No thanks!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.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What WW2 actually was: a war between banking powers
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
What's that got to do with what I said?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.
People are people, and there are good and bad in all groups.
There are plenty of sources of his views in his own writings.
This isn't new.
Patton's Prejudices (Published 1986)
Yup. Pearl Harbour would have been militarily impactful if the key US carriers Lexington, Saratoga and Enterprise were there.
But they weren't. They were then key factors in the earlier Pacific battles and maneuverings in particular.
Over the long haul, US economic might was always going to be problematic for the Japanese. They needed a period of free reign to secure their strategic targets, and establish a strong hold on the Pacific, from where they could negotiate a cessation of hostilities. And to get free reign, they needed to remove US air power, both in terms of island bases and carriers.
There were those Germans who saw Russia as a source of raw materials and wealth, and they thought that with Russian resources, they could vastly improve and expand German industries and war-making ability, along with increasing the food supply and enhancing the lives of Germans. They thought that, if the British could take over India and make it British, the Germans could do the same with Russia.
Of course, whether it was moral for the Germans to invade Russia (or for Britain to invade India) was another matter, but that was their logic.
All right...What's that got to do with what I said?
People are people, and there are good and bad in all groups.
There are plenty of sources of his views in his own writings.
This isn't new.
Patton's Prejudices (Published 1986)
www.nytimes.com
I don't know whether he did say those things, I wasn't there.
But I was referring to your sense of judgment.
Do you disbelieve the theory narrated in my thread, because you unconsciously believe that all Jews are saints?
It wasn't something logical to the German people.
It made sense just for the masters the Nazis used to work for. Those banking dynasties.
Why would I believe all Jews are saints? That runs contrary to anything I've ever written about anything here.All right...
I don't know whether he did say those things, I wasn't there.
But I was referring to your sense of judgment.
Do you disbelieve the theory narrated in my thread, because you unconsciously believe that all Jews are saints?
I could quibble, and suggest that anything I'm doing unconsciously (or subconsciously) I'd be unaware of. But let's keep it simple. No. In no way do I think all Jews are saints. I don't think anyone is a saint, for that matter, including those canonized by the church you follow.
I disbelieve your narrative because I'm pretty well read on the Second World War, find it needlessly conspiratorial when the majority of facts are known, and that it attempts to take the interplay of multiple motivating factors and actors and reduce them to a single set of orchestrated actions by shadowy men.
With all due respect... Anglo-Saxons and Americans do have lots of misconceptions about Europe. Especially about what we are like, Italians.
And also about Germans, as far as I know.
For instance, many Anglo-Saxons think Mussolini was a rightist dictator, whereas he was one of the staunchest socialists in history.
And he did socialistic things in economy.
Not so sure about that. A major factor in the rise of the Nazis was fear of communism and the Soviet Union. It wasn't just the banks who feared communism, but the Church also feared them. And the monarchists hated them because they killed the Tsar and his family.
The irony of it all is that, if Hitler had simply been a nationalist - without being a rabid anti-Semite and embracing all that "Aryan" BS - he probably could have convinced Britain and France to help him against the USSR. Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltic States probably would have supported it as well, so he wouldn't have needed to invade those countries at all.
In fact, there are those who might argue that the Nazi invasion of the USSR was the only thing they did which was logical, at least based on Germany's logical national security aspirations and the geopolitical situation of the time. Taking on the British and French Empires was not logical, nor was it logical to declare war on the U.S.
Mussolini was associated with extreme anti-communism and aggressive nationalism, which are commonly associated with the right-wing. Sure, he did some socialistic things, as he knew of the necessity of keeping the working classes reasonably content, which the bourgeois capitalist classes would see as a benefit, as opposed to workers striking, rioting, and supporting communist revolutions.
Americans know Italians and Germans because a good percentage of Americans have Italian and German ancestors who brought over the cultures and beliefs of their homelands to the U.S. - adding to the overall "melting pot" culture. Of course, many immigrants came to America because they were at odds with the political systems and governments of their home countries, so Americans' view of European governments may also be colored by the perceptions of those who came from there and didn't like it very much. My own ancestors were Dutch, very devoutly religious - and the story I got was that they left because the government was too permissive, from a religious standpoint.
That's the point. In order to prevent a Bolshevik revolution from taking place in Europe, he, as socialist had to destroy the great capitalists' power.
He expropriated the lands from big landowners and redistributed them among peasants, who became proprietors of those land.
And by the way, even if he favored entrepreneurship, those who would refuse to bow to the regime, were severely punished.
Do you know Bonaldo Stringher? He was the president of Bankitalia. He was thrown out of the window by fascists, because he refused to obey the Duce's orders about the National Bank.
Is that rightist policy? I don't think so.
Surely..,genetically Americans are mostly Germans, Italians and Irish...but that doesn't change the fact that what happened during the thirties and the fourties was really misinterpreted by Americans.
And with all due respect, I dare not imagine how American schools' history books portray WW2...because I do know that Americans do not study European history at all.
Last edited:
That's the point:
those banking dynasties funded Hitler so they would have obtained two great results:
- waging a destructive, self-destructive world war that would have wiped away socialism and fascism, in Russia, Germany and Italy. So the Monetarist thought would have replaced the Keynesian ideology that was incredibly successful both in Italy and in Germany.
