Archive for the ‘Global Affairs’ Category

Where are the Democrats?

July 5, 2018

The short answer is that they are busy criticizing the Trump administration but in a disorganized fashion, as Democrats too are divided. In part this is due to the speed with which Trump switches from one topic to another, from healthcare to NAFTA and trade policy in general, to criticism of NATO countries, to cozying up to autocrats (Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Kim). He changes the channel when criticism starts to bite.

Democrats need to put forward credible candidates for the 2020 elections and to organise to win back the House in 2018. Control of the Senate is unlikely this time and Trump has two more years for his possible replacement. While Republicans are divided between traditional and Tea Party Party members, so are the Democrats but with different fault lines.

In the last election the Democrats put up two candidates, Clinton and Sanders each of whose supporters were not enthusiastic about the alternative. In fact it would not be surprising if Sanders supporters chose Trump when they entered the polling booth in 2015. Voters who felt that Washington had failed to improve livelihoods for many Americans were attracted to Trump’s message about the failures of recent administrations of both parties. The reason Trump governs today is because of the mass of voters who feel this way. Whether his actions in power will get him reelected in 2020 is unknown, but the reason he won in 2016 is now clear. At the time it was not predicted by many pollsters….Michael Moore was an exception.

Opposition to Trump exists in much of the media, but he has supporters in Fox and Breitbart News. It is a mistake to watch only one side. I watch Morning Joe on MSNBC but should watch Fox as well to get a more balanced view. Today leadership of the Democrats consists of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer; no candidates have come forward as obvious challengers for the 2020 presidential elections despite the actions of Trump.

The following are observations in no particular order of what may be expected between now and November 2018:

  1. Trump will continue to surprise the public with non-conventional moves and statements. Response to criticism will be made with tweets as issues arise that gain his attention. What the tweets will say will be unpredictable because he responds to the headlines of the day. Cable news is his source of information. He does not read and listens to a small coterie of people in person and by phone.
  2. He will continue to boast about the US economy claiming he is responsible for the positive things that happen and blaming others for any bad economic news. So far there has been mainly good economic news, but the the imposition of tariffs by the US and by others in retaliation will reduce trade and more general economic growth, as business delays new investment due to the uncertainty created.
  3. A further damper on economic growth comes from debt created from a long period of low interest rates. As rates rise consumer and business spending will decrease causing a lowering of economic growth. In Canada the Bank of Canada has followed a low interest rate policy and cautioned people from the borrowing which their policy encourages. The Bank changed its policy at the start of 2018. Low interest rates encourage spending but also promote borrowing. Households as well as governments are loaded up with debt. The Province of Ontario is horribly indebted and the new provincial government will soon be telling us that the figures published by the previous government understate the provincial debt. This is common practice for any new government.
  4. The actions of one person, the US President, can do enormous harm to the US and other economies, but the uncertainty created will cause investors in other countries to dampen investment as well. Where this ends up is difficult to predict. But the rise of populist parties in many OECD parties is a sign that developed countries are experiencing a common set of political pressures differentiated by their particular settings.
Advertisements

Can the US be saved?

April 9, 2018

A wide range of questions arise with the arrival of Trump on the US political scene, and it will be some time before any explanation finds widespread acceptance. Consider the backdrop. For a long time, the twentieth century was described as a period of two world wars separated by two decades of peace, 1919 to 1939. Now some describe it as being thirty-one years of war from 1914 to 1945. It took two world wars and the period in between to reach some sort of world peace that has existed since 1945. But since 1945 there have been all sorts of regional and civil wars mixed up with terrorism, brands of which are practiced today and will occur in the future. The possibility of an apocalyptic outcome has existed since the 1945 explosion of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This technology is now in the hands of autocratic political leaders of several states, and more worryingly could get, and may already be, in the hands of terrorist groups who have no states to protect.

 

A more optimistic view is provided by Harvard Professor of Psychology, Canadian born Steven Pinker. In his 2018 book Enlightenment Now he notes aspects of global development, among these are: world life expectancy has risen from 29 years in 1700 to 71 years today; world literacy has risen from 10% in 1820 to 80% today; and access to safe drinking water has risen from 50% in 1981 to 90% of the world’s population today. Other supporting facts are presented and of course there is discussion of what story these facts tell. There is no single way, apart from description, to get a feel of whether we are better off overall, but Pinker provides evidence for a favourable judgement. A reasonable conclusion would be that things have been getting better in many ways, but the threat of nuclear disaster for some or for many is high.

