It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

London Falling: Like a Man Eating Its Own Leg

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Silly question, but was the U.K. affected by the crash of Wall street in '29?

If so, how much?


Given that it wasn't really responded too, from what I have read the answer is yes, but how much is up for debate.

Britain was pretty suffering the economic consequences of WW1 and some will argue the Great Depression started in Britain in 1918 and lasted a further 20 years with Britain suffering a 25% decline in output up to the point where the rest of the world recognises the Great Depression began.

However others will argue that during the period the rest of the world knows as the "Great Depression" the economic output in Britain was only mildly impacted.

So it depends which date you choose to pick as the start of the economic depression in Britain which side of that fence you sit on.

.
edit on 8/10/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65
I can't really elaborate on your post , but after speaking to many of my work colleagues , the general feeling is that we are all totally fed up of being taxed on almost everything while at the same time having to support free loaders . We see nothing in return , because a minority are soaking up our resources and this CAN'T continue !


Lol, I see you haven't been back since making your inane comment... Free loaders? Can you elaborate on who are the free loaders? Do you mean the monarchy, the bankers, the politicians.... I have a feeling you mean those on benefits. Jeez...that old chestnut...Seriously do some research into white collar crime, crimes by politicians, bankers and the financial terrorists who have rinsed the global economy...



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65
I can't really elaborate on your post , but after speaking to many of my work colleagues , the general feeling is that we are all totally fed up of being taxed on almost everything while at the same time having to support free loaders . We see nothing in return , because a minority are soaking up our resources and this CAN'T continue !


What, so you are saying that if there are not enough jobs for people or they are too ill to work then they should literally starve to death? Well that's very civilized isn't it! That is not an answer. If the work is there then unemployment dwindles away like under Tony Blair. In a recession there is always going to be a greater requirement for welfare; it is obvious. Your comment is like cheap tabloid nonsense .lines. It is not a realistic possibility. It would send us back to the stone age with disease everywhere, starving people on the street, poor hygiene and a lot more violent crime because of the lack of even basic needs being met.

Think man, don't just forsake your own countrymen just because you feeling the pinch. And yes, I think we should keep giving asylum, too.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by slinkey10

Originally posted by tpg65
I can't really elaborate on your post , but after speaking to many of my work colleagues , the general feeling is that we are all totally fed up of being taxed on almost everything while at the same time having to support free loaders . We see nothing in return , because a minority are soaking up our resources and this CAN'T continue !


Lol, I see you haven't been back since making your inane comment... Free loaders? Can you elaborate on who are the free loaders? Do you mean the monarchy, the bankers, the politicians.... I have a feeling you mean those on benefits. Jeez...that old chestnut...Seriously do some research into white collar crime, crimes by politicians, bankers and the financial terrorists who have rinsed the global economy...


I was pretty shocked by that comment, too. People are so quick to judge and make silly remarks. It is the lowest common denominator, unthinking kinda stuff to say!



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by slinkey10
 


I like your display pic. Good pun there! Worthy indeed I say
And Noooooooo, London aint falling. Even the blitz didn't stop London. Just another economic "down turn". All brought to us by Investors, Politicians and Greedy Players. That's why greed is wrong, it leads to this. One man's greed inflicts another with the consequences.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


dont forget the aircraft carriers we were getting . down rated to diesel power to save costs. not built in the uk. now only 1 being built and were going to share it with the french. i dont understand why countries clamour to hold events like the olympics will britain break even i doubt it. Britain has its self to blame for the negative view of its welfare system, dont get me wrong there are those that need and deserve benefits but how come we got so many immigrants in britain? i spend a lot of time in france and very rarely see outsiders yet travel back to the uk and its a shock to hear a british accent. One thing that is very clear between the continent and the uk is the old saying . the french work to live the british live to work



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by satire111
Does anyone know who owns the bank of England?


Just to clear this up, as I'm sure many will assume it is the Rothschilds or something, but the BoE was nationalised in 1946, so the answer to your question is HM Government owns the BoE.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Silly question, but was the U.K. affected by the crash of Wall street in '29?

If so, how much?


It was, but not nearly to the extent of the USA. It was pretty bad though, but at the time we traded with the Empire and they could only trade with the UK exclusively, so we were somewhat insulated.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin

The upshot of the depression of the late 20 and 30's was that Hitler came to power and went on t drop a lot of bombs on the UK.


I am not sure why you call it an "upshot" that tens of thousands of men, women and children were killed in German raids over the UK...


