|
This is my third atmpt to reply after change of server
problem. Yes, I would love a copy Bill, send to P Haines, 9 Southey st,
Cambridge.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:19
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
question
Hi Peter
I have found a copy of the essay I told you about written in 2004. If you
would like to read it, send me your full name and postal address, and I
will send it to you. You may find some of the conclusions I made at that time
interesting. I got top marks for it at Masterate level study. Well you have
got to brag at times don't you.
regards
Bill
McG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 5:16
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
question
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 10:26
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
question
Sorry Peter, because John is a personal friend in
Whangarei, and we are always in contact I am privy to personal
conversations on these matters. Obviously you would not have been
witness to these, and this leads to confusion and quite valid
critism. John is technically correct when he states the "No troops were
taken away from the western front". The front line strength of the
British army in Flanders did not decrease significantly in 1916, however
it did not increase either because troops that could have been sent to
France went elsewhere as you have pointed out. Only enough troops went
to France to replace those lost in action.
P- I wasnt expecting any comment re
John. It's rather exasperating being the only one who has to prove
any comment being made. Replacing the loses merely explains the
same by use of the method of a 'cap' which may have been a
political decision with an ulterior motive.
Your comments are
accurate, but you must realise that 3 divisions by 1916 only amounted to
about 25000 men. European divisions both Entente and Central powers
nominally were 10000 men but by 1916 attrition had reduced this to about
8,000. American divisions when they joined the western front in late
1917 had a ration strength of 27000 men. Effectively we are talking
about a manpower reduction that was less than that of a
full American division of 1917/18. Incidently this would
give the American army a big edge in the battles of mid/late 1918.
Your estimate of men bled away from the western front in 1915/16/17 of
about 1million men is a reasonable estimate, but these were deployed in
Salonika, Egypt, Palestine, and some in Italy to bolster the Italian
army after reverses on the Isonzo front. The Mesopotamian front employed
troops from the Indian army, which, as such, did not contribute
significant numbers of men to the western front, but supplied a
great many troops elsewhere thereby freeing up other British and
colonial troops for service in France. There were quite a number of
troops occupied subduing German East Africa (Tanzania). Some
of these were British, but the bulk of them came from British
African colonies and South Africa. This campaign, that ended in late
1917, also diverted troops away from the western front at a time when
they were sorely needed.
P- The last sentence
was what my quote
related to, not prior. The original issue was the suggestion that
Palestine was of no interest military/politically when in fact it was a
major one and still is.
There is of course
another reason for the shortage of British troops in 1917/18, quite
simply Britain was running out of men suitable for army service. The
same applied to France and Germany. This is often considered to be a
very valid factor in the defeat of the German armies in 1918. A
combination of attrition and influenza had reduced the front line
strength of the German army by 40% after the ill fated German offensives
in early 1918. Germany simply hadn't the reserves to hold back the
allied armies that included the immerse manpower reserves of the USA.
Although the onus in the successful allied 1918 campaigns fell on the
British forces in Flanders, the efforts of the American army in the
Argonne and around Verdun were a very important contribution to that
victory, because it tied up immense numbers of German forces that could
have been used to stem the British effort in Flanders as well as
severing the main communication railway lines for the German army.
Significantly the French armies did not start to contribute to those
allied advances until after the major British/American
victories during August 1918.
There is a considerable amount of
truth in the comments of Colonel Repington. The troops that were
diverted to the "sideshows" could have made a difference on the western
front, although I, personally, have doubts about whether a decisive
breakthrough would have been made in 1916, because the successful
techniques for combining artillery, tanks, airpower, and infantry that
were used in 1918 to defeat the German armies were still under
developement in 1916. Remember 1916 included the Siege of Verdun and the
Somme offensive from where valuable lessons were learned about the
effectiveness of well prepared defence systems against unsupported
infantry. Both of these campaigns were allied "victories" in that they
gained ground for the allies and caused immense German casualties even
at the cost of a similar number of allied troops. Col Repington's
comments were made with the benefit of hindsight, and, even though they
are a useful observation, when we consider the horrendous mistakes
made on the first day of the Somme offensive it is a very moot point as
to whether the staff organisation or skill to implement a combined arms
campaign was available to achieve a decisive breakthrough in 1916. The
Neville offensive in 1917 is another case in point where there was a
lack of real understanding about the vunerabilty of unsupported infantry
attacking well prepared defensive positions.