 

Moving from the global picture to North America, what measures can elected politicians take to slow down or reverse the situation presented by the economic and political events associated with the Trump administration? I hesitate to call it a Republican administration because many traditional Republicans would like to be divorced from the President’s policy moves. In fact, Republican leaning voters are split between the Tea Party Republicans and the rest, and not all the Tea Party members agree with each other. On the Democratic side there are divisions, those that support Bernie Sanders and those who have more centre-left leanings. In the 2016 election, many of the Sanders supporters may have voted for Trump, attracted by his desire to shake up the Washington elite and to show their distaste for Clinton as their candidate.

 

No obvious Democratic candidate has emerged to lead the party in 2020, despite public support for Trump remaining in the 35% to 40% range after 15 months in office. Former President Obama left the Democratic party in bad shape, not helped by the fact that he took two $400,000 fees for speaking engagements within six months of leaving office. This helped to confirm voters’ opinions that the politicians of both parties were filling the swamp and their pockets.

 

It is never easy for a large ship to slow down and change course. The same is true for the US political-economy. It requires recognition that the ship of state is on the wrong course, then deciding on an alternative and getting general support for it. Examples do exist but required brutal action. Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal have all thrown off dictatorships since WW2. The first postwar election in the UK, threw out the Conservatives lead by a politician who was widely praised for his wartime leadership, and elected a Labour government promising to bring about social change. In earlier times the French Revolution resulted in political change but it was accompanied by considerable bloodshed and violence.

 

The functioning of liberal democracies is supposed to bring about change peacefully, but this may not happen today if popular support gets behind autocratic leaders. The focus today is often on the leader, but should be on why a significant part of the electorate support what he is doing.

Next Scene in the Trumpian Saga

April 4, 2018

Switch the spotlight from the man to his audience and a different picture emerges, not one that claims headlines but perhaps should. Since the 2016 election, the news has been about Trump and the gang of players who huddle nervously around him in the White House. Trump views them as loyalists until they do something which irritates him, and then they are gone, to be replaced by other supposed loyalists.

The voters who support the Trump gang fluctuate between 30 and 40 percent of the electorate. One poll in early April 2018 had them at 42 percent. Despite what many consider disruptive and unstable behavior, the gang leader retains the solid support of his loyalists, or has done so to-date. The question is who are these supporters and why?

Two books help to provide answers, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis by J.D. Vance, and Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right by Arlie Hochschild. Two others I intend to read are White Trash: The 400-Year History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg, and Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations by Amy Chua. The latter two deal with the same general topic providing clues to how the Trump experience may evolve.

Vance was born and schooled in Appalachia, enlisted in the US Marine Corps with time spent in Iraq. He graduated from Ohio State University and Yale Law School, where his mentor was Professor Amy Chua. He is now a venture capitalist, author and commentator, circumstances that allow him to explain the conditions and attitudes of poor white people in the US, and why, so far, they continue to support Trump.

Arlie Hochschild is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. While researching her book, she spent time in Louisiana, the second poorest state in the US, living with and interviewing mostly poor whites. She is a west coast liberal who managed to mix with people in Louisiana from very different backgrounds to herself, and who were able to articulate why they felt disenfranchised, having little influence in Washington. For them Trump offered some hope, and may still do so today.

In a review of Hochschild, the circumstances of poor white southerners are described as follows:

“You are patiently standing in line for the American Dream. You are white, Christian, and of modest means and getting along in years. You are male. There are people of colour behind you and in principle you wish them well. But you’ve waited long, worked hard and the line is barely moving. Then you see people cutting in line ahead of you. Some of these are on the dole, taking money from low paid white workers.”

Resentment builds when enough people feel aggrieved, leading to opportunistic charlatans – dictionary definition, a boastful unscrupulous pretender – taking advantage of the situation. Defusing it takes time while social media quickly spreads the discontent.

I have no idea where this will all end but I wonder how far Trump is willing to go in playing the nuclear card, or causing someone else to play it. Either outcome would be catastrophic

Competition Policy in the 21st Century

March 1, 2018
In 1900, at the turn of the century, US business moguls included Carnegie, Dupont, Ford, Guggenheim, Morgan, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt. Among the largest firms were US Steel, Standard Oil, Ford, J.P. Morgan, DuPont, and a number of railway and financial corporations.

Compare these with some of today’s largest firms, their founders and founding dates, the last four labelled by some as the FANGs.

