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

[Heidegger555]

I think this is a very important discussion and my sincere thanks to all those contributing. Without going to sources and without claiming to be much of an authority, my opinion would be that the truth here is going to be very much of a combination of all the different finances/financiers mentioned... And that the idea that one or the other would mutually exclude this or that is simply dualist thinking amounting to an historical approach with severe drawbacks.
Of course the amazing German 'Wertschaffung' is the main part of the story and this translated into the Reichsmark in 1936, a currency created simply out of the markets' faith in the German worker. Today it is this same type of faith that allows the bankers to keep creating debt/unloading bond issues in the Eurozone. If all fails the newly rich in China are still going to want BMWs and Porsches.
But what's the problem with acknowledging that big bankers financed the NSDAP into power/kept on financing the German Reich until 1936 ?? Isn't this sort of NS moralistic horror that Hitler would have been in bed with the Rothschilds just the reverse of the whole Anglo-American horror that Henry Ford or whoever would have been in bed with Hitler ?? I certainly see Hitler as a person more than willing to take whichever steps needed to get into power, and to work from there. If anything he had too little of the brutal opportunism of a Stalin who just kept on using and liquidating his allies/underlings, and too much 'sentimental' attachment to those so loyal to him from the very beginning. (?)
Viktor Suvorov in 'Chief Culprit' just sort of throws out there that it was Stalin who gave the decisive financial aid to the NSDAP in 1932. (?)
We owe a lot to Eustace Mullins for his work exposing the Federal Reserve, and according to him to say Stalin and the communists financed this or whatever basically is no different than saying Rockefeller or the Rothschilds did it. For Hermod here to try to ridicule a very serious historical argument as a 'conspiracy theory' I personally consider sort of childish... Hermod do you not take seriously the work of Eustace Mullins ?? Do you not consider that anytime a few people are planning criminal actions in private a conspiracy, and our thoughts on what is happening, a theory ??
Thanks to whoever took the time to read this, and God Bless.

[hermod]

Hermod do you not take seriously the work of Eustace Mullins ?? Do you not consider that anytime a few people are planning criminal actions in private a conspiracy, and our thoughts on what is happening, a theory ??

Mullins did some great work. But am I supposed to believe in ALL what was claimed by a man who thought "Nazi" meant "National Zionist", the German concentration camps were opened to imprison the anti-Zionist Jews and were run by Zionist Jews (according to Mullins, the Sonderkommandos were Zionist Jews whose job was to punish and get rid of the anti-Zionist Jews), and the Nazi leaders were executed at Nuremberg because the Zionists didn't want them around to testify about the alleged alliance between the Nazis and the Zionists (so "the Zionist secret was saved" according to Mullins)? Am I supposed not to laugh at those things?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQOOO-BlXv8

That kind of ridiculous theories is something I've witnessed a thousand times among the "truthseekers" who believe in the 'Holocaust'. They fail to see the 'Holocaust' was a just a Zionist myth endorsed by the Allies during WW2 and inserted in their own atrocity propaganda, so they need to turn the 'Holocaust' into a Zionist operation and the Nazis into Zionist puppets in order to support their [correct] views about today's Zionist domination.

(I'm not saying the Nazis didn't collaborate with Germany's Zionists. They did. They both had the same goal: getting the Jews out of Germany. So they worked together to a certain extent (training camps where urban Jews could learn farm labor for instance). But working WITH Germany's Zionists is not working FOR International Zionism and being its puppet. That's what many people today fail to understand.)

[hermod]

THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX: HOW A BANKRUPT GERMANY SOLVED ITS INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS

"We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency [backed by] gold of which we had none, but for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced. . . .we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank."
- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Monetary System," rense.com, citing C. C. Veith, Citadels of
Chaos (Meador, 1949)

"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."
- Winston Churchill, letter to Lord Boothby (http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blog ... crime.html)

Guernsey wasn't the only government to solve its infrastructure problems by issuing its own money. (See E. Brown, "Waking Up on a Minnesota Bridge," http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/infra ... crisis.php, August 4, 2007.) A more notorious model is found in post-World War I Germany. When Hitler came to power, the country was completely, hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations payments on the German people, who were expected to reimburse the costs of the war for all participants — costs totaling three times the value of all the property in the country. Speculation in the German mark had caused it to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. At its peak, a wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty, and huge numbers of homes and farms had been lost to the banks and speculators. People were living in hovels and starving. Nothing quite like it had ever happened before - the total destruction of the national currency, wiping out people's savings, their businesses, and the economy generally. Making matters worse, at the end of the decade global depression hit. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery to international lenders.

