Is Capitalism better than socialism?

[benny]

To say that banking interests played no significant role in the second world war is simply nonsense on stilts.

The second world war was in fact the second part of the first world war.

[lictor616]

The second world war was in fact the second part of the first world war.

That's quite true.

The essential aspect was still Germany's right to have more economic freedom (entertain the prospect of colonies) fair tariffs and deference, and also the erasure of intentionally misplaced borders in continental Europe.

[M.Dancer]

(because the whole point of letting pearl harbor happen was so taht the US would have justification for entering the war with germany).

Your nonsense soup needs more tinfoil....

[benny]

That's quite true.

The essential aspect was still Germany's right to have more economic freedom (entertain the prospect of colonies) fair tariffs and deference, and also the erasure of intentionally misplaced borders in continental Europe.

Yes. Having a direct access to the Atlantic Ocean explains almost every aspects of contemporary history since May 29, 1453 (The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks).

[M.Dancer]

Yes. Having a direct access to the Atlantic Ocean explains almost every aspects of contemporary history since May 29, 1453 (The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks).

The germans had access to the atlantic...they even were able to float in the air to the USA

[benny]

The germans had access to the atlantic...they even were able to float in the air to the USA

If the Germans would have had a more direct access than England to the New World, we would write in German on this forum.

[M.Dancer]

If the Germans would have had a more direct access than England to the New World, we would write in German on this forum.

What the Versailles treaty limited was german warships...they had unfettered access to trade.

EOS

[benny]

What the Versailles treaty limited was german warships...they had unfettered access to trade.

EOS

Trade has more to do with mercantilism than with capitalism.

[M.Dancer]

Trade has more to do with mercantilism than with capitalism.

Do you post only to see your name?

I mean really, wtf is that apros pos to? Are our exports to the US and to asia more to do with what?...

[benny]

Capitalism is about owning/controlling assets.

Edited April 16, 2009 by benny

[M.Dancer]

Capitalism is about owning/controlling assets.

And it is also about selling and buying assets....international trade and investment.

Edited April 16, 2009 by M.Dancer

[benny]

And it is also about selling and buying assets....international trade and investment.

Bribing presidents, prime ministers or ministers is a more lucrative way to get assets and natural resources from other countries.

Edited April 16, 2009 by benny

[lictor616]

Your nonsense soup needs more tinfoil....

what is it with you dancer? Why do you so thoughtlessly reject out of hand widely accepted truths? You seem too unwilling to accept reality when that reality is unpleasant.

in January 1941, almost a full year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt incited the Japanese by informing "in strict confidence" the Portuguese Ambassador (thourgh Francisco Higino Craveiro Lopes) that the Portuguese need not worry about their colonies in the Orient (Timor et al) because the United States was going to attack Japan when her military forces were extended to the limit and most vulnerable, and would thus destroy Japan.

The Ambassador of course then relayed the great news to his government in his most secret code, which the Japanese had compromised and were reading currently. And the success of Roosevelt's scheme was confirmed 9 days later when the Portuguese message was quoted in Japanese diplomatic messages that American cryptanalysts were reading. The Japanese were thus led to believe that the Americans would soon attack them, and that they should therefore gain the advantage of surprising the enemy that intended to surprise them.

And we also know how conspicuously close was the American fleet in the pacific - indeed why park valuable battleships, destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers so near and in the face of danger if one's intentions is not OFFENSIVE?

No serious historian today seriously debates the pearl harbor ploy.

more information is available from "FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT AND THE AZORES DILEMMA, 1941

Donald Stevens Donald Stevens is professor of history at Kings College in Wilkes- Barre, Pennsylvania. "

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin.html

also: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

there's an interesting documentary about this very subject here: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

even as mainstream and liberal a channel as the History Channel produced a documentary about it: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7736750907069936394 (the movie confirms that the US KNEW that Japan was going to attack - but deny its implications)

[lictor616]

If the Germans would have had a more direct access than England to the New World, we would write in German on this forum.

actually it was even closer then that: there was actually a vote made on the official language of the US during its foundation: the decision was between English and German.... english won by vote if I remember correctly: 5 to 4.

[benny]

I favour a climate where the able bodied can work and those unable to are taken care of and those to lazy to work starve.

Exterminating and enslaving indigenous populations, too often, were the reality behind what capitalists liked to call combating laziness and trade.

Edited April 16, 2009 by benny

[lictor616]

Exterminating and enslaving indigenous populations, too often, were the reality behind what capitalists liked to call combating laziness and trade.

no it was called "SETTLING" the territory. The indians and their lifestyle and tribal mores were seen as hopelessly incompatible with the Western Civilization that was ebing implanted in the new world.

