Europe submits voluntarily

[bigfield]

On. And I forgot. Over $1000 per month of cash benefits.

As usual, Angelo pulls a claim from his wrinkled ass.

 

[whichphilosophy]

On. And I forgot. Over $1000 per month of cash benefits.

As usual, Angelo pulls a claim from his wrinkled ass.

How do you know it's wrinkled?

 

[4321lynx]

No.

It was at the expense of the Americans.

Actually this was long term thinking where the rebuild of Europe would mean they could afford to purchase American goods.
There is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to politics.

It was planned more to ensure Europe would not fall under communist and therefore Soviet rule. The communist parties of France and Italy were powerful at the end of WW II, Germany was ruined, Britain was bankrupt and with a very leftist socialist government with many of the Labour party members ready to jump into the communist lap. However, the Labour leaders were realistic enough to agree to wage a war in Greece to prevent a communist takeover. Western populations held naive views of "good old Uncle Joe" (Stalin), views strengthened by the undeniably vastly major role of the Red Army, as compared to the Western Allies, in winning the war in Europe. It was touch and go, and without American aid it was obvious that the communists would win without much difficulty.
The Marshall plan was seen as such a threat to eventual communist world rule that all of Soviet-occupied Eastern European countries were forbidden to take part in it.

This "purchase of American goods" would be a way of partly repaying the US for its part in the European war and for that very same Marshall plan. Moreover the USA was the only country in the Western world producing goods in any significant amount. There was no obligation for the USA to give handouts to Europe.

 

[untermensche]

None-the-less, they committed many crimes. To think there was no crime is to be a child.

In comparison to today's so called refugees, it was insignificant. And they didn't have the handouts given them like today. Also most didn't follow a death cult as most do today.

Says who?

It was the exact same thing.

The death cult is Americans lost in the religion of "The State" with it's torture chambers and concentration camps all over the world.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Actually this was long term thinking where the rebuild of Europe would mean they could afford to purchase American goods.
There is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to politics.

It was planned more to ensure Europe would not fall under communist and therefore Soviet rule. The communist parties of France and Italy were powerful at the end of WW II, Germany was ruined, Britain was bankrupt and with a very leftist socialist government with many of the Labour party members ready to jump into the communist lap. However, the Labour leaders were realistic enough to agree to wage a war in Greece to prevent a communist takeover. Western populations held naive views of "good old Uncle Joe" (Stalin), views strengthened by the undeniably vastly major role of the Red Army, as compared to the Western Allies, in winning the war in Europe. It was touch and go, and without American aid it was obvious that the communists would win without much difficulty.
The Marshall plan was seen as such a threat to eventual communist world rule that all of Soviet-occupied Eastern European countries were forbidden to take part in it.

This "purchase of American goods" would be a way of partly repaying the US for its part in the European war and for that very same Marshall plan. Moreover the USA was the only country in the Western world producing goods in any significant amount. There was no obligation for the USA to give handouts to Europe.

France and Italy had large communist parties but they never held a vast majority of votes The British communist party only held one seat in parliament. It was perhaps in the 1970 when British Labour was infiltrated by splinter groups such as the Worker's Revolutionary Party and Socialist Labour League. Some say this lost Labour a string of elections There was a trend of all governments to move towards the left in terms of social reforms. As a result Britain introduced free education, free healthcare, free prescriptions and higher wages were negotiated. In fact the way communism was avoided was to introduce the very reforms which the Marxists had advocated. Tied to this was creating a consumer market for US goods so as to improve the US economy also. Since workers were receiving better wages and poorer people assisted with healthcare more money was circulated into the economy. In fact since the war Europe (and the US) have introduced mixed economies.

In fact the way to beat communism is to introduce socialist reforms

Stalin never had any high degree of support with the European public except amongst some factions in the Trade Union movements.

As usual the US propaganda media saw bogeymen everywhere but in reality (even with italian communists hitting over 30 per cent of the vote) only moderated versions of Marxism ever actually won sustained support.

The recent bogeyman was around Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

 

[DrZoidberg]

So called refugees weren't handed a fully furnished house at the expense of the locals!

The WW2 refugees to Sweden were. It was a source of Swedish national pride. 70 000 Finnish children were adopted into Swedish families. There were no problems finding Swedish homes for them.

 

[4321lynx]

It was planned more to ensure Europe would not fall under communist and therefore Soviet rule. The communist parties of France and Italy were powerful at the end of WW II, Germany was ruined, Britain was bankrupt and with a very leftist socialist government with many of the Labour party members ready to jump into the communist lap. However, the Labour leaders were realistic enough to agree to wage a war in Greece to prevent a communist takeover. Western populations held naive views of "good old Uncle Joe" (Stalin), views strengthened by the undeniably vastly major role of the Red Army, as compared to the Western Allies, in winning the war in Europe. It was touch and go, and without American aid it was obvious that the communists would win without much difficulty.
The Marshall plan was seen as such a threat to eventual communist world rule that all of Soviet-occupied Eastern European countries were forbidden to take part in it.