Or so it seemed. Hitler and the National Socialists, who came to power in 1933, thwarted the international banking cartel by issuing their own money. In this they took their cue from Abraham Lincoln, who funded the American Civil War with government-issued paper money called "Greenbacks." Hitler began his national credit program by devising a plan of public works. Projects earmarked for funding included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new buildings, roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. The projected cost of the various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. One billion non-inflationary bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates, were then issued against this cost. Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. This government-issued money wasn't backed by gold, but it was backed by something of real value. It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, "for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced." The workers then spent the Certificates on other goods and services, creating more jobs for more people.

Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, although it was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic boycott abroad. It did this by using a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged directly with other countries, circumventing the international banks. This system of direct exchange occurred without debt and without trade deficits. Germany's economic experiment, like Lincoln's, was short-lived; but it left some lasting monuments to its success, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive superhighway.1

Hjalmar Schacht, who was then head of the German central bank, is quoted in a bit of wit that sums up the German version of the "Greenback" miracle. An American banker had commented, "Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We've lots of money and that's real banking." Schacht replied, "You should come to Berlin. We don't have money. That's real banking."2

Although Hitler has gone down in infamy in the history books, he was quite popular with the German people, at least for a time. Stephen Zarlenga suggests in The Lost Science of Money that this was because he temporarily rescued Germany from English economic theory — the theory that money must be borrowed against the gold reserves of a private banking cartel rather than issued outright by the government.3 According to Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow, this may have been a chief reason Hitler had to be stopped: he had sidestepped the international bankers and created his own money. Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolsevism and a Trotsky intimate, who was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky, Hitler had actually been funded by the international bankers, through their agent Hjalmar Schacht, in order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. But Hitler had become an even bigger threat than Stalin when he had taken the bold step of printing his own money. Rakovsky said:

"[Hitler] took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the state . . . something so completely counterrevolutionary 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. 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 . . . Are you capable of imagining what would have come . . . if it had infected a number of other states . . . If you can, then imagine its counterrevolutionary functions . "4

Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany's remarkable transformation:

"The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began."5

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of public (government) schools today."


Another Look at the Weimar Hyperinflation

What does appear in modern textbooks is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic (the common name for the republic that governed Germany from 1919 to 1933). The radical devaluation of the German mark is cited as the textbook example of what can go wrong when governments are given the unfettered power to print money. That is what it is cited for; but in the complex world of economics, things are not always as they seem. The Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Schacht, who was currency commissioner for the Republic, complained:

"The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. . . The Reich could not find any way of holding its head above the water other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes."

That is what he said at first. But Zarlenga writes that Schacht proceeded in his 1967 book The Magic of Money "to let the cat out of the bag, writing in German, with some truly remarkable admissions that shatter the 'accepted wisdom' the financial community has promulgated on the German hyperinflation."6 Schacht revealed that it was the privately-owned Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who would sell the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don't own, sell it, then "cover" by buying it back at the lower price. Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the Reichsbank made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing, marks that were created with accounting entries on the bank's books and lent at a profitable interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.7

According to Schacht, then, not only did the government not cause the Weimar hyperinflation, but it was the government that got it under control. The Reichsbank was put under strict government regulation, and prompt corrective measures were taken to eliminate foreign speculation, by eliminating easy access to loans of bank-created money. Hitler then got the country back on its feet with his Treasury Certificates issued Greenback-style by the government.

Schacht actually disapproved of this government fiat money, and wound up getting fired as head of the Reichsbank when he refused to issue it (something that may have saved him at the Nuremberg trials). But he acknowledged in his later memoirs that allowing the government to issue the money it needed had not produced the price inflation predicted by classical economic theory. He surmised that this was because factories were sitting idle and people were unemployed. In this he agreed with John Maynard Keynes: when the resources were available to increase productivity, adding new money to the economy did not increase prices; it increased goods and services. Supply and demand increased together, leaving prices unaffected.

Our money is our lifeblood. Without money, of course, we die as individuals. Without a proper money system, society dies, which is pretty much what is happening to our society now. This is due to the Jewish money system imposed on us by the aliens who own the private money-making company they call the Federal Reserve System.

We are today witnessing the dangers of precious metals. The only metals that are precious to me are steel, lead and brass. Gold and silver, while intoxicating in their wonderfulness, are just as dangerous and volatile as liquid intoxicants and just as likely to make you lose your wits – and your fortune. There is nothing righteous or magical or even necessary about a nation’s currency being “backed” by gold or silver. This was proved by Adolf Hitler during the 1930s. It was proved so conclusively that the Jews want to make sure that it’s never tried again. The best way to ensure this is to associate debt-free currency with mass murder!