And the Indians were not exterminated. And btw, they positively were in the process of exterminating each other WAY before the first european.

The Indians had permanent torture facilities in some tribes and did enjoy many forms of torture... they weren't exactly the peace-loving, happye carefree cartoons the liberal media and lefties despicably make them out to be.

They were like us in many ways, virile, aggressive and sometimes violent.

One things for sure though: this continent would not be the powerhouse it is... a nation where everyone wants to live had our european forefathers decided to be "diverse" and "multicultural" with the indians.

[M.Dancer]

what is it with you dancer? Why do you so thoughtlessly reject out of hand widely accepted truths?

Widely accepted truths? Maybe amongst the goose stepping tin foil hat brigade....

[M.Dancer]

actually it was even closer then that: there was actually a vote made on the official language of the US during its foundation: the decision was between English and German.... english won by vote if I remember correctly: 5 to 4.

urban myth

[M.Dancer]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_Chamberlin.html

Would you be so kind as to not pollute the board with links to neo nazi crack pot web sites.

Thanks

[ToadBrother]

After seeing what the oil/gas/broker/speculator cabal has done to our economy I'd say turf capitalism.

Yes, because mismanagement and corruption are only properties of capitalist/free enterprise systems.

Oh wait...

[ToadBrother]

no it was called "SETTLING" the territory. The indians and their lifestyle and tribal mores were seen as hopelessly incompatible with the Western Civilization that was ebing implanted in the new world.

And the Indians were not exterminated. And btw, they positively were in the process of exterminating each other WAY before the first european.

The Indians had permanent torture facilities in some tribes and did enjoy many forms of torture... they weren't exactly the peace-loving, happye carefree cartoons the liberal media and lefties despicably make them out to be.

This is such a moronic statement that it's difficult to know where to start. First of all, the Americas is an enormously vast area, and was, prior to the European conquests, made up of a rather diverse group of peoples. There was no "Indian", there was everything from essentially Stone Age (Tierra del Fuego) to urbanized literate agricultural societies in Mexico and the Andes. There were also pre-literate agricultural societies stretching from the Great Lakes down to the Mississippi as well as in other regions in the American Southwest.

As to your extermination claims; well, the estimates of populations in the New World before and in the couple of centuries after the colonization indicate pretty heavily that much of the indigenous population of the two continents was wiped out.

As to your claims about them exterminating each other, that's just a load of crap. There were certainly wars and civil wars in some area, but you don't have one red cent of real evidence of any kind of systematic extermination, because it really wasn't possible. The urbanized cultures in the Americas certainly would make war on their neighbors, and the Mexica (Aztec) were conquerors, but much of the rest of the continent was simply not densely populated enough for anything approaching the sorts of real exterminations seen in Europe like the Thirty Years War.

They were like us in many ways, virile, aggressive and sometimes violent.

One things for sure though: this continent would not be the powerhouse it is... a nation where everyone wants to live had our european forefathers decided to be "diverse" and "multicultural" with the indians.

Maybe not. But then again, Europe would have been a pack of savages still if it weren't for the technologies and crops brought from elsewhere. For the most part, there wasn't much in the way of uniquely European technological development until the the 15th century. Even the firearm was first developed in China. Every grain crop and livestock species was brought from elsewhere.

[lictor616]

Would you be so kind as to not pollute the board with links to neo nazi crack pot web sites.

Thanks

haahah the IHR is not neo nazi.

Either way i provided you with 4 other links (including one from mainstream media)... a documentary film no less.

but apparently since the IHR commented on it... its all tinfoil hat flat earth society drivel. ...

keep telling yourself that if it comforts you.

[lictor616]

This is such a moronic statement that it's difficult to know where to start. First of all, the Americas is an enormously vast area, and was, prior to the European conquests, made up of a rather diverse group of peoples. There was no "Indian", there was everything from essentially Stone Age (Tierra del Fuego) to urbanized literate agricultural societies in Mexico and the Andes. There were also pre-literate agricultural societies stretching from the Great Lakes down to the Mississippi as well as in other regions in the American Southwest.

As to your extermination claims; well, the estimates of populations in the New World before and in the couple of centuries after the colonization indicate pretty heavily that much of the indigenous population of the two continents was wiped out.

As to your claims about them exterminating each other, that's just a load of crap. There were certainly wars and civil wars in some area, but you don't have one red cent of real evidence of any kind of systematic extermination, because it really wasn't possible. The urbanized cultures in the Americas certainly would make war on their neighbors, and the Mexica (Aztec) were conquerors, but much of the rest of the continent was simply not densely populated enough for anything approaching the sorts of real exterminations seen in Europe like the Thirty Years War.

