« Applause for SPIEGEL ONLINE... | Main | It's All About Gas »

Comments

One never says bad things about true allies.

So dropping this sentence is keeping with both the current policy of Berlin as well as the popular attitude of German people.

Germans know who their real friends are.

@ joe,

That may be, but this is certainly not in keeping with the standards of professional journalism...

Since the Spiegel now knows that Medienkritik is proofreading its translations I would rather bet on sloppiness. The translation has more little omissions (not that grave as the French issue though): So "in any case" is omitted, "noch gefährlicher" is incorrect because the English text says only "more dangerous".

Btw I'm up late to watch "Urteil von Nürnberg" on ARD... excellent movie...

Btw what does the omitted sentence mean? Does the author criticise France's inability to deal with the riots as such or does he think that the riots have jeopardized the French effort to combat terror? (The latter is not very convincing since French courts have dealt swiftly and harshly with caught offenders). Is French paralysis in the wake of the riots a consequence of mock outrage about torture? Huh?
Maybe the editor of the WSJ should have called for a clearer wording.

@ Querdenker

Somehow I'm not surprised you think this was all a misunderstanding and if anyone is to blame, it is the victim...the WSJ! Common Querdenker, SPON clearly screwed up here. If they didn't know what something meant, they should have asked WSJ or the author. This is just poor journalism on SPON's part, pure and simple. I can comprehend your defense of them sometimes, but I really don't understand it here...

Querdenker...from one Hoya to another...do you work for SPON? I'm actually not joking here...

No I don't Ray (and I wouldn't if they asked me). Actually I didn't write this as an excuse... they did actually screw that up, one way or another.
Without any snark from one Hoya to another... how do you read the logic of the omitted sentence?

Oh another thing: I was actually surprised that you lauded the Spiegel's effort to publish the WSJ translation. I would actually believe that the Spiegel did so in not so good faith.

If you read the German comments on the article you will get what I mean. I believe it's a very poorly written piece... and that's exactly imho why SPON published it.

Here is how I interpret it:

That one need only look to the inability of the French to deal with recent rioting to understand that the European governments should not be doing things that make it harder for them to take the actions required to stop terror.

But that is beside the point. The point here is that an entire segment of an article was omitted. That is simply poor journalism and it ought to be corrected. That is why we printed this posting. I would also venture to speculate that this could have been something more than a coincidence. But there is no way to prove it either way if you aren't the editor or translator responsible.

@ Querdenker:

You may be right about why they ran it. Whether it is a well-written piece or not is debatable. How the SPON audience was going to react to it (negatively) was not debatable or unpredictable. In that sense you have a valid point. Does that mean it is a bad idea to expose the SPON audience to more conservative-American ideas? No. Could we expose them to more eloquently articulated conservative-American ideas? Certainly.

PS: I know it's late there in Germany. Please don't stay up on my account. We can debate some more tomorrow.

RayD

Your comment would imply these people are journalists and professional.

You are very kind with your definition of these two words.

They are neither journalists or professional. At best they are paid hacks.

Of course, this does not mean they would not be hired by the NYT or WashPo or the LAT or even the IHT because they would. They have mastered the temiplate the M$M uses. They are just a bit more sloppy.

Of course, like most things German these days is acceptable.

Of course it should be corrected and actually I think they will do that tomorrow. I tend not to believe that the sentence was struck off deliberately... would be a rather silly act to do and if I recall it correctly SPON did write quite a bit about the French paralysis itself (maybe a couple of day late).

Apart from that I do believe that it's a poor sentence. The French are not known for treating terrorists with silk gloves. They had quite a crackdown on them after the RER bombings time ago. The CRS are tough guys. I came to know them rather closer when I ran into them on the Place du Chatelet while they were rounding up a bunch of immigrés. A few bruises before I produced my passport. (Those bruises impressed a mademoiselle later that night, so it wasn't all bad!)

RayD,

This did not happen as an oversite. It was not sloppiness by some translation clerk.

Someone high up the food chain made a decision to remove this sentence.

It is much more than a question of professionalism. It is more now an issue of ethical conduct.

Ray, I was watching the movie, don't worry. And actually I agree with you that was worth posting it, if only to kick SPON's editor a little to make him do his job properly.

Keep it up, man.

Hoya Saxa!

@joe

why would they deliberately censure American criticism of French problems? It doesn't make much sense to me. It's not one of their own folks who wrote the piece.

