By the 4th century AD all the gold in the Roman empire had been sucked out and sent East by fake money changers. Sound familiar. Go on then smart asses go build anything other than what Rock/Roth will allow you.
The battle of Adrianople was the
beginning of the end for the Roman empire.
This battle was fought between Roman emperor Valens and the Goths
on August 9, AD 378. It took place ten miles outside the city of Adrianople, which is now the city of Edirne,
Turkey.
This critical battle also established the dominance of cavalry over infantry
for the next thousand years. (Eggenberger; 4)
Initially, the Roman Eastern emperor, Valens, allowed the Visigoths
to settle south of the Danube near Thrace, for the Huns had
invaded their land. The terms of the agreement stipulated that the Visigoths
were to surrender their weapons and also their male children as hostages, but
the Visigoths only gave up their children.
Ostrogoths also migrated into Roman territory, and conflict with the Romans
gave way to open fighting. (Bunson; 4)
Valens decided to march from Constantinople
to attack the Goths. He was unwilling to wait for aid from Gratian, the Roman
emperor of the West. Before the battle began, the 20,000 men of the Roman
cavalry and the 40,000 men of the Roman infantry outnumbered the 50,000 Gothic
foot soldiers. Valens attacked the Goths at an opportune time: while their
cavalry was away on raids. (Bunson; 4) At the outset, the skilled Roman legions
and cavalry seemed to have the battle well in hand, but suddenly the Gothic
cavalry, numbering 50,000, returned. The Roman army was overpowered and their
cavalry was quickly routed, which left the Roman foot soldiers defenseless to
the attacks of the Gothic horsemen. The Roman army was crushed. Roman
casualties numbered 40,000, including Valens. After the Goths crushed the
Romans, they attempted to take the city of Adrianople, but could not penetrate its
walls. (Dupoy; 157)
After the battle of Adrianople,
the barbarians knew that they could be victorious in Roman territory. The new
Eastern emperor, Theodosius I (the Great), was able to negotiate an unstable
peace with the Goths, but it was not to last. The battle of Adrianople was the
worst defeat the Romans had suffered since the German victory in AD 9 at Teutoburger Wald. St. Ambrose called the battle of Adrianople, "the end of all humanity, the end of the
world." (Bunson; 4)
The Renaissance of the West (I)
2015/05/07
BERLIN/BRUSSELS
(Own report) - German foreign policy experts are calling for
a "renaissance" of the transatlantic alliance to defend Western
global hegemony. According to the strategy paper written by two German authors,
published recently by the think tank of the European People's Party (EPP), the
EU must strengthen its cooperation with the United States in spite of certain
controversies. The experts write that the "global liberal order,"
which had secured a global hegemony for Western countries since the end of the
Cold War, can only be maintained if Europe and North America
enhance their economic, political, and military cooperation. All efforts aimed
at improving cooperation with Russia
should be halted. To enhance influence, the focus should, instead, be shifted
to engaging NGOs and East European religious communities in pro-western
activities. A new consensus within the EU must be established and pro-Russian
"disinformation" must be systematically "exposed." One of
the authors even calls for the nuclear rearmament of Europe,
claiming "we" must be "willing to go to war."
"Islamism, Russia,
China"
In a strategy paper, published by the "Wilfried Martens
Centre for European Studies," German authors are calling for a
"renaissance of the West." They write that, the transatlantic
alliance must be enhanced if the "global liberal order" is to be
permanently maintained - meaning the practically uncontested global hegemony of
the West throughout the two decades following the Cold War. This "liberal
world order" allowed "Europeans to live more safely, more freely and
in most cases more prosperously than in any time of their history,"
according to the paper.[1]. However, the "liberal world order" is now
facing new "challenges." The authors explicitly point to Islamist
tendencies, Russia and a China, growing
in strength, against which the West must become more consolidated. The paper
does not conceal controversies, which have arisen over the past few years
between the EU and the United States,
i.e. on issues of Middle East policy (Iraq War
2003) or disenchantment over the NSA's dragnet espionage.[2] However,
confronted with external threats, these controversies must be placed on the
back burner. The authors make a plea for enhancing cooperation in the
political, economic (TTIP), and military (NATO) fields. The confrontation with "Putin's
Russia"
could help accelerate the EU's much-needed cohesion.
Against Moscow
Hence, the strategy paper particularly underlines proposals
for concrete measures in confrontation with Russia. All attempts to enhance
cooperation with Moscow must be halted, not
least in view of Germany's
efforts - particularly in the first decade of 2000 - to strengthen its own
position in relation to the USA
by a certain degree of cooperation with Russia. (german-foreign-policy.com
reported.[3]) To reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies, the authors call
for increasing oil and natural gas deliveries from Western sources -
particularly the USA
- as well as comprehensive exploitation of shale gas within the EU. The EU
should also enhance cooperation with Russia's
immediate neighbors, particularly Ukraine,
Moldova
and Georgia, which are accessible to becoming an associate of the EU. The EU
should not only provide economic assistance, but military aid as well, to
reinforce their ties to the West.
