BORNHOLM
Tomorrow we are going off on a family holiday to Bornholm, so no blogging for 10 days or so.
Bornholm is an island in the Baltic belonging to Denmark, even though it is actually much closer to Sweden, and the inhabitants speak a dialect which sounds more Swedish (i.e. sing-song like) than Danish. The southern part of Sweden (Skåne) was Danish for at least six hundred years, and one of the four parts of the realm (the others being Jutland, Fünen and Zealand). Lund was the ecclesiastical capital (a bit like Canterbury in England) and the launchpad for missionary work in the rest of Sweden and Finland. Furthermore, by controlling both sides of the Øresund, which gave access to the Baltic and its abundance of herring, the Danish king could levy tolls, and make himself a rich man.
However, if you had to sum up the history of Scandinavia during the Middle Ages in one sentence, it would be a dogged refusal on the part of the Swedes to accept the overlordship of the king of Denmark-Norway. By 1530 Sweden was a separate kingdom, though much weaker. The Thirty Years War changed the balance of power in the Baltic, with the rise of Sweden and the fall of Denmark. In the subsequent wars between the two, Sweden won, and bagged Skåne as a prize in 1658; it has remained Swedish ever since. Bornholm naturally followed.
But the local population did not accept the change and rebelled later that year. Two years later, a new peace treaty returned Bornholm to Denmark.
Being so far from the rest of the country, and an island to boot, Bornholm has always been a bit different. It's the sort of place that Danish schoolchildren visit on a class holiday; safely Danish, but still a bit exotic. My wife went there as a child, and so did two of my children. I have never been.
My wife has always wanted to go back, so this was her idea for a family holiday. My brother-in-law comes from the island, so we are renting his parents' summer house. I was initially a bit iffy about the idea, thinking it might be cold and wet. However, this year's summer has been very hot - almost too hot - so a cooling breeze in the Baltic might be just the ticket. Anyway, I am really looking forward to it.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday, 24 July 2014
Wednesday, 23 July 2014
MY SON'S BIRTHDAY
My second son is 23 today, so congratulations to him.
He had invited the family round for a barbecue at his new penthouse flat in Odense. I went round earlier, watched the mountain stage of the Tour de France with him on his TV, had a nap during one of the downhill sections, and then enjoyed beer and nice food thereafter when the others turned up.
It's good when children grow up and can do things for their parents!
Walter Blotscher
My second son is 23 today, so congratulations to him.
He had invited the family round for a barbecue at his new penthouse flat in Odense. I went round earlier, watched the mountain stage of the Tour de France with him on his TV, had a nap during one of the downhill sections, and then enjoyed beer and nice food thereafter when the others turned up.
It's good when children grow up and can do things for their parents!
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR
This summer is full of remembrance for the outbreak of the First World War 100 years ago. But it's also worth remembering how it ended.
The traditional way of ending wars was unchanged for centuries. Kings and nobles decided to have some sport by invading their neighbour's territory. There was lots of rape and pillage, not so many decisive pitched battles (Hastings and Agincourt were exceptions), and death for the soldiers was more likely to come from disease than fighting. At the end of the campaigning season, everybody withdrew and a treaty was signed, swearing eternal friendship. If there had been an obvious loser, then they had to pay in terms of territory or money or both. The treaty was often supported by a dynastic marriage.
The first major change to this system came with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, ending the Thirty Years War. Instead of kings negotiating with kings, and princes with princes, states negotiated with states. It's widely seen as the formal start of international relations. However, losers were still expected to pay and/or there were adjustments to territory. France paid after the defeat of Napoleon, and again in 1871, when it had been beaten by Prussia/Germany and lost Alsace-Lorraine.
The First World War settlement, thrashed out mainly in Paris in the spring and summer of 1919, was different from the standard model in a number of crucial, and interrelated, respects. First, a number of the states that had gone into the war in 1914 no longer existed. The Russian Empire had collapsed into revolution in 1917, and had signed a traditional treaty with Germany (reparations, loss of territory) in 1918. Austria-Hungary collapsed in the autumn of 1918 into bits and pieces, and the Ottoman Empire was tottering.
Secondly, and one of the causes of the first, there was a new principle in the air, that of self-determination. Expounded most eloquently by the American President Wilson, it said that nations should live in their own states. The polyglot Habsburg Empire was the obvious case for implementation of this new idea. But there were others, and a bewildering number of new states came into being in the immediate aftermath of the war, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Armenia, Azerbaijan. The principle seemed sensible, and was backed up by plebiscites in certain areas, but the victorious allied powers were by no means consistent. Germany was not allowed to merge with (the now 100% German) Austria, France got Alsace-Lorraine back, even though a plebiscite there would probably have opted for continued union with Germany, Italy got the German-speaking South Tyrol, the Kurds were denied a homeland, the former German concessions in China were given to Japan, Hungary lost so much territory, that it went from a Magyar country with substantial minorities to having 3 million Magyars living in Romania, Slovakia and Yugoslavia. And so on.
