Even worse – they are getting away with it!

astonishing even still is they were made pay for both of them and still they are the engine of Europe. perhaps they ARE the true leaders of Europe ? :)

Good grief were the Germans the only army fighting in the two wars or did the others not burn or damage anything?

David McWilliams has already said this.

“It wants to do with banks what it couldn’t – historically – do with tanks.”
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/05/07/lets-talk-about-germany

Funny that was Hitlers sctick too when he was rampaging across europe…… And I think your giving our politicians a lot more credit than their due…. The ex teacher brigade would hardly be up to world domination to be honest. They’re barely able to run small corrupt political parties for christs sake…

Irish politicians are looking after her country’s best interests.

If Merkel really is the self-appointed ruler of the EU ( I don’t think she is, but for argument’s sake lets just go with it ), the only reason she’s in that position is because no-one else stepped forward. Everyone loves to complain about the driver, but no-one has tried to take the wheel. If not Merkel, then who? Anyone what to volunteer? It’d be nice to see a fresh face, but no-one’s that suicidal.

Merkel appears to be in charge because the economy of her country is in the best state.

Which in turn is because the ECB has controlled interest rates in a way most preferable to Germany.

But then why are so many German politicians and German industrialists euro sceptics and against many of Merkel’s policies? Merkel is not seen as a people’s politician or a inspiring figure within Germany herself. Yes, Germany has economic power, but not more than the combined economic power of even a few if the other larger EU nations. She has not be challenged because, ultimately, the other heads of state do not want to challenge her. Because, if they did, they’d have to take responsibility for the whole sorry mess.

“Merkel is not seen as a people’s politician or a inspiring figure within Germany herself.”

Then why is she in charge of Germany?

Merkel is in power because she is the leader of the CDU ( think Tory ) and the CDU is the largest party in the current coalition government in Germany. The votes that put her in power were not necessarily votes for her, or even votes for her party. The election of 2005 knocked the SPD ( think British new labour ) out of power, and many voters believed that getting the SPD out of power what more important than getting the CDU into power, the the SPD had proved themselves as lazy, self-rewarding, smug and ineffective in many areas, including finance. Again, a good parallel would be the recent ( -ish ) move from New Labour to Cameron’s Conservatives. My point is that the voter’s preferences were not for Merkel, but their preferences led to Merkel taking the big chair. Add to that that Germany is a Federal Republic with separate state and federal elections, where decisions by the state government often have far more relevance to the person in the street than decisions made by the federal government, and the voting system is a based on proportional representation, and it’s not hard to see how someone can be come the Federal Chancellor without having to be a popular figure amongst the voters. Lastly, as with Enda Kenny here in our country, Merkel was seen as the lest useless option,and the fact that she could potentially be the first woman and the first form East German to take the position tipped the balance in her favour. All the comparisons to AH are spurious, but given her background and the political situation in Germany in 2005, a comparison between Merkel and Thatcher is more enlightening.
Sorry for rabbiting on, I hope this answers your question Damocles, and I mean this to be a sincere and honest answer. I’m not trying to sore points or win a battle with this.

No, Nikolas, I couldn’t ask for a more complete answer. Rabbit away.

But I stand by my previous point. She is in charge because of the economy of the country she presides over, not because of she herself. You could shave a monkey, put it in a suit, put it in charge of Germany and as the leader of the financially strongest country in the EU it would have control.

Might even do a decent job.

Bah! I was given a tablet thingy for my birthday from my son two weeks ago, and it’s brilliant present, and it was a lovely thing to get, but I just can’t get the typing down. So I apologise for all the mistakes above. Maybe I’m just getting old. I don’t have a pipe but I do have slippers.

Incidentally, the comparison to Thatcher only goes so far. Thatcher was elected with a mandate from the masses, not as a result of coalition shennanigans.

