Hi Horus, have you read Conjuring Hitler by Guido Preparata? His explanation for the war solves all riddles surrounding it, I think, including the actions of Churchill and Chamberlain, and why they targeted Germany after the invasion of Poland but not the Soviet Union; that the international financiers that ruled Britain orchestrated both World War 1 and World War 2 to result in a weakened, divided continent to allow for Anglo/Jewish financier control over the continent. The only threat to British/American rule over Europe was an alliance between Germany (the brain) and Russia (the natural resources) which would have rendered a blockade by sea powers irrelevant, and everything conducted by Britain was designed to prevent such an alliance (the Mackinder thesis).
I haven't read Preparata's book. I have read your review that you linked to. The Mackinder thesis was the thinking of some people, I'm sure. I read The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski which argued some of the same in the 1990s. I wouldn't say that Britain acted continually according to that thinking through the decades in question, though. I avoid speaking of Britain doing this or America doing that as I see the situation as too complicated for such statements (about whole states) to be true over time. I also doubt that it would have been possible for Britain to manipulate Germany from Versailles or before all the way into the 1940s as Preparata seems to suggest. If that was the case, I think there would be much more evidence.
World War 2 was a catastrophe for the Jewish financiers in England, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, really everywhere in Europe. Only the Jewish financiers in the USA profited from the war. While the solidarity in the international Jewry is real, the collapse in wealth and power of the European Jews certainly displeased these families greatly. The loss of the colonial empires lead to more losses of "investment" opportunities.
I should stress that the European economies between 1945 and 1980 were run in a semi-socialist form with the state controlling the central bank and loan conditions, permanent inflation, low use of loans, currency controls, budgetary grants for industrial investments, coordinated or cartelised R&D and expenditure in machinery, preferential tariffs for controlled exports and imports. No economic space for the Jews in such a world.
Hitler didn't violate the Munich agreement. CZ ceased exist when Slovakia left the country and the Czech President traveled to Berlin and accepted a German protectorate, after Poland and Hungary had already invaded CZ.
You are missing a key element in your analysis. The debt servitude of Germany. The treaty of Versailles was unusual in that it did not annul war debts; instead it transferred them to Germany, resulting in a gigantic debt burden; a colossal mistake by Lloyd George and Clemenceau. These made Germany a permanent enemy of France and England. France recognised it early on and negotiated an alliance with Czechoslovakia and Romania. However no country ever viewed France as a reliable ally since everyone knew the extreme corruption of the French ruling class and the weakness of its industry.
The USA, the ultimate recipient of Germany's payments, was a key player in European politics and started to incite war outright by arming the Soviet Union. England should have denounced its war debt to the USA and abandoned its financial demands on Germany in order to become neutral or friendly. Had England done so, it would have become an enemy of the USA and should have prepared for war against the USA. A tough choice. The Jews around Churchill and in other political circles worked on the friendship with USA and enmity with Germany, because it was in the American and English Jew's interests to do so : proper in the land opportunity and in the largest colonial empire in the world.
The Entente with France was natural because English and French interests were aligned in the critical issues of the German debt and the preservation of the colonial empires. Had England chosen friendship with Germany and hostility to the USA, it would have had to drag France along. That was quite feasible because a large part of the French political class and most industrialists wanted real peace (as opposed to armed peace) and cooperation with Germany. England kept such an option on the table for a long while with the Anglo-Japanese alliance.
Interesting. I agree that England should have denounced its war debts to the USA, or better still never incurred them. Sinking into debt and inflating the currency is among the main reasons to avoid even small wars, let alone that one. British politicians managed to make the same dreadful choice twice.
Where you say that the Entente with France was natural, I assume you mean after Versailles. You're not saying that debt obligations were a factor in it before the war...?
Before the first world war Germany challenged England's supremacy at sea so England needed a strong ally on the continent to fight Germany in case of a war. Two choices : France or Austria-Hungary. France appeared the natural choice, in spite of the historical rivalry.
After the war the USA started to behave like a colonial overlord in Latin America and to build a large warfleet. Although never explicitly stated, the intention was to challenge the weakened England. The USA also campaigned in India and South Africa for opening them up to American trade. This prompted England to keep the Entente going with the goal of protecting the colonial empires. It also prompted England to enter the Anglo-Japanese alliance to face the USA in the Pacific ocean.
I hope my answer is clear.
Ironically debts were a minor factor in the Entente prior to the war as well: debts of poor "independent" countries such as the Latin American countries, Morocco, or Iran towards England and France. When such countries could not pay, it was natural for the English and French bankers and diplomats to to visit the debtor together.
excellent piece. i’ve have always had issues with the churchill shit (influence of father, a WW2 veteran who advised me to never believe what “they” were telling me about the war). why were Untermeyer, et al so fanatically determined to wreck Germany? no one in the usa or England wanted another war.
I would love to know how many people who served in the war were unhappy about it and saw the authorities as lying about it. Obviously this has not been well documented.
The motives of Untermyer et al seem quite clear to me - either they felt racial/tribal solidarity with all of Jewry or they wanted to visibly chastise any gentiles who acted against Jews, they saw Hitler and co as people determined to relegate and exclude Jews, and saw themselves as having the resources to overthrow or kill him, so they set out to do so.
