What WW2 actually was: a war between banking powers

[Estro Felino]

So a Bank in the USA somehow got Hitler to invade Poland?

Definitely.
These banking powers are stateless, though. Supranational.

 

[Kfox]

Definitely.
These banking powers are stateless, though. Supranational.

So how did a US bank cause Hitler to invade Poland, causing major corporations that were multiple times larger and more powerful than any bank, to loose money?

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know anything about Japan. I can tell you about Europe only.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor mainly to neutralize the US fleet which would have been used to interdict Japanese shipping and could possibly intervene in their invasion of the Dutch East Indies, which had the oil they needed to continue fighting their war on the Asian mainland. The U.S. imposed an embargo on Japan and cut off their oil supplies. Japan's oil supplies were dwindling. Also, the US controlled the Philippines and the British had possessions in the region which would have been in a position to prevent a Japanese invasion or could attack any shipments of oil from the region. So, the Japanese attacked British Malaya, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies in one fell swoop. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a great outrage and shock to Americans, but the loss of Philippines and Malaya was more significant in terms of the overall war situation.

There was some irony in that the Japanese claimed to be liberators of Asian lands from the Western colonizers, but the Japanese showed themselves to be far more cruel towards the local populations than the Westerners. They didn't get that much native support for their East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere that they touted.

 

[Estro Felino]

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor mainly to neutralize the US fleet which would have been used to interdict Japanese shipping and could possibly intervene in their invasion of the Dutch East Indies, which had the oil they needed to continue fighting their war on the Asian mainland. The U.S. imposed an embargo on Japan and cut off their oil supplies. Japan's oil supplies were dwindling. Also, the US controlled the Philippines and the British had possessions in the region which would have been in a position to prevent a Japanese invasion or could attack any shipments of oil from the region. So, the Japanese attacked British Malaya, the Philippines, and the Dutch East Indies in one fell swoop. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a great outrage and shock to Americans, but the loss of Philippines and Malaya was more significant in terms of the overall war situation.

There was some irony in that the Japanese claimed to be liberators of Asian lands from the Western colonizers, but the Japanese showed themselves to be far more cruel towards the local populations than the Westerners. They didn't get that much native support for their East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere that they touted.

I understand. The Japanese probably wanted the unquestioned supremacy in the Pacific.

As for Nazi Germany, I can tell you that it was these banking powers who wanted to conquer all resources of Eastern Europe.
Caspian oil in Baku, mainly: and they were so busted in their plans: they didn't go to conquer Moscow. No, they headed South, towards the Caspian Sea.

They used Italy as a tool, since Italy had African colonies, that were supposed to wage wars against the British and the French Empires in Africa (which was absolutely delusional and crazy).

 

[Estro Felino]

So how did a US bank cause Hitler to invade Poland, causing major corporations that were multiple times larger and more powerful than any bank, to loose money?

Bankers' greed is self-destructive.
Didn't you know that?

Haven't you seen what happened recently? Silicon Valley Bank?

 

[Stevicus]

I understand. The Japanese probably wanted the unquestioned supremacy in the Pacific.

Yeah, or at least in what they considered their section of it.

As for Nazi Germany, I can tell you that it was these banking powers who wanted to conquer all resources of Eastern Europe.
Caspian oil in Baku, mainly: and they were so busted in their plans: they didn't go to conquer Moscow. No, they headed South, towards the Caspian Sea.

They used Italy as a tool, since Italy had African colonies, that were supposed to wage wars against the British and the French Empires in Africa (which was absolutely delusional and crazy).

Yes, the Achilles' Heel for both Germany and Japan was the lack of any domestic oil production. Can't have a mechanized war without oil.

Some people have speculated that if Japan had attacked the USSR instead of the US and UK, the USSR might have been defeated. The German drive on Moscow failed because Stalin was able to send his Siberian troops to the Moscow front. Also, many of the Red Army officers who had been previously purged by Stalin were being brought back and reactivated about the same time as the Moscow counteroffensive.