I do notice a careless attitude with translations at SPON.

Q,

Given some of your other comments, I am not sure if this is a sincere question on your part or not.

The short answer is Germany does not cross france on major issues. This was and is a major issue both in france and the rest of Europe.

What those missing words actually say is the french government failed to act and showed a real weakness in leadership, decision making, and timely action.

This undermines the Germany government to a degree also. Remember one of the first announced actions of the hostage crisis team was to say they would be working with the french because they had experience in these types of matters.

So for a major publication to say this even it if comes from a second source is not just something the M$M in Germany is ready to do right now.

I am sure you will not agree with this but the German M$M are the water carriers for the German government, no matter who is in power, when it comes to the area of foreign relations.

It is acceptable policy within the German government to bash America in public. It is not German government policy to do that to the french.

I'll answer tomorrow (honestly).. Good night

Well one thing is for sure looking at the machine translation of the comments; this article was like a piece of red meat.

Querdenker: The French are not known for treating terrorists with silk gloves. They had quite a crackdown on them after the RER bombings time ago. The CRS are tough guys. I came to know them rather closer when I ran into them on the Place du Chatelet while they were rounding up a bunch of immigrés. A few bruises before I produced my passport. (Those bruises impressed a mademoiselle later that night, so it wasn't all bad!)

Curious. If the CIA did this sort of thing, you'd be accusing them of "torture".

Gee, I wonder how the bungled translation made it through all those multiple layers of editors that make the dead tree media so wonderfully superior to blogs??

Speaking of bungling, we have another grandstand seat to observe the conformity of the mainstream media in action worldwide. This time the story the mainstream media wants us to swallow is that some poor, completely innocent Hispanic guy was brutally murdered by an evil, trigger happy air marshall with the personal approval and connivance of George Bush. The spin was utterly predictable from the start, and now we're seeing all the usual reporting by insinuation, implication, and careful leading of sources. Remember the hand wring in the MSM about how the CIA was pressured to get the "right" intelligence on Iraq before the war? If you think the reporters at CNN aren't being pressured to get the spin right on this story, you are:

a) Living in a parallel universe
b) Suffering from a severe case of Attention Deficit Disorder
or
c) On drugs

You're going to see lots of coverage of this story in the next few days with exactly the same spin whether you get your news from CNN, NYT, WaPo, BBC, SPON, or Stern.

@Querdenker
Btw what does the omitted sentence mean? Does the author criticise France's inability to deal with the riots as such or does he think that the riots have jeopardized the French effort to combat terror?

The author is noting the French gov't paralysis in the face of the riots as indicative of a general paralysis in the face of any threat to their society.
And bitching about steps the U.S. takes to protect ourselves is not going to give the French much wiggle room if/when push comes to shove for them.
The problem I personally have with the author's logic is that the French have never given a rat's butt about wiggle room.

I agree that the French intelligence services are tough - but I think there is a disconnect between the elite on the Champs Elysee and the CRS and their ilk. (BTW, I watched a movie on the rebellion in Algeria against the French last night. The French were ruthless then too.)

@Helian
This time the story the mainstream media wants us to swallow is that some poor, completely innocent Hispanic guy was brutally murdered by an evil, trigger happy air marshall with the personal approval and connivance of George Bush

Can you believe this crap? This morning I woke up to hear that unidentifed - read anonymous - fellow passengers are saying they never heard this poor man declare he had a bomb. Well, that settles it then. If they never heard it, it didn't happen.

I give it about 2 more days - say, till the Sunday talking-head shows - before we get to the 'evil Bush' sauce.

Well there was another interesting article in the WSJ today.

COMMENTARY - The Wrong Arm of the Law

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY
December 9, 2005

THERE IS NO WAY THIS ONE WILL BE REPRINTED IN THE GERMAN MEDIA.

Here are a couple intesting sentences ... "Rather, it both demonstrates and reinforces the expanding gulf between American and European views of international law, and their differing perceptions of what constitutes acceptable norms of behavior. It is both ironic and sad that this gulf, combined with a growing European tendency to blast the United States whenever it is politically expedient, increasingly renders Europe an unreliable partner on all security matters."

None of this might be very important to the euros right now. But one does not work with unreliable partners and one does not share senstive information with them.

At some future date, there is going to be a decision point where sharing information short term with the euros might save lives but damage an assest which is important to the safety of the US. The euros are making it a lot easier as to what this decision will be.