Originally posted by steveknows
. Hitler came to power because Germany was made to pay a war bill for a war Germany didn't start and didn't lose,


Erm, Germany was pretty much defeated at the end of 1918. Their armies had finally been pushed back on the western front, suffered massive casualties, lots of prisoners taken and were almost to the point of routing from the field when the armistice came into affect.

As for not starting, I think you should check your timeline. Austria-Hungary, Germany's ally, declared war on Serbia, then Russia declares on AH, then Germany declares on Russia, France declares on Germany (Treaty with Russia) and then Germany invades France, Luxembourg and Belgium with whom the UK had made a pledge to protect their independence since 1836.

So, Germany was pretty much involved in the whole thing from the start and was primarily responsible for the escalation from a regional conflict in the Balkans to a wider war in Europe and the world.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by da pickles
down rated to diesel power to save costs.


Not true. Primary power is actually two RR gas turbines. Back up power is from smaller diesel generators.


Originally posted by da pickles
not built in the uk


Utter rubbish. The carriers are being built around the UK to a modular design and then assembled in Rosyth.


Originally posted by da pickles
. now only 1 being built and were going to share it with the french.


Again, total rubbish. Two are being built and we're not "sharing" it with the French at all. The french have bought the design of us and will build their own. The agreement you have totally misconstrued is that between us and the French, we will always have 1 carrier battlegroup at sea and ready to deploy, not sharing one with them.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
It really does perplex me when we blame the government for the situation we are in, then expect the government to come up with a solution to get us out of the mess were in. Isn't that like putting an arsonist in charge of a match factory?

IMO we cannot continue with a consumerist way of life, we as individuals need to make the change. As long as we all want bigger and better or want what others have we just continue to perpetuate the situation, we will continue to allow the bankers to loan us money we cannot afford to pay etc etc.

Ideally we should stop allowing ourselves to be influenced by the consumerist propaganda machine (media) and look introspectively at our lives and answer three questions 1. Do I have shelter? 2. Do I have food? 3. Do I have heat? (these in the coming years will be major questions) If then we have excess we should help our friends and neighbours. Yes this is idealogical but is what will define us in the future as true human beings.

Again this is just my opinion (gets off soapbox)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by bigyin

The upshot of the depression of the late 20 and 30's was that Hitler came to power and went on t drop a lot of bombs on the UK.


I am not sure why you call it an "upshot" that tens of thousands of men, women and children were killed in German raids over the UK...


Originally posted by steveknows
. Hitler came to power because Germany was made to pay a war bill for a war Germany didn't start and didn't lose,


Erm, Germany was pretty much defeated at the end of 1918. Their armies had finally been pushed back on the western front, suffered massive casualties, lots of prisoners taken and were almost to the point of routing from the field when the armistice came into affect.

As for not starting, I think you should check your timeline. Austria-Hungary, Germany's ally, declared war on Serbia, then Russia declares on AH, then Germany declares on Russia, France declares on Germany (Treaty with Russia) and then Germany invades France, Luxembourg and Belgium with whom the UK had made a pledge to protect their independence since 1836.

So, Germany was pretty much involved in the whole thing from the start and was primarily responsible for the escalation from a regional conflict in the Balkans to a wider war in Europe and the world.



Erm,

The 'Great War began on 28 July 1914 with Austria-Hungary's declaration of war with Serbia because the assassination of Austrias Archduke was backed by high ranking Serbian officers.

July 29: Russia which was Serbia's ally mobilised.

August 1: Germany which was an ally of if its close relative Austria didn't like the idea of the Russians possibly attacking Austria and a threat to Austria from Russia is a real theat to Germany, declares war on Russia and demands the neutrality of France as it had nothing to do with France. France refuses and waves its bread roll at Germany.

August 3: Germany declares war on France after France mobilised.
On the 4th of August Germany invaded belgium because France needs to be knocked out as its the main threat. That declaration against France brought England into the war.

Germany DID NOT start WW1.


WW1 finished with an armistice. An armistice is not a surrender and Germany and its defence force was still intact.
Germany DID NOT lose WW1
en.wikipedia.org...


The cost of war was put on Germany and the horror and unfareness of it was pushed by France hense the humiliation of France by Germany in WW2. It left Germany with a social and economic situation which in the futrure allowed a madman like Hitler to come along.


Explain again how Germany started the WW1?