However, it's questionable as to how much help the Japanese could have been, especially since the Far Eastern section of Russia had no oil, which is what the Japanese desperately needed. It would not have helped the Japanese war aims to attack Russia, which is why it's all the more curious that Hitler chose to declare war on the United States when he wasn't really obligated to do so. Neither was Mussolini obligated to declare war.

As for Germany's attempt to gain the oil in the Caucasus region, I think there was also a bit of a desperate gamble, although he micromanaged and muffed his own campaign. For whatever reason, Hitler was obsessed with getting Stalingrad, since he saw it as "Stalin's City." The battle was a bloodbath of some of the most intense fighting of the war. I don't know what role the bankers had in all of this, but my sense is that the wealthy and powerful aristocracy might form various powerful factions, though they might sometimes back the wrong horse and get stuck with some complete madman.

I've noticed certain constants in politics, regardless of how it is practiced or by whom. In the industrial era, the captains of industry, along with their bankers (and even their lawyers), became quite powerful - a new aristocracy to take on the influential roles once filled by the clergy and the landed gentry. But human greed is an ever-present constant, as well as lust for power and glory - which leads to war. But they're not gods, and they can't control outcomes - especially when they make a huge gamble like going to war. Then it becomes a matter for those who are professionally trained, as war is more a matter of science, logistics, resources, industry. FDR, Churchill, and even Stalin understood this and tended to let the professionals do their job, without micromanaging everything. Hitler, of course, had military experience from WW1, where he rose to the lofty rank of corporal, but he somehow felt he knew better than his generals, most of whom he didn't really respect anyway.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, or at least in what they considered their section of it.



Yes, the Achilles' Heel for both Germany and Japan was the lack of any domestic oil production. Can't have a mechanized war without oil.

Some people have speculated that if Japan had attacked the USSR instead of the US and UK, the USSR might have been defeated. The German drive on Moscow failed because Stalin was able to send his Siberian troops to the Moscow front. Also, many of the Red Army officers who had been previously purged by Stalin were being brought back and reactivated about the same time as the Moscow counteroffensive.

However, it's questionable as to how much help the Japanese could have been, especially since the Far Eastern section of Russia had no oil, which is what the Japanese desperately needed. It would not have helped the Japanese war aims to attack Russia, which is why it's all the more curious that Hitler chose to declare war on the United States when he wasn't really obligated to do so. Neither was Mussolini obligated to declare war.

As for Germany's attempt to gain the oil in the Caucasus region, I think there was also a bit of a desperate gamble, although he micromanaged and muffed his own campaign. For whatever reason, Hitler was obsessed with getting Stalingrad, since he saw it as "Stalin's City." The battle was a bloodbath of some of the most intense fighting of the war. I don't know what role the bankers had in all of this, but my sense is that the wealthy and powerful aristocracy might form various powerful factions, though they might sometimes back the wrong horse and get stuck with some complete madman.

I've noticed certain constants in politics, regardless of how it is practiced or by whom. In the industrial era, the captains of industry, along with their bankers (and even their lawyers), became quite powerful - a new aristocracy to take on the influential roles once filled by the clergy and the landed gentry. But human greed is an ever-present constant, as well as lust for power and glory - which leads to war. But they're not gods, and they can't control outcomes - especially when they make a huge gamble like going to war. Then it becomes a matter for those who are professionally trained, as war is more a matter of science, logistics, resources, industry. FDR, Churchill, and even Stalin understood this and tended to let the professionals do their job, without micromanaging everything. Hitler, of course, had military experience from WW1, where he rose to the lofty rank of corporal, but he somehow felt he knew better than his generals, most of whom he didn't really respect anyway.

Volgograd, (back then Stalingrad) has nothing to do with Stalin.
Conquering Volgograd was necessary to reach Baku and conquering the entire Caucasian region. Ukraine had already been conquered: Ukraine was filled with Nazi Russians who were proud of getting revenge on Stalin for what he had done to them in the thirties.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There's no proof he was a Christian.
In his Mein Kampf there is so much hatred towards Christianity. Explicit hatred towards Christianity.
You should read it.

