What WW2 actually was: a war between banking powers

[Estro Felino]

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

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're giving them a role beyond that which they played. Hitler wasn't a puppet being made to dance on strings. There were, of course, those who sought their own self interests, both individually or commercially amongst the opportunities his particular brand of chaos ushered in.

And much of the 'free world' was playing the 'anyone but the commies' card.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're giving them a role beyond that which they played. Hitler wasn't a puppet being made to dance on strings. There were, of course, those who sought their own self interests, both individually or commercially amongst the opportunities his particular brand of chaos ushered in.

And much of the 'free world' was playing the 'anyone but the commies' card.

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.

 

[an anarchist]

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.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

German Imperialism which wanted to counter the British one...is also a component. For instance, who owned the Suez Canal?
The same banking dynasty who wanted to counter the other inimical banking dynasty.

But you cannot deny that Warburg, Ford, Teagle, Rockefeller owned the IG Farben. They were Americans, right?
They owned the IG Farben, the industry which built Auschwitz.

These are facts. You cannot deny the obvious.

 

[an anarchist]

German Imperialism who wanted to counter the British one...is also a component.

But you cannot deny that Warburg, Ford, Teagle, Rockefeller owned the IG Farben. They were Americans, right?
They owned the IG Farben, the industry which built Auschwitz.

These are facts. You cannot deny the obvious.

I don't know much about Warburg and Teagle, if I recall rightly though Ford was a eugenicist not sure though. ROCKEFELLER tho hahaha you don't have to convince me that eugenics is very popular among folk like him. The proof is there. Him funding Nazism is just one of many evidences.
I know that eugenics was/is very trendy among upper class folk, such as Ford and Rockefeller, and politicians until WW2 made it socially unpopular.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't know much about Warburg and Teagle, if I recall rightly though Ford was a eugenicist not sure though. ROCKEFELLER tho hahaha you don't have to convince me that eugenics is very popular among folk like him. The proof is there. Him funding Nazism is just one of many evidences.
I know that eugenics was/is very trendy among upper class folk, such as Ford and Rockefeller, and politicians until WW2 made it socially unpopular.

I think it's obvious Warburg and others are not English names.
They are German names.

 

[an anarchist]

I think it's obvious Warburg and others are not English names.
They are German names.

Obvious to you maybe. Not to an uncultured swine like me haha thx tho for the info always learning here.

 

[Estro Felino]

Obvious to you maybe. Not to an uncultured swine like me haha thx tho for the info always learning here.

That's not true. You sound very educated.
It's just I speak German and I can recognize German surnames, that's all.

 

[ajay0]

My understanding in brief, is that the first world war was a contest between military alliances for more colonies, which were synonymous with prestige and power.

The seemingly unfair punishment inflicted on the Germans by the victors of the first world war, created the emotional fuel of resentment for the second world war, along with new military alliances that were again seeking more colonies and economic power.

In the first world war, Japan fought against imperial Germany and usurped its possessions in the Pacafic, while in the second was Germany's ally. The main consideration motivating the alliances in both wars were greed for colonial resources and economic power.

Both world wars were however providential for colonised nations in Asia, Africa and South America as the heavy damage caused by the wars amongst the colonial powers ensured that they were not in a position to hold on to their colonies any longer. and most of them gained their independence shortly after the wars.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're giving them a role beyond that which they played. Hitler wasn't a puppet being made to dance on strings. There were, of course, those who sought their own self interests, both individually or commercially amongst the opportunities his particular brand of chaos ushered in.

And much of the 'free world' was playing the 'anyone but the commies' card.

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.

 

[ajay0]

'Endless money forms the sinews of war. ' ~ Cicero

So yes, I won't be surprised if banking dynasties, military-industrial complexes and other clandestine plutocratic players had played a role in financing the wars of such scale.

 

[Estro Felino]

My understanding in brief, is that the first world war was a contest between military alliances for more colonies, which were synonymous with prestige and power.

