James and Suzanne Pool: Who Financed Hitler...snow job

[Barrington James]

James and Suzanne Poole have written a very readable, well documented , highly interesting book about the financing of Hitler from 1919 to 1933. There is no doubt about that. They mentioned , for example, a wide ranging list of Hitler’s supporters that included Henry Ford , Mussolini, Grand Duchess Victoria of Russia, oil man Sir Henry Deterding, Fritz Thyssen, and, of course, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. However as I read their book I felt that something was missing. The sums of the money given by these people, in my opinion , could perhaps have financed Hitler’s party, Hitler’ little army of a thousand toughs who had protected him from the communist goons while he gave his speeches and so on, , however, that was about all. The relatively little amount of money these people donated to the Hitler cause could never have paid for Hitler’s and Germany’s miraculous industrial recovery. I think the Pools have not told us the whole truth as they must have known it to be.

Antony Sutton tells us a lot more than the Pools do. He has written a equally readable, well documented series of books on the Rise of Hitler, The Rise of FDR and the Rise of The Bolsheviks which, in my opinion, give us a much more complete list of financiers of Hitler. Sutton claims, with quotes from Hjalmar Schadt and Fritz Thyssen, that the Dawes Plan of 1924 and the Young Plan of 1928 were both created by the International Bankers and the FDR government, and formulated by JP Morgan agent Owen D. Young brought Hitler to power in 1933. He also claims that the Young Plan was a device to occupy Germany with American capital and pledge real German assets with a gigantic mortgage held in the US. Sutton lists the following major The Wall Street financial houses that backed Hitler and by how much: Dillon , Read & Co., $241, 325,000; Harris, Forbes & Co., $186,500,00; National City, $173,000,000; Speyer &Co., $59,000,000; Lee Higgins &Co., Guaranty Trust, $41, 575,000; Kuhn, Loeb & Co., $37,500,00; and Equitable Trust Co,$ 34,000,000. That’s the kind of money it takes to create a Hitler.

Strangely , Sutton does not make any claim about the Rothschilds in his book, This leads me to suspect that Eustace Mullins was correct about Sutton: that the Rothschilds hired Sutton to write the history of this period but to never mention the Rothschild name in any of his books, for it is known that several of the named banks above were Rothschild and or Rockefeller banks and JPMorgan, in particular, was, a Rothschild agent. When JP died it was discovered that over 80% of his wealth was owned by the Rothschilds. Case closed.

Suttons also reminds us of the claims of Carroll Quigley in his book, Tragedy and Hope, that explains the role of the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve , Bank of International Settlements , and other such Central Banks that controlled the world in the 1920’s, including communist , fascist and so called democratic countries and world financial conquest was their plan for ultimate world control.

There are two other books about the holocaust and Hitler that I consider crucial to the understanding of the creation of Hitler, WW2, and the holocaust. They are; The New world Order by Eustace Mullins ( also on Youtube ) and Conjuring Hitler ( which explains why the Bank of England, and the Zionists banks created Hitler) .

I hope this helps everyone understand how Hitler came to power.

[Haldan]

I hope this helps everyone understand how Hitler came to power.

Certainly !
-haldan

[hermod]

The relatively little amount of money these people donated to the Hitler cause could never have paid for Hitler’s and Germany’s miraculous industrial recovery. I think the Pools have not told us the whole truth as they must have known it to be.

As I suppose you're an Anglo-Saxon guy, I'm not surprised you can't imagine prosperity can come from something other than a Capitalistic speculative system. No offense. This is just something I've seen a million times among Anglo-Saxon people. In fact WW2 was led to make you think that way and stop Hitler's alternative economic system before it could endanger the Capitalist system. That was wonderfully summarized by Christian Rakovsky, the Soviet emissary to Paris and the liaison between the Soviet elite and high finance. When questioned by the GPU officer Gabriel Kuzmin in Moscow on 26 January 1938, Rakovsky explained "Hitler, this uneducated and elementary man, has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind". The communists had merely talked of abolishing economic exploitation, while Hitler had actually done so. Rakovsky accused Hitler of having eliminated "international and private finance". In his opinion "something so completely counter-revolutionary (i.e. anti-Bolshevist) that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers". He emphasized: "If Hitler reached this despite all the bourgeois economists who surround him, then he was quite capable, in the absence of the danger of war, of applying his system also to peace time production... There is only one solution - war." Rakovsky also noted that the Nazi system of "Value-Labour" hadn't the basis of a scientific theory, but was based solely on practice. If other nations were to adopt this system, it would not take a long time before scientists could find support for the theory. In this case nothing could stop Hitler's new economic system. To avert that danger there was only one solution: war.