For some reason, the Jews of the world wanted to destroy Germany. We can probably never understand their insane drive to do this but the facts cannot be denied. They also wanted to destroy the Russian ruling class and the Russian people, as we saw happen following their takeover of Russia in 1917. And we see that they apparently wanted to destroy the American people from an early time, dating at least since 1913. The destruction of the Russians, Germans and Europeans in general depended on their takeover of the American banking system in 1913, because it was followed closely by the totalitarian devastation that began in 1914 with the assassination of the Austrian archduke by Gavrilo Princip.

World War I ended in 1918 and this began Germany’s great misery. They were blamed by the victors for starting the war and were forced to pay “reparations” that became so extreme by the early 1920s that their money became worthless. Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved to death because of the money and because of a blockade by England and America to prevent food from getting in. A food convoy was organized by Henry Ford, Herbert Hoover and Norway’s Vidkun Quisling to rescue the starving people of Germany and others in Europe. Quisling’s name has been turned into a dirty word by the Jews and is misused today by people who should know better. He was a great humanitarian and took Germany’s side against the forces of Judaism and Bolshevism for over twenty years.

Adolf Hitler, like Franklin Roosevelt, came to power democratically in January, 1933, in the depths of the world depression. Both Germany and America were starving because of the actions of the Federal Reserve System, now twenty years old. They were starving because the Fed had “deflated” the money supply, withdrew currency from circulation and refused to issue new currency. Credit to farmers and businesses and individuals was denied for no particular reason. Roosevelt outlawed gold and began its confiscation in April, with punishment of ten years in prison and ten thousand dollars in fines. Once he got all of our gold, which was then priced at about twenty dollars an ounce, he raised the price to thirty-two dollars. That made it the biggest, boldest swindle up until that time. Of course, the Federal Reserve System swindlers got the gold – and the massive increase in value.

Hitler came to power over a bankrupt and starving country with unemployment at roughly 50%! The Americans had stolen all Germany’s gold by the early ‘20s, so there was no basis for a monetary system other than to keep borrowing from the Jewish crooks on Wall Street that had given Germany the Young Plan and the Dawes Plan of perpetual indebtedness to private bankers masquerading as the “central bank.” What to do?

Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht issued debt-free currency based on Lincoln’s debt-free currency. What they did led to the swift regeneration of the German economy and the world’s greatest prosperity of the working class, while the rest of the world stayed mired in the Great Depression being run by the sadistic central bankers. This was the worst possible crime and had to be punished by the most terrible war in human history, including fire-bombings of entire cities and deliberate mass starvations of millions following the war. Our nuclear bombs would have dropped on Germans but they weren’t ready in time, so they were dropped on Germany’s allies who were trying to surrender. Please refer to Theodore Kaufman’s charming little book, Germany Must Perish!, which was the basis of the Morgenthau Plan for Germany, executed mercilessly by Dwight David Eisenhower, which resulted in the starvation deaths of millions of Germans.

Ellen Brown and Bill Still have provided us with debt-free currency plans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h8qLkpA_PSs

that will deliver us from the Federal Reserve racketeers and eliminate our indebtedness to the pinstriped scum-rats in less than one year, based on the Hitler model, which they don’t want to say. John F. Kennedy declared war on the Fed racketeers by issuing four billion dollars in debt-free US Notes in April of his last year on earth. Abraham Lincoln first issued debt-free currency when the bankers whom he’d approached for war loans wanted 34% in interest. He only survived a few days longer than his war for crimes against the bankers.

So let’s understand what’s behind the Holocaust. Why don’t Brown and Still, both monetary geniuses, want to credit Hitler and Schacht with the secret to economic prosperity in the face of total meltdown? Why, because of the Holocaust! The greatest economic miracle in history occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler, who ignored the central bankers intent on raping the world, seizing real property, through high interest and deflation. The Russians have recently confirmed suspicions that the American legend of the Depression (“As bad as it was – nobody starved.”) is a lie. Russian investigators have revealed that millions of Americans actually died of starvation and exposure during the years 1929 to 1941 but their deaths were written off to natural causes.

As Hitler remarked in his declaration of war following Pearl Harbor, he had delivered Germany from the doubly devastating conditions of the Versailles Treaty and the general world Depression by 1935 while Roosevelt kept mighty America in abject misery with his Federal Reserve starvation policies right to the present time (December, 1941). He stole all the people’s gold and then increased its value by 60%. And he refused to do what Lincoln had done before him and what Kennedy would do after him: he refused to issue debt-free currency and rescue the American people from aggravated poverty, degradation and death by starvation.

