Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

BTW (though this is the wrong thread for this) have you seen the new series? It's AWESOME.

I'm taping every episode of the new series. And it is AWESOME! In fact, I tend to think it's better than the old one.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

BTW (though this is the wrong thread for this) have you seen the new series? It's AWESOME.

I'm taping every episode of the new series. And it is AWESOME! In fact, I tend to think it's better than the old one.

Definitely.

in his early 60s. The present German Chancellor was born in 1944. This makes him a member of German post-war generation. If German is part of the Western European track, that our friend John had discovered during his studies, this should make him a Prophet and not a Silent type of personality.

What is the take of anyone who'd been following Germany before and after reunification think of his generational personality in comparison to his predecessor as Chancellor, Helmut Kohl?

Stanley '61

in his early 70s. The present French President was born in 1932. I think we know where I'm getting at with this comparison between Schroeder and Chirac. Chirac grew up during the chaos of World War II while Schroeder was more than likely to have heard about it from his mother or his relatives. (Schroeder's father was killed in Romania in 1944.) Chirac, for all intents and purposes, is a silent archetype.

Stanley '61

in his early 50s. The present British Prime Minister was born in 1953, part of the British post-war generation who I'd, for those of you who remember my British Generations and Turnings posts, called the Mod Generation. He would most definately have no direct personal knowledge of World War II, the last Crisis cycle for Western Europe.

By the way, anyone have the names for the present leaders of Italy, the Netherlands and Spain? I want to check on their birthyears as well.

Stanley '61

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

in his early 50s. The present British Prime Minister was born in 1953, part of the British post-war generation who I'd, for those of you who remember my British Generations and Turnings posts, called the Mod Generation. He would most definately have no direct personal knowledge of World War II, the last Crisis cycle for Western Europe.

By the way, anyone have the names for the present leaders of Italy, the Netherlands and Spain? I want to check on their birthyears as well.

Stanley '61

Italy's Presidente della Reppublica is Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, its Presidente del Consiglio (Cabinet) - basically Prime Minister - is Silvio Berlusconi.

JTaber 1972 wrote:

Italy's Presidente della Reppublica is Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, its Presidente del Consiglio (Cabinet) - basically Prime Minister - is Silvio Berlusconi.

Thanks. Now, off to find his birth year. :lol:

Stanley '61

in his late 60s having been born in 1936. That means that the present Prime Minister of Italy, like French President Chirac, had grown up seeing the horrors of the Second World War.

Stanley '61

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

Gerhard Schroeder is in his early 60s. The present German Chancellor was born in 1944. This makes him a member of German post-war generation. If German is part of the Western European track, that our friend John had discovered during his studies, this should make him a Prophet and not a Silent type of personality.

What is the take of anyone who'd been following Germany before and after reunification think of his generational personality in comparison to his predecessor as Chancellor, Helmut Kohl?

Stanley '61

Schroeder may be too young to remember Hitler and WWII but he would be old enough remember the occupation and the post-war austerity that Germany experienced before its economic miracle of the Fifties and Sixties. So he is probably a Euro-Silent, although maybe less strongly than a Jacques Chirac of France.

Distinguished Toastmaster wrote:

Schroeder may be too young to remember Hitler and WWII but he would be old enough remember the occupation and the post-war austerity that Germany experienced before its economic miracle of the Fifties and Sixties. So he is probably a Euro-Silent, although maybe less strongly than a Jacques Chirac of France.

I would have to disagree. He was 10 in 1954, and 20 in 1964. When '68 occur he was 24. So, he was old enough to have seen the '68 in America, Britain, France and his own country as well as have seen the German economic miracle firsthand. Remember, he was born in 1944. Germany became 2 seperate entities, The Federal Republic of Germany (West) and The Democratic Republic of Germany (East), back in 1948, along with the Allied Berlin airlift, when he was 4. If the German school system operate like its American and British counterparts, 1st grade would've been when he was 6 and he was 6 years old in 1950. So, he would've been more then likely to have seen the economic miracle that made West Germany an economic powerhouse then he would've been to have seen or remember the post-war occupation and truama. I mean, heck, I'm more than likely to have recall the Vietnam War and the Robert Kennedy and King Assassinations than I am of remembering John Kennedy's Assassination, since the later happened when I was 2 years old and the former two occurred when I was 7 years old.

In fact, this come from http://www.raptureready.us/schroeder.htm

"In 1982, the year that Helmut Kohl deposed Helmut Schmidt as chancellor of Germany, an obscure and inebriated legislator from Lower Saxony shook the gate at the chancellor's office in Bonn one night and shouted, "I want to get in there!"

The incident was replayed in earnest this year, and Gerhard Schroeder, then an impetuous young Social Democrat legislator and now premier of Lower Saxony, got his wish.

On September 27, Schroeder was chosen to be the next chancellor of Germany, unseating Kohl after the latter had served four four-year terms.

"After 16 years, the Kohl era is at an end," Schroeder told cheering supporters at his party's headquarters after the polls closed. He said he would work for "economic stability and development, domestic security and continuity in foreign affairs."

Schroeder's election signals a changing of the guard, for he becomes the first postwar German leader who is too young to remember World War II.

It also signals the continuation of a trend away from conservative governments in the West led by Kohl, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to younger, left-of-center politicians like Schroeder, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair."

