What WW2 actually was: a war between banking powers

[Stevicus]

I think the common feature of Germany and Japan is that they saw it reasonable to pursue aggressive foreign policy, including war, to pursue goals they believed would provide stronger long term economics for their countries, including better resource access and space for their people beyond existing borders.

They both saw opportunity, although in Japan's case it rightly identified it's ability to take over from Britain as the key naval power in the East...and wrongly identified whether it would be able to avoid conflict with the US.

As time went on, and it became somewhat obvious that a general war would need to include fighting the Americans, Japan tried to land a heavy blow, so they'd have time to secure that they needed, have a strongly defensible position, and then negotiate from a position of relative strength. They were encouraged in this by a German High Command who'd tried to avoid confrontation with the US, but now realised that whether it was official or not, US economic power was having a major impact on the war. Better for them if the focus for America turned from supporting the Allies to direct conflict with Japan.

I think they may have misread U.S. public opinion to some extent, considering us to be isolationist, divided, and weak. They didn't think Americans would have the stomach for war, and they probably couldn't understand why we would have any interest in what they were doing anyway.

I think there may have been the notion in Germany and Japan: "Why do they even care? Britain has their empire, why can't we have ours?" They saw themselves as "have nots" while the British and Americans were viewed as fat cats who have everything. Hitler's peace offer to Britain was to offer to leave their Empire alone as long as they allowed Germany to get what they wanted (mainly economic control over Eastern Europe). Most would argue that Hitler was too treacherous to put any faith in any agreement he made, so his offers for peace were refused. Same with Japan. Neither could be trusted.

But the big punch didn't do enough damage, the Japanese (like the Germans) overestimated their ability to strengthen their economy during an active war by strategic conquests, and they had no wiggle room when they lost (or even drew) key battles.

The irony is that the U.S. was still largely against the idea of entering the war - at least until the Japanese attack. The big punch had the opposite effect that the Japanese were hoping for. They thought their attack would send Americans into a panic of fear, where we'd be so afraid and awe-struck by Japanese power that they would cower and run away from the fight. Hitler seemed to have the same viewpoint, seeing us as some weakened nation of "mongrels."

(A similar mentality can be discerned even among the 9/11 bombers, who ostensibly thought that if they could show Americans how tough they were and how much damage they could do, Americans would just fold up and wilt and demand that our government give in to terrorist demands. The idea that some "big punch" or bloody nose is enough of a blow to compel American compliance has been pervasive among many of our enemies, but it's really quite foolish.)

You're right, though. The very nature of war changed through this period, and it's almost unthinkable now to have a series of major players simultaneously pursuing aggressive programs of forceful acquisition. Wars are generally fought over other matters.

Indeed, Ukraine is somewhat of a throwback, and clearly a number of countries have taken the approach of providing direct material and economic support...but not boots on the ground.

Since the end of the Cold War, a lot of wars have been civil wars to one degree or another. Most nations don't really fight each other anymore, but some governments still make war on their own people (or vice versa). However, there are also old enmities and bad blood from past wars which can still cause flareups on occasion. Some people are willing to let bygones be bygones, such as between the US and Canada. We had our hostilities in the past, but nowadays, we're all pals; no one is going to get into any fights about it.

Germany seems to be on good terms with their former adversaries, and Japan also appears to be capable of acting as a responsible and mature regional power. There doesn't seem to be any threat of any great resurgence of nationalism in either of those countries (although I could be wrong).

But Russia and China appear to be more nationalistic, and even some countries of Europe seem to be inching in that direction. Africa and the Middle East also appear to be driven by nationalism, at least as much as religion may drive them. In Latin America, they appear to be driven more by politics and economics, although their wars have been relatively mild compared to the wars of the Eastern Hemisphere. From a U.S. standpoint, Latin America is our "soft underbelly," and if an outside power wants to get at the U.S., their best bet would be to try to woo and romance one of our Latin American neighbors to the south. Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, and even tiny Grenada have sent U.S. leaders into conniptions.

I agree that the war in Ukraine is a throwback, although it seems rooted in old enmities and bad blood from previous wars.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think they may have misread U.S. public opinion to some extent, considering us to be isolationist, divided, and weak. They didn't think Americans would have the stomach for war, and they probably couldn't understand why we would have any interest in what they were doing anyway.

