British and American machinations to dominate Europe in the lead-up to World War 2

An exploration of Guido Giacomo Preparata's book "Conjuring Hitler"

This is a post about the careful, long-term planning of the central bank owners behind World War 2 who manipulated events to bring about certain desired results. The hope is to provide perspective on how such events are unfolding today, which are developing in a similar manner, likely to result in war, panic, and finally a central bank digital currency dialectical solution. To be forewarned, this is long, detailed and technical, so bring your big boy thinking cap.

Additionally, while previously covering parts of World War 2 here and here, this elaboration is necessary for an upcoming post about the odds of success for a potential middle class rebellion against globohomo, which is an energy increasingly lurking in the background for some on the far-right. This war goes to the heart of the question: on a historical basis, has the international financial system ever been seriously challenged since it arose in the 17th century?

The commonly accepted story of World War 2 is that a hypnotically persuasive politician, drunk on aggression and power, a gambler of lives and of nations, seeing the early and continued appeasement of his foolish and weak enemies, plunged the whole world into a disastrous war.

This post will present a theory contrary to the mainstream understanding of history. It’s not that Hitler wasn’t these things - he was, although his underlying rationale is not commonly understood, dating back to a 2,000 year old conflict - nor is it meant to downplay Nazi mass murders committed in Eastern Europe, but rather to argue that the world’s central bank owners set in motion the events of World War 2, and they did so deliberately and consciously with the intention of furthering their worldwide power and control. They nurtured and brought forth the Nazi movement with a clear eye toward its - and Germany’s - future destruction. Through such destruction they planned to remove Germany’s abilities to threaten globalist rule forever, as well as dirty the cause of self-determination and nationalism throughout the West.

However, through a combination of Hitler’s strategic abilities, innovative German military tactics and technological innovations, and the clear superiority of the average German soldier compared to their enemies¹, the war ended up being closer than the central bank owners had planned for. Not close enough, though.

The core of the argument is presented in the 2005 book “Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich” by Guido Giacomo Preparata. I had originally touched on it in a footnote about the motivations of the central bank owners. The text is detailed and well-researched, and its publication unfortunately ended the author's academic career, whose liberal censorious views allow no dissent to their monolithic ideology. It’s an incredible book and I highly recommend it.

The book’s thesis, supported by a wealth of corroborating evidence, is that the financial powers in Britain /America deliberately built up Hitler and the Nazis in Germany, along with sponsoring the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union from its inception, so that they would tear each other apart and leave Britain/America as the undisputed controllers of the European continent. They perused a similar successful strategy in World War 1.

The Bolsheviks were viciously anti-German, viewing the Germans as “capitalists” who had to be conquered on behalf of worldwide communism, even as they came to temporary agreements with them. The Nazis, meanwhile, considered Slavs in Eastern Europe to be sub-human untermenschen who should be exterminated in order to open up lebensraum, free space for Germans to expand eastward, and were deliberately incubated due to the particular provisions of Versailles treaty, the Dawes Plan and other measures. These ideologies were fundamentally opposed to each other, and this situation did not come about randomly — it was planned, with great foresight and intention by the financial powers who controlled Britain and America.

---

The animating idea: Mackinder’s Heartland Theory

The British and American approach were informed by Halford Mackinder's 1904 Heartland Theory, which posited that control of Europe would belong either to a land power (Germany allied with Russia) or a sea power (England plus America). Under this theory one or the other would ultimately win in a zero sum game. Mackinder provided a warning to England that continent-sized powers with a strong industrial base, large populations, and national resources could dominate world politics if the sea powers were not careful.  Such a power would be immune to blockades by sea, rendering British and American control of the waterways irrelevant.

This theory was hugely influential among the British elite and they adopted it wholeheartedly in their strategies. These elite thought in Empire terms, not in national or civilizational terms, as Britain had ruled the empire on which the sun never sets from the 16th century. Any concern about the mass suffering of humanity from these strategies - of millions of women, of children, of the elderly who would suffer under the expected starvation, hyperinflation or bombings - was seen as weakness, a detriment to the ruling class’s continued power and control, and those that focused on this were deliberately excluded from positions of authority.

The British empire pre-World War 1

One can see such tension historically in Rome (land power) vs. Carthage (sea power), which only ended after the Third Punic War when Rome destroyed Carthage.  Cato the Elder ended every speech with “Carthāgō dēlenda est”, which meant "Carthage must be destroyed", prior to that final war.

Mackinder’s theory served as a contrast to Alfred Thayer Mahan's influential 1890 argument in “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History” that island states such as England or the United States could prevail in the world through sea power.

To England the worst nightmare would have been a German/Russian alliance to control the European continent, which would have relegated England to a secondary power.  As such, they would do anything it took to ensure that such an alliance would never materialize, even at the cost of 70 million lives between the two World Wars and the passing of the baton of empire to America.² They viewed this as a matter of survival, an absolutely critical natural security priority, and they have retained that philosophy to this day. This perspective explains why England (and the U.S.) have worked so hard to dynamite deepening German/Russian ties in the 21st century by blowing up the Nordstream 2 pipeline (confirmed by Seymour Hersh) during the controlled Russia/Ukraine war. Have you seen Mackinder’s Heartland theory tied to the Nordstream 2 pipeline explosion before this moment? If not, why not? The same principles and theories are at play here, same as they were more than a century ago.