The seemingly unfair punishment inflicted on the Germans by the victors of the first world war, created the emotional fuel of resentment for the second world war, along with new military alliances that were again seeking more colonies and economic power.

In the first world war, Japan fought against imperial Germany and usurped its possessions in the Pacafic, while in the second was Germany's ally. The main consideration motivating the alliances in both wars were greed for colonial resources and economic power.

Both world wars were however providential for colonised nations in Asia, Africa and South America as the heavy damage caused by the wars amongst the colonial powers ensured that they were not in a position to hold on to their colonies any longer. and most of them gained their independence shortly after the wars.

Unfortunately, WW1 was a banking war, as well.
Considering that it led to a new Europe, undoing the Belle Epoque.
There are the cheques in Switzerland, by means of which Rockefeller funded Lenin (and so the Bolshevik Revolution), which resulted in Russia's armistice, in 1917.
It was also a game of chess... considering how much money the warfare industries gained from WW1.

 

[Estro Felino]

'Endless money forms the sinews of war. ' ~ Cicero

So yes, I won't be surprised if banking dynasties, military-industrial complexes and other clandestine plutocratic elements had played a role in financing the wars of such scale.

Cicero was very wise.
He always spoke of how greed undoes anything.

 

[ajay0]

It was also a game of chess... considering how much money the warfare industries gained from WW1.

I think the war financing for profits may have started way earlier after investors and bankers understood its lucrative nature.

Also they did not have much to lose, as research has shown that it was men from poor socio-economic backgrounds who joined the army and facing dangerous combat situations.

The stratification of military service and combat exposure, 1934–1994

Previous research has suggested that men who were exposed to combat during wartime differed from those who were not. Yet little is known about how selection into combat has changed over time. This paper estimates sequential logistic models using data ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The huge amounts of money gained could have been ploughed back into military research and development, resulting in more lethal weapons.

This could be a reason why each war was more deadlier than the one preceding it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think the war financing for profits may have started way earlier after investors and bankers understood its lucrative nature.

Also they did not have much to lose, as research has shown that it was men from poor socio-economic backgrounds who joined the army and facing dangerous combat situations.

The stratification of military service and combat exposure, 1934–1994

Previous research has suggested that men who were exposed to combat during wartime differed from those who were not. Yet little is known about how selection into combat has changed over time. This paper estimates sequential logistic models using data ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The huge amounts of money gained could have been ploughed back into military research and development, resulting in more lethal weapons.

This could be a reason why each war was more deadlier than the one preceding it.

Exactly...these tycoons never go to war themselves.
They want random citizens to go to war to die.

 

[Revoltingest]

I tried parodying this massive conspiracy theory.
Alas, I couldn't come up with anything more
outrageous than what's believed.

 

[Estro Felino]

I tried parodying this massive conspiracy theory.
Alas, I couldn't come up with anything more
outrageous than what's believed.

Of course you couldn't, dearest.
Because the information I provided is uncontradictible.
And confirms what a Polish professor, honorary member of the Nuremberg trials, said.

By the way...who owned the IG Farben?
Warburg, Rockefeller and similar...

 

[Stevicus]

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

World War 2 was merely the sequel to World War 1. Prior to WW1, the major powers of Europe controlled pretty much the entire world. There was no reason for those with that much wealth and power to fight each other, although nationalism was a key element.

I think some of it may have had to do with the rise of Germany as a unified power. After handily defeating the French in 1871, the Germans might have felt that they were at least superior to the French and should have what the French had - an overseas global empire. Apparently, the British didn't see it this way. For example, in 1905, Germany made a play to try to seize French-controlled Morocco, but the British interceded on the French side, and Germany backed down. In fact, that was a recurring pattern in the decades leading up to WW1, such as when Britain interfered against Russia on behalf of Turkey in the Crimean War in an early example of Russophobia.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course you couldn't, dearest.
Because the information I provided is uncontradictible.

Of course.
Es ist nicht einmal falsch.