This interpretation, in my humble opinion doesn't add up with the rest.
There had already been a WW1 that had been won by the US. And Nazi Germany perfectly knew that the US would go into the war sooner or later.
It was all programmed by those élites who hoped that Americans, after defeating Nazi Germany in very little time, would conquer Moscow too. But it was not possible because the Soviets arrived in Berlin first.

I think that there have been secret agreements between Nazis and Americans behind the scenes.
This Polish professor said that Nazi Germany received overwhelming support from those banking powers overseas.

It was a war to get those resources.

 

[Stevicus]

That's very admirable that you as an American can see that.
But...unfortunately it's the banking and financial élites who have always benefitted from these wars. They were safe and warm sending American soldiers to die.
I believe commoners both in Europe and in the US are on the same boat.
Driven by madmen who want to conquer the world. To conquer it all.

Well, yes, history is filled with stories of such powerful elites who treat the peasants as dogs and send them off to suffer and die for some cause that only benefits the elites. For better or worse, the Romans taught us a lot of things - about politics, running empires, religion. One can still find Latin phrases sprinkled throughout government, law, and academia, making an indelible mark on our cultural perceptions. I think the Italians were also instrumental in forming some of the early ideas about banking, as the Medicis were quite a powerful and influential banking clan. But back in those days, society was mostly pre-industrial, agrarian, with the peasants scattered and sparsely populated.

I won't quibble over banking or financial elites. I don't make any claims of anything that goes on behind the scenes; I just look at the results and the publicly-stated ideas and principles which are used to justify government actions (including war).

Apart from that, there's a certain human propensity towards greed, corruption, feathering one's own nest. People in high places often have the political skill to persuade others to go off and fight, while making everyone believe that they're special and too important to risk losing on the battlefield. I guess this has been a constant throughout history in terms of how human societies have been structured and how the elite tend to operate. We've had some good leaders where human progress has been made, while others might tend to crap out.

In other words, if WW2 was a war between banking factions, then that may not be anything new. But what was new was the devastation wrought by industrialized warfare, as well industrialized mass murder and a technological police state. A few hundred years ago, when such technologies and weapons didn't exist, there was a chance for people to get away from whatever scourges of the state they were facing. It's not as easy anymore, although by the same token, it's not as easy for the elite to control the cattle as it used to be.

 

[Stevicus]

This interpretation, in my humble opinion doesn't add up with the rest.
There had already been a WW1 that had been won by the US. And Nazi Germany perfectly knew that the US would go into the war sooner or later.
It was all programmed by those élites who hoped that Americans, after defeating Nazi Germany in very little time, would conquer Moscow too. But it was not possible because the Soviets arrived in Berlin first.

I think that there have been secret agreements between Nazis and Americans behind the scenes.
This Polish professor said that Nazi Germany received overwhelming support from those banking powers overseas.

It was a war to get those resources.

Well, again, I don't make any claims about what may have gone on behind the scenes. I don't know that the U.S. would have gone into the war. In WW1, the key things that set off Americans was the fear of unrestricted submarine warfare (which threatened American ships and the freedom of navigation) and German calls for Mexico to attack the United States. If not for that, it's questionable whether there would have been enough public support to go to war with Germany.

In WW2, the Japanese attacked us, and at least at that moment, our war was only with Japan. It was Germany and Italy which chose to declare war on us.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This interpretation, in my humble opinion doesn't add up with the rest.
There had already been a WW1 that had been won by the US. And Nazi Germany perfectly knew that the US would go into the war sooner or later.
It was all programmed by those élites who hoped that Americans, after defeating Nazi Germany in very little time, would conquer Moscow too. But it was not possible because the Soviets arrived in Berlin first.

Roosevelt was fairly pro-intervention. But US public opinion at the commencement of WW2 was overwhelmingly in support of staying out of WW2 and remaining neutral. And I mean truly overwhelmingly so (well over 90%).
US Forces were also horribly underprepared for war. The US military service was small (hard as that is to imagine these days) and poorly equipped. In 1936, the US spent 1% of their budget on the military (It's over 16% now). Subjectively, they were about the 17th most powerful military force in the world. That roughly makes them the equivalent of modern day Australia in terms of military projection, crazy as that sounds.

And whatever things might look like in hindsight, it wasn't yet anathema in the 1930s to see Nazi Germany as just another country. Nothing particularly unique, apart from perhaps a noteworthy rise from the malaise they'd been in post-Versailles.

