| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] question | | Date: | Thursday, October 11, 2007 14:13:59 (+1300) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5072 (written by Peter) |
Hi Peter
Your comment about the oil fires during the "liberation" of
Kuwait are interesting. There are many reports, may be apocryphal, that many
of the fires were not triggered by retreating Iraqi forces. There are many
possiblities both legitimate and otherwise as to why they occurred. Some
were definitely caused by both ground and air attacks of coalition forces.
Others were set by retreating Iraqui forces, but the extent of them has
always been a bone of contention mainly because a considerable number of the
fires were in areas where there were no Iraqui forces and no overt air or
ground action. This has never been investigated or even mentioned in
official despatches. It has been convenient to blame all the fires on the
Iraquis, but special forces were deployed in the war and their orders have
been concealed. Those forces did operate deep behind enemy lines and could
have been given orders to torch the oilwells. The action would have been
logical because it would have demoralised the Iraquis when they knew enemy
forces were so far behind them. Your contention could be correct, but
proving it is a very different story.
regards
Bill Mc G
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] question
> This is all good stuff but lets remember what causes trade wars as this
> was a great example of. Plus the bankers influential on both sides were
> German and after the dust cleared it was the Warburgs who set the rules
> over Europe not the politicians in the delegations that the newsmen
> reported.
> There is a lot more to history as economics than orthodoxy allows.
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] question
>
>
>> Hi Joe
>> You are correct. The "unrestricted" U-boat campaign (1917)
>> started sinking neutral shipping sailing to and from British ports. The
>> biggest percentage of these were American. The American government warned
>> Germany that this was an act of war. The "Zimmerman" telegram pushed the
>> USA over the edge, and in early 1917 declared war on Germany. Her first
>> warlike move was to transfer the core of her battlefleet (9 modern
>> battleships) to Scapa flow to reinforce the Grand fleet. Thus ensuring
>> TOTAL allied naval supremacy. She also sent 50 destroyers to join the
>> British destroyers guarding the western approaches (Celtic Sea). These
>> were active from about April-May 1917. The USA also introduced the
>> "convoy" system to shepherd vital merchant shipping to Britain past the
>> U-boats preying upon the western approaches. U-boat sinkings declined
>> dramatically throughout 1917. The naval contribution of the USA in WW1 is
>> often underestimated by many people. Although it was not involved in
>> heavy fighting between capital ships, its contribution of light vessels,
>> principally destroyers, were a significant influence in the defeat of the
>> U-boat in WW1. By 1917 even the British navy, big as it was in WW1, was
>> becoming over extended. The entry of the USA solved those problems. In
>> many respects the naval contribution of the USA was more significant and
>> important than its contribution in the land battle. Its navy was active
>> from the very beginning of the US entry into the war whereas its army
>> only began to make a significant contribution in mid-1918. The
>> cooperation between the British and US navies in WW1 was superb, and
>> this continued up to and throughout WW2. Much of American Naval tradition
>> is based on British practice probably inherited from their former
>> colonial status in the British Empire.
>> Bill Mc Gunnigle (Note spelling Joe. It became this when our
>> ancestor migrated from Ireland to Scotland in the Mid 19th century. We
>> are related to the Mc Gonnigles also the McGonagles, McGonnagles, and the
>> McGonagals. The clan originated in west Donegal )
>>
>> ----- 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 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
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message