How could that be? How could Hitler state such a thing? Because it was true. It was simple and it was true. The secret to general and permanent prosperity is for the government of any country to issue debt-free currency in amounts necessary for commerce and growth. That is what the founders had in mind with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. We should read that over from time to time. Clause 5 says that the “Congress shall have power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Clause 6 is even better: “Congress shall have the power To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”


1. Matt Koehl, "The Good Society?", http://www.rense.com (January 13, 2005); Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost Science of Money (Valatie, New York: American Monetary Institute, 2002), pages 590-600.

2. John Weitz, Hitler's Banker (Great Britain: Warner Books, 1999).

3. S. Zarlenga, op. cit.

4. Henry Makow, "Hitler Did Not Want War," http://www.savethemales.com (March 21, 2004).

5. Henry C. K. Liu, "Nazism and the German Economic Miracle," Asia Times (May 24, 2005).

6. Stephen Zarlenga, "Germany's 1923 Hyperinflation: A 'Private' Affair," Barnes Review (July-August 1999); David Kidd, "How Money Is Created in Australia," http://dkd.net/davekidd/politics/money.html (2001).

7. S. Zarlenga, "Germany's 1923 Hyperinflation," op. cit.


http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/bankrupt-germany.php

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/11 ... holocaust/

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread. ... ilified%29

[hermod]

"WE MADE A MONSTER OF HITLER, A DEVIL. THAT IS WHY (THEREFORE) WE COULD NOT AFTER THE WAR SAY OTHERWISE. WE HAD PERSONALLY MOBILISED THE MASSES NEVERTHELESS AGAINST THE DEVIL. THUS WE WERE FORCED AFTER THE WAR, TO PLAY ALONG WITH THIS DEVILS' SCENARIO.

WE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE MADE OUR PEOPLE CLEAR (TO THEM) THAT THE WAR WAS ONLY AN ECONOMIC PREVENTATIVE MEASURE!"

--JAMES BAKER , EX-US FOREIGN MINISTER

SOURCE: DER SPIEGEL, 13/1992

http://www.rense.com/general84/baker.htm

[hermod]

"Big capital did not create National Socialism. National Socialism was not its invention. This can be clearly demonstrated. From the beginning, National Socialism was sharply directed against the Jews. However, Jews were important in the circles of big capital. Does anyone believe that these influential Jewish gentlemen would help their deadly enemies, the National Socialists, to attain political power? No, that powerfully underestimates the cleverness and intelligence of these men." - Konrad Adenauer, very anti-Nazi (the Nazis dismissed Adenauer as Mayor of Cologne in April 1933 and they imprisoned him twice) Chancellor of post-war West Germany ("Federal Republic of Germany") from 1949 to 1963.

[neugierig]

I just found this, and as far as I am concerned the issue of Hitler’s financing is interesting and far from settled. Selling margarine will just not cut it, the question has to be: having sold once soul to the Mammon devil can one later get his soul back?

First a little on Adenauer, hermod quotes him. I am a suspicious sort and have always wondered why he was chosen by the victors to be the first chancellor of this newly created vassal stated called the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Just for being an anti-Nazi? Or was it payback for services rendered earlier. Here is something I found re. the attempted establishment of a Rhenish Republic after WWI:

“There seems to be no doubt that Konrad Adenauer, then the burgomaster of Cologne and a prominent political figure in the Rhineland, took a leading (although cautious) role in the encouragement of Rhenish separatism. He was in frequent contact with Dorten and certainly did nothing to discourage Dorten's efforts (see King, Jere Clemens, Foch versus Clemenceau, pp. 32—37). Clemenceau in his “Grandeur and Misery of Victory”, published in 1930, States flatly (p. 209) that "the Burgomaster of Cologne, Herr Adenauer, had become the leader of the movement." Subsequently, in 1956 Adenauer denied any connection whatever with the Separatist movement (see King, p. 33).(Richard M. Watt, The Kings Depart…, Simon and Schuster, New York 1968, p.433)

Makes me wonder. Now to the subject at hand, Hitler’s financing. I found this in Century of War, by William Engdahl, (Pluto Press, London, Ann Arbor, Mi. 1992, pp.82-84):