This "purchase of American goods" would be a way of partly repaying the US for its part in the European war and for that very same Marshall plan. Moreover the USA was the only country in the Western world producing goods in any significant amount. There was no obligation for the USA to give handouts to Europe.

France and Italy had large communist parties but they never held a vast majority of votes The British communist party only held one seat in parliament. It was perhaps in the 1970 when British Labour was infiltrated by splinter groups such as the Worker's Revolutionary Party and Socialist Labour League. Some say this lost Labour a string of elections There was a trend of all governments to move towards the left in terms of social reforms. As a result Britain introduced free education, free healthcare, free prescriptions and higher wages were negotiated. In fact the way communism was avoided was to introduce the very reforms which the Marxists had advocated. Tied to this was creating a consumer market for US goods so as to improve the US economy also. Since workers were receiving better wages and poorer people assisted with healthcare more money was circulated into the economy. In fact since the war Europe (and the US) have introduced mixed economies.

In fact the way to beat communism is to introduce socialist reforms

Stalin never had any high degree of support with the European public except amongst some factions in the Trade Union movements.

As usual the US propaganda media saw bogeymen everywhere but in reality (even with italian communists hitting over 30 per cent of the vote) only moderated versions of Marxism ever actually won sustained support.

The recent bogeyman was around Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

We were talking about the period immediately post war and of initiation of the Marshall Plan. So, 1946 onwards.

As far as Communist parties on the continent went, they never needed any majority to stir up revolution.

In Britain there were many "fellow travellers" of communism, such as Konni Ziliacus. Also many more, not willing to risk their well-paid careers at that moment such as Aneurin Bevan, then minister of health, and his wife, Jennie Lee.

As far as Europe's attitude to Stalin went, the admiration and personality worship did not change till after Khrushchev's October 1956 speech was published, and then it changed slowly and reluctantly among the leftwingers.

Sorry to bother you with facts when you are toeing the left wing line with depictions of USA = Bogeyman always. It was not so in Western Europe, however murky the US policies might have been then in S America, or the CIA actions all over the world since then.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total), followed by France (18%) and West Germany (11%). Some 18 European countries received Plan benefits.[3] Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as East Germany and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not called "Marshall Plan".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konni_Zilliacus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Independent_Group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan

 

[whichphilosophy]

So called refugees weren't handed a fully furnished house at the expense of the locals!

The WW2 refugees to Sweden were. It was a source of Swedish national pride. 70 000 Finnish children were adopted into Swedish families. There were no problems finding Swedish homes for them.

Few of those entering Sweden are refugees and the numbers that have poured in far exceed that. Further, while there are some children the majority are men from 18 to 45, a few of which of which are causing crime related problems.

 

[whichphilosophy]

France and Italy had large communist parties but they never held a vast majority of votes The British communist party only held one seat in parliament. It was perhaps in the 1970 when British Labour was infiltrated by splinter groups such as the Worker's Revolutionary Party and Socialist Labour League. Some say this lost Labour a string of elections There was a trend of all governments to move towards the left in terms of social reforms. As a result Britain introduced free education, free healthcare, free prescriptions and higher wages were negotiated. In fact the way communism was avoided was to introduce the very reforms which the Marxists had advocated. Tied to this was creating a consumer market for US goods so as to improve the US economy also. Since workers were receiving better wages and poorer people assisted with healthcare more money was circulated into the economy. In fact since the war Europe (and the US) have introduced mixed economies.

In fact the way to beat communism is to introduce socialist reforms

Stalin never had any high degree of support with the European public except amongst some factions in the Trade Union movements.

As usual the US propaganda media saw bogeymen everywhere but in reality (even with italian communists hitting over 30 per cent of the vote) only moderated versions of Marxism ever actually won sustained support.

The recent bogeyman was around Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

We were talking about the period immediately post war and of initiation of the Marshall Plan. So, 1946 onwards.

As far as Communist parties on the continent went, they never needed any majority to stir up revolution.

In Britain there were many "fellow travellers" of communism, such as Konni Ziliacus. Also many more, not willing to risk their well-paid careers at that moment such as Aneurin Bevan, then minister of health, and his wife, Jennie Lee.

As far as Europe's attitude to Stalin went, the admiration and personality worship did not change till after Khrushchev's October 1956 speech was published, and then it changed slowly and reluctantly among the leftwingers.

