What WW2 actually was: a war between banking powers

[Estro Felino]

If it was simply a matter of banking dynasties wanting to make more money, then there's no reason to fight. There was plenty of money for all. I suppose it's possible that those who already controlled the world markets wanted to keep it for themselves, but why would they favor French bankers over German bankers? If Britain had simply picked Germany instead of France as their bed partner, the World Wars could have been avoided. It seems the modern world has been largely shaped by fickle Britain and her frivolous choices. Not exactly the practicality or pragmatism of bankers. In fact, Britain, France, and other major powers mainly went down, while the power shifted to America - all because the Europeans (and by extension, the bankers) had no clue as to what they were doing.

These banking dynasties are supranational and stateless: they lend money to the States so they can receive industries and big enterprises in exchange. And by the way, these banking powers have warfare industries too, so they gain billions of dollars from the sale of tanks and warfare in general. They want wars to be fought, so their profits triplicate.
As I said, did you know that Rockefeller funded Lenin and Trotsky? There are the cheques in Switzerland proving it.
They funded the Bolshevik Revolution so they could seize all the countless resources the Russian Empire had at that time.
And still has.

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course.
Es ist nicht einmal falsch.

If you think Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Warburg, Morgan are immaculate and flawless, just say it.
If you love them, liberate yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you think Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Warburg, Morgan are immaculate and flawless, just say it.
If you love them, liberate yourself.

If you say so.
But I'm starting to believe you.

All Wars Are Caused By The Banking Elite

Genghis Khan was a banker. (He looked a little like Uncle Pennybags.) Sun Tzu started out as a bank teller, just like Machiavelli. Hitler worked for Deutsche Bank in its Acquisitions Department. Karl Marx was a janitor at he same bank. Ukraine is owned by Jewish Nazi Bank, which is a subsidiary...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[wellwisher]

Yup. Hitler had a silver tongue, tapped into a national agnst and had a wizard of propaganda to turn an otherwise dull, boring person into a savior.
And, of course, if Hitler had such connections he probably wouldn't have went to prison for treason over a failed coop.

What is interesting is the Swamp led Russian Collusion Coup ended with nobody going to prison for treason, even though the coup tried to railroad the leader of the free world; dividing the country. I wonder which big money was behind that scheme.

What we also know is green energy is not free market driven, but based on government cheat to win, with manmade up climate change the big brother prize to the tune of a deficit spending $50 trillion to appease the bogeyman. How much of that will be skimmed and by who? Much of that will go to third world dictators, who will kick back to whom?

There was also the Corona Virus which was partially funded by the US, along with China; gain of function research. This was denied and still denied by the same players, above, even with smoking gun evidence. That gain of function research would go on to benefit big pharmaceutical. It would also ruin the free market economies of the world, with those who ran the coup, making the situation worse, by shutting down their economies, when it was not needed.

If some handful of rich and influential people could fund and promote two world wars, which they knew would kill millions and destroy cities, do you think the same type of people would have a problem killing millions with a virus, when there was so much money to make, and so much power to gain?

Also, who is encouraging illegal immigration. It seems to be the same group. The porous border is allowing the lucrative drug trade to increase profit and market share. What about fake news and the installation of a crooked government based on a dual injustice system, so someone rich cannot lose? What money is behind that. The name Soros often appears but he alone would not be enough, without other rich allies.

The big push for transgender also benefits big Pharm and the big Med, since this change needs so many artificial alterations that only those industries can provide. The same is true for abortion. These industries also benefited by COVID in other ways; double dipping, with no consequences; anything with COVID got extra money. Who came up with that scam and why was it allowed for so long?

COVID also allowed the same people to win a presidency, by being used as an emergency excuse to change voting rules last minute; override state Constitutions, favoring the side that was most involved in all the above scams.

Casino science; statistics models, uses the same math as Politicians, Pollsters, gambling Casino, and bookies; odds. It may not be coincidence that climate change and the medical industries both are Casino science intensive. This allows lines to be blurred with fuzzy dice; political casino science.

The Democrats party is now run by the radial left, which is not even the majority of their party. How is that possible, without serious funding and nazi tactics, by outside forces, which can cause even moderates to hesitate any resistance. The CIA would know if they did not ignore the truth and target distractions for some reason; Durham Report.

One solution is to tax campaign donations, as income. This way the IRS can audit campaigns, if needed, so we can find out who is behind the chaos; bundlers need to itemize. Campaigns are like rich people, which the Left says need to pay their fair share, right? Or is hiding the money and a dual injustice system more important to the cause?

