Winston Churchill on bailouts

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Insipient socialism?

You ARE taking the pi$$, aren't you?

While stealing profits from entrepreneurs to pay for the cost of running a massive state apparatus may be construed as socialism, burdening Joe Public with the cost of greed gone wrong is anything but.

cavedave

burdening Joe Public with the cost of greed gone wrong is anything but.

It is hard to see how getting everyone to pay for some bad debts of some very rich individuals is socialism. It could be a road to serfdom though.

OhNoYouDidn't

peasant wrote: »

Insipient socialism?

You ARE taking the pi$$, aren't you?

While stealing profits from entrepreneurs to pay for the cost of running a massive state apparatus may be construed as socialism, burdening Joe Public with the cost of greed gone wrong is anything but.

The death rattle of the Irish crony capitalist class is simply pathetic.

The captains of industry that they championed made utter shíte of it, their corrupt chums in government bail them out and its the left who are at fault.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sinister.

ChocolateSauce

In principle, I agree that he is right and that we shouldn't be bailing out banks...but the alternative is have them collapse and take everyone down with them. This is why the people who got us into this mess (whoever they may be) should have all their property taken from them and be put in prison.

dRNk SAnTA

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But I don't see how letting the country's/world's financial system fail does anything to help private enterprise either.

In the majority of cases, the aim of state financial assistance has been to stabilize markets and not to help individuals .

OhNoYouDidn't

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

In the majority of cases, the aim of state financial assistance has been to stabilize markets and not to help individuals .

FF bucking the trend yet again!! :mad:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that this isn't fair or right or moral ...but one thing it isn't and that's socialist(ic).

If it were socialist(ic), then there wouldn't have been the opportunity to go for individual gain in the first place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

I would agree with pretty much everything you're saying ...except your definition of socialism. I would recommend reading up on what socialism actually means.

A short quote from wikipedia;

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

turgon

I agree with donegalfella in principle, and it is a disgrace that "the people" are paying, for example, for the "golden circle" to run riot.

However, as another poster touched upon, the alternative is for the banking sector to go downhill, and this will have negative effects on us all.

Ideally the bailout would go ahead and those that necessitated it would be made to pay. However this is Ireland, run by FF, so the latter will not happen.

deadhead13

Churchill lost a fortune in the 1929 wallstreet crash.

dresden8

If this was a proper socialist state they would already be hanging upside down naked from the lamp-posts.

Dream on.

Dannyboy83

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Churchill also proposed the elimination of income tax and the introduction of Land Value Tax, but like all good and fair things, he was blocked by the rich who would lose vast amounts of money and the poor were powerless to do anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax --> If something like this werre passed, we actually achieve some REAL socialist ideas and the like of Sean FitzPatrick and all those greedy bankers would have to cough up a proportionate share.

It would probably also eliminate another property bubble and give first time buyers a chance to get a home for their young families.

“In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.”

blackgold>>

Oh would that be the same man who from 13 to 14 February 1945, had almost 700.000 incendiary bombs dropped on Dresden – in other words, one bomb for two inhabitants.

I think his words were.
"I don't want any suggestions how to destroy militarily important targets around Dresden. I want suggestions how we can roast the 600.000 refugees from Breslau in Dresden.”

Nice man he was.

Fratton Fred

blackgold>> wrote: »

Oh would that be the same man who from 13 to 14 February 1945, had almost 700.000 incendiary bombs dropped on Dresden – in other words, one bomb for two inhabitants.

I think his words were.
"I don't want any suggestions how to destroy militarily important targets around Dresden. I want suggestions how we can roast the 600.000 refugees from Breslau in Dresden.”

Nice man he was.

I heard he personally flew the planes, just to make sure like. How about finding us a link to back up that quote by the way.

It does make me smile that we have all conveniently forgotten that the Trade Unions are in on all this greed and corruption as well.

IIRC Union heads are on the boards of FAS, not forgetting why we have all been paying well over the odds for electricity for years.

pwd

blackgold>> wrote: »

Oh would that be the same man who from 13 to 14 February 1945, had almost 700.000 incendiary bombs dropped on Dresden – in other words, one bomb for two inhabitants.

I think his words were.
"I don't want any suggestions how to destroy militarily important targets around Dresden. I want suggestions how we can roast the 600.000 refugees from Breslau in Dresden.”

Nice man he was.

I googled that quote. I got one result. It was a holocaust-denial website. I didn't see much else on the page. I was embarrassed to look at it at work.

Dannyboy83

blackgold>> wrote: »

Oh would that be the same man who from 13 to 14 February 1945, had almost 700.000 incendiary bombs dropped on Dresden – in other words, one bomb for two inhabitants.