P- Repington hardly made his diary
record after the war, his hindsight would have been mere hours or
days old. He made no suggestion about the war might have been
ended in 1916. I believe it was thought to be perhaps early 1918
and before US troops were actually able to make an
impact.
Robertson ( Chief of Staff), Haig,
Kitchener and others removed from positions were all fighting the same
battle of Britian's best interests against George's
brief. The conflict between what you present and what was
covered in Reed's book is that yours is military detail and Reed's was
largely the political commentary that ran along in
parallel. The other point I would make is that personal
diaries always reveal the inside issues and truths that are kept
from the official records. Since this 'Palestine' thing now is impacting on the whole
world and should be the biggest bloodshed single interest ( that
includes the 'holocaust') of world history by the time it finishes
I am more concerned about the political commentary than the number of
bullets, troops and bandages used nearly ninety odd years
ago.
I make these comments because
the allied general who worked out the successful 1918 allied
campaign was actually an Australian General Monash. In 1916 he was
looked upon as brash colonial colonel not really a "proper" officer by
the bulk of the British general staff. It is a mark of Haig's ability
that he recognised in late 1916 the need for a fresh insight into the
stalemate on the western front and placed this man in a position where
he could do most good.
regards
Bill Mc G
P- as always I respect and welcome
your comments and knowledge.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007
7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
question
Howdy Bill,
I cant see how you can say we are about the same
when John gave no numbers, said he believed there were none taken from
the Western front, nor has he given any quotes while he
demands them from me.
The estimate in the personal record Reed quoted,
three dividions were needed to be taken from the Western front and added
to what was already collected in Egypt and the total was over a
million.
Thanks for the information on George it mirrors
what was in my quoted material. He was clearly a pupet of the
internationalists playing countries against each
other.
Amongst the bankers that were involved in the
delegation and negoitaions in the US Douglas mentioned were those whom
financied the Bolshivist revolution which freed up the German armies
when Britain had weakened its front because of the Palestinian venture
which was being pushed from 1915.
The point that is in issue is not the three
division taken but what was denied to the Western Front before any were
taken and not only was this a worst military shame in British history
according to the Colonel but it went on to say the war could have ended
sooner!
Peter.
----- Original Message ----
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007
3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
question
Hi John and Peter
While you are both correct in your assessment of the number of troops
deflected from the western front in 1916, I believe that many of these
were actually diverted to Salonika to support the Serbian forces who
had fought their way to that city with a view to being evacuated by
the allies. In the event the allies (illegally) sized the city and
created a front line streaching across the Greek peninsula, and
effectively stopped further Central Power incursions southward. I
believe the numbers of allied troops in the enclave amounted to some
800,000, but I am not sure of the actual figures of British troops
involved. It was refered to jocularily by the Central
Powers as " their biggest POW camp fortunately fed by the
British". With respect to Lloyd George it is well known that he was
refered to as " the man who never told the truth", and his political
double dealing and other shinnanigens are legendary. It could be said
that his influence on internal British politics were directly
responsible for the partition of Ireland and the subsequent three
quarters of a century of misrule and trouble in Northern Ireland. I
have not really associated him with the Palestine question, but can
well believe it. The other disaster he can be directly be held
responsible for was the Passendale campaign in 1917. Haig wanted to
stop the battle in July when he realised that he would not get
anywhere without accepting horrendous casualties. Lloyd George sent
him a secret despatch telling him that the attack had to continue
because of the Mutinies in the Frech armies after the disasterous
Neville offensive in mid 1917. Haig had to obey his political master
who did not allow Haig to stop the attacks until the winter set in.
This campaign led to the vilification of Haig in later life, and,
unfortunately, Haig could not defend himself by quoting the secret
despatch. This was another example of Lloyd George's duplicity.
Lloyd-George was also responsible for several far reaching reforms in
Britain most notably the establishment of Old age pensions and the
foundation of the health service with the formation of "panels" for
general practitioners where they were given a fee for every patient
that they treated. He was an enigma and
utterly ruthless in persuing his own aims.
regards
Bill McG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 11,
2007 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
question
Thanks John, I will trade your
second expletive as well for a good dose of 'quote'.
