James et Suzanne Pool démontrent, dans Who Financed Hitler (pdf), que le rival politique de Hitler, Gregor Strasser a été financé par un juif cosmopolite du nom de Paul Silverberg…
À lire sans faute!
Author : Pool James
Title : Who financed Hitler The secret funding of Hitler’s rise to power 1919-1933
Year : 1997
Link download : Pool_James_and_Suzanne_-_Who_financed_Hitler.zip
Archive password : www.balderexlibris.com
Adolf Hitler did not come to power easily. He began his political career in 1919 and did not become Chancellor until fourteen years later in 1933. During this time it took a tremendous sum of money to support the Nazi Party. Where it came from, who provided it, and why, are the topics of this book. …
JEWISH POWER IN THE WEST
The West has been crippled bya co »osive andcorrupt ideology-morality that causes our political-intellectual elites to declare themselves in sympathy with, andin support of, the very elements that boldly proclaim their goal to be the destruction of the West.
The Jewish role in the West is, for most people, just as much « a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma » (Churchill’s words) as in the Soviet Union – an enigma rendered virtually impenetrable by a sophisticated system of terror which excludes this subject from public debate.
What could not be concealed, and has come to be known, are some of the major effects of the Jewish presence in the West, exhaustively chronicled by Wilmot Robertson in his book The Dispossessed Majority, and by innumerable other Western writers.
Two facts of major importance have been established beyond reasonable doubt:
1. A one-world totalitarianism being promoted by the Soviet Union has its almost exact counterpart in the West, both supposedly inspired by egalitarian ideals – like two wheels at the opposite ends of one and the same axle shaft.
2. The Jewish presence in the West everywhere exhibits a marvellous unity of purpose in the promotion of a Jewish national or Zionist ideal, symbolised by, and geographically centred in, the state of Israel.
Here, then, is the question of paramount importance: What role, if any, does Zionism play in helping to turn the Western wheel of a one-world ambition?
This question calls for an investigation of Jewish financial power in the West, especially in the United States, and of a network of organisations, described by Professor Carroll Quigley as the « Anglo-American Establishment », which has always in this century represented that Western wheel of a one-world ambition. Let us, therefore, begin with the Angle-American Establishment whose origin, purposes and operations were so authoritatively revealed by Or Quigley in his great « history of the world in our time », Tragedy and Hope.
What has happened to this network of organisations spanning the globe? Is it still in business trying to set up a one-world government in fulfilment of the visions of John Ruskin, Cecil John Rhodes, Lord Alfred Milner and others of that coterie? If so, is it still under the control of the original « Anglophile, Ivy League, Eastern seaboard, high Episcopalian and European-culture-conscious » elite of whom Or Quigley writes, or have these, too, been « dispossessed »?
Finding precise answers to such questions should be more useful than merely railing at the many obviously unpleasant consequences that have flowed from the dispossession of the American majority; for there can be no thought of remedial action or reversal until we understand what happened, how and when it happened and, most important of all, what were the conditions that made such dispossession possible.
The story must be told from the beginning if we are to be able to extract the full meaning of what happened later.
About the existence of the Angle-American network – some call it « conspiracy » – there can be no doubt. Or Quigley, who until his death in January 1977 was Professor of History and International Relations at the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University, Washington DC, writes in Tragedy and Hope:
I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for 20 years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and many of its instruments. I have objected. both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies… but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
What we do know for certain is that the « network » or « conspiracy » of which Or Quigley writes has been operating like a sort of revolutionary cyclone, gathering force since the beginning of this century; and we know with equal certainty where it began and how it has developed – this we know on the authority of a leading academic who was, for most of his working life, wholly on its side and had been permitted, as he says, to « examine its records and secret papers ».
But there was a painful shock in store for Or Quigley which darkened the last years of his life. While still in its first printing, his book Tragedy and Hope suddenly ceased to be available. There was no mention of it having to be withdrawn or banned; the publishers, the Macmillan Company, merely stated (untruthfully) that they had run out of copies.
Dr Quigley then said of his book: « It apparently says something which powerful people don’t want known. My publishers stopped selling it and told me that they would reprint when they had 2000 orders, which could never happen because they told everyone who asked that it would not be reprinted.. .I am quite sure Tragedy and Hope was suppressed, although I do not know why or by whom » (from Quigley’s letters, published by Alpine Enterprises, Dearborn, Michigan).
Is it possible that Quigley’s book was suppressed – as suppressed it certainly was – by people inside the « network » with whom for 20 years he had enjoyed a relationship of the warmest mutual trust, those who had even given him access to the « network’s records and secret papers »? If so, why did none of them ever go to him and explain what had happened and why?
Or did the « network » now have a very different set of proprietors and managers with whom there could no longer be a genuine communion of purpose and understanding?
Much of the information about a one-world conspiracy was known long before Or Quigley wrote his book, having been pieced together like clues in a criminal investigation by persons described by Dr Antony Sutton as « amateur historians », concerned individuals who strongly suspected the existence of some sort of conspiratorial network as the only possible explanation of the pattern of uniformity and consistency in modern global power politics.
As we proceed to unwrap the mystery and probe into the riddle and enigma, using hard factual information which Or Quigley supplies but which he himself evidently did not fully understand, we are left in no doubt that the Anglo-American network, while preserving all its original outward appearance, and without any noticeable displacement of its leading functionaries, had undergone a revolutionary inner change – no less than a change of ownership and control at the highest level.
Or Quigley did at least find out that something of the deepest significance had happened at the « Angle » end of the Establishment shortly after the end of World War 11 – nothing less, in fact, than the total eclipse of that « Angle » end as he had known it down the years. In The Anglo-American Establishment, a book published after his death, he writes of the defeat of the Conservative Party in Britain’s first post-war general election:
Since this blow, the Milner Group has been in eclipse, and it is not clear what has bun happening. Its control of The Times, of the Round Table, of Chatham House, of the Rhodes Trust, of All Souls and of Oxford generally has continued but has been used without centralised purpose or conviction…
Most of the original members of the Group have retired from active affairs; the newer recruits have not the experience or the intellectual convictions, or the social contacts which allowed the older members to wield such power. The disasters into which the Group directed British policy in the years before 1940 are not such as to allow their prestige to continue undiminished… In foreign policy their actions almost destroyed western civilisation, or at least the European end of it. The Times has lost its influence; the Round Table seems lifeless. Far worse than this, those parts of Oxford where the Group’s influence was strongest have suffered a disastrous decline . . . It would seem that the idealistic adventure which began with Toynbet and Milner in 1875 had slowly ground its way to a finish of billerness andashes. (Emphasis added).
Dr Quigley appears to have been baffled by the change which had occurred at the Britishend of the Anglo-American Establishment – but in Tragedy and Hope, published 15 years earlier, we can find the facts which unwrap the riddle and clear up the mystery of strange changes which occurred at both ends of the Establishment, as we shall see.
The British political scenario of those years, the 1930s, begins with an English establishment firmly united in opposition to war with Germany.
Dr Quigley identifies four groups, but the categorisation is somewhat arbitrary, with some individuals belonging to two groups and all the groups working amicably together for some years in spite of their differences. Or Quigley names the « anti-Bolsheviks at the centre », including men like Lord Curzon, Lord O’Abernon and General Smuts, who dominated Britishgovernment policy until 1939, condoning German rearamenl and condemning what they called « French militarism », and insisting on nothing less than the destruction of Soviet power.
The second, or « three-world » bloc as it came to be called, had the support of men like Lord Milner, Leopold Amery, Edward Grigg (Lord Altrincham), Lord Astor, Lionel Curtis and Geoffrey Oawson (then editor of The Times) whose aim it was not to destroy the Soviet Union but to contain it between a German-dominated Europe and an Atlantic bloc of nations including Britain, the British dominions and the United States, with the possible addition of the Scandinavian countries.
All that divided these two groups, as we now see, was the question whether a Communist Soviet Union should be destroyed or only contained and subordinated to the requirements of the Milner group’s original vision of a new world order. But it was a split between these groups which finally settled the fate of the Milner group and the English end of Or Quigley’s Anglo-American network.
The other two sub-groups hardly need to be separated; they were what Or Quigley calls the « appeasers » and those who insisted on « peace at any price »; and in the tense situation that developed they sloughed off and vanished from the scene.
A split between what turned out to be the two main groups occurred in 1939-40, says Or Quigley, « with the three-bloc people like Amery, Lord Halifax and Lord Lothian becoming increasingly anti-German, while the anti-Bolshevik crowd like Chamberlain, Horace Wilson and John Simon tried to adopt a policy based on a declared but unfought waragainst Germany and an undeclared but fighting war against the Soviet Union. » (Emphasis added).
Dr Quigley does not say so, but we can now see clearly what it was that finally split the English establishment into two warring factions, the « anti-Bolsheviks » and the « anti-Cerrnans »:
1. Hitler’s activities, it was felt, made things increasingly difficult for the « anti-Bolsheviks ».
2. Influences exerted increasingly from centres of cosmopolitan high finance generated an irresistible wave of support for the « anti-Germans ».
In other words, hatred of the Germans was made to prevail over hatred of the Soviet Communists.
Dr Quigley goes on: ‘The split betwen these two groups appeared openly in public and led to Chamberlain’s fall from office when Amery called to Chamberlain across the floor of the House of Commons on May 10, 1940: ‘In the name of God, go!’ »
The Rhodes-Milner set, later to be disparagingly labelled as the « Cliveden Set » (after the name of the home of Lord and Lady Astor) fought at the political barricades and was decisively defeated – and the voice of Times editor Geoffrey Dawson, until then still « The Thunderer », was silenced for ever.
All these individuals had their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic, a « high Episcopalian, European-culture-conscious » Eastern seaboard elite who also believed that a strong Germany was needed for the salvation of Europe and the fulfilment of their Ruskin Rhodes-Milner vision of a new world order – and it is the drama of what happened in the United States of America which must presently engage our investigative attention.
With the eclipse of the Milner group in the United Kingdom, it might have been expected that the Rhodes Scholarship Trust and other organisations set up by Rhodes and his disciples, like the Royal Institute of International Affairs and United Kingdom Carnegie Trust, would be liquidated, since it was now obviously impossible to give effect to the purposes for which they had been founded.
Moreover, with the disappearance of all the original trustees of the Rhodes-Ruskin plan, there would be no one to prevent the dismantling of the BritishEmpire, that empire which was to have been the foundation of the imagined political « heaven on earth ».
But those organisations were not liquidated; they were taken over lock, stock and barrel, along with all their accumulated « goodwill », their image of establishment respectability, their history, idealism and mystique.’ And, of course, their funds.
It was, after all, the image of an Anglo-American network, burning with zeal to promote the « English idea » which had proved so attractive in the United States, winning for the American Council on Foreign Relations broad support among men of wealth and influence who relished the idea of being identified with the English upper classes in a fellowship which helped to sanctify their personal ambitions. It was a feather in the cap for America’s nouveaux riches to be associated with Englishmen described by Or Quigley as « gracious and cultured gentlemen » who constantly thought in terms of high ideals and Anglo-American solidarity.
‘Taken over » does not properly describe what happened to the English end of the Angle-American network; in fact, it was transmogrified, subjected to some mysterious Iekyll-and-Hyde change which to this day its bureaucratic personnel can hardly be expected to understand, most of them having minds trained not to be affronted by inconsistency. These bureaucrats would not even notice that a network set up for the purpose of building a new world order on the foundations of the British Empire has been the main cause of the dissolution of that empire, one of its last major accomplishments being the delivery to disgrace and ruin of a small country in Africa which was to have been a permanent monument to the network’s founder, Cecil John Rhodes.’
Nor was it only the organisational structure of the English end which fell into new hands; for taken over with it was an entire generation of British »humanist » intellectuals, a rootless and spiritually neutered intelligentsia, for whom visions of a new world order, in varying degrees influenced by the Marxist gospel, had replaced the Christian religion of their ancestors.
These happenings at the British end of the Angle-American Establishment which, to Or Quigley, were « not clear » can now be fully explained as the consequence of something that had been happening on a totally different plane. This was the plane of high finance where a British concentration of power had, by an imperceptibly gradual process, been drawn into the vortex of a vastly greater alien-controlled international finance power.
Hence a political will and ideal which had always been essentially British, by the occult processes of high finance had been transmuted into an essentially alien cosmopolitan political will and ideal, reared on the foundations of what had been accomplished in the Soviet Union and decidedly not on what the British had accomplished with their empire.
The operations of this financial « magic » had their exact parallel on the other side of the Atlantic and were there more clearly exposed to study.
If Dr Quigley had been able to put together and fully understand some of the facts which he himself supplies in Tragedy and Hope the suppression of his book, the product of 20 years of dedicated labour, would not have come to him as a surprise, and he would not have been puzzled over the identity of those « powerful people » whose interests it had disturbed. Indeed, so much did he reveal that the possibility cannot be excluded that he deliberately stopped short of putting together the explosive facts in order to evade the vigilance of the Macmillan Company’s editors.
The following paragraphs should be read with the closest attention, if the riddle is to be unwrapped and its secret contents exposed to the understanding.
Dr Quigley says that the Eastern Establishment which formed the American end of the Anglo-American network was completely dominated by J.P. Morgan and Company « from the 1880’s to the 1930’s », and that it was « Anglophile internationalist. Ivy League, Easternseaboard, High Episcopalian and European-culture-conscious ». He adds that as late as the 1930s I.P. Morgan and his associates were the most significant figures in policy-making at Harvard, Columbia and to a lesser extent Yale, while the Whitneys were significant at Yale, and the Prudential Insurance Company, through Edward Duffield, dominated Princeton.
Dr Quigley also tells us of « the decline of J.P. Morgan itself, from its deeply anonymous status as a partnership (founded in 1861) to its transformation into an incorporated public company in 1940 and its final disappearance by absorption into its chief banking subsidiary, the Guaranty Trust Company in 1959 ». He adds:
The less obvious implications of this shift were illustrated in a story which passed through Ivy League circles in 1948 in connection with the choice of a new president for Columbia University. This. of all the universities, had been the one closest to J.P. Morgan and Company. and its president, Nicholas Murray Butler, was Morgan’s chief spokesman from the ivied halls. He had been chosen under Morgan’s influence, but the events of 1930·48 which 50 uxakmened Morgan in the economic system also weakened his influence on the Board of Trustees of Columbia until it became evident that Morgan did not have the votes to elect a successor. (Emphasis added).
Unnoticed by historians was a « happening » of enormous importance: the overthrow of a moneyed power elite which Dr Quigley describes as « high Episcopalian » and which others have described as White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP). When the WASPs lost top-dog position in Wall Street they naturally also lost the power to decide who should head the leading educational institutions like Columbia University.