I've read it. I'd thoroughly recommend not bothering. Semi-coherent tripe.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Volgograd, (back then Stalingrad) has nothing to do with Stalin.
Conquering Volgograd was necessary to reach Baku and conquering the entire Caucasian region. Ukraine had already been conquered: Ukraine was filled with Nazi Russians who were proud of getting revenge on Stalin for what he had done to them in the thirties.

It's not such a black and white situation as you are painting.

The Wehrmacht forces were split, Stalingrad was relatively weakly defended (compared to Moscow, where the Russians were expecting a fresh push). The German defeat at Moscow had belied the German belief that Operation Barbarossa would kick in the door of Russia, and the whole rotten structure could crumble...one of Hitler's many inaccurate military conceits.

Making at play at the Russian oil fields made sense from a military point of view, far moreso than a banking one. Whilst the Wehrmacht needed the oil, it was equally important to cut off Russian access to it, and limit their ability to field rapidly generated new units of tanks and planes (as well as troops). Even a cursory look at Russian wartime production figures vs German, or an examination of the war footing of those same factories will confirm that, and that is without considering British and American wartime economic power at all. As well as playing a role in river transportation lanes and in a strategic screening position, Stalingrad was a major hub of artillery manufacture.

In trying to take those oil fields, and in trying to limit Russian access to oil, putting a screening force at Stalingrad made sense, cutting river transportation. You could argue they split their forces too much, and certainly they didn't maximise early success, but anyway...

When German forces there were forced into the thing they absolutely couldn't have...an ever deepening war of attrition...it was probably the last truly important mistake of the war. German forces were done, for all that the death knell took several years and a LOT of lives.

And how were the Germans forced into a war of attrition? Well, again, there are a few reasons, not just one. And 'banking' ain't it. Hitler was the largest reason. Much like Stalin, he saw Stalingrad as important for both strategic and morale-based reasons. But ultimately the Germans struggled at times with strategy, rather than tactics. Russian ability to escape (to a degree) from German encirclements, combined with the superior ability to replace lost men and equipment meant the Germans needed to fight a smart, efficient battle. Instead, Zhukov was able to win the strategic battle, breaking the Axis troops the Germans were using to hold their flanks, and encircling the German troops in Stalingrad.

Goering claimed the Luftwaffe could supply the encircled 6th Army. Even by Goerings level of bravado and incompetence, this was a ridiculous claim. He was able to supply about 12% of what the trapped forced needed. Combined with Hitler's weirdly romantic views of war (definitely drank his own propaganda koolaid, that guy) and an unwillingness to repeat the retreat at Moscow, and you had an army left to fend for themselves against an enemy who wasn't especially concerned about losses if it brought victory.

German losses were huge, but Russian losses were higher. But what mattered was that at the end of the battle, the Wehrmacht was broken. The Red Army was not.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's not such a black and white situation as you are painting.

The Wehrmacht forces were split, Stalingrad was relatively weakly defended (compared to Moscow, where the Russians were expecting a fresh push). The German defeat at Moscow had belied the German belief that Operation Barbarossa would kick in the door of Russia, and the whole rotten structure could crumble...one of Hitler's many inaccurate military conceits.

Making at play at the Russian oil fields made sense from a military point of view, far moreso than a banking one. Whilst the Wehrmacht needed the oil, it was equally important to cut off Russian access to it, and limit their ability to field rapidly generated new units of tanks and planes (as well as troops). Even a cursory look at Russian wartime production figures vs German, or an examination of the war footing of those same factories will confirm that, and that is without considering British and American wartime economic power at all. As well as playing a role in river transportation lanes and in a strategic screening position, Stalingrad was a major hub of artillery manufacture.

In trying to take those oil fields, and in trying to limit Russian access to oil, putting a screening force at Stalingrad made sense, cutting river transportation. You could argue they split their forces too much, and certainly they didn't maximise early success, but anyway...