"Sir William Robertson corroberates:
'Up to December 1916' ( when Mr Lloyd George becomes Prime
Minister ) 'operations beyond the Suez Canal had been essentially
defensive in principle, the government and the General Staff alike
....recognising the paramount importance of the struggle in Europe
and the need to give the armies there the utmost support. This
unanimity between ministers soldiers did not obtain after the
premiership changed hands....The fundamental difference of opinion
was particularly obstructive in the case of Palestine .....The new
War Cabinet had been in existence only a few days when it directed
the general Staff to examine the possibility of extending the
operations in Palestine....The General Staff put the requirements at
three additional divisions and these could only be obtained from the
armies on the Western Front....The General Staff said the project
would prove a great source of emparrassment and injure our
prospects of success in France....These conclusions were
disappointing to Ministers, who wished to see Palestine occupied at
once, but they could not be refuted ....In February the War
Cabinet again approached the Chief of the General Staff,
asking what progress was being made with the preparation of a autumn
campaign in Palestine".
These passages show how the course of
State and military operations in war may be "deflected" by political
pressure behind the scenes. In this case, the issue of the
battle between the politicians and the soldier affects the lives of
nations at the present time, the 1950's.
Mr Lloyd George then reinforced himself
by a move which once more shows the long thought that must have gone
into the preparation of this enterprise, and the careful slection of
"adminstrators", to support it, that must have gone before. He
proposed that the War Cabinet "take the Dominions into Counsel
in a much larger measure than hitherto in the prosecution of the
war". Put in that way, the idea appealed greatly to the public
masses in England. Fighting-men from Canada, Australia, New
Zealand and South Africa were campaigning shoulder to shoulder with
their own sons. The immediate response of the overseas
countries to the "old country's" danger had touched the native
Briton's heart, and he was very happy that their leaders should join
more closely with his own in the "prosecuting the war".
However, "the diplomat's word"
(and his intention) differed greatly from his deed; Mr Lloyd
George's proposal was merely a "cover" for bringing to London
General Smuts from South Africa, who was regarded by the
Zionists as their most valuable "friend" outside Europe and America,
and General Smuts was brought across to propose the conquest of
Palestine! ( pages
252-253)
(pages 258-259)
" He wrote, " We are feeding over
a million men into the sideshow theatres of war and are letting down
our strengths in France at a moment when all the Boche forces from
Russia may be coming against us.....I am unable to get the support
from the editor of The Times that I must have to rouse the country
and I do not think I will be able to go on with him much
longer". ( I discovered Colonel Repington's diaries
through my work on this book and then realised that his experience
was identical with mine, just twenty years later, with the same
editor). A month later he wrote, "In a stormy interview I told
Mr Geoffrey Dawson that his subservience to the War Cabinet during
this year was largely the cause of the dangerous position of our
army....I would have nothing more to do with The
Times".
This left one man in England who
was able and willing to publish the truth. Mr H.A. Gwynne, of
the Morning Post, printed Colonel Repington's article, which exposed
the weakeing of the French front on the eve of its attack, without
submitting it to the censor. He and Colonel Repington then
were prosecuted, tried and fined ( public opinion was apparently too
much on their side for harsher retribution). Sir William
Robertson wrote to Colonel Repington, "Like yourself, I did what was
best in the general interests of the country and the result has been
exactly what I expected....But the great thing is to keep on a
straight course and then one may be sure that good will eventually
come of what may now seem to be evil".
Thus the two wartime years of Mr
Lloyd George's leadership in England were momentous in their efforts
on the present time, and I believe I have shown how he achieved
office and what paramount purpose he pursued through it. After
eighteen months he had overcome all opposition, diverted a mass of
men from France to Palestine, and was ready at last for the
great adventure.
On March 7, 1918 he gave
orders for "a decisive campaign" to conquer all Palestine, and sent
General Smuts there to instruct General Allanby
accordingly.
On March 21, 1918 the
long-awaited German attack in France began, embodying all
the men, guns and aircraft released from the Russian
front.
The "decisive campaign" in
Palestine was immediately suspended and every man who could be
squeezed out of Palestine was rushed to France. The total
number of men emplyed in Palestine was 1,192,511 up to October 1918
( General Robertson).
On March 27, 1918 Colonel
Repington wrote, "This is the worst defeat in the histroy of the
army". By June 6 the Germans claimed 175,000 prisoners and over 2,000
guns."
