‘…[In] such trying games of conquest, results might never be expected to take shape quickly…Imperial stratagems are protracted affairs. The captains of world aggression measure their achievements…on a timescale whose unit is the generation. It’s within such a frame that the incubation of Nazism should be gauged: it was a long and elaborate plan to eliminate the possibility of German hegemony over the continent. And the stewards of the empire took their time.’ — Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Created the Third Reich, Guido Preparata (© 2006).
‘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 to Lord Robert Boothby, cited in the Foreword, Propaganda in the Next War (2/e), Sidney Rogerson (2001).
‘Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history’. — The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx (1848)
‘They gorge on God and the world. They do not sow. They just reap. They are the sorcerers in the flesh [who] make gold over the phone…’ — Erich Kästner, Hymn to the Bankers
Brief: With all the talk about a third world war, it is essential to understand the real causes of the first two. Like the proposition it was Germany’s imperial ambition that kindled the First World War in 1914, the notion that the rise of Adolf Hitler was an aberrant manifestation of the chaos prevailing in post-War Germany is one we still teach our kids in school, and embrace without question in our public discourse. Both these ungodly gospels—to this day perpetuated by the custodians of the historical record on behalf of the Anglo-American-Zionist establishment—are perhaps the most existentially dangerous delusions infecting the Western body politic. There seems no better time to begin appreciating the implications of preserving them. To underscore this, it’s sufficient to grasp that the power elite mindsets, economic conditions, and the broad geopolitical objectives that marked the prelude to these cataclysmic events parallel so many of those unfolding now. As we will see, this is not simply a matter of history tripping over itself once again! As Hegel once mused, the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
— The Protracted Affairs of Imperial Stratagems —
In Guido Preparata’s myth-shattering 2006 tome Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Created the Third Reich, there are essentially three people who ‘hold court’ in the overarching narrative, none of whom are Adolf Hitler. Off the bat this makes Preparata’s book somewhat unique, to say the least.
These “people” are first and foremost Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England (BoE); Hjalmar Schacht, then President of Germany’s central bank the Reichsbank, and for a time the Third Reich’s ‘economic Führer’; and Benjamin Strong, the then Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
All three of these men were pivotal to the assuredly remarkable success of the Wirtschaftswunder, the fabled German economic miracle that enabled it to revitalize its economy after the turmoil and chaos of the Weimar era and the devastation of the Great Depression, and from there rebuild its once formidable war machine.
But firstly, by way of a fitting entrée into the main course of our narrative, the following anecdotes should serve us well. In his book Preparata recounts the occasion when Hitler acolyte Joachim von Ribbentrop, later to become Germany’s U.K. ambassador and then her foreign minister, travelled to Britain in May 1935 to ‘negotiate’ of all things, German naval rearmament ratios with the so-called stewards of the British Empire. During his trip the then military attaché of the Japanese embassy in London, Capt. Arata Oka, bent the ear of the former booze salesman cum Nazi diplomat with this sage advice:
“…Never forget….the British are the most cunning people on earth, and that they graduated to absolute masters in the art of negotiation as well as in that of manipulating the press and public opinion.”
Clearly, neither Ribbentrop nor his boss appreciated the implications of this advice. Had they done, things might have turned out somewhat differently. Another enticing ‘what-if’…then…
And in what will doubtless resonate with folks critical of the present state of the world banking and financial sector and its amoral alchemists, the following exchange took place between an unnamed American banker/financier and the aforementioned Schacht. In this most telling of historical tête-à-têtes, the American snootily suggested to the Nazi financial guru that he (Schacht) ‘…should come to America. We’ve lots of money, and that’s real banking.’ Not to be upstaged, in a priceless (and for some, perhaps rare), moment of Teutonic Drolligkeit, Schacht reportedly countered with this: ‘[No] You should come to Berlin. We don’t have any money. Now that’s real banking.’ (1)
Schacht and Strong aside, it is Norman who was the most significant figure in this triumvirate. By colluding with the others to assemble his ingeniously iniquitous contrivances with currencies, credit (or debt), and commodities, this financial uber-savant was possibly the most influential political player in twentieth-century history most folks have never heard of. Put differently, no Norman, no Weimar hyperinflation, no Adolf Hitler, no Nazis; no 1929 Crash, no Great Depression; no Führer, Third Reich, German rearmament, no World War II!
