While at the hospital yesterday, I listened to a program that came from either History Channel or the Military Channel about WWII, saying that the war was actually plotted by the very rich as a way to shift economic power to America. I am very deaf and require the use of powerful state of the art hearing aids that have the ability to focus on one single sound source. In spite of that capability, I could have misheard some of what was said.
I post this here because in my years of "lurking", I have enjoyed the stories of several authors that seem to have knowledge of that era.
The premise of the film makers is that certain families being quite hostile toward each other, orchestrated the war to gain an advantage over each other. It almost seems, according to subtle implications in the story, that Hitler was a mere stooge for the uber rich. Perhaps his unspeakable persecution of the Jews was incidental to the goals of certain of these families, though still in many areas of Europe and the Middle East, Jews are not well liked to this day. I'm not antisemitic, just making an observation.
This theory is not something I've heard before since only the sanitized version of world history is taught in the schools I attended.
What ever theory, their supposition is that post WWII, America was the only country in the world with its infrastructure relatively intact, thus giving the yanks a jump on post war prosperity.
It would be interesting to see what real historians have to say about this.
Comments
If there were proof of this allegation ...
... you would think it would explode onto the big screen as a docudrama with a star-studded cast, or at the very least be on the cover of every news magazine and in the top headlines of every news broadcast on the planet. And if the descendants of the supposed architects of WW II had enough power to start a world war AND keep this "conspiracy" a secret, they sure as Hell wouldn't let the History Channel or the Military Channel do a documentary about it, especially if they could STILL keep the major news organizations of today from exposing it.
I'm thinking what you heard was part of a documentary about the kinds of low-level crazies who refuse to believe that sometimes, things just happen. They'd rather believe that the US government crashed planes into the Word Trade Center and the Pentagon on purpose to promote a war, or that thousands of years of horrific history was actually caused by a secret society called the Illuminati. I'm not sure why it's easier to believe someone deliberately orchestrated WW II for profit than it is to believe that people like Hitler and Mussolini and others rose to power and came within months of establishing a global empire based on ideals that embodied pure evil. But for some people, it is.
There are a few military historians in the BCTS community, so I'm hoping they'll put your mind to rest.
*hugs*
Randalynn
Allegations…
It's ridiculous to point to a cabal of plutocrats, when the political history is plain: Stalin encouraged Germany to arm secretly by furnishing facilities such as airfields and proving grounds on Soviet soil, (Rapallo Abkommen, usw.). Then Stalin ensured Hitler's election by ordering the Communists to not form an anti-Nazi coalition with the Social Democrats (The slogan ran: "Nach Hitler, uns." [After Hitler, us.])
Nobody remembers that the putsch attempt for which Hitler was jailed took place at exactly the same time as the Communists were attempting a putsch of their own. It is now convenient to portray the Soviets as the constant and irreconcilable enemies of the National Socialists, rather than their enablers and allies, at least so long as it suited Stalin. The secret riders to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Abkommen suggest that Poland was to be taken down in a simultaneous German-Soviet attack. By holding back the Soviet offensive 17 days, until after the Germans halted where the treaty said they should, Stalin shifted the onus of the Western powers onto Germany as sole aggressor.
It would seem Hitler was of considerably less than average intelligence, though—he remained convinced of Stalin's good will until Stalin moved Soviet forces moved into Romania, and positioned them to cut off Germany's oil supply with little more than a two-day march. At the same time, strip maps photographed by the "Deutsche Gesellschaft für Höhenforschung" (German Society for High-Altitude Research, aka Gruppe Rowehl) furnished irrefutable evidence of Stalin's plans to invade Europe: huge movements of men and materiel west, from beyond the range of German photo reconnaissance.