I would change the bureaucratic state, as it currently exists. It gives too much power to unelected officials who are not held accountable. It can be used for political quid pro quo to get self serving laws through the system, bypassing constitutional checks and balances. Who came up with that scam?

 

[Stevicus]

These banking dynasties are supranational and stateless: they lend money to the States so they can receive industries and big enterprises in exchange. And by the way, these banking powers have warfare industries too, so they gain billions of dollars from the sale of tanks and warfare in general. They want wars to be fought, so their profits triplicate.
As I said, did you know that Rockefeller funded Lenin and Trotsky? There are the cheques in Switzerland proving it.
They funded the Bolshevik Revolution so they could seize all the countless resources the Russian Empire had at that time.
And still has.

Wars are a gamble, although one thing that seems clear is that whatever power the banks have is indirect and tenuous. Sometimes it depends on the personality types and reliability of generals on battlefields and heads of state. Banksters, money-grubbers, and profiteers have always been a historical constant, but nationalism and industrialism have been relatively new phenomena, historically speaking. It's much easier to control the masses who have been broken and tamed into religious passivity, but nationalism is far more virile, making the masses far more difficult to control. Moreover, industrialism increased populations and population densities, making the masses a much larger mass.

 

[PureX]

There is no evil cabal ruling the world ... yet, anyway. But there is always a confederacy of selfish, greedy, criminals around looking to use whatever current psychopath is gearing up for the cause of mayhem, to their own advantage.

Which is why the rest of us really need to learn to stay awake, and unified, so as to be able stop them before they can unite and trash everything in their path.

What really caused both world wars was the technological/industrial revolution. The greedsters and the despots smelled a new age of real, unmitigated power dawning and saw it as their time to shine. And shine they did, as millions died.

The lesson is that we need to learn to see this coming, and how to nip it in the bud before it flowers and kills us all. Unfortunately, we have not learned this lesson, yet.

 

[Estro Felino]

Wars are a gamble, although one thing that seems clear is that whatever power the banks have is indirect and tenuous. Sometimes it depends on the personality types and reliability of generals on battlefields and heads of state. Banksters, money-grubbers, and profiteers have always been a historical constant, but nationalism and industrialism have been relatively new phenomena, historically speaking. It's much easier to control the masses who have been broken and tamed into religious passivity, but nationalism is far more virile, making the masses far more difficult to control. Moreover, industrialism increased populations and population densities, making the masses a much larger mass.

In the twenties and the fourties the masses were incredibly illiterate.
Now they are all perfectly aware of what élites are.

And nationalism is more vivid than ever in Europe. But it's about the French Nation and the German Nation allied against the common enemy: the élites.
Because the commoners have understood that it was the élites who ordered their grandparents and great-grandparents to go die in stupid wars, whereas they would remain home, warm and safe.

By the way, did you know who built Auschwitz, @Stevicus?
The IG Farben did. And do you know who used to own it? Warburg, Ford, Rockefeller and others.

 

[Estro Felino]

There is no evil cabal ruling the world ... yet, anyway. But there is always a confederacy of selfish, greedy, criminals around looking to use whatever current psychopath is gearing up for the cause of mayhem, to their own advantage.

Which is why the rest of us really need to learn to stay awake, and unified, so as to be able stop them before they can unite and trash everything in their path.

What really caused both world wars was the technological/industrial revolution. The greedsters and the despots smelled a new age of real, unmitigated power dawning and saw it as their time to shine. And shine they did, as millions died.

The lesson is that we need to learn to see this coming, and how to nip it in the bud before it flowers and kills us all. Unfortunately, we have not learned this lesson, yet.

The fact that there's still a war in Ukraine, shows that those populations haven't learned anything from WW2.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact that there's still a war in Ukraine, shows that those populations haven't learned anything from WW2.

Ukraine never should've invaded Russia, eh.

 

[Estro Felino]

Ukraine never should've invaded Russia, eh.

Ukraine should have never waged war against the separatists of Donbas, yes.
They are to blame.

 

[metis]

But it had become successful in Italy too, since Mussolini was a socialist who compromised with the Nationalists (Fascists) to prevent a Soviet Revolution from taking place in the country.
But Socialism was being implemented in Britain, France, Germany, Scandinavia, as well. And Spain, above all: that will cause the breakout of the horrific Spanish Civil War.