1975 Microsoft- Gates and Allen
1976 Apple – Jobs and Wozniak
1994 Amazon – Bezos
1997 Netflix – Hastings and Randolph
1998 Google – Brin and Page
2004 Facebook – Zuckerberg

Today’s giants and their industries are the result of developments in computers and communications since the 1960s when this technology began to permeate our economic and social life.

My first interaction with computers was in 1962 when they were housed in large air-conditioned rooms with data fed in on punched cards. Computational work was processed in batches and the output would be available perhaps the next day. It was often necessary to learn a programming language such as Fortran and write one’s own program. Later, programs such as Word Perfect and Excel could be purchased. I acquired my first desktop computer in 1970 for $5000.00. It had 64K memory. It was followed by laptops, pads and the smart phones available today. My regular use of email dates from 1985 when words were spelled out slowly across the screen, rather than appearing instantly.

Big business, both in absolute and relative terms, has long given rise to concern over its economic power associated with the creation of combines, trusts, and restrictive trade practices. In North America, this lead to the passage of antitrust laws. Canada passed the first such legislation in 1889 followed by the US in 1890. Both were a reaction to concerns about the potential harmful effects of monopoly power in industries such as steel, railroads, petroleum and banking. Today, questions are raised about the market power of information related industries, both the hardware and software.

One example is Amazon. The firm was founded by Geoff Bezos as an online bookstore, and has morphed into a firm engaged in electronic commerce and cloud computing with a head office in Seattle. Today it is the largest internet retailer supplying almost anything that can be sold online, either by distributing the item online or arranging for physical delivery. A recent acquisition was Whole Foods.

Amazon operates internationally with retail websites in fifteen countries. Currently it has revenues of $136bn, assets of $83.4bn, net income of $2.4bn and 542,900 employees full and part time. The firm did not record a profit for seven years, that is until 2001. (Further information is available on Wikipedia).

Amazon has morphed into a type of public utility in the business of delivering goods and services, similar in many ways to the delivery of electricity, gas, communications and postal delivery services.

The Economist, Jan 20th, 2018, provides an excellent summary of the possible antitrust issues stemming from how communications technology can affect competition in a wide variety of markets. The issues concern the generation and collection of data as well as its pricing in different markets. For example Facebook and Google are responsible for 80% of news publishers referral traffic affecting how buyers and sellers interact.

These and other firms collect mountains of data as people surf the net and are able to sell this information to producers of goods and services, as well as to monitor the communications of sellers and buyers. It reveals an Orwellian world where individuals may lose their privacy. When Orwell wrote 1984 in 1948 he was unaware of the technology that would emerge and reinforce his warnings.

Public policy

Do existing public policy measures address issues concerning these firms? Competition policy deals with features raised in a wide variety of markets dealing with monopolies, mergers, price fixing and a range of restrictive practices. There seems to me no reason why these measures cannot be applied to markets where information technology is used.

But in addition, the use of information technology is so pervasive in terms of communications and the internet that it has become a type of public utility. For example, businesses and homes demand connection to the internet at a reasonable cost. Today, a hotel, coffee shop, store or manufacturer would be unable to operate successfully without being connected. In this sense the technology has the features of a public utility and may need to have a policy framework similar to other utilities. Governments will certainly have to rule on the question of net neutrality.

 

Trump after Year 1

March 1, 2018

After a year long roller coaster ride for US politics, some assessment can be made of the Trump presidency. The man behaves like an autocrat attempting to take over or in some way control the US political process using the techniques of former autocrats. So far, American institutions have held out, but the longer Trump and his associates retain power, the more likely a tipping point will be reached with at least unfortunate, or perhaps even fatal consequences for the democratic process. Now he wants a military parade. What will it be tomorrow? (The following was written before the February 2018 mass school shooting).

Two questions arise,

1. Why does Trump retain the solid support of 30 percent of the US electorate?
2. Why has no credible Democrat emerged to lead the opposition?

Trump’s appeal to the 30 percent revolves around his claim that he would drain the Washington swamp, implying that in recent years US governments of all political stripes have feathered their own nests at the expense of others, especially lower income families, which have seen no rise in their real incomes.

In fact, Trump’s few legislative achievements have favoured the top five rather than the bottom thirty percent, but the latter still stick with him, or at least they have so far. They want to see Washington shaken up, perhaps not as much as advocated by Bannon, but more than will occur with the likes of existing Democrat and Republican politicians.