What lends the above anecdote—on its face at least—even more compelling irony is the reality that whilst Germany was experiencing this economic resurrection, the U.S. itself (indeed Europe and the West in general including here in Australia) was still wallowing in the pits of the Great Depression, one that in essence had been purpose-built by the financial and banking elites of the Anglo-American establishment. Which is to say, the outcome of this state of affairs was not an accident of history, bringing to mind a remark attributed to the then U.S. Depression-era POTUS Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR), ‘In politics, nothing happens by accident….[I]f it happens, you can bet it was planned that way’. Insofar as “economics” goes, well might we say the same.
In Conjuring Hitler then Preparata goes to great lengths to deep-six the notion of WWII as the “Good War”, of Hitler’s rise as an accident of history, and most importantly, that of Great Britain and America and the assorted allies including again my own country Australia, as the “good guys”. At the outset, the author unambiguously lays out his stall, at the same time emphasising the credence of his central thesis whilst flagging its contemporary import:
‘Britain’s imperial way was possibly the most atrocious manifestation of Machiavellism in modern history…..[she knew] of no means that could not justify the end. To achieve world hegemony, Britain did not retract from planning in Germany an interminable season of pain and chaos to incubate an eerie, native force, which she thought of manipulating in a second world conflict…All of this was, from 1919-1945, a cool-headed, calculated plot… I’m aware such a thesis might easily lend itself to being booed as another grotesque conspiracy theory; [but]…this thesis provides a collection of clues and solid evidence, which have been available for years, and have formed a platform for those students of history who’ve had the candor to acknowledge that the central tenet of international relations was, then as now, secrecy.’ [My emphasis]
Of course, Preparata is by no means the first to illuminate the Anglo-American establishment’s role in the manipulation of events that led to the second great conflagration of the last century. His book is exceptionally well referenced and draws on the work of many others, obscure and not so obscure, who’ve traversed in varying degrees this path before or contributed to a clearer understanding of the extraordinarily complex chain of events. These include people as diverse as Niall Ferguson, David Irving (yes, that one!), F William Engdahl, George Kennan, Richard Pipes, Carroll Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Webster Tarpley, and countless others.
Apart from being one of the most up-to-date, accurate accounts of the European war and its causes, perhaps what makes Preparata’s book unique in so many ways is his more or less equal emphasis on the then global economic and financial factors, as much as he does the more usual examination of the political, social, and ideological trends that gave rise to this apocalyptic cataclysm. We’re in “follow the money” territory, writ large!
Beyond that, Conjuring Hitler is an astonishing expose of the supremely furtive, audaciously amoral collusions undertaken in the inter-war years by the financial, political, diplomatic, and industrial elites in Britain, the U.S., Russia, and Germany. These were fuelled by the overarching geopolitical imperatives as articulated by Sir Halford Mackinder, the Empire’s draughtsman of world economic and political dominion, aka the patron saint of Great Gamers and their progeny. (Think here Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, et.al. along with their American forbear–and Mackinder’s near contemporary–Admiral Alfred Mayer Thayan).
— Where the Real Bankers Are —
Preparata’s achievements are many, not least how he intricately weaves the narrative to encompass all key factors, not just the financial and economic ones. And what a “narrative” this is! In his account of the financial machinations that were key to facilitating Hitler’s ascent—he highlights everything from:
1. [How] Germany was quietly allowed to forgo payment of the bulk of the onerous, farcical reparations imposed on it at the Treaty of Versailles; [to]
2. [How] the currency manipulations which both deliberately triggered the massive inflationary trends of the early Weimar republic and later, the onset of the Great Depression; [to]
3. [How] the Nazis, once in power, were able to perform their economic ‘miracle’ and from there fund the buildup of their military machine, herein again defying the (faux) diktats of Versailles.