There are two holes in your theory:

- If Capitalism is the only possible source of prosperity, why were the U.S. and Great Britain unable to get out of poverty in the 1930's while Germany was becoming a world power again with her goldless, dollarless, speculationless, interestless, debtless economic system? Only WW2 saved FDR's "New Deal" from total failure...

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.” - Sheldon Emry, Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984)

- If the German economic miracle was based on foreign money from Capitalistic Powers, why did Winston Churchill write: "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit." (Letter from Churchill to Lord Boothby)? This sentence makes no sense if the German economic miracle was based on money from World Finance, isn't it? If the German economic miracle had been funded by World Finance, World Finance would have made a lot of money with Nazi Germany and the German new economic system wouldn't have denied "world finance its opportunity to profit" as Churchill said.

"Not the political doctrine of Hitler has hurled us into this war. The reason was the success of his increase in building a new economy. The roots of war were envy, greed and fear." - Major General J.F.C. Fuller, historian, England

"How Hitler Defied the Bankers": http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1389

"Hitler vs. The Bankers: The True Cause of WW2": http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t895296/#post10711259

If you could read the book "La révolution européenne" (1942) by the French economist Françis Delaisi, you could understand how different Hitler's economy was and you could stop relying on Sutton's delusions and frauds in order to understand the German economic miracle, but I believe that book has never been translated into English (for obvious reasons ).




I post the video below (explaining Delaisi's book) for the people who can understand French:

[Barrington James]

Hermod…..Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that Great Britain caused WW2. But not entirely for the reason you think it did. You believe that GB caused WW2 because the International Bankers feared Hitler. I think your banker theory is one reason the USA has just destroyed Libya, Iraq and Syria , for example…along with the US desire to control all the oil in the Middle East….for these countries had their own banks. The bakers don't like that. But I think GB feared Germany as early as 1900 and caused WW1 when it had become obvious that the newly created Germany was soon to become the strongest country in Europe. England has always fought and destroyed the strongest country in Europe, be that country Portugal, France or Spain. It has done that for hundreds of years. WW2 was just another British attempt to remain the strongest country in Europe. That’s why GB bombed Germany mercilessly until the last days of the war, long after the threat of Hitler was over.

You do not like capitalism. It is my opinion that capitalism is one of the great inventions of mankind. Unfortunately, just like most of our other inventions from bows and arrows to planes, truck, ships, and atomic energy, we have used these inventions as weapons of war. The greed of the banker have used capitalism and their control of money to conquer the world.

Once the bankers learned the fantastic amount of interest that could be obtained from unsuspecting peasants and Kings by giving them loans and using compound, fractional interest, these bankers then used loans to impoverish and control the world with money. They formed their Central Bank of England in 1694 and by 1750 England was so much in debt that it ended up fighting and losing its greatest colony, the USA. Almost every country in the world is now in horrible debt to their Central Bank.

This power and greed of the bankers is of course why these money lenders have been thrown out of almost every city state and country in the world as early as 1200, and why Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson threw them out of the USA. It was not capitalism nor the use of money that everyone hated , for I don’t believe that a reasonable rate of interest , nor the use of money was the problem, it was banker greed. The money lender`s crushing interest caused the downfall of Rome; Rome simply went broke despite what you might read. And the banks are doing the same thing to USA, Great Britain and Europe today. But you won’t find that in any history text book I know. The beginning of the end for the might of he USA came in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson let the bankers create the their own Federal Reserve and gave them the control of the US money supply…a hundred years ago. And now the US is 17 trillion dollars in debt. A hopeless situation no matter how many countries it loots.

