>Aw, thank you. That's the most offensive thing I've read all month on the internet.

I doubt that. Besides, it's still true. Countries prosper or decline all the time. Losing 5% of your young educated population to brain drain, a huge hit on your economy, a continued debt burden, and a supervision program struggling development for the long term future, and a 30% or more income loss over the last decade, are all signs of a country in free fall. Heck, the unemployment alone is close to Weimar republic levels... And let's not go to the health of the banking system, or the welfare system (pension funds, etc).

It's like those persons walking off of cliffs in cartoons, until they realize they are on air, and suddenly fall. Some people just haven't realized it yet.

>As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. *

It's easy to "prosper" on borrowed money (that the state distributes) or easy access to finance (that banks lend as if there's no tomorrow). Even so, the Greek people show a steep decline in job prospects post 2004 or so, and their "prosperity" was not based on anything remotely looking like a viable economic progress. There was an actual rise on living standards in Greece since the 70s or so, and the euro era is the period when that rise was put to a hold, and private loaning and credit card debt went on the rise.

>Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.

Going to war can have several important benefits for a country. That's how most countries made their colonies, controlled trade routes, built empires, secured cheap resources, or expanded on the expense of nearby countries. Going to war is abhorrent and murderous, yes, but not really irrational, that's how much of the western progress was funded.

As for "adopting communism", you're thinking with hindsight. At the moment there was not much for countries to not adopt communism, and for some it was even seen as an improvement on the previous situation (being colonial slaves and protectorates mostly). For some countries, communism was the engine that managed to bring them to the 20th century pronto, including Russia/USSR (they would be cannon fodder for Nazi Germany without the forced industrialization done by the communists) and China (which the new regime organized, united, and brought to the 21st century quite the winning power -- besides, after Mao they use their own version capitalism that has little to do with any historical form or dogma of communism apart from the party rule).

>The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not?

Because they could still pretend-give money to Greece that's siphoned from the European people to the German and other banks.

This way, Greece nominally pays their debt, the fat cats at the European banks are getting money, German banks are secured from their frivolous lending, the Greek state assets (e.g. profitable airports) can be sold for a penny and Greek economy controlled in order to continue the "bailout". Furthermore, they can all pretend that there's an EU and that the euro experiment has not failed (well, if it wasn't for a similar crisis lurking in most other EU countries, the Brexit, Italy and so on).