<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Dear Doug and the LBOers,
<p>I've been kicking around the idea of writing the queen-bee of Holland
and voicing my displeasure with her governments actions in Yugoslavia and
Africa. It would be the first time the house of Orange has heard
<u>directly</u> from anyone in my family in maybe 300 years.
<p>I'd like to tell the queen-bee, I'm sure that one of the reasons our
German cousins invaded Holland in WWII was to liberate the German majority
in Holland; and they had to firebomb Amsterdam and Rotterdam just to keep
things neat and tidy, not to mention shooting one out of ten in the Dutch
aircraft industry. I'd also like to remind the queen-bee that the
Yugo/Serbs were on her side in WWII.
<p>Also, the queen-bee should know that I have been getting a lot of bad
reports about the actions of Dutch Oil interests in Africa.
<p>I'll save my thoughts on Clinton, Gore, Albright, Cohen, Berger and
assorted Rubins for a private and indirect communication to the Orange.
<p>Your email pal,
<p>Tom L.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Greg Nowell wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Rosser:
<br> 1) The Death of the Danube Theory:
<br> Greg Nowell recently suggested that the
<br>explanation
<br>for the NATO actions in Yugoslavia were explained by
<br>anger over Serbian machinations to slow trade along
<br>the Danube with references specifically to German and
<br>Dutch interests. This does not wash. Why not?
<br> Austria.
<p>Nowell:
<p>As Hummel observed on PKT, the canal link does in fact
<br>work through Hollanbd as well as Germany. As I posted
<br>on PKT (should have cc'd here), the "Danube thesis"
<br>does not require unanimity anymore than an analysis of
<br>a free trade faction in teh US is contradicted by the
<br>existence of protectionist pockets/groups, etc. I
<br>wouldn't be surprised if Austria would consider itself
<br>a potential loser in the development of E. Europe on
<br>the Danube axis.
<p>Traded on the Danube was originally controlled by the
<br>European Commission of the Danube set up in 1856.
<br>Trade at that time was regulated from Ulm (S. Gemany)
<br>to the Black Sea. In May 1918 the Central Powers
<br>reduced membership to the border states and European
<br>coasts of the Black Sea. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles
<br>put back the 1856 commission but put Great Britain,
<br>Italy, and France, and Rumania on as members
<br>"provisionally." Not much was done in the interwar
<br>period to upgrade the trading facilities. Keynes'
<br>fear that inadequate economic development would follow
<br>the Versailles treaty was echoed in the primitive
<br>conditions of the Danube. Germany had control of the
<br>whole Danube by 1940. In 1948 the USSR joined the
<br>Danube commission as a "riparian" member; Germany was
<br>excluded, Austria was consultative only (till 1960).
<br>Trade volumes declined relative to the interwar
<br>period. For my two cents: the FX problems fo the
<br>eastern bloc and Austria's close relationship with
<br>Germany gave Austria essentially a protected situation
<br>vis a vis the Southern members of the Danube
<br>Commission.
<p>It wasn't until the crackup of the USSR that the whole
<br>Holland-Caspian system was pursued vigorously. It's
<br>clear that a "developing E. Europe" will have to
<br>overcome the long developmental interregnum which dates
<br>from WWI through the crackup of the USSR/Eastern
<br>bloc. And Milosovic is in the way.
<p>--
<br>Gregory P. Nowell
<br>Associate Professor
<br>Department of Political Science, Milne 100
<br>State University of New York
<br>135 Western Ave.
<br>Albany, New York 12222
<p>Fax 518-442-5298</blockquote>
</html>