Sorry to bother you with facts when you are toeing the left wing line with depictions of USA = Bogeyman always. It was not so in Western Europe, however murky the US policies might have been then in S America, or the CIA actions all over the world since then.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

The largest recipient of Marshall Plan money was the United Kingdom (receiving about 26% of the total), followed by France (18%) and West Germany (11%). Some 18 European countries received Plan benefits.[3] Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as East Germany and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not called "Marshall Plan".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konni_Zilliacus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Independent_Group

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan

Bevan and his wife were left wing but hardly communist. Much of Labour was left wing at that time during campaigns for decent pay for miners and other underpaid groups. There were others in the Labour party who were mixing with communists such as Zillacus but these were hardly more than a handful including expelled former members with little national support. Truly they would have been flattered if the US considered them a threat since one else seriously did. In fact it was during the 1950s America went over the top in its paranoia about communist bogeymen everywhere and under the bed featuring McCarthy witch hunts which didn't provide the capture of a single major communist spy or agent.

The Marshall plan was a federal rescue plan to both enable the rebuilding of countries affected by the war and prevent the growth of communism these areas. A redeveloped Europe would translate into increased trade with the USA.

 

[4321lynx]

The Marshall plan was a federal rescue plan to both enable the rebuilding of countries affected by the war and prevent the growth of communism these areas. A redeveloped Europe would translate into increased trade with the USA.

Thank you for saying this. Communism was a cancer fully as dangerous as Nazism.

 

[repoman]

 

[4321lynx]

View attachment 5552

Heil Donald, sieg heil!!!
In which Munich beercellar is the first Trump caucus meeting?


((This is a joke by Ted Cruz , yes?)

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Marshall plan was a federal rescue plan to both enable the rebuilding of countries affected by the war and prevent the growth of communism these areas. A redeveloped Europe would translate into increased trade with the USA.

Thank you for saying this. Communism was a cancer fully as dangerous as Nazism.

The stated agenda has always been historically recorded and discussed as such. Communism was prevented by introducing many of its measures such as free education, free prescriptions, free medical care better unemployment benefits and increased bargaining rights for the workforce. Of course democracy was retained. As a result of these measures, the average citizen had more to spend thus the money circulated into the economy creating even more jobs and ultimately more trade with the USA.

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 5552

Clearly it seems Trump is not against all immigration but the volume and percentage of illegals who are pouring into the USA. The problem is the US instead of applying its own policies, has simply given amnesties which has encouraged even more illegal immigration.

 

[Trausti]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08[/YOUTUBE]

 

[angelo]

As usual, Angelo pulls a claim from his wrinkled ass.

How do you know it's wrinkled?

They somehow know these things!

 

[angelo]

In comparison to today's so called refugees, it was insignificant. And they didn't have the handouts given them like today. Also most didn't follow a death cult as most do today.

Says who?

It was the exact same thing.

The death cult is Americans lost in the religion of "The State" with it's torture chambers and concentration camps all over the world.

That nonsense doesn't merit a response!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Says who?

It was the exact same thing.

The death cult is Americans lost in the religion of "The State" with it's torture chambers and concentration camps all over the world.

That nonsense doesn't merit a response!

The US is a great place, but it supports regimes who do these things. Then the US has a base in Cuba which is above the law. I think they learnt this from us British colonialists.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Anyone who has been working in the Middle East or Asia and wants to return back to Europe should have second thoughts.
Moroccan criminal gangs have taken over Stockholm Station and nothing has been done about it except admitted they have a problem which has been building up during last year. This has recently emerged from the non Swedish media. This has been also reported in other British media such as the BBC. The other expense Sweden shall face will be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omObgif9Hew

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...igrant-teen-gangs-stealing-groping-girls.html

"Swedish police warn Stockholm's main train station is now overrun by migrant teen gangs 'stealing and groping girls'
Hundreds of Moroccan children living on the streets in Stockholm
Accused of stealing and assaulting security guards at the main station
Police say they grope girls and 'slap them in the face when they protest'
One in five Moroccan migrant children run away from housing since 2012

Swedish police warns that Stockholm's main train station has become unsafe after being ‘taken over’ by dozens of Moroccan street children.
The all-male migrant teen gangs are spreading terror in the centre of the Swedish capital, stealing, groping girls and assaulting security guards, according to Stockholm police.
Members of the gangs, some as young as nine, roam central Stockholm day and night, refusing help provided by the Swedish authorities.

Sweden has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Moroccan under-18s who apply for asylum without a parent or guardian in the past four years, with many later running away from the housing provided to live on the streets in the capital.
Stockholm police estimate that at least 200 Moroccan street children move in the area around the main train station in the centre of the capital, sleeping rough, and living off criminal activity.

'These guys are a huge problem for us. They steal stuff everywhere and assault security guards at the central station,' one police officer told SVT.
'They grope girls between their legs, and slap them in the face when they protest. All police officers are aware of this.
'I would never let my children go to the central station. No officer would." END OF QUOTE

 

[angelo]

Can't wait for the apologists response!