His scene at the Chancellor building in 1982, when I was going to Penn State University as an undergrad, would place him at the age of 37/38.
As far as I can tell, unless some evidence, ie, German History and the generational line-up, I believe that Schroeder is a Prophet with some Silent tendencies, since I think he's at the cusp between the two generations, then he's being a Silent with some prophet tendencies.

Stanley '61

Found some more information. This comes from the http://www.facts.com/wnd/germany.htm website, and was suppose to reflect when Schroeder defeated Kohl back in 1998. Especially read the last paragraph.

Foreign Reactions-- Leaders in the U.S. and throughout Europe generally welcomed the SPD's September 27 electoral victory, as well as the prospect of Schroeder becoming chancellor. President Clinton, who had cultivated a close relationship with Kohl, September 27 said of Schroeder, "I look forward to working closely with him. Germany is one of America's closest allies."

In France, conservative President Jacques Chirac and Socialist Premier Lionel Jospin September 27 offered congratulations to Schroeder, and also praised Kohl's work as chancellor. British Prime Minister Blair the same day said of the election results, "It's a tremendous thing that we will now see center-left government in Britain, France and Germany. I pay tribute to Helmut Kohl for all of the things he has done for Europe."

In his visit to Paris September 30, Schroeder assured French political leaders that the German government would continue to nurture its close diplomatic ties to France. French leaders had expressed concern that Germany might focus on improving ties with Britain, and might begin to take its relationship with France for granted. Chirac, in an article published in Le Figaro September 29, had said that Schroeder might not appreciate the importance of Franco-German relations because he was too young to have witnessed the continental divisions that culminated in World War II.

Stanley '61

This comes from the http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2242899.stm website and uploaded in September 2002:

Schroeder's progress
1944: Born in Lower Saxony
1966: Begins law studies (22)
1978: Chairman of Young Socialists (34)
1980: Elected to parliament (36)
1990: Minister President of Lower Saxony (46)
1998: Elected chancellor (54)

The rise of Gerhard Schroeder is a rags to political riches tale with all the ingredients of a blockbuster novel, except a good ending.
There are laughs, such as the moment when the aspiring politician climbed the railings of the chancellery in Bonn, shouting "Let me in!" - an ambition that was realised 16 years later.

There is also melodrama, such as the promise the young man made to his mother, a cleaner, that one day he would drive up to her door in a Mercedes.

The day came in 1990 (if not before) when the newly-elected prime minister of Lower Saxony arrived in his official limo to take her out for an 80th birthday celebration. (1910 - Would make mom a German GI or Wehrmacht)

Young socialist

But before the riches, the rags...

Gerhard Schroeder was born in Mossenberg, Lower Saxony, in 1944.

He never met his father, an unskilled worker, who died with the German army in Romania, and was brought up in poverty.

He once admitted being the scruffy child that other children would refuse to play with.

After school he worked in an ironmonger's shop and as a construction worker, but continued to study at night school, and eventually became a qualified lawyer in the 1970s.

In 1978, he was also elected chairman of Germany's young socialists.

The young Schroeder was a Marxist and environmentalist (emphasis mine). In the early 1970s he idolised SPD chancellor Willy Brandt, whose Ostpolitik promised better relations with communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

But somewhere along the line the idealist also developed a taste for smart suits, cashmere sweaters and big cigars - and an ever-present, slightly roguish grin.

Before long he was sitting on the board of Volkswagen, and to the dismay of some liberal supporters, went to court this year to prevent a news agency repeating allegations that he died his hair. (Sounds like someone who'd turned yuppie to this 13er.)

New Middle

The Schroeder story also has room for four wives to date. The latest, Doris, is a former journalist, 19 years his junior.

Mr Schroeder's rise to the top owes much to his confident handling of the media. In the run-up to the 1998 general election there were three Social Democrats who could have been chosen as the party's candidate for the chancellorship - himself, "Red" Oskar Lafontaine, and Rudolf Scharping.

But polls shows that voters warmed most to the bluff, smiling premier of Lower Saxony. Mr Schroeder got the candidacy and went on to win against Helmut Kohl, promising an end to 16 years of conservative "stagnation" and the creation of a "New Middle" in German politics.

He also promised more jobs, saying, unwisely, that his government would not deserve to remain in power if it failed to achieve a clear cut in the number out of work.

That has been the most conspicuous failure of his chancellorship, with the global downturn in the economy in the last year helping to push the jobless figure past four million, and almost back to the level he inherited from Mr Kohl.

Mr Schroeder is the first German chancellor whose life, or whose youth, was not dominated by World War II, and a key development under his chancellorship has been Germany's new readiness to punch at its true weight on the world stage.

German troops have joined peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Macedonia, and combat operations in Afghanistan.

But beyond that, Mr Schroeders' biggest success so far may be in the field of tax reform.

His success in winning a second term in office - by the skin of his teeth - gives him a chance to make a bigger contribution, and to give the story of his political career a more dramatic ending.


Stanley '61

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

Distinguished Toastmaster wrote:

Schroeder may be too young to remember Hitler and WWII but he would be old enough remember the occupation and the post-war austerity that Germany experienced before its economic miracle of the Fifties and Sixties. So he is probably a Euro-Silent, although maybe less strongly than a Jacques Chirac of France.