Maybe not. But then again, Europe would have been a pack of savages still if it weren't for the technologies and crops brought from elsewhere. For the most part, there wasn't much in the way of uniquely European technological development until the the 15th century. Even the firearm was first developed in China. Every grain crop and livestock species was brought from elsewhere.

thank you for the geography lesson- of course for the purpose of this discussion: we are talking about NORTH AMERICA...

Pre literate ... I like that... you meant "oral tradition" or another euphemism... but yes... there where the Blackfoot, the Iroquoi, the Apache, the Cherokee, the Algonquins etc etc ad infinitam nauseam.

The populations were not EXTERMINATED so much as they contracted disease they had no immunity to. This happened primarily when Cortez and his strong and valiant band of Iron men conquered the Aztecs and toppled their sacrificial pyramids. The evidence however is not conclusive: we cannot know exactly how many lived or died. so any claim to the contrary is simply a hateful attack on Europeans.

and excuse me .... Ancient Greece developed nearly independently. There was some sharing from levant states (that was reciprocal) but who would dream to think that Ancient Europeans had nothing to do with their own advancement as a Civilization. Again that is simply slanderous FILTH from an overheated brain.

Perhaps you could explain why the countries from whom the Greeks borrowed (and modified) for instance their numeral and alphabetical - systems, presumably from Ancient Babylon- why these places never could develop as did the Europeans.. .

And yes black powder explosion was developed by Chinese- europeans modified the technology to make the most usable rifles... but then again what does that have to do with anything?

[benny]

no it was called "SETTLING" the territory. The indians and their lifestyle and tribal mores were seen as hopelessly incompatible with the Western Civilization that was ebing implanted in the new world.

And the Indians were not exterminated. And btw, they positively were in the process of exterminating each other WAY before the first european.

The Indians had permanent torture facilities in some tribes and did enjoy many forms of torture... they weren't exactly the peace-loving, happye carefree cartoons the liberal media and lefties despicably make them out to be.

They were like us in many ways, virile, aggressive and sometimes violent.

One things for sure though: this continent would not be the powerhouse it is... a nation where everyone wants to live had our european forefathers decided to be "diverse" and "multicultural" with the indians.

Potlatch was a better economic system than capitalism and socialism.

[ToadBrother]

thank you for the geography lesson- of course for the purpose of this discussion: we are talking about NORTH AMERICA...

Mexico is in North America.

Pre literate ... I like that... you meant "oral tradition" or another euphemism... but yes... there where the Blackfoot, the Iroquoi, the Apache, the Cherokee, the Algonquins etc etc ad infinitam nauseam.

The Germans and Celts were preliterate until the Romans gave them writing, which they had, in turn, nicked off the Etruscans, which had in turned got it from the Greeks, who in turn got it from the Phoenicians and Egyptians. After that you enter a bit of debate about whether the Egyptians or the Sumerians invented it first, but suffice it to say, the Europeans didn't invent writing, and even the alphabet has its origins in eastern Mediterranean.

The populations were not EXTERMINATED so much as they contracted disease they had no immunity to. This happened primarily when Cortez and his strong and valiant band of Iron men conquered the Aztecs and toppled their sacrificial pyramids. The evidence however is not conclusive: we cannot know exactly how many lived or died. so any claim to the contrary is simply a hateful attack on Europeans.

Brave? I'd hardly say that. They scammed their way in. Cortez wasn't brave, he was lucky.

and excuse me .... Ancient Greece developed nearly independently. There was some sharing from levant states (that was reciprocal) but who would dream to think that Ancient Europeans had nothing to do with their own advancement as a Civilization. Again that is simply slanderous FILTH from an overheated brain.

That's another incredibly moronic thing. The Greeks did not develop independently. Their religion, which is largely Indo-European in origin, had a number of borrowings due to close contact with the cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean. Their writing system is largely cribbed from Phoenician and Egyptian sources. Their crops and livestock all came from elsewhere. Not to denigrate their achievements, because the three things they did give the world was Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

Perhaps you could explain why the countries from whom the Greeks borrowed (and modified) for instance their numeral and alphabetical - systems, presumably from Ancient Babylon- why these places never could develop as did the Europeans.. .

Develop what, precisely? The window in which Europe's technological development occurred is rather narrow. There's considerable debate as to why Europe pulled ahead, but I lean towards the economic explanation.

And yes black powder explosion was developed by Chinese- europeans modified the technology to make the most usable rifles... but then again what does that have to do with anything?

It demonstrates the basic tenet; the Europeans were the recipients of much of their technology. You have to really head into the late 16th century before you start seeing major innovations.