If some of you think this is not a real possibility then you fail to remember the history of WWII and the decision Churchill had to make reference the bombing of one of England's cities.

Omg..... only a big OMG I can say.....

About what terrorism has your great Wallstreet Journale reported? About terrorism from groups like AlQuaida. These riots in france was becouse they was treated unfair.... they had lived in the poorest regions, many cultures where on an small downtown terretorie.... there are anytime some stupid kids they cant life with an other culture.

So I think, it wasnt translated too becouse this sentence had has nothing to do with the terrorism we know, and we try to fight against.

And whats that at the last of the article in the wallstreet journal?
That is a only a joke, or?
What is when Im saying I dont like america?
Im an public enemy of america and get hunted and shootet down?
Did you had heared something about freedom of expression?

Why there are many ppl they talk everytime about facism and save europe again from facisms!
There had happend some big shit in europe and germany, but now we life in democracy.... only boobies would think that here in europe could be a new facism leader.
If you think so..... ok then I think america will in the next time again slaves from africa to work for you.
Sounds not nice, or?

There is an german addage, it would be good if the wallstreet journal would hear it:

First think, then talk!

@joe
then you fail to remember the history of WWII and the decision Churchill had to make
to sink the French fleet

@Zachar1as
there are anytime some stupid kids they cant life with an other culture.

Too bad so many of those 'stupid kids' were actually born in France and didn't come from 'another culture'.

So I think, it wasnt translated too becouse this sentence had has nothing to do with the terrorism we know, and we try to fight against.

I have no idea why it wasn't included. But your idea begs the question David and Ray have raised - that the German media have consistently downplayed the French riots.

only boobies would think that here in europe could be a new facism leader.

LePen scared the daylights out of the French in their last election. And quite frankly, I think the EU is, while not technically facist, is certainly soft (so far) totalitarian.

Did you had heared something about freedom of expression?

Yeah, and we've also heard about all the 'hate speech' laws that have been implemented in various EU countries to curb it.

Let's see a pastor was prosecuted in Sweden (and acquitted I believe) for speaking out against homosexuality - the UK has a 'don't incite hate against religion' speech code law on the books, it's illegal to promote Nazi-ism in Germany, and I believe Norway is working on something. But that's just what I can come up with off the top of my head.

So, yeah, we know about your 'free speech'.


@Zachar1as

>>”If you think so..... ok then I think america will in the next time again slaves from africa to work for you. Sounds not nice, or?”

Does this mean he didn’t like the article? Chill, Zachar1as! Contrary to popular belief, Medienkritik does not edit the WSJ on the side.

You could see this coming, couldn’t you? SPON starts blowing a little “recreational” weed from the NYT, “just to liven up the party.” A few short months later they’ve already gone all the way down that slippery slope to hard core crack from the WSJ. Note to SPON: Do you mind!? Your readers are frothing at the mouth, and now I have little flecks of spit all over the inside of my computer screen. YUCK!!

Pamela,

Actually I was thinking of Coventry.....

You mean the french had a navy?

There were and still are rummors they also had and have an army too.

Pamela,

Actually I was thinking of Coventry.....

You mean the french had a navy?

There were and still are rummors they also had and have an army too.

Der Spiegel has put this makeup over that article because it is irritated by the American suggestions Germany should somehow give up France like a whore that has her best years behind and can now be abandoned to the gutter. This is just plain inconsistent. It never ceases to boggle my mind how Americans can rightly demand that we draw the necessary consequences from the Madrid and London bombings, and at the same time expect Europe could be as easily reshuffled as if there was a Castilian Crusader state or British Empire shielding it from Islam.

France may come up with all kinds of explanations why she is married to Germany, and I would not allege most of them were not nihilistic, but none of them is as old as the battle of Tours and Poitiers that stopped Islams march from al-Andalus to Rome by keeping it out of the central European hinterland. If we have to give up France then we are in a worse situation in terms of defense lines than there has ever been since the invention of Islam. Nobody in Europe can make a case for German-French secession without lying about the permanent risk he would be willing to take.

@joe
You mean the french had a navy?

You're joking, yes?
seven battleships, twenty cruisers, two aircraft carriers and dozens of destroyers and auxiliary ships
His orders were to give French Admiral Gensoul four choices. He could join the British fleet or sail to a British port and have his crews repatriated to Unoccupied France. He could sail to Martinique or the U.S. where his ships would be decommissioned. Or alternately, he could scuttle his ships where they lay anchored. If Gensoul refused all four options, the Royal Navy was simply ordered to destroy the French fleet.
--------------
There were and still are rummors they also had and have an army too.