I would have to disagree. He was 10 in 1954, and 20 in 1964. When '68 occur he was 24. So, he was old enough to have seen the '68 in America, Britain, France and his own country as well as have seen the German economic miracle firsthand. . .

I believe that Schroeder is a Prophet with some Silent tendencies, since I think he's at the cusp between the two generations, then he's being a Silent with some prophet tendencies.

Stanley '61

Jenny may still have a point. Most but not all people here (as far as I can tell) agree that the 4T lasted beyond 1945/46 for Western Europe. I've seen it put at '48-'50 (with D. Kaiser alone in pushing France much further). That would argue for the Air Raid (Euro-Silent) gen to go past the American '42/'43 Artist/Prophet boundary.

Furthermore, people thinking along these lines see 1968 as the opening salvo for the 2T on the Continent (Britain's apparently came sooner). That doesn't automatically make somone who was 24 that year a Prophet, as it does not automatically make someone 24 in our opening 2T year, 1964, a Boomer, but rather a Silent (talking about the 1940 cohort in the US case).

The 1944 cohort in Germany may indeed be part of a Prophet gen, but I personally doubt it. I think it more likely that we're talking about cusping Artists with Prophet tendencies. Therefore, Schroeder and Chirac are more alike than not, with the important distinction that late-born Artists are often themselves radical mentors for their fiery juniors (i.e., the "Abbie Hoffman/ John Lennon phenomenon").

Peter Gibbons wrote:

Jenny may still have a point. Most but not all people here (as far as I can tell) agree that the 4T lasted beyond 1945/46 for Western Europe. I've seen it put at '48-'50 (with D. Kaiser alone in pushing France much further). That would argue for the Air Raid (Euro-Silent) gen to go past the American '42/'43 Artist/Prophet boundary.

Furthermore, people thinking along these lines see 1968 as the opening salvo for the 2T on the Continent (Britain's apparently came sooner). That doesn't automatically make somone who was 24 that year a Prophet, as it does not automatically make someone 24 in our opening 2T year, 1964, a Boomer, but rather a Silent (talking about the 1940 cohort in the US case).

The 1944 cohort in Germany may indeed be part of a Prophet gen, but I personally doubt it. I think it more likely that we're talking about cusping Artists with Prophet tendencies. Therefore, Schroeder and Chirac are more alike than not, with the important distinction that late-born Artists are often themselves radical mentors for their fiery juniors (i.e., the "Abbie Hoffman/ John Lennon phenomenon").

I think the main problem is that we are thinking of EUROPE as if its one big entity. I myself see it as a continent with many states. I prefer using John's localization (sp?) method of seeing each country of Europe seperately (That's the main reason why I see Britain/England as being a year behind the US at the moment generationally and being real close turning wise.). On Germany, I think we should be seeing how the society in general is acting right now. I'd been to John's Generational Dynamic website during the last few months, and according to his site, Western Europe seems to be either in or just entering its 4T. I suggest you go to his site, because he wrote a very interesting short articles. As for Schroeder and the Germany of his childhood, I think we should be looking at the overall history of what was happening in Germany during the first 5 to 10 years of his life. Yes, the first few years were ruff, but how bad was it really? How did it affect the Wehrmacht Generation, the ones who had to rebuild the country after the horrors of the war, the Nazi Generation, the one whos had help to bring about the horror, the prophet Generation (no name yet), who were more of less out of power during that Turning (or were they?), the Bomb Generation (temporary name) who grew up during the Nazi Era and World War II, and then the new Prophet generation that was being born. A very good start would be to read the new books that are now coming out about how life in Germany was between 1933-1945, then see about how life was like during the 10 years after the German surrender of May 1945. That would be from May 8, 1945-May 8, 1955. I'm sure some interesting things will be discovered. :wink: Someone else, especially someone who can read German, will have to do this since I am still swamped with my British(English) generational studies.

Stanley '61

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

Peter Gibbons wrote:

Jenny may still have a point. Most but not all people here (as far as I can tell) agree that the 4T lasted beyond 1945/46 for Western Europe. I've seen it put at '48-'50 (with D. Kaiser alone in pushing France much further). That would argue for the Air Raid (Euro-Silent) gen to go past the American '42/'43 Artist/Prophet boundary.

Furthermore, people thinking along these lines see 1968 as the opening salvo for the 2T on the Continent (Britain's apparently came sooner). That doesn't automatically make somone who was 24 that year a Prophet, as it does not automatically make someone 24 in our opening 2T year, 1964, a Boomer, but rather a Silent (talking about the 1940 cohort in the US case).

The 1944 cohort in Germany may indeed be part of a Prophet gen, but I personally doubt it. I think it more likely that we're talking about cusping Artists with Prophet tendencies. Therefore, Schroeder and Chirac are more alike than not, with the important distinction that late-born Artists are often themselves radical mentors for their fiery juniors (i.e., the "Abbie Hoffman/ John Lennon phenomenon").

I think the main problem is that we are thinking of EUROPE as if its one big entity. I myself see it as a continent with many states. I prefer using John's localization (sp?) method of seeing each country of Europe seperately (That's the main reason why I see Britain/England as being a year behind the US at the moment generationally and being real close turning wise.).