Italy, Germany, and Spain became fascist countries under Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco. The Soviets were socialists based on the teachings of Marx. Fascism is rightist and socialism is leftist. Both rightists and leftists tried to garner support from the wealthy since "money talks".

Banks were only a factor, although an important one for both, but they were not the main cause. The "end game" for the fascists and the Marxists was not the same, but obtaining power with the help of big money was.

 

[metis]

Ukraine should have never waged war against the separatists of Donbas, yes.
They are to blame.

Not really. It was Putin's way to garner support through creating a crisis since his popularity was severely waning due to economic problems, plus his belief that the demise of the Soviet Union was the single biggest disaster of the 20th century, and he stated as such btw.

Many in the Donbas were looking towards better relations with the Ukraine as the latter was doing much better economically, and that also threatened Putin.

 

[Estro Felino]

Italy, Germany, and Spain became fascist countries under Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco. The Soviets were socialists based on the teachings of Marx. Fascism is rightist and socialism is leftist. Both rightists and leftists tried to garner support from the wealthy since "money talks".

Totalitarianisms are all wrong. Right or Left. Fascism, Nazism, Communism. It deals with dictatorships.
Sometimes it is the élites who condition or blackmail the dictators, behind the scenes.
Actually both Fascism and Nazism had a strong socialistic component.

Banks were only a factor, although an important one for both, but they were not the main cause. The "end game" for the fascists and the Marxists was not the same, but obtaining power with the help of big money was.

Unfortunately the banking powers, Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Warburg, played a very dramatically essential role in the breakout of WW2.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not really. It was Putin's way to garner support through creating a crisis since his popularity was severely waning due to economic problems, plus his belief that the demise of the Soviet Union was the single biggest disaster of the 20th century, and he stated as such btw.

Many in the Donbas were looking towards better relations with the Ukraine as the latter was doing much better economically, and that also threatened Putin.

I can't see the point in waging a war against separatists.
If their claims are legitimate, the regime of Kiev should have complied with their requests.

But Poroshenko's regime was very dictatorial. And merciless towards Donbas.

 

[Stevicus]

In the twenties and the fourties the masses were incredibly illiterate.
Now they are all perfectly aware of what élites are.

The literacy rate increased immensely in the 20th century, especially in America and Western Europe. It was slower in Russia and Eastern Europe, although tackling illiteracy was one of the major early programs of the Bolsheviks. Literacy programs and education were mandated for all - young and old alike. They wanted a literate, educated populace. Likewise, in Germany, France, and Britain, public education and boosting literacy were also priorities - as industrialism necessitated that workers have different skill sets which they didn't need while they were working in the fields.

They were always aware of who the elites are, at least in the abstract. Even a pack of wolves instinctively knows who the top dog is. For most people, it may not really matter who is in charge, as long as they're getting their fair share. It's when the workers at the lower end don't get their fair share (or if they're being unfairly treated or needlessly sacrificed) - that's when they start to get restless.

And nationalism is more vivid than ever in Europe. But it's about the French Nation and the German Nation allied against the common enemy: the élites.
Because the commoners have understood that it was the élites who ordered their grandparents and great-grandparents to go die in stupid wars, whereas they would remain home, warm and safe.

Yes, although one aspect of nationalism and patriotism is that people are known to become impatient and even angry at leaders who seem to make poor decisions which impact negatively upon the nation - almost as if they're "throwing the game" and intentionally trying to make their own country lose the war. It's like being on a sports team and having a coach who is a complete idiot to the point where their incompetence is helping the opposing team. Likewise, a player who makes serious errors on the field might also be roundly booed by his own fans.

If the masses become angry with the leadership of their country, it's oftentimes for reasons like that.

Sometimes, it backfires. In Russia, for example, during WW1 the people were sent off to fight and were sacrificed in huge numbers, while the workers were still being mistreated at home, the aristocrats and nobles were still living high on the hog and not having to fight in the war - and the Tsar and his generals were a bunch of idiots who (as Pvt. Bucklin would put it) weren't fit to lead a Johnny detail. They weren't fit to pour pee out of a boot with instructions written under the heel. So, the masses reacted. Mutinies and desertions on the battlefront, and widespread strikes and work stoppages at home. So, the people reacted sharply, wondering why they had to contend with all that crap from a tsarist tyranny when they couldn't do anything right. They couldn't even defend the country.

As the inheritors of Russia's side in the war, the Bolsheviks sued for peace, which turned out to be a bad deal for the fledgling communist regime, but they had other things to contend with.

