroying many of your own assets and the other guys assets you are trying to acquire.

And with modern media manipulation, you can not only take over a country, but also convince the inhabitants to turn into lemmings.

Its just pure entertainment!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:40 | 2561480 RoadKill
RoadKill's picture

This is idiotic.  Mountians and rivers are no longer defences against modern weaponry.  The threat now comes from the skies.  You bomb and rocket the shit out of the opposing millitary installations and the para-drop in elite units.  You will never see another tank brigade assault, just like you will never see a face-off between gigantic battleships.

Also, who the hell think Germany wants to invade France?  They can just buy them (if their was anything there worth buying).  Much more resources East of Germany.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:40 | 2561481 bigwavedave
bigwavedave's picture

Anonymous

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:42 | 2561488 cdp181
cdp181's picture

Who do you think you are kidding Mrs Merkel?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:42 | 2561490 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

All of your Bordeaux are belong to us.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:45 | 2561500 Confused
Confused's picture

That meme will never stop being funny.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:55 | 2561545 Bam_Man
Bam_Man's picture

Yes, but the proper translation of that phrase from German is:

"All of your Bordeaux us belong to are."

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:02 | 2561573 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

Sounds more Yoda than German, but it works...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:49 | 2561510 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Okay...help me out here. Setting up the Euro zone was Frances way of containig Germany right? Germany goes along with the idea and benefits economically. The weaker nations in th EU spend more than they should and demand a bail out from Germany. Germany demands fiscal responsabilty in return for the bail outs and all the othe EU nations give Germany the finger.....but Germany is being painted as the aggressor?  Right....I'm not buying it.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:55 | 2561538 Confused
Confused's picture

There certainly does seem to be alot of anti-German rhetoric. Strange.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:01 | 2561569 Hermann
Hermann's picture

endless propaganda ....

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:06 | 2561596 Winston of Oceania
Winston of Oceania's picture

I am doing my part and now only purchase Beck's beer; we have to keep the Germans working so they can pick up France's slack.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:50 | 2561515 i8emallup
i8emallup's picture

This somehow assumes Germany has geopolitical designs a la Strator's worldview AND that Germany can be baited into war as Churchill did in The Unnecessary war. (otherwise known as WW1 and WW2).

 

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 10:50 | 2561518 Stormy Weather
Stormy Weather's picture

Except you can't sell a war to the youth on either side in 2012 anymore.

We have been raised in a very strong pacifist mentality. We don't even know how to handle a gun, military service has been abolished quite a long time ago now (those born after 1979 didn't do it).

In 2 words : forget it.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:01 | 2561570 i8emallup
i8emallup's picture

Doch!!!

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:27 | 2561709 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

Heard that one back in 85 and before we went into Iraq.  Heard it again in the 90s.

You shouldnt underestimate the power of the Dark Side (media) to get people pissed off and ready to fight almost anything and anyone.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:03 | 2561582 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

'frances' angelic geography is like a woman's anatomy - are you a leg man, or are you a big tits guy,... or is it the neck-line and above that you so much cherish --- france has them all,... and as a fair maiden that she is... all's fair in love and war' 

me,... i'm a greedy bastard and would want all three!    Cheers

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:04 | 2561585 Joe A
Joe A's picture

Starfor, ever heard of Force de Frappe?

There are other areas where the French are more challenged: manners, politeness, economy and personal hygiene ;-)

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:07 | 2561605 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

I think it's a bit soon to be talking about conventional war. The next stage of unraveling will involve lots of "face" saving political maneuvers, name calling and nationalism.

That will be followed by sabre rattling of various kinds economic and political.

Then we will have lots of misery (particulary amoung the disaffected youth) and a potentially explosive concoction for the return of violent fascism directed at minorities and other convenient scapegoats.

Then the situation becomes very dangerous.

All this collective Europe bullshit will evaporate very quickly if something is not done.

What is to be done?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:10 | 2561625 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

 potentially explosive concoction for the return of violent fascism directed at minorities and other convenient scapegoats.

We already have that, it's called America.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:21 | 2561662 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

We have the risk as well, but I think Europe is a bigger tinderbox because of all the emotion and nationalism involved. All you have to do is look at football mob behavior to figure it out. Americans seem to be in a lobotomized state of indifference.