I have been familiar with J. Xenakis' website and ideas for a while now. And I agree that Europe is not monolithic. However, I do think the Continental nations in Western Europe all remained in 4T mode until at least 1948, perhaps a smidgin' longer. That seems to have created a lag effect whereby they have since entered new turnings a few years after us. The Brits seem to be somewhere in between us and the Continent (which makes sense since they seem to bridge that gap in so many ways :wink: ).

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

On Germany, I think we should be seeing how the society in general is acting right now. I'd been to John's Generational Dynamic website during the last few months, and according to his site, Western Europe seems to be either in or just entering its 4T. I suggest you go to his site, because he wrote a very interesting short articles.

I haven't checked his site in a couple of weeks. But other than some signs in Holland (which I don't know what to make of yet) I have no indication that W. Europe is going 4T yet (though a recently initiated 3T-to-4T transitional cascade may not be immediately obvious if it is occuring, I must concede).

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

As for Schroeder and the Germany of his childhood, I think we should be looking at the overall history of what was happening in Germany during the first 5 to 10 years of his life. Yes, the first few years were ruff, but how bad was it really?

My understanding is that things really sucked big time up through 1948. Millions of Germans were on the edge of starvation as late as 1947. This is not something one should discount.

There was not a sense of a tragedy having run it's course until about 1949 when the Federal Republic was created and added to NATO. Since a new generation's first year cohort averages 3 years prior to a turning change, a good guess for the beginning of the German Prophet gen is 1946.

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

How did it affect the Wehrmacht Generation, the ones who had to rebuild the country after the horrors of the war, the Nazi Generation, the one whos had help to bring about the horror, the prophet Generation (no name yet), who were more of less out of power during that Turning (or were they?), the Bomb Generation (temporary name) who grew up during the Nazi Era and World War II, and then the new Prophet generation that was being born. A very good start would be to read the new books that are now coming out about how life in Germany was between 1933-1945, then see about how life was like during the 10 years after the German surrender of May 1945. That would be from May 8, 1945-May 8, 1955. I'm sure some interesting things will be discovered. :wink: Someone else, especially someone who can read German, will have to do this since I am still swamped with my British(English) generational studies.

Such research sounds like a good idea.

Personally I do not see any difference in the generational cohorts of European generations from country to country (at least today), Western Europe has always been on same saeculum since the Reformation. In Europe people talk about the Generation of 1914 and Generation of 1968 and apply it to a Europe wide context.

I came to the conclusion that Europe is 4 years behind North America on the saeculum. The Last 4T there started in 1930 and ended in 1950 and the last second turning began in 1968 (Prague Spring and May 68') and ended around 1988. People have noted on this site (including Neil Howe) that Europe's generations are a little younger than their US counterparts.

Here is a brief outline of Euro-generations

Air Raid Generation 1927?-1946
Generation 68? 1947-1964
Generation Bof* 1965-1985?
Euro-Millennial 1986-

I get a feeling from Schroeder that he is Late Wave Artist; he is more the High-Flex neo-senior than the Middle Aged Culture War like Tony Blair (who is clearly a Prophet). Schroeder's memories were shaped by the war and it's aftermath that lasted somewhat longer in Europe than in America.

I suspect Schroeder suspicion of the Americans like many of his generation was shaped by WW2. The child Air-Raid generation saw the Americans more as destroyers than liberators like their seniors did. Once ther Generation of 68 fully take power in Europe, relations between America and Europe might have improve.


* The French X?ers are called Generation Bof or Who Cares.

Peter Gibbons wrote:

I have been familiar with J. Xenakis' website and ideas for a while now. And I agree that Europe is not monolithic. However, I do think the Continental nations in Western Europe all remained in 4T mode until at least 1948, perhaps a smidgin' longer. That seems to have created a lag effect whereby they have since entered new turnings a few years after us. The Brits seem to be somewhere in between us and the Continent (which makes sense since they seem to bridge that gap in so many ways :wink.

Maybe, but I think that each country should be looked at on a country by country basis, especially since John's said that some are on a Eastern European timeline, while others are on a Western European timeline, which made me start thinking about something. Back in the early 1730s a war was fought in Eastern Europe which was called the War of the Polish Succession, which happened to be about who would be the ruler of that country (he was in fact an elected king) that lasted from 1733-1738 after an election lead to a dispute. Britain stayed out, although the government had the military on standby, and the king's (George II) brother-in-law, the King of Prussia (Frederick William I) was involved, but some other countries in Europe, among which was France since one of the candidates in the dispute was related by marriage to the French king, were involved, including some of the German states. I myself believe that Germany was experiencing the start of an Awakening, but, since seeing John's site, I'm wondering where Poland was. Is it in an Awakening or a Crisis, or neither? Something to research, I believe, although it should be seen from the view of the Polish people. As for Britain bridging the gap between America and Europe, I'm not sure many of the British at the present time would want to hear that. :wink:

Peter Gibbon wrote:

I haven't checked his site in a couple of weeks. But other than some signs in Holland (which I don't know what to make of yet) I have no indication that W. Europe is going 4T yet (though a recently initiated 3T-to-4T transitional cascade may not be immediately obvious if it is occuring, I must concede).