I think his words were.
"I don't want any suggestions how to destroy militarily important targets around Dresden. I want suggestions how we can roast the 600.000 refugees from Breslau in Dresden.”

Nice man he was.

The guy behind Dresden was Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris, head of RAF Bomber Command, who strongly objected to Churchill's comparison of the raid to an "act of terror," a comment Churchill withdrew in the face of Harris's protest.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=106
Churchill did not think well of area bombing but began to believe it could be a grim necessity after (1) he watched devastating German air attacks on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and other places full of noncombatants; and (2) he could see precious few ideas for hitting back. In the ever lengthening build-up to Normandy, the bomber offensive was about the best he had to hurt the Germans and their industrial war effort. Later, when he saw France liberated, Germany's defensive lines being pierced, and the war being won, he quickly lost taste for it.

"Churchill's head of Bomber Command, Air Marshal Harris, seemed to think German morale might still be broken by bombing, but Churchill rebuked him after Dresden, and again, just as strongly for bombing Potsdam shortly thereafter. His mind had already turned to how the Allies would govern and occupy Germany; the time for destroying it was passing.

"Harris had none of Churchill's moral qualms about the strategic bombing campaign, or if he did, he hid them well. He created a list of some fifty major target cities, usually selected for their size, war production, or critical location on transportation routes. Harris was grimly working through the list, complaining when the Combined Chiefs 'distracted' him with special targets related to ground campaigns or special interests like oil or U-boat pens.

"Dresden was on another list at Bomber Command - a short list of early 1945 targets that should be flattened to aid the Russian offensive. Churchill had frequently pressed Harris to use his bombers to aid the Russians, but they never talked about Dresden particularly, to my knowledge. It was one of several towns at the right time and place whose bombing would help the Red Army's advance in that sector. Also, John Colville's memoirs record, there had been a report that Axis armor was moving through the town. In short, Dresden was not a vengeance target, but a military one, and one more 'built up area' that was to be destroyed like the others in Germany."

Legal considerations

The Hague Conventions, addressing the codes of wartime conduct on land and at sea, were adopted before the rise of air power. Despite repeated diplomatic attempts to update international humanitarian law to include aerial warfare, it was not updated before the outbreak of World War II. The absence of positive international humanitarian law does not mean that the laws of war did not cover aerial warfare, but there was no general agreement of how to interpret those laws.[120] For details on the obligations of the belligerents of World War II engaged in aerial bombardment see aerial area bombardment and international law in 1945.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/001.html
Churchill's goal in Europe was not only to destroy the military machine of Britain's imperialist rival--Germany--but to stop the advance of the Soviet Union. With the latter in mind, he decided to bomb Dresden.

Churchill, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had just met at Yalta to discuss the division of post-war Europe. Churchill's goal in bombing Dresden was to impress the Soviets with the air power of the Western capitalist allies and to make sure that the Red Army would seize a dead city.

pwd

Yup they were stomping their feet at the russians, to keep manners on them.
Same mindset as the americans who stomped their feet at the whole world the following year.

blackgold>>

Some good points there dannyboy.
Churchhill was a sick bastard.

The War Crimes

That Churchill committed war crimes—planned them, aided and abetted them, and defended them—is beyond doubt. Churchill was the prime subverter through two world wars of the rules of warfare that had evolved in the West over centuries.

At the Quebec conference, Roosevelt and Churchill adopted the Morgenthau Plan, which if implemented would have killed tens of millions of Germans, giving the Germans a terrifying picture of what "unconditional surrender" would mean in practice. Churchill was convinced of the plans benefits, as it "would save Britain from bankruptcy by eliminating a dangerous competitor." That the Morgenthau Plan was analogous to Hitler's post-conquest plans for western Russia and the Ukraine was lost on Churchill, who according to Morgenthau, drafted the wording of the scheme.

Churchill even brainstormed dropping tens of thousands of anthrax "super bombs" on the civilian population of Germany, and ordered detailed planning for a chemical attack on six major cities, estimating that millions would die immediately "by inhalation," with millions more succumbing later.

But Churchill's greatest war crimes involved the terror bombing of German cities that killed 600,000 civilians and left some 800,000 injured. Arthur Harris ("Bomber Harris"), the head of Bomber Command, stated "In Bomber Command we have always worked on the assumption that bombing anything in Germany is better than bombing nothing."

Churchill brazenly lied to the House of Commons and the public, claiming that only military and industrial installations were targeted. In fact, the aim was to kill as many civilians as possible. Hence the application of "carpet" bombing in an attempt to terrorize the Germans into surrendering.