“In late autumn of 1931, a man arrived at London's Liverpool Street railway station from Germany. His name was Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg met with the editor in chief of the influential London Times, Geoffrey Dawson. The Times gave Hitler's movement
83
invaluable positive international publicity in the coming months. But the most important meeting Rosenberg had during this first England visit in 1931 was with Montagu Norman, governor of the
Bank of England, and arguably the most influential figure of the day in world finance. Norman had three hatreds, according to his trusted personal secretary—the French, the Catholics and the Jews. Norman and Rosenberg found no difficulty in their talks together. The introduction to Norman had come through Hjalmar Schacht. From their first meeting in 1924, Schacht and Norman developed a friendship which lasted until Norman's death in 1945.
Rosenberg concluded his fateful London visit with a meeting with a leading person of the London Schroeder Bank, which was affiliated with J.H. Schroeder Bank in New York and with the Cologne-based private bank, J.H. Stein of Baron Kurt von Schroeder. The man whom
Rosenberg met from Schroeder Bank in London was EC. Tiarks, who was also a member of the Bank of England directorate and a close friend of Montagu Norman.
As Baron von Schroeder and Hjalmar Schacht went to leading German industrial and financial figures to secure support for the NSDAP after 1931, the first question of nervous and skeptical
Industrialists was, 'How does international finance, and especially Montagu Norman, regard the prospect of a German government under Hitler?' Was Norman prepared to come in with financial credit for Germany in such an event? The reality is that at this critical
juncture, when Hitler's NSDAP had little more than 6 million votes in the 1930 elections, the international backing of Montagu Norman, Tiarks and friends in London was decisive.
On January 4, 1932, at the Cologne villa of Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Adolf Hitler, von Papen and the Cologne banker, von Schroeder, secretly arranged financing of Hitler's NSDAP, at that time de facto bankrupt with huge debts, until the planned seizure of power by Hitler. Another meeting between Hitler and Franz von Papen took place on January 4, 1933, at von Schroeder's Cologne villa, at which the plan was finalized to topple the weak government of Schleicher and build a right-wing coalition. On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of the Reich.
The final London visit of Alfred Rosenberg was in May 1933, this time as one of the inner figures in the new Hitler government. He went directly to the country home in Buckhurst Park in Ascot of Sir Henri Deterding, the head of Royal Dutch Shell and arguably the world's most influential businessman. According to English press
84
accounts, the two had a warm and eventful discussion. Rosenberg had first met Deterding during his 1931 London trip. Royal Dutch Shell had intimate contact with, and provided support for the German NSDAP. Though the details were kept secret, reliable British reports of the day were that Deterding had provided substantial financial support to the Hitler project in its critical early phases.
While Norman and the Bank of England had adamantly refused to advance a pfennig of credit to Germany at the critical period in 1931 (thus precipitating the banking and unemployment crisis which made desperate alternatives such as Hitler even thinkable to leading circles in Germany), as soon as Hitler had consolidated power, in early 1933, the same Montagu Norman moved with indecent haste to reward the Hitler government with vital Bank of England credit. Norman made a special visit to Berlin in May 1934 to arrange further secret financial stabilization for the new regime. Hitler had responded by making Norman's dear friend Schacht his minister of economics as well as president of the Reichsbank. The latter post Schacht held until 1939.[16]

16 Among the more useful references for this little-discussed topic are J. and S. Pool, ‘Hitlers Wegbereiter zur Macht: Die geheimen deutschen und internationalen Geldquellen, die Hitlers Aufstieg zur Macht ermöglichten‘. München, Scherz Verlag, 1979; Heinz Pentzlin. ‘Hjalmar Schacht’, Berlin: Verlag Ullstein GmbH, 1980; also useful is Harold James, ‘The German Slump: Politics and Economics 1924-1936’, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

I have yet to check Engdahl’s sources, I contacted him but he did not reply, persona non grata from then on. But still, did Rosenberg go to London, to meet with Norman and others? If so, this raises more questions re. the financing issue.

Did any of you read the books cited by Engdahl? Aside from the Pool book of course.

Thanks
Wilf

[neugierig]

I just thought of something: Is there anything about the Rosenberg visits to London in his newly discovered diary? Is this diary available? It would of course be good to have the precise dates, one of the questions I put to Engdahl. But we do have ‘late autumn of 1931’ and ‘May 1933’.

Regards
Wilf

[hermod]

First a little on Adenauer, hermod quotes him. I am a suspicious sort and have always wondered why he was chosen by the victors to be the first chancellor of this newly created vassal stated called the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Just for being an anti-Nazi? Or was it payback for services rendered earlier. Here is something I found re. the attempted establishment of a Rhenish Republic after WWI:

“There seems to be no doubt that Konrad Adenauer, then the burgomaster of Cologne and a prominent political figure in the Rhineland, took a leading (although cautious) role in the encouragement of Rhenish separatism. He was in frequent contact with Dorten and certainly did nothing to discourage Dorten's efforts (see King, Jere Clemens, Foch versus Clemenceau, pp. 32—37). Clemenceau in his “Grandeur and Misery of Victory”, published in 1930, States flatly (p. 209) that "the Burgomaster of Cologne, Herr Adenauer, had become the leader of the movement." Subsequently, in 1956 Adenauer denied any connection whatever with the Separatist movement (see King, p. 33).(Richard M. Watt, The Kings Depart…, Simon and Schuster, New York 1968, p.433)