The people who deny that a nasty scenario will never repeat are well, in denial.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:33 | 2561738 Joe A
Joe A's picture

Nah, I think you are wrong. The people of the European countries are getting more and more united in their hatred of the banks and their political and economic elites. It are they who the people will turn at, not against eachother.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:19 | 2561675 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

"face" saving political maneuvers, name calling and nationalism.

 

London Olympics - perfect forum.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:30 | 2561716 Stormy Weather
Stormy Weather's picture

"violent fascism directed at minorities" -> the bankers, maybe.

The jews, I don't hope, sincerely (their *elites* are being perceived as part of the problems tho, and the muslims hate Israël with passion, in solidarity with Palestinians, I'm therefore afraid for them)

The muslims, don't think so (they are very much integrated now in both lands and go hand in hand with the white youth, and I know what I'm talking about)

What is left, romanians?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 11:26 | 2561607 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Come on, Germany.  The Arabs are shitty scapegoats.  You guys are the real deal.  Rattle a sabre, why don't you, you kraut-munching, Jew-gassing sons of Adolf???

/sarc

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:09 | 2561916 Sandmann
Sandmann's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_food_policy_in_occupied_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

Judge Robert H. Jackson, Chief US prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials in a letter discussing the potential weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told US President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves:

"have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest

 

http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/authoralbumbackground/2649/_rudi_war...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Morgenthau.html

 

Maybe the French want to have Germans as slaves as in 1947-52 and hope a Us President can help them again as before ?

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:22 | 2561978 JR
JR's picture

Will the war-mongering neo-cons ever stop fighting WWII and identifying modern Germany as a Nazi power?

And when will Zero Hedge stop using the saber rattling George Friedman (Stratfor) as source material when it is a proven supporter of the banker/military complex and its investment in continuous war?

However, it may be wise to take the war-making designs of Stratfor seriously considering that Friedman is a front for the pro-war, pro-US-Empire, pro-Israel oligarchs. After all, it is Israel that decides American foreign policy and it is Stratfor that has advised Obama strategists to bomb Iran before the 2012 election as a winning re-election position.

And doesn’t someone need to help the bankers demonize Germany to keep the German taxpayers in line? Why not Stratfor?

Any higher up who questions Stratfor’s current war-mongering efforts to generate fear in the French of a German economic invasion, of course, might suffer the fate of Baroness Jenny Tonge who was forced to resign the Lib Dem whip in England’s House of Lords this year. She was reported to the police by two pro-Israel activists in the audience after telling a student group that Israel “will not go on forever,” adding, “One day, the United States of America will get sick of giving 70 billion pounds a year to Israel to support what I call America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East—that is Israel.

“One day, the American people are going to say to the AIPAC in the USA: enough is enough.”

Immediately, the Jewish Chronicle Online reported: “Police are investigating comments made at the Israel Apartheid Week event attended by Liberal Democrat peer Jenny Tonge.”

And, thus, began the demise of Jenny… And let that be a lesson to you.

Wed, 06/27/2012 - 04:26 | 2564282 Gavrikon
Gavrikon's picture

"Will the war-mongering neo-cons ever stop fighting WWII and identifying modern Germany as a Nazi power?"

No.  Nor will they stop fighting the Cold War.  The Fucktards won't be satisfied until every last remnent of White Western Culture has been erased from the map.

Wed, 06/27/2012 - 05:49 | 2564319 BorisTheBlade
BorisTheBlade's picture

Or maybe Stratfor is just trolling.

Friedman predicts a third world war between these two coalitions sometime around 2050. He asserts that the war will probably be started by a coordinated sneak attack against the United States and its allies by the Japanese and Turkish empires. He states that the war will be a form of limited war, and that it will be very different in its conduct than a total war, such as World War II of the 20th century. He predicts that the United States and its allies will win, that the war will last two to three years, and that it will cost somewhere around 50,000 lives. Friedman predicts after the war, the United States will enjoy a properous decade in the 2060s due to the fact that no nation could challenge it at this time and that a new alternative to energy from solar spaced based power systems would redefine the use of power and resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_100_Years

Yeah, right 50,000 lives in 2050 and war will last for 2-3 years. Startfor predictive capability is probably as good as their online security.