Many of the millions of men taken prisoner in the first days of Unternehmen Barbarossa were emaciated wretches dressed in black prisoner's uniforms rather than proper Red Army uniforms—Stalin had started to empty the GULAG weeks before the German offensive to staff his planned "walk to Berlin." Why were zeks being moved out of Siberia weeks before Germany commenced hostilities? Some zeks hadn't even been issued weapons yet!
I find only one amusing theory about this whole horrid era. This theory was voiced by a Russian biographer of Stalin (but also by other sources): Stalin was gearing up to start a third world war in 1953, in the hopes of taking what he failed to take in the last war. The first stage would be a hunt for enemies to shake out, and Beria knew exactly what that meant: every one of his predecessors had been shot in the course of such a shakeout. So Beria spiked "the juice"—the Georgian wines Stalin liked to drink with his henchmen when they confabbed late at night. Then he adjusted the appointments of the Politburo menbers so that nobody but Stalin got a lethal dose of the poison that had been introduced into the wine. The poison: a newly-developed American rat poison called warfarin, which is persistent enough in the body to kill humans, usually by cerebral hemorrhage, if taken slowly but steadily for weeks. (Warfarin is also used as an anticoagulant under another name, coumarin.) The choice of rat poison for Stalin would be delightfully condign, should there be any truth to the tale.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy theorists can find a plot anywhere. It's always easier to point a finger at for instance one of those 'families' than it is to admit that the Allies helped caused WWII with the harshness of the treaties signed at the end of WWI. The economic factors contributed as well since the Great Depression was not a local problem. The whole world was troubled by a multitude of problems following WWI.
You can't burn causes like that at stake.
"What ever theory, their supposition is that post WWII, America was the only country in the world with its infrastructure relatively intact, thus giving the yanks a jump on post war prosperity."
I believe that's correct. Alan Turing insisted on being paid in gold since he believed the UK's economy would collapse following the war because of the hardship the war put on it. America for all of its flaws did much to prevent that with the Marshall Plan that attempted to prevent a recurrence of what happened at the end of WWI.
Of course this is great simplification of a very complex time, but somewhat more accurate than that program or so I believe.
Hugs
Grover
Alan Turing ...
... was actually 'rewarded' by being chemically castrated after being found guilty of so-called gross indecency. He eventually killed himself. He was officially pardoned last year which some would say was a travesty (or perhaps travesti, considering this site :)) of justice.
It's just as well he wasn't outed before the war ended or it might well have continued for another few years and possibly had a different outcome.
Through his efforts (and others, of course) the UK had a significant lead in computing which was squandered because the British government clamped down on its commercial exploitation because it was considered 'Top Secret'.
I lived through the war and suffered the privations that lasted until well into the 1950s. If it was a Bilderberg (or its predecessor) conspiracy, it was a cruel one.
Robi
Actually
No one has ever discovered what he did with the gold he was paid. It is so very tragic that he was treated the way he was after saving so many lives by shortening the conflict. As for conspiracies, one of the more believable ones is that he was killed by British Intelligence because of what he knew. Considering he was being chemically tortured by the authorities, using female hormones that had already castrated him, he could have been seen as a threat by them. God knows they had already done everything else to the poor man.
hugs
Grover
I'd be willing to bet...
You would have as much success finding Alan Turing's gold as George W. Bush did finding 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Iraq. Both, the gold and the weapons, were conjured up out of thin air by politicians who needed to find excuses to besmirch people they wanted 'out of the way'.
with love,
Hope
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
One theory I've heard that I
One theory I've heard that I believe is that the Antisemitism in Germany was partially caused by the post-WWI depression. According to this theory since the medieval Catholic church made loaning money (basically any banking) sinful, only Jews could run banks. Between running banks and the Jewish habit of using only the least amount necessary (ultra-conservationism, or stinginess depending on how you feel about them) many of the rich were Jews going into WWI. The Jewish rich (this DOESN'T include average or poor Jews) were one of the least affected groups financially after the war. Hitler pointed to the one group that wasn't suffering and told the starving masses "they caused this, they stole the wealth you deserve", instead of them just being smart in their money management. Basically the Jews were the 1%-ers of their time and between being Jewish (the chosen people) and being rich, treated everyone else as second-class citizens, and were easy targets.