Thus, one « money and intellect alliance » was subtly replaced with another. And the fact that such an alliance of money and intellect behaves much the same, regardless of who controls it at the top, made the change even more difficult to detect.
A difference there was, but this was at first completely invisible, being concerned only with the envisioned end result; the one was for containing the Soviet Union with its socialist rulers with a view to the ultimate absorption of the former Russian empire in a new world order which they, the inheritors of the Rhodes dream, would control; the other was for building up the Soviet Union as an industrial and military giant which would replace the British Empire (then still in full flower) as the foundation of a new world order; a mere technical difference, so it might seem, but one of stupendous consequence as subsequent events have shown.
We learn, or are reminded if old enough, that Henry Ford in the 1930s became involved in a furious struggle with Wall Street – but only with one half of it! Dr Antony Sutton tells us that there was a time when Ford regarded all the finance capitalists as his adversaries; this is understandable, since finance capitalism is the natural foe of private ownership capitalism, of which Henry Ford was the supreme exponent. Dr Sutton writes:
By 1938 Henry Ford, in his public statements, had divided financiers into two classes, those who profited from war and used their influence to bring about war for profit. and the ‘constructive’ financiers. Among the latter group he now included the House of Morgan. During a 1928 New York Times interview Ford averred that: ‘Somebody once said that sixty families have directed the destinies of the nation. It might well be said that if somebody would focus the spotlight on twenty-five persons who handle the nation’s finances, the world’s real warmakers would be brought into bold relief’. The Times reporter asked Ford how he equated this assessment with his long-standing criticism of the House of Mogan, to which Ford replied: There is a constructive and a destructive Wall Street. The House of Morgan represents the constructive. I have known Mr Morgan for many years. He backed and supported Thomas Edison who was also my good friend’.
Frequent references at that time to the « anti-sernitism » of Henry Ford and of J.P. Morgan, strongly support the contention that Ford came out in open support of the House of Morgan when he realised that Morgan represented the last stronghold of opposition to an international cosmopolitan finance capitalism which threatened to engulf America’s own essentially WASP finance capitalism and free enterprise system.
The historical picture of those times is hard to read because both brands of finance capitalism were playing the same game and were using much the same methods; what is more, both had instantly and with marvellous realism recognised Marxist socialism as a most useful instrument for the expansion and concentration of financial power and its translation into political power by harnessing to their purposes all the rootless intellectuals.
Inevitably, too, there was a good deal of overlapping of interests and even co-operation. Indeed, the battle line existed only inside the minds of ad hoc segments of the two elites. However, the difference between the two power vortices was important enough to guarantee that Henry Ford would hate the one and love the other – even to love one he had formerly hated.
Everything that has happened in the West, especially in the United States of America, in the last 50 years endorses the accuracy of this interpretation of history, as three major constellations of purposes, all of them ominous, now move at an increasing pace towards convergence:
1. The Soviet Union, set up and built up from the Westas an industrial and military giant, and its socialist system repeatedly rescued from collapse.
2. The state of Israel set up and maintained almost entirely at the expense of the working populations of the Western industrialised countries.
3. The systematic looting of the West to finance innumerable artificially created ‘Third World » nations whose presence and votes in the United Nations and its innumerable subsidiaries are required for the promotion of an officially endorsed New International Economic Order (NIEO)/ supported simultaneously by the Zionists in the West and the Communists in the Soviet Union and other Marxist states.
Failure to detect the preponderant Jewish influence in the West in the promotion of these converging purposes can today be attributed only to wilful blindness, that is, blindness required by a suicidal ideological commitment.
In all Western countries, nowhere more so than in the United States, election to high political office – and survival in office – are almost exclusively the prerogative of those willing to make the required genuflexions to the West’s secret rulers. The same can be said of all other careers with any bearing on finance and politics, especially in the unversities and the communications media, including the book trade.
The peoples of the West mostly do not understand what has happened, but there must be few today not haunted by a feeling that the country in which they live and the nation to which they belong has been ravaged, and that the West as an ethnic and cultural entity is in a most perilous situation.
The exercise of enormous power that dares anything except exposure to identification has generated a monstrous world of lies. As Dr Antony Sutton puts it in his book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler: « Twentieth century history, as recorded in establishment textbooks and journals is inaccurate ».
Dr Sutton adds: ‘Through foundations controlled by this elite, research by compliant and spineless academics, ‘conservatives’ as well as ‘liberals’, has been directed into channels useful for the objectives of the elite essentially to maintain this subversive and unconstitutional power apparatus ».
Knowledge of the existence of this global system of mind control is the first requirement for an accurate interpretation of contemporary history. « No go » areas have been established in the realm of inquiry and debate, with terrifying penalties for trespass. One of the most important, if not the most important, of these « no go » areas is that which has to do with the organisational structure, operations and ambitions of modem Zionism, whose nexus with the highest concentrations of financial power is obvious.
Barricades of intimidation have been set up in the realm of public opinion, humming and crackling with danger like electrified fences, all designed to discourage « outsiders » from trying to find out what is « being made to happen », and by whom. All these devices of misinformation and suppression, however, only tend to strengthen the hypothesis that at the highest levels of power in America’s Eastern Establishment, hence also of the « network », it is a Zionist imperialism that has replaced an Anglo-Saxon imperialism, and a Zionist idea which has supplanted the English idea of Ruskln, Rhodes and Milner, as the lodestar of those who seek to set up a new world order and to create their own brand of « heaven on earth » – if only for themselves.
Where the Soviet Union regularly exhibits a row of decrepit gentile heads on the Kremlin wall on ceremonial occasions, so in the West we are shown the membership lists of organisations like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission almost exclusively adorned with gentile or « majority » names, while the spotlight of public attention picks out and hovers on Mr David Rockefeller as the embodiment and personification of huge international finance and its one-world imperialist ambitions. We are told in effect that if we do not like what is being made to happen these are the people to blame, nearly all of them linked in one way or another to the Rockefeller financial empire.
But how strong is that Rockefeller financial empire?
We all know that it has been in the forefront as a lender to the Soviet Union, or as a leader of consortia of bank lenders, but is it the « big wheel » or just one of the innumerable planetary cog-wheels revolving in enforced unison with much larger ones? What is Mr David Rockefeller’sposition within the financial empire which carries his name? As this writer has remarked elsewhere: by all the rules applicable to the rest of us, two of America’s biggest banks, Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan and Citibank, have been bankrupt for years, but they are not going to be allowed to fail in the foreseeable future because they are indispensable as stage properties in the theatrical make-believe of modern international high finance.
1. Dr L.A. Waddell. in his book Phoenician Origin of Ihe Britons, Scols and Anglo-Saxons (WiIliams & Norgate, London 1925) pinpoints the attraction of that mystique when he reminds readers: ‘The United States is essentially ‘British’ in its fundamental constitution, civilization and language. Although now such a vastly composite nation. . . it is to be remembered that, besides being founded by British colonists and organized by the Englishman George Washington, the stream of emigration which flowed into the States down to the middle seventies of last century was almost entirely British and Scandinavian. .. «
2. Rhodesia, handed over to « majority rule » in 1981 and now called « Zimbabwe »; see Truth Out ofAfrica, Ivor Benson. the second edition with three new chapters on what happened in Rhodesia (Veritas. Australia 1984).
3. See Professor P.T. Bauer, Equality. the Third World and Economic Delusion (Weidenfeld & Nicolson) re the New International Economic Order (NIEO) and its setting up by the United Nations.
4. Behind the News, August 1984. In August 1982 the Washington-based investment newsletter Globescan threw some light on this subject: « American banks, once thought to be economically impregnable, are teetering on the brink of collapse. A review of Chase Manhattan’s balance sheet reveals that the Rockefeller family’s flagship is literally bankrupt. ..The Chicago Board of Trade said Chase Manhattan’s name was removed from the list of approved banks whose certificates of deposit may be delivered on the Board’s future contract for domestic certificates of deposit ».
THE WALL STREET STRUGGLE
Tha-a-a-a-t Lenin understood very well! That bare ideas willgel you no further forward, that you cannot make a revolution without power, that in our time the primary source of power is money, and that all other forms of power – organisation, weapons, people capable of using those weapons to kill – are begotten of money.
Lenin in Zurich
The need for an impartial treatment of Jewish history has become greater than ever before, writes Professor Hannah Arendt in the preface of her 500-page book The Origins of Totalitarianism. She adds: « Twentieth century political developments have driven the Jewish people into the storm centre of events; the Jewish question and antisemitism … became the catalytic agent, first for the rise of the Nazi movement and the establishment of the organisational structure of the Third Reich… then for a world war of unparalleled ferocity ».’
Professor Arendt makes it clear that no story of that « storm centre of events » can be intelligible, for Jew or gentile, if the Jewish presence as a « catalytic agent » is excluded.
Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s prime minister, put it like this: « No one must lightly dismiss the question of race. It is the key to world history, and it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity – it is written by people who do not understand the race question and what belongs to it ».’
But what has race to do with the Jewish presence in history?
Professor Sir Arthur Keith compresses into one sentence the contents of two lengthy chapters of his book A New Theory of Human Evolution: « My deliberate opinion is that racial characters are more strongly developed in the Jews than in any other Caucasian people ». This statement Keith supports with quotes from many other authorities.
Those in whom racial characters are strongly developed have a keen awareness of kind, like the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm sometimes fighting among themselves, even to the point of slaughter. but always drawing a clear distinction between themselves and the « other animals ».
Or. Carroll Quigley, late Professor of International Relations at the prestigious Georgetown Foreign Service School, Washington DC, in his monumental world history Tragedy and Hope makes no attempt overtly to explore the « catalytic » role of the Jews in the history of our century; indeed, in a book of some 1300 pages he has virtually nothing to say about the Jews except when writing about the inauguration of the state of Israel; and the 36·page index does not even contain the words « Zionism » or « Zionist ».
Nevertheless, the publisher, the Macmillan Company, abruptly ceased distributing this book when it was realised in establishment circles that it contained a great deal of information. some of it from confidential sources, from which sound conclusions about the racial aspects of twentieth century history could be drawn by the perspicacious student. Whether it was by an exercise of cunning that Dr. Quigley managed to get his book accepted and launched by an important establishment publisher, or whether he was so naive as to suppose that he could safely throw so much light on the activities and policies of the great power-wielders of high finance. we may never know. But Quigley demonstrated, as others had done before him, that there prevails in the West a system of censorship not as obvious as that behind the Iron Curtain but equally effective.
And historiography most rigorously excluded from establishment bookshelves is precisely that in which some attempt has been made to explore and explain that « catalytic » Jewish presence in other words, the « racial » factor.
In this chapter, therefore, we propose to illustrate Disraeli’s comment by examining and comparing two modern books of history covering the same period and handling the same subject: Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony C. Sutton, and Who Financed Hitler by James Pool and Suzanne Pool.’
1. DR. ANTONY SUTTON ANDTHE WALL STREET TRILOGY
Dr Antony Sutton admits that there is something missing from his « Wall Street » books: for in one of them, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, at page 167, he writes: « Why did the Wall Street elite, the international bankers, want Roosevelt and Hitler in power? That is an aspect we have not explored »; and on page 174 he raises the question whether the New York elitist establishment is « a subversive force » deliberately trying to suppress the constitution and a free society, adding that a consideration of that question « will be a task ahead in the next decade ».
It is precisely the « Why? » question which George Orwell in his Nineteen Eighty-four regards as all-important, for he has Winston Smith write in his secret diary: « I can understand HOW: I do not understand WHY ».
We can find out quite easily what happened and how it happened, but we are no better off if we cannot find out what were the real motives of those who made it happen.
In all three books, Sutton writes as if Jews as an ethnic entity are now of more historical significance than Gypsies or Eskimoes. Having thus excluded race, or ethnic identity, as a factor, Sutton does not feel called upon to try to explain why, after World War Il, only Max Warburg was exempted when all the German bankers on the supervisory board of directors of the great I.G. Farben industrial empire were tried as « war criminals ».
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler is notable for another most significantomission: There is no mention of the financing of the other « extremist party » in Germany which won spectacular successes in the elections of September 1930; namely, the Communists, who had launched the internal revolution that brought World War I to an abrupt end and who subsequently operated on a massive scale as a legitimate political party. It is reasonable to suppose that the identity and motives of those who financed Hitler might have had something to do with the identity and motives of those who were financing the Communists.
Without this information and the inferences to be drawn from it, we are left with a book like Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, containing a great deal of painstakingly researched and documented information, which could even be dangerously counter-productive, inspissating rather than clarifying an establishment version of history « designed to hide a pervasive fabric of deceit and immoral conduct » (Sutton’s words).
On the other hand, as we shall try to show, the information supplied by Sutton does have some value as being half of the truth – but only if it can be brought into combination with the missing half. The danger to be avoided is that of accepting Surton’s books about Wall Street as a balanced and objective account of the influences at work in modern politics promoting « deceit and immoral conduct ».
Sutton remarks that « Quigley goes a long way to provide evidence for the existence of the power elite, but does not penetrate the operations of the elite », adding: « Possibly the papers used by Quigley had been vetted or did not include documentation on elitist manipulation of such events as the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s accession to power and the election of Roosevelt in 1933 ».
Sutton had evidently failed to notice in Quigley’s book a number of hard facts which provide a fairly complete answer to the question which he had decided to leave unexplored (« Why did the Wall Street elite want Roosevelt and Hitler in power? »).
Sutton avoids the race question as such, but it is significant that the Wall Street financiers he most frequently names are all unmistakably gentiles, these forming part of a vast constellation of financial and industrial power with j.P, Morgan in the centre of it. And it is this financial elite which he blames both for the success of the Bolshevik Revolution and for the precipitation of World War II, supporting his accusations with much sound documentation.
What he does not tell us, and what we most of all need to know, is that the major revolutionary changes which have characterised our century of conflict can be traced to two financial elites, their separateness hard to detect because they so often operated in unison, which found themselves increasingly in a relationship of fierce antagonism from about 1930, the one a gentile elite and the other Jewish.
Sutton comes close to admitting the existence of two Wall Street elites when he says that Henry Ford divided financiers into two classes, the « constructive » and the « destructive », the first personified by J.P. Morgan, the others « the world’s real warmakers ». Thereafter, however, he continues to write about Wall Street financiers as a homogeneous species in which there is no need to draw any distinction between Jew and gentile.
To cut a long story short, it turns out that World War II was a struggle between two financial elites, the one, including a substantial sector of Wall Street, using the German people as its proxy and the other, also with a Wall Street segment, using Germany’s enemies. We need to know the truth about what happened because, as George Orwell succintly put it, « Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past ». In other words, we cannot hope to be able to understand what is happening now unless we know what happened in the past, and if we do not know what is happening now, we have lost all control over what happens to us in future.
We know that the Germans were defeated in World War Il, but what were the consequences of the real struggle between the two financial elites? It is an answer to that question we must have, if we are to understand what is happenig now and what perils are to be averted.