Wed, 06/27/2012 - 05:57 | 2564322 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 Boris. In one point they are correct: the Mutual Assured Destruction principle that came with the Cold War made Total War impossible and gave us some 300+ Limited War conflicts until around 1984, the point in time where I stopped counting.

Now the big question is if we are exiting the US HyperPower Age and are going back to a new Age of Powers. In which of course Turkey would be again a regional Power.

Nevertheless, the US of A is still the HyperPower, best seen in the fact that NATO troops are in Afghanistan with the logistic help of Russia, the one Power helping it's satellite Syria and helping China and India to share-satellize Iran...

Wed, 06/27/2012 - 06:23 | 2564347 BorisTheBlade
BorisTheBlade's picture

No one is questioning that in status quo US is still a super power, but Friedman's assertions of that continuing deep into 21st century are far-fetched. All his analysis is biased in that sense and manufactured to support already known conclusion, if I follow his paradygm I can see a whole bunch of black swans popping heads everywhere I turn my eyes to. First, and foremost super-power is not defeated militarily, but starved economically after it overextends itself to the point it can no longer support massive military projection and expenditures that are required to keep the empire wheels spinning. Stratfor is rather a propaganda outlet, biased and one-sided.

NATO troops are in Afghanistan with the logistic help of Russia

Correct, and I think it's called appeasement. Russians not for a second forgot that heroin production skyrocketed after NATO went there and where all this heroin is headed to, but neither they are interested in NATO leaving Afghanistan haphazardly and creating power vacuum that will be filled very quickly with Islamists. Reasons for this are pragmatic, plus they are getting paid handsomely for transit after Pakistan shut down their portion of supply routes.

Wed, 06/27/2012 - 10:38 | 2564958 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 "Reasons for this are pragmatic..." Correct. in the logic of empire all reasons are pragmatic. The Germans have a word for this: Realpolitik.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:23 | 2561983 david_a_levastre
david_a_levastre's picture

I'm not in denial or anything, being french I know we have a long and bloody history with Germany, but I think I can speak for most when I say that we do not feel threatened by Germany, nor do we see them as our enemies. There is no bitterness now, that generation is mostly gone, only the politicians and old farts like to bring it up. Anyhow, none of us want a reapeat of the last four centuries of war.

Wed, 06/27/2012 - 04:24 | 2564279 Gavrikon
Gavrikon's picture

" . . . only the politicians and old farts like to bring it up."

And full retards.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:37 | 2562038 WhiteNight123129
WhiteNight123129's picture

Well, France has been what it is for a good amount of time, we always lose the war against the Germans to end up winning it against the German. And the Germans have still not figured out how. One of the main reason is that despite our very old quarrels with the Brits, spats from time with Americans (yet in truth we go along easier with the Americans than with the Brits, it might have to do with the fact the both countries were originally very much agrarian who knows.... ), I think that the Brits and the Americans never stood the idea of having Europe dominated by the Germans.

I am a frog too and I call tell you, it is cool, you are not going to see the French going into the Trenches, I doubt the Krauts have much appetite to anything more than living their lives quietly. The Krauts are welcome to spend holidays in France and have some fun.

Stratfor = Bilderberg group.

If Germany and China blow up Bilderberg s agenda, good riddance.

Fuck you Stratfor.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 12:38 | 2562043 I did it by Occident
I did it by Occident's picture

But before that it was Enmity between France and the British Empire during 1700s ending with the Napoleanic Wars.  Thus it might be some other pairing this time in the "stately quadrille" 

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 13:48 | 2562241 supermaxedout
supermaxedout's picture

Containment policy is a thing of the past.

Now France and Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland and the rest of Europe except UK are partners. They know all too good, that its not wise to start shooting at each other. So they are going the other way.

I predict, that within the next five years, Strasbourg in France is going to be the capital of the USE. There is no other way. Going backward is not an option anymore. And by the way who would want that in Europe except UK and US, and maybe also Russia is not so much amuzed to have to deal in the future with a politically united Europe. 

Long live the USE!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!