The Controversy Of Zion by Douglas
Reed
Peter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 11,
2007 5:21 AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit]
question
Great stuff, Peter. Can you give references
to ptove these statements? Otherwise they are completely
worthless and appear fanatical.
Regards. John R.
> From: cymric@xtra.co.nz
> To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:32:42 +1300
> Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] question
>
> Douglas has exposed
something far more weightier than an intercepted
> telegram
which is consistent with the deals done over the Palestine
> campaign.
> " In 1917, as the result of the
collapse of Russia from causes which have
> been indicated
elsewhere, Germany was in sight of victory, Rigid financial
> orthodoxy had strained the credit of the allies to
breaking point. As Sir
> Cecil Spring Rice has pointed out
in his letters, President Wilson was
> completely dominated
by the German-Jewish group of which Kuhn, Loeb, the
>
Schiffs and Warburgs were the moving spirits and these had not
only done
> everything possible to achieve destruction of
Russia both internally and
> externally, thus depriving the
Allies of the strategic advantage of a double
> front, but
had obstructed British interests in the United States to an
> extent which in any other circumstances would have
amounted to effective
> participation in the war on the
side of Germany. Lord Reading headed a
> delegation to
Washington which resulted in the entry of America, with the
> co-operation of Kuhn, Loeb, into the war on the side of
the Allies and the
> turning of the scale against
Germany."
> The Big Idea, pages 47-8.
> The shakers
and movers referred to were also big players in the advent of
> the Federal Reserve six months prior to the war.
>
Peter
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe
Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October
10, 2007 1:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
question
>
>
> > Many thanks, Bill
(McGonnigle), for the further information. I
> >
incorrectly
> > stated that the part of the German
Pacific Fleet (the "Emden") that went
> > into the Indian
Ocean was commanded by Luckner. That should have been, as
>
> you stated, Captain Muller.
> >
> >
Luckner, the "Sea Devil", commanded a merchant raider not attached
to the
> > German Pacific fleet. I believe it was he who
was captured and interred
> > in
> > NZ,
though, and later escaped.
> >
> > In regards to
the "Lusitania", it was sunk in 1915, and though it stirred
> > up
> > great animosity in the USA at the
time, the war against Germany was not
> > entered until
1917, after the Kaiser announced he would use unrestricted
>
> submarine warfare in violation of his committment after the
"Lusitania"
> > sinking not to do so. That and the
publication of the "Zimmerman Note",
> > a
> >
diplomatic telegram from Germany's Foreign Minister to the German
> > Ambassador
> > in Mexico intercepted and
decoded by British Intelligence and passed on to
> > the
US Government was said to have been the deciding factor.
>
>
> > Joe
> > ----- Original Message
-----
> > From: "William Hugh McGunnigle"
<wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> > To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday,
October 09, 2007 12:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
question
> >
> >
> >> Amplifying
Joe's statement on the German colonies in the Pacific.
>
>> The Asiatic fleet consisted of the Heavy cruisers
Scharhorst and
> >> Gneisenau, and the Light cruisers
Dresden Liepzig, Nurenberg and Emden.
> > The
>
>> Admiral Von Spee commanding that fleet did not attack
Canada for several
> >> reasons. These were:-
>
>> The presence of a powerful Australian fleet including the
Battlecruiser
> >> Australia that would have been a
formidable and highly dangerous
> >>
adversary
> >> even for his fleet.
> >>
The ambivalent attitude of the USA who would not permit coaling of
his
> >> fleet in US ports and bases.
> >>
The high possibility of the Japanese fleet blockading his fleet
in
> >> TingTsao (The German Base in China) to prevent
interuption of Japanese
> > trade
> >> with
Australia, NZ, the Dutch East Indies and the French colonies
in
> >> IndoChina, even if Japan did not directly
intervene in the war.
> >> The problem of coal
supplies for his fleet considering that nmost of
> >>
the
> >> coaling depots in the Pacific were controlled
by British or American
> >> interests. Only Samoa (a
German colony) offered coaling facilities, and
> >>
it
> >> was certain that this would be attacked and
taken by the avaiable British
> >> and colonial forces
at the earliest opportunity.