Actually, the Americans I know who have fought with them say they're not bad. The Belgians, however, are unionized, believe it or not. That's caused some problems.

@FranzisM
If we have to give up France then we are in a worse situation in terms of defense lines than there has ever been since the invention of Islam

Too true. And perhaps too late.
The Death of France

FranzisM,

Please keep france.

I did enjoy your bit of history about this union. I have to assume the wars between your nation and france since the battle of Tours have all been just a wee bit of misunderstandings. Fair enough. I am glad you cleared that up for me.

Now given you feel france is the answer to your defense, which never be it for me to disagree, would you please help those of us who would like to see the US out of Germany and also out of NATO accomplish that.

This would be the very best thing the US could ever do to help with the intergration of Europe.

How about...........Europe for the Europeans

The battle of Tours? That goes over my head. There was no France then, and the battle was won by Germans.

Pamela,

The french navy was very impressive for the time. And you are right, I had forgotten the last major naval conflict the french were in when they sank the Greenpeace ship. Silly me.

Yes having worked with some of the more elite elements of the french military some of then can be good. These number less than a 1,000.Veiwing their entire military it is very unimpressive and dangerous. That is why durning Desert Storm they were way out on the flank operating more or less independently.

Belgian, as a member in good standing of the chocolate summit, really do not need an army. Therefore being unionized makes good sense. Of all the nations in NATO, the Belgian military is little more than a jobs program. They can depend on the french and Germans for protection. They make excellent members of UN Peacekeeping forces as they are not required to actually fire the weapons they carry.

BTW does Switzerland also have a navy.

@joe
BTW does Switzerland also have a navy.
sorta

the last major naval conflict the french were in when they sank the Greenpeace ship.

One of the few things they didn't try to take credit for.

France blamed MI6 for Rainbow Warrior

@Helian
The battle of Tours? That goes over my head. There was no France then, and the battle was won by Germans.

AAAAGGGHH!
The Battle of Tours (often called the Battle of Poitiers, but not to be confused with the Battle of Poitiers, 1356) was fought on October 10, 732 between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and an Islamic army led by Emir Abd er Rahman, near the city of Tours, France. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed.
Battle of Tours

Sheesh Helian, you should have know that one.....


@Pamela

>>"Sheesh Helian, you should have know that one....."

Like I say, there was no France, and the battle was won by Germans. The Franks were a German tribe. They spoke German, walked like Germans, had German mannerisms, were just like other Germans in bed, and had those well-known German attitudes we are all familiar with. Besides that, it's not likely many of them were even Christians.

Pamela,

I had just finished reading "The Death of France" before you posted it.

This does not fit either the french or German temiplate of how things are suppose to be working there. So it will be discarded out of hand as some radical American point of view and how little we understand about how complex the world really is in euroland.

@Helian
Besides that, it's not likely many of them were even Christians.
Martel's leadership ensured that European civilization would continue to be Christian in nature and take its own course, separate from Islam

The Franks were a German tribe.

Cripes, it's a good thing I bookmark stuff. Now, if I could only get them organized :-)

We could argue. I think our terminology would have to be much stricter tho'. German then is not German now. The Franks were a Germanic tribe, described as Germanic on the basis of language.
The original core of Francia, the Frankish Kingdom that came to dominate the West under Charlemagne, can be identified as those areas upon whose ruler the Pope at one time or another conferred a crown as the Roman Emperor

were just like other Germans in bed,

Man, would I love to see that link!

@joe - The defense lines I mentioned in context of France are cultural defense lines. If this line is crossed and there is going to be an Islamic state in central Europe, then the basic rules of European politics will be changed significantly to the worse. I am not implying Germany ought to outsource its defense to France - although for a NATO indoor state outsourcing is an attractive option, France would hardly be capable to replace NATO. That is just another one of those grand ideas the French should write on little pieces of paper and stick them to Napoleons grave.

It may have escaped your attention that Chirac and Schröder declared the post-war period as over in 2004, but that is understandable because America at that time was busy with the Reagan funeral and Schröder and Chirac avoided to draw any link between Normandy and Missile Defense. It would have been logical because this peace was achieved under the umbrella of NATO, but then again that were the counterweight fetishists with their blindness for the Islamic siege around Europe.

