Certainly traditionalists will never forget the insult of "Old Europe" delivered by that inglorious bastard, Donald Rumsfeld, who by stint of his position managed to turn the pride of that phrase on its head, whilst inferring that "New Europe" was somehow an improvement.
I am grateful to Andrew Cusack for resurrecting Michael Wharton's old column; the fictitious Peter Simple is a pleasure to re-read. Here, for example, is what Mr. Simple had to say about Mr. Rumsfeld on 31 January 2003:
Gone for Ever
“Old Europe”: with this contemptuous phrase, Rumsfeld and his fellow eminences at the White House dismissed French and German opposition to military action against Iraq. Supremely arrogant, confident of a future world order even more repellent than the present, how should they know or care that for some of us Old Europeans the phrase can induce a mood of hopeless longing?
A hundred years ago, Old Europe ruled the world. From its colonies in every continent came tribute which daily enhanced its wealth, convenience and comfort. The old kingdoms and empires were still intact. The Kaiser ruled in Berlin, the Tsar in St Petersburg, the Emperor Franz-Joseph in Vienna, each with his splendid court whose customs and ceremonies seemed made to last for ever.
The civilisation of Europe – the greatest civilisation the world has known – still seemed secure. Its ancient cities, so varied in their beauty and splendour, still held glorious treasuries of art. Its noble landscapes were still unsullied. Its various peoples kept their own historical traditions.
But the death wish fell on Old Europe, and it collapsed in fratricidal war. The Americans arrived to hasten its ruin with their pernicious doctrines of self-determination, equality and perfectability. Mortally wounded, Old Europe staggered on, but could not recover.
Now there is talk of a New Europe. It is a matter not of emperors and kings but of technicians, accountants and businessmen. It may or may not prosper. What do we care, when Old Europe has gone for ever?
I don't recall the exact speech but I often think people give politicians like Rumsfeld too much credit for knowing what they're talking about. Was the "Old Europe" he was talking about the Europe divided by the Iron Curtain and half dominated by Soviet puppet states? It would not make sense to me for him to be speaking of colonial-era Europe considering that he was having a pity party about lack of French and German support for a military adventure when that was the era of the best military adventures. Both countries probably would have been all about it back then.
ReplyDeleteNow, please forgive me for I know you are not the only one, and I cannot totally disagree, but I have to address this line, "But the death wish fell on Old Europe, and it collapsed in fratricidal war. The Americans arrived to hasten its ruin with their pernicious doctrines of self-determination, equality and perfectability. Mortally wounded, Old Europe staggered on, but could not recover."
Now, no one has more contempt than I do for the dim-witted Democrat Woodrow Wilson, but I do sometimes have to roll my eyes at America being singled out for particular blame regarding World War I. Europeans alliances set it up, European ministers started it and European powers worked by fair means and foul to drag America into it. I cannot help but bristle a little at too much complaining from Europe over America's status in the world when it was the collective suicide of Europe which left America as the only superpower standing.
Even today I am not as bothered by American politicians who stand up and proclaim that the US republic is the greatest government on earth as I am by the absence of European & Commonwealth politicians standing up and asserting the same about their own monarchial systems. When the US goes into a place like Afganistan and starts pushing republicanism I'd like to see the UK pushing just as a hard for a constitutional monarchy as the solution.
Ah well, that's probably enough. I'm sure to be in for it now...
I don't think Peter Simple is blaming the Americans for Old Europe deciding to commit suicide, or for American help in bringing that war to a close, but she was no friend of the old kingdoms and actively worked against their continuance, a fact of power that continues to this day, most recently in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteI realize that, and I was being a bit unfair but I was taking the opportunity to respond to a more general attitude I have often seen expressed of which there was some of in the piece above. America, a republic, has not been a friend of the old kingdoms and as a republic I would not expect her to be. I would expect the old kingdoms to be more supportive of themselves. During the American Civil War there was probably the best (if not only) opportunity to prevent America from becoming a dominant world power but Europe would not get involved and when the victorious US barked the monarchy in Mexico was abandoned.
ReplyDeleteWhen the US went on its one war of actual colonial expansion against Spain it was mean ol' Kaiser Bill who said the kingdoms of Europe should have joined in solidarity with Spain to stop the US but no one would go along with it. Even the very existence of the US would not have happened (in all probability) without the help of the French monarchy. From the perspective of a pan-monarchist; that seems to me the root of the problem.
The French, back then, to their eventual doom backed the US because it served their immediate interest to do so -beating the British was paramount. In World War I the British worked hard to get the US involved in the war, regardless of the long-term results, because it seemed vital at the time -beating the Germans was paramount. The US itself has done the same on occasion but for various reasons has managed to come through it.
As for Afghanistan, as I touched on, and I could say with the fall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe when the US was adamantly pushing for the establishment of republics; I say where were the allied monarchies who were pushing for their form of government as preferable? I guess American triumphalism doesn't bother me as much as the lack of triumphalism on the part of the existing monarchies of the world. American republicans are proud of what their government is. I just want to see more monarchists that feel the same way.