Damocles: Ha! It might just come to that too. You’re right of course, the media likes faces, so Merkel’s power and Germany’s power get blurred into one another. It also means that people across Europe might cheer and do a slightly more civilised version of shooting bullets into the air if and when she’s ousted, but that doesn’t mean there’d be and significant policy changes. I think that what doesn’t come across in the Irish and British media is the conflict and opposition Merkel faces in her own country. Her support is not overwhelming, she doesn’t have the all of the industry and banking bigwigs in her pocket and the general citizenry are lukewarm about her at best. But there’s currently no-one else in the running, and if someone was to challenge her in the 2013 elections, they really should have started campaigning by now. So she might be around for a while yet. Most Germans are scared silly at the slight but steady support for parties at the extremes of right and left. Compared to these clowns, Merkel is extremely moderate. So, to get back on topic, it’s pure silliness to present Merkel as a dictator with a finger on all the buttons and an eye to establishing a new world order ruled by blood and iron. This is a view that can only held if the person holding that view is completely ignorant of the political situation within Germany. So yes, the country with more money has more power, but I would still be very critical of the caretakers of the other EZ and EU nations for their passivity over the last four years. It’s a generalisation, but Germans tend to do stuff rather than wait for others to do it for them, and other states have let Merkel do this and follow her lead. That was a choice, they weren’t forced to do this.

Yes, I think the Thatcher comparison is interesting, as in 2005 it fit very well; both were outsiders in their respective parties, through their gender and Social-economic backgrounds, and both were brought into power by a dissatisfaction with an incumbant moderate left-wing government. I suspect that Merkel was very Award of this comparison, and used Thatcher’s career as a model for her own. But over the last seven years, the pattern of their paths diverged. Thatcher had the loyalty support of the financial sector and of the heads of industry, Merkel can’t count on this. Thatcher relied on populist feeling and the might if the populist media, again Merkel hasn’t been overly successful in capturing these. I like the comparison not because it fits, but because of how it doesn’t.

On a different note, is it possible to edit and correct typing mistakes on my comments after they have been posted up?

But I’ll concede to your point that Thatcher became PM by being voted in by the masses, and Merkel didn’t.

is it possible to edit and correct typing mistakes on my comments after they have been posted up?

No.

Pity.

The biggest mistake we’re making is being distracted by farces like then when the real problem is nothing to go with nationalities, it’s to do with unregulated financing practices on an international level. This is just using a national newspaper as medium for trolling.

I agree..the forces at work are post national and transnational..corporations and capital float offshore and beyond national democratic leverage..they use nationalism as means of division and conquest…

Hit the nail on the head there Damien. Its just a pity most people fall for this crap.

A fourth reich might be just what we need to clean up the world.

@Rocco….clean it up of what?

What we knew all along. The fourth Reich trying to take over Europe fiscally. Now finally the media confirm it.
Stick a dark slug under Merkels nose, darken her hair and it’s a dead ringer for the last German dictator…!!!

Good point..and Silvio is such a paragon of democracy himself

Less disciplined?You mean that they didn’t have the balls to do what Iceland did and get to the ethical roots of the rot, clean the stable, change the personnel, and retstart with fresh deck, instead of the same marked cards and a fresh house croupier. Greece had its wealth siphoned out by its elites..thats the methodology…old as Midas, and common as lucre.

And don’t be bragging IQ-wise until you can spell Angie-Baby’s name. It’ll help your image(no charge).

No need to be insulting. You can disagree with one another and still be civil.

@ Gofaq – You know this because? You have spent many years visiting Germany and doing detailed sociological research?

He’s only trolling, lad. Don’t rise to it, it won’t do you any good.

Gofaq just waffles

Reich means empire

Realm would be a closer translation

Actually it means kingdom rather than empire.

The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire, the Second was the German Reich that was founded in the 19th Century and subsequently dissolved after the First World War.

The first reich was the Greek empire, the second reich was the Roman empire, the third reich was supposed to be the German empire.

Does this mean then that the dominance of Kerry in Gaelic football over the decades could be called The Magillycuddy Reichs?

Does this mean then that the dominance of Kerry in Gaelic football over the decades could be called The Magillycuddy Reichs?

For all intents and purposes it means empire and Con has it right

koenigreich means kingdom

OK so …

First: Holy Roman Empire
Second: German Empire, unification of states under Bismark.
Pre-Third: Ebert/Hindenburg Post empire / Wiemar Republic.
Third: Hitler
Fourth: Post war Division
Fifth: Reunited

The Reich is the German State, in it’s many and manifold states.

So … If Merkel is creating a new reich it’d be the sixth.

No it’s not the German State. The German state is a republic at the moment. If it were the German state then how can you conveniently just call the Weimar Republic ‘pre-third’, surely it would be the 3rd??

Blimey Ross, you’re taking this a wee bit too seriously.

During the Weimar republic (sometimes refered to as the pre-third as it was this that Hitler transformed into the third reich) the term Reich became more connotated with the institutions and soveriegnty of the state.