I note you bracketed the treaty thing with Russia and France so does that mean in your eyes France and Russia had a right to get involved because they had treaties but Germany wasn't allowed get involved when Russia threatend Austria so therefor Germany started it?

edit on 8-10-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows
The 'Great War began on 28 July 1914 with Austria-Hungary's declaration of war with Serbia because the assassination of Austrias Archduke was backed by high ranking Serbian officers.

July 29: Russia which was Serbia's ally mobilised.

August 1: Germany which was an ally of if its close relative Austria didn't like the idea of the Russians possibly attacking Austria and a threat to Austria from Russia is a real theat to Germany, declares war on Russia and demands the neutrality of France as it had nothing to do with France. France refuses and waves its bread roll at Germany.

August 3: Germany declares war on France after France mobilised.
On the 4th of August Germany invaded belgium because France needs to be knocked out as its the main threat. That declaration against France brought England into the war.


Well done, you have pretty much just re-itterated what I said, with some slight embellishment and some errors. the UK declared on Germany after it failed to protect the neutrality of Belgium and invaded.


Originally posted by steveknows
Germany DID NOT start WW1.


Never said they did. What they did do, however, was escalate it from a regional conflict between AH and Russia/Serbia to a continental conflagration.


Originally posted by steveknows
WW1 finished with an armistice. An armistice is not a surrender and Germany and its defence force was still intact.


No, Germany was far from intact at the end of the War. Starvation was commonplace and the economy was a total wreck from 4 years of Naval blockade by the RN. It's armies on the Western front were defeated, especially after the Battle of Armiens and the Allied Hundred days offensive, which saw the Hindenburg line of defences breached and the allies streaming forward. After the Balkans capitulated and surrendered, Germany had lost it's supplies of food and Oil. Also, bear in mind that at the point the armistice was signed, Germany had suffered almost 6 million casualties, far more than any other beligerant.


Originally posted by steveknows
Germany DID NOT lose WW1
en.wikipedia.org...


The armistice wasn't the end of the war, it was a ceasefire as a prelude to peace negotiations where Germany admitted defeat. If Germany felt it was in a position to win the war or extract better terms, they would have fought on. They did not. In fact, mutiny and insubordination were becoming more common in 1918 and they simply could not contiue the fight, which is why the armistice was signed.

It seems to me like your not actually that clued up on the War at all, missing some key facts and harping on about the armistice as some sort of proof Germany didn't lose. They simply could not prosecute the war anymore, which in any definition is a defeat.


Originally posted by steveknows
The cost of war was put on Germany and the horror and unfareness of it was pushed by France hense the humiliation of France by Germany in WW2. It left Germany with a social and economic situation which in the futrure allowed a madman like Hitler to come along.


Admittedly, the Versaille Treaty was grossly unfair and contributed directly to the horror that would follow within 20 years. That doesn't mean Germany didn't lose the war, it merely means that the unfair punishment of Germany backfired horribly.


Originally posted by steveknows
Explain again how Germany started the WW1?


I never said they did, did I? They were, however, directly involved in it's escalation and took the aggressive actions of declaring against Russia, with whom France and the UK were treaty bound, then also declare and invade neutral countries such as Belgium and Holland which the UK was also treaty bound to protect.


Originally posted by steveknows
I note you bracketed the treaty thing with Russia and France so does that mean in your eyes France and Russia had a right to get involved because they had treaties but Germany wasn't allowed get involved when Russia threatend Austria so therefor Germany started it?


Nope, you're making inferences where I think I made things simple and clear. AH declared against Serbia, Russia merely mobilised and then was declared upon by both Germany and AH. France didn't declare on anyone, but just mobilised as it saw the two big central powers throwing their weight around and memories of the Franco-Prussian war of the 1870's still rang true. Germany then declared on France and attacked through the low countries, bringing the UK into the war..While the Germans and the AH had a treaty, this also inclued Italy. This treaty was called the Triple Alliance and was a purely defensive alliance, but both AH and Germany had both been the aggressors, so Italy did not join in. In fact, Italy joined the allies in 1915.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


No. I've, embarrisingly for you, had to point out to you what you said I said Germany didn't start WW1 and you disagreed.

Here's a very simple question to you and only needs a simple answer.

If Serbia assassinated the Austrian Archduke and Austria mobilised. And if Russia mobilies because Austria did which then caused Germany to mobilise. How did Germany start WW1 as you claim?

What you are saying is that Serbia was allowed to kill The Ausrtian Archduke because that didn't start the war. And that Russia was allowed to mobilise because that didn't start the war. And the French could stick their big nose in and refuse to stay out of it because that didn't start the war

But Germany, mobilising in response to Russia who mobilised in response to Austria who moblised in response to Serbia, actually started the war.

