Golden Memories

The Ballon d’Or or Golden Ball, (which sounds equally dodgy), has been decided, and yet again it is wee Lionel Messi. I can understand the frustration from soccer purists regarding this decision. Ultimately if one were to gauge-in sporting merit with individual accomplishment, (as certainly was the case in 2006 when Fabbio Cannavaro was awarded the trophy), then there are other candidates.

However it isn’t measured that way. And if the truth be told, it is hard to see anyone at present being even close to the Argentinian dive-baller’s level. Not even close. Still, as I am in the bah humbug mood, I’d like to point out that rather than Cristiano (who already has one, FFS!) or Xavi and Iniesta (who have only won more things than Messi), there is one person I have always felt, missed out on the trophy, and he certainly merited it more than the erstwhile Italian World Cup winning captain, Samuel Eto’o Fils. A chap whose contributions to FC Barcelona are progressively being erased.

Such is the 5’ attention span of modernity, I guess.

I don't approve of sedition

I have little truck with Sedition, though I can be brought to understand secession. There is little beauty in the break-up of an established political union to search for narrow gain, though in certain extreme cases that may be justified.

However if said break-up is in pursuit of unjustified grievance, the upstaging of a union of equals through the subversion of legality, propaganda, and in the whole for the protection of a corrupt elite, I believe that case to be seditious. This is borderline treason.
The Oxford English dictionary categorises each with a straightforward definition:
Secession is;

noun
[mass noun]
•    the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state:the republics want secession from the union

Sedition is;
noun
[mass noun]
•    conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

Wikipedia takes the concept of sedition further in language, which is true and accurate and which I would not be capable of matching.

In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

The only difference, in real terms, between sedition and treason, is the matter of violence and or aiding powers, foreign and internal, who run contrary to the established order.

I believe the Regional Government of Catalonia, (northern Spain), is engaging in activities which are close to, but not yet openly seditious by running roughshod over the constitution, denying basic rights to citizens enshrined in it, promoting violence on local government channels, running mass media campaigns that demonise the rest of Spain and it's peoples.

I hope it does not go further.

Deutsche

And we are off back to schule. To "lernt deutsche". Always wanted to master the language of Schiller, Goethe and Beethoven. Well, mastery might be a tad premature. First steps. and then hopefully the taste will be acquired with the eating, as is generally the case, Ja?

Forethought

Never been an apologist for Hitler, or the Nazis. The whole idea of National Socialism was abhorrent to me at school, at university, when I was a communist, and now that I’m a conservative it remains a fearful reminder of just how wrong democracy can become if there are no valid safeguards.That is, in principle probably what went ‘wrong’ in 1920’s and 1930’s Germany, but I’ll bore you with that (it is a hotly debated subject) another day.

Thus today's little gem. Someone passed me this link to a YouTube video were Hitler discusses with the legendary Finnish general Mannerheim. The discussion is not one of his hallmark rambling perorations full of the ‘sound and fury but ultimately signifying nothing’ to which we have become accustomed. There are many salient points, but I’ll try to limit it to two. The main part of the discussion is relevant to the surprise (It is sometime in 1942), of not only Russian (Soviet) resistance but to the level of armaments and reserves the Russians have available.

But what interests me is Hitler’s claim that he wanted to proceed with an invasion of France and destruction of Allied forces in the West in 1939! (The famous invasion was in May 1940). Once the pitiful remnants of Polish resistance were mopped up he wanted to switch the axis, 180º and fly off towards Paris.

This is interesting. Alan Clark does spot several moments when Hitler seems to have an uncanny ability to spot the perfect strategic moment. (His orders to hold fast in the blazing winter Soviet offensive of 1941 are by en large, the right decision given the circumstances). But certainly, though I have no idea what real options for a westward offensive the Wehrmacht actually possessed we do know that French defences in 1939 were no better than in May 1940… and the political leadership both in Paris and London, was still very jittery to say the least.

But there is more. An opening gambit of Poland, and following swiftly with an attack on the west in 1939 is a standard Axis move on Paradox Entertainment's, Hearts of Iron II. One which confirms the “high-risk high-yield” tactic an Axis player is pretty much forced to pursue. Interesting, but like everything else academic. The bad weather is faulted by Hitler himself as the real reason they did not execute Case Yellow (Fäll Gelb), in 1939.