Yes
Hi Horus, have you read Conjuring Hitler by Guido Preparata? His explanation for the war solves all riddles surrounding it, I think, including the actions of Churchill and Chamberlain, and why they targeted Germany after the invasion of Poland but not the Soviet Union; that the international financiers that ruled Britain orchestrated both World War 1 and World War 2 to result in a weakened, divided continent to allow for Anglo/Jewish financier control over the continent. The only threat to British/American rule over Europe was an alliance between Germany (the brain) and Russia (the natural resources) which would have rendered a blockade by sea powers irrelevant, and everything conducted by Britain was designed to prevent such an alliance (the Mackinder thesis).
I reviewed Preparata's thesis in greater detail here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/british-and-american-machinations
I haven't read Preparata's book. I have read your review that you linked to. The Mackinder thesis was the thinking of some people, I'm sure. I read The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski which argued some of the same in the 1990s. I wouldn't say that Britain acted continually according to that thinking through the decades in question, though. I avoid speaking of Britain doing this or America doing that as I see the situation as too complicated for such statements (about whole states) to be true over time. I also doubt that it would have been possible for Britain to manipulate Germany from Versailles or before all the way into the 1940s as Preparata seems to suggest. If that was the case, I think there would be much more evidence.
Hi Neoliberal Feudalism,
World War 2 was a catastrophe for the Jewish financiers in England, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, really everywhere in Europe. Only the Jewish financiers in the USA profited from the war. While the solidarity in the international Jewry is real, the collapse in wealth and power of the European Jews certainly displeased these families greatly. The loss of the colonial empires lead to more losses of "investment" opportunities.
I should stress that the European economies between 1945 and 1980 were run in a semi-socialist form with the state controlling the central bank and loan conditions, permanent inflation, low use of loans, currency controls, budgetary grants for industrial investments, coordinated or cartelised R&D and expenditure in machinery, preferential tariffs for controlled exports and imports. No economic space for the Jews in such a world.
Hitler didn't violate the Munich agreement. CZ ceased exist when Slovakia left the country and the Czech President traveled to Berlin and accepted a German protectorate, after Poland and Hungary had already invaded CZ.
Hi Horus,
You are missing a key element in your analysis. The debt servitude of Germany. The treaty of Versailles was unusual in that it did not annul war debts; instead it transferred them to Germany, resulting in a gigantic debt burden; a colossal mistake by Lloyd George and Clemenceau. These made Germany a permanent enemy of France and England. France recognised it early on and negotiated an alliance with Czechoslovakia and Romania. However no country ever viewed France as a reliable ally since everyone knew the extreme corruption of the French ruling class and the weakness of its industry.
The USA, the ultimate recipient of Germany's payments, was a key player in European politics and started to incite war outright by arming the Soviet Union. England should have denounced its war debt to the USA and abandoned its financial demands on Germany in order to become neutral or friendly. Had England done so, it would have become an enemy of the USA and should have prepared for war against the USA. A tough choice. The Jews around Churchill and in other political circles worked on the friendship with USA and enmity with Germany, because it was in the American and English Jew's interests to do so : proper in the land opportunity and in the largest colonial empire in the world.
The Entente with France was natural because English and French interests were aligned in the critical issues of the German debt and the preservation of the colonial empires. Had England chosen friendship with Germany and hostility to the USA, it would have had to drag France along. That was quite feasible because a large part of the French political class and most industrialists wanted real peace (as opposed to armed peace) and cooperation with Germany. England kept such an option on the table for a long while with the Anglo-Japanese alliance.
I hope this brings some clarity.
Interesting. I agree that England should have denounced its war debts to the USA, or better still never incurred them. Sinking into debt and inflating the currency is among the main reasons to avoid even small wars, let alone that one. British politicians managed to make the same dreadful choice twice.
Where you say that the Entente with France was natural, I assume you mean after Versailles. You're not saying that debt obligations were a factor in it before the war...?
Before the first world war Germany challenged England's supremacy at sea so England needed a strong ally on the continent to fight Germany in case of a war. Two choices : France or Austria-Hungary. France appeared the natural choice, in spite of the historical rivalry.
After the war the USA started to behave like a colonial overlord in Latin America and to build a large warfleet. Although never explicitly stated, the intention was to challenge the weakened England. The USA also campaigned in India and South Africa for opening them up to American trade. This prompted England to keep the Entente going with the goal of protecting the colonial empires. It also prompted England to enter the Anglo-Japanese alliance to face the USA in the Pacific ocean.
I hope my answer is clear.
Ironically debts were a minor factor in the Entente prior to the war as well: debts of poor "independent" countries such as the Latin American countries, Morocco, or Iran towards England and France. When such countries could not pay, it was natural for the English and French bankers and diplomats to to visit the debtor together.
excellent piece. i’ve have always had issues with the churchill shit (influence of father, a WW2 veteran who advised me to never believe what “they” were telling me about the war). why were Untermeyer, et al so fanatically determined to wreck Germany? no one in the usa or England wanted another war.
I would love to know how many people who served in the war were unhappy about it and saw the authorities as lying about it. Obviously this has not been well documented.
The motives of Untermyer et al seem quite clear to me - either they felt racial/tribal solidarity with all of Jewry or they wanted to visibly chastise any gentiles who acted against Jews, they saw Hitler and co as people determined to relegate and exclude Jews, and saw themselves as having the resources to overthrow or kill him, so they set out to do so.
yeah. I will always wonder what he saw. He greatly admired Germans. his best friends were a German and an Austrian.