Well, if John doesn't mind, this is the last thing he wrote on his site that happen to deal with Germany. The bold and italics are my emphasis, not John's:

Neo-Nazis rally at Dresden firebombing commemoration

A wrenchingly emotional ceremony brings back battles of WW II, Vietnam and today's war on terror.

In 1969, at the height of America's "days of rage" violent protests, antiwar science fiction writer Kurt Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse-Five inflamed the protestors college students with this description of what he had seen when he was in Dresden, Germany, on February 13 and 14, 1945:

"You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

The two names mentioned by Vonnegut, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are the two Japanese cities that were bombed a few weeks later with the first nuclear weapons.

Many old emotions came back on Sunday, when American, British, French and Russian dignitaries attended a 60th anniversary commemoration of the Dresden bombing. The special bombs created fires that sucked the oxygen out of the city and used to create a fire explosion, while leaving behind carbon monoxide to suffocate the people. The city was flattened, and 200,000 people were killed.

The purpose of the commemoration was to promote peace and reconciliation, but the peace was disturbed by 5,000 neo-Nazi protesters who compared the bombing of Baghdad last year to the bombing of Dresden in 1944. The two situations are totally incomparable, of course, but it shows the kind of polemics that accompanied the commemoration.

The neo-Nazis, who frequently say that Germany should be for Germans (as opposed to Jews or Muslims), demanded an apology from Britain for the war crime in Dresden.

In fact, the whole Dresden issue came to life suddenly in 2002 when a new book hit the best seller lists in Germany: Der Brand. Deutschland im Bombenkrieg 1940-1945 (The Fire: Germany Under Bombardment, 1940-45), by J?rg Friedrich. Since that time, the view that the Allied bombing of Dresden was an unnecessary act of revenge has been expressed more and more frequently.

However, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was having none of this. "Today we grieve for the victims of war and the Nazi reign of terror in Dresden, in Germany and in Europe. We will oppose in every way these attempts to reinterpret history. We will not allow cause and effect to be reversed."

Outside of the hate groups that used the commemoration for polemics, everyone had regrets that the ceremony had to be held. The Germans regret their Nazi past, and the British regretted having killed so many civilians in an undefended German city that was one of the greatest cultural centers of northern Europe. Speakers defending the attack say that it wasn't revenge at all; Dresden had some munitions factories, and anyway, the way had to be cleared for the advancing Russian army.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the Dresden bombing was indeed revenge, and quite justified. That it was revenge can be seen from President Harry S. Truman's speech on August 9, 1945, just after we had dropped the first nuclear weapon on Japan: "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."

The firebombing of Dresden was revenge just as much as the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima was. It was revenge for Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jews, for Hitler's bombing of London and Coventry in England, killing thousands of civilians, and for slaughter of our soldiers on D-Day.

That's what happens in crisis wars, and that's what makes crisis wars different from non-crisis wars. In non-crisis wars, like the Vietnam War, we worry about "collateral damage" and killing civilians, because non-crisis wars are political wars. But every nation has genocidal crisis wars and always has.

Then what about Baghdad? If this is a new crisis period, then why didn't we firebomb Baghdad or Fallujah and simply destroy it. Isn't that what people do in a crisis war?

No, not at the beginning. At the beginning of even a crisis war, it's often the case that the genocidal aspects are muted.

But a crisis war is like a ball rolling down a hill. When the ball first starts rolling, it may go very slowly, and even stop and bounce around when it hits rocks and trees in its way. That's the time when everyone hopes that the war really isn't necessary, that if we don't any serious lines, then the other side will back down and say, "Heh heh, just kidding," and the war will end.

But in a crisis period, the other side doesn't back down. In Vietnam we pulled out; we wouldn't have done that in a crisis period. In the 1990 Gulf War, we stopped short of getting Saddam; we would go after Saddam in a crisis war and, guess what? We did just that in 2003.

So every time that the other side doesn't back down, that ball starts to roll down the hill a little bit faster. Once it's going fast enough, it can't be stopped. It rolls faster and faster until it reaches the bottom of the hill in an explosion of vengeance and genocide.

That's our future, as we approach the "clash of civilizations" world war. Despite the neo-Nazi polemics, we were quite nice in Iraq. But we won't be so nice the next time. And by the time it's all over, when we've had tens of millions of American deaths and the total destruction of some of allies, we'll see a desire for vengeance that no one will mistake. (14-Feb-05)

Now, I don't want to make light of what happened to Europe, and especially Germany, after the war was over, but was there a feeling of vengence still being played out in Germany after they'd surrendered, outside of the Nuremburg Trials? Was the startvation and such done on purpose, or were they the unforeseen consequence of how the war ended?

Peter Gibbons wrote:

My understanding is that things really sucked big time up through 1948. Millions of Germans were on the edge of starvation as late as 1947. This is not something one should discount.

There was not a sense of a tragedy having run it's course until about 1949 when the Federal Republic was created and added to NATO. Since a new generation's first year cohort averages 3 years prior to a turning change, a good guess for the beginning of the German Prophet gen is 1946.