In this, Preparata presents an expansive vista of monumentally criminal calculation and geopolitical deception. Such grand ambitions were designed with one aim: for Britain and France—in collusion with Stalin and the USSR—to ensnare Germany into another world war so as to permanently curtail any future Teutonic geopolitical ambition, whether unilaterally or, in the Empire’s worst nightmare scenario, in alliance with Russia. It was, in short order, designed to crush Germany once and for all.
If it is true that ‘all wars are bankers’ wars’, then Norman’s legacy remains an ineradicable testimony to that adage! The imperial stewards—to use Preparata’s phrase, the “Captains of World Aggression”—would never in their wildest imaginings have been able to achieve their goals without the ‘Master Tailor’ of Threadneedle Street; he was their most secret, dangerous, and secretive of weapons. This was an assiduously furtive man with a mind like a steel-trap, attended by an amoral ambition and cunning more than befitting that of a James Bond villain, one utterly enamoured with the preservation and ultimate expansion of his much cherished British Empire.
Insofar as the Wirtschaftswunder went, such was the extraordinary feat of financial engineering, political corruption, grandly cynical realpolitik, and devious economic policy manipulation undertaken by the key players in this history diverting enterprise, it might well have left the estimable Nicola Machiavelli gasping for breath in admiration at the sheer audacity of their gambit to begin with, leave alone any mention of the accomplishment itself.
Preparata is unsparing in defining the motives and identifying the means by which he went about his business. That Norman, like the stewards—notably the execrable Winston Churchill and his coterie—was prepared to risk destroying the very Empire to which he was in thrall in order to save it is an even more sobering conclusion. If all this rings strikingly deja vu now, then that’s because it probably is. Indeed, Preparata asserts the following unequivocally, ‘the present geopolitical policy of the United States is a direct and wholly consistent continuation of the old imperial strategy of Britain’. [Emphasis added.]
At this point, it’s important to mention another extraordinary individual who features in Preparata’s book, albeit one who does not play a direct role in the narrative, but whose thinking clearly has informed his retelling of the backstory of the circumstances leading to Hitler’s rise. It was Norwegian-born American economist and social scientist Thorstein Veblen who was, in the author’s summation, the largely unsung sage who anticipated the rise of someone like Hitler, and later, after the Treaty of Versailles was ratified, the consequences arising from the treaty. He also predicted where they would lead. As an inveterate student of Teutonic history, society, culture, and its political economy, Veblen went so far as to prophesy the Great Depression and the eventual showdown—and from there the mutually assured destruction—between Germany and Russia, which was to be sure, the end game of the stewards.
In essence, Veblen portended all this more than 20 years prior to the events taking place. As Preparata notes, Veblen’s prescience, which appeared in a review of his of celebrated economist John Maynard Keynes’ book on Versailles, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, ‘…stands possibly as Political Economy’s most extraordinary document—a testimony of the highest genius—and as the lasting and screaming accusation of the horrendous plot that was being hatched by the British during the six months of the Peace Conference following World War I.’
For historians, diplomats, geopolitical analysts, history buffs, and politicians, many a meal has been made out of the dangers of appeasement, such that in foreign policy circles it is something of a dirty word. Indeed, whenever Godwin’s Law is invoked, the terms “appeasement” or “appeaser” are not far behind. The policy of “appeasement” is considered to be one of the British Empire’s gravest foreign policy mistakes.
But in Conjuring Hitler, Preparata disabuses us of this notion: “appeasement” was a travesty, a charade, a diplomatic dog ‘n pony show of the first order. If there was a “mistake” made, it was on the part of the Germans who bought the Whitehall Warmongers’ audacious game-plan. History repeats itself as it did in the lead-up to the Great War. In short, there was no real division. As Preparata notes, the truth is somewhat different:
‘The British establishment was a monolithic structure: the dissension among the stewards, if any, was over policy, never over principles and goals, which were the same for all. The British were never torn by disagreement as to what ought to be done with Hitler. That much was obvious: destroy him in time, and raze Germany to the ground – imperial logic demanded it. Rather, the point was a pragmatic one: how could the Nazis be most suitably bamboozled into stepping, anew, into a pitfall on two fronts? The answer: by dancing with them. And dance the British would, twirling round the diplomatic ballroom of the 1930s, always leading, and drawing patterns as they spun that followed in fact a predictable trajectory.’
