Why Do So Many Countries Hate Trump? A Global Perspective

Here we are, at the end of 2019, and what a year it's been. Like most everyone else I thought about doing a retrospective; taking a look back at perhaps the top stories we did for A/O or maybe a look at the year's leading stories, but that wouldn't be very original would it? So, instead I decided to look at how President Trump stacks up among some of our allies.

While they don't have a direct impact on our elections, their opinions do impact us through the perceptions they create. It also has an impact on our trade relations since their impressions reflect their confidence in the presidency and the government. Besides, Trump's Presidency began with the absurdity that somehow Russian President Vladimir Putin influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election which kept Hillary Clinton from her coronation. So, let's take a look shall we?

In tenth place is Japan. An important economic partner of the U.S. which doesn't seem to like Trump. Since the beginning of the Trump Presidency, Japanese opinion has dropped 54 points. In addition, their opinion of Americans in general has fallen 15 points as well. The Japanese seem to equate Trump with their largely unpopular Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who they see as having no sense of humor, a big ego, and militaristic. Additionally, like Trump, Abe was born wealthy and appears out of touch with most Japanese. At least Trump hasn't thrown up on Japanese PM yet unlike another certain U.S. President!

The ninth spot is our friends down under, Australia. Although 75% of Australians have a positive opinion of Americans, only 45% can say the same thing about Trump. The Aussies don't seem to be particularly confident of Trump being able to do the "right thing" when it comes to his foreign policy, especially on the topic of refugees or ability to comprehend the complexity of the situation on Nanru and Manus and ship based human smuggling.

Next is perhaps our closest ally, the United Kingdom. Trump's approval is down 57% from what it was under Obama. In fact, some of their media goes as far as to say that the Brits "really really hate" Donald Trump, but that's not all. Just 50% have a positive opinion about America and Americans in general.

The reason most cited was Trump's promise to minimize Muslim immigration into the US. Of course, the UK has been inundated by Muslim "migrants" as has Europe, much to their detriment I might add. In fact, several large cities in the UK, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, have substantial Muslim populations, not to mention Sharia courts and "No-Go" zones, albeit unofficially.

Our northern neighbor, Canada, is next. So could those obnoxiously polite Canadians dislike about "The Donald"? Well, apparently everything. According to Pew Research, they regard the President as arrogant (92%), intolerant (78%), and dangerous (72%). 84% doubt he's qualified to be the president. They dislike his policies just as much as him personally, and for the first time since Pew began tracking opinions in Canada has Canadians polled over 50% in their dislike of Americans.

According to the survey, 57% of Canadians have a negative opinion of the U.S. while the remaining 43% apologized profusely (just kidding). As an aside, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, came in 14th with a 44% disapproval rating of Trump (mostly due to illegal immigration). Thus while Trump and America are viewed rather poorly by our two closest neighbors, it's Canada which has the worse opinion of us.

Spain is sixth on the list. Spain, which has become a major entry point for "migrants" entering Europe from Africa and the Middle East, not only strongly dislikes President Trump, they don't care much for Americans either. According to Pew, Trump is down 68% from former President Obama. The majority don't believe that President is capable or willing to do the "right thing" when it came to his policies.

They also believe that Trump doesn't understand the international situation well enough to be president. Regarding Americans, a whopping 60% of Spaniards had a unfavorable opinion of Americans while 23% had a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S.. The previous high has never exceeded 7%.

Next on the list shouldn't come as much of a surprise. After all, it's France, which has had something of a national "Napoleonic Complex" toward the U.S. since the end of World War II (you're welcome again by the way) and presidency of Charles De Gaulle. That's not to say the French People don't like Americans, they do...well, mostly. 73% of those polled had a favorable opinion though they admitted to getting a bit miffed when tourists show up and expect everyone else to speak their language. Trust me when I say that most Americans these days can relate!

Nevertheless, President Trump is down 70 points from Obama! To put it another way, the French hate Donald Trump more than Russian President Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping, or even Germany's Angela Merkel (who is partly responsible for Europe's decline thanks to the importation of the "migrants"). France's current president, Emmanuel Macron (the other person most responsible for Europe's decline) has even tried to bill himself as the "Anti-Trump".

As for why the French hate Trump so much, it really covers about every one of his policies, from trade to terrorism to the environment, human rights and the global economy. They dislike his personality and just about everything else about him. The only thing they seem to like is his wife, Melania Trump (the French do love class and style and she exudes it).

Interestingly South Korea is fourth. Now with a nut job with possible nukes just a few dozen miles to the north, you'd think they would have a more favorable opinion of Trump. After all, he has been one of the few American presidents who hasn't been bullied into backing down every time Kim Jong Un throws a tantrum.

In fact, very few world leaders have actually stood up to Kim in the past, including presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama. In addition, the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, as well as our strong trading partnership, are major reasons South Korea is still there.

Nevertheless, 71% of South Koreans have an unfavorable opinion of Trump compared to Obama. Many fear that Trump is using South Korea as a pawn in his dealings with Kim Jong Un. They also believe that Trump is "indifferent" about South Korea's role as an ally. If that was case, I doubt that Trump would have gone to bat for them as often as he has in the past. By the way, 75% of South Koreans still have a good opinion of America and Americans.

Now for Germany. Is anyone actually surprised? The only thing I found more surprising was that Germany wasn't higher than third on the list. Pew's poll showed a 75% decline in favorability from Obama to Trump; a drop which cuts across all of Germany's political lines.