First of all, however, we need to know how a situation arose in which two financial power elites became involved as opponents in a world war. The following is a much abridged account of what happened, for which endorsement can be found in Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope.
For several centuries international financial activity was largely monopolised by Jewish banking dynasties, the most powerful and best-known of these being the Rothschilds. However, financial capitalism was only fully consolidated on an international basis in the early years of the twentieth century.’
During the second half of the 19th century the unprecedented economic development in the United States of America, nearly all of it under the direct control of pioneering families, including Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Astor, etc, gave rise to a corresponding development of banking under the control of the same kind of people, the most conspicuous of these being J.P. Morgan. Much the same happened in Britain and Europe, where gentile predominance in private-ownership capitalism and industrial enterprise produced national concentrations of finance capital which the Jewish banking families could exploit but could not dominate.
It should be remembered that industrialisation in the West was exclusively a product of the inventiveness, energy and enterprise of ethnic Europeans; that is why no Jewish names are to be found among the names of those who founded the great industrial empires, whether in oil, coal, iron and steel, railways and shipping, automobiles, aircraft, electricity, chemicals or anything else. It was thus an explosive increase in the production of real wealth which conferred on the ethnic Europeans – the Christians, or gentiles – a short-lived supremacy in the realm of high finance.
So enormous was the new wealth generated that a newly created gentile financial power, in which personalities like J.P. Morgan and Montagu Norman figure most prominently, superseded the Jewish financial power of which the house of Rothschild formed the apex.
A very complex struggle ensued on many different planes. One major setback for the gentile financiers, engineered by their Jewish rivals through their growing influence in the media and their direct involvement in party politics and the trade union movement, was the inheritance tax and graduated income tax aimed at the powerful gentile families in particular and the middle class in general.
Then, when the gentile elite allowed themselves to be lured into complicity in establishing privately owned central banking systems in all the countries of the West, the tables were decisively turned and the gentile elite began to lose ground at an alarming rate in the competitive rivalry of the two elites. In the United States the instigator of central banking was Paul Warburg, a scion of the powerful German-Jewish banking family.
The Morganites realised at once that their rivals had stolen a march on them by master-minding the Bolshevik Revolution and funding it from Germany, so they hastily got into the act – as Dr Sutton has reported in great detail. J.P. Morgan also took the precaution of supplying funds to Admiral Kolchak in Siberia, since it was by no means certain at that time that the Bolshevik Revolution would succeed – and Morgan, like some members of the British financial elite, might even have pinned his hopes on the victory of the counter-revolution.
In Germany it was different; although traditionally hostile to any form of German nationalism (hence World War I), here British and American gentile bankers saw in the emergence of the National Socialist movement an opportunity to back a likely winner against their rivals who had given early financial and leadership backing to the Marxist revolutionaries.
Was there no other way in which the Morganites could defend or recover their top-dog position in international finance capitalism? The answer is No! The only possible way in which the battle against Jewish predominance could have been fought was closed to them because, as partners in the conduct and exploitation of a fraudulent centralised banking system, they had abandoned the moral position from which such a battle could have been fought. The Morganite bankers had been drawn too deeply into the dirtiest forms of financial power politics and had even tried to compete with Jewish rivals in buying their way into the control centres of radical leftist movements, including the Communist party, even in their own country.
Henry Ford, on the other hand, as a self-made and independent industrialist, came right out into the open and attacked those he regarded as his and his country’s enemies, and he made no secret of his pro-German sympathies before World War II.
In Tragedy and Hope, Quigley tells us that between 1922 and 1930 there came into existence an integrated international banking system, and he tells us how and by whom it was instigated and controlled:
The apex of the system was to be the Bank of International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves privatecorporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury bonds, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.
Long before that, of course, the financiers within these different nations had gained a stranglehold on national politics, promoting an outburst from Gladstone in England as early as 1852. In this system, operated with some inconvenience across national boundaries, the Jewish banking families were an important factor.
Writes Quigley: « … the Rothschilds had been pre-eminent during much of the nineteenth century, but at the end of that century, they were being replaced byJ.P. Morgan whose central office was in New York, although it always operated as if it were in London, where it had, indeed originated as George Peabody and Company in 1838 » (emphasis added).
The power of Morgan, Norman and their close associates « reached its peak during the last decade of their supremacy, 1919-1931, when Montagu Norman and J.P. Morgan dominated not only the financial world but international relations and other matters as well ». Quigley adds that on November 11, 1928 the Wall Street Journal described Montagu Norman as « the currency dictator of Europe ». Biographer Andrew Boyle says that Norman was « instinctively pro-German », and he quotes Norman’s devoted private secretary, Ernest Skinner, as saying that Norman « had some fundamental dislikes … the French, Roman Catholics and Jews ». Morgan was also known to be hostile to Jews in general.
Quigley says of this group, which in the United States was completely dominated by J.P. Morgan and Company from the 1880s to 1930, that it was « cosmopolitan, internationalist, Ivy League, Anglophile, eastern seaboard, high Episcopalian and European-culture conscious », with a signficant influence over policy-making in the principal American universities. This, then, was the American « establishment », closely associated with a similarly oriented English « establishment ».
It was this « Angle-American » establishment, « European-culture conscious » if not always « high Episcopalian », which from reasons and motives springing from instincts of race identity, sought first of all to prevent war with Germany, then did what it could to strengthen the National Socialist movement as a bulwark against a Jewish-sponsored Communist take-over bid in Germany, and even helped to arm Germany. It is all in Quigley’s massive « history of the world in our time » for those not blinded and stupefied by an egalitarian « idealism » that needs to believe that « all men are equal ».
The activities of the British end of the gentile Anglo-American axis, inheritors of the Cecil Rhodes vision of a new world order to be set up and managed by the Anglo-Saxons and their German cousins, are also chronicled at some length by Quigley. At page 581 of his book he names most of the principal personalities and organisations involved, and goes on: ‘The anti-Bolsheviks, including D’Abemon, Smuts, Sir John Simon and H.A.L. Fisher (Warden of All Souls College), were willing to go to any extreme to tear down France and build up Germany ».
A more moderate group, including Lionel Curtis. Leopold Amery (described as the « shadow of Lord Milner ») and Lord Astor, according to Quigley « sought to weaken the League of Nations and destroy all possibility of collective security in order to strengthen Germany in respect to both France and the Soviet Union, and, above all, to free Britain in order to build up an ‘Atlantic bloc’ of Great Britain, the British dominions and the United States ».
Armed in our minds with a comprehensive picture provided by Quigley. we can give to Sutton’s three books an interpretation quite different from that indicated by Sutton himself.
It is hard to believe that Quigley was not deliberately exposing what he knew to be a new and very different financial imperialism when he wrote as follows: ‘The shift occurred on all levels, from changing tastes in newspaper comic strips (from Muff and Jeff or Bringing Up Father to Steve Canyon or Little Annie) to profound changes in the power nexus of the ‘American Establishment’. It was evident in the decline of J.P. Morgan itself, from its deeply anonymous status as a partnership (founded in 1861) to its transformation into an incorporated public company in 1940 and its final disappearance by absorption into its chief banking subsidiary Guaranty Trust Company in 1959″.
One of the major cultural and sociological consequences of the shift of the nexus of power in Wall Street, if not the most important of all, was the stripping from that « Ivy League, Anglophile, high Episcopalian, European-culture-conscious » elite of the power to nominate the presidents of America’s great universities (as recorded at page 937 of Tragedy and Hope). Quigley’s elliptical references to « changing tastes in newspaper comic strips » and Morgan’s inability to nominate a replacement for Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler as President of Columbia University can only mean that he was drawing attention to radical policy changes in American higher education and in the media which followed as a direct consequence of the shift in Wall Street. An extra dimension of meaning is thus given to Dr. Butler’s oft-quoted remark, made at that time:
The world is divided into three classes of people: a very small group
that makes things happen. a somewhat larger group that watches things
happen. and the great multitude that never knows what happened.
* * *
Fitting perfectly into the pattern of what was basically a racial struggle in the realm of American high finance is another political drama which Sutton has chronicled at some length in his Wall Street and FOR, but has failed to understand: a plot to install a « fascist-style » dictator in the White House.
Again, it is exclusively the gentile power-wielders of high finance and big business who are named by Sutton as the culprits, all linked in one way or another with J.P. Morgan: Grayson Murphy, a director of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company; Jackson Martindell, associated with Stone and Webster, allied to the Morgans; the Du Pont Company; the Remington Arms Company, controlled by Du Pont; and the Morgan-Harriman financial interests. Again the motives are left unexplored.
News of the plot was given brief front-page treatment by the New York Times of November 21, 1934; a Congressional committee was set up to investigate the allegations; then news of the plot faded out of the press, and a subject of enormous possible national interest was buried in oblivion. Others involved – since bankers alone cannot stage a coup – were a few men holding important positions in the American Legion, the ex-servicemen’s organisation, and another organisation known as Liberty League, which together seem to have undertaken to make a fighting force of some 500,000 men available. Leadership of the military operations was offered to Major General Smedley D. Butler, » a much decorated military hero, but there is no evidence that he actually agreed to go along with the plotters; he would have needed a good deal of persuasion because his distrust of bankers in general as « warrnakers » was well known; what is certain is that the General discussed the matter with a journalist who blew the whistle on the whole exercise.
Contact between the Morganite bankers and the soldiers and exsoldiers was established by two members of the American Legion, Gerald MacGuire, who worked for Grayson Murphy. and Bill Doyle. Also directly involved was Captain Samuel Glazier, Commmander-in-Chief of CCC Camp at Elkridge, Maryland, who afterwards testified that he had had talks with [ackson Martindell at the latter’s luxurious home in New Jersey and that these had « anti-sernitic overtones ».
Quite clearly, the Morganite financiers and industrialists with whom they were linked, finding their hegemony and independence heavily threatened in Wall Street, had been tempted to try to turn the tables on their Jewish opponents with a Mussolini-type political take-over.
Why, then, the clampdown on news of the plot once it had been brought to light? Why the White House silence? Why the abrupt curtailment of the Congressional committee investigation? Why no backlash from the Jewish sector of the Wall Street elite and the powerful news media with which they were already aligned?
The most likely answer is that it would have suited neither side to flush the plot right out into the open, thereby possibly precipitating a massive polarisation of popular opinion and sentiment on racial lines; after all, both sides, by reason of the nature of their financial and political operations, feared publicity as bed-bugs fear the light, and it would have been impossible to breach the secrecy surrounding the Morganites without serious risk of exposing the political significance of the rapidly increasing power of their Jewish opponents.
* * *
In Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Sutton presents an accurate picture of the American financial and industrial power structure early in the twentieth century, « dominated by two conglomerates: Standard Oil or the Rockefeller enterprise, and the Morgan complex ».
In Sutton’s three Wall Street books, criticism is concentrated almost entirely on these two power conglomerates, which included Guaranty Trust, the United States end of the giant German I. G. Farben Company, International Telephone and Telegraph (m), Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Chase Bank.
As in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Sutton leaves unexplored the funding of the Communist Party and its revolutionaries, so in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revoluhon he ascribes no significance to the identity of those who financed the revolution and were afterwards instrumental in setting up Rustombank, the Soviet Union’s national bank. In the forefront of these, as we are told, was Olof Aschberg, of the Swedish Nya Banken, who channelled funds from « German » bankers and the then hard-pressed German Government to the revolutionaries in Russia; there was also Alexander I. Helphand (Communist Party name of « Parvus ») whose role as the conduit for the flow of funds to the Bolshevik underground in Russia throughout World War I, and in the actual launching of the revolution in St. Petersburg which forced the abdication of the Czar, is discussed at some length in Solzhenitsyn’s book Lenin in Zurich.
Parvus, or Helphand, was a rabid revolutionary from Odessa who helped to launch the Communist paper Iskra in Germany and was the person directly responsible for arranging the transit of Lenin and his band of Jewish revolutionaries through Germany in a sealed railway carriage. Solzhenitsyn’s book is exhaustively detailed and hard to read, but it endorses the thesis that the Bolshevik Revolution was essentially a politically activated Jewish financial operation, and that Lenin’s role in the scenario was basically no more than that of an instrument to be used. Indeed, we find that no one was more surprised than Lenin, the supposed « architect of the Bolshevik Revolution », when informed in his flat in Zurich on March 15,1917, that the revolution had begun.
Aschberg became head of the Soviet Rustombank, which included among its directors the heads of the former « tsarist banks », privileged « capitalists » who escaped « liquidation » and were drawn into the new socialist power structure.
Sutton remarks of all the financiers – the Russian and the foreign – – who helped to launch the Bolshevik Revolution and later supported the Soviet Union, that « their common objective was profit, not ideology ». This wholly unwarranted remark, excluding politics as a primary source of motivation for any of those involved, helps to explain the misleading incompleteness of all three of his Wall Street books.
With his mind securely insulated against disturbing considerations of race or other ethnic identity as a source of political motivation, Sutton summarily dismisses the hypothesis that the Bolshevik Revolution was essentially a Jewish enterprise (Wall Sired and the Bolshevik Revolution, page 185 et seq). On this subject we are asked to accept Sutton’s unsubstantiated opinion rather than that of Winston Churchill who, as Britain’s Secretary for War and Air at the time, had access to confidential information made available by the secret services and the diplomatic services of several countries. Sutton quotes some most damning statements from a US State Department document, but attaches no value to these because « not supported with empirical evidence »; he seems to have required no « empirical evidence » to support his own conclusion that all these stories of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution were « spurious » as he described them.
It was hardly to be expected that Churchill and the other authorities involved would be in a position to make a complete public disclosure of all the top-secret information concerning the Bolshevik Revolution in their possession and its sources.
Thus, in the three books forming Or Antony Sutton’s Wall Street trilogy we find a complete avoidance of the factor of « race and what belongs to it », and a quite misleading concentration of attention on the misdemeanours of that Wall Street elite which Quigley has identified as « high Episcopalian, European-culture-conscious » etc. these being exhibited throughout by Sutton as the « destructive financiers, the world’s real warmakers », while those so described by Henry Ford are presumably exculpated.
Sutton has been quoted as referring unflatteringly to « amateur historians, not fully trained in modern research techniques », who were admittedly advancing a « conspiratorial theory of history » long before the professionals; it would seem, therefore, that there is still some need for such « amateur historians » to undertake the dangerous and thankless task of establishing new bridgeheads in revisionist history, and to blow the whistle from time to time on professional historians, who by avoiding what they would regard as « controversial » issues produce versions of history which are misleadingly incomplete.