It is unclear how Trump’s policies will benefit the 30 percent unless there is a significant uptick in the US rate of growth. At present unemployment is low and economic growth solid, and this has been the case since before the election.

A second puzzle is why the Democrats, even without majorities in the House and Senate have been unable to be a more effective opposition given the weaknesses of the Republican majorities. While the Democrats have pointed out the harmful effects of Republican policies, they have been unable either to respond with alternatives, or to anoint leaders who are attractive to at least some of the 30 percent.

The Congressional Democratic triumvirate of Schumer, Pelosi and Clinton are all associated with the past, and viewed as inhabitants of the swamp, and no short list of Democratic candidates has emerged to challenge Trump. During the last election, it was known that if Bernie Sanders was not the Democratic candidate his supporters would not vote for Clinton and might even vote for Trump. Sanders and Trump appealed to the same section of the dissatisfied electorate. One person who understood this was Michael Moore the film director of Roger and Me who called the 2016 Presidential election correctly. He attended meetings of all the main candidates and watched how audiences responded to the orations.

How to think about the current scene

The US political situation resembles a festering boil. At it’s head it is red, swollen and oozing. Underneath infections are brewing causing the unsightly surface. Remedies require attacking the conditions that feed the process.

Some of the malignant viruses are discussed by Elizabeth Drew in a New York Review of Books article (August 18, 2016 – available online) titled American Democracy Betrayed, where she reviews Ratf**ked, The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy by David Daley.

Daley explains the process of gerrymandering electoral boundaries which are redrawn at the state level. Republicans have been far more successful than the opposing Democrats in drawing these boundaries. In the 2016 US election only 37 of the 435 Congressional seats had opposing candidates. This would be like a federal election in Canada where only 27 of the 338 constituencies were contested.

What happened in 2017 and what might happen now?

December 24, 2017

My favourite Xmas card for 2017 reads,

“Three Wise Women would have asked for directions, arrived on time, delivered the baby, cleaned the stable, made a casserole….and there would have been Peace on Earth.”

 

Overwhelmed by news coverage of the Trump presidency, I think we have lost sight of what actually happened which is a precursor for trying to figure out the future.  I suggest that Trump is like the head of a nasty boil beneath which resides a lot of infectious puss resulting from some unpleasant causes. It could kill you but can hopefully be treated.

What follows may be an oversimplified explanation, but here goes. Since becoming selected as Republican candidate, being elected and governing for a year, Trump has managed to grab the headlines with outrageous comments and behavior. If anyone else had done this they would have been crucified politically and in the press. Trump manages to change the channel when public indignation is stoked. He is an artiste at managing the press. He is more clever than mad.

So far the president’s support is rock solid with 30-35% of the US electorate. Some are traditional Republican voters, while others probably supported Bernie Saunders and may not have voted for Clinton. The Saunders followers felt and still feel that Washington is a swamp and Trump’s boast to drain it remains attractive to them.

The 30-35%, or a portion of them, feel that they have not shared in the economic growth of the past decades. Growth has seen significant structural changes in the economy, such as the loss of manufacturing jobs and their replacement by a combination of outsourcing and growth of service sector jobs associated with rapidly evolving communications technology. At the same time, some groups have managed to shape the rules of the business game, through such things as tax breaks, subsidies and protectionism favouring certain investors and sectors. In turn, these favoured ones finance political campaigns and keep the swamp well infested.

Responsible for all this are the acts of previous Democrat and Republican administrations, which have shaped the policy infrastructure to the benefit of their traditional supporters. What we observe and experience today is the result of an evolving social, political and economic backdrop. Trump is the focus of this scene. But without him the same underlying forces would be at work leading to some probably unwelcome outcome.

Can there be a positive future given these events? Probably, but this depends on the sturdiness of the of the American political system over the next three years. Trump will have left some unexploded mines on the political battlefield. He will have governed by signing executive orders (Obama did the same thing in his second term with a Congress controlled by Republicans), and by making judicial appointments of people favouring his political views. In this sense Trump is here to stay by leaving a lasting mark on American society. It will take time and leadership to redirect the ship of state.

Seasons greetings to all.

 

Trumpmania

December 8, 2017

I confess I am addicted to following the antics of Comrade Trump, partly because it is such good theatre with the curtain rising on a new scene almost daily. But partly because events south of the border are already impacting our lives. Regardless of the outcome of the NAFTA re-negotiations, business will delay or cancel investment opportunities for the time being thereby slowing the economy. I am still amazed about why the US stock market is doing so well.