In Germany, there was a similar idea that they had a chance to win the war, but they were "stabbed in the back," which was the popular rumor floating about which Hitler capitalized on in his speeches. France and Britain were victorious, but the war took its toll on them as well, as they were financially spent, exhausted, and starting to face more resistance in their empires. But if we follow the money, a lot more of it was heading to America at that point. And we were still trying to stay out of world affairs, at least in terms of war and alliance systems. American patriotism was at a certain peak level, but it was more pro-American, without necessarily getting aligned with European affairs.

By the way, did you know who built Auschwitz, @Stevicus?
The IG Farben did. And do you know who used to own it? Warburg, Ford, Rockefeller and others. Americans.

I've read of such things that happened during the war, such as US companies which did business with Nazi Germany before the war (although my understanding is that they suspended their business relationships during the war itself). Still, I would note that there are a lot of things that US companies and the US political leadership did during those years which are questionable, to be sure. Are they guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy and accessories to murder and genocide? Or are they just like many who said they didn't know what was going on?

Didn't many of the German industrialists get relatively light sentences? I don't have time to look right now, but I recall seeing a documentary about Albert Speer and how many of the people he worked with during the war - various ministry officials and those in private industry - were free and becoming fully integrated as important members of the West German economy. They were still somewhat loyal to Speer and were helping him from the outside while he was in prison.

 

[F1fan]

Of course he was a puppet. He was poor...he would have never seized power without very consistent funds from certain banking dynasties.
He thought he was autonomous, at one point. But he never was.

The fact is he never would have had power at any level if not for guilble citizens whose emotions were exploited by clever rhetoric.

 

[F1fan]

Didn't many of the German industrialists get relatively light sentences? I don't have time to look right now, but I recall seeing a documentary about Albert Speer and how many of the people he worked with during the war - various ministry officials and those in private industry - were free and becoming fully integrated as important members of the West German economy. They were still somewhat loyal to Speer and were helping him from the outside while he was in prison.

There was a huge dilemma about the Allies rebuilding Germany, especially as the West and East formed with rising conflict with Soviet Russia. It's interesting how many of the war brands like Volkswagen were retooled to build Hitler's car, the Beetle. All the major car brands survived and built cars and trucks. Krup was a major industrial company for centuries and they were allowed to survive, if not for anything else to help the West Germans stay loyal to the West. Speer did 10 years, I think, maybe more. But he was released short of what many wanted. I think the West had to thread the needle of holding the big criminals accountable and compromising on many of those in "management". George patton got in trouble by putting Nazis to work managing the areas he had control over, and his argument was that he needed someone to run the cities, trains, and infrastructure.

 

[Estro Felino]

Are they guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy and accessories to murder and genocide? Or are they just like many who said they didn't know what was going on?

It's worse than that. The Haavara agreement shows there was a very functioning cooperation between the Third Reich and the Zionist movement. Who were the leaders of the Zionist movement? Just put two and two together.

 

[metis]

Totalitarianisms are all wrong. Right or Left. Fascism, Nazism, Communism. It deals with dictatorships.

Technically, the end product of Marxism was supposed to be small communities operating independently but having joint concerns for each other. However, getting there was the opposite of that, and it was over this issue that Engels split from Marx and the two became bitter enemies [words only though].

Actually both Fascism and Nazism had a strong socialistic component.

Doing things to gain popularity technically is not socialism, and fascist leaders used this as a guise ["populism"] in order to try and gain power. The NAZI's hid their real agenda by claiming they were really socialists who wanted to share with all. However, that was never their real motive.

Unfortunately the banking powers, Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Warburg, played a very dramatically essential role in the breakout of WW2.

Not really. A component, yes, but it would have made no difference who owned the banks one way or another. Authoritarians want to control the banking systems, pure & simple.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course he was a puppet. He was poor...he would have never seized power without very consistent funds from certain banking dynasties.
He thought he was autonomous, at one point. But he never was.

IG Farben (who are big pharma rather than banking if we're picking a boogeyman) were the single largest major contributors to the party by 1933. A time when they still had a number of Jewish board members, although of course that didn't last. A number of other industrialists similarly chipped in funds at a time when the party was close to bankrupt, including Krupp (weapons manufacture being amongst his areas of interest).

But this wasn't an example of puppetry, but rather mutual self interest.
Hitler traded in assurances and contractual guarantees. In particular he gave assurances around market access, a removal of power from trade unions and strong anti-communist action.

I don't get the conspiracy theory stuff. And Hitler was not a puppet.

*shrugs*