2. HIGH FINANCE AND WORLD WAR11
Of the authors of Who Financed Hitler, James Pool and Suzanne Pool, we know nothing except that lames Pool is said to be an investment consultant operating from Cincinnati, Ohio, and that his sister Suzanne was at the time of writing engaged in advanced study at an American university. What we do know about their 500-page book is that it was well received when first published, and was praised y the reviewers in several important establishment journals including the New Yorker (« One of the most illuminating studies of Nazism »), the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle (« Revealing, well documented »), and Newsday (« Well written and copiously documented »).
This book, with its rather unflattering picture of a top-hatred Adolf Hitler on the front cover, and its several derogatory remarks about Hitler, « anti-sernitism » etc in the preface and then, more by implication, all through the book, has the appearance of just another « history » designed to place the blame on the German people and their leaders for both world wars – but those who go on reading soon begin to realise that what they have before them is a thoroughly conscientious work of historical analysis that quietly disregards all the requirements of partisan propaganda.
To take one example at random: the chapter dealing with Henry Ford and the financial assistance he is supposed to have given to the Nazi party. There appears to be no proof of actual cash transfers, but Ford made no secret of the fact that he warmly admired Hitler and his party, and there is ample evidence of channels through which financial assistance to the Nazis could have been, and probably was, transmitted. And, as every American knows, no important figure outside Germany more vigorously displayed his dislike of the Jews than did Henry Ford with his newspaper the Dearborn Independent, his book The International Jew and the aid and encouragement he gave to others in the United States who were hostile to the Jews. The Pools tell the Ford story in some 45 pages and in such a way that, were he alive today, Ford could hardly find fault with it. We are told in considerably detail what it was that made him regard the Jews as deadly enemies:
Ford clashed with the Wall Street financiers not only in the pages of his newspaper and books, but in reality as well. Authorities say that many of his ideas about Jewish financiers came from unpleasant personal experiences with bankers; one of the most violent conflicts between Ford and the financiers occurred early in 1921. At that time rumours circulating the nation claimed that Ford was in difficult financial straits. Reports varied but each represented some aspects of the truth. It was said that Wall Street intended to foreclose on Ford and bring him to his knees. Many bankers were eager to supply him with capital. Some thought that General Motors would obtain financial control of the Ford Company. However, Ford was adamant in his refusal to part with one share of his stock. ‘Henry Ford has reached his limit’. the Dow-jones Financial Ticker Service informed its clients. ‘It is beyond the power of anyone man to raise money and carry forward single-handed the manifold enterprises in which he has started’.
The Denver Post announced in bright red ink on its front page: « Ford Battles Wall Street to Keep Control of Property ». But Ford proceeded to outwit the bankers with a massive cut-back in expenditure, by selling off some assets and by making the dealers pay cash for the cars they bought. thereby forcing many of them to borrow or lose the franchise.
Not only do the Pools reveal that Henry Ford was hostile to the Jews, but they go on to repeat many of the most provocative statements which Ford made at that time in his newspaper and in his books. Here is an example from a reported press interview: « When there’s wrong in a country you’ll find the Jews … the Jew is a huckster who doesn’t work to produce but to make something of what someone else produces ».
Nothing irritated Ford more than the idea of someone getting something for nothing. The Pools add: « In his autobiography Ford said he believed that a man should be permitted to take away from the community an equivalent of what he contributes to it, ‘if he contributes nothing, he should take away nothing’. In America he saw ‘a sinister element, made up of Jewish middlemen whose only aim was to get money’. The Dearborn Independent said a Jew ‘has no attachment for the things he makes, for he doesn’t make any; he deals in the things which other men make and regards them solely on the side of their money-making value’ « .
Not surprisingly, « the major role Jewish leaders played in the November (1918) revolution » which led to and followed the German surrender in World War I, convinced Henry Ford that what he was seeing in Germany was a repetition on a national scale of what he had himself experienced as an independent industrialist – a massive Jewish attempt to grab control.
Written history is seldom found to live up to the ethical requirements of genuine scholarship, for the obvious reason that most of it has been written by and for the victor in every major conflict, but the fact that most history, as Henry Ford put it, is « bunk » should not be allowed to obscure the all-important fact that there has always continued to exist in the Western world a scholarship which, when the emotions of partisanship have been allowed to subside, does try to set the record right for the better instruction of all mankind.
The Pools were smart enough to realise that the full meaning of the period between the two world wars, which was the subject of their investigation, must be sought in a much deeper and broader context of history; since, nearly always, it is the past which gives meaning to the present and no period of history is, as it were, written on a clean slate. Thus, we are sure to fall deeper into error and confusion if we begin a study of the emergence and growth of the National Socialist revolution in Germany before we have acquired clear ideas about World War I and its causes, and about the Versailles Treaty which the victorious nations imposed on a prostrate opponent. So, let us have a brief statement of the Pools’ opinion on that subject:
The Treaty of Versailles was finally signed by the Germans on June 28, 1918, after the resignation of several German officials who refused to sign their names to such an ‘unjust’ treaty. Territorially, Germany lost 25,000 square miles in Europe, inhabited by over six million, and all her colonies, totalling more than a million square miles. In raw materials she lost 65 per cent of her iron ore reserves, 45 per cent of her coal. 72 per cent of her zinc, 12 per cent of her principal agricultural areas … In addition to limiting Germany’s potential to move into expanding overseas markets. the Allies obtained a virtual blank cheque from Germany in terms of reparations … In retrospect it is clear that the Versailles Treaty was one of the primary causes of the failure of German democracy. .. Was the Versailles Treaty designed simply to protect the world from the threat of German militarism. or was the treaty deliberately planned to strangle Germany’s economy and make her uncompetitive in world markets? To answer this question it is only necessary to look at the treatment of German non-military shipping … The treaty called for the confiscation of Germany’s entire ocean-going fleet … All German freighters and ocean liners were handed over to the Allies. . . (Emphasis added)
The Pools quote American economic writer Ludwell Denny to the effect that it was Germany’s bid for industrial and commercial supremacy, based on a huge merchant fleet « that perhaps threatened British supremacy most and for which, had there been no other reason, Britain went to war ».
In Who Financed Hitler we are presented with a horrifying picture of a crushed and humiliated nation: ‘The so-called ‘dismantling’ demanded by the Versailles Treaty was a very bitter experience for many German industrialists and undoubtedly played a part in their later willingness to accept Hitler. Thyssen, Krupp, Kirdorf and other executives stood helpless as they watched the work of generations senselessly destroyed. The forges were shut down and the dismantling began. It was a grim business. Toiling in the summer heat of 1920, the workers were forced to destroy their own source of livelihood … They scarcely spoke a word to one another. The allied engineers paced the shop floors marking with coloured chalk the machine tools, lathes and other equipment to be shipped abroad. Once the crates had been hoisted away, the dynamiting began … »
Even this was evidently not considered sufficient protection against Germany as a competitor in foreign markets. As one example of the ruthlessly unfair application of tariff barriers against German goods, the Pools mention a shipment of toy dolls and dogs to England which moved by a clockwork mechanism; these were taxed as « automobiles » because they could be described as being able to « move under their own power ». Likewise, a shipment of plate glass was stopped with a 331!J per cent tariff because « it could be cut and used as windscreens and windows for automobiles ».
The Pools show that Hitler would have had no chance of persuading the German people to accept a one-party and one-man dictatorship, and by none would he have been more strongly opposed than by the big industrialists, except in the dreadful circumstances that prevailed after the end of World War I.
One fact of history that has been played down in the West almost to vanishing point is that the German people, the industrialists included, had to choose in the end between two forms of totalitarianism: a Nazi one (national socialism) or a Communist one (international socialism), In the dramatic September 1930 elections, which came as a shock to the Bruning regime: « It was the extreme parties, the Nazis and the Communists, who had won the most spectacular successes at the polls ». It was no part of the Pools’ terms of reference to find out who was financing the Communists, but the scale of their operations suggests that the Reds were never starved of funds. It is unlikely that Hitler would have found it necessary to go to the trouble and expense of setting up his own private SA and SS army if he and his followers had not encountered massive and well organised mob violence, which continued until he finally gained full control of the government.
On the subject of « anti-sernitism » the Pools have at least done the Germans the justice of permitting them in the pages of this book, to make a statement of their case. One of those who early regarded the Communist revolutionary movement as [ewish-instigated and led was Fritz Thyssen, the industrial tycoon, who lived in daily dread of the « Red terror » after he had narrowly, as he believed, escaped assassination at the hands of a gang of armed revolutionaries who abducted him from his home. Thyssen wrote in his autobiography: « I have spent my life among workers. My father had worked with them at the beginning of his career. Never have the workers of our factory shown us any kind of hostility, still less of hatred … all disorders and excesses have almost always been due to foreigners ».
Thyssen believed that the organisers of the strikes and riots were professional political agitators and agents of Moscow – « Radek … Levine… Axelred … these were the men responsible for the riots and murders ».
All the revolutionary leaders Thyssen came in contact with or mentioned were Jewish.
It was not only big industrialists like Thyssen, Kirdorf and Stinnes who identified the Jews with their country’s sufferings and the danger into which it was being drawn; others deeply concerned included the country’s large farming community and peasantry. The Pools write:
This image of conflict between the Jew and the peasant was not just propaganda, but had some foundation. however slight in reality. Jews functioned as middlemen in many German agricultural communities. It was usually in the capacity of cattle trader or small merchant that the Jew came into contact with the peasants. As a money lender he was hated most when the peasants were in financial difficulty, such as after a bad harvest, and had to rely on his loans at high interest rates to tide them over.
As German agriculture fell increasingly into ruin from a variety of causes beyond the farmers’ control. we read of families « driven from the soil which they and their ancestors had tilled for 300 years » by money-lenders who never seemed to be short of funds.’
The Pools chronicle the dreadful hardships and injustices suffered by the German people in the decade following the end of World War I with innumerable personal stories which bring history to life and grip the attention of the reader from the first page to the last: runaway inflation which ruined « good solid middle class citizens who had saved for the future » and enabled speculators with foreign currency to grab property at give-away prices; one-third of the population out of work and many of the others working only part-time; all this comes to a climax in the winter of 1931-32, « the hardest winter in one hundred years », which struck Germany in the depths of the depression « when only a few people could afford warm clothes and coal for their furnaces ».
« Hitler », say the Pools, « was one of the few politicians who correctly assessed the inflation as a deliberate campaign to defraud the middle class of their savings » – the middle class being then, as always, the main bulwark against Marxist totalitarianism.
Supporting their statements with quoted passages from many sources, the Pools reveal that, if only in the earlier years of Hitler’s career, Germany’s National Socialist movement had many powerfully placed sympathisers abroad, one of the best known of these, on account of his outspokenness, being Henry Ford. The others may not have donated much money if any at all, but their support was sometimes of a kind that money cannot buy, as when Lord Rothermere with his mass circulation Daily Mail came out openly in support of the Nazis and their British counterpart, Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists; and Montagu Norman, chairman of the Bank of England, of whom the Pools write: « … because he was pro-German one cannot jump to the conclusion that there was a connection between Norman and the Nazis; however, the fact that he also hated Jews arouses suspicion even more ».
They add: « Naturally, Norman did not supply Hitler with money from the Bank of England, but there is evidence that he played a significate role in arranging the financing of the Nazis ».
There is much more in the book about « powerful friends » in the United Kingdom: these included Lord Sydenham, author of the book The Jewish World Problem; the Duke of Northumberland, a big shareholder in the Morning Post,; Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times of London; the Duke of Windsor (who abdicated as King Edward VIII); and Sir Henri Deterding, head of the giant Angle-Dutch Shell conglomerate. Not only are these and other distinguished persons named, but we are permitted to gain some insight into their attitudes and thinking. Of the Duke of Windsor, the Pools write: « Legend has it that Edward was compelled to abdicate due to his refusal to give up ‘the woman he loved’. However, this issue was used as a facade to conceal the more critical objection which the Government had with the King – namely, his pro-Nazi attitude … it was not certain whether, because of his views, he would co-operate in an anti-German policy ».
So, where did all the money come from that put the National Socialist movement in Germany on its feet and kept it going? Very little came from the German industrial magnates, except towards the end under threat of civil war and a Communist take-over; substantial donations were made from time to time by a number of wealthy individuals who had been fascinated by Hitler’s oratory, typical of these being Frau Helen Bechstein, wife of the piano manufacturer; but most of the financing came from the German masses, some as party membership dues and much more as unpaid services.
The American writer on economics and business, Peter Drucker, is quoted as follows: « The really decisive backing came from sections of the lower middle classes, the farmers and working class, who were hardest hit. .. as far as the Nazi party is concerned, there is good reason to believe that at least three-quarters of its funds, even after 1930, came from the weekly dues… and from the entrance fees to the mass meetings from which members of the upper classes were always conspicuously absent ».
The Pools make no attempt to place their story in world historical perspective but, unlike Antony Sutton, they present a rounded and balanced account of what happened and what was said; it is a story that conforms with the requirements of scholarship and strongly endorses Quigley’s version of the history of the world in our century.
3. THE GRAND DESIGN
What happened in Germany between 1918 and 1932 is not a complete historical drama in its own right, but only an episode in a muchbigger world revolutionary drama which includes the Bolshevik Revolution, the dispossession of the nations of Europe of their colonial empires and the setting up of a spurious « world parliament » in the form of the United Nations, a drama now hastening towards some fearful denouement as war clouds gather in the Middle East.
Therefore, we can only grasp the full meaning of the historical story so conscientiously and excitingly told by lames Pool and Suzanne Pool if we can place it, like a piece of mosaic, in its correct position in the history of our century, for all the major changes in our « century of conflict » belong together and cannot be understood separately. This bigger, more comprehensive history can be compressed into a few words without any loss of essential meaning.
Last century finance capitalism existed in separate national concentrations, all in eager competition – hence the keen industrial and commercial rivalry, culminating in World War I, and last century’s « scramble » for colonial possessions. Early in the twentieth century the great banking families or dynasties (Rothschild, Baring, Erlanger, Schroder, Seligman, Speyers, Mirabaud. Mallet, Warburg, Oppenheimer. Wallenberg and Schiff, ere),’ which had increasingly dominated the different national concentrations of high finance, were able to join hands and bring about a revolutionary change, drawing these national concentrations into coalescence to form a single integrated international financial system which they planned to control.9
This revolutionary change in the realm of high finance called for a corresponding revolutionary change in the realm of politics, since a fully internationalised high finance cannot co-exist in harmony with innumerable national concentrations of political power.
Zionism, which is the nationalism of those who control global high finance, and Communism, a political high explosive to be used against all other nationalisms, are only two major aspects of the war which international high finance has been waging in the realm of world politics.10
All the major changes which have occurred in the twentieth century can be easily explained in terms of the political requirements of those who control high finance on an international basis – and all the great struggles of our time, whether that of Henry Ford to retain control of his own great company, or of Montagu Norman, Geoffrey Dawson and others to preserve the national integrity of British capitalism, or of Henri Deterding to keep control of Shell in genuine British and Dutch hands or of Germany to resist a Marxist revolutionary take-over bid, belong together as parts of Western civilisation’s struggle to survive an alien onslaught.