Perhaps it's because Trump has been a vocal critic of Angela Merkel's disastrous policy of "open borders" of the so-called "migrants" into Europe (many Germans feel the same way except that "war guilt" seems to keep getting in the way of Germans doing the right thing for Germany and Europe). Merkel's immigration policies smacks of national suicide; a desire to destroy Germany's culture, traditions, and sense of national identity, even if that means taking Europe down with her.

Like Germany, the Netherlands has an equal distain for President Trump and like Germany, it's favorability toward the American President has dropped 75 points. Like the Germans, the Dutch believe that Trump is intolerant, arrogant, and lacks the practical experience of a world leader. They too, as others on this list have expressed, believe that Trump lacks the moral character to "do the right thing", be it pertaining to immigration, human rights, the environment, the Middle East, or just about anything else. On the plus side, 71% of the Dutch still have a positive opinion of Americans.

Finally, the number one spot. The country which hates President Trump more than anyone else is (drum roll please)...Sweden. Yelp, that ultra polite "Canada of Europe" dislikes Trump more than any other country in the whole wide world. It's hard to believe actually. Sweden is, after all, so damn polite. They are consistently listed as being among the happiest and healthiest people in the world. They are routinely ranked among the best educated people in the world. Sweden has one of the world's best social safety nets, top government infrastructure and environmentally friendly countries in the world.

Of late Sweden has been suffering from the influx of "migrants" coming into the country; many of whom are poorly educated and lack few, if any, transferable work skills. They've proven to be a huge drain on Sweden's economy, especially its once renown social safety net. Additionally, crime, particularly violent crime, has skyrocketed throughout Sweden, particularly in major cities like Stockholm.

In addition, there has been increased demands by these "migrants" for the implementation of Sharia law (including Sharia courts) as well as curtailing Sweden's traditionally liberal social standards. Many political scientists have proclaimed that Sweden, as a solidly liberal society, may be the first large country lost to the "demographic replacement" of Europeans along with Holland and Belgium.

As a result, we have a nation caught in the grips of a transitional crisis. Nevertheless, their opinion of Trump puts them at the top with an 83% disapproval rating, though the American People retain a 80% approval rating. The principal reason, they claim, is Trump's failure to "fact-check" before speaking (or tweeting). They believe Trump is too intolerant (especially toward Muslims), and lacks the intellect as well as personality to be president.

Could the Swedes be right? For that matter, could everyone else on the list be right? Is Donald Trump the wrong person for the job? Would someone like Hillary Clinton have done a better job as president? If her record as Secretary of State or as a candidate are any indication (including her attempt, along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazille to rig the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders, illegally obtain questions in the final presidential debate, Benghazi, or the Clinton "pay to play" Foundation), the answer is no. Hillary fails, if for no other reason, than on moral grounds.

We also need to remind ourselves that almost every country on this list has a politically Left government. A few, such as Sweden, have a long tradition of socially and economically liberal policies. Some were part of empires or were the nexus of the empire itself. Many too have had brutal Far Right juntas imposed on them with the help of the U.S. Government. All have had a close economic relationship with the United States. A few are heavily dependent of American economic aid.

To them Trump perhaps represents a threat. He is not just tightening the borders, preventing illegal immigration into this country, but as a result, restricting money from going back to these countries which has become an informal form of economic aid; something which props up small communities. It has also helped to relieve local poverty thanks to the illegal exodus, providing education and healthcare which would have otherwise been unavailable.

Along the same lines, they may be concerned about the cutback of official aid or military support, forcing them to pick up the slack instead on relying on "Uncle Sugar" to do it for them. Of the countries in Europe, they are suffering under the crushing burden of these "migrants"; many of whom are Muslim. No doubt they'd like to see more redirected to the U.S. America has been viewed for decades as the breadbasket, policeman, and bank to the world. As long as the money flows, they love us.

They worry that America may decide to turn its attention inward and start taking care of Americans first. Many would like to see America drop its border restrictions and turn itself into n open "feed trough"; doing for the world what their own governments won't thanks to their greed. Instead of removing their own tyrants and incompetent government officials, they turn to America for free handouts. This, I believe, is what they're afraid of, and Trump is just the outsider who would do it.



These Are The Countries Which Really Hate Trump


Making America Grate Again

Where Countries Stand With Donald Trump: A Crib Sheet

Let's Talk About NATO Shall We?

President Trump recently ruffled some feathers while speaking to members the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO. Ruffling feathers isn't anything new for Trump, who seems to take a devious delight in seeing whose golden goose he can drop kick across the Rose Garden. I can't say I blame him. Washington is deep up to its coffered comb overs in special interest muck. However, I was curious to see if Trump was right about this one. Are US Taxpayers picking up the lion's share of the bill needed for Europe's defense? For that matter, should Washington even be spending our money on Europe's military?

Before we get started, let's take a moment to remind ourselves why NATO was created and what it's all about. Historically, Europe had long been a continent interlocked by a complicated network of treaties and alliances which ebbed and flowed like Seine or Danube rivers. Today's friend was tomorrows arch-nemesis. This system of alliances reached the status of an art form under three key statesmen---Charles Maurice de Talleyrand (1754 - 1838), who career as French diplomat and foreign minister spanned decades, from King Louis XVI through the French Revolution, Napoleon, King Louis XVIII and Louis-Phillip. Known to be as brilliant as he was duplicitous.