The Debate Behind U.S. Intervention in World War II

73 years ago, President Roosevelt was mulling a third term, and Charles Lindbergh was praising German air strength. A new book looks at the dramatic months leading up to the election of 1940.

www.theatlantic.com

I mentioned earlier in this thread, it was figures like Patton who wanted to drive on Moscow. I'm not sure what to think if you're going to tell me he was a puppet of the global bankers.

I think that there have been secret agreements between Nazis and Americans behind the scenes.
This Polish professor said that Nazi Germany received overwhelming support from those banking powers overseas.

It was a war to get those resources.

It's not really a secret that there was US investment into Germany. And that was happening well BEFORE the Nazis took power. Rather than conspiracy theories, a quick look at the roller coaster ride of the post Versailles German economy, and the impact of the Stock Market crash in '29 paint a picture. As they took power in the period after the Depression, the Nazis initially maintained existing fiscal policy, largely. Increasingly, they then pursued a policy often referred to as carrot and stick economic management. But effectively they encouraged and dealt with larger private providers of goods and services, allowing monopolisation in return for favourable pricing and support. The simplest example of this is conglomerates like IG Farben. The Nazis were able to secure financial support, but also production capacity, and establish a symbiotic relationship in a way they wouldn't have been able to if they were dealing with a large number of smaller entities. Again, I've mentioned this earlier in this thread. This wasn't a case of the Nazis being puppets.

They combined this with deficit spending which would look pretty familiar to us now. They borrowed heavily to fund capital programs, establishing new roads and public transportation, as well as greatly expanding the military. Their intent all along was to aggressively expand their economy through acquisition of new lands and resources, be it by rolling into Austria and Czechoslovakia, or securing the Danzig corridor and more by eliminating Poland. Infrastructure spending served a lot of purposes for them, including in a military sense, although they never really got their economy onto an effective war time footing, in a lot of ways.

That the war became a more general one wasn't overly concerning to them, initially, since they though they could win, for all their flaws. And they were correct. What they didn't have was an ability to bring the conflict to a satisfactory conclusion once it had been commenced. And the economic boon of their conquests didn't reach their estimates pre-war.

 

[justaguy313]

From Anthony C Sutton's book America's secret establishment

America’s Secret Establishment - 05

www.bibliotecapleyades.net

 

[Revoltingest]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the jokes forum?

 

[Estro Felino]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the jokes forum?

I remind you that those who owned the IG Farben were:
- Edsel Ford
- Charles Mitchell (Rockefeller Bank)
- Walt Teagle (Standard Oil)
- Paul Warburg (FED)
- Herman Metz (Bank of Manhattan)

Source: I.G. Farben – Wikipedia

I also remind you that the IG Farben built that death machine called Auschwitz.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remind you that those who owned the IG Farben were:
- Edsel Ford
- Charles Mitchell (Rockefeller Bank)
- Walt Teagle (Standard Oil)
- Paul Warburg (FED)
- Herman Metz (Bank of Manhattan)

Source: I.G. Farben – Wikipedia

I also remind you that the IG Farben built that death machine called Auschwitz.

More humor, eh.

 

[Estro Felino]

More humor, eh.

If Americans hadn't taken all the scientists from Germany (all Nazis) in, the USA would have never gone to the Moon.
You guys need to thank the former Nazi Wernher Von Braun.

 

[Revoltingest]

If Americans hadn't taken all the scientists from Germany (all Nazis) in, the USA would have never gone to the Moon.
You guys need to thank the former Nazi Wernher Von Braun.

Your whataboutism isn't even relevant
enuf to be called "whataboutism".

 

[justaguy313]

 

[Twilight Hue]

Also thanks to a Polish professor who has become honorary member of the Nuremberg trials, I finally understood what pushed Nazi Germans (and the people behind the scenes funding Nazi Germany) to spend so much money on a very extenuating, destructive and self-destructive conflict that involved all European countries, or nearly. It was really something absolutely programmed: there was nothing causal or random in WW2.