There is almost 100 years of history saying you're wrong and the fact that Germany wasn't the 1st, wasn't the 2nd, and wasn't even the 3rd to act agressivaly but the 4th shows without doubt that Germany DID NOT start the war. ( Refer to the order of things here)

And the most easliy understood thing here is that Germany was made to pay for it.

You seem to think that the first shot is what starts a war. That's not true by any measure. And if that's the case then Serbia truly did fire the first shot. It was a localised duspute between two countries until Russia got invloved. France was given the oportunity to stay out of it and chose not to. And you can be as technical as you want but the reality is that if Russia France and England had of kept out of it there would have been no WW1 in 1914 being that Germany didn't get involved until Russia did ( for you that means that Germany came into it after Russia) France and england just made a bad sittuation worse. How can you believe that the 4th country to get involved started the war?

So allow me to use your logic here. WW2 Germany invades Poland. England declares war on Germany so therefor England must have started WW2.

I'm sorry but to say simply that Germany started and lost WW1 is just lazy thinking. Like when people say that the sinking of the Lusitania "supposebly" brought the U.S into WW1 and that it was a callous act of murder by the German Uboat commander. Well again this is something that those who actually research cause and effect know to not be true.

Both the U.S and English governments knowingly and wilfully placed that ship and its passengers in danger by placing war materials on that ship bound for the English war effort. The Germans found out and the Uboat commander had a choice to make. Let the ship through and allow potentially thousands of his countrymen to die as a result of the war materials on the civilian passenger liner or sink it and be accused of murder.

He chose to sink it because it was the U.S and English who chose to use those civilains as a shield to protect war materials (which was against the rules of war) and therefor it was the U.S and English governments who got them killed.

Lazy thinkers say that a German Uboat murderd civilains on an ocean liner.



For Gods sake.
edit on 9-10-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Godwin's Law in action: someone get me popcorn and a deck chair?



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by da pickles
down rated to diesel power to save costs.


Not true. Primary power is actually two RR gas turbines. Back up power is from smaller diesel generators.
REPLYi meant as opposed to nuclear . there isnt a massive difference between kerosene and diesel really

Originally posted by da pickles
not built in the uk

Utter rubbish. The carriers are being built around the UK to a modular design and then assembled in Rosyth.
REPLYhands up to that but iot would appear that 40% of works is being done elsewhere unless i have misread

Originally posted by da pickles
. now only 1 being built and were going to share it with the french.


Again, total rubbish. Two are being built and we're not "sharing" it with the French at all. The french have bought the design of us and will build their own. The agreement you have totally misconstrued is that between us and the French, we will always have 1 carrier battlegroup at sea and ready to deploy, not sharing one with them.
REPLYwww.defencemanagement.com...

edit on 9-10-2011 by da pickles because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows
If Serbia assassinated the Austrian Archduke and Austria mobilised. And if Russia mobilies because Austria did which then caused Germany to mobilise. How did Germany start WW1 as you claim?


Because Germany attacked France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Simple as that. Had they not done so, then Austro-Hungary and Serbia would have had a regional dispute, possibly with Russian involvement. Just another power trip for the worn of Ausrto-Hungaruan Empire.


Originally posted by steveknows
So allow me to use your logic here. WW2 Germany invades Poland. England declares war on Germany so therefor England must have started WW2.


No, again Germany did the invading.


Originally posted by steveknows
I'm sorry but to say simply that Germany started and lost WW1 is just lazy thinking.


No, not lazy. Factual.


Originally posted by steveknows
Like when people say that the sinking of the Lusitania "supposebly" brought the U.S into WW1 and that it was a callous act of murder by the German Uboat commander.


The US was effected by Germany’s policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, but what pushed the US over the edge was Germany’s attempts to widen the conflict by persuading Mexico to join on their side. The sinking of the Lusitania was incidental and your (revisionist) views fly in the face of historical fact.


Originally posted by steveknows
Lazy thinkers say that a German Uboat murderd civilains on an ocean liner.


Not lazy. Factual. That was the output of the German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. The torpedoes had "made in Germany" on them!

Regards



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by steveknows
If Serbia assassinated the Austrian Archduke and Austria mobilised. And if Russia mobilies because Austria did which then caused Germany to mobilise. How did Germany start WW1 as you claim?


Because Germany attacked France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Simple as that. Had they not done so, then Austro-Hungary and Serbia would have had a regional dispute, possibly with Russian involvement. Just another power trip for the worn of Ausrto-Hungaruan Empire.