When German forces there were forced into the thing they absolutely couldn't have...an ever deepening war of attrition...it was probably the last truly important mistake of the war. German forces were done, for all that the death knell took several years and a LOT of lives.

And how were the Germans forced into a war of attrition? Well, again, there are a few reasons, not just one. And 'banking' ain't it. Hitler was the largest reason. Much like Stalin, he saw Stalingrad as important for both strategic and morale-based reasons. But ultimately the Germans struggled at times with strategy, rather than tactics. Russian ability to escape (to a degree) from German encirclements, combined with the superior ability to replace lost men and equipment meant the Germans needed to fight a smart, efficient battle. Instead, Zhukov was able to win the strategic battle, breaking the Axis troops the Germans were using to hold their flanks, and encircling the German troops in Stalingrad.

Goering claimed the Luftwaffe could supply the encircled 6th Army. Even by Goerings level of bravado and incompetence, this was a ridiculous claim. He was able to supply about 12% of what the trapped forced needed. Combined with Hitler's weirdly romantic views of war (definitely drank his own propaganda koolaid, that guy) and an unwillingness to repeat the retreat at Moscow, and you had an army left to fend for themselves against an enemy who wasn't especially concerned about losses if it brought victory.

German losses were huge, but Russian losses were higher. But what mattered was that at the end of the battle, the Wehrmacht was broken. The Red Army was not.

When George Patton said "we have fought the wrong enemy", he did realize that Germans were not the devil.
He realized they had been manipulated by those élites, the very same élites infesting New York City or London.
I am sorry, that's the truth.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Okay...you will admit that it all started because some Donbas separatists rose against the Kiev's government, and started demanding the independence.
The Kiev regime didn't seek a form of dialogue with them, in 2014. They responded with fire.

Do you think this is something civilized?
No. It's barbaric.
So you expect me to side with Barbarians. No, thank you, dearest.

PS: if some separatists claimed the independence of Sardinia, no Italian would have given a damn. Really.
Whatever. The State would have tried to negotiate with them, and told them: if you want to become independent, fine. I couldn't care less. Good luck, Sardines.

Separatists are often tools or members of one party in a conflict, funded and supported by that party, in order to justify military action in support of separatists and gain territory. The events leading up the the Anschluss prior to WWII are an example.

 

[Estro Felino]

Separatists are often tools or members of one party in a conflict, funded and supported by that party, in order to justify military action in support of separatists and gain territory. The events leading up the the Anschluss prior to WWII are an example.

Western Europe is filled with separatists.
Catalonia, Basque Region, South Tyrol, etc etc
The difference between us and Ukrainians is that we don't bomb separatists just for being separatists.
We try to understand their claims.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Western Europe is filled with separatists.
Catalonia, Basque Region, South Tyrol, etc etc
The difference between us and Ukrainians is that we don't bomb separatists just for being separatists.
We try to understand their claims.

Nice spin!

On 3 March 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, groups of protesters took control of the regional administration building in Donetsk.[30] An armed opposition group named the Donbas People's Militia, led by Pavel Gubarev, participated.[30] This happened when 11 Ukrainian cities with significant populations of ethnic Russians erupted in demonstrations against the new Ukrainian government.[30] On 6 April 2014, 2,000 pro-Russian protesters rallied outside the regional administration building.[31] On the same day, groups of protesters in Eastern Ukraine stormed the regional administration building in Kharkiv, and the SBU headquarters in Luhansk.[8] The groups created a people's council and demanded a referendum like the one held in Crimea.[31][nb 1]​

​

Donbas war​

On 12 April, armed members of the Donbas People's Militia seized government buildings in Kramatorsk and Sloviansk,[40][41] and set up checkpoints and barricades.[42][43][44] The same day, former members of the Donetsk "Berkut" unit joined the ranks of the Donbas People's Militia.[45]​

​

On 13 April, the newly established Ukrainian government gave the separatists a deadline to disarm or face a "full-scale anti-terrorist campaign" in the region​

​

Russian separatist forces in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Estro Felino]

Nice spin!

