Hitler: financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, supported by American oil and industry

From Fort Russ

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
14th May, 2016
 
ru-polit.livejournal (originally from 2009) 

 

More than 70 years ago was the start of the greatest slaughter in history.

The recent resolution of the parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE fully equalizes the role of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany at the outbreak of the Second World War, except that it had the purely pragmatic purpose of extorting money from Russia on the contents of some of the bankrupt economies, intended to demonize Russia as the successor state to the USSR, and to prepare the legal ground for the deprivation of her right to speak out against revision of results of war.
But if we approach the problem of responsibility for the war, then you first need to answer the key question: who helped the Nazis come to power? Who sent them on their way to world catastrophe? The entire pre-war history of Germany shows that the provision of the “necessary” policies were managed by the financial turmoil, in which, by the way, the world was plunged into.
The key structures that defined the post-war development strategy of the West were the Central financial institutions of Great Britain and the United States — the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System (FRS) — and the associated financial and industrial organizations set out a target to establish absolute control over the financial system of Germany to control political processes in Central Europe. To implement this strategy it is possible to allocate the following stages:
1st: from 1919 to 1924 — to prepare the ground for massive American financial investment in the German economy;
2nd: from 1924 to 1929 — the establishment of control over the financial system of Germany and financial support for national socialism;
3rd: from 1929 to 1933 — provoking and unleashing a deep financial and economic crisis and ensuring the Nazis come to power;
4th: from 1933 to 1939 — financial cooperation with the Nazi government and support for its expansionist foreign policy, aimed at preparing and unleashing a new World War.
In the first stage, the main levers to ensure the penetration of American capital into Europe began with war debts and the closely related problem of German reparations. After the US’ formal entry into the first World War, they gave the allies (primarily England and France) loans to the amount of $8.8 billion. The total sum of war debts, including loans granted to the United States in 1919-1921, was more than $11 billion.
To solve this problem, debtor countries tried to impose a huge amount of extremely difficult conditions for the payment of reparations at the expense of Germany. This was caused by the flight of German capital abroad, and the refusal to pay taxes led to a state budget deficit that could be covered only through mass production of unsecured Marks. The result was the collapse of the German currency — the “great inflation” of 1923, which amounted to 578 (512%), when the dollar was worth 4.2 trillion Marks. German Industrialists began to openly sabotage all activities in the payment of reparation obligations, which eventually caused the famous “Ruhr crisis” — Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923.
The Anglo-American ruling circles, in order to take the initiative in their  own hands, waited for France to get caught up in a venturing adventure and to prove its inability to solve the problem. US Secretary of State Hughes pointed out: “It is necessary to wait for Europe to mature in order to accept the American proposal.”
The new project was developed in the depths of “JP Morgan & Co.” under the instruction of the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At the core of his ideas was representative of the “Dresdner Bank” Hjalmar Schacht, who formulated it in March 1922 at the suggestion of John Foster Dulles (future Secretary of state in the Cabinet of President Eisenhower) and legal adviser to President W. Wilson at the Paris peace conference. Dulles gave this note to the chief Trustee “JP Morgan & Co.”, and then JP Morgan recommended that H. Schacht, M. Norman, and the last of the Weimar rulers. In December, 1923, H. Schacht would become Manager of the Reichsbank and was instrumental in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial circles.
In the summer of 1924, the project known as the “Dawes plan” (named after the Chairman of the Committee of experts who created it – American banker and Director of one of the banks of the Morgan group), was adopted at the London conference. He called for halving the reparations and solved the question about the sources of their coverage. However, the main task was to ensure favorable conditions for US investment, which was only possible with stabilization of the German Mark.
To this end, the plan gave Germany a large loan of $200 million, half of which was accounted for by JP Morgan. While the Anglo-American banks gained control not only over the transfer of German payments, but also for the budget, the system of monetary circulation and to a large extent the credit system of the country. By August 1924, the old German Mark was replaced by a new, stabilized financial situation in Germany, and, as the researcher G.D Preparta wrote, the Weimar Republic was prepared for “the most picturesque economic aid in history, followed by the most bitter harvest in world history” — “an unstoppable flood of American blood poured into the financial veins of Germany.”
The consequences of this were not slow to appear.
This was primarily due to the fact that the annual reparations were to cover the amount of debt paid by the allies, formed by the so-called “absurd Weimar circle”. The gold that Germany paid in the form of war reparations, was sold, pawned, and disappeared in the US, where it was returned to Germany in the form of an “aid” plan, who gave it to England and France, and they in turn were to pay the war debt of the United States. It was then overlayed with interest, and again sent  to Germany. In the end, all in Germany lived in debt, and it was clear that should Wall Street withdraw their loans, the country will suffer complete bankruptcy.
Secondly, although formal credit was issued to secure payment, it was actually the restoration of the military-industrial potential of the country. The fact is that the Germans were paid in shares of companies for the loans so that American capital began to actively integrate into the German economy.