Guido Preparata Interview
Guido Preparata discusses his book Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich. Herein he talks about how Great Britain fomented two world wars to prevent an alliance forming between Germany and Russia and how the rise of National Socialism in Germany was not an aberration or accident of history but the result of Anglo-American financial support and intrigue. He also talks about why it all matters in the here and now.
— The Captains of World Aggression —
The notable rise in recent years of extreme right, neo-Nazi, pro-Hitlerite sentiment within national boundaries and across the broad geopolitical landscape—whether from the Ukraine to Charlottesville and seemingly all points in between—have elicited some fascinating, yet perplexing responses from surprising quarters. What’s also a noteworthy trend is the earnest, hand-wringing propensity to label the West’s latest bete noir, from Slobodan Milosevic (Serbia), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Muammar Gadhafi (Libya), Bashar al-Assad (Syria), Kim Jong-un (North Korea), to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and a multitude of other non-compliant flies in the globalists’ ointment, as the next “Adolf Hitler”.
Indeed it seems it is so ingrained in the collective psychopathology of our political, media, and ruling power establishment, it’s become, as per the ‘dictates’ (sorry) of Godwin’s Law, a self-perpetuating meme. Quite apart from highlighting the mix of revulsion and fascination with which history’s most consequential regime and its unforgettable leader is held, both of these trends open up plenty of room for a renewed discussion about the circumstances surrounding the rise of Hitler and his Nazi hordes. To underscore this unholy fusion of irony, sanctimony, hypocrisy, self-delusion, dissembling, perception management, and groupthink—all attended by the selective historical witlessness—that characterises such utterances, it is worth mentioning that in the first instance, recently we witnessed the truly Alice in Wonderland spectacle of former presidents George HW Bush and his son George “W” holding court decrying the “violence, anti-Semitism, and hatred” evident in the Charlottesville, Virginia riots. Anything to remain relevant in some small way. Ever eager to appear the elder statesman.
The first observation one feels obliged to make about this stance upon the part of Bush père et fils is that it’s reasonable to assume only a small minority of Americans would be familiar with the dynasty’s less than auspicious backstory. In this, they could be forgiven for taking at face value their elder statesmen’s (sic) earnest concerns about the forces driving events in Charlottesville. Even many who weren’t fans of either president doubtless may have been inclined to accept they had their hearts (or what passes for reasonable facsimiles thereof) in the right place.
Yet those of us with a deeper knowledge of America’s past in respect of all things Nazi-related—in this case that of the Bushes’ forbears—have a much more nuanced perspective. If we shake the Bush family tree, a more interesting if sobering, picture emerges. Put simply, the late US senator Prescott Bush, “Poppy’s” old man and Number 43’s granddaddy, was a director and shareholder of numerous companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. In the main, this was via his connections to the ‘venerable’ Wall Street behemoth, Brown Brothers Harriman, described by Webster Tarpley as ‘one of the most evil and most powerful banks in modern American history.’ [It’s instructive to note that Montagu Norman served a twenty year apprenticeship with the London subsidiary of Brown Brothers prior to going to the BoE.]
A 2004 Guardian report is one amongst many revelations of Prescott Bush’s business dealings with the regime which went well beyond Pearl Harbor, and as the report notes, ‘…continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz…..’
Yet, as it turns out, amongst America’s ruling classes, the Bush family were far from being unique in this endeavour, nor were they necessarily the worst offenders. Many familiar names along with well-known corporate, industrial, and Wall Street entities—indeed some of the world’s most famous brand-names—knowingly facilitated Hitler’s rise to power, and from there, knowingly aided and abetted the construction of the Nazi war machine. Some of these efforts even extended well beyond Hitler’s ultimately reluctant declaration of war on the so-called “sleeping giant”. In his seminal 1976 expose, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Anthony Sutton (2) summarised these links:
- Wall Street financed the German cartels in the mid-1920s which in turn proceeded to bring Hitler to power;
- the financing for Hitler came in part from affiliates of U.S. firms, including Ford [Motor Co.], General Electric, Standard Oil, General Motors, IBM, and I.T.T….up to 1944;
- multi-nationals under the control of Wall Street profited handsomely from Hitler’s military construction program at least until 1942; and
- these same international bankers used political influence in the U.S. after 1945 to cover up their wartime collaboration.