Hitler allowed the bankers to make fantastic loans to Germany, however he would not allow the bankers to take their money and run, to take it out of the country. That was the difference between Hitler, the USA and the rest of the world today. It was this exodus of US and European money to Asia, that has made China and South Korea the economic power houses they are today. In order to crush the unions and the middle class, the bankers have taken their money out of Europe and the USA and invested it in China, Brazil, South Korea and Brazil. Game over.

Why was Hitler able to turn Germany’s depression around when the rest of the world could not, you ask? That was the way the bankers wanted it to be. The bankers loaned Hitler huge amounts of money, as recorded by Sutton, however, they had different plans for the USA and the rest of the world. They loaned money to Germany but cut off the money supply to the rest of the world and caused the great Depression in the 1930 because the bankers wished to destroy the middle class of the world in order to insure their world power plunging us into a world wide debt.

Why the bankers wanted to rebuild Germany and Hitler is an interesting story that will have to wait.

[Hannover]

I'm generally with hermod on this. People invested in Germany, that is certain. Germans were and are a very productive people and clearly the German government welcomed foreign investments, which rather goes against the notion that Germany was 'anti-foreigner'. I maintain that the claim of 'so & so financed / created Hitler' is unsupportable, I still haven't seen documentary proof of that. However, If 'financed Hitler' meant investing in German industry, well yes, and why not?

As I said in a previous post at the other forum (off topic for that forum, I suppose):

The 'financing of Hitler' canard is just more of the same garbage in, garbage out tactics. Most of it seems aimed at getting cash / reparations from various firms, IBM, Ford Motors, etc. And it certainly helps foster the notion that IBM, Ford, etc. 'helped murder the Jews', which the Marxist types like to use in an attempt to blame everything on the 'capitalists', which Jewish supremacists like to use in order to perpetrate the 'holocaust' storyline through the back door.

Investing in Germany made good sense; a highly skilled work force, great work ethic, they made & still do make so many of the world's best products. Recall that Germany went from near total economic collapse to the fastest growing economy in the world of the period, all that with a depression going on. There are many who say that that fact was the reason why Germany's competitors wanted to crush Germany. Knowing the universal acceptance of the unfairness of the Versailles treaty which Germany took actions to get out from under, it seems that economic jealousy was indeed an enormous factor in attacking Germany. I mean, who could take seriously the absurd notion that 'Germany wanted to take over the world'. The world was already taken over, look at a map of the period.

- Hannover

[hermod]

Hermod…..Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that Great Britain caused WW2. But not entirely for the reason you think it did. You believe that GB caused WW2 because the International Bankers feared Hitler. I think your banker theory is one reason the USA has just destroyed Libya, Iraq and Syria , for example…along with the US desire to control all the oil in the Middle East….for these countries had their own banks. The bakers don't like that. But I think GB feared Germany as early as 1900 and caused WW1 when it had become obvious that the newly created Germany was soon to become the strongest country in Europe. England has always fought and destroyed the strongest country in Europe, be that country Portugal, France or Spain. It has done that for hundreds of years. WW2 was just another British attempt to remain the strongest country in Europe. That’s why GB bombed Germany mercilessly until the last days of the war, long after the threat of Hitler was over.

I agree with you. The British secular "balance of power" Policy also played a great role in the British will to destroy the rising Nazi Germany. And the huge Zionist influence in Britain was a major factor too (No world war, no Holohoax, no Israël.).

You do not like capitalism. It is my opinion that capitalism is one of the great inventions of mankind. Unfortunately, just like most of our other inventions from bows and arrows to planes, truck, ships, and atomic energy, we have used these inventions as weapons of war. The greed of the banker have used capitalism and their control of money to conquer the world.

Once the bankers learned the fantastic amount of interest that could be obtained from unsuspecting peasants and Kings by giving them loans and using compound, fractional interest, these bankers then used loans to impoverish and control the world with money. They formed their Central Bank of England in 1694 and by 1750 England was so much in debt that it ended up fighting and losing its greatest colony, the USA. Almost every country in the world is now in horrible debt to their Central Bank.

This power and greed of the bankers is of course why these money lenders have been thrown out of almost every city state and country in the world as early as 1200, and why Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson threw them out of the USA. It was not capitalism nor the use of money that everyone hated , for I don’t believe that a reasonable rate of interest , nor the use of money was the problem, it was banker greed. The money lender`s crushing interest caused the downfall of Rome; Rome simply went broke despite what you might read. And the banks are doing the same thing to USA, Great Britain and Europe today. But you won’t find that in any history text book I know. The beginning of the end for the might of he USA came in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson let the bankers create the their own Federal Reserve and gave them the control of the US money supply…a hundred years ago. And now the US is 17 trillion dollars in debt. A hopeless situation no matter how many countries it loots.