Next was a younger contemporary, Klemens von Metternich (1773 - 1859). Von Metternich was Austria's Foreign Minister who represented the victorious powers following the second defeat of Napoleon. His diplomatic maneuvering resulted in the creation of the "Metternich System" of interlocking treaties and alliances designed to prevent any future "Napoleon" and ensure peace in Europe. The last, but less important diplomatic chess player was Prussia's Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898). Von Bismarck served first as the Minister President of Prussian, and then later as Chancellor of the German Empire; an empire he largely created himself.

All three men attempted to create a network of alliances designed to benefit their particular country just as any diplomat then or now would. But, given Europe's long history of bloody wars, also sought to create a system whereby war would become too costly economically and militarily to wage, and for a brief time, it held. However, Europe came to be dominated by lesser men with greater egos. Their systems were undone in one form or another. World War One all but destroyed any notion of wide ranging interconnecting alliances (in fact, it was misused of the existing cross-nation alliances which was to blame for the continent wide carnage). Out of the "Great War" or "War to End All Wars" as it was known, a more restricted system of alliances arose. However, these new political arrangments were little better and helped set the stage for next State sanction murder spree, World War Two.

When that war ended in 1945 to the tune of 60 million people killed or 3% of the world's total population (when disease and famine are included, that number jumps to 80 million). No sooner than the war ended, the stage was set for the next confrontation, the Cold War. Without going into the details of what happened, the former allies formed their own armed camps, with the USSR and the countries it "liberated" from the Nazis on one side, and the US, Great Britain, France and other countries freed from Nazi occupation on the other (China aligned with the USSR, but it's interest remained centered in Asia).

The first to formalize their "mutual defense and cooperation" agreement was the West in July 1948, which originally included the United States, France, UK, West Germany, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Later, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Turkey and Iceland joined (France withdrew in 1966 and rejoined in 2009). Its purpose was to deter what was seen a aggressive and expansionist USSR, especially amid Communist uprisings in various Western nations such as Greece and Italy and Stalin's refusal to allow free and monitored elections in the countries where it now occupied.

In response, the USSR created the Warsaw Pact in May 1955 as a counterbalance to NATO (interesting, the USSR actually requested to join NATO January/February 1954 and offered to allow a German reunification. The offer was rejected at the insistence of the UK's Anthony Eden and America's John Dulles and France's George Bidault). Originally, the Warsaw Pact consisted of the USSR, Poland, East Germany, Albania (which withdrew in 1968), Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia (the impetus for the creation of the Warsaw Pact was Czechoslovakia's fear of a rearmed, albeit truncated and monitored, Germany. As such, it sought a military alliance with Poland and East Germany).

While the Warsaw Pact was formally dissolved on July 1, 1991, which also marked the end of the Cold War, NATO continues to operate as it always has done, but why? Its sole purpose, to defend Europe from a possible Soviet invasion, has vanished. I need to point that that since the fall of the USSR and end of the Warsaw Pact, many of its former members have opted to join NATO, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

We also need to be reminded that US support of NATO was due largely to add our economic and military weight to a Europe which was still struggling to recover from the Second War, now 73 years past, is no longer valid either (in fact, Germany, now reunified, is ranked as the fourth largest economy in the world, with the UK and France ranked 5th and 6th respectively). Militarily, each of the NATO members work in cooperation in developing, manufacturing, and deploying military equipment, so why are we there?

If we examine the costs to operate NATO, it's not cheap. According to NATO itself costs in 2017 were $946 billion dollars. The UK contributes just over $55 million dollars to NATO (equal to 2.1% of its Gross Domestic Product or GDP) while France spends just under $45 million dollar or 1.8% of its GDP. Germany spends about $45.5 million dollars on NATO, which equates to 1.2% of its GDP. Italy contributes right at $23 million dollars; about 1.1% of its GDP. Canada gives a tad over $21 million dollars to NATO, which is 1.3% of its GDP. Meanwhile Turkey and Spain both provide about $12 million dollars each or 1.5% and 0.9% respectively of their GDP. Greece, which has long been a troubled economy, still manages to contribute $4.7 million, or about 2.4% of its GDP.

Newcomer nations such as Poland has anted up with just over $10 million dollars, which is equivalent to 2.0% of their GDP, while Romania provides $3.6 million; 1.8% of it GDP. The Czech Republic gives a little over $2 million dollars to NATO and Hungary sends $1.4 million dollars, which is equal to 1.1% GDP for both countries. Other members nations provide a lot less in terms of actual dollars, but in many cases, it still represents a substantial portion of their GDP. Bear in mind that while these percentages of GDP don't seem like a lot, they represent the final values of all goods or services at the time of purchase. In this case, this the equivalent of capital being taken out of the economy and being given to nation rather than reinvested back into the economy. For larger countries, this doesn't really have much of an overall effect, however, for the smaller nations or the ones in serious economic trouble like Greece, it's a big deal.

Now, I bet you'd like to know where the US stands in its contribution to the defense of NATO wouldn't you? Well, here you go. US Taxpayers pony up just under (barely) $686 million dollars (yelp, you read that correctly). That represents a whopping 3.6% of our GDP (remember, the next closest country is UK which provides just over $55 million dollars or 2.1% of their GDP). That's a pretty substantial difference any way you want to look at. So, again I have to ask why? Why are US Taxpayers on the hook for maintain a military organization for which we get very little bang for our bucks?

The prime purpose of NATO, to defend against the USSR, no longer exists; in fact, if you look at the new member nations, many of whom are former Warsaw Pact members, Putin's Russia is pretty much surrounded on practically all sides. Militarily, Russia is in a far worse position than it was at the height of the Cold War in the early 1960's, or even in 1990 when it ended. So, while President Trump may have (in his usual fashion) overstated America's position with regards to NATO, there is no question that we pay far more than any nation. In fact, with a published budget of $946 billion dollars, NATO couldn't function without us; at least on the scale that it does, but does it even need to?

