Smilin' Dave wrote:If any of these claims were substantiated we wouldn't call them theories, would we?
The reason why we call them theories is because they are substantiated. A "theory" is an idea supported by or set to explain evidence. The popular example of this language is that gravitation is just a theory. The undisputable evidence is, in a naive framework, masses attract masses according to their masses.
Ibid. wrote:You mean other than Nazi bank nationalisation, laws excluding Jews from such high level positions and Nazi physical seizures of gold reserves in other countries in order to finance the war?
Or Wall Street.
Ibid. wrote:which makes him a blithering idiot.
This is a logical fallacy. Dismissed.
Ibid. wrote:Never mind that Hitler was so 'unwilling' for war that he began violating the treaty of Versailles as early as 1936 to remilitarise the Rhineland.
Well, we know that Hitler went to war (evidence). We just don't know why (theory.)
Ibid. wrote:"Warburg" describes a July 1929 meeting with "Carter," the President of J.P. Morgan's Guarantee Trust, the Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks, "the young Rockefeller" and "Glean from Royal Dutch." These are all Rothschild dominated.
It was determined that Warburg who spoke German should travel to Germany and ask Hitler how much money he needed to overthrow the state. The only stipulation was that Hitler adopts "an aggressive foreign policy."
"Warburg" details five meetings with Hitler between 1929 and 1933. The first took place in a beer cellar and Hitler calculated his needs on the back of a paper plate. About $25 million was transferred. This was extremely important in the depth of the depression because the Nazis provided food and shelter to many of their supporters.
Hitler wasn't told the reason for this support and did not ask. On two occasions, he wondered out loud if "Warburg" was himself Jewish but dismissed the idea before "Warburg" could reply.
There is no "Sydney Warburg" but the internal evidence suggests the author could be James P. Warburg, son of Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg. General Ludendorff testified at the Nuremburg trials that James P Warburg was the conduit through which eventually $34 million was transferred from Wall Street to the Nazis.
One wonders why anyone would go to this much trouble to alienate the most powerful people in the world if he weren't sincere. The only people with the power to suppress it are the ones it incriminates, and they have a record of suppressing similar works.
Interestingly, the book on this Warburg no longer exists.
Nevertheless, Hitler's 1936 activity can be explained by his 1929 dealings with Rothschild via Wall Street.
Ibid. wrote:So the source for this one is the NKVD, an organisation which particularly in that time period, was famous for beating false confessions out of people? Particularly when it came to Trotsky?
I suppose that one can claim that poor interrogational techniques are unreliable, yet this shutting out of information leaves nothing to be discussed.
It's supposed that one could look further into Rothschild's connections with Trotsky and hope that one can find something unconnected with NKVD; yet, it seems like an exercise that'd yield positively only by coincidence, as there's no real rule that every source can be doubly and disconnectedly verified.
With all due respect, I just don't see a reason to have more than one source here. Yet, I'll search.
Here's an interesting find:
An Illuminating Prelude to Political Zionism
Modern Jewish colonisation of Palestine was not started by the Zionists but by a French organisation, sponsored and financed by Baron Edmund de Rothschild, 27 years before the Zionist movement had its founding Congress (Basle 1897). The Rothschild movement (named ‘Alliance Israelite Universelle’) was hostile to Zionism until the late 1930s.
What Rothschild had in mind was to provide the Jews who fled from the pogroms in Tsarist Russia with land in Palestine and colonise it along the lines of the contemporary French colonisation of Algeria. He never subscribed to the fundamental Zionist idea of a Jewish nation-state but opposed it. He was a financial pillar of French Capitalism and thought in terms of increasing France’s influence overseas. Being a Jew he sympathised with the persecuted Russian Jews. Combining his sympathies with French interests, he sponsored the AIU and financed it (although he knew that little, if any, economic profit would come out of it.
The Rothschild settlers had some conflicts in Palestine with the Arab peasants who refused to give up the land which their feudal landlords sold the AIU for enormous sums (in contemporary terms). Later the peasants became hired farm hands in the AIU settlements. The AIU never got into a political conflict with the Palestinian Arabs because it never aspired to achieve political independence. As for relations with imperialism – the Rothschild colonisation was part of the French colonial system so that the question of an alliance between two separate parties did not exist. It is precisely this absence of policy towards imperialism that illumines the meaning of the existence of such a policy in the Zionist movement. The AIU did not aspire to create an independent State, to achieve political power, therefore its choice of a foreign policy was limited to one possibility that of French imperialism. With the Zionist movement it was different; from the very beginning – even before the Zionist immigrants reached Palestine – its main aim was to achieve a politically independent, Jewish, nation-State in Palestine (for tactical reasons, this aim was veiled by the formulation ‘to achieve a Jewish “homeland” in Palestine’). Possessing this independent political aim Zionism had to consider how to achieve it. It had to have a foreign policy. Some Zionists immediately recognised that their fundamental aim implied a foreign policy which prescribed not only their allies but also their inevitable enemies.
1. 1897-1917: In search of international recognition
. . ..
2. 1917-1948: In search of majority and land ownership
Once the claim of the Zionist movement to re-establish Jewish independence in Palestine has been recognised the next task was to implement it. This necessitated two things: first, mass immigration of Jews into Palestine, and mass acquisition of land by Jews in Palestine.
The Palestinian Arabs, awakened to political life under the impact of World War I, taunted by hints of independence from the British during the war (to gain their cooperation against the Turks), immediately opposed the Zionist aim as well as the Zionist immigration and land policies.