With that said, the point of this post is not to rehash the past for its own sake (although it may be helpful to clear the cobwebs of decades-old propaganda from a reader’s eyes), but rather to shine light on our ruling globohomo overlords, how they operate, how their planning extends for decades, and how ruthlessly and deviously they are prepared to act in relation to their plans for the world.

To understand the origins for World War 2 we must first begin with the origins for World War 1.

Let’s begin…

---

The late 19th century and the start of World War 1

Germany was not on the British Empire’s radar as a potential threat until it formed the Second Reich in the 1870s. It had been a fragmented backwater before then, and Britain was focused on its rivalry with France and fighting against Czarist Russia in Central Asia.

The Second Reich quickly became an imperial upstart. As the new man on the world stage they wanted attention, competition for its own sake, and sought to expand their foreign colonies. They were beginners at the game of Empire, though, and naive; its rulers were confused and unsure regarding the country’s strategic imperatives despite their nervous rhetorical bombast. Chancellor Bernhard von Bulow would decry in his memoirs that the German people had no political ability whatsoever. Even with that drawback, though, the Germans were impeccable administrators, possessed unsurpassed arts and sciences, and established an enviable network of commercial stations and railway. As the German navy grew to challenge the waterways the British grew to see them as a threat.

As their rivalry with England increased, Germany’s relations with France remained in the gutter from the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. Germany intuitively knew that it would be no good to be potentially caught in a multi-front war with France, England and potentially Russia. While Bismark tried not to antagonize Russia, Austria, its closest ally which was decidedly anti-Russia, stood in its way.

Under Mackinder’s theory the British came to believe the German/Russian alliance had to be prevented at all costs. In choosing its victim, Germany was decided to be an easier target because (1) the Reich was the dynamic half of the Russo-German threat and (2) it could be surrounded and blockaded with greater ease compared to Russia. Britain drew in France as an ally with the Entente Cordiale. Because France had allied itself with Russia by advancing them loans in 1887, and with time-honored and intense military cooperation, France was able to draw in Russia. Kaiser Wilhelm tried for rapprochement with Russia in 1905 but it was too late by then, and Tsar Nicholas was severely dressed down by his ministers for considering it. Britain drew Russia closer with the Entente Cordiale part 2, creating the Triple Entente. Germany was encircled. And worse, France had knowledge of Germany’s war plans, the Schlieffen Plan, thanks to a traitor.

The spark of World War 1, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, was instigated by Russia’s military attache, Colonel Victor Artamanov, who had told the chiefs of Serb intelligence to go ahead with it. Britain lied to Germany that Russia was unprepared to intervene and that Britain had no biding obligations to Russia or France; then lied to Russia that the Germans were rapidly conveying divisions to the East and that the situation looked upon the Reich with disfavor. Then Britain lied to the public by pretending to offer a mediation in the name of peace. “Britain had always been careful to spin the international tangle so as to drive the opponent in the position of the assailant, and reserve for herself the role of the peace-loving defender. This was a psychological artifice tailed for mass seduction, and the Germans had no knowledge or understanding of such tricks.” Austria issued the ultimatum to Serbia, Serbia turned it down on the orders of her patrons, and the British Treasury began printing money for war. “The war against Serbia into which Austria was deliberately incited by the ruinous intrigues of Serbia at the instigation of Russia was a trap into which Austria fell, not knowing it was fomented by Russia to create a pretext of general mobilization and war to make Austria and Germany appear to the world as the willful originators of the great conflict.” Upon hearing the news of Russia’s massing of troops, Wilhelm said:

“In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accomplished fact…The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire.”

As Germany prepared to unleash the onslaught onto the Western Front, Britain issued one last cunning call for peace provided Germany did not attack France, making Germany look again like the aggressor instead of the fool caught in the trap that it was. Abel Fery, the French Under-Secretary of State, wrote in his notebook: “The web was spun and Germany entered it like a great buzzing fly.”

Five years after WW1, a U.S. Senator, Robert Owen, undertook a deep, dispassionate study of the war’s origins and presented his findings in 1923, concluding that in 1914 Germany had no reason for war, knowing that it would have would too risky and disruptive to its burgeoning trading and commerce. When in 1916 Wilhelm brooded over the butchery at the front, he whimpered that he never wanted this war, by which he meant a massacre of global magnitude. “This is exactly right,” rejoined the British Prime Minister Lloyd George in a public response, “The emperor Wilhelm did not want this war. He wanted another war, one that would have allowed him to dispatch France and Russia in two months. We were the ones that wanted this war, as it is being fought, and we shall conduct it to victory.”