In 1949, when NATO came into existence, the USSR was indeed expanding. It had gobbled up most of Eastern Europe. It was looking to expand in Africa, South and Central America, Cuba, and (in conjunction with China) into Asia; notably Korea and, later, Vietnam along with Laos and Cambodia. It was also seeking to expand, at least its influence, into space. In some of these areas, it was successful, however, in most, it failed for various reasons (including CIA sponsored coups and assassinations not to mention "backdoor" support of various groups). However, Europe was still weak. The war had just ended only four years earlier, and while both sides had nuclear weapons, their range was still limited.

Today, either side can drop multiple bombs anywhere it pleases. The likelihood of a conventional invasion, especially of Europe, is all but non-existent. Modern Russia is all but surrounded by NATO member States (which, in my opinion, is actually a far more dangerous situation than in pre-1990). Of course, there are many today in high places who are busy trying to rekindle the Cold War; it's like they need a super enemy to match their military super state. Personally, I don't see the point. There are other, potentially far worse, issues facing not just us as a nation, but that of Russia and especially Europe right now. Perhaps it's time to put NATO to bed and start addressing those issues.



Defense Expenditure of NATO Members Visualized (Infographic)

The World's biggest economies in 2018

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Homepage

NATO vs. Warsaw Pact: How the Ultimate Cold War Showdown Could Have Killed Millions

May 8th: Remembering "VE Day" and the End of War in Europe

May 8th. Remember the date? How many of you recall hearing anything much about it on the news? I sure didn't, yet it's a very important date in world history and its impact still affects today. You see, May 8th marks the end of the war in Europe---VE Day or Victory in Europe Day---in 1945, 74 years ago. I think it's important to remember the significance of VE Day or May 8th.

World War II involved some 102 countries, making it a true global war. The principal players in drama set on the world stage were Germany, Italy, and Japan on the Axis side with supporting roles provided by Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Turkey, Spain, and Slovakia. On the opposing side, the Allies were comprised of Great Britain and her Commonwealth nations (Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada, Hong Kong, and a few others), the United States, and France. It had the support of pretty much everyone else, but notably China, Vietnam, Korea, Philippines, Denmark, Burma, and Norway (some of these countries were occupied at the time and provided support via underground resistance movements.

As for the Soviet Union, which was under the iron fist of Joseph "Uncle Joe" Stalin. In the beginning, Stalin threw his support behind Hitler. It wasn't because he particularly liked Hitler, although it could certainly appreciate a fellow dictator when he saw one, rather it was out of self preservation. Hitler had long proclaimed that he would invade the East (Russia and Ukraine) in the search for Lebensraum or "living space" for the Germanic Peoples of Europe. He also vowed to rid the world of Communism. Together, they divided up Poland and Hitler give Stalin a free hand in the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They also entered into a trade deal whereby Russia would provide Germany with key ores and oil which it needed for its war efforts. However, after the surprise invasion of German forces in July of 1940, Russia changed sides and allied itself with Allies (which at that time was mainly just Great Britain and her Commonwealth nations).

During the course of the war, approximately 60 million people died, which equated to around 3% of the world's total population based on 1940 estimates. Some figures put the total killed as high at 80 million people. This figure breaks down the number of deaths as between 50 - 55 million civilians, including around 18 million who died of war related famine and diseases, with some 21 - 25 million military, including 5 million prisoners of war. Of course, a true figure will never be known.

German estimates placed the number of dead and missing at between 6.9 million and 7.4 million, which was around 8.5% of its total population. France lost roughly 600,000 people or 1.4% of its population, whereas French Indonesia lost between 1 million and 1.2 million people. Italy lost about 1.6% of its population, which was around 514,000 people. Japan lost between 3.5% and 4.34% of its population (not including colonies, such as Korea) which totaled a high of 3.1 million people.

Poland suffered an enormous loss of six million people, which equaled just over 17% of its total population. The UK (including its colonies) lost 451,000 lives or .94% of its total population. The United States losses amounted to 419,400 souls, or roughly just .32% of our total population. China's losses were equally horrific. It's estimated that the Chinese lost somewhere between 16 million and 20 million souls at the hands of the Japanese. This amounted to about 3.86% of its population.

However, the most overlooked (or ignored) number of causalities doesn't go to the Axis nations or even to Western Allies...in aggregate. It went to the Soviet Union. Russia suffered a mind numbing loss of 20 million people during the "Great Patriotic War" as they call World War II. When Soviet Republics are added, that number jumps to 26.6 million lives. Belarus, which buffers between Poland and Russia, lost 25% of its total population. So the south, the Ukraine lost 16.3% of it populace.

Of course, we can't forget the Holocaust (nor should we ever). As most already know, approximately six million Jews died at as result of the extermination and concentration (or work) camps. But this wasn't all. Roma gypsies also suffered, though they tend to be overlooked by historians. Nevertheless, some 285,650 gypsies died in the same extermination and concentrations camps. As an aside, in terms of population, a higher percentage of gypsies died than did Jews. In addition, 200,000 disabled or mentally handicapped people were executed, beginning with the "Action T4 Program", which was intended to rid the Reich of physically and mentally "inferior" individuals.