Democracy and capitalism are tools of jewish domination. Capitalist democracies are a real heaven for the Jewish natural-born corrupters.

http://trutube.tv/video/2101/The-Jewish ... iam-Pierce

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff7_1372361499

Hitler allowed the bankers to make fantastic loans to Germany, however he would not allow the bankers to take their money and run, to take it out of the country. That was the difference between Hitler, the USA and the rest of the world today. It was this exodus of US and European money to Asia, that has made China and South Korea the economic power houses they are today. In order to crush the unions and the middle class, the bankers have taken their money out of Europe and the USA and invested it in China, Brazil, South Korea and Brazil. Game over.

Why was Hitler able to turn Germany’s depression around when the rest of the world could not, you ask? That was the way the bankers wanted it to be. The bankers loaned Hitler huge amounts of money, as recorded by Sutton, however, they had different plans for the USA and the rest of the world. They loaned money to Germany but cut off the money supply to the rest of the world and caused the great Depression in the 1930 because the bankers wished to destroy the middle class of the world in order to insure their world power plunging us into a world wide debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXyCqw9BxwI

[hermod]

I maintain that the claim of 'so & so financed / created Hitler' is unsupportable, I still haven't seen documentary proof of that. However, If 'financed Hitler' meant investing in German industry, well yes, and why not?

You're right. Investing in Nazi Germany was not "financing" or "creating Hitler", or even "bringing him to power" (Hitler was already in power when foreign investiments brought (and made !) money in Nazi Germany) as often claimed today.

Demystification of the Birth and Funding of the NSDAP: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... _nsdap.php

Was Hitler a Zionist stooge?: http://www.john-friend.net/2013/03/was- ... tooge.html

Patriotard Lies About Hitler: http://zioncrimefactory.com/patriotard- ... ut-hitler/

[Barrington James]

Hermod…..Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that Great Britain caused WW2. But not entirely for the reason you think it did. You believe that GB caused WW2 because the International Bankers feared Hitler. I think your banker theory is one reason the USA has just destroyed Libya, Iraq and Syria , for example…along with the US desire to control all the oil in the Middle East….for these countries had their own banks. The bakers don't like that. But I think GB feared Germany as early as 1900 and caused WW1 when it had become obvious that the newly created Germany was soon to become the strongest country in Europe. England has always fought and destroyed the strongest country in Europe, be that country Portugal, France or Spain. It has done that for hundreds of years. WW2 was just another British attempt to remain the strongest country in Europe. That’s why GB bombed Germany mercilessly until the last days of the war, long after the threat of Hitler was over.

I agree with you. The British secular "balance of power" Policy also played a great role in the British will to destroy the rising Nazi Germany. And the huge Zionist influence in Britain was a major factor too (No world war, no Holohoax, no Israël.).


I would add a that "No Hitler" would mean no WW2 and the destruction of Britain's great rival, Germany; "No Hitler" also meant that the Jews of Germany would continue to assimilate into German society so much that they would be all but gone as a religion in two more generations ...and that certainly meant no Israel; no WW2 meant that Europe would not be destroyed and it would thus rival the USA a world power.`No WW2 `` meant that the Brits would be able to hold on to their Commonwealth for a few more years....and GB would remain a rival to the USA ...So there was a heck of a lot of double crossing , sneaky, hidden agendas to get WW2 going...

You do not like capitalism. It is my opinion that capitalism is one of the great inventions of mankind. Unfortunately, just like most of our other inventions from bows and arrows to planes, truck, ships, and atomic energy, we have used these inventions as weapons of war. The greed of the banker have used capitalism and their control of money to conquer the world.

Once the bankers learned the fantastic amount of interest that could be obtained from unsuspecting peasants and Kings by giving them loans and using compound, fractional interest, these bankers then used loans to impoverish and control the world with money. They formed their Central Bank of England in 1694 and by 1750 England was so much in debt that it ended up fighting and losing its greatest colony, the USA. Almost every country in the world is now in horrible debt to their Central Bank.