> >> These considerations
wieghed heavily on the mind of Admiral Von Spee,
> >
and
> >> he decided to head south via Samoa to go
around Cape Horn, and break
> > through
> >>
the Atlantic Blockade using coal supplies shipped to him by the
various
> >> German embassies in the Neutral countries
of South America. He came to
> > grief
> >>
when he decided to attack the radio station on the Faukland
Islands
> > unaware
> >> that Vice Admiral
Sturdee with his squadron consisting of the battle
>
>> cruisers Invincible and Inflexible together with 4 light
cruises, a
> >> county
> >> class heavy
cruiser and the old battleship Canopus, were in harbour.
The
> > end
> >> result of this
confronmtation is well known to any naval historian.
>
>> The Only ship that did not follow this route was the
Emden under the
> >> command of Captain Muller. His
commerce raiding expedition in the Indian
> >> Ocean
was a classic. He obtained his coal from the ships he captured
and
> >> then sank. His mistake was to attempt to
destroy the radio station on
> > Cocos
> >>
Island. This station was able to send a distress call picked up by
the
> >> protected cruiser HMAS Sydney. The arrival of
the Sydney ended the Emdens
> >> raiding because this
Australian cruiser outgunned the Emden and was able
> >
to
> >> smash the German raider with little damage to
herself. The Emden was
> >> scuttled on a reef, and
her crew interned for the rest of the war.
> >>
regards
> >> Bill McGunnigle
> >> -----
Original Message -----
> >> From: "Joe Thomson"
<thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> >> To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >> Sent: Monday,
October 08, 2007 8:18 AM
> >> Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] question
> >>
> >>
>
>> > (Peter wrote:-) "....the Bank of England lent such a
huge amount of
> >> > credit to Japan that it was
kept a secret."
> >> >
> >> > (Joe
replies:-) I don't know about the Bank of England's secret
> >> > lending
> >> > to
>
>> > Japan, Peter, but it's plausible. Japan must have
needed considerable
> >> > international credit to
go in the short time that it did from feudal
> >
state
> >> > to a modern, industrialised country
complete with a modern,
> > well-equipped
>
>> > military, I would think.
> >>
>
> >> > There's no question pre-WW I Japan was
quite useful to Britain to have
> > as
> >>
> an
> >> > ally. The Japanese directly checked
Russian military expansionism in
> > the
> >>
> Far East and northern China by being the victors in the
Russo-Japanese
> > War
> >> > in 1905.
(With considerable covert British assistance.) Indirectly,
>
> the
> >> > weakening of Russia would have
removed a threat from that direction
> >> >
towards
> >> > British interests in India and
Persia (Iran).
> >> >
> >> > After
the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 the Japanese were able
to
> >> > wrest control over the 'sphere of
influence' that Germany had
> > established
>
>> > in
> >> > China. The Germans had a
substantial millitary prescence there,
> >
including
> >> > a
> >> > powerful
fleet of modern warships. Evidence of the importance the
>
> Kaiser
> >> > attached to what he reportedly
stated to be Germany's most important
> >> >
overseas possession. (Quite likely not so much for what 'goods'
China
> >> > could
> >> > provide
Germany, but as a substantial peace-time 'captive' outlet
for
> >> > German manufactured goods.)
>
>> >
> >> > This German Pacific Fleet
based in China was considered to be a prime
> >> >
menace
> >> > to British Columbia, since the
British Empire's main ship-repair
> >> >
facilities
> >> > in the entire Pacific were then
located at Esquimalt, outside Victoria,
> >> >
B.C.
> >> > Destruction of the large graving dock
there, ( one of the few in the
> > world
> >>
> that could accomodate a ship the size of the original Queen
Elizabeth
> >> > ~
> >> >
and
> >> > did, during WW II), would have been
quite a military accomplishment.
> >> >
>
>> > At the outbreak of war in 1914, the Royal Canadian
Navy had but one
> >> > obsolete cruiser to defend
this facility, and the entire BC coast.
> >> >
Fortunately, for us, the Japanese Imperial Navy quickly sent
modern
> > ships
> >> > to
>
>> > take up station and defend against what was feared
would be an imminent
> >> > attack. (Prior to that,
to bolster the shamefully inadequate defences,
> >>
> the
> >> > BC Government secretly purchased
two submarines made for the Chilean
> > Navy
>
>> > from their US builders. An act completely 'ultra
vires' of its
> >> > Constitutional powers.