Moreover, Hitler’s fan-base and mentor network wasn’t just confined Stateside. The elites in both countries worked assiduously to ensure that even before they had any idea who Hitler was, or the plucky Little Corporal himself with anger management issues and penchant for peculiar facial furniture had any idea what he was going to do with his miserable life after he hung up his tattered Great War trench-coat for the last time, [that] someone like him would emerge carpe diem-like from the shadows of immediate post-War chaos and anarchy and bring about the predestined sequel to the War to End all Wars. This singular objective of the imperially minded Anglo-American ‘masters of embroidery’ became the grand game plan from the day the guns fell silent on November 11, 1918.
No matter how determined Hitler was then or how much support he might’ve been able to muster within Germany itself, and no matter how much the chaotic circumstances of Weimar anguish and disquiet might’ve lent themselves to the rise of such a radical political phenomenon, there was no way he would’ve reached the heights of power he did without outside help. As it was, the “chaotic circumstances” were an integral, deliberately fomented, part of Britain’s grand plan, and with that of their eager apprentices across the Big Pond.
— A New Season of Pain and Chaos —
To the extent Hitler might’ve entered the history books at all then, it’s difficult to see how the aspiring redeemer of The Fatherland would’ve achieved any higher status than as a ‘blink-‘n-you’ll-miss-him’ footnote had it not been for the same elites on both sides of said Pond providing him a ‘leg-up’. If Hitler had delusions of ‘full-spectrum dominance’ grandeur fuelled by cunning, malevolent intent and overarching ambition (and herein some folks have their reservations his ambitions were imbued with that much “grandeur”), they paled against those of his Anglo-American establishment minders and mentors, and later nemeses.
Again, like as with the Bushes, we’ve recently witnessed a similar measure of selective umbrage and confected angst by leaders in Europe. This was most evident in Britain and even in Germany itself, with Teresa May and Angela Merkel respectively expressing concern at the Nazi-inspired violence and mayhem in Charlottesville, where they singled out Donald Trump’s “failure” to roundly condemn the perpetrators. Few of these like-minded folks in Europe insofar as this writer can recall ever uttered a syllable of protest at the same ideologically inspired hordes that ruled the roost in the Ukraine in 2013-14.
The resulting violence and bloodshed in Kiev’s Maidan Square is well documented of course even if its true causes weren’t: It was actively encouraged and funded by members of the previous Obama administration and assorted NGOs, most notably by those funded by the iniquitous George Soros. And at least tacitly, if not explicitly, it was all given the nod by Washington’s ever-subservient European satraps. The hypocrisy and duplicity is so breathtaking as to be asthma-inducing, even one imagines for those with few illusions about the motives and machinations of our power elites past and present.
For his part, even Prince Charles was prompted to get in on the act by invoking in the recent past Godwin’s aforementioned. In this instance, he was referring to Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, the man the Anglo-American establishment loves to designate then denigrate as the latest incarnation of the Bohemian lance corporal. Not unlike the faux-regal Bushes over the pond, ‘Bonnie Prince Charley’, the scion of the British royal family, by a country mile Europe’s greatest promulgators of plunder, pillage, predation and imperial primacy, was either ignorant of his own family’s wretched, ignoble history, or chose to gloss over such inconvenient realities in the hope that most people wouldn’t notice. We’re talking here about some of his incestuous, in-bred forbears’ infatuation with der Führer, itself being one of the least egregious examples of perfidy and treachery evident in that grotesquely appalling, and longest running, of history’s epic soap operas.
Of course, as Preparata illustrates so vividly, this “infatuation” with Hitler and shilling of the Nazi cause, most notably upon the part of his namesake uncle Edward (a former Prince of Wales) was itself part of the incubation conspiracy so deftly and cunningly assembled by the stewards of the ancien regime. And all this is without mentioning his great-great-grandfather King Edward VII, a man who until his death in 1910, was intimately involved in the imperial intrigues of the so-named “Secret Elites” who engineered the Great War, a role so well documented by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor. For that matter, when we allow ourselves to think about it, the First and Second World Wars were in effect history’s most destructive and consequential of family feuds.