- conquering the resources of Russia and building the largest petrochemical industrial complex in the world (in Auschwitz), using slave labor.
Last edited:
I've also read that if the Japanese had hit the fuel tank farm, that would have been an enormous logistical setback, as it would have forced them back to the West Coast for refueling.
The first six months were pretty dicey, at least until the Battle of Midway, which at least gave the U.S. some breathing room in the Pacific. The buildup in naval forces was already ongoing before the war, but they still had a lot of building to do. The U.S. wasn't really prepared and took time to build up all those industries. That's where the genius of FDR and economic leaders like John Kenneth Galbraith marshaled the country's resources and built up the huge industrial machine that was needed for victory. (I don't think we could have done that if we stuck to the rules of laissez-faire economics.)
Great! Now care to answer my question? Again; how did a Bank in America get Hitler to invade Poland causing major corporations multiple times larger than any bank to lose money?
You should ask Warburg.
Did you know that Warburg owned IG Farben, and that IG Farben built Auschwitz?
Yes...they built that monstrous death machine.
The Warburgs were not in Germany at that moment. They were in the US.
All of that is after the war already started I'm talking about what started the war.
The war started with the invasion of Poland. Conquering Poland was essential to expand the IG Farben and to get the resources the Nazis needed for the Auschwitz complex.
Redistributing agricultural land wouldn't be a huge problem for the industrial capitalists, so such actions would only affect part of the capitalists' power. Ultimately, most capitalists are wheeler-dealers and practical when have to be, so if they have to give up something to gain something, they'll go along.
In the U.S., it was different, since most of the land was acquired through expansionist means, so the existing landowners didn't have to give up a thing, yet the poor were given free land through measures like the Homestead Act. That's why Andrew Jackson became so popular. You might say he was the "Mussolini" of his time (sort of).
Fascism and the kind of rigid demands to follow orders no matter what are often associated with the right wing. It's militaristic to kill someone for refusing to follow orders. If someone is a civilian, they just get fired. If they're in the military, they might get shot for disobeying orders - but only if they're in a combat situation.
I tend to think of socialism and other left-wing modes of thought as operating more by committee and a collective group consciousness - not something where one person gives all the orders like a general on a battlefield. Stalin may have gotten to that point, but the system wasn't really structured that way.
One thing that all of these leaders had in common is that the perceived justification is that they were "carrying out the will of the people" (as they saw it). Even the bankers and other capitalists might argue that they're merely acting in the interests of their shareholders, justifying it as quasi-"democratic" on that basis.
Well, if it's any consolation, many Americans never really got much of a clear idea about their own history. Those of us who do enjoy studying history often lament the vast ignorance among our fellow countrymen in this department.
Americans in the Interwar period had views of Europe largely shaped by WW1 at that point, and our interpretation of the events in Europe were largely colored by a long-term history of war, diplomatic intrigue, corruption among the nobility, corruption in the Church, religious schisms, political violence, and petty squabbles among monarchs. We didn't see any obvious "good guys" or "bad guys," so we didn't see any particular reason to get involved in any of their political intrigues.
This attitude started to change after the war in Europe started, although public opinion towards Japan had gone largely negative in the years leading up to that point. The Fall of France in 1940 was also a wake-up call in America, as it appeared that balance of power in Europe was shifting, which could have been a long-term threat to America if Germany and its allies were in command of the entire continent. That much, we did know.
Plus, our economic and strategic interests had become inextricably tied to that of the British Empire. Especially after the US Civil War, both the US and Britain were cooperating and both had a shared interest in maintain safe, secure, and free seas across the globe. We were both sea powers at that point, and we saw eye-to-eye on many issues. Our information on what was happening in Europe was also heavily based on English-language sources.
As for American views of WW2 history, that can sometimes be a source for humor, especially when I look back at some of the things I remember being said when I was a kid. A lot of Americans were raised with the notion that America saved the world single-handedly and that our role was absolutely indispensable, while Britain "helped a little bit," and the Soviet contribution was non-existent. A side issue which is also often told is how the British said (of all the American servicemen stationed in Britain during the buildup towards D-Day) they're "overpaid, oversexed, and over here." The counter to that was the British troops were "underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower." I've even read that in Australia, there was a riot that broke out between American and Australian troops, because the Australians were upset that the Americans were stealing their girls. I guess they just couldn't resist that Yankee charm.
So Hitler invaded Poland so he would have the resources to build Auschwitz? What about Treblinka, and all the other Concentration camps built before Auschwitz? How were they built? And after getting all the resources, why did he invade Russia? Why did he go into Africa?
Those who funded and supported Hitler were tried, although I recall some of the industrialists got light sentences. However, there were many who expressed a great deal of remorse and regret having supported Hitler. Many claimed they didn't know what was happening and the extent of the crimes Hitler and his henchmen were committing. Whether they were sincere in that view - or just upset because Germany lost another war - that's hard to say.
There were other industrialists and bankers who might have supported Hitler from outside of Germany. Henry Ford was an early supporter. Hitler had many admirers in the early years, although that changed as a result of the war.
Even if the banking dynasties had funded Hitler, that doesn't necessarily mean they'd have direct control over him and his regime. Once he's in power, he's in power. He has direct control over the apparatus of the state, including the police and military forces. If they originally supported him thinking they could control him, then they were wrong.
Are you suggesting that there was some war between banking dynasties?