---

The fall of the Tsar and rise of the Bolsheviks

The scale of butchery of the war was historically unprecedented. Russia quickly got cold feet, especially with Hindenberg’s successes against them in the east. What did Russia have to gain from the war? Britain wanted to maintain its empire, France its pride, Germany its life. Russia had little to gain from this adventure. But Britain had leverage over Russia: Russia owed them a huge amount of money, a sum roughly a third of her annual income; Britain had knowledge of Rasputin’s upcoming murder a week before it happened, demonstrating a deep subversive network within Russia, and Britain threatened Tsar Nicholas with revolution: “The British ambassador in Russia himself was a the center of the scheme to overthrow the czar if he should ever lose his stomach for war…[To that end, he] had gathered a coterie of wealthy bankers, liberal capitalists, conservative politicians, and disgruntled aristocrats.” Britain was dead set at any cost to prevent a German/Russian rapprochement.

A British double-agent nicknamed Parvus set up the scheme to overthrow the Tsar with German gold, who naively thought they were putting pressure on the Tsar to withdraw from the war. The Germans, as noted above, were naive and gullible and had no understanding of the depths of political intrigues. They made excellent soldiers but, as prodders, they were easy to manipulate and control by the experienced British, who had centuries of knowledge of the subtle, nuanced levers of power. Truly, the British embodied their nickname the “Perfidious Albion”.

The Germans foolishly allowed Lenin passage back to Russia in April 1917. The subsequent ascension of the Bolsheviks (to which Jacob Schiff in the United States contributed more than $20 million of his own funds, an astronomical figure today, and the U.S. provided extraordinary support³) did knock Russia out of the war, but at a much steeper cost than they bargained for: the installation of a permanently hostile anti-capitalist Bolshevik government, owned by the Rothschild central bank owners, who would settle the war today cheaply in return for a much bigger, nastier war down the line. If Germany had understood the nature of the game being played — if they had truly understood Britain’s goals to keep Germany and Russia asunder at any and all costs — they would have worked with the Tsar and tried whatever the cost to both keep him in power and to conclude a peace treaty.

It didn’t matter that the Bolsheviks withdrew from the war, anyway, as America joined the war when the Russian front appeared to be creaking. Remember that the Rothschild central bankers owned America just like they owned Britain.⁴ They had completed their coup d’etet in 1913 where they set up the 16th Amendment authorizing personal income taxes, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) all in the same year.

America’s entry into the war proved too much for Germany which led to their surrender and the harsh, but very cleverly tailored, Treaty of Versailles.

Germany had not been defeated on its own territory. It had lost the war, but it was not destroyed. This necessitated the next long-term phase of the geopolitical game for power, with a clear objective in mind: to let Germany rebuild and rearm so that it could be, once and for all, fully and completely annihilated.

---

The second act of the siege

Per Preparata, the overarching story of the second act of the German siege is as follows:

After 1918 began the second act of the siege: that is, an astounding political maneuver willingly performed by the Allies to resurrect in Germany a reactionary regime from the ranks of her vanquished militarists. Britain orchestrated this incubation with a view to conjuring a belligerent political entity which she encouraged to go to war against Russia: the premeditated purpose was to ensnare the new, reactionary German regime in a two-front war, and profit from the occasion to annihilate Germany once and for all.

To carry out these deep and painstaking directives for world control, two conditions were necessary: (1) an imposing and anti-German [regime] secretly aligned with Britain had to be set up in Russia, and (2) the seeds of chaos had to be planted in Germany to predispose the institutional terrain for the growth of this reactionary movement of ‘national liberation’. The first objective was realized by backstabbing the Czar in Russia in 1917 and installing the Bolsheviks into power; the second by drafting the clauses of the Peace Treaty so as to leave the dynastic clans of Germany unscathed: indeed, it was from their fold that Britain expected the advent of this revanchist movement.

What unraveled in Germany after the Great War was the life of the Weimar Republic, the puppet regime of the West, which incubated Nazism in three stages: a period of chaos ending with the hyperinflation and the appearance of Hitler (1918-23); a period of artificial prosperity during which the Nazis were quiet and the future war machine of Germany was in the process of being assembled with American loans (1924-29); and a period of disintegration (1930-32) paced by the financial mastermind of the twentieth century: Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England.

After the incubation was completed and the Hitlerites obtained with the aid of Anglo-American financial capital the chancellorship of the Reich (January 1933), the formidable recovery of Germany began under the Nazi wing, British loans, and the financial artistry of Germany’s central banker: Hjalmar Schacht, Montagu Norman’s protege. There followed the unbelievable ‘dance’ of Britain and Nazi Germany (1933-43), led by the former to push the latter to go to war against Russia. And Russia, too, acting in sync with London, appeased the Nazis in order to lure them into the trap of the Eastern Front….Britain calculatingly prevented the Americans from opening a western front for three years so as to allow the Nazis to penetrate and devastate Russia undisturbed…In the end, after this spectacular feat of dissimulation, Britain dropped the mask and closed in on the duped Nazis, who would be crushed on two fronts by the colluded Soviet and Anglo-American forces.

We will briefly delve into each of these phases.

