3 ms·

I think what you said is true. Of course it was a mistake to let Greece in that early. Nevertheless I think that overall they made the right choice. These deci

I think what you said is true. Of course it was a mistake to let Greece in that early. Nevertheless I think that overall they made the right choice. These decisions ware made immediately after the cold war ended by representatives that were raised by parents that killed each other in a world war. European integration and the Euro are highly connected with the 2 + 4 talks [0] and German unity [1]. Europe would look very different if these politicians had not taken the risk and united it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement... [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-price-of-unity-was-the-deutsche-mark-sacrificed-for-reunification-a-719940.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-price-of-uni...

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
I am not so optimistic. Might be, that part of it was because of the will to unite Europe, but it was from the beginning at least "well meant, but very badly executed". What we have seen in the last five years, was growing resentment between Southern- and Middle-Europe because of the Euro. The "unity" of Europe is more endangered by the Euro, than rescued, as much I see now. Idealistic goals can not make up for lies (about the security of the Euro, where no measures where really taken serious) and extreme poor execution. Some countries where taken in the Euro, just because some countries wanted to counter the influence of Germany. That is not idealistic, but purely old, dirty power politics.