Silly Pseudo-History
That is easily one of the sillier conspiracy pseudo-histories I have heard. Whoever or whatever produced it, has no concept of history, no knowledge of European or Asiatic wars, and no knowledge of cause and effect.
In its most simplistic form, the cause of WWII was WWI. In turn, this evolution can be traced back through the Franco-German War to the Holy Roman Empire to the Roman Empire to Proto-Celtic expansion from central Europe into Mongolia and Northern China some 8,000 to 10,000 years aqo.
Perhaps the best explanation is that Germans and French really dislike each other, and will fight each other for almost any reason.
As far as American involvement in either the European or Asian Theater, we were reluctant to enter either war, armed hesitantly, and entered into the conflicts well after either war began. If we consider WWI, we declared war in 1917, three year after the guns of August. If we consider that the Asian war began in 1937, and the European war in 1939, our entry into the war in December of 1941 was well after the fact, and only because we were directly attacked.
Had we not been attacked, it is likely that we would not have entered either war until at least 1943. However, it is also possible that we would never have entered either war. American anti-war sentiment was very strong. This attitude had a very powerful effect on the elections of 1940, and it had a significant effect in the elections of 1944.
The war resulted in an American hegemony that lasted for many decades. We had established a huge military-industrial complex, a vast and capable armed force in strategic bases throughout the world, and we had suffered no internal damage during the prolonged conflict. Our great oceans had protected us, while providing sea lanes to exert power and influence throughout the world. That's a matter of geography.
So, the proposition that WWII was some kind of American conspiracy is absurd. QED
Red MacDonald
Not American but the uber rich.
Especially in the North East, there are those who are so rich that you can not even imagine. I would not say it was an American plot but perhaps a minor squabble to the very rich. After all they likely kept their children out of the fray. If one tours Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and much of the rest of the east coast, you can discover huge estates and evidence of current and past wealth that is impossible to imagine.
You haven't read "Those Angry
You haven't read "Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II" have you? I got it for my dad and am waiting for him to finish so I can get a turn. I heard about it on NPR, (I only recently started listening) Which I have discovered has lots of good author interviews for interesting books.
(That is the point of giving gifts, right? So you can use them yourself but not have the bother of storing them somewhere?)
Let me echo that
May I humbly suggest that anyone who is frankly daft enough to believe this theory should do a little research into the events that lead up to WW2.
Ask yourself one question
Did the US brainwash Hitler and give him is 'Master Race' idelogy? If so he would had have to have been selected for this before the US entered WW1.
Then go and read the writings of Churchill in the 1930's. He was worrying about the rise of Hitler in 1933. Remember that his mother was from a pretty well to do New York Family.
If the US had plans about transferring power from Europe to America then they would have had to bave been in place by 1917. The US entering WW1 and thus guaranteeing a seat at Versailles where the settlement with Germany was agreed and signed complete with its restrictions on Arms development would had to have been the first step in the master plan.
Then IMHO the plan would have included the Wall St crash and the great depression and the events in Europe that led to the invasion of Poland in 1939.
Once again, the US Cavalry comes charging over the horizon and enters the war late and mops up the remnants of Europe. This would have all happened and been handed on over multiple US Presidents and through a period where the US became very Isolationist (nowt new there then).
Somehow, I doubt it. so many people over the years would had to have been privy to the plan that it was bound to have leaked.
That is not to say that the Industrial barons in the US did not hesitate to take advantage of the heightened financial straights of Europe (nowt new there then) in the aftermath of WW2 but as a conspiracy theory goes this one is right up there with the likes of 'The Apollo Moon Landings were done on a Hollywood Back Lot and not on the Moon'.