---

Phase 1, 1918-1923: A period of chaos ending with the hyperinflation and the appearance of Hitler

The Treaty of Versailles was not what it appeared to be. While on its face the Treaty was ruinous for Germany, demanding a level of reparations that could not be paid back (especially after losing 13% of her territory which included 75% of her iron ore reserves, 26% of her coal production, as well as 44% and 38% of her pig iron and steel production respectively), the Allies did not expropriate the wealth of the German landed class, which it could have done as a first step by sequestering the certificates of the German war loan from their wealthy subscribers, who held the bulk of such securities. In other words, it let German’s right-wing aristocracy, steeped in deep military and hierarchical tradition, remain intact. By structuring Versailles in this manner, it would be the common man who would be forced to bear the brunt of inflation and excess taxation, which would in turn help radicalize them: “So the Treaty was in essence an articulate trap by which the German upper class - the custodians of Reaction - were to be left untouched, and thus uncured of the feudal disease, while the grief and resentment of the underclass - the proximate victims of the reparations’ bloodletting - was counted on to provide as much fodder for ‘radicalism’ as the sheltered Junkers required to re-establish a reactionary, anti-Bolshevik regime.”

The Versailles debt bubble was twice the size of Germany’s income, so the British financiers would have known that short term disastrous hyperinflation awaited. It would have been expected that engineering such a result would result in annihilation of the country’s currency resulting in societal destabilization, which could then be “solved” via massive foreign investments thereafter in order to buy everything in Germany for cents on the dollar.

The engineered destruction of the German mark

Furthermore, France occupied the Ruhr in January 1923, which produced 80% of Germany’s remaining coal, iron, and steel. And the Soviets unleashed a Red Terror within Germany that was not designed to seize power (it couldn’t; it didn’t have any solid base of support there), but rather to help the British game to bring forth the rise of the Nazis in order to later destroy Germany: “Everything seemed to conspire in favor of the Hitlerites: they could count on London for the political and financial strangulation of the German people, and they could thank Moscow for causing all this Communist inferno, which made them stand tall as the Fatherland’s defenders.”

Speaking of the Nazis, Hitler professed a passionate admiration for Britain, whose folklore and tradition he revered and whose partnership he desired above all else. General Karl Haushofer and conservative ideologue Moeller van den Bruck at various points made clear to Hitler the testament of Mackinder and the importance of an embrace with the East, but Hitler ignored them. “This fellow never comprehends” van den Bruck confided to a friend. Hanfstaengl chalked up Hitler’s anti-Slav fixation to the influence of Alfred Rosenberg. Mein Kamph made clear he wanted lebensraum in the East:

In the concluding section of the book, the geopolitical agenda of the Third Reich was clearly exposed: ‘The aim of the German foreign policy,’ announced Hitler, ‘must be the preparation for the reconquest of freedom for tomorrow.’ Britain, indeed, was bent upon ‘world domination',’ but she had no further interest, he added, ‘in the complete effacement of Germany’, which would bring about ‘French hegemony on the continent.’ Therefore, he concluded…Germany’s priority was an alliance with Britain. The foregoing argument…was a reiteration of the fallacious hope that Britain could be lured with such a shoddy bait as the hostility toward France, when in fact the fate of the British empire had always been staked on the prevention of the Eurasian embrace. No amount of coaxing could induce Britain to conceive her dominion otherwise.”

To be fair, though, as mentioned above, the rise of the Soviets meant that an Eurasian embrace was impossible, so Germany’s options were very limited. Additionally Hitler would later argue that a world war with Germany would bankrupt Britain and result in the end of its empire, which was also true and did happen thereafter. But Britain was more than ready to hand the baton to America, which it shared a common culture and language (and the same central bank owners) instead of letting Germany prosper.

Meanwhile, Russia had descended into civil war after the overthrow of the Tsar. The British and Americans wanted the anti-capitalist Bolshevik Reds to win against the pro-west, aristocratic, pro-Tsarist Whites, because if the Whites won then they would make natural allies for an alliance with a right-wing German resurgence (and again, everything revolved around preventing such an alliance, per Mackinder). However, the British and Americans could not look as if they were supporting the communists because it would have laid bare the scam of the whole affair, and then the Whites might turn to the Germans decisively for aid. So they publicly pretended to support the Whites and promised tremendous support while in actuality offering very little material aid, stringing along the Whites with promises of future aid and sabotaging them at every opportunity until they were finally wiped out and Bolshevism reigned supreme. Per Preparata:

“What Britain would do, with the help of America and the most heinous complicity of France and Japan, who should have had no part in this anti-European plot, was to engage in a mock fight on the side of the Whites versus the Reds, committing very limited resources and men. Thus what was in fact an operation of sabotage by neglect - a pretense to fight - was masked as a pro-White intervention, whose surreptitious objective was to instigate the Whites to combat under unfavorable conditions, deceitfully hamper their advances, prepare the terrain for their rout, and finally evacuate the Allied contingent by blaming the defeat on the putative inefficiency of the Whites.”

Meanwhile, they embedded a Jewish double agent, Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln, high up within the nationalist right wing in Germany to undermine and ruin the autocratic 1920 Kapp Putsch against the weak German government, which if it had succeeded their alliance with the Russian Whites would have been an immediate priority.⁵

The figures involved put the whole farce to light: “When it came to killing the Germans, America had been ready to see 2 million of its soldiers die. But when the time had arrived to fight the 3-5 million ‘evil Communists,’ London and Washington committed together approximately 1% of the American contingent in France….Siding ‘officially’ with the Whites, 500 Anglo-American soldiers were killed by the Reds in the polar north, which was part of an extraordinary double-cross of the White generals staged by the Anglo-American clubs for the benefit of the Reds themselves: such was the twisted beauty of imperial scheming.”