Thirdly, the main defeated party (Germany) had not been defeated. This was not in fact true; the Allied offensive in the summer of 1918 had been so successful that it was the Germans who begged for an armistice. However, because of the time lag between the end of hostilities in November 1918 and the signing of the peace treaty at the end of June 1919, coupled with the fact that none of the fighting on the Western front had taken place on German soil, allowed the myth to develop that Germany had not been defeated, but betrayed by its generals and ruling class. The loss of territory (mainly to the newly revived country of Poland) and the obligation to pay reparations thus came to be seen as unjust punishment.
Fourthly, on the question of reparations, it was impossible to come to an agreement. The destruction of men, equipment, and other assets had been unlike anything in history. However the sums were totted up, it was clear that the total was beyond the power of any one country to pay. With the demise of Austria-Hungary, that country could only be Germany.
Each of these reasons became the basis for resentment and dissatisfaction, which ultimately led to renewed fighting 20 years later (for the non-European states, some of those resentments - eg Palestine and the Kurds - remain to this day). The second war was not inevitable; the terms of the peace did not guarantee a return to conflict. However, they allowed unscrupulous, megalomaniac people to argue that war was the only way to get rid of their unjustified burden. Unfortunately, during the inter-war years, there were plenty of such people, and even more who were prepared to listen to them.
Walter Blotscher
This summer is full of remembrance for the outbreak of the First World War 100 years ago. But it's also worth remembering how it ended.
The traditional way of ending wars was unchanged for centuries. Kings and nobles decided to have some sport by invading their neighbour's territory. There was lots of rape and pillage, not so many decisive pitched battles (Hastings and Agincourt were exceptions), and death for the soldiers was more likely to come from disease than fighting. At the end of the campaigning season, everybody withdrew and a treaty was signed, swearing eternal friendship. If there had been an obvious loser, then they had to pay in terms of territory or money or both. The treaty was often supported by a dynastic marriage.
The first major change to this system came with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, ending the Thirty Years War. Instead of kings negotiating with kings, and princes with princes, states negotiated with states. It's widely seen as the formal start of international relations. However, losers were still expected to pay and/or there were adjustments to territory. France paid after the defeat of Napoleon, and again in 1871, when it had been beaten by Prussia/Germany and lost Alsace-Lorraine.
The First World War settlement, thrashed out mainly in Paris in the spring and summer of 1919, was different from the standard model in a number of crucial, and interrelated, respects. First, a number of the states that had gone into the war in 1914 no longer existed. The Russian Empire had collapsed into revolution in 1917, and had signed a traditional treaty with Germany (reparations, loss of territory) in 1918. Austria-Hungary collapsed in the autumn of 1918 into bits and pieces, and the Ottoman Empire was tottering.
Secondly, and one of the causes of the first, there was a new principle in the air, that of self-determination. Expounded most eloquently by the American President Wilson, it said that nations should live in their own states. The polyglot Habsburg Empire was the obvious case for implementation of this new idea. But there were others, and a bewildering number of new states came into being in the immediate aftermath of the war, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Armenia, Azerbaijan. The principle seemed sensible, and was backed up by plebiscites in certain areas, but the victorious allied powers were by no means consistent. Germany was not allowed to merge with (the now 100% German) Austria, France got Alsace-Lorraine back, even though a plebiscite there would probably have opted for continued union with Germany, Italy got the German-speaking South Tyrol, the Kurds were denied a homeland, the former German concessions in China were given to Japan, Hungary lost so much territory, that it went from a Magyar country with substantial minorities to having 3 million Magyars living in Romania, Slovakia and Yugoslavia. And so on.
Thirdly, the main defeated party (Germany) had not been defeated. This was not in fact true; the Allied offensive in the summer of 1918 had been so successful that it was the Germans who begged for an armistice. However, because of the time lag between the end of hostilities in November 1918 and the signing of the peace treaty at the end of June 1919, coupled with the fact that none of the fighting on the Western front had taken place on German soil, allowed the myth to develop that Germany had not been defeated, but betrayed by its generals and ruling class. The loss of territory (mainly to the newly revived country of Poland) and the obligation to pay reparations thus came to be seen as unjust punishment.
Fourthly, on the question of reparations, it was impossible to come to an agreement. The destruction of men, equipment, and other assets had been unlike anything in history. However the sums were totted up, it was clear that the total was beyond the power of any one country to pay. With the demise of Austria-Hungary, that country could only be Germany.
Each of these reasons became the basis for resentment and dissatisfaction, which ultimately led to renewed fighting 20 years later (for the non-European states, some of those resentments - eg Palestine and the Kurds - remain to this day). The second war was not inevitable; the terms of the peace did not guarantee a return to conflict. However, they allowed unscrupulous, megalomaniac people to argue that war was the only way to get rid of their unjustified burden. Unfortunately, during the inter-war years, there were plenty of such people, and even more who were prepared to listen to them.