Read my note above.
Well, I think the best way to settle this is to read several books on the period like I'd recommended. My approach to things is to do the following: Read at least two general histories of Germany, several books on the period during World War II and the immediate Post-War period (To get a general background), a few books on the German people, a dictionary of biography on some of the more famous German people who lived during period for background/and generational clues, Biographies, Diaries and/or Memoirs of folks who have lived through it (I know for a fact that a few memoirs or group of memoirs of people who had served in the German Military during World War II have or are being published right now), as well as magazine and journal articles.) I'm sure that the '46 co-hort is part of Germany's prophet gen, but, I need very good evidence to convince me that the '44 and '45 co-horts are last wave artists and not first wave prophets.

Peter Gibbon wrote:

Such research sounds like a good idea.

I know. Speaking of research, I was thinking about Germany's crisises and awakenings. From my own memories and from R.R. Palmer and Joel Colton's A History of the Modern World, Sixth Edition (New York, 1984), this is what I know. (Anything with a question mark next to it mean I'm not fully sure on that decade):

Reformation Awakening - 1510s(?)-1520s

Schmalkaldic League(*) Crisis - 1540s(?)-1550s

Awakening - 1580s(?)-1590s

Thirty Year Wars Crisis - 1620s-1640s (Possibility the reason the Crisis lasted as long as it did was because the Danes, the Swedes and then the French entered the war, and might all have been in crisis modes when they entered.)

Awakening - 1670s(?)-1680s(?) (This is a guess and need to be researched.)

War of the Spanish Succession Crisis - 1700s-1710s

Awakening - 1730s-1740s

Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Crisis - 1790s-1800s

Awakening - 1830s(?)-1840s

Unification Crisis - 1860s-1870s(?)

Awakening - 1890s-1900s(?)

World War Crisis - 1930s-1940s

Awakening - 1960s-1970s

Crisis - (????)

* = Preliminary

Considering that Martin Luther was born in 1583, and is a prophet, I'm guessing there was a Crisis in the German states during the time of his birth. But, at this time, I'm not going to try to make a guess for the decades when it occured.
I'm sure there will be a few of you who'll pounce on what I'd wrote, but before you do, check to see if I'm dead on, or shockingly close to the truth. :wink: Translation: Research, research, research! :wink:

Stanley '61

Tristan wrote:

Personally I do not see any difference in the generational cohorts of European generations from country to country (at least today), Western Europe has always been on same saeculum since the Reformation. In Europe people talk about the Generation of 1914 and Generation of 1968 and apply it to a Europe wide context.

I know, but you still need to see how all of the generations set up when these generations made their first impact on society as a whole. After all, they had to come from somewhere. And, I still suggest that countries are looked at one at a time, since there is not, at this time, a United States of Europe. Each country of Europe has it own culture and heritage and will see how things happen through their own eyes.

I came to the conclusion that Europe is 4 years behind North America on the saeculum. The Last 4T there started in 1930 and ended in 1950 and the last second turning began in 1968 (Prague Spring and May 68') and ended around 1988. People have noted on this site (including Neil Howe) that Europe's generations are a little younger than their US counterparts.

After seeing John's site, I myself is beginning to wonder which timeline the Prague Spring actually fit? Was it an Awakening, or a Crisis. This is something that screams Research! to me. May '68 in France is indeed an Awakening event, but, was there no previous signs that a generational change was happening within France? And I know about what Neil and others have said. Question is, is it really continent wise? Once again: Research!

Here is a brief outline of Euro-generations

Air Raid Generation 1927?-1946
Generation 68? 1947-1964
Generation Bof* 1965-1985?
Euro-Millennial 1986-

And here's my British Generations:

Blitz 1927-1943
Mod 1944-1962
Hooligans 1963-1981
Millenials 1982-

I get a feeling from Schroeder that he is Late Wave Artist; he is more the High-Flex neo-senior than the Middle Aged Culture War like Tony Blair (who is clearly a Prophet). Schroeder's memories were shaped by the war and it's aftermath that lasted somewhat longer in Europe than in America.

I think the best way to settle this would be by reading a few bios on Schroeder, (they don't have to be book length), as well as some histories on post-war Germany.

I suspect Schroeder suspicion of the Americans like many of his generation was shaped by WW2. The child Air-Raid generation saw the Americans more as destroyers than liberators like their seniors did. Once ther Generation of 68 fully take power in Europe, relations between America and Europe might have improve.

* The French X?ers are called Generation Bof or Who Cares.

Uhm, are you sure about that? His suspicion of Americans that is? Since I have no real knowledge of what his opinion of Americans are, I'm not going to comment if that's why he feel that way or not, especially since every time I hear about Schroeder, he's supposively is following his people's feelings and at the moment they don't want anything to do with the War in Iraq, but that's it. Don't forget, Germany has troops in Afganistan and I haven't word one that the German people had been against that. (And if they have expressed it, I simply have not seen it as of yet.) And, the Italian leader, who is obvious a silent, supports the US being in Iraq and have troops in Iraq, while his people are against it. According to your premise, he, being a member of the Air Raid Generation, should had acted like Chirac and Schroeder did before Bush's re-election, fully against having their country being involved in Iraq. I think we now know the real reason Chirac was against it, (friends with fingers in the cookie jar as revealed by the UN's oil for food scandal.) while with Schroeder, it appears to be that he's following his people opinion on the matter. As for the Air Raid Generation seeing American as destroyers, aren't they the same ones that the GIs were giving candy and being kind to while they were going through Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg and finally Germany itself? If they are, talk about a bunch of ungrateful people.