---

Phase 2, 1924-1929: A period of artificial prosperity during which the Nazis were quiet and the future war machine of Germany as in process of being assembled with American loans

The Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, was an incredible man, brilliant and devious, and a name who very few know. He was Governor of the Bank for an extraordinary duration of 24 years (1920-44) during this most unusual period of world history. He came from an important banking family on both sides of his lineage, and he was a secretive but mentally unstable genius, possessing a prodigious memory. His motto was “never explain, never apologize.” His personality was likened to that of a spider, as he had a special ability to get people to do what he wanted without it seeming like he was doing so. Norman, more than any other figure other than maybe Max and Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff, were responsible for crafting the strategy for permanently crushing Germany. Other important parties were J.P. Morgan & Co., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Benjamin Strong), John Foster Dulles, others in Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and Norman’s lackey at the head of the German central bank, Hjalmar Schacht.

Montagu Norman. Unstable and eccentric, but genius physiognomy

The means by which Germany would be resurrected was with the Dawes bailout. Schacht’s plan was adopted by the financier overlords, which was to give funds for rebuilding not to the profilgate ministers of Weimar, but rather to a cluster of giant conglomerates specifically created for this purpose. John Foster Dulles recommended Schacht (an unknown minor figure) to Morgan & Co., Morgan to Norman, and Norman to Weimar’s incumbent figureheads.

As I had written elsewhere: “Lloyd George told the N.Y. Journal American, June 24, 1924, how the international bankers were the decision makers and not the heads of state of the participating countries in the settlement to the war: ‘The international bankers dictated the Dawes reparations settlement.  The Protocol which was signed between the Allies and Associated Powers and Germany is the triumph of the international financier.  Agreement would never have been reached without the brusque and brutal intervention of the international bankers.  They swept statesmen, politicians and journalists to one side, and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, who knew that there was no appeal from their ruthless decrees…the orders of German financiers to their political representatives were just as peremptory as those of allied bankers to their political representatives.’”

The Dawes bailout bestowed upon Germany five years of ‘synthetic prosperity’, her so-called ‘Golden Years’ (1924-1929). The Dawes plan was a J.P. Morgan production, directed by Norman. The key was the new agreement on reparations payments which lightened Germany’s payments, with the critical provision a new ‘transfer clause’ whereby reparations payments could be suspended if the strain against the mark should become too strong. This opened up the floodgate of international borrowing; up until 1930, some $28 billion flowed into Germany, 50% as short-term credits, like fattening a pig up for slaughter:

“This initiated Weimar’s absurd cycle of the ‘golden years’: the gold that Germany had paid as tribute after the war, sold, pawned and lost during the inflation to the United States, was sent in the form of Dawes loans back to Germany, who then remitted it to France and Britain, who shipped it as payment for the war debts to the United States, who channeled it once again, burdened with an additional layer of interest, to Germany, and so on….It did not take much to realize that the arrangement was a house of cards: the moment Wall Street decided to recall its loans, Germany would plunge into complete, irredeemable bankruptcy. What next? Nobody wished to give the prospect a careful thought. Only the fall was certain. It was just a matter of time.”

The I.G. Farben concern, one of the giant conglomerates, entered into an alliance with Standard Oil and had on its board numerous American captains of industry and business, including Paul Warburg, first member and creator of the Federal Reserve Board and Chairman of Manhattan Bank. During World War 2, Farben would supply Germany with the following essentials: 100% of Germany’s synthetic rubber, 100% of their dyestuffs 100%, 95% of their poison gas, 90% of their plastics, 84% of their explosives, 70% of their gunpowder, 46% of their aviation gasoline, 36% of their synthetic gasoline.

Paul Warburg: the originator of the Federal Reserve slavery system in America and one of the crafters of both World War 1 and 2

Britain and America raised up Germany in order to facilitate its future destruction. “Since 1924, the Anglo-Americans equipped what would become Hitler’s war machine through well over 150 foreign long-term loans contracted in less than seven years: the more thorough and elaborate the fitting, the more devastating the German army, the bloodier the war, the more resounding the foregone victory of the Allies (and the defeat of Germans, who were being set up), and the more sweeping and permanent the Anglo-American conquest. There was neither greed nor treason behind the Dawes bailout, but solely the long-term objective of fitting a prospective enemy with a view to bringing him down in a fiery confrontation - a confrontation to be orchestrated at a later stage.”