Germany's ally, Croatia, is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of around 340,000 ethnic Serbs, gypsies, and Jews. The Jewish population in Greece was nearly completely wiped out. Finally, some 5000+ Roman Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, various Protestant denominations, as well as a Social Democrats, trade unionists, academics, political dissidents (such as the "White Rose") and Communists were believed to have been executed during the war. Again, the exact number will never be truly known.

World War II, which most historians consider to simply have been a continuation of World War I, with a 20 year pause to change players on the world stage, was the most brutal of all wars yet experienced by Mankind. The repercussions of the war led directly to the rise of Communism as a world ideology, the division of the world into basically two warring camps, and to the Cold War, with all its proxy wars down through the decade not to mention coming to the brink of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion. Despite the tragedy of the war, there's another tragedy which is unfolding, for which no one is blame and there is nothing we can do to stop.

During World War II, the US committed some 16,112,566 men and women to the war, not including millions of civilian personnel who worked in factories and shipyards. As of September 2017, there were only around 588,000 left, and they are dying off at a rate of 362 every single day based on 2016 estimates by the Department of Veterans Affairs.; the youngest of whom are in their late 80's.

At that rate, the "Greatest Generation" will be all gone within the next 20 years. In the UK, there are only about 100,000 WWII veterans left. Canada has about 150,000 WWII veteran still with us, while Russia has approximately the same amount remaining (the last Soviet soldier who took part in the seizure of the Reich Chancellery, Nikolay Belyaev, died at the age of 93 in 2015. He was part of the feared 756th Regiment of the 3rd Shock Army). As an aside, there are around 250,000 veterans of the German Wehrmacht or Armed Forces still alive as of 2015.

Personally, I find it a shame that we don't make a bigger effort to celebrate the deeds and lives of these incredibly brave men and women. These were the young adults and children of the Great Depression, whose lives were molded by hardship, self-sacrifice, and self reliance. For many, it was also marked by poverty the likes of which most of us have no clue about. They were, and are, some amazingly resilient individuals.

Through my Disabled American Veterans Chapter, I have had the honor to know and befriend many of these men and women. I have had the distinct privilege to speak with them about their lives; to hear firsthand their stories of what life was like in places like North Africa, Sicily, Anzio, Crete, Normandy, Caen, Holland, Bastogne, over Berlin or Tokyo, not to mention Bataan, Midway, the Coral Sea, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, and dozens of other places which were once just names on page in a book or grainy, sometimes colorized, newsreels or combat footage on TV.

For them, these were very real places full of heat, mosquitoes, sweat, hunger, fear, pain, adrenaline, compassion and hatred where they lost friends, met new ones only to lose them a few days, hours or minutes later. It was the places where lifelong friendship were made...with those who survived; bonds closer than anyone could possibly imagine and will last to the grave and beyond as well as indelible memories mixed with both relief and guilt for having made it home.

Their reality bears no resemblance to the mass produced Hollywood movies many of us have used to shape our vision of war where the hero's hair is never out of place, the uniforms are clean, and there's never any blood or gore, and there's always a happy ending. It also bears little similarity to the sanitized newsreels of the period which provided only the briefest of glances at war's outcome.

This past May 8th marked the 74th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe, however, the war would continue another three months in the Pacific before ending onboard the battleship, USS Missouri, on August 15th 1945. Victory in Japan or "VJ Day" as it would become known, would be officially celebrated on September 2nd. So, if you happen to see a an elderly man or woman wearing a hat or emblem identifying them as a WWII veteran, be sure to shake their hand and say "Thank you for all you did" (though you may have to speak up). What they endured for you and me is beyond measure.

Understanding No-Go Zones: What Are The Outcomes?

We've all heard or seen the term. It often shows up on the news and "talking head" political shows, and even on our social media sites from time to time. It's often used in conjunction with stories about war zones, and more recently, in places where it's simply to dangerous for ordinary people to venture (and just as often, too dangerous for even the police to patrol). But what is it really? What does it mean to have a "no-go zone" in your community, and where are these forbidden zones starting to become more prevalent?
As I said, "no-go zones" are typically found in war zones. They are often referred to as "exclusion zones", meaning that there could be unexploded ordinance hiding in the rubble, as well as landmines (which are the single deadliest weapon when it comes to civilian deaths).

It also means that the area is likely unsecure, with a high probability of roving enemy combatants lurking about (especially snipers).
As in years past, these area were often marked with warning signs (like with a large "Warning" in various in various languages, accompanied by a skull and crossbones---never a good sign). Entry into these zone are done so at one's own risk. There is no guarantee that anyone entering these zones will be provided with any type of assistance, be it due to getting lost, captured, injured, or wounded (and if killed, it's very unlikely anyone is coming for your body).

Of course, not all no-go zones are in places of conflict. In fact, most aren't located in or near a active war zone. The majority of no-go zones are actually found in various cities and towns where divergent (and unassimilated) populations attempt to enforce their own laws; independent of existing local laws. This includes roving patrols who harass, detain, and fine anyone who fails to comply. They are attempts to apply their own traditions, culture, and religious restrictions. In some cases, they may even attempt to "arrest" an individual and bring them before a religious tribunal where some type penalty of is applied. It's also common that these communities expand the tribunals into a de facto government.

In addition, this application as described above, usually have the support of the local population. These zones come about when individuals from either the same country or with a similar culture, religion, etc. settled in a certain area and begin to tacitly apply their cultural and/or religious values on their own street, or block, and then join with others to expand it to cover blocks, and eventually entire sections of a community. Typically, this begins subtly; with polite requests and calls for inclusion, tolerance, and openness.