Pamela,

You mean the french actually were in a battle which they won and want to give credit to the Brits. I never knew the french were so magnanimous.

Who says this blog is not educational.

FranzisM,

Yes you are correct that one did get by me.

Of course, given it was an announcement by Chrirac and Gerhard there was not really much reason to pay attention to it.

If I am to understand you correctly the Cold War is over and so is the post Cold War. This having been a joint decision by the french and Germans.

Given this, it really does beg the question as to why there is a NATO.

You do realize the defense of Europe is already being subcontracted out. It is being contracted to the US. But you are correct; this is a very good deal for the Germans. Think if they actually had to have a functional military in addition to maintaining their welfare state. I am not really sure they could do this.

As for france taking over the defense of Europe, they would be joined by the other military powers of the chocolate summit - France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg. Surely this would be a military force capable of defending not only these core members but also all of the EU.

I truly thought this was what the foreign policy of both Berlin and Paris was, an independent EU control military.

@Zachar1as About terrorism from groups like AlQuaida. These riots in france was becouse they was treated unfair.... they had lived in the poorest regions, many cultures where on an small downtown terretorie.... there are anytime some stupid kids they cant life with an other culture.

Zachar1as... Please take your own advice and think before you speak.

This sort of excuse-making for thugs is a slap in the face to all other poor, culturally isolated people who:

Do not riot
Do not burn Citroens for a hobby
Do not burn little old ladies
Do not burn stores

This is nothing to make ANY excuses for. This is something to point to and say, "This is forbidden. If you don't like our society, don't like our laws, go back to Algeria (or wherever their ancestors originated)."

For every thug, there were thousands of peaceful, law-abiding immigrants and 1st-2nd generation French who were NOT out in the streets acting like thugs. THOSE people need to be honored as decent citizens, the rest told to obey the law or get out... not made excuses for.

@Pamela

>>"Besides that, it's not likely many of them were even Christians.
Martel's leadership ensured that European civilization would continue to be Christian in nature and take its own course, separate from Islam."

"Many of them" does not refer to Martel, but to his troops, many of whom were recruited in the still-pagan areas of the north. Martel's grandson, Charlemagne, still had to massacre great herds of these tribesmen before they finally saw the divine light of Christianity. Martel and his aristocracy were certainly Christians, and right up to speed on all the latest theological controversies. They had also been trinitarians since the time of their great king Clovis, unlike most of the state-founding German tribes, who were unitarians (Arians). This came in very handy for the pope. Coincidentally (speaking of Tours) the "History of the Franks" by Gregory of Tours, written in the late 500's, is a very entertaining source of information about the early church in what is now France. It is also a great read, and retails lots of juicy gossip about Gregory's contemporaries of all classes. One claim of the Islamists is that Mohammed was really a "liberator" of women in his day. Gregory's work puts the lie to this claim, showing that, even in the "Dark Ages," women in Europe could have a great deal of power and influence. The influential women of his day may not have been very attractive characters, but they certainly had clout.

Meanwhile, Spiegel Online comes up with an even more grotesque spin: SPIEGEL ONLINE - 09. Dezember 2005, 13:02
URL:http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,389472,00.html

Essay: Gebt den Juden Schleswig-Holstein!

Can this lunatic possibly be serious? Incredible.

LOL Redhand, obviously you have never heard of Mr Broder. I'm sure David can educate you about him ;-)

@joe - An EU military entirely replacing NATO would have required the entire Islamic world to replace the dollar with the euro currency in the same way Saddam had already done. That window of opportunity is shut by now, and we only have to wait for the realization that there is no money to sink in with the counterweight fetishists. These would-be aristocrats have been so busy celbrating themselves as the heirs of Charlemagne that they forgot that using pacifism as a founding ideology for building an army was a contradictory project in the first place.

The cold war is over in Europe, but not in Asia, and the terror war is going on in our neighborhood. NATO has other tasks than maintaining ground troops in Europe, it is the most cohesive group of democracies in an United Nations where group cohesion of nations has an increasing leverage. It is also securing the IAEA whose headquarters are on a neutral island within European NATO territory. I think over the time NATO will expand to a supraregional voting bloc of democracies in the General Assembly - there is no reason why e.g. the Marshall Islands should not be a NATO member.

FranzisN

It would seem I have somehow failed to commutated what I was trying to express or you have selectively chosen to ignore it.

