The historian rejects the idea that his book has had a direct influence on Merkel’s policies. But many sections of the work – on globalisation, migration and technology, to name a few pertinent topics – read differently in the light of decisions she has made since reading it, such as the treatment of Greece at the height of the eurozone crisis.
If Europe was able to pull ahead of China economically in the 19th century, Osterhammel argues, it was because the Chinese empire was hampered by a “chaotic dual system” of silver and copper coins, while much of Europe had created a “de facto single currency” with the Latin monetary union of 1866.
But, but, but…..the Latin monetary union turned out to be a disaster. And she’s using this to guide her view of the euro?
Whut?
Eh? Surely it was the Gold Standard that was the single currency of the 19th century?
He appears to be a twat when it comes to economics. I particularly like the bit in the wiki entry on the LMU which has the Greeks debasing the currency and being expelled…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Monetary_Union
A large number of fists, boots, baseball bats and pickaxe handles need to leave their mark on the German Chancellors corpulent carcass.
Even better if dissatisfied migrants can be allowed to wield them –on prime time broadcast.
LMU had the same problem of two metals, didn’t it?
Just goes to show – having one standard for your currency is obviously the way to go #barefacedcheek
Ecks
I’m hoping for Nuremberg 2 myself.
So it had nothing to do with Europe industrialising and China not?
I believe Herman Goering had a substitute commit suicide for him, was cryogenically preserved and when unfrozen had a sex change, choosing the name Angela Merkel as his/her new identity. That’s how Goering’s rug turned up in Merkel’s office.
“If Europe was able to pull ahead of China economically in the 19th century …”: I suppose it would be deeply unfashionable to suggest that it did so mainly by copying the British Industrial Revolution.
Frankly I would be amazed if Jurgen Osterhammel agreed with this distortion of his brief discussion of currency unions. The Latin monetary union gets 2 brief mentions in a book of 919 pages. After noting the chaotic nature of Chinese monetary systems and how this was one factor in the country’s backwardness he goes on to say on page 731:
Diogenes
Based solely on the twat who wrote the article – who encapsulated the wrong headed description of the LMU – if Osterhammel only wrote what you say above, far less twatty. Note the word “appears” in my description. The rest of the description of his work in the article sounds OK. OTOH he is a SPD supporter, which would suggest stupidity.