Walter Blotscher
Monday, 21 July 2014
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
Is it just me who is heartily fed up with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? I don't mean fed up in the sense of being bored; but fed up of watching politicians of all stripes apportioning blame and guilt to the other side for this or that atrocity that they have themselves committed.
Lest we forget, this conflict has been going on for at least the whole of my life (and I am 55). There's only one solution, namely two states living side by side. Yes, I know the devil is in the details; but bombing and killing the other side doesn't make those details any easier, in my humble opinion.
I don't know who has leverage over the parties; America certainly, but I am not sure who on the other side. However, whoever it is needs to start banging some heads together, not in terms of imposing a solution, but in making the two sides sit down and start talking seriously to each other. If they don't, then this tit for tat low-level violence could go on for another 55 years, and I'll get really fed up.
Walter Blotscher
Is it just me who is heartily fed up with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? I don't mean fed up in the sense of being bored; but fed up of watching politicians of all stripes apportioning blame and guilt to the other side for this or that atrocity that they have themselves committed.
Lest we forget, this conflict has been going on for at least the whole of my life (and I am 55). There's only one solution, namely two states living side by side. Yes, I know the devil is in the details; but bombing and killing the other side doesn't make those details any easier, in my humble opinion.
I don't know who has leverage over the parties; America certainly, but I am not sure who on the other side. However, whoever it is needs to start banging some heads together, not in terms of imposing a solution, but in making the two sides sit down and start talking seriously to each other. If they don't, then this tit for tat low-level violence could go on for another 55 years, and I'll get really fed up.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 20 July 2014
A VERY LARGE AWARD
A U.S. court has awarded punitive damages of US$23.6 billion to the widow of a man who died from lung cancer after smoking all his life. The award is against RJ Reynolds, the country's second biggest cigarette company.
The above is not a typo; I really did mean to write billion and not million. The compensatory damages were US$16.8 million, which does not compensate for death, but is still a fairly sizeable amount.
This sort of thing merely brings the justice system into contempt, in my view. Negligence claims, both guilt and amount, used to be decided by a jury in all common law jurisdictions. In England and Wales, the rules were changed so that these things are decided by a judge, precisely in order to stop such idiocies. In America, the old system lingers on.
Cigarette companies have undoubtedly been cavalier about the risks of smoking, but not to such an extent that an individual (and their lawyers) should be able to get their hands on what represents the GDP of a small country. Thankfully, many of these ridiculous tort awards get reduced in the U.S. on appeal. I suspect that this one will be as well, and rightly so.
Walter Blotscher
A U.S. court has awarded punitive damages of US$23.6 billion to the widow of a man who died from lung cancer after smoking all his life. The award is against RJ Reynolds, the country's second biggest cigarette company.
The above is not a typo; I really did mean to write billion and not million. The compensatory damages were US$16.8 million, which does not compensate for death, but is still a fairly sizeable amount.
This sort of thing merely brings the justice system into contempt, in my view. Negligence claims, both guilt and amount, used to be decided by a jury in all common law jurisdictions. In England and Wales, the rules were changed so that these things are decided by a judge, precisely in order to stop such idiocies. In America, the old system lingers on.
Cigarette companies have undoubtedly been cavalier about the risks of smoking, but not to such an extent that an individual (and their lawyers) should be able to get their hands on what represents the GDP of a small country. Thankfully, many of these ridiculous tort awards get reduced in the U.S. on appeal. I suspect that this one will be as well, and rightly so.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday, 19 July 2014
HOLIDAY BUILDING
The hot weather is a good backdrop for doing building work. Mortar and cement dries very quickly, as does paint. So today my wife painted the barn wall, while I made the foundation inside the barn for our new oil tank. With Danish labour rates, we saved a lot of money.
Walter Blotscher
The hot weather is a good backdrop for doing building work. Mortar and cement dries very quickly, as does paint. So today my wife painted the barn wall, while I made the foundation inside the barn for our new oil tank. With Danish labour rates, we saved a lot of money.
Walter Blotscher
Friday, 18 July 2014
A PLUM TREE (2)
Some three years ago, I found a plum tree hidden in the garden. This summer I have found some more. I don't know if it's because of the long spell of hot weather, but they are covered in plums, thousands of them. Like the apple trees I inherited, much of the fruit is too high up to be picked, and will go to waste; but there is still a lot to be had by my greedy fingers.
My wife says that there is a limit to the amount of plums that can go into my tummy. I am not so sure.
Walter Blotscher
Some three years ago, I found a plum tree hidden in the garden. This summer I have found some more. I don't know if it's because of the long spell of hot weather, but they are covered in plums, thousands of them. Like the apple trees I inherited, much of the fruit is too high up to be picked, and will go to waste; but there is still a lot to be had by my greedy fingers.
My wife says that there is a limit to the amount of plums that can go into my tummy. I am not so sure.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