Stanley '61

Printed for informational purposes only

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/in...&ex=1110171600

More Dutch Plan to Emigrate as Muslim Influx Tips Scales

By MARLISE SIMONS

Published: February 27, 2005

AMSTERDAM - Paul Hiltemann had already noticed a darkening mood in the Netherlands. He runs an agency for people wanting to emigrate and his client list had surged.

But he was still taken aback in November when a Dutch filmmaker was shot and his throat was slit, execution style, on an Amsterdam street.

In the weeks that followed, Mr. Hiltemann was inundated by e-mail messages and telephone calls. "There was a big panic," he said, "a flood of people saying they wanted to leave the country."

Leave this stable and prosperous corner of Europe? Leave this land with its generous social benefits and ample salaries, a place of fine schools, museums, sports grounds and bicycle paths, all set in a lively democracy?

The answer, increasingly, is yes. This small nation is a magnet for immigrants, but statistics suggest there is a quickening flight of the white middle class. Dutch people pulling up roots said they felt a general pessimism about their small and crowded country and about the social tensions that had grown along with the waves of newcomers, most of them Muslims."The Dutch are living in a kind of pressure cooker atmosphere," Mr. Hiltemann said.

There is more than the concern about the rising complications of absorbing newcomers, now one-tenth of the population, many of them from largely Muslim countries. Many Dutch also seem bewildered that their country, run for decades on a cozy, political consensus, now seems so tense and prickly and bent on confrontation. Those leaving have been mostly lured by large English-speaking nations like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where they say they hope to feel less constricted.

In interviews, emigrants rarely cited a fear of militant Islam as their main reason for packing their bags. But the killing of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a fierce critic of fundamentalist Muslims, seems to have been a catalyst.

"Our Web site got 13,000 hits in the weeks after the van Gogh killing," said Frans Buysse, who runs an agency that handles paperwork for departing Dutch. "That's four times the normal rate."

Mr. van Gogh's killing is the only one the police have attributed to an Islamic militant, but since then they have reported finding death lists by local Islamic militants with the names of six prominent politicians. The effects still reverberate. In a recent opinion poll, 35 percent of the native Dutch questioned had negative views about Islam.

There are no precise figures on the numbers now leaving. But Canadian, Australian and New Zealand diplomats here said that while immigration papers were processed in their home capitals, embassy officials here had been swamped by inquiries in recent months.

Many who settle abroad may not appear in migration statistics, like the growing contingent of retirees who flock to warmer places. But official statistics show a trend. In 1999, nearly 30,000 native Dutch moved elsewhere, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. For 2004, the provisional figure is close to 40,000. "It's definitely been picking up in the past five years," said Cor Kooijmans, a demographer at the bureau.

Ruud Konings, an accountant, has just sold his comfortable home in the small town of Hilvarenbeek. In March, after a year's worth of paperwork, the family will leave for Australia. The couple said the main reason was their fear for the welfare and security of their two teenage children.

"When I grew up, this place was spontaneous and free, but my kids cannot safely cycle home at night," said Mr. Konings, 49. "My son just had his fifth bicycle stolen." At school, his children and their friends feel uneasy, he added. "They're afraid of being roughed up by the gangs of foreign kids."

Sandy Sangen has applied to move to Norway with her husband and two school-age children. They want to buy a farm in what she calls "a safer, more peaceful place."

Like the Sangens and Koningses, others who are moving speak of their yearning for the open spaces, the clean air, the easygoing civility they feel they have lost. Complaints include overcrowding, endless traffic jams, overregulation. Some cite a rise in antisocial behavior and a worrying new toughness and aggression both in political debates and on the streets.


Until the killing of Pim Fortuyn, a populist anti-immigration politician, in 2002 and the more recent slaying of a teacher by a student, this generation of Dutch people could not conceive of such violence in their peaceful country.

After Mr. van Gogh's killing, angry demonstrations and fire-bombings of mosques and Muslim schools took place. In revenge, some Christian churches were attacked. Mr. Konings said he and many of his friends sensed more confrontation in the making, perhaps more violence.

"I'm a great optimist, but we're now caught in a downward spiral, economically and socially," he said. "We feel we can give our children a better start somewhere else."

Marianne and Rene Aukens, from the rural town of Brunssum, had successful careers, he as director of a local bank, she as a personnel manager. But after much thought they have applied to go to New Zealand. "In my lifetime, all the villages around here have merged, almost all the green spaces have been paved over," said Mr. Aukens, 41. "Nature is finished. There's no more silence; you hear traffic everywhere."

The saying that the Netherlands is "full up" has become a national mantra. It was used cautiously at first, because it had an overtone of being anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim. But many of those interviewed now state it flatly, like Peter Bles. He makes a long commute to a banking job in Amsterdam, but he and his wife are preparing to move to Australia.

"We found people are more polite, less stressed, less aggressive there," Mr. Bles said. "Perhaps stress has a lot to do with the lack of living space. Here we are full up."

Space is indeed at a premium here in Europe's most densely populated nation, where 16.3 million people live in an area roughly the size of Maryland. Denmark, which is slightly larger, has 5.5 million people. Dutch demographers say their country has undergone one of Europe's fastest and most far-reaching demographic shifts, with about 10 percent of the population now foreign born, a majority of them Muslims.