My addiction is fed by watching excerpts from Morning Joe on MSNBC for the anti-Trump view, and Fox News for opposing commentary by pro-Trump supporters. Add a puff of Steve Bannon and Breitbart News and the day can be shot without doing anything else, except to wonder whether Little Rocket Man or Humpty Dumpty (HD) will light the fuse for a nuclear holocaust. The Daily Show is another channel I watch. Hardly a day goes by that host Trevor Noah does not have a clip about the President and his supporters.

Each day Humpty Dumpty on Twitter offends someone personally, and as soon as the reaction gets out of hand he changes the channel –  from the charges laid against former campaign manager Paul Manafort, to Michael Flynn’s guilty plea, to testimony to Robert Mueller’s investigation, to the meeting of son Donald Jr with the Senate Committee on Russian election interference, to the decision to move the embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, to name a few. What will it be tomorrow?

The news media grab any story involving the President and his cabinet, and we the audience dutifully follow assuring that network audiences remain high. After a year in office, I conclude that one needs to watch both sides, in my case that is MSNBC versus Fox News with a touch of Breitbart. If one only listens to the MSNBC viewpoint then one misses the reason why HD won the election (OK with fewer votes), and why it is that over 30% of the electorate continue to support him, and apparently quite strongly. The majority of the electorate is fed up with the way Washington is run and support him as someone who could shake things up. Unfortunately, he is doing it for the benefit of his wealthy friends, not for the masses.

Michael Moore was one of the few people outside the President’s close supporters who called the election correctly. Moore spent time attending rallies for both candidates, noting that Clinton often had small and unenthusiastic audiences. And when Sanders’ supporters were asked if they would vote for Clinton, if Sanders was not the candidate, they often said no. Twenty-five years of Bill and Hillary in Washington was viewed as enough by many. And when Obama later accepted $400,000 for a speaking engagement five months after his term ended, this seemed to reinforce the need to drain the swamp.

HD is now behaving like a dictator. He asks the head of the FBI to drop the inquiry on Russian interference in the election; his legal advisor says he is above the law; his son claims client-counsel privilege when neither of them are lawyers; and he tweets his feelings daily. One hopes that the adults around the White House can keep him in check. They are mainly military men who must be wondering why they took their jobs. Tillerson from head of Exxon has become little more than an errand boy. Males groping females has now become headline news with the resignation of Al Franken, and the forgotten news that a president boasted about his groping.

These stories fill the headlines, and there will be more. Meanwhile important events are taking place in Europe and Asia which could ignite economic and political tumult around the world. Today our attention is drawn to the resignation of Senator Al Franken for behavior that HD boasted about. What will it be tomorrow?

When the Leader Stumbles

November 18, 2017

“The US is in the middle of a political meltdown, unable to manage a domestic agenda or a coherent foreign policy. The White House is in turmoil; congress is paralyzed; and the world is looking on in astonishment and dread.” (Jeffrey Sachs, 2017)

 

Trump manages to capture the headlines on almost a daily basis. Future readers will wonder what important news items did not get covered as Trump feeds the media raw meat, and the public eagerly devours it, partly because it tastes so good. The President has the knack for drawing attention to some new issue especially when the questioning on others gets too uncomfortable. His information sources appear to be cable news channels and a coterie of close advisers who themselves have had little experience of governing, although some, as military leaders, may have had impressive careers. As the days pass, the hope is that these don’t get fed up and decide to leave early, although in many countries the citizens shudder when the generals take over.

 

It will be interesting to see who was offered senior positions in the Trump administration and refused, who accepted jobs and their respective qualifications. It seems clear that senior levels of the US federal bureaucracy are being weakened by a failure to make appointments and the selection of poorly qualified people.

 

Canada’s proximity to the US is seen by most Canadians as offering enormous economic benefits. Arch nationalists may disagree, but many countries, at least in the past, would have eagerly swapped places with Canada in order to have ease of access to US capital and other markets. Now our neighbor is a flailing (failing?) nation with the attributes described by Jeffery Sachs.

 

In today’s world there are trained suicide bombers returning from the Middle East, others home-grown who never leave home and can learn details of their trade from the internet. Drones can be purchased from Costco and toy stores; trucks are available to rent. It is surprising that terrorists have not struck more soft targets like stadiums, bus and train stations and airports.

