Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

zabu of nΩd;10157211 said:
Hm, so i'm not quite clear on Germany's rationale for invading Poland if they really wanted an alliance. Is it because Britain's war guarantee made Poland appear hostile to Germany? There's definitely some missing links in that story as to Germany's motives and diplomatic stance.
Click to expand...

The city of Danzig. That might seem petty, but the US fought a War with Mexico over mostly 'uninhabitable' desert.

You also have to take into effect the actions of Soviet Russia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland

The 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland was a Soviet military operation that started without a formal declaration of war on 17 September 1939, during the early stages of World War II. Sixteen days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union did so from the east. The invasion ended on 6 October 1939 with the division and annexing of the whole of the Second Polish Republic by Germany and the Soviet Union.[6]

In early 1939, the Soviet Union entered into negotiations with the United Kingdom, France, Poland, and Romania to establish an alliance against Nazi Germany. The negotiations failed when the Soviet Union insisted that Poland and Romania give Soviet troops transit rights through their territory as part of a collective security agreement.[7] The failure of those negotiations led the Soviet Union to conclude the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany on 23 August; this was a non-aggression pact containing a secret protocol dividing Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.[8] One week after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, German forces invaded Poland from the north, south, and west
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

Since Poland refused friendship with Nazi Germany, as did Britain, etc., the only serious threat to German expansion was the Soviet Union. With the Pact, they pretty much had the green-light to take back what had been historically part of "greater Germany".
 
Interesting. So far it sounds like Russia was the biggest 'rogue nation' in the group, with its aggressive negotiating stance in 1939. What justification could they have possibly had for "transit rights" through Poland and Romania?
 
zabu of nΩd;10157315 said:
Which, contrary to Pat Buchanan's claim, would render WW2 at least partially "necessary"
Click to expand...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

His argument, and one that I agree with, is that Russia and Germany would have ground each other to a pulp, while Europe watched.

This would have left the respective countries ripe for internal revolution and reform, and their war-making abilities a hollow shell. Thus no Nazi Germany, and no Cold War with a Soviet superstate aand satellite states.

Italy was a rider on Germany's coattails and most likely would not have declared war at all if not for the Allies. France was at odds with them over control of Africa but that really had nothing to do with Europe in general.

Japan had no interest in the US, except for the US to leave them alone. They were actually attacking Russian and British interests in their expansion. Without the rest of the world at war, who knows how that would have played out.

Edit: Also, An expanded Imperial Japan couldn't objectively be worse than Communist China and subsequent resulting wars in Korea, Vietnam, etc.
 
coim.jpg
 
Currency competition is a good thing. However, the Bristol Pound is pegged to the pound sterling, and requires deposits in pounds to receive a payout in Bristol Pounds. As it is set up, it's an outstanding deal for the credit union taking the deposits. It's getting an internationally recognized currency for free, since printing currency costs next to nothing. With the sterling peg, I see no benefit for the people of Bristol.

More fake paper, and more people being taken advantage of.
 
Interesting that the FSA insures 85000 pounds/person of deposits whereas the FDIC in America insures 500000 dollars/person.

That article's pretty short on details. And wtf with this Ben Yearsley guy... either he's some jackass with an agenda or BBC doesn't know how to interview people about finance.

@Dak: it makes plenty of sense to peg it to the national currency since it's just been launched. What's to say they won't adjust the exchange rate later on once the currency is firmly established?
 
That really misses the point though. It says people will be issued a Bristol Pound for every Pound Sterling they deposit:

They will print notes in £1, £5, £10 and £20 denominations. A Bristol pound will be worth exactly £1 sterling.

People will open an account with the Bristol Credit Union, which is administering the scheme, and for every pound sterling they deposit, they will be credited one Bristol pound.
Click to expand...

What's the point for the customer? To get Bristol Pounds, which are less widely accepted, you have to deposit your essentially more valuable Pounds Sterling. The CU may then take your deposited funds and make a profit from it through the magic of fractional reserve lending, while giving you essentially nothing in return.

Bottom line: If printing money was the answer to financial crises, why not let everyone do it? There is no difference between Monopoly money and national currencies other than the "Legal Tender" status, and the ability of the backing organization to tax your labor/rent resources. In other words, the national currencies are no better than "coal mine scrip", and competing paper currencies are even worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EricT
This is why I love the police...
Replies
18
Views
1K
Nevermore
Dead_Lioness
D
xfer
mia was tasered by police
Replies
4
Views
566
Kayo Dot
Draft Dodging Scarecrow
D
Journeyman14
"Daddy ate my eyes"
Replies
28
Views
2K
General Discussion
Keenan
K
Tiff
Don't Squeeze the Charmin!!
Replies
5
Views
367
Nevermore
Reminiscence
R
The Ozzman
LOL at 'Spiritual Attack'
Replies
27
Views
1K
GMD Social Forum
AchrisK
A
Top Bottom