Blaming immigrants for many ills has become commonplace. Conservative Moroccans and Turks from rural areas are accused of disdaining the liberal Dutch ways and of making little effort to adapt. Immigrant youths now make up half the prison population. More than 40 percent of immigrants receive some form of government assistance, a source of resentment among native Dutch. Immigrants say, though, that they are widely discriminated against.

Ms. Konings said the Dutch themselves brought on some of the social frictions. The Dutch "thought that we had to adapt to the immigrants and that we had to give them handouts," she said. "We've been too lenient; now it's difficult to turn the tide."

To Mr. Hiltemann, the emigration consultant, what is remarkable is not only the surge of interest among the Dutch in leaving, but also the type of people involved. "They are successful people, I mean, urban professionals, managers, physiotherapists, computer specialists," he said. Five years ago, he said, most of his clients were farmers looking for more land.

Mr. Buysse, who employs a staff of eight to process visas, concurred. He said farmers were still emigrating as Europe cut agricultural subsidies. '"What is new," he said, "is that Dutch people who are rich or at least very comfortable are now wanting to leave the country."

Judging from the article above the Netherlands has reached roughly the same stage the US was around 2000/2001. The unravelling has reached the jittery stage. Australia has not quite reach that stage yet, however I can see it coming soon.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Judging from the article above the Netherlands has reached roughly the same stage the US was around 2000/2001. The unravelling has reached the jittery stage. Australia has not quite reach that stage yet, however I can see it coming soon.

It's hard for me to place where the Dutch are saecular based on this. It could be a 4T sign. It could be, like you said Tristan, the signaling of the "Jittery" stage of a 3T. Or it could simply be a core 3T thing like Guiliani getting serious in NYC in the mid-90's.

We should all keep a close eye on Holland.

This article posted here for educational and discussion purposes only.

Updated: 11:21 AM EST
Muslims in Spain Issue Fatwa Against bin Laden
Declaration Marks First Anniversary of Madrid Train Bombings
By Emma Ross-Thomas, Reuters

MADRID, Spain (March 11) - Spain's leading Islamic body has issued a religious order declaring Osama bin Laden to have forsaken Islam by backing attacks such as the Madrid train bombings a year ago.

The Islamic Commission of Spain timed its ''fatwa'' for Friday to coincide with the first anniversary of last year's attacks, which killed 191 people and were claimed in the name of al Qaeda in Europe.

The commission's secretary general Mansur Escudero said the fatwa had moral, rather than legal weight and would serve as a guide for Muslims.

''We declare ... that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization, responsible for the horrendous crimes against innocent people who were despicably murdered in the March 11 terrorist attack in Madrid, are outside the parameters of Islam,'' the commission said.

The commission said the Koran barred Muslims from committing crimes against innocent people.

The commission is the top Islamic body in Spain. Its leaders are elected by an assembly and represent the Muslim community in talks with the Spanish government.

Most of the 42 suspects held in connection with the investigation are of Moroccan origin whom investigators say were committed to holy war against the West.

ISLAM DOES NOT JUSTIFY TERRORISM

''The terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization ... which result in the death of civilians, such as women and children ... are totally prohibited and are the object of strong condemnation within Islam,'' it said in a statement citing extensively from religious texts.

The commission issued its fatwa as Spaniards paid tribute to the passengers killed on four Madrid commuter trains a year ago.

At Madrid's main mosque, worshippers observed a minute's silence before Friday prayers, and Morocco's King Mohammed attended a wreath-laying ceremony in honor of the victims.

At least half a million Muslims live in Spain and many have felt increased isolation as a result of the March 11 bombings.

''After March 11, all Muslims have become suspect,'' Mohammed El Afifi, a spokesman for Madrid's biggest mosque, said recently.

Escudero told Reuters by telephone: ''Any group that invokes Islam to justify terrorist attacks places itself outside of Islam.''

Bin Laden's claim to recover al Andalus -- the Arabic term for Spain during the nearly 800 years parts of the country were under Moorish rule -- ''totally contradict God's will,'' the commission said.


08:53 03-11-05

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Question to the Anglophile historians out there:

Would you say that the Gordon Riots in 1780 were the trigger for the British "French Revolution" 4T, or were they part of an opening cascade triggered by earlier events (e.g, the negative turn in the American War and/or the emancipation of Catholics) or was it a relatively inconsequential event in the big picture and their 3T was still alive and well at the time????

FWIW I have long maintained that Britain's 18th Century Crisis began in 1778 when the French made the American war a world war. Certainly, the Gordon Riots provide an early part of that Crisis. Either will do for the start of my Reform Generation, adaptives who started being born in 1775.

HTH.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by David Krein

FWIW I have long maintained that Britain's 18th Century Crisis began in 1778 when the French made the American war a world war. Certainly, the Gordon Riots provide an early part of that Crisis. Either will do for the start of my Reform Generation, adaptives who started being born in 1775.

HTH.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

I wonder if the professor would care to comment on the seeming exactitude of years (in S&H terms) separating the French and Indian War (1754) and the Great War (1914), with regards to what was happening in Britain in, say, 1834 (eighty years after and before).

I am wondering, this, in light of my outrageous thesis posted earlier today (ie., our previous "third turning" was more about Pax Britannica than about the present-day U.S.).