 

Managing these situations requires cooperation and trust between governments. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening as turmoil mounts in the US with isolationist forces on the rise, while the threats require international cooperation. Similar populist pressures advocating isolationism are growing in Europe both with Brexit and in individual countries. There are no easy solutions to the issues that give rise to these pressures, but it would be nice to know that mature grown-ups are trying to manage them. US observers tell us this is now not the case.

The Politics of Resentment

October 18, 2017
After watching and reading about Trump during his first ten months in office, I have gone from thinking him dangerous and mentally unstable to a feeling that he has a personality disorder. This still makes him dangerous because of how people may react to his antics and statements.
While no psychologist, I find his behaviour as petulant and childlike. But while a child can be disciplined and quarantined, this is not the case with an elected politician in a democracy. Hitler and Mussolini were elected via a democratic process and then overturned it. I am not sure about Franco and Stalin, but both had a core of strong supporters.

A mistake now is to focus too much on the man rather than on his supporters. After ten months, between 35 and 40 percent of the US electorate continue to support Trump. Many are not traditional Republican voters but people who feel that they have been getting a raw deal from their elected politicians. Like Hitler’s supporters, they are willing to follow a leader who offers them prospects, because it can’t be any worse than their present situation. The party label of the leader matters much less to them than the promises made. Eventually they may feel betrayed by their leader; the alternative could be a more extreme leader or a manning of the barricades as in Les Miserables.

What motivates the 35 percent is that over the past few decades their real incomes have declined, and the gap between the top 10 percent of families and the rest has widened with few prospects of better times. They are willing to support someone who offers better times ahead even if his manner is a bit rough up close. Of course if he does not deliver they may switch their support, perhaps to someone with more radical views and exhibiting more outrageous behaviour……caveat voter.

Trump connects with the 35 percent by understanding and appealing to their feelings of resentment. He feeds off it and so do they. I found the works of Michael Sandel, Professor of Politics at Harvard, and J.D.Vance author of Hillbilly Elegy provide good explanations of the American scene. The electoral success of right wing parties in Europe manifest similar political forces.When the Economist considers that Jeremy Corbyn could be a future UK prime minister you know something is afoot. Canada has a version of this with the Ford brothers in Toronto.

Dunkirk – a miracle? Perhaps but “wars are not won by evacuations.”  

September 30, 2017

The escape of British and allied forces from Dunkirk is labelled by some as a miracle. If the Germans had captured the more than 400,000 rescued troops and then invaded England and forced an armistice, the global landscape (and my life) would have been very different.

German plans for the occupation of England and then the other parts of Great Britain included the following, described in detail in William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon and Schuster (1990) 782-785:

  1. Males between the ages of 17 and 45 inclusive would be interned and dispatched to the Continent.
  2. All those opposing German occupation would be liable to immediate execution.
  3. Immediate execution would also befall those who failed to turn in firearms or radio sets within 24 hours.
  4. The German forces would be organized from a headquarters in London with centres in Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Edinburgh, or Glasgow if the Forth Bridge was blown up.
  5. Individual Germans were named to undertake management of the occupation.

These plans were more detailed and repressive than in many other parts of Europe occupied by the Germans. Among Himmler’s papers was found a list of individuals who would be incarcerated. Aside from the obvious political leaders were authors including Virginia Wolf, E.M. Forster, Aldous Huxley, J.B.Priestley, Stephen Spender, C.P.Snow, Noel Coward, Rebecca West, Bertrand Russell, Harold Laski, Beatrice Webb and J.B.S.Haldane.  

Dunkirk was followed by Hitler planning for the invasion of England by weighing the relative strengths of the opposing armies, navies and air forces. He judged that while his army was better trained and equipped, England had the stronger navy, and while Goering boasted that the Luftwaffe would wipe out the RAF, this turned out not to be the case, as became apparent during the Battle of Britain which commenced in earnest in September 1940.

German and British air raids began in the summer of 1940 with the German raids increasing in ferocity in September. London received 57 consecutive nights of bombing from September 7th to November 3rd 1940. Because invasion would require the cross-channel transport of personnel and equipment, Hitler became convinced that it was a risky proposition. At the same time, he was anxious to open up a front in the East, where he could gain land by invading the Soviet Union and fulfill his dreams of a German empire to match the extent of the British Empire and the US.

While Dunkirk marked a turning point in the war, the miracle was hardly a victory. Churchill noted in Parliament on June 4th, 1940 that “wars are not won by evacuations.”