I think that being a fervent anti-Nazi agreeing to buy and formalize the victors' lies about Nazi Germany (mainly the Holohoax) was enough to become Germany's post-war Chancellor. Adenauer was not chosen by the victors to be the first chancellor of the new German vassal state. They allowed him to become a potential Chancellor of post-war Germany at best. Adenauer was elected by the Germans in 1949. I don't think that the Allies liked Adenauer very much, at least in the beginning. The British administrators of Cologne even sacked him from his job of Mayor of Cologne after WW2 because he had critized the Allied bombing on Cologne and such words were regarded as anti-British words.

Makes me wonder. Now to the subject at hand, Hitler’s financing. I found this in Century of War, by William Engdahl, (Pluto Press, London, Ann Arbor, Mi. 1992, pp.82-84):

[i]“In late autumn of 1931, a man arrived at London's Liverpool Street railway station from Germany. His name was Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg met with the editor in chief of the influential London Times, Geoffrey Dawson. The Times gave Hitler's movement
83
invaluable positive international publicity in the coming months. But the most important meeting Rosenberg had during this first England visit in 1931 was with Montagu Norman, governor of the
Bank of England, and arguably the most influential figure of the day in world finance. Norman had three hatreds, according to his trusted personal secretary—the French, the Catholics and the Jews. Norman and Rosenberg found no difficulty in their talks together. The introduction to Norman had come through Hjalmar Schacht. From their first meeting in 1924, Schacht and Norman developed a friendship which lasted until Norman's death in 1945.
Rosenberg concluded his fateful London visit with a meeting with a leading person of the London Schroeder Bank, which was affiliated with J.H. Schroeder Bank in New York and with the Cologne-based private bank, J.H. Stein of Baron Kurt von Schroeder. The man whom
Rosenberg met from Schroeder Bank in London was EC. Tiarks, who was also a member of the Bank of England directorate and a close friend of Montagu Norman.
As Baron von Schroeder and Hjalmar Schacht went to leading German industrial and financial figures to secure support for the NSDAP after 1931, the first question of nervous and skeptical
Industrialists was, 'How does international finance, and especially Montagu Norman, regard the prospect of a German government under Hitler?' Was Norman prepared to come in with financial credit for Germany in such an event? The reality is that at this critical
juncture, when Hitler's NSDAP had little more than 6 million votes in the 1930 elections, the international backing of Montagu Norman, Tiarks and friends in London was decisive.
On January 4, 1932, at the Cologne villa of Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Adolf Hitler, von Papen and the Cologne banker, von Schroeder, secretly arranged financing of Hitler's NSDAP, at that time de facto bankrupt with huge debts, until the planned seizure of power by Hitler. Another meeting between Hitler and Franz von Papen took place on January 4, 1933, at von Schroeder's Cologne villa, at which the plan was finalized to topple the weak government of Schleicher and build a right-wing coalition. On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of the Reich.
The final London visit of Alfred Rosenberg was in May 1933, this time as one of the inner figures in the new Hitler government. He went directly to the country home in Buckhurst Park in Ascot of Sir Henri Deterding, the head of Royal Dutch Shell and arguably the world's most influential businessman. According to English press
84
accounts, the two had a warm and eventful discussion. Rosenberg had first met Deterding during his 1931 London trip. Royal Dutch Shell had intimate contact with, and provided support for the German NSDAP. Though the details were kept secret, reliable British reports of the day were that Deterding had provided substantial financial support to the Hitler project in its critical early phases.
While Norman and the Bank of England had adamantly refused to advance a pfennig of credit to Germany at the critical period in 1931 (thus precipitating the banking and unemployment crisis which made desperate alternatives such as Hitler even thinkable to leading circles in Germany), as soon as Hitler had consolidated power, in early 1933, the same Montagu Norman moved with indecent haste to reward the Hitler government with vital Bank of England credit. Norman made a special visit to Berlin in May 1934 to arrange further secret financial stabilization for the new regime. Hitler had responded by making Norman's dear friend Schacht his minister of economics as well as president of the Reichsbank. The latter post Schacht held until 1939.[16]

16 Among the more useful references for this little-discussed topic are J. and S. Pool, ‘Hitlers Wegbereiter zur Macht: Die geheimen deutschen und internationalen Geldquellen, die Hitlers Aufstieg zur Macht ermöglichten‘. München, Scherz Verlag, 1979; Heinz Pentzlin. ‘Hjalmar Schacht’, Berlin: Verlag Ullstein GmbH, 1980; also useful is Harold James, ‘The German Slump: Politics and Economics 1924-1936’, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

All this sounds like a Holocaust story. That's a lot of "They did this and that secretely, but we know they did it" with nothing consistent to credit the allegations told. Another empty shell IMO.