---

Phase 3, 1930-1932: A period of disintegration

The great 1929 Wall Street Crash was initiated by Paul Warburg as previously discussed here, in coordination with Montagu Norman. The American policy of cheap money had been to sustain the continuous flotation of German securities in New York in order to fuel Germany’s rise. With the crash Americans wanted their money back. They immediately stopped buying German securities:

As soon as the ‘stream’ of foreign money was drained out of Germany, all the trappings of the Allied bailout snapped closed upon her….As in 1923, the German Grid was literally colonized by the Allied investors: more than 50% of all German bank deposits belonged to foreigners in 1930: this was money that would vaporize at the first sign of distress. And, finally, the unshakable burden of the reparations impeded any freedom of financial initiative on the part of the Reich. The ‘Dawes machine’ had nailed Germany to the cross, right and proper.

Official unemployment in Germany rose to 5 million and major important banks failed. Tight exchange controls were initiated, but there was no return to normal. The combination of the retention of the German landed aristocratic class post-World War 1, the hyperinflation of the early 1920s followed by the Dawes loans and then economic collapse, along with the regular irritant and threat of the communists, juiced the rise of the anti-Soviet Nazis who went from 4% of the vote in 1928 elections to 37.3% in the 1932 elections. 9 million Germans were jobless out of a labor force of 20 million — two out of every five Germans employed in 1929 were without work in the winter of 1932-33.

The Nazis themselves were funded to a significant part with foreign funds:

“Who had been funding them from the beginning? According to one hideously humorous folk tale eagerly circulated, the Nazis financed themselves by way of rallies and contributions, in addition to the storm troopers’ late endorsements of razor blades called ‘Sturmer’ (‘Stormer’) and a brand of margarine called ‘Kampf’ (‘Battle’). Ten years of political activity all over the nation, and three technologically innovative, mass-publicized elections in a country half-bankrupt, funded by means of tickets, piddling donations, and margarine?….In 1934 the foreign correspondent of the Manchester Guardian confirmed the widely diffused rumor that the bulk of Nazi funding was foreign in origin.”

Hitler demanded Hindenburg’s mandate to become Chancellor, but Hindenburg hated Hitler. Hindenburg appointed brilliant Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of the Reich instead and he initiated a public program of large-scale work-creating endeavors. But Maxim Litvinov, who covertly ruled the Soviet Union on behalf of the central bank owners, had already told Ivan Maisky, the newly appointed Soviet Ambassador to London, that the Nazis would soon come to power. The international bankers suddenly gave the Nazis unlimited credit and president of the Reichbank and Montagu Norman puppet Schacht confided that the Nazis would be in power within three weeks. This came to pass.

---

Phase 4, 1933-43: The ‘dance’ of Britain and Nazi Germany

Once the Nazis were in power Britain, the USSR and the U.S. provided them with resources, military know-how, patents, money and weapons in very large quantities. Explains Preparata:

Throughout the 1930s, the United States acted as a mere supplier to the Nazis in the shadow of Britain, who produced the entire show. This show had to end with Britain’s participation in a worldwide conflict as the leader of the coalition of Allied forces against Nazi Germany. But the Hitlerites had to be duped into going to war against Russia with the guarantee that Britain, and thus America, would remain neutral: Hitler would not want to repeat the errors of World War 1. Therefore Britain had too ‘double’ herself, so to speak, into a pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi faction - both of which, of course, were components of one and the same fakery. The complex and rather grotesque whole of Britain’s foreign policy in the 1930s was indeed the result of these ghastly theatrical diversions with which the Hiterlites were made to believe that at any time the colorful Nazi-phile camp would overthrow the hawks of the War Party, led by Winston Churchill, and sign a separate peace with the Third Reach. The secret goal of this unbelievable mummery was to drive Hitler away from the Mediterranean in 1941 and into the Soviet marshes, which the British would in fact allow him to ‘cleanse’ for three years, until the time would arrive to hem the Nazis in and finally crush them.”

Preparata believed the best chance Germany had to stop this process was under von Schleicher, the ‘Red General’, or secondly if Hitler had pursued a Mediterranean policy in the war and not get sucked into the Russian morass, although I have my doubts about this given the Russians were about ready to invade Germany when Barbarossa was launched.

Anyway, in the 1930s the international financiers turned back on the tap of loans to Germany. Hitler understood and hated the game with these financiers, but he knew he had to abide by their dictates in order to accomplish his goal in the East. The Reich borrowed from the Reichbank (at interest, which is the core component of our sick central bank system as explained here), which in turn received funds from the international financiers. These funds were then used for infrastructure projects and for re-armament. Schacht reduced interest rates from over 8% in 1933 to 2.81% by 1935, enabling a tremendous amount of borrowing and furthering the German economic “miracle”: it looked as though the whole endeavor was pervaded with the lightness of a zero-interest loan.

---

It is not time yet!

The British had a number of opportunities to crush the Germans early, but they did not want to: the time was not ripe yet. They had spent multiple decades to get to this moment, and they did not want the opportunity to go to waste. Germany had to be allowed to grow and become a major threat to the world before they would be allowed to be destroyed; otherwise the resultant victory would not be large enough for the international financier’s purposes. When Mussolini was about to go to war against Germany over Austrian Nazis botching a coup in Vienna, Britain said ‘no’. London had further chances when Germany invaded the Rhineland with a mere three battalions, then with the Austrian annexation, then with Czechoslovakia. A group of generals led by the Chief of the General Staff, General Ludwig Beck, plotted to assassinate Hitler in 1938 if Britain gave the okay — Britain refused. Britain had detailed plans of Germany’s planned invasion of Russia with Barbarossa via Captain Winterbotham, the British spy. There was nothing that England did not know.

