The war aims of the great Empires
L’historiographie mondiale nous présente les conflits du 20ème siècle comme le résultat de tensions entre pays.
Or, rien de plus faux, puisque les deux premières Guerres mondiales ainsi que la Guerre froide qui suivit, résultent d’une confrontation entre les deux grands Empires dominants : France et Angleterre ; et les trois émergeants : États-Unis, Russie et Allemagne.
Le premier de ces conflits, déclenché en 1914, répondait à une triple préoccupation des empires britannique et américain :
1° Never allow the formation of a continental European alliance. And for that to prevent the rapprochement of France, Germany and Russia.
2° In this order of idea, it was necessary to stop the development of trade by rail uniting each day more the continent, since the beginning of the “industrial era”.
Indeed, France had built the Trans-Siberian railway line with Russia, which offered to transport goods faster and more cheaply than by sea, from Europe to China and India. Two countries considered as the “preserve” of the British Empire.
At the same time, Germany, an ally of the Ottoman Empire, was building another railway linking Berlin to Basra, thus giving it access to the fabulous Iranian oil deposits.
Oil supplying Her Majesty’s fleet and which, if it fell into German hands, would have directly competed with the two largest oil companies of the beginning of the century: Mr. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and the British magnate’s Royal Dutch Shell Deterding, respectively master of Wall Street and the City of London.
3° Germany was building a merchant fleet capable of exporting goods from its ultra-modern factories to South America and even the United States. Equally intolerable prospect for Wall Street.
The Second World War took up these commercial and geopolitical fundamentals, while admitting other parameters directly concerning the large Wall Street cartels.
Indeed, the extraordinary profits brought to them by the First World War, during which they had been able to export raw materials, war material and supplies which England and France could no longer produce, had enabled them to place the Wall Street stock exchange in the first place of the world economy. A lucrative market to which the victory of 1918 put an end.
We therefore understand all the interest they could have in provoking a second one just as profitable and even, if possible, a little more…
War as Remedy
And it is here that the fundamentals of the “international conspiracy” appear, which we will nevertheless easily understand, as they are logical.
The whole thing can be summed up in five steps:
- 1° After the German defeat of 1918, the victorious countries obtained as war compensation, at the same time the colonies of the defeated countries, the industrial patents, certain large industries, and as many deposits of raw materials.
- 2° To manage this manna, these victorious States resold these goods at miserable prices to their biggest trusts. They therefore found themselves not only with a huge mass of new businesses to manage, but also with the responsibility of keeping them running to avoid a recession.
- 3° The climate of the early 1920s being at world peace, companies throughout the European continent therefore began to produce equipment for civilian use, with the consequence of considerable overproduction leading to fierce competition not only between European countries but also with American companies unable to curb imports from ruined countries where the cost price was much lower.
- 4° The result was a violent recession culminating in the great stock market and economic crash begun in 1927 in Germany and culminating in the world crisis of 1929.
- 5° And we understand better why the big global cartels, having of course foreseen from the beginning of the 1920s that this obligation to maintain their oversized companies to meet the needs of the Great War could only lead to this infernal spiral, s logically oriented towards the only market capable of absorbing such a production capacity: A new war.
Indeed, at a time when the joys of the consumer society had not yet reached the people accustomed to a simple and rural way of life, how could a housewife be asked to buy 100 saucepans, when two or three were enough for her? widely.
On the other hand, the war market, involving the destruction of the material produced as it left the factories and the consumption of raw materials in a just-in-time fashion, was the only conceivable outcome in order to avoid mass unemployment, ruin. savings, and even a possible world revolution in order to put an end to this frantic race towards overconsumption.
The control of the cartels on the world
The maneuver took place in two stages.
First, as early as 1917, American cartels began to funnel their huge profits from the European war into the economy of the first empire to collapse: Russia.
Maneuver repeated in 1920, with the unconditional surrender of the Austro-Hungarian and German empires, by investing essentially in all the heavy industries and natural resources of Eastern European countries.
Massive investments imitated this time by the English and French cartels.
Then, in order to create the conditions essential to a new conflict, they worked, from 1922 by certain secret clauses of the Treaty of Rapallo, to secretly rearm the two great losers: Germany and Russia.