Next they will be saying that Marx and Engels were agents of the US Government as far back as 1845.
The only way you can sum this up is to say....
"There's nowt so queer as folk".
Well, the rich are the new
Well, the rich are the new 'in' thing to hate, or at least hate more, these days so I can see a conspiracy theory like that cropping up. And I can see a network putting on a show about it since people love seeing things that confirm their beliefs, so big bucks.
But the idea is pretty absurd. only the monumentally stupid would start a war the likes of WWII. Looking back from our perspective we know that the allies won, but that was not a sure thing when it started. A war like that can't really be controlled, too many moving parts, too many people who might make a different decision than you expected. Which is pretty much why all conspiracy theories are crazy. If the battle front moves and ends up on top of you estate, they're not going to go around it to get at each other, their going through it. (and incidentally help themselves to whatever they can find in it along the way) If things had gone differently we might all be speaking German or Russian, or maybe even Japanese.
The seeds of the present are always planted in the past, trying to change or redirect that is almost impossible. Quite frankly WWII was to some degree inevitable considering all the events that had happened before it.
And of course, there is that fact that if it wasn't for pearl harbor we might never have joined. The isolationists were about to score a political victory since they discovered that Roosevelt had been drawing up contingency plans with the military in case of war. The Isolationist could have used this to imply that Roosevelt planned to force America to join the war, something many people very much didn't want and which was still being hotly debated by those in power. Who knows what could have shifted politically from something like that.
WWIII
Considering my background, I wonder what things are to consider concerning yet another World War. Will it be like the crusades, Muslims against Christians? Maybe the half dozen "conflicts we have had since constitute a continual World at War, or are we still working up to the big one?
The truth is we should be
The truth is we should be naming the times of peace and instead consider war as the default state. We would have far fewer names to remember. I'm pretty sure if we ever had peace all over the world the earth would literally explode from astonishment.*
*Oh, and aliens would give us technology, at least that's what Canada's Ex-Defense Minister says. :P
Actually...
The shape-shifting lizard people did it so that they would have more human blood to drink.
Yes, that's the one.
I think I saw several of them at my divorce hearing.
A
Naw, those were divorce lawyers you can
tell them apart because the lawyers don't have scales.
Most of the other lawyers are regular people.
Of course I have several of each which are pretty good freinds so I'm not really worried in either case.
Now the lizards.... well, I don't know. Haven't actually met one up close.
Now as to the plot by the "uber rich"... at the time and during the time of a large number of previous wars...
the "Jews" were the one's who had control over most of the money or "riches".
Yes, persecution of the Jews did occur on MANY occasions but it was because of the perception that they were the haves and everyone else was a have not. ie. take from the rich and give to the takers... oops, sorry... i meant "poor". The definition of "poor" being very loosely defined in this case.
A.
I'm sad to say that it would
I'm sad to say that it would make perfect sense to find a show like that on the history channel, since it's not actual history. As someone who can remember the history channel back in the good old days I can only weep and watch 'naked and afraid of being sunburned' or 'Manly men do some kind of out door job' show, so my brain will turn to mush and make the feeling of despair for our society go away.
With All Due Respect
Most of the preceding comments have an element of truth. History is often like that. So many different points of view are the inevitable consequence we live with in this country. It's been said "History is always written by the victors." Not quite, but pretty close.
I started my adult life as an historian. It turned my brain to mush and I took up computers in self-defense (which IS, after all, what I retired from!).
IF you go and read enough source documents you can pick and choose which ones you like, and pretty much prove anyone did anything to everyone. WWII had LOTS and LOTS of antecedents. Just as Vietnam ( which may have been primarily the result of failure to redeem promises made to an ally, Ho Chi Minh. Instead we supported French claims and started the whole dreary mess ). In the case of WWII you can easily trace the roots back past the Napoleonic Wars in Europe.