As their numbers increase, these "request" begin to take a change in tone. They start to become more assertive. As the numbers continue to grow, so the growth of likeminded individuals, who bring with them their extended families, their businesses, and (naturally) their biases, traditions, and values. Often, at the same time, as these numbers grow, native populations begin to leave; not feeling safe or disliking the changes they are seeing. At some eventual tipping point, terms such as "tolerance" and "inclusion" start losing their original meaning, and are replaced with words like "compliance" and "dictate".

Somewhere during this transformation, the emerging population becomes unsatisfied with just those within their own community abiding by their value systems, and begin to apply it to others. Again, this usually starts as a "suggestion" or "request" in the name of "tolerance", but after a while, escalates to becoming compulsory, to the point where it supplants local law. Attempts by law enforcement to apply local law, or even conduct routine patrols in these communities, is view as an intrusion; an attempt to impose "foreign" laws on them!

As a result, the migrant population often responds violently by harassing the legal authorities, from verbal or physical threats (and, perhaps some general pushing and shoving) to becoming increasingly belligerent, up to and including open attacks, riots, destroying property, throwing rocks, "Molotov cocktails" or other homemade bombs, and so forth (it's not uncommon that afterwards, these same groups will demand the government clean up the mess caused by the rioters and restore their damaged property).

At this point the area is generally declared a "no-go zone", although governments often attempt to soften the obvious negative connotation of an area uncontrollable by the local authorities and use terms like "sensitive urban area", "vulnerable area", "exposed" or extreme exposed" zones, a "sundown area", as well as "closed zones" (which, by the way, all these apply to the native population, not to the migrants inside the area So when they say "stay out", they mean you). As an aside, there have been several attempts by journalists to cover these areas from the inside. Many who do are often meet with the same hostility unless they first obtain permission from the tribunal, and then only with an assigned escort, who also censor what is and what isn't covered.

So where are these so-called "sensitive" areas to be found? While they're are pretty much located just about everywhere, they are quickly popping up throughout Europe, especially in Western Europe. The idyllic country of Sweden has some 53 of these areas (with 15 of them classified as "particularly exposed" by the Swedish police). Germany has at least 40 such areas according to some police reports; perhaps more. Paris has approximately 25 such no-go zones, with dozens of others scattered about in France's major cities and towns such as Toulouse, Marseille, Bordeaux, and Avignon (one French police officer described crime as a "leisure activity" in these zones).

In the Lowland countries of Holland and Belgium, they too have their "no-go zones", although the Dutch are a bit more sensitive about it and often vigorously deny any such zones exist, though locals will likely beg to differ. The same for Belgium, though locals will nonchalantly suggest outsiders might want to skip the tour through Molenbeek (one local taxi cab driver said felt like a "seething North Africa ghetto" as author Robert Chamlers wrote in a article for the British edition of "GQ Magazine" on June 21, 2017 ).

Norwegian officials also deny they have any "no-go zones", though they might want to check with the local police and citizenry. Police officers have reported several cases of being attacked and "aggressive" responses to their presence (one police officer reported that Gonland, a district of Oslo, was "more Muslim than Morocco". Locals report of roving gangs, often targeting unaccompanied females and gays, amid rising violent crime (sexual crimes are perhaps the most serious issue, and are not just here, but reported throughout European countries with high migrant populations).

Denmark too has its share of growing "exposed" areas as well as what the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rassmussen, calls "parallel societies"; unintegrated communities with their own laws and language. However, the Danish PM insists that he will not allow Denmark to suffer the same fate as Sweden and other European countries, and has refused to permit any majority migrant neighborhoods, and if necessary, will forced integration into Danish society (which I'm sure it will be...kicking and screaming all the way).

Of course, of the countries with the largest number of "exposed zones" is the UK (in terms of dozens through the country). England has perhaps the largest growing non-native populations of any country in Europe, outside of perhaps Germany. In the industrial city of Birmingham, the native population will make up just 48% of the population by 2019 (an entire decade than originally predicted). The same trend includes cities like Leeds, Manchester, York, London, Luton, and others. In fact, at the current rate, somewhere around the year 2040 or 2050, native Britons will be a minority throughout England due to low native birth rates, an increasing external immigration with matching high birth rates (this is known as "population replacement"). As an aside, unlike its fellow European neighbors, at least 2/3 (68%) of the migrants entering the country are Asian, principally from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, and not the Middle East.

While this issue of "no-go zones" seems to be primarily a "European problem" at this time, there is no reason to assume it will remain one. Both Canada and the United States has had issues of immigrant populations refusing to integrate. This ranges from the influx of illegal immigrants, to refusal to learn the native language and adapt to local laws. It also includes criminal complicity of individuals, businesses, and organizations (mostly religious) who are intent, for their own gain, to aid and abed these individuals (as an aside, other countries such as Australia, are experiencing a similar problem too. Mexico and South America have had less problems with illegal or unintegrated populations due to strict immigration laws and enforcement).

Although there are existing punitive laws for this, they have rarely been enforced, especially during the eight years of the Obama Regime. As a result, taxpayers have been stuck with the bill, which amounts to some $113 billion dollars annually (some figures are slightly higher and some lower, depending on how its calculated. But regardless, it's still a substantial figure which could be avoided). Europe's "open door" policy has proven to be more than a mere mistake or miscalculation. It has proven to be national suicide. The great Teddy Roosevelt (my personal favorite president) once said that while immigrants, with all their energy and innovation were welcome, this country has no room for divided loyalties. If you came to this country, you did so a future American; hyphenated Americans need not apply.