[Barrington James]

Thanks for your interest in this very secret situation...no time to reply....on holidays for a month. Read " Conjuring Hitler" for a few clues. Also Norman M., as head of the Bank of England, a Rothschild controlled bank....thus I doubt very much if he is was in Jewish...

B. J.

[hermod]

Interesting to know what Hjalmar Schacht said at Nuremberg about Hitler's rise to power. Schacht didn't invoke almost magical Jewish money secretely bringing Hitler to power. Schacht talked about the injustices of the Versailles Treaty (infuriating most Germans of that time), the very bad economic situation of the German citizens/German state (getting even worse after the 1929 Krach), the very efficient Nazi propaganda, the incapability of all preceding governments to settle the daily problems of average Germans and the too harsh policy of the foreign countries toward Germany at that time. All that brought many votes to the National Socialist party and turned Hitler's party into an inevitable political force in that time's Germany. In those conditions, a Hitler necessarily had to emerge in Germany soon or late. Nothing surprising. No need to invent plotters acting behind the scenes in order to explain that. Less desperate situations had made similar regimes and parties emerge in other places of Europe too.

Dr Schacht: [...] I was never interested in Party politics. Nevertheless, when in the elections of September 1930 Hitler's party suddenly and surprisingly obtained 108 seats, I began to take an interest in the phenomenon; and on board ship going to the United States I read Mein Kampf and, of course, also the Party program. When I arrived on the other side the first question was what was my opinion about Hitler and the Party, because naturally everyone was talking about this event in Germany. In my first publication at that time-it was an interview-I uttered an unequivocal warning and said, "If you people abroad do not change your policy towards Germany, then you will soon have very many more adherents of Hitler in Germany than there are now." Throughout that period of 2 months I spoke about 50 times in public meetings, and I always met with understanding in the question of reparations, the mistakes of the Versailles Treaty, and the economic difficulties of Germany, and I returned with the impression that the whole American attitude, the attitude of the American people toward us, was indeed rather friendly. Not on my initiative but by coincidence, I got in touch with the adherents of the National Socialist Party. A friend of mine, a bank director, invited me at the beginning of December 1930 to dine with him at his house and to meet Hermann Goering there. I did so and gained no really definite impression from Goering's statements and conduct. He was in every respect reserved, modest, and well-mannered, and he invited me to his house in order to meet Hitler. At the beginning of January my wife and I dined with Goering and his wife one evening at their home, and on that occasion[the German industrialist] Fritz Thyssen was also invited. It had been planned that Hitler should come also and talk with us. I say again now that Goering's apartment was extremely modestly and simply styled. We had a plain pea soup and bacon and particularly Goering's first wife made an excellent impression. After supper Hitler appeared, and the ensuing conversation was conducted in such a way that, let us say, 5 per cent of it was contributed by us, and 95 per cent by Hitler. What he said concerned national questions, in which he agreed absolutely with us. No extravagant demands were stated, but on the other hand the national necessities of Germany were definitely emphasized. In social questions Hitler expressed a number of good ideas; he was especially intent on avoiding class struggle and on eliminating strikes, lock-outs, and wage disputes by decisive intervention of the State in labor relations and the direction of economic affairs. There was no demand for abolishing private enterprise, but merely for influence in its conduct. It seemed to us these ideas were quite reasonable and acceptable. Aside from that, he revealed practically no knowledge in the field of economy and financial policy, though on that evening he did not claim to know anything about these subjects. He merely asked that we as representatives of economy should have understanding for his ideas and give him factual advice. That was the purpose of that evening.

[...]

DR. DIX: [...] Did you believe that you would be able to work with Adolf Hitler and what practical conclusions did you derive from that first conversation with Hitler?

SCHACHT: To work with Adolf Hitler was out of the question for me personally, since I was a private citizen and not interested in Party politics and consequently after that conversation I did nothing at all to create for myself any personal relations with the Hitler circles. I simply went back to my farm and I continued to live there as a private citizen. So personally, for myself I did not draw any conclusions but I drew another conclusion. I have already said that naturally I had the future of my country at heart. After that conversation I repeatedly emphasized to Reich Chancellor Bruening and implored him when forming and heading the Cabinet to include the National Socialists in it, because I believed that only in this way the tremendous impetus, the tremendous propagandistic fervor which I had noticed in Hitler, could be caught and harnessed-by putting the National Socialists to practical government work. One should not leave them in the opposition where they could only become more dangerous, but one should take them into the government and see what they could achieve and whether they would not acquire polish within the government. That was the suggestion and the very urgent request I made to Bruening, and I might say that according to my impression Hitler would at that time have been quite ready to do that. Bruening could under no circumstances be won over to such a policy and in consequence was later crushed.

[...]

DR. DIX: Let us return to the period of the seizure of power. In November 1932, you stated publicly that Hitler would become Reich Chancellor. What caused you to make that statement?

SCHACHT: That statement was caused by the fact that Hitler in the July elections of 1932 obtained 40 percent of all seats in the Reichstag for his Party. That is an election result which, if I am informed correctly, had never occurred since 1871, when the Reichstag was founded; and to me, as a democrat and a follower of democratic parliamentary government, it was quite inevitable that that man was now to be entrusted with forming a cabinet. I do not know of any alternative at the time. There was only one other possibility, one alternative, and that was a military rule. But the Cabinet of Von Papen already had had some special presidential authority and still could not maintain itself in the face of the Reichstag; and when Herr Schleicher attempted to establish a military regime without the participation of the Nazis, he failed after just a few weeks, because he found himself confronted with the alternative either of starting a civil war or of resigning.

Hindenburg and at first Schleicher as well-although at the last moment he acted differently-were always of the opinion that the Armed Forces could not face a civil war, and Hindenburg was certainly not ready to tolerate a civil war. But very unwillingly he saw himself forced by necessity to put the reins of government into the hands of the man who, thanks to his own propaganda and the incapability of all preceding governments, thanks also to the inconsiderate policy of the foreign countries toward Germany, had won the majority of German votes.

DR. DISK: You know that the Prosecution accuses you of having assisted Hitler and the Nazi regime to power. I therefore want to ask you now whether between the July elections 1932, and the day when Hitler became Chancellor-that is the 30th of January, 1933- you spoke publicly for Hitler.

SCHACHT: I want to state first that Hitler's power was an accomplished fact in July 1932, when he secured 230 Reichstag seats. Everything else that followed must be viewed as a consequence of that Reichstag election. During that entire period-with the exception of the one interview you mentioned, in which I said that according to democratic principles Hitler must become Reich Chancellor-I can say that I did not write or publicly speak a single word for Hitler.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-30-46.asp#schacht

Some people could say that Schacht didn't talk about foreign Jewish money funding Hitler in order to save his own neck. But had such a thing ever existed, Schacht would have very probably been executed by the Nuremberg 'tribunal' in order to prevent him from revealing his (alleged) secret later. Had Jewish money come from Britain and America to fund Hitler, I highly doubt Hjalmar Schacht would have been acquitted at Nuremberg and liberated as he was. Rudolf Hess never saw daylight again in order to prevent the details of his peace mission to England from leaking out and being known.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

The economic mess that the US is in today will continue indefinitely. The solution, so successful in pre-war Germany under Hitler, is linked of course to holocaust lunacy--and so Jews who totally dominate all economic activity in the US dare not admit it has any merit. After all, Hitler was "pure evil."

The fact that standards of living in pre-war Britain and the US may have still been somewhat higher (maybe not) than in pre-war Germany ignores the fact that Britain and the US had vast resources and lands at their disposal whereas Germany had next to nothing. Hitler's achievement was the greatest economic miracle of all time--from which the world will eventually learn because it has no choice, ultimately. The Chinese seem to be the fastest learners.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
http://www.gaschamberhoax.com

[Modern Viking]

The Pool's book is actually very truthful and totally dispels the very inaccurate rumours of Hitler being financed by International Bankers. I watched a video on Antony Sutton and could only watch a little bit. He doesn't even know Third Reich history. He just believed whatever he was told in high school. Reality is far different from all the conspiracy theories that seem to be everywhere now. Reality is very complicated and many members of the party were starving and had to pay out of their own pockets.

And Barrington must not have read the book fully, there are detailed descriptions of the party, NOT Hitler, receiving money from all over Germany -- working class, middle class, and, eventually, upper class. I own the book and am amazed by the attention to detail Pool uses, as well as valid references. In fact, there are a couple of sections where the book discusses how many big industrialists were giving money to all parties, with the National Socialist party receiving the smallest of contributions.

I really dislike when conspiracy theories are used without proof. It's always the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers. And that may be when it comes to financing Soviet Russia and the USA and the UK, but not Germany. Even if by some miracle money from the evil International Banks made its way to the Party, you can bet that Hitler would have used it against them. He was all about removing Jewish usury, not supporting it. He called the enemy out and the world destroyed him for it. In time, he will be remembered as the greatest leader of modern times. And all these so-called truthers will have to admit what really happened, or just fade into obscurity.