NGOs and Churches
The authors also propose various measures aimed at Russia and its East European allies (for example
Belarus).
In the future, "Eastern Partnership" [4] should "focus much more
on civil society." The EU must work more intensively "with NGOs,
political organizations, independent media and other civil society actors"
and "religious communities," in Eastern Europe.[5] New forces,
"truly interested in [pro-western, gfp.com] transformation," could be
groomed "only through intensive ties to operatives among the elite, who
are not directly involved in state activities." This would strengthen the
German use of organizations, such as party-affiliated foundations, to obtain
influence in certain circles of foreign populations and draw them into the
service of German foreign policy.
Creating an EU Consensus
Inversely, the authors promote measures to weaken - and if
possible obliterate - the opposition to the EU's anti-Russian aggression. For
example, "think tanks, consultants and NGOs with financial ties to Russian
institutions can be taken to task in analyses, and through public
debates." At the same time, "disinformation by Russian media and
their allies in EU member states" should be "exposed."
Furthermore, "civil society in the EU itself has to become better
organized" - for example with the support of "networks of political
parties, think tanks, NGOs and individuals," which "will carry the
main burden of responding" to the alleged "Russian
disinformation."[6] Hence, the strategy paper explicitly proposes the
creation of an EU consensus conforming to state interests and the isolation -
and possibly even exclusion - of domestic opposition.
Ready to Go to War
The authors are also pleading for extensive war
preparations. EU member countries' territorial defense capacities and NATO's
ability to intervene beyond its borders should be enhanced. Besides creating
new structures, such as the 'spearhead' rapid response force,[7] NATO should
begin "permanent redeployments of units, including ground troops closer to
the eastern border of the alliance."[8] This would be a complete breach of
the NATO-Russia Founding Act and be considered by Moscow as a serious provocation. The risk of
an uncontrolled escalation of the conflict would be significantly increased -
an acceptable risk, according to co-author Roland Freudenstein. At a meeting of
the European People's Party (EPP) a few days ago, Freudenstein declared,
"we have to make clear that yes, we are willing to go to war, for what we
consider existential principles of Europe’s future." However, the
disadvantage is that "nuclear deterrence by NATO consists of 20 rusting
free-fall bombs, of the B-61 type, that can be wiped out with one strike of the
Russian forces," and Freudenstein added, "these are things we have to
change."[9]
Strategic Decisions
Freudenstein has worked for the German Council on Foreign
Relations (DGAP), the CDU affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the foreign
policy planning staff of the European Commission. His co-author Ulrich Speck
regularly publishes in the DGAP journal "Internationale Politik." At
present, Freudenstein is Deputy Director and Head of Research of the Martens Center for European Studies, which
published the strategy paper "The Renaissance of the West."
Currently, the Martens
Center has 29 member
foundations in 22 EU and non-EU countries, including the Konrad-Adenauer
Foundation and the Hanns Seidel Foundation (CSU). Former President of the
European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, represents the CDU on the Center's
Executive Board. The Martens Centre, a think tank of the EPP, makes strategic
decisions for the development of conservative parties throughout Europe.
The Renaissance of the West (II)
2015/05/13
BERLIN
(Own report) - German military experts have initiated a
debate on NATO's nuclear rearmament. The Western war alliance has "become
more important" through the Ukraine
crisis, wrote a high-ranking specialist of the Federal
Academy for Security Policy (BAKS) in Berlin in a recently
published discussion paper. In this context, "nuclear deterrence"
must again become a topic of discussion. The "entire deterrence
package" must put be on the agenda, not only nuclear arms in general, but
also Europe-based US nuclear weapons - not least of all, those stored in
Germany. Beyond the threat of nuclear war, the danger of a further
barbarization of future wars is looming in the wake of the regeneration of the
West. A former head of the Policy Planning Staff of the German Defense Ministry
is proposing that Berlin
consider procuring depleted uranium munitions for the Bundeswehr to combat
Russian tanks. Depleted uranium is extremely destructive, even after their
battlefield use. In Iraq
for example, where NATO countries used these weapons, vast areas are
contaminated still today.
Nuclear Rearmament
Karl-Heinz Kamp, former Research Director at the NATO Defense
College in Rom (2009 -2013) and since
2013 academic director of the Federal Academy for Security Policy (BAKS) in Berlin has launched the
debate on nuclear rearmament. He introduced his theses in the recent issue of
"Internationale Politik," a journal published by the German Council
on Foreign Relations (DGAP) aimed at a broader public.
The Future of Deterrence
According to Kamp, Russia
has "not only modernized its conventional armed forces, since the Georgia war in
2008, but it also upgraded its nuclear arsenal."[1] Russia
considers its nuclear potential to be "compensation for the lack of
conventional forces comparable to those of NATO, which has become more powerful
through its acquisition of former Warsaw Pact members." In fact, Moscow sees its nuclear
arsenal as deterrence against possible aggression by a NATO that has expanded
and steadily upgraded its arsenals. Kamp explicitly reaffirms that Russian
President Vladimir Putin had repeatedly warned that "the West should not
forget that Russia
is a nuclear power." This expert at the Federal
Academy for Security Policy has now
declared that due to the bloody escalation of the power struggle over Ukraine,
"NATO's traditional self-defense role has become more important." In
this context, the question of "how to insure the future credibility of
nuclear deterrence must to be raised."