Knowing that ruined Russia should have used all its energy to raise its ruins and that Germany, in the same state of disrepair, had moreover been forbidden to rearm, the malevolent intention is established.
This Anglo-Saxon initiative was immediately followed by the major continental European cartels, unconcerned about being left behind in this rearmament race.
So while the Wall Street cartels – supported by those of the City of London in Germany – were rearming future dictatorships, continental Europeans were rearming democracies.
And we begin to understand how all this will degenerate for the greater benefit of each other.
The birth of Europe
Faced with this new distribution of the cards of the world economy, the countries of continental Europe organized themselves in order to avoid a new devastating war.
Driven by the Peoples, European cartels and organizations of veterans and peace-loving activists united in a new project: The creation of the United States of Europe.
Project supported by the League of Nations and the governments of the various nations concerned, with France and Germany in the forefront, which led to a first concrete result on September 30, 1926, with the first version of a European Union bringing together the cartels steel. Initiative soon followed by all the other cartels: nitrogen, coal, electricity, etc.
This first European Union, much “forgotten” by theoreticians of the incomprehensible, had two declared objectives:
- Give Europe a republican Constitution based on the great principles of the Enlightenment society and humanism.
- Combat the infiltration of Wall Street into its economy.
So of course, one can wonder why the big European cartels seemed indifferent to this degradation clearly announcing a new conflict. However, it would have been easy for them to denounce the secret rearmament of Germany before the League of Nations and put an end to the escalation.
And the answer is obvious: Because they too were counting on profiting from the promised manna, not only by manufacturing the weapons of the democracies, but by supplying Germany with the raw materials of which its mixed-capital factories were sorely lacking. .
Which they did shamelessly. And we understand better now why the “family secret” was able to prevail for so long…
The ideological pretext
To fuel the desired conflict, and because it is essential to correctly manipulate the Peoples before asking them to be complacently killed to enrich a few “powerful”, the same cartelist interests undertook to first finance the Russian Communist Party by offering to Stalin and his friends the financing and support necessary for them to seize power.
Then they supported by various contracts the economy of the USSR, before acting in the same way in Germany by bringing Hitler to power and by supporting the economy of the Reich until bringing it to a semblance of power, apparently convincing enough to claim to threaten the USSR.
Communism, entirely financed and installed in power by Wall Street, therefore very naturally opposed fascism, supported by the same interests.
It was under these auspices that republican democratic Europe was finally forced to give way to a fascist Europe, while generalized rearming emerged from the shadows to take over the entire space of international relations.
Another great “forgotten” of complacent historians: French military treason, which today can be considered as the “keystone” of this Great Lie of the 20th century.
Indeed, without this essential piece of the puzzle, it was easy to set aside the major economic issues to seem interested only in political issues, therefore in this fable that was: “The struggle of the Powers of Good against those of Evil”.
The Blitzkrieg Theory
Based, as we have seen, on an uninterrupted series of incomprehensible coincidences and decisions, or a series of “miracles”, this theory of illogicality deliberately “forgets” to recall that:
1° Hitler’s army was much inferior in quality and quantity to that aligned by the Allies:
Here are the latest figures unanimously accepted by historians concerning the forces present on May 10, 1940, the day of the German attack in the west:
- 135 German divisions, against 151 Allied divisions.
- 7,378 German guns against 14,000 for the allies.
- 2,439 German tanks against 4,204 Allied tanks.
- 3,864 German aircraft against 4,900 Allied aircraft
Knowing that the German material was not superior to the allied material, but in general inferior, in particular for the tanks, and that the German army had at the time of attacking the great empires of the west, only for one month gasoline and ammunition.
Knowing on the other hand that the allies had been informed as early as March 10, 1940 by many informants – including five of the generals closest to the Führer – of all the details of the so-called “Manstein” invasion plan definitively adopted on February 17 , and the date and time of the attack as early as April 31.
How can we imagine that the Allied General Staff could have been both destitute of equipment and “surprised” by a revolutionary strategy, as the States version claims (always in the plural)?
It is by carefully keeping these various data in memory that everyone will be able to follow the detailed explanations that we offer you on our YouTube channel.
No doubt they will be enough to give you an “intimate conviction” about this military betrayal and the major issues that motivated it, before our forthcoming books offer you the archives, testimonies and work of the best researchers who have worked on this major subject, often for more than twenty years…