I agree with ole "Rough and Ready Teddy". If you come here with the intent to learn our laws; adapt to our collective traditions, values, and learn the language, then great. Come on in! If, on the other hand, you intend to recreate your country with perhaps a different climate (and especially at taxpayer expense), then I suggest you keep on going. If you're here just to make a buck or two, that's fine too. Just do it legally and get a "green card". We must not become a "Balkanized" America, complete with border checks and "sensitive zones" within our own country. This is the same mistake which has befallen other nations down through history (usually in the name of altruism and tolerance). Let's hope it division is never allowed to take root here.


Germany No-Go Zones: Police Afraid to go into lawless areas after open-door


Inside Germany's No-Go zones: Part One-North Rhineland-Westphalia

Are there police no-go zones in France? The police say yes


Europe's no-go zones: Inside the lawless ghettos that breed and harbor terrorists

Stealth Jihad is alive and well in Canada

Danish PM Warns of No-Go Zones

How Armistice Day Became Veteran's Day

On November 11th, America honors its veterans as well as its brave men and women in uniform around the world. A day known as "Armistice Day" or "Remembrance Day" until 1954, when the name was changed to "Veteran's Day". But have you ever wondered about the story behind the day? How did we come to celebrate that particular day and how its history still affects us today? Ninety-nine years ago, the Armistice ending World War I was signed. The "Great War" or "War to End All Wars" as it was euphemistically called was perhaps the bloodiest conflict the world had ever seen to date . The ceasefire was to go in effect on November 11th at 11:00 (the date and time was chosen simply because it had a "poetic quality" to it). However it wasn't until six months later that the powers involved sat down to sign the peace agreement in Paris and lasted until December 13th, whereby there would eventually be three extensions lasting until January 20, 1920, when peace was finally ratified in Europe at 4:15. It was fought with 19th Century strategy using outdated ideas and strategies which simply hadn't kept pace with the technology of war.

As a result, World War I was a war of mass slaughter, disease, poison gas, and shell shock (what we now called PSTD). It created new military terms too which became popularized in lexicon of the average man or woman, but especially for those who had been "over there"; terms like "tanks", "ace", "trench warfare", "gassed", "buzz saw" (meaning a machine gun), doughboy, "meat wagon" for an ambulance (often converted butcher wagons. hence the name). There was also "No Man's Land", U-boats, "Mustard Gas", AEF (American Expeditionary Forces), reparations and numerous more. Personal names too became popularized and the stuff of legend; names like Eddie Rickenbacker, Alvin York , John Pershing, Billy Bishop, Lusitania, and of course, Manfred von Richthofen---the feared "Red Baron".

In its wake, World War I left behind 10,080,026 million dead on the Allies' side, with approximately half of that representing civilian deaths. 12,812,271 million were wounded. The Central Powers had 8,341,264 military deaths and 2,330,00 civilian deaths. Another 8,751,85 were wounded. Even after all this time, even those numbers are considered a best guess by many as bodies were either never found or were simply unidentifiable. To put it another war, the Allies lost 36% of its military and 20% of its civilian population while the Central Powers lost 22% of its military and 22% of its civilian population.

Was it worth it? That's a question asked by millions after the war ceased, especially by those who had fought and survived the carnage. I think it was that sense of relief, pent up anxiety and anger which was the catalyst for the complete abandon that was the Roaring Twenties; fueled by ample qualities of bootleg booze. That was also the hope of the Versailles Treaty, which was flawed and full of petty jealousy, nationalistic arrogance, and misplaced blame which merely reset the stage for the next war, which was to come a mere short quarter century later, and it was to be bloodier than the first. The war had not just destroyed millions of lives but also billions of dollars in property damage. The actual total cost of war to the Central Powers was $60,643,160,000. The costs to the Allies was even higher, $125,690,477,000. It's hard to imagine such carnage and costs would be tolerated by any the citizens of any country today. The war also destroyed empires.

The fate of the Central Powers was now be determined by its vengeful former enemies. As an aside, Germany did not expect to be treated as a belligerent power. It was argued by Germany's representatives that Germany had merely honored its treaty with Austro-Hungary, which was no different than how the other great powers of Europe had done. Germany, now a republic following the abdication of the Kaiser, was given the impression that it would be treated as an equal at the table. It would be out of this that the infamous "Stab-in-the-Back" myth would arise since it was left to the representatives of the newly formed democratic republic to negotiate as a defeated nation. The irony was the majority party of the Republic was the Socialist Democrats, with most of its leadership being Jewish.

Gone now was the Imperial German Empire, and with it, the Prussian mystique Alsace-Lorraine, and Germany's industrial heartland---the Ruhr Valley. The industrial Saar Region and City of Danzig were under the control of the League of Nations. Northern Schleswig went to Denmark, West Prussia and Silesia were given to Poland, the Hultschin District went to Czechoslovakia while the territory of Memel was absorbed by Lithuania. Belgium acquired Eupen and Malmedy. Control of the Rhineland was given to the French< Germany faced the destruction of its air force and emasculation of its navy and army. All toll, Germany lost 13% of its territory---27,000 square miles and 1/10 of its population (about 7 million people) plus all of its colonies. As if that wasn't severe enough, Germany was ordered to pay war reparations---a "fine" of sorts" in the amount of 132 billion gold Marks, or an equivalent of US $33 billion dollars; all for a war Germany never started.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Hapsburgs ceased to exist. It lost close to 2/3 of its total territory. Austria and Hungary were divided. Six regions were formed into the nation of Czechoslovakia. Seven other regions were to make up the new nation of Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, Transylvania and Bukovina were ceded to Romania. Tyrol and Trieste were handed over to Italy. Galicia, Orava, Spitz, and the Duchy of Cieszyn were handed over to Poland. Restrictions were also placed in their respective militaries.