1. Professor Hannah Arendt’s remarks may be compared with those of George Orwell in his essay Anti-semitism in Britain: « Anti-semitism should be investigated – and I will not say by anti-semities, but at any rate by people who know that they are not immune to that kind of emotion . . . it would probably be best to start, not by debunking anti-semitism, but by marshalling all the justifications for it that can be found, in one’s own mind or anybody else’s ».
2. Endymion, Benjamin Disraeli.
3. Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony C. Sutton (Bloomfield Books, 1976); Who Financed Hitler, lames Pool and Suzanne Pool (Dial Press, New York, 1978).
4. Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street andthe Bolshevik Revolution; Wall Street andthe rise of Hitler and Wall Street and FOR.
5. See The MiddleEast Riddle Unwrapped, Ivor Benson (Canadian League of Rights, 1984); also chapter 5 of the present book.
6. Major-General Smedley Butler’s book War is a Racket was recently published in the United States (I984)
7. The Pools’ comments on farmers’ problems in post-World War I Germany may be compared with those of Donald Day, concerning Poland, in his book Onward Christian Soldiers (Noontide Press);for 22 years Day was Baltic correspondent for the Chicago Tribune.
8. The names of these financiers, and others, are given by Dr. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy andHope, and by some Jewish historians, including Howard Morley Sachar in The Course of Modern Jewish History.
9. L.T. Patterson in the March 1985 issue of his newsletter A Monthly Lessonin Criminal Politics (P.a. Box 37432, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45222) endorses the present writer’s thesis that the main purpose of the soaring US dollar is to set the scene and create the required atmosphere of despair for a further massive concentration of the world’s finances; Patterson reports: « We have a purposely created crisis – at just the time that they have announced their plans for a second ‘Bretton Woods style’ monetary conference. Their goal allalong has been a world central bank – with the ability to issue its own fiat currency and thereby manipulate Western non-Communist governments. In a key article they have exposed their plan … it appeared in the Fall ’84 Party Magazine Foreign Affairs, entitled ‘A Monetary System for the Future’ , written by Trilateral Party functionary Richard N. Cooper: ‘A new Bretton Woods is wholly premature, butit is not premature to begin thinlcing about how we would like international monetary arrangements to evolve in the remainder of this century, .. With this in mind, I suggest a radical alrernative scheme: The creation of a common currency for all the industrialised Democracies. . . with a common monetary policy. . . . and a joint bank of issue to determine that monetary policy. . . ..
10. A clear picture of the nature and aspirations of Zionism as Jewish nationalism in dispersion emerges in the following two books by Jewish scholars: Jews andZionism; the South African Experience 1910-1967. Gideon Shimoni, and Majuta: a History of the Jewish Community in Zimbabwe, B.A. Kosmin. The twin source of Zionism and Communism is examined by Douglas Reed in his books The Controversy of Zion and Behind the Scene. based on Chaim Weizmann’s autobiography Trial and Error.
More Than Meets the Eye?
Why Bilderberg isn’t Nazi and Ron Paul isn’t going third party
Michael Collins Piper
American Free Press
Three current news stories—taken together—illustrate that things are not always as they seem. Take, for example, a new revelation about the Bilderberg group released by Internet voice Alex Jones in the wake of last week’s Bilderberg meeting in Virginia, where Jones joined a crowd jeering the assembled would-be world rulers.
Although Jones has insisted Bilderberg is some sort of remnant of the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler devoted to a modern-day Nazi agenda, a report on Jones’s own website effectively admits Bilderberg’s program is distinctly anti-Nazi.
Citing the papers of former Sen. Fred Harris (D-Okla.), who attended Bilderberg’s 1966 meeting in Wiesbaden, Germany, Jones points out that Harris recorded the remarks of top Bilderberg figure, labor leader Walter Reuther, who outlined Bilderberg’s underlying agenda: “Nationalism is dangerous.”
WWII-era German National Socialism—Nazism —of course, was very much nationalist in every sense, and the fact nationalism was denounced at Bilderberg gives a clear picture of the real Bilderberg point of view, rumors notwithstanding.
Jones mentions Bilderberg’s founder, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, had been a Nazi Party member. But what Jones does not mention is that Bernhard left the party in 1934, a year after Hitler came to power, and by 1940 was a top leader of the anti-Nazi resistance in Europe. So by the time Bernhard became Bilderberg chief, he had undergone a serious political transformation.
What’s more, as careful historians know, Hitler held Bernhard in contempt. In his recorded Table Talk* and in the memoirs of his valet, Hitler is recalled scoffing satirically at Bernhard, and questioning his intelligence, integrity and loyalty.
The forces leading Bilderberg are anti-Nazi, particularly the Rothschild dynasty, whose assets were seized by the Nazis, belying a popular myth that “the Nazis never touched the Rothschilds.”
*Hitler’s Table Talk is available from TBR BOOK CLUB for $35 plus $5 Shipping and Handling. Softcover, 8.5 x by 11, 320 pages, #621. Call 1-877-773-9077 toll free to charge or send payment to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Outside U.S. please email firstname.lastname@example.org for foreign Shipping and Handling.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books by calling 1-888-699-6397.
Piper invité à parler de son prochain livre, sur Hitler, provisoirement intitulé The Hitler Century, reprenant le titre de la série de livres que Léon Degrelle voulait écrire avant de mourir, ce qu’il n’a malheureusement pas eu le temps de faire.
January 17, 2011
Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgement, about the Kennedy assassination, and 9 other books. He is a long-time journalist associated with American Free Press, formerly The Spotlight, and hosts an Internet radio program The Piper Report since 2007.
Mike and Carolyn don’t hold back during this politically-incorrect hour.
- Jewish power in America laying groundwork for thought control legislation;
- Those who bring about world war to destroy us will themselves be destroyed;
- Zionism is the political arm of Judaism;
- Hitler hate on the Internet;
- Mike’s upcoming book: The Hitler Century.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.
Invitée à l’émission de Kevin Barrett, Carolyn Yeager remet les pendules à l’heure sur les mensonges concernant Hitler. La fausse comparaison 911-Reichstag, les conneries liant Bush et les nazis…
Jan. 15: Kevin Barrett’s ‘Truth Jihad,’ American Freedom Radio Barrett-Yeager-Interview-32k-011511.mp3
January 31, 2011
Who are the culprits and why do they do it? Topics include:
- Purpose of disinformation is to mislead, deceive or confuse;
- People are put in place to lead all “conspiracy” movements;
- Alternative Truth and Political Movements are targeted;
- The myth of the Swastika-Star of David “commemorative coin”;
- A giveaway sign: consistent false information with no retraction;
- Examples of false info from two habitual offenders.
12 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 55 min.
February 7, 2011
Carolyn discusses six major disinfo and conspiracy specialists who love to confuse Globalism with “the Nazis:”
- Alex Jones: V Campaign as resistance against “Nazi” NWO;
- Jim Marrs: How America became the Fourth Reich;
- Webster Tarpley: Ties together Britain, the US & “the Nazis;”
- David Icke: Hitler was a Rothschild and a Reptilian;
- Henry Makow: Hitler was a Rothschild, a British Agent and a Zionist;
- Wayne Madsen: The Drew Pearson of the 21st Century.
12 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 55 min.
February 28, 2011
Carolyn Yeager discusses the real genealogy of Adolf Hitler, and the real relationship between Prescott Bush, Fritz Thyssen and National Socialism. Topics include:
- “Hitler’s grandfather was a Rothschild” story was invented by an OSS employee during WWII;
- “Hitler’s grandfather was a Jew named Frankenberger” story was invented by a condemned man;
- Records show that Hitler’s grandmother was not in Vienna or Graz at the time she conceived her son;
- There was a relationship between Prescott Bush and Fritz Thyssen and a relationship between Thyssen and the National Socialist Party. But there was no relationship between Bush and the NS Party;
- There is no link between Bush-Harriman and Auschwitz labor.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.
March 7, 2011
Historian Werner Maser
Some of the common slanders directed at Adolf Hitler as a youth up to 1919 are corrected in the light of real evidence. Topics include:
- Adolf Hitler’s father did not beat him;
- Hitler was never a house painter;
- An inheritance from his parents allowed him a decent lifestyle;
- He was fairly successful from 1910-1914 at selling his paintings;
- He was particular about his appearance and dressed well;
- He was not a “Red” but an education and political agent for the new Reichswehr after the Freikorps liberated Munich in 1919.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.
Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power 1919-33,
by James Pool and Suzanne Pool,
1978, 535 pages
reviewed by John Bell
Adolf Hitler emerged from World War I as a decorated but penniless army corporal, embittered by the lost war and the devastating Treaty of Versailles which he, like many Germans, attributed to treachery rather than failure of German arms. Yet in 1933 he stood as the undisputed leader of a resurgent Germany, revered by his own people as have been few leaders in history. The story of that ascent is important because the forces that shaped the world in which Hitler contended for power are the same ones that shape our world today — the shadowy, seemingly disconnected worlds of Bolshevism and international finance.
James and Suzanne Pool’s Who Financed Hitler paints a picture that will disappoint conspiracy buffs but which may surprise those who have seen Hitler solely as a demonic megalomaniac because the left has portrayed him that way for the last 60 years. The bottom line is that Hitler rose to power legally via the ballot box. And he did it in large measure — though by no means exclusively — on the strength of small contributions from lower and middle class Germans who were most harmed by the war, by the Treaty of Versailles and the runaway inflation that it brought on and by the malevolent, pervasive threat of communist revolution.
Among conspiracy believers it has long been an article of faith that Hitler was secretly funded by Bolshevism, by Wall Street or by international Jewish bankers. Indeed, World War II did make the world safe for Bolshevism, delivering half of Europe into communist hands. It also devastated the White nations of the world, killing millions of the flower of European manhood in the process. However, Who Financed Hitler presents little evidence to support the conspiracy thesis. Most of the money Hitler received from the wealthy class came from nationalist German, British, and American individuals acting alone, an example being car maker Henry Ford. If communism did provide money, it constituted only a small fraction of Hitler’s backing.
The truth is that Hitler was the most popular politician in Germany in the late ’20s and early ’30s. He did not seize power by overthrowing a legitimate regime. He garnered the votes of millions of ordinary German workers, shop owners and artisans. He was opposed not only by communists — with whom he waged, quite literally, a battle to the death — but also by most of Germany’s military, industrial and intellectual leadership. His « Brown Shirt » street army has been condemned, but in post-WWI Germany it was a necessary self-defense tactic adapted from the communists, who routinely used mob violence against opponents.
The Treaty of Versailles created economic conditions where Hitler’s populist message could gain a hearing. The Allies forced a prostrate Germany, threatened by communist revolution from within, to accept full blame for the war. Reparations included the loss of 25,000 square miles of territory together with 6 million inhabitants. Germany lost 65 percent of her iron ore reserves, 45 percent of her coal, 72 percent of her zinc and 10 percent of her industrial capacity. A 26 percent tax was placed on all German imports. It was calculated that, with interest, the cash reparation burden would have taken 50 years to pay off. [Image: Hitler’s anti-Versailles poster design — a chained Germania beneath the slogan « Only National Socialism will free Germany from the lie of sole guilt! »]
When Germany’s economy collapsed in hyperinflation in the early 1920s, Versailles was to blame. Americans who remember the double digit inflation under Jimmy Carter that led to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 cannot conceive of Germany’s situation. At the end of World War I, Germany’s mark exchanged at the rate of 9 marks per dollar. By January of 1922, the rate had increased to 192 marks per dollar. By November of 1923, it took over 4 trillion marks to buy one dollar! People took wheelbarrows full of money to the store to buy a loaf of bread. The wheelbarrow was worth more than the money in it. Millions of German families saw their life savings destroyed.
In this political witch’s brew, Hitler’s nationalism gave hope to the common man. Had not Germany’s elite prevailed on German President Paul von Hindenburg to withhold power from him, he would have become Chancellor in 1932, by which time the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) was the largest party in Germany, with almost twice as many deputies in the Reichstag as its nearest competitor, the fading Social Democrats. Significantly, the Communist Party was the third largest party.
Hitler created the modern election campaign single-handedly, using airplanes to make as many as four or five speeches a day across Germany. Everywhere he was greeted as a savior by ordinary Germans fed up with grinding poverty and communist agitation. Yet the ruling class still opposed him. Only by holding the specter of communism before the Prussian aristocracy, the old-line Junkers landowner class, the military leadership and German industrialists was Hitler able to secure the behind-the-scenes power base needed to gain the Chancellorship.
In the early years, Hitler received only modest support from wealthy German industrialists. Most supported several political parties, some with mildly socialist views. They were anxious to void the Treaty of Versailles but were not eager to risk another war. Furthermore, they were deathly afraid of the influence of communism. German industry sometimes made surprising wage concessions to German workers even during the height of the post-war depression, in order to prevent communists from gaining a foothold. However they were not willing to support Hitler in the early years, perhaps because they perceived in Hitler’s message a willingness to take genuine risks.
There were notable exceptions, patriotic individuals whose passion for restoration of a strong nationalist Germany, free of the hated Treaty of Versailles, outweighed their caution and led them to support Hitler out of conviction. Early on, he received help from the secretive Thule Society, a group of aristocrats dedicated to reconstructing a strong Germany. Later, two wealthy German industrialists became key backers.
One was Emil Kirdorf, who began contributing to Hitler in 1927. Kirdorf, whose fortune was made in the German coal mining industry, was so anti-socialist that before the war he considered the Kaiser himself to be a pawn of the middle-of-the-road Social Democrats. The authors point out that « [h]is feud with the Kaiser was carried so far that he refused to appear at any social function where the monarch was present. » To such a man, Hitler’s brand of nationalism appealed on principle.
By 1929, Hitler had the backing of Fritz Thyssen, heir to the vast steel holdings of his father, August Thyssen. In 1926 the father died and Fritz became chairman of the board of United Steel Works, the largest steel trust in Germany. Thyssen gave more money to Hitler than any other individual. He hated communism with a passion, perhaps because during the abortive German communist revolution of 1918 both he and his father were arrested by a communist revolutionary group and very nearly executed by firing squad. They were freed four days later when even these communist zealots could find no credible charges under which to execute them.
Despite his popularity among the German rank and file, Hitler knew he needed support from Germany’s establishment. To this end he cultivated his few industrial supporters carefully in the hope that he might make a breakthrough. In 1929, Emil Kirdorf summoned Hitler for reassurance that Hitler’s Brown Shirts would leave Germany’s industries alone. Hitler replied that he needed only three things to fully enforce his authority on the party: « I want a little time, a lot of money, and the ban against my political activities in Prussia lifted. »
« And what if I give you all of these? » Kirdorf asked.
