| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] question | | Date: | Sunday, October 14, 2007 17:16:56 (+1300) | | From: | Peter <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5088 (written by William Hugh McGunnigle) |
|
----- 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
|
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message