The Ottoman Empire too was gone. Its territories fell to France and England, which added to their empires. Out of this would come the Mandate of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Greece, Georgia, Yemen, and Armenia regained its independence for the Ottomans. The Emirate of Transjordan, the creation of Saudi Arabia and the British Protectorates of Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar and control of the island of Cyprus. The newly created nations, formed by France and England, took little regard for the religious, ethnic, or tribal differences. Later, following WWII, the British would bow to international pressure and recent history, and begin allowing Jewish survivors of the Holocaust to migrate into Palestine, which ignited a fuse that has caused grave consequences ever since.

Imperial Russia's empire crumbled first, in 1917, when Czar Nicholas II, of the Romanov Dynasty, abdicated and the Imperial government was overthrown by a Provincial Government headed by Alexander Kerensky; a lawyer, social activist, and member of the Socialist Revolutionaries (the "SRs").Despite his attempts at reform, Czar Nicholas's efforts proved to be too little or too late. In October/November of that same year Lenin's Bolsheviks had seized control of the government. Russia withdrew from the war after signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Imperial Germany. The price of peace was extremely high. Russia was forced to forfeited a large swath of land, one quarter of its population, and nine-tenths of its coal mines.

In order to force Russia to remain in the war, the Allied Powers--primarily Britain and the US, invaded Russia at the port of Archangel. However, the invasion made little headway, and the troops were withdrawn. Russia descended into a Civil War which would leave millions dead. Many more died of starvation afterwards as the economy collapsed. The Czar, his wife Alexander, their family, and several ministers would among the war's victims. By 1921/22, Lenin had enacted the New Economic Program (or NEP), which permitted a limited ownership of land and private enterprise. The result bore almost instance positive results to the economy (Lenin's long term economic and political objectives, despite popular myths, was to "shrink the government down to the size of a post office"; to create a country devoid of bureaucrats and one of self-government and volunteer ad hoc committees to run the country). However, with Lenin's death in 1922, the Georgian, Joseph Stalin, was able to consolidate power and began remaking Russia in his own imagine. The result would prove disastrous for Russia...and the world.

England and France didn't escape unscathed. While they, along with the US, dictated terms to their former foes, and acquired vast amounts of land, resources, colonies, and resources, while reducing the once mighty German Empire to the status of a second tier nation. Efforts could now be focused on calculating the value of their gains, while playing lip service to President Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations (neither major power had any real interest in ceding power to anyone, let along an upstart country like the US). Nevertheless, League of Nations aside, America proved she was a first class industrial power with her own colonies thank you very much. It was American effort which turned the tide of war away from the Central Powers and to the Allies.

But for England, its victory was bittersweet. It was said that the "Great War" had cost the Empire an entire generation of men, which wasn't far from the truth, just over 886,000 men. It still remained the strongest naval power in the world, especially now that Germany's was hamstrung thanks to tonnage restrictions loss of its U-boat fleet, not to mention the destruction of its air force. Ireland was successful in obtaining its independence from England in 1916 (with the exception of Ulster). Far off colonies were again stirring amid talk about their own independence, yet just around of 25% of the world's land mass was under the British Union Jack flag. England's economy too had been affected, and it had to turn its attention to rising unemployment and poverty, not to mention the flu epidemic which was to cost many more lives. While the sun hadn't yet set on the British Empire, there was very much a chill in the air.

Perhaps France fared the best of the nations. It had picked up some valued territory thanks to Germany and the Ottoman Empire; land which could prove quite valuable with the additional shipping routes and strategic ports, along with a new and growing energy source---oil. True, France took a beating in terms of devastated towns and cities, but the revenues generated from the new colonies should, in time, make up for it. France had also lost an estimated 1,400,000 individuals. It had also made up for its humiliating defeat at the hands of Kaiser Wilhelm I and his imposing Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. However, France too was beginning to feel the pangs of independence from her colonies.
As for the League of Nations, championed by President Wilson, it's fate would be little better than that of the Central Powers. Neither France or England were going to surrender their global dominance and submit to the discretion of nations they consider their inferior, and I suspect that included the United States, who was just now beginning to emerge as a player on the world stage whereas both France and Great Britain had held the world's attention for centuries now. Other powers such as Spain, Portugal,and Holland were mere shadows of their former selves.

Nevertheless, the US really wasn't really a factor since Wilson's own Congress voted not to approve its membership. Ultimately, however, 63 nations would join the League. It's goal was a noble one; to formulate a forum to discuss and debate issues such as world peace, child labor, gradual disarmament, women's voting rights, ways to improve international relations, working conditions and safety issues, as well as ways to impose enforcement of agreements among member nations (such as economic sanctions). Although the League of Nations would continue to remain in existence until April 18, 1946 when it was replaced by the new United Nations, its chief failure was its inability to enforce its resolutions, especially on non-member nations. The United Nations would, in many respects, address and correct some of these shortfalls, yet many of the issues still remain, especially as they related to national sovereignty.

So, now you know the back story to Veteran's Day; a day to acknowledge and honor our men and women in uniform and our veterans. We also must remember those who have fallen in their defense of this country (which is the reason behind Memorial Day) as well as those who are still missing. In my opinion, one cannot and should not be separated from the other.






The Financial Costs of the First World War



World War One Centennial Gallery