'Constitutions', it would seem, CAN be
> >> >
circumvented
> >> > when circumstances warrant it,
and there's a clear indication of public
> >> >
support. )
> >> >
> >> > As it
turned out, the anticipated attack never came. The German
>
>> > Pacific
> >> > fleet divided, with
one small group going into the Indian Ocean, where
> >
it
> >> > wreaked havoc on Allied shipping for
quite some time. I believe some of
> >> > those
German sailors were later captured, and interned as POWs in
New
> >> > Zealand. Before escaping, I believe, and
somehow making it back to
> >> > Germany.
>
>> >
> >> > The main German force made for
home via Cape Horn. Along the way
> >> >
annihilating a Royal Navy task force that intercepted it off the
coast
> > of
> >> > Chile. The Royal Navy
later turned the tables off the Falklands, and
> >>
> removed that menace entirely.
> >> >
>
>> > I believe the Japanese also sent destroyers to
patrol in the
> >> > Mediterranean,
>
>> > where the Austro- Hungarian Empire's Navy posed a
enemy submarine
> > threat
> >> > for some
time.
> >> >
> >> > After the war,
Hirohito was an honoured guest of King George V at the
>
>> > Royal
> >> > Family's Balmoral
estate, an indication of British appreciation for his
>
>> > country's war effort, and that Japan had achieved a
unique status as an
> >> > non-white world power.
It must have been somewhat of a slap in the
> >> >
face
> >> > when their alliance was not renewed by
Britain a short time later.
> >> >
> >>
> I think it's quite within the realm of possibility, as
Douglas
> >> > indicated
> >> >
in
> >> > "The Big Idea", that the influence of
'International' Finance over
> >> > post-war
British policy had a hand in that.
> >> >
>
>> >
> >> > ----- Original Message
-----
> >> > From: "Peter"
<cymric@xtra.co.nz>
> >> > To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >> > Sent:
Sunday, October 07, 2007 3:54 AM
> >> > Subject:
Re: [socialcredit] question
> >> >
> >>
>
> >> >> Douglas was explaining the conflict
between the prestege of character
> > and
>
>> >> the prestege of money power. Both Japan and
Britain were the victims
> > of
> >> >
the
> >> >> latter at the expense of the
former.
> >> >> In the early part of the
century, I am not sure if it was pre-world
> >>
>> war
> >> > one
> >> >>
or immediately after that the Bank of England lent such a huge
amount
> > of
> >> >> credit to Japan
that it was kept a secret. It would be inevitable
>
>> >> that
> >> >> in
>
>> >> the thirties Japan would have been subject to
the banks directions and
> >> > thus
>
>> >> the policy outside their control- doing the
opposite to what Douglas
> >> >> would
>
>> >> advise.
> >> >> This
circmstance may have had an influence of Japan's decision to go
> >> >> to
> >> > war
>
>> >> upon the US ( some neutral policy!) cutting off
her oil supplies.
> >> >> Peter
> >>
>>
> >> >> ----- Original Message
-----
> >> >> From: "Joe Thomson"
<thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> >> >> To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >> >> Sent:
Sunday, October 07, 2007 12:23 PM
> >> >>
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] question
> >>
>>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
"....but gave evidence at
> >> >> > countless
official inquiries in Great Britain, Japan,
> >>
>> > Canada, New Zealand and Australia."
> >>
>> >>
> >> >> > (Bill Ryan:-)
Question: What "official inquiries" did Douglas give
>
>> >> > evidence to in Japan and Australia?
>
>> >> >
> >> >> > (Joe
replies:-) I think Rowbotham might have phrased that a bit
>
> better.
> >> >> >
> >>
>> > The "official enquiries" certainly weren't
"countless". At least
> >> >> > not
>
>> >> > if
> >> >> > we're
using "official enquiries" in terms of Douglas's
presentation
> > of
> >> >> >
evidence under that designation as it applies to the
various
> >> > Committees
> >> >>
> he
> >> >> > appeared before in Ottawa,
Alberta, New Zealand, and the MacMillan
> > one
>
>> >> > we've
> >> >> > been
discussing most recently. There are four, by my count.