The meanings of words change.

Trust me, there have been three reichs and no more. Ask any German and they will tell you. They don’t refer to any ‘German Reich’ anymore and to do so would get you a lot of angry looks cast your way. It’s obvious enough from the Italian newspaper’s reference to the fourth reich that this is the case. The Weimar Republic may have been pre-third reich but then the post-war division is post-third reich, not fourth reich.

Ross, if, as I have suggested, we were to take the term “reich” to mean the state of Germany, which as I have patiently explained is a perfectly valid definition of the term, then we might characterise the two post war states of Germany as the fourth and fifth reiche. Explained thusly I doubt any reasonable German person, alive or dead, would or could be more offended than you have elected to be on their behalf. In such a way any new “reich” instigated by Ms Merkel would be a sixth reich.

It is grossly unfair of you to suggest that an intelligent, linguistically aware nation such as the Germans, based on those of that nation that I have had the pleasure to know, would be offended by such an explanation.

I take no pleasure in noting that your mischaracterisation of the Germans as rigid minded or humourless in this way borders on national stereotyping and almost racism.

You have come out with such a ridiculous argument that I’m going to take it as an admission of defeat.

Yeah, and my initial comment was so utterly serious in the first place wasn’t it?

I made an initial comment that was reasonably tongue in cheek and you decided to get all previous about it.

As to “defeat” you’ve decided you’ve won a non argument on the internet which you caused.

Hurray for you.

Congratulations, your jokes aren’t funny

And most other people who commented missed your joke too

Is the Austria of today an empire? Or France? The names of these countries in the German language are Österreich and Frankreich. Empire of the East and Empire of the French. The word originally comes from “riches” or “wealth”, so a country is the total of the value of the people and their possessions. Words as “Reich” and “Führer” have general meanings as well as “wartime” meanings. “Führer” doesn’t mean leader or master, it only means “guide”.

I can’t explain it Klaus, but I’m still trying to come to terms with the revelation that complete strangers on the Internet may not share my sense of humour. Phew!

I’d say you’re a right laugh with jokes like that. You mocked me for not noticing your first comment was tongue -in-cheek. I told you what Reich meant because from your original comment, which people thought was serious because it wasn’t funny, you seemed to have got things wrong. You made the argument when you tried to justify your comment.

Oh-oh, oh-ooh oh, oh-oh, oh oh, oh-oh oh-ooh oh: The Reich Stuff.

@ Damocles : I am German. What is this “sense of humour” you speak of?

Damocles\Ross,, get a room!

The Internet: Serious Business.

Although the Project for a New American Century is a real strategy that the US neocons are intent on pursuing, the rest of your comment is complete rubbish. You don’t have to be exclusively white with German/English heritage and Protestant, to be a neocon. You do know that’s what WASP means, yeah?

naysaying is a poor form of refutation, Barrie..the parallels stand. Try again..and this time stick to the points raised…red-herrings don’t count. I am fully aware of the history of the WASP establishments, as I am of the Murphia, and have a fair bit of Reich history covered, including the economic policies as they pushed east. Imperial warmongering for resources, under any flag creates the same results.

Don’t be asking me to take sides. Take it as a general observation. Maybe it’s my age, but I think the commenters here can sometimes be more disrespectful that they would be if they we speaking face-to-face or in print. I think it’s unnecessary and ugly, and we are all more intelligent than that.

I won’t give a politician’s answer because, well, I’m not a politician. And I don’t want to repeat myself, but I will, as you’ve asked me to. Why is it hat Merkel seems to be running the show? This has always bothered me. But turn the question around and then it becomes, Why are all the other European heads of state letting Merkel run the show? Because it’s a thankless job, and other leader is naive enough to think they’ll come out of it with a workable solution and smelling of roses. Simply, she’s head of the EU, by default, because no one else wants the responsibility. If by neutral you mean to have no-one at the wheel, then the EU states would all be Ostriches. If by neutral, you mean not Merkel or not German, fine, but who? Name a better candidate or set of candidates. The EUs looking less then democratic these days, but it’s not because Merkel has seized power, it’s because too many of the leaders of the other sovereign states have chosen to abdicate theirs.

Not so much abdicated as been incorporated…they have succumbed to the theological conviction that the invisible hand of the deified market is infallible; which it is…just like the pope. Dictatorship of the corporatariat..and its totalitarian as Stalin and Hitler only dreamed.