« You and the other industrialists could dictate the party line insofar as it affected you and the properties you own. » As James and Suzanne Pool point out, « From that day forth Hitler basically lived up to this agreement. » Hitler gave similar assurances to the Army in 1930 as his NSDAP gained in popular support, admitting that the Brown Shirts « were set up exclusively for the purpose of protecting the Party in its propaganda activities …. » In a Germany racked by communist mobs and street violence, this protection, as foreign as it may seem to today’s sheltered Americans, was a necessity for survival.
In January 1932 Hitler appealed to Germany’s industrial leadership in a speech to the Industry Club of Dusseldorf. While he gained a few new converts, he presented a tightly reasoned defense of German nationalism that appears to have defused much of his organized opposition among the industrial leadership. The Pools write: « The audience feared Communism more than anything else. Realizing this, Hitler made the danger of Marxism the central theme of his speech. He discussed the topic with rational logic and made some startlingly accurate predictions about its future development. »
Hitler argued that liberal democracy and the idea of human equality would inevitably lead to communism. « You maintain, gentlemen, that German business life must be constructed on a basis of private property. Now such a conception as that of private property can only be defended if in some way or another it appears to have a logical foundation. This conception must deduce its ethical justification from an insight into the necessity which Nature dictates … I am bound to say that private property can be morally and ethically justified only if I admit that men’s achievements are different. »
« And once this is admitted it is madness to say: in the economic sphere there are undoubtedly differences in value, but that is not true in the political sphere. . . In periods of national decline, we always find that in place of the value of personality there is substituted a leveling idea of the supremacy of mere numbers — democracy … [But now] the concept of human equality itself has been developed into a political and economic ‘system’ and this system … is Communism. »
Hitler’s thesis is historically sound. Karl Marx favored democracy, stating in his 1848 « Communist Manifesto » that « The first step in the revolution of the working class … is to win the battle for democracy. » America’s Founders detested democracy. John Randolph spoke derisively of « King Numbers. » James Madison said that democracies inevitably degenerated into mob rule.
No study of Hitler is complete without coverage of Hitler’s relationship to the Jews. Indeed it is this aspect that forms the heart and soul of the left’s vilification of Hitler — and, by extension, of all nationalism. Who Founded Hitler is no exception. It contains a number of obligatory rebukes for « anti-Semitism » and « racism. » However, a curious alternate view also emerges, largely based on facts that receive only muted criticism. These little-known facts explain much of the negative attitude of Hitler and Europeans of his time to Jews.
The discussion centers around support by Henry Ford for Hitler’s opposition to Bolshevism. In the early 1920s, Ford published a newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, largely devoted to exposing the Jewish roots of Bolshevism and the complicity between communists in the Soviet Union and Jewish bankers on Wall Street. His articles, including his analysis of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, were collected in book form, a four-volume study called The International Jew, the World’s Foremost Problem.
The Pools write: « Both Ford and Hitler believed that Jewish capitalists and Jewish Communists were partners aiming to gain control over the nations of the world. Their views differed somewhat, but this was mainly a result of their contrasting positions and nationalities …. Communism was a completely Jewish creation. Not only was its founder, Karl Marx, the grandson of a rabbi, but more importantly Jews held leading positions, as well as a high percentage of the membership, in the Communist parties throughout the world. »
The authors claim this fact was of little import. But they let stand some damning fact. « [T]his charge against the Jews was believed by many middle class Germans because it did seem to conform to the facts … [W]hile there were only 7 million Jews among the total Russian population of 136 million, their share in the membership of the revolutionary parties was about 50 percent … However, most Jews were not in the rank and file, but rather in the upper echelons of the Soviet bureaucracy. » Lenin, himself part Jewish, said that, « Jews provided a particularly high percentage of the leaders of the revolutionary movement. »
These facts were well known throughout Europe in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the Red Terror that followed, during which literally tens of millions of white Russian middle class citizens were slaughtered. The likely reason for their butchery was genocide, i.e., elimination of the genes of those who possessed sufficient intellect and resolve to provide opposition to the Bolsheviks. Americans should consider carefully the implications of these suppressed historical events. Contrary to current perception, communism is not dead. If it ever gains the upper hand here, we will have our own Red Terror.
No man in history has been more vilified than Adolf Hitler. Whatever one believes about Hitler’s alleged « genocide » — and there is a growing body of scholarship that impeaches many of the more extravagant claims — everyone concedes that the mass murders committed by Stalin and Mao are far higher than anything Hitler has ever been accused of. Figures for these murderers range as high as 65 million each, carnage which defies imagination. Yet only Hitler bears the continuing wrath of the left. By now, it should have occurred to at least a few Americans to ask why.
The answer is that Hitler called for European nationalism as a response to communism, liberalism and internationalism. Both Stalin and Mao were communists, committed to communist world domination — as Henry Ford explained so long ago. Communist egalitarianism is a sham, intended to divide the loyalties of ethnically related peoples. Hitler is still demonized today because if the left is to achieve its dream of world conquest it cannot permit the rise of nationalism — or the validation of nationalist aspirations from the past.
Nationalist Times (March 1996)
Hitler, le nazisme et la 2e guerre mondiale
21 septembre 2013
Voici le sujet politique le plus tabou de notre époque, puisqu’une loi française, pourtant inconstitutionnelle, interdit criminellement de questionner certains enjeux historiques de cette guerre. Si la vérité officielle pouvait être démontrée, aurait-on besoin d’une loi pour empêcher sa contestation? Je ne traiterai pas de l’holocauste dans ce texte, n’en ayant pas le droit, afin d’être publié. J’analyserai plutôt la politique, l’économie et les mesures sociales sous le régime nazi, les véritables responsables du déclenchement de la 2e guerre mondiale, les offres de paix d’Hitler et le procès de Nuremberg.
Les historiens officiels reconnaissent généralement le miracle économique de Hitler, mais ils tentent de le justifier par l’utilisation d’une économie de guerre, ce qui est pourtant faux. Le régime nazi a réussit en quatre ans, là ou les précédents gouvernements avaient lamentablement échoués pendant 14 ans. Cette réussite économique absolument spectaculaire s’est produite avec peu de ressources naturelles. Elle dépasse largement celle d’Hugo Chavez au Venezuela, alors que celui-ci avait d’énormes ressources pétrolières. En quatre ans il a remis au travail la très grande majorité des 6 millions et demi de chômeurs. La violence la plus sournoise et la plus dévastatrice est la pauvreté. Pourtant, les rares gouvernements qui prennent le plus soin de procurer l’essentiel à leur peuple sont supposément des méchants (Castro, Kaddhafi, Chavez et d’autres) . Au contraire, les « démocraties » capitalistes qui créent artificiellement la pauvreté pour continuer d’exploiter le peuple, elles sont supposément du côté des bons. En fait, le discours dominant des dirigeants occidentaux est d’accuser les gouvernements au service de leur peuple de choses qui sont fausses, afin de faire diversion sur les véritables responsables de comportements inhumains. Ce procédé est l’inversion accusatoire.
On vient de l’utiliser en Syrie avec les armes chimiques: les rebelles (dont fait partie Al-Qaïda) soutenus par les démocraties capitalistes seraient à l’origine d’attaques au gaz chimique, mais on accusait le gouvernement de l’avoir fait afin de justifier une attaque contre lui. On l’a fait aussi en Iraq avec les fausses armes de destruction massive, alors que les démocraties utilisent des armes à l’uranium appauvri qui sont des armes de destructions massives semant morts et maladies graves pendant des milliers d’années.
On le fait présentement envers l’Iran, qu’on accuse de vouloir se doter de l’arme atomique, alors que ce sont les pays accusateurs qui l’ont et un membre de leur groupe, les USA, est le seul à l’avoir utilisée sur des civils innocents, et ce à deux reprises.
Les alliés, lors de la seconde guerre mondiale, ont non seulement lancés deux bombes nucléaires sur des civils japonnais innocents, tuant plus de 200 000 personnes en deux secondes, mais ils ont aussi rasé des villes en Allemagne avec des bombes incendiaires, comme à Dresde.
Des soldats américains et soviétiques violaient des femmes sur leur passage lors de la « libération », etc.
Aujourd’hui on sait que les pays alliés sont les instigateurs de la mondialisation, c’est-à-dire de la mise en place d’un gouvernement mondial dictatorial. Encore l’inversion accusatoire, puisque les alliés accusaient Hitler de vouloir dominer le monde. D’ailleurs toutes les promesses des alliés de bâtir un monde plus sécuritaire, plus juste, etc. se sont avérées fausses. Au contraire, la décadence sociale s’est accélérée rapidement après la 2e guerre mondiale.
L’Allemagne était un modèle pour le monde. Elle a transformé une économie de famine en une économie de plein emploi en 4 ans. Elle a réalisé le véritable bien commun, alors que les communismes chinois et soviétique ont lamentablement échoués à l’établir. Elle a jeté la finance internationale dehors afin d’éliminer l’usure et la spéculation, ce qui fait partie de sa réussite économique.
Maintenant décortiquons davantage chacun des points. D’abord l’aspect politique. Hitler s’est-il imposé par la terreur?
Nos « démocraties », qui se revendiquent des idéaux de la révolution française de 1789, et qui se sont alliés avec l’U.R.S.S. communiste qui est issue de la révolution sanguinaire de 1917 et de ses suites, sont donc issues de la terreur, puisque la révolution française s’est imposée dans la terreur en coupant des têtes à profusion.
Nos « démocraties » sont elles-mêmes terroristes. Non seulement elles sont issues des idéaux d’une révolution sanguinaire, non seulement elles s’allient avec un des régimes les plus sanguinaire de l’histoire de l’humanité, mais en plus elles sont celles qui ont approuvées les attaques de civils innocents par centaines de milliers : deux bombes nucléaires sur le Japon, le rasage de villes allemandes avec des milliers de bombes incendiaires, des bombes au phosphore et depuis les années 90 l’utilisation d’armes à l’uranium appauvri qui causent des cancers, la malformation des foetus, etc. Ce sont elles qui créent des crises économiques artificiellement. Non seulement les démocraties s’imposent et se maintiennent dans la terreur, mais en plus elles n’ont aucun souci de justice et maltraitent leurs peuples économiquement. Elles bafouent leurs propres principes en ne respectant pas leur Constitution et la déclaration des droits de l’homme.
Une chose importante à savoir est que moins d’un an après leur élection, le 12 novembre 1933, les nationaux-socialistes ont fait un plébiscite suite à leurs actions politique fermes des débuts, actions que les démocraties capitalistes et leur propagande aiment nous rappeler : le musellement de la presse, l’arrestation d’opposants politiques, etc. La question était de savoir si le peuple allemand accordait sa confiance à Hitler après les premières mesures assez vigoureuses. Le peuple lui a dit oui à 89,9% avec un taux de participation de 96%. Le relèvement spectaculaire de la situation économique de l’Allemagne démontre l’intelligence d’Hitler. Concernant l’économie allemande sous le régime nazi, voici un lien qui en donne une excellente explication.
Le Japon, qui était un allié de l’Allemagne nazie, utilisait les mêmes principes économiques que l’Allemagne.
Comme ces pays ont enlevé le contrôle de leur économie des mains des banquiers internationaux et de la finance internationale, celle-ci a engagé une guerre contre eux à travers les démocraties capitalistes qu’elle contrôle. Ils étaient des obstacles à leur contrôle du monde, car comme on le voit clairement aujourd’hui, les démocraties capitalistes, avec les USA en particulier, cherchent à implanter un gouvernement mondial.
Voici un commentaire de Robert Faurisson concernant les politiques économiques d’Hitler :
« Hitler n’avait-il pas commis un crime inexpiable en touchant à l’or, aux juifs et au communisme? Il avait poussé l’audace jusqu’à refuser l’étalon or. Il s’en était si bien porté que son nouveau système économique lui avait permis de multiples échanges avec des pays également pauvres en or, notamment l’Italie, le Japon ainsi que des nations d’Europe centrale et d’Amérique latine. La panique avait saisi la Grande-Bretagne, la France et les Etats-Unis: l’Allemagne chassait sur leurs terres et leur prenait leurs marchés. Les riches (en or) n’apprécient jamais la révolte, la coalition et la réussite des pauvres (en or). A la fin des années trente, les trois riches, qui se disaient liés par un même système démocratique, étaient surtout enchaînés les uns aux autres par une chaîne d’or. Après la guerre, en 1947, L. Genet et Victor-L. Tapié pouvaient, dans leur « Précis d’histoire contemporaine, 1919-1939″ (Hatier édit.), reproduire la citation suivante: « Ce n’est donc pas un lien idéologique mais une chaîne d’or qui lie entre elles les grandes démocraties » (p. 206) avant d’ajouter: « Six ans d’autarcie ont fait de l’Allemagne le plus grand pays industriel du monde » (p. 209). Plus que d’autres encore, les financiers juifs avaient ressenti l’offense: Comment cela? On pouvait se passer d’eux et de leur or?! Quant à la Russie communiste, elle voyait Hitler réaliser dans les faits le programme social auquel elle aspirait. Le téméraire dictateur allait payer cher ses audaces, et cela d’autant plus qu’avec l’inconscience du joueur à qui tout semble réussir il cherchait à forcer la chance en d’autres domaines. Survint alors la catastrophe, pour l’Europe et l’Asie, de la seconde guerre mondiale. (…) »
Le dernier livre de Francis Delaisi, La Révolution Européenne, est paru en pleine guerre, en 1942, en éloge du système économique allemand fondé – non sur l’étalon-or ou le dollar – mais sur le CAPITAL-TRAVAIL – en opposition radicale avec le système spéculatif boursier des Anglo-Américains de Londres et de Wall-Street qui se voyaient ôter d’un coup toute possibilité de spéculation et d’emprise financière sur l’économie allemande. A la suite de quoi la presse juive s’empressait de déclarer le boycott des productions en provenance du Reich, et les gouvernements alliés brandissaient l’ultimatum à l’Allemagne : retour à l’étalon-or, ou la guerre. Le Chancelier Hitler n’obtempéra pas et ce fut la guerre. Les peuples, une fois de plus, payèrent de leur sang pour le Veau d’or et la rapacité des banksters et de leurs affidés.