I know what you mean MadMonarchist. However the problem in that is that a monarchy is generally rather hard to establish from scratch. All the existing monarchies today have stood for thousands of years, withstanding the tests of time from plagues to civil wars and other upheavals. How do you start a monarchy in a country like Afghanistan, or the former Warsaw Pact countries? Who shall form the royal dynasty? I am of the belief that the Windsors rose to rule Britain because God favoured them. Who are we to just appoint a King for a country? I would love to see a Kingdom of Afghanistan formed based on the British constitutional monarchical system, but how do you just create that from scratch? Who do you go to and say "Be the King of this country". While I would prefer more monarchies, it is undoubtably quicker and easier for the NATO forces to implement a republic in a country like Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteneo-conservatives (while not nearly as good as old conservatives, they are not nearly as bad as modern liberals)
ReplyDeleteEmpty statement, old boy. "Neoconservatives" are hardly conservative at all, in the old senses. Some "liberals" are quite in the centre. Some Liberals are former Conservatives, and I can think of more than a few I quite like. I like no "neoconservative".
Gladstone, I might try and provide you an answer.
ReplyDeleteNow firstly, when it comes to Afghanistan, it already has an exiled royal family (as does Iraq, Iran, and many other modern republics). Thus, a restoration would not be difficult - find the heir, and then crown them, and create the constitution around that (I might propose the Australian one as a template, with New Zealand and Canada being the other codified constitutional templates that would also work well).
For the most part, that covers virtually everyone. But if there is doubt, then perhaps consider this - in 1830, the Greeks obtained their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, they had no king to rule them at the time, so they, quite literally, imported a German Prince (as I recall) to be King of the Hellenes. The Windsors came to Britain in almost exactly the same way (by invitation of the Government).
However, the latter would appear quite unlikely to occur, since politicians these days are generally more interested in empowering themselves. Still, it would be a sight to see there (and to go against American opposition to such a thing! Oh, now wouldn't that be a sight!).
Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteWe might say that Old Europe with the Great War walked onto the bridge. We might even say that Old Europe went outside the railings of the bridge, but I think it is fair to say that it was America who pushed Old Europe off the bridge.
As said, Afghanistan had a royal family and a monarch in exile. His restoration was talked about but the US was against it. Where were the monarchies in the coalition pushing for it? In WW1, at the end of the day, it was the Germans who deposed the Kaiser. The US wanted him gone but never actually did anything about it. The US had even less to do with the breakup of the Hapsburg empire which Britain and France had previously carved up via agreements with Serbia, Romania, Italy etc. If America "pushed Old Europe off the bridge" it was only because she had been pulled onto that bridge by Britain and France in the first place. Churchill openly said that he wanted to encourage US shipping to run the U-boat blockade because they needed the material and if they got into trouble it would be to their benefit to get the US into the war. It was the British who turned over the Zimmermann telegram to the US government. It was the French & British who turned down and publicized Prince Sixtus' peace effort. It was the Germans who set Lenin loose again in Russia. How is America to blame for the whole thing when she only participated in the last few months of the war and was cheered and celebrated wildly by the French & British for doing so?
ReplyDeleteIn this way of thinking, a few questions stand out. Is America alone given the credit/blame for winning the war even though she fought for less than a year and only on a single front? Would a German victory have been preferable? If the Allies winning was the problem, if the French and British had turned down previous efforts at a negotiated peace why would they do so later? What exactly is the Old Europe in this context? Is Old Europe in this context defined as only Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia? The Russian empire was gone before America came in and the agreements for the dissolution of Austria had already been made prior to the US entry in the war. Even in Germany was the US' coldness toward the Kaiser more of a factor in his overthrow than the years of bloodshed and the starvation blockade's effects on the German public? Greater than the spread of socialism in Germany following their calculated risk of allowing the outbreak in Russia?
I'm certainly not defending American policies but I don't see how they were THE deciding factor in destroying Old Europe. If the fall of the Central Powers destroyed Old Europe how is America to blame when the first Central Powers nations to fall were Turkey, Bulgaria & Austria against whom no US forces were even engaged? What was it that the US forced on Europe that ruined everything? Couldn't be the Versailles Treaty -the US refused to sign it and remained technically at war with Germany for several years thereafter. Was it the League of Nations? The US Congress rejected that Wilsonian talking shop as well. I hear that the US is to blame but never exactly what it was that the US did, against the will of all Europe, that ruined it all.
You may be right the Britain and France had pulled Old Europe onto the bridge, Mr. Crisp.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are some Europeans who get off all too easy. Lloyd George was central in the emasculation of the House of Lords, and he welcomed America in the quest to "make the world safe for democracy." The United Kingdom was central in the blockade that pushed the Emperor-King from Vienna.
I agree that America may be getting more than her fair share of the blame, when there had been Europeans pushing for a democratic age for decades.
However, I would warn against using the faux neutrality of those United States up until April 1917 as an argument for why they really didn't have much influence.
At the point America declared war against Germany, historian Alan Sked argues, Austria-Hungary was very much intact. America gave not only moral support to the Allies, but also gave supply support. America worked for the Allies long before Congress declared war.