Then a conspiracy led by Pope Pius XII plotted to assassinate Hitler in early 1939. The message from the British: no, do not move forward. “These plots to assassinate Hitler were always a nuisance and a source of embarrassment to Britain: she did not want the fruit of her conjuration dead just yet; certainly not at this early stage. And so the stewards sabotaged this plot as well.”

---

Conclusion

We all know what happened thereafter:

Preparata’s thesis cleanly solves many puzzles leading up to World War 2, puzzles that are not answerable under the traditional narrative:

If it is true that the British stewards intrigued at Versailles to conjure a reactionary movement that would feed on radicalism and be prone to seek war in the East; if it is true that the Anglo-Americans traded heavily with and offered financial support to the Nazis, continuously and deliberately from the Dawes loans of 1924 to the conspicuous credits via the Bank of International Settlements in Basle of late 1944; if it is true that the encounter in Cologne in von Schröder's manse was the decisive factor behind Hitler's appointment as Chancellor; if it true that such financial support was accorded to make Nazism an enemy target so strong as to elicit in war a devastating response – retribution that would make the Allied victory clear-cut and definitive; if it is true that appeasement was a travesty since 1931; if it is true that Churchill refused deceitfully to open a western front for three years, during which the expectation was that the Germans would find themselves so hopelessly mired in the Russian bog as to make the British closing onslaught from the West as painless as possible; and if it is true that Hess brought with him to Britain plans for evacuating the Jews to the island of Madagascar, for such was the last policy pursued by the Germans before adopting the Final Solution – a plan that clearly was given no sequitor; if all the foregoing is true, then it is just to lay direct responsibility for incubating Nazism and planning World War II, and indirect responsibility for the Holocaust of the Jews, at the door of the Anglo-American establishment.

The result of the war was that there was no more Germany to speak of: all there remains is a benumbed population subject to permanent U.S. control and endless, soul-destroying propaganda. Innumerable horrors have been done to it, some of which are described by

The Underdog

here. The country remains militarily occupied to this day, occupied by one hundred and nineteen U.S. military bases:

Re-reading Conjuring Hitler in preparation for this post surprisingly left a feeling a lingering sadness on this go-around: perhaps possessing a greater understanding and weight of the horrors unleashed, tens of millions of lives lost in both wars because of the games conducted by the great powers for power and control, financed and set up by the Rothschild central bank owners for their dreams of world domination, and with the great masses of western civilization serving as mindless cannon fodder, easily susceptible to media propaganda to act against their own interests, chewed up and sacrificed on the altar of the Demiurge.

Now, the book didn’t really cover the important central bank ownership angle, an angle that was explored in depth by South African central banker Stephen Mitford Goodson and which I reviewed here. Also, Preparata portrays the international financier’s machinations as more or less brilliant and unstoppably devious and everyone else as essentially low IQ retards, easy to fool. Maybe that perspective is true, maybe it isn’t, but it’s certainly depressing. Also, it’s easy to construe the book as “look how bad the Allied powers were for giving rise to Hitler” but, without discounting the huge numbers of deaths caused by Germany, I took the lesson more as: look how much of a head-start the central bank owners and the Anglo-Saxons had on understanding the nature of power; look how brutally and unflinchingly they played the game no matter the death and destruction wrought; look at how they planned with layers of contingencies built into each plan; and look how deceptive they were, always trying (successfully) to get their enemies to be goaded into the first military move, a strategy they regularly use including in the 2022 Russian/Ukraine war.

And all for what? So the globohomo elites can control most of the world’s wealth, engage in murders and perverted sex addictions to their heart’s content, and then torture and genocide the peasants for fun and to get a rush of power and control, to feel like God? How empty that all is, how fundamentally unsatisfying. It brings to mind two things. The first is the emperor Diocletian, the first Roman emperor who ever retired. There was a large amount of political instability after he abdicated, and the citizens begged him to return in order to restore order. Diocletian responded: "If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn't dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed."

The other story is a tribute that Kurt Vonnegut wrote for his friend Joseph Heller, originally published in the New Yorker in 2005:

“True story, Word of Honor:
Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer
now dead,
and I were at a party given by a billionaire
on Shelter Island.
I said, "Joe, how does it make you feel
to know that our host only yesterday
may have made more money
than your novel 'Catch-22'
has earned in its entire history?"
And Joe said, "I've got something he can never have."
And I said, "What on earth could that be, Joe?"
And Joe said, "The knowledge that I've got enough."
Not bad! Rest in peace!”

Amen to that.