On 3 March 2014, during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, groups of protesters took control of the regional administration building in Donetsk.[30] An armed opposition group named the Donbas People's Militia, led by Pavel Gubarev, participated.[30] This happened when 11 Ukrainian cities with significant populations of ethnic Russians erupted in demonstrations against the new Ukrainian government.[30] On 6 April 2014, 2,000 pro-Russian protesters rallied outside the regional administration building.[31] On the same day, groups of protesters in Eastern Ukraine stormed the regional administration building in Kharkiv, and the SBU headquarters in Luhansk.[8] The groups created a people's council and demanded a referendum like the one held in Crimea.[31][nb 1]​

​

Donbas war​

On 12 April, armed members of the Donbas People's Militia seized government buildings in Kramatorsk and Sloviansk,[40][41] and set up checkpoints and barricades.[42][43][44] The same day, former members of the Donetsk "Berkut" unit joined the ranks of the Donbas People's Militia.[45]​

​

On 13 April, the newly established Ukrainian government gave the separatists a deadline to disarm or face a "full-scale anti-terrorist campaign" in the region​

​

Russian separatist forces in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The substance doesn't change.
If separatists had done something similar, we Western Europeans would have never responded in such a barbaric manner, that is, with fire.
No, I am sorry.

 

[Stevicus]

It's not such a black and white situation as you are painting.

The Wehrmacht forces were split, Stalingrad was relatively weakly defended (compared to Moscow, where the Russians were expecting a fresh push). The German defeat at Moscow had belied the German belief that Operation Barbarossa would kick in the door of Russia, and the whole rotten structure could crumble...one of Hitler's many inaccurate military conceits.

Making at play at the Russian oil fields made sense from a military point of view, far moreso than a banking one. Whilst the Wehrmacht needed the oil, it was equally important to cut off Russian access to it, and limit their ability to field rapidly generated new units of tanks and planes (as well as troops). Even a cursory look at Russian wartime production figures vs German, or an examination of the war footing of those same factories will confirm that, and that is without considering British and American wartime economic power at all. As well as playing a role in river transportation lanes and in a strategic screening position, Stalingrad was a major hub of artillery manufacture.

In trying to take those oil fields, and in trying to limit Russian access to oil, putting a screening force at Stalingrad made sense, cutting river transportation. You could argue they split their forces too much, and certainly they didn't maximise early success, but anyway...

When German forces there were forced into the thing they absolutely couldn't have...an ever deepening war of attrition...it was probably the last truly important mistake of the war. German forces were done, for all that the death knell took several years and a LOT of lives.

And how were the Germans forced into a war of attrition? Well, again, there are a few reasons, not just one. And 'banking' ain't it. Hitler was the largest reason. Much like Stalin, he saw Stalingrad as important for both strategic and morale-based reasons. But ultimately the Germans struggled at times with strategy, rather than tactics. Russian ability to escape (to a degree) from German encirclements, combined with the superior ability to replace lost men and equipment meant the Germans needed to fight a smart, efficient battle. Instead, Zhukov was able to win the strategic battle, breaking the Axis troops the Germans were using to hold their flanks, and encircling the German troops in Stalingrad.

Goering claimed the Luftwaffe could supply the encircled 6th Army. Even by Goerings level of bravado and incompetence, this was a ridiculous claim. He was able to supply about 12% of what the trapped forced needed. Combined with Hitler's weirdly romantic views of war (definitely drank his own propaganda koolaid, that guy) and an unwillingness to repeat the retreat at Moscow, and you had an army left to fend for themselves against an enemy who wasn't especially concerned about losses if it brought victory.

German losses were huge, but Russian losses were higher. But what mattered was that at the end of the battle, the Wehrmacht was broken. The Red Army was not.