By the same token, back across the ‘Pond’ we’d be well advised to take with a grain of salt those in the neo-conservative camp (e.g. John McCain, a veritable Maidan Square agent provocateur on behalf of these groups) as well as purported liberal cum progressives (e.g. Elizabeth Warren, decrying the Charlottesville violence and Trump’s response). Their own and other like-minded folks affiliation with and affection for all things Israel (with or without the attendant Jewish heritage and dual citizenship) is well recognised, such that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the “violence”, racism, “hatred”, and murder being perpetrated every other day by the Middle East’s only colonialist apartheid democracy. Israel is of course a nation which contrived itself into being via the regional machinations of la perfide Albion with the 1917 Balfour Declaration and whose actions in Palestine—themselves no less than a work-in-progress of ethnic cleansing and genocide—should help us to place the recent Sturm und Drang in the Old Dominion State in its proper perspective.
As is so often the case, all of these people appear as oblivious to the contradictions evident in the manner of their bespoke umbrage as they are to their own sanctimony and contorted logic. If there’s a more glaring example to be found in the official chronicles of recent human history, this writer would be keen to know about it. This pathological imperviousness to the inherent irony of their actions and motivations is further reflected in their eagerness to pin the label of das neu Führer on the Russian President. This is to say little of the deplorable history of self-serving interference in—and manipulation of—the economic and political affairs of Mother Russia on and off over the past two hundred or more years.
At the same time, they see no apparent disconnect between doing so and then supporting and funding Nazi-inspired tub-thumping ideologues and rabble-rousers to foment political instability, violence, hatred, and racial discord in the Ukraine, by many accounts the ‘next Hitler’s’ backyard. All this is expedited one suspects less so as to thwart Putin’s much-touted delusions of world domination grandeur than to provoke him and his Kremlin gremlins into sparking a conflagration which will in turn instantly transmute their own preposterous proclamations into a, a la “we told you so!”, self-fulfilling prophecy.
Having now looked deeper into the consequential role played by the Anglo-American* establishment’s in the ‘incubation’ of the real Hitler, it is reasonable to conclude that the multitude of myths, frauds, and deceits fabricated by this insidious bilateral oligarchy to hide the real truth behind the so-called “Good War”, like the one that preceded it, are the most monumentally monstrous and self-serving ever perpetrated upon humanity.
(*Though a story for another time, the movers and shakers of the Zionist movement—which throughout the time of the rise of the Nazis had been dining out on the Balfour Declaration and theretofore going from strength to strength—was also playing an integral role. These folks were not ones to sit on the sidelines.)
Today of course, the heirs of the political and power elites who knowingly led us into the earlier wars are seeking—attended by similar motives and employing the same methods and means—to once again take us all down the same path. Like the two previous wars—both of which were flagged years in advance by the aggressors such that they virtually became self-fulfilling prophecies—the motives of these elites have little if anything to do with preserving our freedom or democracy, or saving the world from tyranny or oppression.
In everything then from our conventional historiography to the content of our education curricula, the notion of the Second World War as modern history’s definitive battle between good and evil is well entrenched. It is perennially underscored in public discourse, in the popular media, along with the recurrent, solemn commemorations of the tragedy, and the countless tributes to the fallen and their selfless sacrifices. Indeed, so “entrenched” in our collective psyche, and so protected by the gatekeepers of the historical record are these “myths, frauds, and deceits”, that if as a former history teacher I was suddenly thrust back into the classroom and attempted to expound the real truth behind these events, I’d be tarred ‘n feathered and run out of town in a New York minute!