Steadfast Noon
Threatening a nuclear strike has always been an integral
part of NATO's war scenarios - including dropping Europe-based nuclear bombs,
some based also in Germany.
NATO regularly holds "Steadfast Noon" maneuvers to train for nuclear
attacks, the latest, in October 2014 - with German participation. Within the
"Steadfast Noon" framework, NATO is "training for the use of
Europe-based US nuclear arms, within the context of nuclear sharing,"
explained the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)
late last year.[2] "Steadfast Noon" had not been the NATO countries'
only nuclear war exercise last year. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[3])
Already several years ago, plans were made to modernize the Europe-based
nuclear weapons and secure the fleet of combat aircraft capable of dropping
them. The renovation of the B61 atomic bombs began already in 2012 - at a cost
of US $25 million each.[4] The same year, a spokesperson for the German Defense
Ministry announced that Tornado combat jets, which could deliver and drop these
bombs would be operational at the Büchel nuclear base (in the German Eifel)
beyond 2015 - the year the bombs had originally been scheduled to be
decommissioned.[5] "Currently; the American Europe-based B61 bombs have
been technically overhauled and some of their components have been updated to
current technological standards," confirmed Kamp.[6]
Nuclear Frontlines
"In the long run, NATO will not be able to avoid"
initiating a new debate on nuclear weapons, continues the expert at the Federal Academy for Security Policy, using the
new Cold War as a pretext. "Much more than the Europe-based American
nuclear bombs" will have to be discussed. "Since the conflict with Russia is not
just a bad-weather front but a fundamental climate change, the whole deterrence
package must be placed in a new context."[7] This includes "NATO's
conventional capabilities" - for example, the creation of NATO's
"spearhead" rapid response force, in which Germany has played a decisive
role,[8] but also "the nuclear weapons (both in Europe and the USA)."
The nuclear frontlines, which have significantly lost their importance since
1990, but have never been completely dismantled, would therefore be fully
reestablished.
Uranium Munitions
Other than the threat of a nuclear war, the looming threat
of further barbarization of future wars - even conventional - comes in the wake
of this Western regeneration. In late April, the former Head of the German
Defense Ministry's Policy Planning Staff, Hans Rühle, publically demanded that
the Bundeswehr procure depleted uranium munitions. Rühle wrote that DM63,
"tungsten-based anti-tank fléchette munitions," currently available
to German leopard-2 tanks, to combat enemy tanks, are "ineffective for
penetrating the armor of the newer versions of (Russian - gfp.com) T80 and T90
tanks."[9] This is "all the more the case for the Russian Armata
battle tank due to be operational in 2020." The problem is well-known. It
had been comprehensively discussed back in the 1980s, when Rühle was head of
the Planning Staff at the German Defense Ministry. There is but one solution,
which was rejected in the 80s, because of the strength of the peace movement:
The Bundeswehr must be "equipped with depleted uranium-based fléchette
munitions as soon as possible." Their penetrating power is sufficient to
destroy any kind of Russian tank.
Contaminated Land
Using the example of Iraq, a recently televised
documentary of the Bavarian Broadcasting Company (Bayerischen Rundfunk - BR)
exposed the consequences of using uranium munitions. According to the United
Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) estimations, up to 2,000 tons of depleted
uranium munitions had been fired on Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 wars.
Vast areas, particularly in the south of the country are today contaminated.
The BR documentary film ("Leiser Tod im Garten Eden" or "Quiet
Death in the Garden of Eden") describes the dramatic "increase in the
number of cases of cancer, stillbirths and horrible congenital deformities"
in those areas of Southern Iraq.[10] Scholarly studies trace the causes to
radiation from debris caused by depleted uranium munitions, whose acquisition
is now being demanded by German military policymakers.
The name of the Teutoburg
Forest in Germany will forever be connected
to one of the most famous battles from ancient history, the clades Variana, the
defeat of the Roman general Varus. In September 9 CE, a coalition of Germanic
tribes, led by a nobleman named Arminius, defeated the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth legions and
forced their commander Publius
Quintilius Varus to commit suicide. The result of the battle was that
Germania remained independent and was never included in the Roman
empire.
In the nineteenth century, the battle became a
powerful national symbol. In 1806, the French army of Napoleon Bonaparte
decisively beat the armies of the German states. The humiliation was too big
for the Germans, who started to look to the battle in the Teutoburg Forest
as their finest hour. As Napoleon spoke a romanic language and presented
himself as a Roman emperor, it was easy for the Germans to remind each other
that they had once before defeated the welschen Erbfeind - an untranslatable
expression that refers to the Latin speaking archenemies of Germany. The Teutoburg Forest
became the symbol of the eternal opposition between the overcivilised and
decadent Latin and the creative and vital Germanic people, between old France and new Germany.