An excellent summary. The Germans probably still could have bypassed or avoided Stalingrad and may have been in a better position to protect the flank of Caucasus attack. I've heard some that it was mainly just the name "Stalingrad" that made the city seem more important than it actually was. But there was no need to get embroiled in a useless house-to-house rat war. I remember reading about a skirmish where both sides ran out of ammunition and were all going at it hand-to-hand.

I've read some accounts where it was felt that the Romanian and Italian forces on the north flank were unfairly blamed for collapsing, but they were put in an impossible situation to begin with. I think that's what convinced a lot of generals (those who weren't convinced already) that the only way to salvage the situation was to kill Hitler.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

When George Patton said "we have fought the wrong enemy", he did realize that Germans were not the devil.
He realized they had been manipulated by those élites, the very same élites infesting New York City or London.
I am sorry, that's the truth.

You don't address anything in detail on this topic, which is somewhat informative I think.
Nevertheless, whilst Patton doesn't appear to have ever directly said 'we have fought the wrong enemy' he certainly said similar things more than once. He was referring to the Soviets.

He was pretty openly anti-Semitic as well, of course, but he wasn't talking about declaring war on shadowy banking cartels, nor was he a subtle man.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've read some accounts where it was felt that the Romanian and Italian forces on the north flank were unfairly blamed for collapsing, but they were put in an impossible situation to begin with.

The Romanian forces had no chance of holding. They were heavily outnumbered (roughly 2 to 1) and were using cast off German equipment the Germans had made obselete after the Battle for France. Trying to stop Soviet armour with 37mm AT guns was never going to work.

The Romanians wanted some key bridges destroyed, to better strengthen their defensive position, but German High Command refused.

The whole thing is pretty hard to understand, in a strategic sense.

Romanian armour looked horribly underwhelming on paper (they had less than 20 German tanks, and otherwise relied on light Romanian tanks) but they actually acquitted themselves pretty well. But the Soviets could absorb the losses.

Between battle and breakdowns, the entire Romanian armour contingency was effectively lost.

It was a similar story with the Italians (and Hungarians). The Italians had sent some of their better fighting units, but they lacked mechanised vehicles, winter anti-freeze, clothing, etc.

I've never quite worked out how much of the problem was German incompetence, how much was self-delusion that the holding positions wouldn't need to fight an extended defence, and how much was a lack of better options.

 

[Estro Felino]

You don't address anything in detail on this topic, which is somewhat informative I think.
Nevertheless, whilst Patton doesn't appear to have ever directly said 'we have fought the wrong enemy' he certainly said similar things more than once. He was referring to the Soviets.

He was pretty openly anti-Semitic as well, of course, but he wasn't talking about declaring war on shadowy banking cartels, nor was he a subtle man.

If you want, I can send you a video, where everything is explained clearly in 5 minutes or less.
I cannot publish it here, though.
To safeguard this person's safety.

 

[Estro Felino]

An excellent summary. The Germans probably still could have bypassed or avoided Stalingrad and may have been in a better position to protect the flank of Caucasus attack. I've heard some that it was mainly just the name "Stalingrad" that made the city seem more important than it actually was. But there was no need to get embroiled in a useless house-to-house rat war. I remember reading about a skirmish where both sides ran out of ammunition and were all going at it hand-to-hand.

I've read some accounts where it was felt that the Romanian and Italian forces on the north flank were unfairly blamed for collapsing, but they were put in an impossible situation to begin with. I think that's what convinced a lot of generals (those who weren't convinced already) that the only way to salvage the situation was to kill Hitler.

Are you really trying to find a logic in the Nazis' plan to conquer Russia?
Because there is no logic.
Just self-destructive, delusional war games.

 

[Estro Felino]

He was pretty openly anti-Semitic as well, of course, but he wasn't talking about declaring war on shadowy banking cartels, nor was he a subtle man.

Do you really believe that all Jews are immaculate, holy, pure saints that would never plan something evil?

Because I am culturally, religiously and genetically Catholic but I do believe numerous Catholics are evil and do evil things.
But that doesn't mean that there are not good Catholics.