It's a very complex and long story, but to simplify:
- the 1929 Crash was so devastating that the banking powers (Warburg, Rockefeller, whose interests were not affected by the Crash) understood they needed to compete with the Socialistic wind blowing in Europe. Socialism had triumphed in Russia, of course. 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.
- Between the twenties and the thirties, these banking powers decided to fund Hitler since they did know a Socialistic revolution was inevitable in Germany. And they did know that their rivals would have done anything to take over in Germany, after the Crash. These powers pushed the Nazis to build the most efficient and greatest military-industrial complex. Auschwitz was built by the IG Farben, the largest petrochemical industry in the world, at that time. Owned by Warburg, Rockfeller, Teagle, Ford and others.
- In 1939, those who funded Hitler, pushed him to conquer the East. Not only because they wanted to defeat the Soviet Union, but mainly because they wished to seize the oilfields in Baku, which were the largest and the richest in the world, at that time. And oil was absolutely fundamental, in the fourties.
- To sum up, WW2 was just a game of chess between two great banking dynasties or banking powers (R. and R.) who were gaming to conquer the resources of Europe and Eastern Europe. They funded the war and benefitted from the war, by selling warfare to the states.

Foundations of Holocaust: American eugenics and the Nazi connection

www.jpost.com

How do the Jews fit into all this?

Germany was hypernationalistic and set out on world domination. .

 

[Estro Felino]

How do the Jews fit into all this?

I wish I knew.
I will never understand how Germany became so anti-Semitic all of a sudden.
They created a regime of hatred and I never understood why.

For instance, speaking of my country, Fascism was supported by many Jewish intellectuals.
230 Jews participated to the coup d'état of 1922 called March on Rome, together with Mussolini.
The most important person in Mussolini's youth was Angelica Balabanoff, a Russian Jew who taught him real socialism.
Then his most important mistress was Margherita Sarfatti, another Jewish intellectual.

There was something both terrifying and mysterious that poisoned Europe at that time.
But I am pretty sure it didn't come from Fascism.

 

[John53]

I wish I knew.
I will never understand how Germany became so anti-Semitic all of a sudden.
They created a regime of hatred and I never understood why.

For instance, speaking of my country, Fascism was supported by many Jewish intellectuals.
230 Jews participated to the coup d'état of 1922 called March on Rome, together with Mussolini.
The most important person in Mussolini's youth was Angelica Balabanoff, a Russian Jew who taught him real socialism.
Then his most important mistress was Margherita Sarfatti, another Jewish intellectual.

There was something both terrifying and mysterious that poisoned Europe at that time.
But I am pretty sure it didn't come from Fascism.

Surely you can blame it on America? You've managed to blame everything else on them.

 

[Revoltingest]

How do the Jews fit into all this?

 

[flowerpower]

Ah man, you have to start in the 1880s when a few elite English folk plotted out WW1. I'm being serious. When I get back into my political research, this will be my first deep dive, the planned implementation of WW1 to prevent the rise of a power (Germany) that competed with the English speaking dominating cultural forces. That's where the conversation of the origins of WW2 really begins.
I've been putting off my political "conspiracy" research. It's been a few years since I deep dove into WW1 so maybe my details are slightly off. But WW1 was plotted out decades in advance. Which in effect caused WW2. For the sake of this thread I might dedicate a couple hours to my WW1 research. Got a day off soon so we'll see it'd be a bit of a time investment. I've been focused on developing my theology instead, but maybe I'm ready to change gears for a bit.

That's actually really interesting and makes a lot of sense.

For some reason, I had the origins of WW1 being something along the lines of bored imperialists with a tight stranglehold on the world deciding to play a real life interactive game with the empires they thought weren't going anywhere soon and that the masses would enjoy participating in with a rapturous fervor without much forethought for the consequences of doing so. I suppose both theories aren't mutually exclusive. Kind of makes the idiotic Treaty of Versailles make a lot more sense too.

 

[Estro Felino]

Surely you can blame it on America? You've managed to blame everything else on them.

Absolutely not.
But there are too many unanswered questions, especially about that ship the MS St Louis that was full of Jewish migrants who were fleeing the Nazi persecutions. But America didn't let them in. Why?

MS St. Louis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a Christian, I think there are two kinds of people. The wicked and the just.
I am on the side of the victims and on the just.

God will tell me everything, in the afterlife.

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely not.
But there are too many unanswered questions, especially about that ship the MS St Louis that was full of Jewish migrants who were fleeing the Nazi persecutions. But America didn't let them in. Why?

MS St. Louis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a Christian, I think there are two kinds of people. The wicked and the just.
I am on the side of the victims and on the just.

God will tell me everything, in the afterlife.

And don't forget Italy's supporting Hitler,
perhaps in exchange for banking franchises
in Europe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Always the same meme...

It's hard to forget that when
faced with the choice of good
or evil, Italy chose evil.