This power and greed of the bankers is of course why these money lenders have been thrown out of almost every city state and country in the world as early as 1200, and why Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson threw them out of the USA. It was not capitalism nor the use of money that everyone hated , for I don’t believe that a reasonable rate of interest , nor the use of money was the problem, it was banker greed. The money lender`s crushing interest caused the downfall of Rome; Rome simply went broke despite what you might read. And the banks are doing the same thing to USA, Great Britain and Europe today. But you won’t find that in any history text book I know. The beginning of the end for the might of he USA came in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson let the bankers create the their own Federal Reserve and gave them the control of the US money supply…a hundred years ago. And now the US is 17 trillion dollars in debt. A hopeless situation no matter how many countries it loots.

Democracy and capitalism are tools of jewish domination. Capitalist democracies are a real heaven for the Jewish natural-born corrupters.

http://trutube.tv/video/2101/The-Jewish ... iam-Pierce

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff7_1372361499

Hitler allowed the bankers to make fantastic loans to Germany, however he would not allow the bankers to take their money and run, to take it out of the country. That was the difference between Hitler, the USA and the rest of the world today. It was this exodus of US and European money to Asia, that has made China and South Korea the economic power houses they are today. In order to crush the unions and the middle class, the bankers have taken their money out of Europe and the USA and invested it in China, Brazil, South Korea and Brazil. Game over.

Why was Hitler able to turn Germany’s depression around when the rest of the world could not, you ask? That was the way the bankers wanted it to be. The bankers loaned Hitler huge amounts of money, as recorded by Sutton, however, they had different plans for the USA and the rest of the world. They loaned money to Germany but cut off the money supply to the rest of the world and caused the great Depression in the 1930 because the bankers wished to destroy the middle class of the world in order to insure their world power plunging us into a world wide debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXyCqw9BxwI

[hermod]

I would add a that "No Hitler" would mean no WW2 and the destruction of Britain's great rival, Germany;

Not even. The British desire for "an English war" intended to bring "the destruction of Germany"* was too strong in spite of the British deceitful mask of [fake] peace-loving nation.

"German Prince Max Hohenlohe spoke in Switzerland with representatives of Vansittart, secretary of the British Foreign Office, returning to Germany to report to Göring that peace with England was possible, but only with Hitler and Ribbentrop removed from power. Göring replied that Hitler would agree to this. Britain never responded to the offer." (Kilzer, Louis C., Churchill's Deception, p. 183)

http://rense.com/general63/ride.htm

And of course FDR's pressure for a new war in Europe didn't help.

The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have been made without strong pressure from the White House.

On 14 March 1939, Slovakia declared itself an independent republic, thereby dissolving the state known as Czechoslovakia. That same day, Czechoslovak President Emil Hacha signed a formal agreement with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech portion of the federation. The British government initially accepted the new situation, but then Roosevelt intervened.

In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen, who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22]

Chamberlain gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

[American diplomat William Christian] Bullitt's response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was to telephone Roosevelt and, in an "almost hysterical" voice, urge him to make a dramatic denunciation of Germany and immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.[23]

In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland."[24]

On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it."[25]

In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939, Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain and France in the anticipated European war.[26]

In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in our interests."[27]

Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971, Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he wrote:

Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister] Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his (Kennedy's) telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's backside.[29]

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

* "This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)

[Charles Traynor]

Barrington, please pull yourself together. Adolf Hitler came to power honourably, using only honest money.

The Hitler I knew, Otto Dietrich, pp.140-143

[Barrington James]

Interesting stuff….but you really should read Antony Sutton...and the other books that I have recommended…Interesting quote too…but my reply to the Rabbi would be…"The Jewish world was divided in two…the great minority, the 1%, those Jews who wanted to create Israel and needed Hitler to do that for them, and the other 99% who , either through their hard work, made America and Germany a paradise for themselves…or wanted to immigrate to one of those two countries.." BJ

[hermod]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vfdZtpx_ug

[hermod]

Funding a Movement:
German Big Business & the Rise of Hitler

Andrew Hamilton

Money is the oxygen of any political movement, be it the ADL and SPLC, or white racialism. Starve a movement—or a people—of money, and you can destroy them. Jews, ever focused on power, routinely attack white funding sources. Indeed, a major purpose of the government’s so-called “money-laundering” laws, ostensibly aimed at “terrorism” and organized crime, is to destroy political opposition to Zionist thuggery, white nationalism, and other political movements deemed unacceptable by the System.