They had no wish to become a minority in their own country nor to be citizens in an essential Jewish state (ie, to suffer national discrimination). Moreover, they themselves aspired to achieve political independence in Palestine. To this end they had to rid themselves of the foreign rulers of the country, and hence found their political interests contradicting those of the British. As for the Zionists, they realised that if Arab nationalism in Palestine (with which they had not reckoned during the earlier period) achieved independence before the Jews constituted a majority the main Zionist aim would have been defeated. Thus their interest was to support British rule in Palestine, gradually to build up their numbers and buy more of the land, until they formed a majority over a considerable and continuous part of the territory, and only then to start the struggle for their own independence. Thus their interests prescribed not only their allies but also their enemies. Again, it was not some wickedness that caused the Zionists to oppose Arab nationalism and any other anti-imperialist policies in Palestine, but this too was a direct consequence of the aim and the circumstances. In their opposition to Arab independence in Palestine the Zionists naturally found their interests coinciding, once more, with those of imperialism (in this case, with the British rulers). Many Zionists were unhappy about this coincidence. But whenever a Zionist underwent a conflict between his anti-imperialist attitudes and his Zionism, it was always the latter which had the upper hand in the end. Those who put anti-imperialism before Zionism ceased to be Zionists, ‘Jewish Power,’ like ‘Black Power,’ was a product of imperialism, not only socially but also ideologically, but, unlike the latter which is forced by circumstances to align itself politically against imperialism, the former was always aligned with imperialism.
3. 1948-1950: In search of recognition of armistice lines as international borders
In the 30 years from 1918 to 1948 the Jewish population in Palestine increased from 50,000 to some 600,000, mostly through Zionist immigration. Funds collected regularly throughout world Jewry helped to build an all-Jewish economy (which never was, nor aimed to be, economically profitable). Implementing the slogans of ‘Jewish labour,’ ‘buy Jewish,’ and ‘redeem the land,’ gradually there was brought into existence a closed, self-governing, Jewish community in Palestine. Despite some friction with the British (who on the eve of World War II started to court the Arab side, curtailing immigration quotas, etc.) the basic alliance of interests remained. Both parties opposed the efforts of the Palestinians to get rid of the British. During the period 1936-39 the Palestinians carried through a major rebellion which, at times, tied down 50 per cent of the entire British army. However, this rebellion was defeated by the British in a major field battle. That defeat meant the departure of the Palestinians from power politics in Palestine, leaving in the arena the British and the Zionists.
During the Second World War friction started to build up between these two parties. This friction turned into an armed conflict in the years 1945-47. The main reason was the refusal of the British to allow mass immigration of Jewish refugees from Europe. There were also economic reasons: during the war local industry (mostly in Jewish hands) became the main supplier to the British army in the area. When the war was over, economic prosperity was over too and British competitive goods once more enjoyed preference. The Jewish community in Palestine started (often against the wish of its leaders) to clamour for independence. This clamour developed into an armed struggle based mostly on urban guerilla warfare. A number of reasons helped the Zionists to defeat the British: favourable public opinion throughout the world because of the massacre of 6 million Jews by the Nazis; weakening of British imperialism as a result of the War; strengthening of US imperialism (towards which Zionism started to orientate itself) as a result of the same war; economic and military strengthening of the Jewish community in Palestine during that war; demoralisation of Arab nationalism which hoped for a defeat of the British (sometimes actively supporting the Axis.
All this culminated in a resolution passed by a 2/3rds majority in the General Assembly of the UN on 27 November 1947, calling for the establishing of two States in the partitioned territory of Palestine, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. To defeat this resolution British imperialism organised an invasion by the regular armies of Farouk, Nuri-Said, Abdullah, and Husni Zaim into Palestine. The outcome of this war was that Ben-Gurion and Abdullah (who negotiated secretly during the war) each annexed half of the territory allotted by the UN to the Palestinian Arabs. The 1948 war itself was a case of a colonising community aspiring to political independence, thus coming into conflict with the imperial power under whose wings it grew. For the colonisers themselves it was a war of independence, for the indigenous population – a change from a foreign ruler who departed to a local ruler who had nowhere to go, from a ruler who only wanted to exploit the country to one who made it his own home. Politically the Palestinian Arabs were better off before 1948 than at any time after it. By annexing territory allotted to the Palestinians by the UN Ben-Gurion forfeited international recognition of Israeli borders. The territory ruled by the Zionists was now larger but no international authority agreed that it was theirs. The major task of the Israeli foreign policy became the need to achieve recognition by some world power or authority that the territory they annexed at the expense of the Palestinians was theirs. The US, Britain, and France provided for this in their Tripartite resolution of 1950 wherein they sanctioned the 1949 armistice lines (yet without recognising their finality nor declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel). Once more Zionist foreign policy became dependent on imperialism, this time in order to ensure the territorial integrity of Israel by sanctioning the annexation of territory allotted by the UN to the Palestinians. Was there another possibility? Theoretically there was. Had Ben-Gurion kept to the UN partition lines and refused the temptations of territorial aggrandisement in 1948 there would have been no territorial issue (although the political conflict would have continued for some time) and no need to depend on imperialism to sanction annexations. Actually, it was impossible for a Zionist
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1968/no032/israeli.htm--
The Trotsky connection is hard to find, yet one can look at the Bolshevik Revolution and its ties to Wall Street as a secondary source for Wall Street's intimacy with certain "Communist" leaders.
Rothschild, naturally being involved too in Russian markets, would play an intimate role in the 'revolution,' too.
The debate isn't over whether Rothschild was involved, but whether Trotsky were beneath Rothschild. The proof, while not definitive, isn't necessarily unreasonable or worth dismissing.
Ibid. wrote:A book of recollections of someone who was never identified? Hardly convincing, but perhaps in good company with your other sources.
It's James Warburg.
- By Skynet
- By Rancid
- By Tainari88
- By litwin