Professor Raico described the effect of Churchillian statesmanship: "The campaign of murder from the air leveled Germany. A thousand-year-old urban culture was annihilated, as great cities, famed in the annals of science and art, were reduced to heaps of smoldering ruins. . . ." No wonder that, learning of this, a civilized European man like Joseph Schumpeter, at Harvard, was driven to telling "anyone who would listen" "that Churchill and Roosevelt were destroying more than Genghis Khan."

According to the official history of the Royal Air Force: "The destruction of Germany was by then on a scale which might have appalled Attila or Genghis Khan." Dresden was filled with masses of helpless refugees running for their lives ahead of the advancing Red Army. The war was practically over, but for three days and nights, from February 13 to 15, 1945, British bombs pounded Dresden, killing as many as 135,000 people or more in three days. After the massacre, Churchill attempted to disclaim responsibility; even casually saying "I thought the Americans did it."

The terror bombing of Germany and the killing of civilians continued as late as the middle of April, 1945. It only stopped, as Bomber Harris noted, because there were essentially no more targets left to be bombed in Germany.

In order to kill a maximum number of Germans, Winston Churchill dismissed politics or policy as a 'secondary consideration,' and on at least two occasions said that there were "no lengths of violence to which we would not go" in order to achieve his objective. In fact he said this publicly in a speech given on September 31, 1943, and again in the House of Commons, on February 27, 1945, when unbelievable lengths of violence had already taken place. If Hitler had uttered this phrase, we would all cite it as more evidence of his barbarism. Yet, when Churchill utters it, his apologists palm it off as the resoluteness required of a great statesman, rather than describing it as an urge for mass, indiscriminate murder.

Of course, Churchill supported the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in the deaths of another 200,000 civilians. When Truman fabricated the myth of the "500,000 American lives saved" to justify his mass murder, Churchill felt the need to top his lie: the atomic bombings had saved 1,200,000 lives, including 1,000,000 Americans. It was all just another of Churchill's fantasies.

Yet, after all this slaughter, Churchill would write: "The goal of World War II [was] to revive the status of man."

Fratton Fred

blackgold>> wrote: »

Some good points there dannyboy.
Churchhill was a sick bastard.

Of course, his biggecrime was being voted the greatest ever Briton, something bigoted bastards would have a problem with.

any chance of providing something to back any of that up by the way, other than your something out of an phoblacht?

blackgold>>

look it up yourself it's common knowledge.

Fratton Fred

blackgold>> wrote: »

look it up yourself it's common knowledge.

no, its common bull**** that gullable people like to read.

The professor you quoted there is a well known anti churchill libertarian nutter. He is also a fan of David irving I believe.

So you have managed to get a quote from a holocaust denial site and a professor of German/Austrian libertarianism and lover of David Irving.

You must be so proud of your research.:rolleyes:

A nice article by the guy, make your own mind up. http://www.codoh.com/germany/gernazify.html

blackgold>>

Would you prefer a pro churchill text.
Bengali Holocaust 6-7 million Indians dead. Does it ring a bell?
The list goes on and on.

Fratton Fred

blackgold>> wrote: »

Would you prefer a pro churchill text.
Bengali Holocaust 6-7 million Indians dead. Does it ring a bell?
The list goes on and on.

Oh yes, that's right. everything bad that happened in the world during his lifetime was obviously his fault and anyone who says otherwise is a zionist, correct:rolleyes:

CiaranC

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I dunno are you taking the mickey or what. "The [..] profit motive and of self-interest as a practical guide" has not been removed, it has been championed above all else, to the point that the risk has been entirely removed for crony capatalists here. The RISK has been socialised WITHOUT removing the profit motive.

How you think this equates to socialism is beyond me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

Explain how allowing private individuals at the top of industry, in league with corrupt government, to make exorbitant profits with no risk to their investments, with the guarantee of golden handshakes and enormous pensions to go with their bailouts, has anything to do with socialism?

Sounds more like the fascism of the 1930s to me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

Says the man who thinks creating an untouchable crony capitalist cabal at the expense of the proletariat is socialist. :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

You mention "exactly what is happening across the West today. From Ireland to California", then; "it is now seen as the government's role to bail out institutions that made bad business decisions, and to rescue individuals who borrowed more than they could ever rationally hope to pay back" and name it as "this incipient socialism".

I agree with you that the risk has been socialised. This however, is not for the benefit of the people, or even the state, but for private individuals. This is not "incipient socialism."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cavedave

Here is the cartoon version of what I was warning about earlier. How state intervention could lead to extreme authoritarian results.