Since money is so important, its role in the rise of National Socialism in Germany is of more than academic interest to white racialists determined that their people should survive.

The Left has long maintained that Hitler was put into power by wealthy white capitalists. This narrative was constructed in the 1920s and ’30s by Communists and Leftists dominant in Germany, the West, and, of course, the Soviet Union, and promoted by academics and the media ever since.

The narrative was challenged by Atlanta-born Yale University historian Henry Ashby Turner in his best-known book, "German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019503 ... rcurren-20), translated into German as "Die Grossunternehmer und der Aufstieg Hitlers" (Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1985). It covers the period up to 1933. Turner, who died in 2008 at age 76, was married and had three children and six grandchildren.

The 1985 book rebuts the standard claim that German big business financed and promoted the attainment of power by Adolf Hitler. It demonstrates that the extent of big business support for Hitler and the Nazi Party has been greatly exaggerated, even falsified. Emil Kirdorf and Fritz Thyssen were the only captains of industry who actively supported the Nazis. Actual sources of financing for election campaigns and party activities came mostly from membership dues and contributions by small and medium-sized businesses. According to William L. Patch of Washington and Lee University, Turner’s conclusions “are now accepted by nearly all specialists in the field.”



1932 front page illustration of the Communist Allgemeine Illustrierte Zeitung (AIZ) by artist “John Heartfield” (Helmut Herzfelde), later an artistic fixture of East Germany: “The Meaning of the Hitler Salute: Little man asks for big gifts. Motto: Millions Stand Behind Me!”

Turner, who spent 1954–1955 as a Fulbright scholar at the University of Munich and the Free University of Berlin, knew German and exhaustively examined original, unpublished records of large German corporations, trade associations, and the Nazi Party. (Some of his scholarly work was written and published in German.)

Unsurprisingly for anyone who has read David Irving, Turner notes that the documentary sources he consulted had been ignored by other historians. Mostly Turner cites original documents: “Only in the case of impeccable scholarly editions have I relied on published versions of materials I originally used in archival form” (p. xv).

Also like Irving, Turner is alert to the propaganda pitfalls ignored by other academics for ideological purposes. He is far more scrupulous than average about ascertaining the reliability of sources, and is particularly critical of East German and other Communist accounts. A colleague noted (http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse. ... &user=&pw=) that Turner believed that:

many ambitious attempts at comparative history—inspired not just by Marxism but also by Freudian psychoanalysis, theories of totalitarianism, or modernization theory—had distorted important factual details of the Nazi rise to support broad [ideological] generalizations. . . . Turner developed a suspicion that adherents of Marxism were especially likely to violate basic rules of historical evidence, but he always displayed similar skepticism with regard to Freudian psychoanalysis, theories of totalitarianism, and many other attempts by ambitious social scientists to fit the case study of the Nazi seizure of power into a sweeping theory.

Although Fritz Thyssen was a rare big business supporter of Hitler, Turner was aware that his book I Paid Hitler (1941) is unreliable. He calls it “purported memoirs” “ghostwritten” by the “Hungarian” Emery Reves. (He does not reveal that Reves was actually a well-connected Jewish propagandist.) Turner wrote a German paper on the subject, “Fritz Thyssen und ‘I Paid Hitler’,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 19 (1971): 225–44 that can be read free online in PDF format.

Turner makes a single passing reference to the other major English language book on the subject of Nazi funding, James and Suzanne Pool’s "Who Financed Hitler?" (1978), which was translated into German in 1979. He categorizes it among sources that “violate the rules of historical scholarship so flagrantly as to render them worthless” (p. xii), adding, “among other things its authors cited documents from archives they had never visited” (p. 362 n. 3).