I first of all was not talking about a European Defense force to be a counter weight to the US. I was talking about a European Defense force to defend Europe. I find myself to be among a growing group of Americans who find this both warranted and desirable.

As to what the Europeans have to do to accomplish such a force, that should be left for the Europeans to decide. I think the members of the chocolate summit have a concept already. In fact, I think they already have a planning cell established. They surely would have lots of staff from the existing NATO command structure to build such an organization. As for costs, this will be just one more thing sovereign nations must decided in their resource allocation.

As for the IAEA, I am sure EUDF could still perform this function. This force is already taking over NATO missions in other locations.

As for the current NATO, you make it sound like some club. Unfortunately, it is true it has become a club when it was once a military organization. It is now more of a political organization. As for it effectiveness, need I remind you of the actions of the members of the chocolate summit when Turkey another NATO member asked for the deployment of air defense systems prior to the invasion of Iraq. I found it to be embarrassing. Even more so having once been a NATO staff officer. It should equally have been embarrassing to anyone who actually cared about the effectiveness of this organization.

As for Asia, yes you are correct.

But please, I am not someone who just fell off the turnip truck this morning. I do not believe Europe will help the US in Asia anymore than I believe that pigs can fly. I think you also believe the same thing but lack the moral courage to say so.

The U.S. cannot remain a true ally of a militarily weak but shrill Europe as its politics grow even more resentful and neutralist, always nursing old wounds and new conspiracies, amoral in its inability to act, and quite ready to preach to those who do.


@joe - NATO accomplished its mission to keep up a temporary divide between the old and the new Europe, but only for the price of the transformation of the organization you have described. It was weakened so much that it cannot even plaster any more over the question whether Turkey belongs into Europe or not. For decades, NATO would keep up a compromise to keep it militarily in and politically out, but now Europe has to face this issue itself. Nevertheless NATO survived the Iraq crisis, but without it the German-French coalition would have been able to keep Britain out of Iraq and building a coalition of the willing would have been just as difficult as it now is for Iran.

As for an European Defense Force, the EUDF was thought out on the assumption that Europe would exist alone in a hostile world, and with the emergence of a supranational global security doctrine, preemption, that assumption is becoming obsolete. Europe might contribute to NATO missions for the sake of global security, but there is no reason to believe that these contributions would not shrink over the time, they might shrink even faster than the demand for military contributions.

There is something from the cold war that will never be over, and I hope it's not really an obstacle to true alliance. The geographical separation of the East and the West of Germany was temporary, but the separation between national politics and geopolitics that the cold war has left in our heads is permanent. To make not only an argument for a just war but also actively fight that just war, a country would have to be able to think these two together at the same time. I understand that some countries due to exceptional history might be able to do that, but the moral choice I have to make is not between advocating peace and advocating war, it is between principled pacifism and that of the 'do as I say, not as I do' kind.

Well done, spotting this huge omission. I keep wondering whether it is just sloppiness or a deliberate attempt to twist the content. As someone who has professional translation experience I know that all translated texts are always proofread by someone else than the translator. Especially the accidental omission of parts of the original text is what a proofreader is looking for. So I believe that it is safe to say that either they didn't employ a professional translator and proofreader or the subsentence was omitted deliberately.

However, the latter position I also find difficult to believe. Would they really think they could get away with it?

The third possibility is that it was a deliberate attempt to omit this information and then blame the translator.

Another thing that struck me was the ending of the German piece. It says "Mit freundlicher genehmigung des ´Wall Street Journal'". It strikes me as somewhat ironic/mocking. I am not German and perhaps this is just the way foreign opinion pieces are presented in Der Spiegel. But in the Netherlands (where I am originally from), foreign opinion pieces are usually just translated and the name of the publication is mentioned at the top or at the bottom. Is it just me or do the German readers also read it as somewhat mocking?

@Sandra - "Mit freundlicher Genehmigung" is a standard phrase to declare that intellectual property is being used with the consent of its owner. It can be understood as friendly or hostile as the standard phrase "Mit freundlichem Gruß" that you can find under business letters. As the license of the WSJ to Der Spiegel probably covers authentic reproduction only but not deliberate changes, the friendliness at work here might indeed be a bit dry against the contrast of the flowery wording. That's what we have these formal phrases for.

@joe..
I am with you. I am another Ami who believes the EUros need to defend themselves.
if only so the GROW UP

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31