I think that CiaranC and Donegalfella disagreement comes from is different understanding of the word socialist. Most Irish people (and possible Nordic people) regard it as something close to Gandhi here. Whereas many libertarians regard it as something closer to Stalin.


but i don't want to put words in either of your mouths so feel free to correct me and then tell me to shut the hell up.

CiaranC

I dont have any magical solution.

I really believe that socialising risk and leaving the profit motive in place is the road to hell.

Its like saying to an A.N.Capitalist: "Sure try and get rich and do it whatever way you want. Ignore the law, we wont regulate you sure, and if it fails the gob****es working for you will pay for it". In that sense, I agree with donegalfella that A.N.Capitalist should be allowed to fail, and fail hard.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well my point was merely that we are not actively moving to a system in which the state controls the means of production, we are leaving the means of production in the hands of capitalists and removing the risks for them.

Maybe you could posit an opinion on this one donegalfella:

Why is it that the banking sectors in countries like the US, Ireland, the UK and Iceland, Eastern Europe are in trouble, while countries like France and Germany seem more stable?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CiaranC

I agree that it is not sustainable, but id strongly disagree that socialising risk destroys the profit motive. If anything, judging by the evidence of what has happened in this country, it actually exacerbates it.

You talk as if the likes of the Golden Circle types are some kind of Randian idealists instead of merely greedy, opportunistic criminals.

nesf

cavedave wrote: »

I think that CiaranC and Donegalfella disagreement comes from is different understanding of the word socialist. Most Irish people (and possible Nordic people) regard it as something close to Gandhi here. Whereas many libertarians regard it as something closer to Stalin.


but i don't want to put words in either of your mouths so feel free to correct me and then tell me to shut the hell up.

While some of us would consider both Stalin and Gandhi as socialists, it being as broad and varied a church as capitalism.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then you will, of course, accept Hitler as a capitalist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Keep em coming!! You are doing more damage to the ideology of the right by your self, no need to even argue with you...

Hitler AND Stalin as socialists. You couldn't make it up.

With respect, you personify the spoilt brat element of the Irish policitcal right. Its not deregulated capitalism thats caused this mess, its the government. Right wing political parties bailing out their builder chums is socialist and now Hitler, who got into power because the business classes supported his attacks on the left, rounded up socialists and gassed them, is a socialist.

Take some responsibility, you would be more credible.

cavedave

OhNoYouDidn't

Keep em coming!! You are doing more damage to the ideology of the right by your self, no need to even argue with you...

Hitler AND Stalin as socialists. You couldn't make it up.

With respect, you personify the spoilt brat element of the Irish policitcal right. Its not deregulated capitalism thats caused this mess, its the government. Right wing political parties bailing out their builder chums is socialist and now Hitler, who got into power because the business classes supported his attacks on the left, rounded up socialists and gassed them, is a socialist.

Take some responsibility, you would be more credible.

Generally libertarians class any government that goes out of its way to tell them what to do as a socialist. When it comes down to it there is not much difference between Stalin and Hitler (national socialist) they were both authoritarian dictators who sent millions of people to die in camps and who told everyone else what to make and how to run their lives.

I don't like using the term socialist for such types as the socialist church include Gandhi and sweden and such so maybe a catch all "fascist" term for those who go off the authoritarian deep end?

OhNoYouDidn't

cavedave wrote: »

Generally libertarians class any government that goes out of its way to tell them what to do as a socialist. When it comes down to it there is not much difference between Stalin and Hitler (national socialist) they were both authoritarian dictators who sent millions of people to die in camps and who told everyone else what to make and how to run their lives.

I don't like using the term socialist for such types as the socialist church include Gandhi and sweden and such so maybe a catch all "fascist" term for those who go off the authoritarian deep end?

I don't think Stalin was a socialist myself, but as someone of the left, I at least have to acknowledge his existance as a dictator of what purported to be a communist regieme.

But to claim Hitler is a socialist is infantile refusal to acknowledge what can happen to the right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Marx?

But you still sound like a child.

"I don't like socialsits. I don't like Nazis. Therefore Hitler is a socialist".

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But you still sound like a child.

If you continue to attack the poster and not their post in this forum I'll permanently remove your ability to post here. You've been warned several times about this and banned for it before and I'm rapidly losing patience.

OhNoYouDidn't

nesf wrote: »

If you continue to attack the poster and not their post in this forum I'll permanently remove your ability to post here. You've been warned several times about this and banned for it before and I'm rapidly losing patience.

Its an infantile position and taken in conjunction with his opinion on what constitutes the 'right' on the other thread, he has opened himself wide open to ridicule.

But I'll accept that you are the law and watch how I say it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.