This brings to mind the work of a non-mainstream, anti-Communist academic and later independent writer not mentioned by Turner, Antony C. Sutton’s "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" (Seal Beach, Calif.: ’76 Press, 1976). I own that book, and Sutton relies heavily not only on the bogus memoirs attributed to Thyssen, but other fraudulent “authorities” such as Jewish journalist Ladislas Farago. His untenable thesis is the same as Leftists’ and Jews’: “The contribution made by American capitalism to German war preparations before 1940 can only be described as phenomenal”—“certainly crucial to German military capabilities.”

[...]

Chemical giant IG Farben, Germany’s and Europe’s largest corporation after its formation in 1925, and the fourth largest in the world after US-based General Motors, US Steel, and Standard Oil of New Jersey, was regularly attacked by the Party and did not support it.

The country’s leading businessman, Gustav Georg Friedrich Maria Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, was adamantly anti-Nazi. Turner was therefore highly critical of popular historian William Manchester’s bestselling "The Arms of Krupp: The Rise and Fall of the Industrial Dynasty that Armed Germany at War" (1968), a lurid anti-German account of the Krupp family and firm which catered to popular prejudices.

[...]

Even in the early years large monetary contributions from patrons played only a minimal role in the Party’s growth. There was always some patronage of this kind, but it was not decisive, and did not come from the largest corporations or wealthiest individuals in Germany as Communist and Leftist propaganda asserts. Unlike bourgeois political parties, the NSDAP never relied upon, and hence never became dependent on, large-scale subsidies.

The Party enforced regular collection of dues from members. The money was divided between local units and Party headquarters. Party headquarters, by the way, was not in Berlin, but at the Brown House in Munich. Because of Jewish and Left-wing hatred of Prussia, it is easy not to know that Nazism was a Bavarian (southern German) movement. During Weimar, the government of Prussia, Germany’s largest and most powerful region, was actually Left-wing and anti-Nazi. Its hostile secret police always tracked the movement and monitored its meetings.

Members also provided interest-free loans, donated equipment other parties were forced to purchase, and volunteered many hours of free labor. In other words, followers were deeply committed and dedicated in ways that the constituencies of other parties (save for the Communists) were not.

Methods of eliciting such devotion today must be found. It would seem that contemporary ruling parties everywhere, including Democrats and Republicans in the US, do not have deeply devoted followings. They depend on small parasitical elites who must be paid, large subventions from wealthy people and special interests, and the doling out of government patronage to schoolteachers, corporations, “minority” constituencies, and so on.

“Substantial amounts for admission” were charged to mass rallies, Turner says, and cups and hats were passed after orators, especially Hitler, whipped audiences into a frenzy.

The Storm Troopers (SA) launched several entrepreneurial ventures, selling gear to members including brown shirts, caps, swastika armbands, brass knuckles, daggers, first aid kits, and other officially certified paraphernalia. This venture evolved into a nationwide quartermaster agency offering mail order delivery and operating more than a dozen retail outlets across the country. The most lucrative SA-endorsed product was the Sturm brand of cigarettes. (The SA stopped selling cigarettes in 1934, after the seizure of power.)

“The readiness of people of modest means to donate what were for them sizeable sums of money,” Turner writes, “bordered, in the opinion of one observing police agent, ‘on the unbelievable.’” The Party’s leaders “could truthfully boast in 1930 that the appreciable wherewithal that underlay the party’s triumph at the polls had come in the form of contributions from the pockets of members and sympathizers, not as subsidies from big business.”

Hitler and his associates brought a message for which many humble people were willing to pay, even at considerable material sacrifice for themselves. Far from depending on subventions from Germany’s capitalists, Nazism was in its early years a genuinely populistic movement that took root and grew into a full-fledged political movement because of the fanatical devotion of its rank-and-file followers. (Turner, p. 60)

Not everything was sacrifice, however. The Party maintained full-time, salaried activists, including its newspaper writers. Speakers at rallies received honoraria (pp. 118–19). And there were paid professional staff at the Brown House in Munich and in party offices throughout the country. A number of people were thereby enabled to devote full-time to party activity.

The sophisticated dues-paying system that formed the foundation of the Party’s economic prosperity was devised by a shrewd, virtually unknown accountant named Franz Xaver Schwarz, who is quite interesting to read about and died in an Allied concentration camp after the war at age 72. He had joined the party in 1922; his party member number was six. He oversaw the organization’s finances throughout its existence, and to him is undoubtedly due most of the credit for its financial success. Nevertheless, he is mentioned only four times in Turner’s book. Schwarz’s dues-paying system, insofar as it is known (many records were destroyed in the war) is described on pp. 119–24.