1. Trevor N. Dupuy, a noted American military analyst, US Army Colonel, and author of numerous books and articles, studied the comparative performance of the soldiers of World War II. On average, he concluded, 100 German soldiers were the equivalent of 120 American, British or French soldiers, or 200 Soviet soldiers. “On a man for man basis,” Dupuy wrote, “German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances [emphasis in original]. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost.”  Many other noted historians agreed with this assessment

2. Preparata, Preface xix: “The leitmotiv of this book is the conscious nature of the effort expended by the British clubs to preserve the empire, it being understood that such an effort was worthwhile even if it meant surrendering leadership to the American brethren, whom the London clubs cultivated as their spiritual heirs. The message conveyed here is that Britain’s imperial way was possibly the most atrocious manifestation of machiavellism in modern history for she stopped at nothing to defend her dominant position; 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 - that too a British idea. All of this was, from the beginning in 1919 till the end in 1945, a cool-headed, calculated plot. Needless to say, I am well aware that such a thesis might too easily lend itself to being booed by the patriotic ‘experts’ of Western academia as yet another grotesque conspiracy theory; but in fact this thesis provides no more than a thread with which one may finally string together a collection of clues and solid evidence, which have been available for years, and have formed ever since a platform for dissenters, that is, for those students of history and economics that have had the candor to acknowledge that the central tenet of international relations was, then as now, secrecy….all great historical developments, good or ill, are unfailingly animated, fought and countered by the initiates of the several antagonistic ‘societies’; and the herds, despite themselves, always follow. In the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, it is the Anglo-American clubs that have carried the day, and their tenure has little to do with human rights, free markets and democracy, regardless of what they may shamelessly profess. What follows is the story of the most important battle they victoriously fought so far: the horrifying campaign against Germany.”

3. Per Preparata, p. 72: “The magnitude of Western assistance to the Bolsheviks is not known, though in early 1918, for instance, it was a matter of some notoriety that the United States was conveying funds to Bolshevik Russia for purchases of weaponry and munitions via Wall Street operator Raymond Robins, for whom Trotsky was ‘the greatest Jew since Jesus.’ The significant number of contracts, concessions, and licenses subsequently released by Lenin’s empire to American firms during the Civil War, and in its immediate aftermath, formed something of a smoking gun of Bolshevism’s early Allied sponsorship: $25 million of Soviet commissions for US manufactures between July 1919 and January 1920, not to mention Lenin’s concession for the extraction of asbestos to Armand Hammer in 1921, and the 60-year lease granted in 1920 to Frank Vanderlip’s US consortium formed to exploit the coal, petroleum and fisheries of a North Siberian region covering 600,000 square kilometers.”

4. Per Preparata, p. xvi footnote 3: “So-called ‘democracy’ is a sham, the ballot a travesty. In modern bureaucratized systems, whose birth dates from the mid-nineteenth century, the feudal organization has been carried to the next level, so to speak. A chief objective of what Thucydides referred to in his epoch as synomosiai (literally ‘exchanges of oaths’), that is, the out-of-sight fraternities acting behind the ruling clans, has been to make the process of the exaction of rents from the population (a ‘free income’ in the form of rents, financial charges and like thefts) as unfathomable and impenetrable as possible. The tremendous sophistication, and the propagandistic wall of artfully divulged misconceptions surrounding the banking system, which is the chief instrument wherewith the hierarchs expropriate and control the wealth of their surrounding community, is the limpid testimony of this essential transformation undergone by the feudal/oligarchic organization in the modern era. The West has moved from a low-tech agrarian establishment built upon the backs of disenfranchised serfs to a highly mechanized post-industrial hive that feeds off the strength of no less disenfranchised blue- and white-collar slaves, whose lives are mortgaged to buy into the vogue of modern consumption. The latter-day lords of the manor are no longer seen demanding tribute since they have relied on the mechanics of banking accounts for the purpose, whereas the sycophants of the median class, as academics and publicists, have consistently remained loyal to the synomosiai. The other concrete difference between yesterday and today is the immensely increased throughput of industrial production (whose potential level, however, has always been significantly higher than the actual one, to keep prices high). As for the ‘democratic participation’ of the ordinary citizens, these know in their hearts that they never decide anything of weight, and that politics consists in the art of swaying the mobs in one direction or another according to the wishes and anticipations of the few having the keys to information, intelligence and finance. These few may at a point in time be more or less divided into warring factions; the deeper the division, the bloodier the social strife. The electoral record of the West in the past century is a shining monument to the utter inconsequence of ‘democracy’: in spite of two cataclysmic wars and a late system of proportional representation that yielded a plethora of parties, Western Europe has seen no significant shift in her socio-economic constitution, whereas America has become, as time progressed, even more identical to her late oligarchic self, having reduced the democratic pageant to a contest between two rival wings of an ideologically compact monopartite structure, which is in fact ‘lobbied’ by more or less hidden ‘clubs’: the degree of public participation in this flagrant mockery is, as known, understandably lowest: a third of the franchise at best.”

5. Preparata, 111: “Had the coup succeeded, the Versailles Treaty might have all been for naught. True, Kolchak was already finished when the Kappists invaded Berlin: thus a White, full-fledged Russo-German alliance could hardly have come into being at the time of the putsch, but a revived dynastic Reich, propped by a few satellites in Central Europe, would have certainly conspired, and successfully so, to loosen completely the unsteady grip of Bolshevism over Eurasia in the medium term by bolstering the armies of the other Russian Whites - Denikin, Yudenitch, and the survivors of the Siberian debacle.”