Extraits de la revue flamande Periodiek Contact sous la signature de Frans de Hoon :
« Comme il n’est encore jamais arrivé qu’un vainqueur avoue publiquement sa culpabilité au déclenchement d’une guerre, nous devons bien consulter l’Histoire pour découvrir la cause réelle du conflit. Nous constatons d’abord que dans le « Daily Express » du 24 mars 1933 le Congrès juif mondial a déclaré la guerre économique à l’Allemagne. Ensuite le 7 août 1933 Samuel Untermayer, président de la « World Jewish Economic Federation » déclarait dans le « New-York Times »: « La guerre que nous avons décidé de mener contre l’Allemagne est pour nous une guerre sainte. »
« Par la suite les milieux financiers de Wall Street agissaient de telle sorte que le rapport entre le dollar et le Reichmark était dévalué de 57% au préjudice de cette dernière monnaie. Il devint désormais impossible à l’Allemagne d’acheter des matières premières, des denrées alimentaires et d’autres marchandises sur le marché international dominé par le dollar. Adolf Hitler réagit immédiatement et résolument : il détacha le Reichmark de l’étalon-or et introduisit la « Valeur-Travail ». Son principe partait de la constatation que ce n’était pas la valeur-or, ou une autre valeur, qui était déterminante pour la plus-value d’un produit, mais seulement et uniquement le travail qui avait été presté pour le fournir. Par les conséquences du Diktat de Versailles l’Allemagne était tombée dans la misère et ne disposait plus de devises, ce qui était aussi le cas de nombreux pays pauvres, par exemple en Europe Orientale et en Amérique du Sud.
« Hitler remplaça le commerce extérieur basé sur la monnaie par un commerce de troc : marchandises contre marchandises, de sorte que les devises tombaient en désuétude. Associées aux nécessaires investissements publics ces mesures eurent pour conséquences une fulgurante diminution du chômage et une forte augmentation du commerce avec les pays concernés.
Cela amena plus de stabilité et d’aisance dans le Reich, ce qui fut très désagréablement ressenti par les puissances de l’Ouest, d’autant plus qu’elles redoutaient que le nouveau système économique allemand basé sur la « Valeur-Travail » puisse un jour avoir un succès mondial et supplanter l’empire du dollar couplé à l’étalon-or. Les puissances de l’Ouest ne le voulaient à aucun prix et elles commencèrent à préparer la guerre contre l’Allemagne.
« En Amérique la campagne d’excitation contre l’Allemagne (dont la résurrection économique était attribuée au réarmement) se renforça, mais les USA eux-mêmes commençaient la construction d’une flotte aérienne de bombardement à grande distance : les « forteresses volantes » dont le programme prévu devait être réalisé pour… 1939. Le 4 mai 1935 le diplomate polonais, le comte Szembeck, informait Varsovie que la campagne excitant à la guerre contre l’Allemagne trouvait encore et toujours son point de départ dans les milieux financiers israélites et franc-maçons.
« Curieuse est la constatation que le général britannique Fuller exprime dans un livre paru en 1937 disant que : « Le système de financement régnant ne repose plus sur la capacité de production, et que l’argent en tant que moyen de nouvelle répartition est devenu une marchandise que l’on peut, comme toute autre marchandise, acheter et vendre. Ou, autrement dit : la maladie qui causera la ruine du monde s’appelle l’usure. La France et l’Angleterre sont alliées l’une à l’autre parce que toutes les deux sont construites sur la puissance de l’argent et se trouvent sous la domination du système bancaire international. L’Allemagne s’est libérée de cette puissance internationale et devient ainsi l’objet de suspicion. Elle opère déjà avec le concept « valeur-travail » et c’est ce que l’on voudra éviter à tout prix. Déjà l’on s’active fébrilement à l’anéantissement de ce pays. Les financiers n’ont rien à y perdre, mais tout à y gagner ». Et le gouverneur de la banque d’Angleterre déclara lui-même en 1939, un peu avant sa mort : « Notre société, telle qu’elle existe maintenant, repose sur la base d’une ploutocratie décadente. La confiance en elle diminue de plus en plus. Comment pouvons-nous, face à l’Allemagne, parler d’une société meilleure avec plus de justice aussi longtemps que nous souffrons nous-mêmes de ce mal de l’argent ? Le système monétaire est fatal à l’état : il crée la pauvreté et il apparaîtra être la cause principale de la guerre. »
« Kristjan Rakowski, qui avait été ambassadeur de l’URSS à Londres et à Paris, fut impliqué en 1938 dans les procès staliniens d’épuration. A cette occasion il déclara, entre autres : « Une des raisons pour laquelle Hitler doit être anéanti est que, intuitivement et en dépit de l’opposition technique de Hjalmar Schacht, il a mis au point un système social dangereux. Obéissant uniquement à une nécessité il a écarté le système international aussi bien que le système privé des capitaux. En effet il ne possédait pas d’or et ne pouvait donc pas prendre pour base le système reposant sur le dollar dans son plan économique de gouvernement. Les seuls atouts qu’il possédait étaient la compétence technique et la capacité de travail de sa Nation. De la technique et du travail il a fait son capital et il y avait dans ce principe quelque chose de si formidablement contre-révolutionnaire qu’il parvint, comme par magie, à surmonter dans les plus brefs délais le chômage de sept millions de techniciens et d’ouvriers. » Rakowski releva aussi que le système hitlerien de la Valeur-Travail ne possédait pas la base d’une théorie scientifique, mais reposait uniquement sur la pratique. Si d’autres nations devaient adopter ce système, il ne faudrait pas longtemps avant que des scientifiques ne trouvent à l’étayer par la théorie. Dans ce cas plus rien n’arrêterait ce système. Pour prévenir ce danger il n’y avait qu’une solution : faire la guerre.
« Sébastien Affner, un Allemand émigré en Angleterre a admis après la guerre dans son livre intitulé : « Anmerkungen zu Hitler », que le miracle économique de 1933 avait été bien plus considérable que celui de 1948. Il dit aussi qu’il n’avait aucun rapport avec le réarmement et que la majorité du peuple allemand, aux référendums, soutenait fermement Hitler. Qu’en était-il d’ailleurs de ce réarmement si abondamment cité ? Il ressort de recherches faites après la guerre à l’université de Harvard et au Pentagone que jusqu’au début de septembre 1939 pas une seule nouvelle fabrique d’armement n’avait été construite. L’Allemagne était alors tout au plus en état de soutenir une guerre que durant deux mois. A la lumière de ces constatations nous devons admettre qu’il n’existait aucun plan du côté allemand pour conduire une guerre d’agression ou de conquête de longue durée. Pourquoi une guerre d’ailleurs ? Pourquoi la nouvelle Allemagne aurait-elle voulu anéantir ses réalisations économiques, politiques et sociales par une guerre ?
« (…) D’un discours prononcé en 1947 par le capitaine J. Creagh-Scott nous apprenons ce qui suit : « Lors des échanges de télégrammes de la période 39-40 les Britanniques se déclarèrent prêts à négocier la paix si l’Allemagne revenait à l’étalon-or. ». Churchill aussi déclara pendant les pourparlers relatifs à la Charte de l’Atlantique, qu’il réintroduirait l’étalon-or dès qu’Hitler aurait été vaincu.
L’abandon de l’étalon-or par l’Allemagne a été la réelle raison de la guerre. Le sort des petits pays comme la Pologne n’a joué aucun rôle. Chamberlain, à cette époque encore premier ministre, écrivit le 10 septembre 1939 à sa soeur : « …C’est l’Amérique et le monde israélite international qui nous ont précipités dans la guerre. »
Voici un intéressant portrait de la philosophie et des actions économiques du nazisme.
Il faut savoir que ce sont les démocraties capitalistes qui ont attaqué l’économie allemande au point de créer un désastre humanitaire pendant des années. À l’origine de ces attaques il y a le traité de Versaille de 1919 qui imposera une dette de guerre catastrophique à l’Allemagne, mais il y a aussi des attaques de la finance internationale contre la devise allemande. Même si ces attaques sont un crime contre l’humanité, elles seront tolérées puisque ce sont les vainqueurs qui les imposent. Comme les plus lucides le savent, l’histoire est écrite par les vainqueurs. Après 14 ans d’échecs à rétablir la situation, les différents gouvernements ont tous échoués. Seuls les nazis ont réussi.
On accuse Hitler et les nazis d’être responsables du déclenchement de la 2e guerre mondiale. Pourtant ce sont l’Angleterre et la France qui ont déclaré la guerre à l’Allemagne. Il est même démontré que la France a déclaré la guerre illégalement, en enfreignant sa propre Constitution.
On prétend que l’agresseur était l’Allemagne puisqu’elle a attaqué la Pologne. Deux semaines plus tard l’U.R.S.S. envahissait la Pologne, ce qui n’a pas empêché les alliés, non seulement de ne pas lui déclarer la guerre, mais en plus de s’en faire une alliée. Le régime nazi ne cherchait pas à déclencher un conflit mondial, mais à régler une question territoriale, problème créé par le traité de Versaille.
La duplicité de l’Angleterre est prouvable. Il suffit de connaître les tractations qui ont eu lieu dans les jours précédant le 3 septembre 1939. Pour résumer, « le 29 août, Hitler fit 16 propositions pour régler le problème polonais. Mais encouragée par l’Angleterre, la Pologne refusa toute négociation. Jusqu’au bout, Hitler fut favorable aux négociations directes entre Puissances, dont la Pologne. L’Angleterre fit tout échouer, parce qu’elle voulait la guerre. Le gouvernement de Sa Majesté torpilla l’ultime offre de médiation italienne, les 31 août-1er et 2 septembre 1939. Ce gouvernement accepta l’offre de conférence de Mussolini, mais émit une condition qu’il savait inacceptable pour Hitler, c’est-à-dire le retrait des troupes allemandes de Pologne. Ce fait est confirmé par un membre de l’ambassade de France à Londres, M. Rochat. Dans son « compte rendu des journées des 30 et 31 août, 1er et 2 septembre 1939 il écrit :
« Le gouvernement britannique est d’avis qu’il ne peut opposer une fin de non recevoir à une offre de solution pacifique mais, d’autre part, qu’il ne peut être question de négocier sous la menace de la force. La première idée de M. Chamberlain est donc de répondre qu’il ne peut accepter la conférence que si elle est précédée d’une démobilisation générale. « Cela suffira sans doute, ajoute le premier ministe, pour la rendre impossible ». Il est visible, dit-il aussi, quoi qu’on ne puisse savoir si l’offre a été ou non concertée avec le Chancelier, que celui-ci cherche toujours a obtenir ce qu’il veut sans combattre » (3, II, 455) » (1)
C’est ainsi que Chamberlain refusa la proposition de paix italienne et qu’il admis qu’Hitler voulait régler pacifiquement le différend germano-polonais. Maintenant je vais faire un petit résumé des propositions de paix faites par Hitler entre 1933 et 1939.
La première fois fut le 17 mai 1933 dans un discours au Reichstag ou il déclarait entre autres :
« … L’Allemagne serait prête, sans autres, à détruire de façon générale, tout appareil militaire, ainsi que le peu qui lui reste d’armes, si les nations voisines faisaient de même sans restriction aucune. »
Il n’y eu pas d’écho. Hitler présenta une nouvelle proposition pour le règlement pacifique de tous les conflits, en 6 points, le 18 décembre 1933. Un échange de notes qui se pousuivit durant des années à ce sujet se termina par un refus catégorique de la part de la France, refus accompagné d’un énorme accroissement des effectifs en France, en Angleterre et en U.R.S.S..
Le 21 mai 1935 il déclare : « Les guerres seront rendues impossibles par une limitation générale des armements (…) Il (le gouvernement allemand) croit, en outre, que de même que l’emploi de balles dumdum a été autrefois défendu et, d’une manière générale, pratiquement empêché, on pourra également réussir à défendre l’emploi de certaines armes et à l’empêcher aussi, dans la pratique. Il entend par ces armes, en premier lieu, toutes celles qui apportent la mort et la destruction, moins au soldats combattants, qu’aux femmes et aux enfants restés en dehors du combat. »
Les alliés s’acharneront plus tard contre les populations civiles d’Allemagne et du Japon.
Le 31 mars 1936, Hitler expose un projet de paix en 19 points. Le 30 septembre 1938 il signe une entente avec l’Angleterre dont voici un passage :
« Nous voyons dans l’Accord signé hier soir ainsi que dans l’accord naval anglo-allemand des symboles du désir de nos deux peuples de ne plus jamais se faire la guerre. »
Le 6 décembre 1938 il y eu aussi une entente avec la France. Même après les déclarations de guerre de la France et de l’Angleterre contre l’Allemagne, Hitler voulait encore la paix comme il l’affirma dans son discours du 6 octobre 1939. (2) Hitler a multiplié les offres de paix.
Concernant le procès de Nuremberg, Voici les articles 19 et 21 du tribunal :
Article 19 :
« Le tribunal ne sera pas lié par les règles technique relatives à l’administration des preuves. Il adoptera et appliquera autant que possible une procédure rapide et non formaliste et admettra tout moyen qu’il estimera avoir une valeur probante. »
Article 21 :
« Le tribunal ne demandera pas que soit rapporté la preuve des faits de notoriété publique, mais les tiendra pour acquis. »
Voici certaines choses qui se sont produites dans ce procès et d’autres procès d’épuration.
Le Sénateur américain Joseph McCarthy, dans une déclaration à la Presse américaine du 20 mai 1949, signala les cas de torture suivants, pour obtenir des aveux des accusés:
« A la prison de Schwabisch Hall, des officiers de la SS Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler furent battus jusqu’à ce qu’ils baignèrent dans leur sang, on leur écrasa ensuite les parties sexuelles quand ils étaient étendus sur le sol. Comme on le fit pour de simples soldats pendant le Procès de Malmédy de triste notoriété, les prisonniers furent suspendus par les mains et battus jusqu’à ce qu’ils acceptent de signer les aveux qu’on leur demandait.