Despite Schwarz’s outstanding ability, the Party experienced recurrent financial difficulties throughout the 1920s, forcing it to fall back frequently upon emergency loans before finally achieving stability with the large spurt in membership that occurred in 1930. The point is, a sound financial system had long been in place to exploit popular success once it materialized.

[...]

Conclusion

I have tried to provide some indication of where Nazi funding prior to 1933 came from according to H. A. Turner, who for a variety of reasons seems to be a reasonably trustworthy source. However, most detailed records pertaining to party finances were destroyed during the war, so the bulk of Turner’s book is devoted instead to refuting a widely-propagated falsehood: that German big business was pro-Nazi and funded Hitler’s rise. Thus, Turner focuses primarily on how the NSDAP was not funded and where it did not receive support—and why. For on this question the documentary evidence contained in previously untapped corporate archives is abundant.

Hitler and his party received important support from wealthy as well as ordinary Germans. But the former were not the equivalent of the Forbes 400 in the United States—the Buffetts, the Gateses, the Rockefellers, the Waltons—nor were the corporations equivalent to our Fortune 500. Emil Kirdorfs and Fritz Thyssens were the exception, not the rule. The wealthiest people and largest corporations sided with the Jews. So it is remarkable the Nazis succeeded in establishing the equivalent for whites that Communism and Leftism represent for Jews.


Source: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/12 ... more-44185

[Barrington James]

People who suggest that the Hitler miracle that reduced the unemployment in Germany from over thirty percent in 1933 to about five percent three years later, while the rest of the world continued to starve, have have no idea how much money the Germany recovery would have needed for that miracle to have happened. The idea that the Nazi miracle was financed by tens of millions of desperately poor Germans is ridiculous. They did not have any money.

The only people who could possibly have financed the German miracle would have been the international bankers through Wall Street, the US Federal Reserve and The Bank of England, all of which are controlled by the International bankers, the same guys who control the world today through the above and the IMF , The World Bank, and the BIS.....Goldman Sachs.

Of course the questions remain : Why would these guys have financed Hitler? Hints.
Who gained by WW 2? Who gained by driving the Jews out of Germany and into Palestine? What country and people came out of WW2 on top? Anyone care to answer these questions?

[hermod]

People who suggest that the Hitler miracle that reduced the unemployment in Germany from over thirty percent in 1933 to about five percent three years later, while the rest of the world continued to starve, have have no idea how much money the Germany recovery would have needed for that miracle to have happened. The idea that the Nazi miracle was financed by tens of millions of desperately poor Germans is ridiculous. They did not have any money.

And people who suggest otherwise have no idea of what a "Value-Labor" money based on a people's working abilities was.

For info the article above didn't suggest the Nazi economic miracle was financed by poor Germans, but it suggested the NSDAP party was financed by poor Germans before it took power. That's different.

The only people who could possibly have financed the German miracle would have been the international bankers through Wall Street, the US Federal Reserve and The Bank of England, all of which are controlled by the International bankers, the same guys who control the world today through the above and the IMF , The World Bank, and the BIS.....Goldman Sachs.

Nice conspiracy theory.

Stop thinking like a bankster. Prosperity may come from something else than a metal (gold), institutionalized extortion (banking interests), and casino-like bets (speculation). There was a life with trade, prosperity and even happiness before the banksters started their robbery activities and there will also be some after...

Of course the questions remain : Why would these guys have financed Hitler? Hints.
Who gained by WW 2? Who gained by driving the Jews out of Germany and into Palestine? What country and people came out of WW2 on top? Anyone care to answer these questions?

Was that because Hitler was in fact a Reptilian Alien with Rothschild blood?

A better question is: Why did International Jewry/Zionism tried to bankrupt Hitler's regime from 1933 (worldwide economic boycott) if the Nazis were really working for International Jewry and Zionism?

"Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping.... we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends." - Super Zionist Samuel Untermyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York (August 6, 1933, reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933)

"The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people." - Daily Express (March 24, 1933)