As British historian and author Paul Addison once noted, (3) ‘the war served a generation of Britons and Americans as a myth which enshrined their essential purity, a parable of good and evil.’ In his 1972 book No Clear And Present Danger: A Skeptical View Of The United States Entry Into World War II, historian Bruce Russett also wrote,
‘Participation in the war against Hitler remains almost wholly sacrosanct, nearly in the realm of theology…. Whatever criticisms of twentieth-century American policy are put forth, U.S. participation in World War II remains almost entirely immune. According to our national mythology, that was a ‘good war,’ one of the few for which the benefits clearly outweighed the costs. Except for a few books published shortly after the war and quickly forgotten, this orthodoxy has been essentially unchallenged.’
But like its predecessor, the so-called War to End all Wars, the designation “good war” qualifies as one of history’s cruelest deceptions and most bitter of ironies. It further adduces evidence of humanity’s unerring predisposition towards imperial dominion and hubris and underscores implacably the Hegelian apothegm that the ‘only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history!’
Again, as with the Great War, to suggest those who served for something much less than what they were told to believe (and believe in), is tantamount to a form of secular sacrilege, that one is churlishly impugning their sacrifice, their patriotism, their honour and self-respect, and their dedication to their country’s ideals, traditions, and values.
The notion that America especially—indeed that of the Anglo-American alliance—could conceivably view World War Two as a Righteous Cause (to paraphrase archetypal imperial war monster and consummate wind-up windbag Winston Churchill) is the real sacrilege.
As Preparata observes in his introduction, one of the key reasons a more detailed and accurate analysis of the emergence of Nazism is generally eschewed is because it might reveal too much; we might also suggest that since the ploy worked so well the first time, any widespread knowledge of this monumental gambit and awareness of its implications by the populace at large is unlikely to auger well for them repeating it again.
But for Preparata and a few others, the notion that the Nazis were an accident of history, or ‘a creature of chance’, is utterly fraudulent. It is, he notes with unswerving conviction, the Anglo-American clubs that have ‘carried the day’, with their tenure having little to do with ‘human rights, free markets and democracy, regardless of what they may shamelessly profess’. After first declaring that ‘the Anglo-Saxon elites tampered with German politics with the conscious intent to obtain a reactionary movement, which they could then set up as a pawn for their geopolitical intrigues’, the iconoclastic author further lays out his stall in a way which should not fail to resonate with those of us in tune with the here and now:
‘….When this movement emerged immediately after World War I in the shape of a religious, anti-Semitic sect disguised as a political party (that is, the NSDAP), the British clubs kept it under close observation, proceeded to endorse it semi-officially in 1931 when the Weimar Republic was being dismantled by the Crisis, and finally embraced it, with deceit, throughout the 1930s. This is to say that although England did not conceive Hitlerism, she nonetheless created the conditions under which [it] could appear, and devoted herself to supporting financially the Nazis and arming them to the teeth with the prospect of manipulating them. Without such methodical and unsparing ‘protection’ on the part of the Anglo-American elites, along with the complicit buttress of Soviet Russia, there would have been no Führer and no Nazism: the political dynamism of the Nazi movement owed its success to a general state of instability in Germany, which was wholly artificial, a wreckage engineered by the Anglo-American clubs themselves. [Emphasis added.]
The last word herein must go to my truth-seeking confrere The Saker, the pseudonymous expatriate Russian blogger. In his Letter to My American Friends, along with observing that if international law were to be applied each case, ‘every single American president’ would be deemed ‘a war criminal’, he then paraphrases the indelible verdict of Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, by noting that ‘imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires’.
Insofar as to who the good guys and the bad guys are, for The Saker his own verdict is unequivocal:
‘The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire….only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say “enough is enough”? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?’
One can only hope it never comes to that. History is full of “hope”, and yet strewn with the mortal remains of those whose hopes were dashed, and who’ve been long forgotten. All too soon for so many of course, yet not quickly enough for those whose wrongs as articulated herein were the harbingers of the ‘season of pain and chaos’ which defined the former’s lives and ushered in their premature demise.
19 September, 2017.
1 Quoted in Hitler’s Banker: Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, by John Weitz
2. Anthony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler is one-third of a trilogy of books that document the involvement of the international financial community and Western political elites in engineering major events and developments in history. The other two are Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, and Wall Street and FDR.
3. Quoted in Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, by Paul Fussell