C’est sur la base de d’aveux obtenus par la torture au Général SS Sepp Dietrich et à Joachim Peiper, colonel de la Waffen SS, que la Leibstandarte fut déclarée organisation criminelle. Quant au Général SS Oswald Pohl, intendant des camps de concentration, on lui barbouilla le visage de matières fécales et il fut battu ensuite jusqu’à ce qu’il fasse des aveux. »
A propos de ces cas de torture, le Sénateur McCarthy dit à la Presse: « J’ai entendu des témoins et j’ai lu des témoignages prouvant que les accusés furent battus, maltraités et torturés par des méthodes qui ne pouvaient que germer dans des cerveaux malades. On organisa des simulacres de procès et d’exécutions capitales, on leur dit que leurs familles ne recevraient plus de cartes de ravitaillement s’ils n’avouaient pas. Toutes ces choses se firent avec l’approbation du Ministère Public pour créer l’ambiance psychologique nécessaire pour leur arracher les aveux désirés. Si les Etats-Unis permettent que de tels actes restent impunis, le monde entier aura le droit de nous blâmer sévèrement et de douter à jamais de la rectitude de nos motifs et de notre intégrité morale. »
Ces méthodes d’intimidation furent répétées lors des procès de Francfort/s/Main et de Dachau, et un très grand nombre d’Allemands furent condamnés pour des atrocités qu’ils avaient avouées dans de telles conditions. Les méthodes qui permirent d’obtenir ces aveux furent révélées dans le Daily News de Washington du 9 janvier 1949 par le juge américain Edward L. van Roden, un des trois membres de la Commission Simpson de l’armée américaine qui fit une enquête sur les méthodes utilisées par la justice lors du procès de Dachau. Son récit parut également dans le journal britannique Sunday Pictorial du 23 janvier 1949. « Les Américains se déguisaient en prêtres pour entendre les accusés en confession et leur donner l’absolution; ils les torturaient en leur enfonçant des allumettes enflammées sous les ongles; ils leur cassaient les dents et la mâchoire; ils les laissaient seuls en cellule au secret pendant longtemps et ne leur donnaient que des rations de famine. » Van Roden expliqua: « Les »aveux » qui furent retenus comme preuves à charge au procès avaient été obtenus après avoir gardé ces hommes au secret, seuls dans une cellule, pendant 3, 4 et 5 mois…Pour interroger les accusés, les Américains leur mettaient une cagoule noire sur la tête et ils les frappaient ensuite au visage avec des coups-de-poing américains en laiton, ils leur donnaient des coups de pied et les battaient avec des flexibles en caoutchouc… Sur les 139 cas de notre enquête, 137 de ces soldats allemands avaient reçu des coups de pied dans les testicules qui leur avaient laissé des blessures inguérissables. C’était un moyen standard utilisé dans les interrogatoires par ces Américains. »
En conclusion, il y en aurait encore beaucoup à dire, évidemment. Mais il y a assez d’informations ici pour dresser un tableau d’ensemble qui permette de soulever le voile. On peut donc penser qu’Hitler et le régime nazi étaient au service de leur peuple comme le démontrent leurs mesures économiques et sociales.
(1) Brochure Le mythe des démocraties « pacifiques » acculées à la guerre par les dictateurs par Vincent Reynouard.
(2) Brochure Ce que le monde n’a pas voulu, les offres de paix par Hitler entre 1933 et 1939 par Friedrich Stieve.
VIDEO – Spingola + WKC – Reichstag Fire
VIDEO – Spingola + WKC – Warsaw Uprising
VIDEO – WKC on Brizi-Jewzi World Menace
VIDEO – WKC – The Union Jack (Pub)
VIDEO – WKC – The Union Jack (Reading)
VIDEO – Spingola + WKC – The Union Jack
VIDEO – WKC – Pan-Germanist Ideology
by Arnold Leese
(founder of the Imperial Fascist League)
CHAPTER I « We Are Fighting In Defense of Freedom » (Lord Halifax)
CHAPTER II » We Are Meeting a Challenge to Our Own Security » (Lord Halifax)
CHAPTER III « We are defending the rights of all Nations to live their own lives » and « fighting against the substitution of brute force for Law as the arbiter between Nations. » (Lord Halifax)
CHAPTER IV « We Are Fighting Against the Violation of the Sanctity of Treaties and Disregard of the Pledged Word » (Lord Halifax)
CHAPTER V « We Are Fighting Today for the Preservation of Christian Principles » (The (London) Times, 17th Feb. 1940)
CHAPTER VI « We Are Fighting As Our Fathers Fought to Uphold the Doctrine That All Men Are Equal In the Sight of God » (Franklin D. Roosevelt, 6th Jan. 1942)
CHAPTER VII « We Are Fighting for Democracy »
CHAPTER VIII The Theory That High Finance Caused the War
CHAPTER IX The Object Is to Destroy Fascism and Hitlerism
CHAPTER X Unprepared and Blindfolded
CHAPTER XI Hitler Always Knew His Real Enemy
CHAPTER XII Hitler Wanted Peace With Britain
CHAPTER XIII How Britain Was Egged On to Make War
CHAPTER XIV The Jews Acknowledge Their Power and Threaten
CHAPTER XV The Jews Declare War
CHAPTER XVI The Jewish War
CHAPTER XVII The Peace: Britain Defeated Whoever Wins
CHAPTER XVIII Conclusion
THE THEORY THAT HIGH FINANCE CAUSED THE WAR
There is a school of thought which believes that International Finance with its preponderant Jewish interest and the Monetary System under which most of the world has suffered from mass unemployment was doomed to be superseded by Hitler’s credit system based upon a goods standard and international barter. This would displace gold, the tool of the Internationalists. I believe this myself.
But some go so far as to say that the war was brought about so that, if Hitler could be defeated, the Gold Standard Monetary System, which is fraudulent, could be maintained to the benefit of Wall Street and other large Gold Controllers.
I do not believe that.
It might be worth a war from the point of view of Wall Street, but it would not be worth this war. This war shows every trace of our having been dragged into it blindfolded and unprepared. Wall Street would not have allowed that. Wall Street knows that if the Germans won the war, there would be no more Wall Street.
In my opinion there was more to it than the survival of the fraudulent Gold Standard System. The necessities of racial survival made it urgent for the Jews to act without delay. Their considerable influence in Wall Street together with other participants in the spoils of the fraudulent system made it not too difficult to get the « Street » to support a war which was represented as inevitable.
This is not the place to go into the intricacies of monetary systems. The kernel of the problem is that credit based upon gold is insufficient for the needs of modern commerce. A short supply of money and credit is best for the usurer or money-lender, since scarcity raises the rate of interest borrowers must pay. Power to regulate the amount of money and credit available enables the controllers of Gold to dominate world affairs, economically and politically. The creation of inextinguishable national debts is part of the system of control and with control goes domination. This system of economic and financial bondage was doomed by the expansion of the barter system developed by National Socialist Germany. (For a more detailed explanation see the chapter, The Peace We Lost in A PEOPLE’S RUNNYMEDE, by Robert Scrutton, Andrew Dakers, publisher.)
The Object is to Destroy Fascism and Hitlerism
At last we approach facts.
Certainly we went to war with the object of destroying Fascism and Hitlerism. But the people were not allowed to know this till it was too late to withdraw, or they would not have sanctioned it, had they had an opportunity to do so. It was not Hitler or a Fascist form of Government that was objected to but that both opposed the Jewish influence in their domestic affairs.
President Roosevelt, in a letter to the International Labour Office Conference in 1944, said:
« The welfare of the world’s population and their liberty are the first and ultimate concern of those dedicated to root out from this earth every trace of Nazi ideas and Nazi methods. »
The London Times‘ leading article of 26th September 1939, said:
« We have gone to war with the single-minded determination to rid Europe of a particular menace whose presence is incompatible with the continuance of civilized life, and it is the simplicity of this claim that resolves what the Duce feels to be inconsistency in our discrimination between Hitler and his Russian accomplice. We believe that the Russian action, lawless and treacherous as we must declare it to be, is a secondary and subordinate consequence of the original crime. The Soviet has not been a party to Hitler’s previous outrages and has not shown itself to be in essence an aggressive power. »
The Duce was not the only man to see inconsistency in the discrimination in favour of the Soviets, despite this dead-lame explanation.
On plenty of other occasions, politicians have assured us that we are fighting to destroy Fascism. But they do not tell us why they deem it so necessary. There was a time when it did not appear to be a necessity to Winston Churchill. In his Great Contemporaries he wrote:
« Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face in public business or on social terms have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile. »
Again in STEP BY STEP, Churchill wrote of Herr Hitler:
« If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations. »
But of Russia, Churchill said in 1920:
« The Soviet system is barbarism worse than the Stone Age. »
In a broadcast on 20th January 1940 he said:
« Everyone can see how Communism rots the soul of a nation . . . »
And later in the year on 1st April, he said:
« Communism is a deadly mental and moral disease. »
From this it is not understandable why Churchill should be leading the British Empire in a war to destroy National Socialism with the aid of Bolshevik Russia.
Of Italian Fascism, Churchill said in a speech on 11th November 1938:
« Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces and rallying the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilized society. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism. »
As far back as 1926 the Financial News reported that a Committee of British Residents in Florence announced:
« We wish to state most clearly and emphatically that there exists here today nothing that can be justly termed either tyranny or suppression of personal freedom as guaranteed by constitutional law in any civilized land. We believe that Mussolini enjoys the enthusiastic support and admiration of the Italian people who are contented, orderly and prosperous to a degree hitherto unknown in Italy, and probably without parallel at the present time among other great European nations still suffering from the war. »
Sympathetic readers will smile when they are reminded that in 1933 the Financial Times brought out a special eight-page Supplement under the caption:
The Renaissance of Italy Fascism’s Gift of Order and Progress
The solution of the mystery is that in those days Fascism had not yet grappled with Jewish influences dominating the nation’s affairs. Giuseppe Toeplitz, Polish born Jew, had just retired from the management of the Banca Commerciale Italiana, which a New York Times dispatch from Milan on January 29, 1938 (the date of Signor Toeplitz’s death) estimated controlled one-seventh of all Italian industries.
We Fascists have noticed with amusement how our own Government is forced by the pressure of necessity to adopt many of the policies of Fascism. We may instance the recognition of Agriculture as basic among the industries; the necessity of ensuring that the Land is not misused by those farming it and the corporative organization of certain industries and professions.
The International Labour Office issued a report in April 1944 in which the activities of the German Labour Front established by Hitler were recommended to be « adapted for future use » after our victory. Facilities for workmen’s travel, recreation and other sparetime activities, for vocational training and research on labour protection; the « Beauty of Work » service — « Kraft durch Freude » (Strength through Joy) in the National Socialist Labor Program — and the Labour Bank, « one of the chief credit institutions . . . of the whole of Europe »; « it should also be the responsibility of the Labour Commissioners, » the Report of I.L.O. further outlines, « to continue all administrative services required for the administration of labor and social legislation — employment services, social insurance and the labour inspectorate. » The I. L. O. Philadelphia Labor Charter actually purloins direct from Fascism its notions of industrial organizations! « It insists, » says the London Times of 13th May 1944, « on the employers’ right to combine freely, and declares also that if workers and employers combine to run industry collectively, there must be a third element — the Government — to cooperate and see that the rest of the community is not exploited. » Similar proposals are found in the 1944 Report on Reconstruction issued by the Grand Council of the Trade Union Congress.
It was on these principles that the Fascist Corporative Organization of Industry was based! Then why should we be so keen to destroy all this? There can be but one plausible answer. National Socialism and Fascism opposed the Jewish influence in the domestic affairs of their respective countries. That we have ample proof that National Socialism and Fascism were good governments for the Germans and the Italians of their respective countries, apparently, is of no consideration. Is it that only Jewish interests matter the world over?
We may venture to doubt whether better Government for « liberated » Italy than the Fascist one can be achieved with the material at hand. Just consider this London Times report of the 25th April 1944:
« As most members of the new Cabinet are Republicans, a form of procedure was devised whereby Ministers, before taking oath, signed a declaration stating that they had accepted office with the purpose of serving the best interests of the country, but without attaching any permanent significance to the ceremony. »
It was from such « accommodating scoundrels » as this that Fascism saved Italy for twenty years. At the time of this writing, every so-called « liberated » country begins a campaign of violence and outrage against its most active anti-communist elements. The same conditions are at once reproduced from which their Fascist or semi-Fascist Governments of the past had saved them.
John Loftus est un de ces auteurs tels que Mae Brussell et Dave Emory qui propagent le bobard du complot nazi à l’origine de la subversion de l’Amérique par le nouvel ordre mondial. Or même John Loftus admet que les transfuges nazis qui ont travaillé autour du nazi Gehlen pour l’OSS avaient des liens étroits avec des agents israéliens (Gehlen travaillait pratiquement pour les services du Mossad!). John Loftus est un ancien des services secrets impliqué dans la traque aux criminels nazis et qui a également présidé le musée de l’Holocauste de Floride. Est-il besoin de préciser qu’il est pro-Israël? Il prétend débusquer le complot ultime trouvant sa source dans le transfert des nazis réaffectés à divers projets du gouvernement américain. Voir plus bas le chapitre correspondant du livre Final Judgment de Michael Collins Piper.
Wikipedia John Loftus:
“John Joseph Loftus (February 12, 1950) is an American author, former U.S. government prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer. He is a president of The Intelligence Summit and, although he is not Jewish, a president of the Florida Holocaust Museum. Loftus also serves on the Board of Advisers to Public Information Research.(…)
He began working for the U.S. Department of Justice in 1977 and in 1979 joined their Office of Special Investigations, which was charged with prosecuting and deporting Nazi war criminals in the US. Loftus’ now-expired Web site claimed, “As a young U.S. Army officer, John Loftus helped train Israelis on a covert operation that turned the tide of battle in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.”(…)
He also writes regularly for Ami, an Orthodox Jewish weekly news magazine.
On August 7, 2005, he provided the United States address of an alleged terrorist named Iyad K. Hilal on Fox News. Only afterwards was it revealed that Hilal had left the address three years previously and the home was now owned by a family, which was then subjected to threats and vandalism and required police protection as a result of Loftus’ words. Fox terminated Loftus’s contract to commentate after the event. Loftus said “I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist,” but he did not say why he did not contact police in a more direct manner. Loftus apologized for the mistake and expressed frustration about “one federal [agency’s]” inaction on an earlier tip he had given them years ago due to the same address. » [Wikipedia.org]
Piper rapporte au sujet de Loftus dans son livre Final Judgment, sur l’assassinat de JFK:
John Loftus – Author of The Secret War Against the Jews, a new book which claims that anti-Israel partisans in the American intelligence community have sought to sabotage the state of Israel. (Loftus is a former attorney with the Nazi-hunting Office of Special Investigations.)
À propos de certaines sources douteuses telles que le juif et ancien agent du renseignement britannique John Coleman…
YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH 101 Books Nationalists Need to Read and Understand Before ‘They’ Burn Them, by Michael Collins Piper (2013) p.33-36
Sur ce blog:
Mise au point sur la désinfo qui circule sur Hitler, les nazis, le nouvel ordre mondial, Bilderberg, etc.
Un humoriste contre le « nouvel ordre mondial » des Terminators nazis qui ont fait taire et tué les pôvres juifs
Adolf le Grand diffamé par des « nationalistes » — Y a-t-il un autre homme dans l’histoire, à part peut-être Jésus, qui ait été à ce point calomnié?
De l’incohérence d’attribuer à Adolf Hitler et à l’Holocauste la paternité de l’État juif en Palestine: la « mémoire de l’Holocauste » n’a pris d’assaut la psyché américaine que dans les années 1960-70, dans la foulée du procès Eichmann et des guerres israéliennes. Les Sionistes les plus influents de l’époque ont eu grand peur que l’extermination des juifs d’Europe sonne le glas du sionisme. Quel intérêt peut-il y avoir à systématiquement assimiler le sionisme aux nazis? Faire croire que c’est toujours la faute aux nazis? Et à qui cela profite-t-il?
Le mythe des origines juives d’Hitler et de plusieurs membres importants du gouvernement nazi