In the pacific, the forced entry of Tokugawa-era Japan to American trade by Commodore Matthew Perry in 1852-1854 was the historical background, at least to the Japanese, for the embargoes of the late thirties and early forties. Japan saw history repeating itself, with it's pending economic collapse, and tried to nip it in the bud (and if ANYONE notes a double entendre in the last sentence I'll scream).
At least, those are two economic historical antecedents of the war, and two theories of how it started. If you look at current teaching of history you'll find "revisionists" both in the US and in Europe and Japan that try to rewrite what actually happened from roughly 1900 and the First World War through today. I think what the original post may have seen/heard on the History Channel may have been one of that particular ilk. It certainly fits within the Marxist School of historical thought - all bad things happen because the rich oppress the poor. Which is true often enough to be really REALLY depressing.
In Japan, at least as of about 1985 by my memory (which may contain page faults!), history of WWII contained little condemnation of Japan. Actually, last time I looked MOST of the war was not being taught.
Like I said, it turned my brain to mush.
Robert Heinlein in "Time Enough for Love" makes a statement that on the surface IS a truism. War is the normal state of Mankind. Peace is what happens during those brief lulls in the fighting. That's not the exact quote but close enough.
I wish it weren't so, but from Adam and Eve through the present day it's really hard to find a time when someone (city-state, nation, whatever) wasn't killing someone over something.
That's my 1.78 cents worth.
Love, Hugs, and Blessings,
Beth
P.S. If you want to discuss anything I've said, I'll be happy to do so via messages
Centeniary of the start of WW1
This year marks 100years since the start of the Great War. The BBC (for one) is going to be showing a lot of documentaries about the war. I'm old enough to have known my grandfather who was not only gassed but spent several years as a POW digging salt in a mine on the German/Slovak border. His thoughts about it and his life since the fateful day when he was captured was enough to scare me witless.
Fast forward 30 years and you have WW2. Despite not being in the main, trench warfare it was just as horrific. My father was in the party that liberated Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp. I don't really need to say much more about it.
Some would belive that, on the other hand ...
Somewhere back there, there was mention of little damage due protection by the great oceans, how true but only part of the story, the build up of NEW increased manufacturing ability coupled with the destruction of manufacturing capability in Asia and Europe had a lot to do with the sway the United States held in the 50s and 60s. The aging of that manufacturing base (along with a weakened social consensus), along with the rebuilding of a NEW manufacturing base in Asia and Europe have much to do with the shift away from the United States over the last three decades.
now for the small print: The opinion stated above is that of the writer only and may not be construed as an endorsement by this website and/or it's sponsors.
Second WW causes:
There was some economic reasons for the second world war, but it was minor in compared to other causes:
1. Colonialism:
Germany needed "living space" and eastern Europe was the easiest target for expansion. In addition it lost its colonies due to WWI.
Mussolini gave the Italians the idea that they could regain the extent of the Roman Empire. The two softest targets was Albania and Ethiopia. It thought it could take over Greece, but was rescued by the Germans.
Japan was up against the colonies of the U S, Brittan, France and the Netherlands as well as Russia's Siberia. Its only "soft target" was China.
Now, there are few colonies left 70+ years later.
2 Racism:
Germany, Japan, and the U S each had racism as part of its motives. Also, colonialism is based on racism because of the racist idea that the "natives can't rule themselves." It is why there were few troops from Africa which was controlled almost exclusively by European countries. I have recently renoted through the in movies connected with these colonies done in the 1930's, 40's and 50's.
Racism has been reduced in Germany and the U S. Reduced, but not eliminated.
3. Problems left from WWI:
Germany was punished economically because it was charged with causing WWI. Europe was divided. Japanese militarism was not checked. In the U S the "roaring twenties" ended with the Great Depression. Everyone was out of work while Europe was dragged int the depression.
4. Finally the choice was between the concepts of the "Age of Reason" and Middle Ages thought: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal under G-d." was, and still is, a very radical thought.