>
>> >> >
> >> >> > In Japan in
1929, following the presentation of his paper at the
> >
World
> >> >> > Engineering Conference
Douglas was attending in Tokyo, I believe
> >>
>> > it
> >> >> > would
>
>> >> > have been more correct to state that he was
interviewed by
> > "officials"
> >> >
of
> >> >> > that country's Finance
Ministry.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> And, over the period of a week apparently, must have answered
many
> > of
> >> >> > their
"inquiries" as to his ideas.
> >> >>
>
> >> >> > I think this would most likely
have been the nature of any
> > "inquiries"
>
>> > he
> >> >> > received from
"officials" during his visit to Australia also.
> >>
>> > Doubtless
> >> >> > there must
have been "countless" conversations where various
> >>
>> > "officials"
> >> >> >
in
> >> >> > various places made their own
"inquiries" regarding his ideas in
> >> >> >
conversation with him over the years.
> >> >>
>
> >> >> > It is interesting to note that
Douglas, despite his evidence before
> > the
>
>> >> > Alberta Agricultural Committee in 1934
where he speaks of the
> > Japanese
> >>
>> > using
> >> >> > "the reverse"
of his ideas, still seems to be quite favourably
> >
disposed
> >> >> > towards the
Japanese.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> This is also touched on in his more 'political' writings in
"The Big
> >> >> > Idea",
> >>
>> > where he seems to indicate that Japan, a staunch and
effective
> > British
> >> >> >
ally
> >> >> > throughout World War One from
start to end, was subjected to a "loss
> > of
>
>> >> > face" when their alliance was terminated
after World War One.
> >> >> >
>
>> >> > We have not discussed what is implied in
"the reverse" of his ideas,
> > as
> >>
>> > the
> >> >> > Japanese applied
them during the pre-WWII years. Any comments on
> >
that?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> Do you suppose "the reverse" of Douglas's ideas on national
credit
> > also
> >> >> > implies
the "the reverse" of his philosophy regarding the
> >
relationship
> >> >> > between the State and
the individual as regards the Japan of that
> >>
>> > era?
> >> >> >
> >>
>> >
> >> >> > ----- Original
Message -----
> >> >> > From:
<william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> >> >> >
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >> >>
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 10:24 AM
> >>
>> > Subject: [socialcredit] question
> >>
>> >
> >> >> >
> >>
>> >> The current issue of "The Social Crediter"
contains
> >> >> >> this statement from
Michael Rowbotham's book, *The
> >> >> >>
Grip of Death*:
> >> >> >>
>
>> >> >> "...Douglas was a massive political
influence in his
> >> >> >> day, and a
major figure on the world stage. He not
> >> >>
>> only had a world-wide following, but gave evidence
at
> >> >> >> countless official inquiries
in Great Britain, Japan,
> >> >> >>
Canada, New Zealand and Australia."
> >> >>
>>
> >> >> >> Question: What
"official inquiries" did Douglas give
> >> >>
>> evidence to in Japan and Australia?
> >>
>> >>
> >> >> >>
>
>> >> >>
> >> >> >
>
>> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
>
>> >> > ________
> >> >> >>
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research
Panel
> >> >> >> today!
> >>
>> >
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
>
>> >> >>
> >> >>
>>
> >> >>
> >>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> >> >> Some introductory materials to the
discussion topic of this list
> >> >> >>
are
> >> >> >> at
> >>
>> >>
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> >>
>> >> You're subscribed to this list with the email
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> >> >> >> For more
information, visit
> >> >> >>
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >> >>
>
> >> >> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> >> > Some introductory materials to the
discussion topic of this list are
> > at
> >>
>> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>
>> >> > You're subscribed to this list with the
email cymric@xtra.co.nz
> >> >> > For more
information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >> >>
>
> >> >>
> >> >>
>
>> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> >> Some introductory materials to the discussion
topic of this list are
> >> >> at
>
>> >>
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> >>
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> >> >> For more
information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >>
>
> >> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic
of this list are at
> >> >
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> >> >
You're subscribed to this list with the email
wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> >> > For more information,
visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >>
>
> >>
> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of
this list are at
> >>
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> >>
You're subscribed to this list with the email
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> >> For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this
list are at
> >
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > You're
subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
>
> For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list
are at
>
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're
subscribed to this list with the email
johngrawson@hotmail.com
> For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Reply to this message