Originally posted by steveknows
So allow me to use your logic here. WW2 Germany invades Poland. England declares war on Germany so therefor England must have started WW2.


No, again Germany did the invading.


Originally posted by steveknows
I'm sorry but to say simply that Germany started and lost WW1 is just lazy thinking.


No, not lazy. Factual.


Originally posted by steveknows
Like when people say that the sinking of the Lusitania "supposebly" brought the U.S into WW1 and that it was a callous act of murder by the German Uboat commander.


The US was effected by Germany’s policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, but what pushed the US over the edge was Germany’s attempts to widen the conflict by persuading Mexico to join on their side. The sinking of the Lusitania was incidental and your (revisionist) views fly in the face of historical fact.


Originally posted by steveknows
Lazy thinkers say that a German Uboat murderd civilains on an ocean liner.


Not lazy. Factual. That was the output of the German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. The torpedoes had "made in Germany" on them!

Regards


Again with the lazy thinking. Who started it? They did! Why? They shot first! When you have several armies mobilised against you it makes sense to strike first. Any military tactician will tell you that.

The Germans knew the The Franco-Russian Alliance Military Convention stated. "
These forces shall engage to the full with such speed that Germany will have to fight simultaneously on the East and on the West."

Germany got in first after Russia had mobilised, Germany DID NOT start the war.


In the last almost hundred years historians have more and more agreed that Germany alone was not at fault and did not alone start it.


The Treaty of Versailles was a dictated settlement with no serious negotiations. The main purpose of the 'war guilt clause' was to lend some kind of justification to the reparations and you seem to be taking it as bible.


So, a great deal of the Treaty of Versailles is about hiding the failures on the part of Allied politicians. Because to blame Germany for the war is to have someone other then themsleves to blame for all the deaths.

In reality the treaty blames Germany for the cost of the War, and planned to get the money from Germany. It hoped that the Allied public remaind ignorent and that the blame for the war and the way in which it was fought wasn't placed where it belonged really which was Allied politicians and military leadership.

And what you choose to ignore is that when Autsria was threatend Germany was within its legal right to mobilise as a security threat to Austria was a threat to Germany.

The first Balkan War led to Russia and Austria-Hungary mobilising but the crisis subsided when Russia withdrew its support for Serbian territorial claims, in october 1912.


(June 28th) Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was assasinated in Sarajevo What's it got to do with Russia?


(July 23rd) Austria-Hungary sent Serbia an ultimatum. What's it got to do with Russia?

(24th July) Russia decide to defend Serbia against Austria-Hungary. What's it got to do with Russia?

(July 28th) Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. What's it got to do with Russia?

(30th July) Russia began mobilisation. A security threat to Germany.

(July 31st) Germany sent Russia an ultimatum to stop all military movement on the Russian/German border. A security threat to Germany.

(1st August) Having recieved no reply from Russia regarding the ultimatum,Germany declare war on Russia. A war plan put into action does not imply guilt of starting the war. No reply is in itself an act of war and England responded to a no reponse by declaring war on Germany the WW2 which is no different to what the German did with Russia in WW1.

Your "made in Germany" statement just shows that you ignore the fact that U.S and English governments wilfully and knowingly put the civilian ocean liner in the firing line by using (against the rules of war) civilians to protect war materials.
The treaty of Versailles was unfare and pushed by France (hense their humiliation in WW2)

Hatred of the settlement agreed at Versailles which crippled Germany as it tried to shape itself into a democracy following the end of WW1 in the war, was of significant in propelling the Nazis to power.
edit on 9-10-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


Regardless of the rather frantic timeframes involved in tit for tat mobilisations and brinkmanship between the parties, the fact remains that Germany started WW1 through their invasion of Luxemburg, Belgium and France. If Germany had restrained the dogs of war, the conflict would have been confined to Serbia. Everything else is semantics.

As for the British (and Americans) purposefully allowing the Lusitania to be sunk. The Lusitania was a passenger liner full of people and not carrying war material. The Germans were perusing a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and sinking anything, indeed the German Government had published notices in the US press stating any British ship would be sunk. However, the captain of the U-boat had the discretion not to sink the ship, which was clearly a passenger liner. He loosed the torpedoes so he was responsible for the sinking. No escaping fact that the torpedoes were "made in Germany" and the decisions were made by a German captain pursuing a strategy laid down by the German Government.

Regards

edit on 10/10/2011 by paraphi because: corrected typo



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join