The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America’s leading financial-industrial groups.
“Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie”, the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller “Standard Oil”. Morgan, through “General Electric”, controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned “General Electric“) through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.
In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company “Focke-Wulf”. “General Motors“, belonging to the DuPont family, established control over “Opel”. Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of  “Volkswagen“. In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank “Dillon, Reed & Co.” the second largest  industrial monopoly in Germany after “I.G Farben” emerged — metallurgical concern “Vereinigte Stahlwerke” (Steel trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.
American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank etc were under the control of American financial capital.
The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in the Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and A. Hitler personally.
As former German Chancellor Brüning wrote in his memoirs, since 1923, Hitler received large sums from abroad. Where they went is unknown, but they were received through Swiss and Swedish banks. It is also known that, in 1922 in Munich, a meeting took place between A. Hitler and the military attache of the US to Germany – Captain Truman Smith – who compiled a detailed report for his Washington superiors (in the office of military intelligence), in which he spoke highly of Hitler.
It was through Smith’s circle of acquaintances Hitler was first introduced to Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl (Putzie), a graduate of Harvard University who played an important role in the formation of A. Hitler as a politician, rendered him significant financial support, and secured him the acquaintance and communication with senior British figures.
Hitler was prepared in politics, however, while Germany reigned in prosperity, his party remained on the periphery of public life. The situation changed dramatically with the beginning of the crisis.
Since the autumn of 1929 after the collapse of the American stock exchange was triggered by the Federal Reserve, the third stage of the strategy of Anglo-American financial circles started.
The Federal Reserve and JP Morgan decided to stop lending to Germany, inspired by the banking crisis and economic depression in Central Europe. In September 1931, England abandoned the gold standard, deliberately destroying the international system of payments and completely cutting off the financial oxygen to the Weimar Republic.
But a financial miracle occurred with the Nazi party: in September 1930, as a result of large donations from Thyssen, “I.G. Farben”, Kirdorf’s party got 6.4 million votes, and took second place in the Reichstag, after which generous investments from abroad were activated. The main link between the major German industrialists and foreign financiers became H. Schacht.
On January 4th, 1932, a meeting was held between the largest English financier M. Norman, A. Hitler, and von Papen, which concluded a secret agreement on the financing of the NSDAP. This meeting was also attended by US policymakers and the Dulles brothers, something which their biographers do not like to mention. On January 14th, 1933, a meeting between Hitler, Schroder, Papen and Kepler took place, where Hitler’s program was fully approved. It was here that they finally resolved the issue of the transfer of power to the Nazis, and on 30th January Hitler became Chancellor. The implementation of the fourth stage of the strategy thus begun.
The attitude of the Anglo-American ruling circles to the new government was very sympathetic. When Hitler refused to pay reparations, which, naturally, called into question the payment of war debts, neither Britain nor France showed him the claims of the payments. Moreover, after the visit in the United States in May 1933, H. Schacht was placed again as the head of Reichsbank, and after his meeting with the President and the biggest bankers on Wall Street, America  allocated Germany new loans totalling $1 billion.
In June, during a trip to London and a meeting with M. Norman, Schacht also sought an English loan of $2 billion, and a reduction and then cessation of payments on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got what they could not achieve with the previous government.
In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German transfer agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and at the end of the 30’s, Germany became the main trading partner of England. Schroeder Bank became the main agent of Germany in the UK, and in 1936 his office in New York teamed up with the   Rockefellers to create the “Schroeder, Rockefeller & Co.” investment Bank, which “Times” magazine called the “economic propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome”. As Hitler himself admitted, he conceived his four-year plan on the basis of foreign financial loans, so it never inspired him with the slightest alarm.
In August 1934, American “Standard Oil” in Germany acquired 730,000 acres of land and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, Germany  secretly took delivery of the most modern equipment for aircraft factories from the United States, which would begin the production of German planes.
Germany received a large number of military patents from American firms Pratt and Whitney“, “Douglas“, “Curtis Wright“, and American technology was building the “Junkers-87”. In 1941, when the Second world war was raging, American investments in the economy of Germany amounted to $475 million. “Standard Oil” invested – 120 million, “General Motors” – $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and “Ford” — $17.5 million.
The close financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American and Nazi business circles was the background against which, in the 30’s, a policy of appeasement led to world war II.
Today, when the world’s financial elite began to implement the “Great depression — 2” plan, with the subsequent transition to the “new world order”, identifying its key role in the organization of crimes against humanity becomes a priority.
Yuri Rubtsov is a doctor of historical sciences, academician of the Academy of military sciences, and member of  the International Association of historians of world war II