If America had had a real neutrality, and the Allies had had no hopes of American support, there are good chances the war would have ended much earlier. Old Europe would have gotten a serious blow, but there would have been a real chance of its survival as well.
I think you are underestimating the influence of America, but, again, I agree that America often gets more than her fair share of the blame. There are Europeans who also should be blamed.
The term "neo-conservative" is an oxymoron, in that those who identify as such are neither conservative in the classic sense, but are fanatic reactionaries, and have very definately nothing new to add. They are to politics, what scientology is to religon.
ReplyDeleteA small point for LAW wells - NZ like the UK has an uncodified constitution.
It is difficult to debate something when, as is quite possible with America, all the facts are not in the public domain and are hidden away. For America works in secret. Plotting, spying and conniving with a treachery and an unreasoned hatred of all that is different. For this vile and corrupt nation was built on said principles. Be gone. Be gone from me. And rot in God's Hell.
ReplyDeleteFor the Mad Monarchist works under the delusion that those entering into deals with America are seen as equal partners with an equal voice. I'm sure those "independent" governments in Iraq and Afghanistan will agree. They'd better or else.
I agree America is a problem that needs to be dealt with. However, history teaches us that triumphant governments and superpowers fall and fail. So it shall be for America in time. Let us hope the fall is gentle and graceful. As opposed to being nuked by the relatives of dead Iraqis.
Well, I think that illustrates the futility of hoping for a plain answer...
ReplyDeleteThe term "neo-conservative" is an oxymoron, in that those who identify as such are neither conservative in the classic sense, but are fanatic reactionaries, and have very definately nothing new to add.
ReplyDeletePlease do not insult the reactionaries.
Anonymous - A small point for LAW wells - NZ like the UK has an uncodified constitution.
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected. Thankyou for pointing that out to me.
"Well, I think that illustrates the futility of hoping for a plain answer."
ReplyDeleteAs futile as waiting for America to be honest in all its dealings and to admit that it is wrong.
However, like my answers, we can live in hope.
An example of what Mr. Welton mentions as Americas secrecy is America's "neutrality" before April 1917. America was working behind the scenes in support of the Allies, and the official Allies "knew" that America would come out from behind the scenes if necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs for the question from our friend from Texas about what America did against the "will of all Europe," I have a counter-question; was there a "will of all Europe?"
There were forces in Europe seeking to destroy Old Europe. Unfortunately, they got too much help from America and the Progressive Professor from Princeton in the White House.
"An example of what Mr. Welton mentions as Americas secrecy is America's "neutrality" before April 1917." Hmmm. Sort of.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure this meets my overall description of America "plotting, spying and conniving with a treachery and an unreasoned hatred of all that is different" - all for its own interests ($).
Mind you, from America's perspective, perhaps it did. :-)
"For the Mad Monarchist works under the delusion that those entering into deals with America are seen as equal partners with an equal voice. I'm sure those "independent" governments in Iraq and Afghanistan will agree. They'd better or else."
ReplyDeleteWe did not "enter into deals". We invaded.... ..ignoring the past failures of Britain and the Soviets.
I do believe that Mr. Simple is largely correct in attributing to the U.S. the exportation of its Demos idolatry. However, Old Europe is responsible for its own demise. The U.S. did not produce Hume, Locke, Kant and Hegel. The U.S. did not give birth to Schleiermacher, Baur, Feurbach and Strauss. These are the influences that created a warm womb in which secular pluralism gestated and bloomed. It is the ideas of these men that took root and destroyed Old Europe. Has no one here read Francis Schaeffer? Has no one heard of "The Line of Despair"? (Ref The God Who Is There) I realize he is an American (gasp), but he did live in Europe for 40 years.
ReplyDeleteFor all of the faults of the U.S., including her worshiping and exporting of Democracy, she at least has retained a semblance of Burkean impulses, not to mention the English System of Units!
All America exports is death. A spiritual death.
ReplyDelete(I paraphrase here) "We invaded Afghanistan - ignoring the failed attempts of the Soviets."
You're right, the word burk does spring to mind.
We do export spiritual death through our popular culture. A good example would be your favourite - Michael Jackson. :-)
ReplyDeleteOwww!
ReplyDeleteHow dare you talk ill of the dead. Mind you, I talk ill about the Americans all of the time.
Leave Michael and Bubbles alone, though I do agree with you in part. His video for Bad in 1987 was bad, particularly that knife sequence. They should have cut it - bad influence on kids.
However, he's done a lot for charity. Including The Prince's Trust. Just watch this Royal moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C4NoIybM1M&feature=related
The above photo it's a good example of an certain idea of Europe. All the monarchs there where related. The coup d'état that destroyed the Portuguese monarchy, provoked an terrible XXth century, with republican chaos - violence, censorship, fake election, torture and an infinity of political prisioners -, ending in 1974 with fall os salazar's regime. Bad decolonization, political disorder, destruction of the economy, disastrous treaty with the Common Market, etc. That's the result of a republic who will commemorate 100 years in 2010. No wonder that everyday common people hoists the former national flag in public building, as the Lisbon's Town Wall, the summer residence of the president and windows and "varandas" all around the country. Well done!
ReplyDelete