German lawmakers claim Ukraine conflict covers up massive cropland seizures

From Sputnik News, February  6, 2015

According to the office of a German parliament member, the conflict in Ukraine is used to cover up a sale of farmlands in the interest of major corporations.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The armed conflict in Ukraine is a smokescreen for the seizure of high-quality cropland by foreign firms funded by the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the office of a German parliament member said on Thursday.”The conflict in Ukraine is used to cover up a sale of farmlands in the interest of major corporations,” Birgit Bock-Luna, who heads the office of Niema Movassat, a deputy for the opposition Left faction in the German parliament, told RIA Novosti.

Bock-Luna told RIA Novosti a group of faction representatives had officially inquired with the German government on the actions of the country’s state-run banking group Bankengruppe KfW that they said is behind the seizure of Ukraine’s arable lands, some of the best in Europe.

Ukraine has a temporary ban prohibiting the sale of farmlands to foreign entities until January 2016.But German agricultural concerns – AGRARIUS AG, germanagrar CEE GmbH, KTG Agrar SE, Agroton and Alfred C. Toepfer International (ADM) – seize land using leasing schemes and generous loans from German and global money lenders.

According to data obtained by German lawmakers, Alfred C. Toepfer International was given a $60 million loan to buy an additional 50,000 hectares in Ukraine, alongside 50,000 it already owns.

German lawmakers suggest that large areas of Ukraine’s arable lands could be used to grow genetically modified crops, away from the watchful eye of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is EU’s agricultural regulator.

Lawmakers say they have reasons to believe that the German government has been involved in funding farmland grabs in Ukraine through its ministries, providing assistance to joint EU and German agricultural projects with Kiev.The Ukraine Investment Climate Advisory Services Project, Germany’s agricultural center Deutsche Agrarzentrum (DAZ), and the German Advisory Group on Economic Reforms in Ukraine are some of the projects that helped to negotiate land grabs with Ukrainian government officials, lawmakers said.

Bock-Luna said the Ukrainian government that came to power in Kiev after last year’s coup has been actively giving away farmland in return for loans from international creditors.

The previous Ukrainian administration was opposed to further relaxation of agricultural laws, but this changed after the coup, with the help of the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,” she added.

Ukraine is a major crop producer in the European market. It commands over 32 million hectares of farmland, equivalent to around one third of the arable land in the entire European Union.

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150206/1017847475.html

Poroshenko surrenders Ukraine to the IMF

Posted on Fort Russ

[Original headline at source: “Poroshenko acquires a big loan for Ukraine from IMF, conditioned on consigning lands, resources and procurements of public services to US mega-corporations”]

Ukraine, Lagarde (IMF) announce: Loans to 40 billion euro in exchange for reforms (on the Greek model)
Published February 12, 2015 in ControInformazione.info
February 12, 2015
Translated from Italian by Tom Winter
If you are a puppet of the US empire and you consign your sovereignty to Washington, you get an abundance of money, financing, arms, and multinational corporations looking for business and ready to plunder the resources of your country. If instead you put yourself on a collision course with these powers, as in the case of Greece, your financial faucets get shut off, and you risk default.
This is the lesson from two parallel vignettes, that of Ukraine on one side, where a U.S. puppet government took office, via coup d’etat, and on the other, that of Greece, where, thanks to free elections, a popular government took office hostile to big banks and the EU.
In the first case, also thanks to ministers in the government with U.S. passports (See “Ukraine launches a government with foreign ministers”), and to the total subordination of the state to directives from Washington, in opposing Russia, everything gets allowed, to save the country from the economic collapse that a clique of pro-America oligarchs have brought it to.
For Ukraine, aside from the other big loans at the disposition of the IMF, there will be other financing, “multi-lateral and bi-lateral” loans for the country in the USA-EU orbit, a country whose economy will enjoy, all told, a sustaining loan of 40 billion dollars over four years. Christine Lagarde, administrator of the IMF, announced it with pride, revealing the terms of an “agreement in principle” with Kiev for a package of 17.5 billion dollars from the IMF, without guarantee, but committing the government in Kiev to “ambitious” economic reforms. (“Ambitious reforms” already actuated in other countries: cuts to health care, worker layoffs, reduced pension payouts, reduced funding for education, destruction of welfare, and the like — As in Greece.
Other financial institutions will join with the IMF, such as the Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as the European Central Bank itself (the one that denied any help to Greece), Lagarde reported. Bottom line is a “finance package” of 40 billion over the course of four years.
In this plan the Ukrainian government will conduct negotiations will various lenders, putting all the potential resources of the country on the table: the vast farmlands, mining, petroleum prospecting concessions to American multinationals, public services to contract, public health and hospitals to privatize, and labor reforms (of the type “Jobs Act”) to harrow the country, and so on and on.
In keeping with this plan, Hunter Biden, youngest son of Joe Biden, vice-president of the United States of America, has been put on the board of directors of Ukraine’s most important gas company, Burisma Holdings. (See Biden’s son enters the country’s main gas company)
US President Obama, vice-president Biden, 
with Hunter Biden, new board member of Burisma Holdings.
This is the price paid by a country that has consigned itself “voluntarily” to the protection of the USA, subverting the preceding accords with Russia and other Eurasian counties.
This story can easily show how intimately connected political scenarios are with the financial levers that are available to the dominant powers that set the rules in this world.
Should anyone disingenuously suppose that finance and international politics are two different arenas, today you totally have to change your mind.
Original: