Free speech, war crimes and money
09/04/17 11:34 Filed in: articles
For several weeks now, the Guardian newspaper in the UK has been lambasting Ken Livingstone for publicly mentioning that Hitler helped Zionists in the early 1930’s. According to the comments of many Jewish commentators, they think that by talking on this matter, Livingstone is encouraging a belief that Zionism and the Nazis were somehow in cahoots. They are, as a result, asking that Red Ken be expelled from the Labour Party.
Personally, I think those Guardian commentators need to remember a famous comment by Voltaire:
‘I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to my death your right to say it’.
In other words, we must value free speech more than eradicating unpleasant comments. Free speech doesn’t just refer to the right of people to say popular things, it is a right for people to say whatever they want to say. Some jewish and secular people in the U.K. may be offended by Livingstone’s comments but he is stating a well-documented historical fact; Hitler did do a deal in the early 1930’s that helped Zionists settle in Israel. Whatever the implications are of this event, it did happen.
It is extremely important in this country that people are allowed to openly make comments, even if the factual basis of those comments are disputed by some, without fear of serious punishment. Noam Chomsky ended up in a scandal when he said that a Holocaust denier should be allowed to speak without being criminalized. When others told Noam of their shock that he would ally with such a view, Chomsky patiently explained that he did not agree with what the man said; he was standing up for any person’s right to free speech, whatever he or she says. When censoring become legitimised, or laws are brought in that reduce human rights, those laws are inevitably used in the wrong way. When the U.K. government recently introduced a law allowing government departments to snoop on people, they loudly stated that the law would only be used to combat terrorism. Six months later, it was found that local councils were using to it to spy on families suspected of giving the wrong home address for school placements! This is clearly a minor misuse of such powers but there are other, much darker effects. Once censorship and human rights are eroded in a country, for any reason, that society inevitably becomes a dark, oppressive place.
If the Jewish commentators writing in the Guardian at the moment wish to be courageous and forthright in their pursuit of those sullying the memory of all those who died tragically in the horror that was the Holocaust, there are much bigger fish to fry than an uncomfortable comment by Ken Livingstone. One fish to fry is an aspect of the Nazi regime’s rise to power that still defies adequate explanation; it is a gaping hole in the official story of the Third Reich and it is very simple: Who paid for the Third Reich?
When Germany lost the First World War, it was already most of the way towards economic collapse. The citizens of Berlin were so short of food at that time that many were literally starving in the streets. After the war ended, the country was then punished again with crippling reparations. Germany staggered through this economic straight-jacket for a decade, suffering hyperinflation of its currency on the way. In 1929, the Wall St crash and the ensuing Great Depression caused even greater financial and economic hardship. By 1932, Germany was an economic basket-case. This disastrous economic state was one reason that Hitler gained power. Before the Wall St crash, the Nazi party were gathering only 5% of the vote. When Hitler took control of his adopted country’s government in the early 1930s, he was in charge of an effectively penniless land.
And yet, in a few short years, Hitler’s Germany became an economic superpower. Official books on the Third Reich describe the Nazi government’s use of bonds, rulings, laws, tariffs, infrastructure projects and other mechanisms to stimulate its manufacturing economy but this makes little sense. Germany had recently undergone hyper-inflation, it had few natural resources and no money in the coffers. Where on Earth did all the raw materials come from to feed this massive increase in production? Germany needed huge amounts of rubber, iron ore, aluminium and other materials to make all of its trains, trucks, cars, tanks etc. Who paid for these materials or directly supplied them? Without such financial and material help, the Nazi regime would have been little more than a tin-pot dictatorship in Europe destined for political implosion as its leaders’ incompetence and in-fighting finally sunk the government like a leaking balloon. Instead, it was as if someone behind the scenes waved a magic wand; in less than a decade, Nazi Germany was stuffed with resources.
Multiple researchers have investigated this glaring problem of how the Third Reich financed its massive expansion and re-armament, including the books 'Nazi Hydra in America' and a video I recently reviewed. They point the finger at U.S. corporations and corporate tycoons such as Ford, IBM, Opel, Coca Cola, Standard Oil and others. They also, allegedly, show evidence that the Bank of England, Chase Manhattan Bank and Swiss Banks were also involved. Furthermore, they assert that financial heavyweights such as the Rockefellers and DuPonts were supposedly very supportive of many of the Nazis aims, particularly in the field of eugenics, something of which Winston Churchill himself was very keen. If these accusations are correct, then the Nazi regime did not create itself, it was fundamentally a creation of the wealthy, fascist elite of the United States and Europe.
If the financing of the Third Reich by wealthy U.S. and European fascists is true, then other aspects of the Second World War that are problematic according to the official history become clearer. For example, when Operation Barbarossa failed and Germany was beaten back without reaching Moscow, they were woefully ill-prepared for the Russian winter and died in droves. Military strategists must have known at that moment that Germany was doomed. Russia had huge natural resources, vast numbers of men and in Stalin, they had a leader who was happy to sacrifice tens of millions of men to seek revenge for Hitler’s betrayal. If the Allies had simply blockaded Germany through the Atlantic then that, combined with the approaching Red Army, would have caused the Reich’s inevitable downfall. Some readers might point out that this would not save the inmates of the death and slave-labour camps but if that aim was a high priority for the U.S., why did it not attack sooner? There’s no doubt the U.S. and U.K. secret services knew of the death camps for a long time. What was really going on at the highest levels in the United States? Why were Stalin's requests for military help ignored for so long? Why did the United States avoid entering the war in Europe but change its mind, coincidentally, when Germany faced inevitable defeat by Russia? These issues lead to a deeply disturbing possibility; that powerful but negative groups in the United States encouraged the D-Day landings but were secretly co-opting the efforts and sacrifice of so many men not for the purpose of defeating the Nazi menace but to save Western Germany from the approaching Red Army and actually rescue key Nazis, along with their scientists, engineers and other key figures. Whilst millions were risking their lives to end the Nazi regime, a hidden elite were using the same campaign to save the core of that same regime.
The idea that U.S. and Commonwealth soldiers were unwitting pawns in a secret plan, concocted by dark forces within the United States, to rescue Nazis from the Soviets may seem crazy. There’s certainly no doubt that if Ken Livingstone said such a thing at the moment, worse things would happen to him than simply being suspended from the Labour Party. And yet key immediate-post-war U.S. programmes such as Operation Paperclip, in which literally thousands of high-ranking German scientists and engineers were spirited across to the United States, many with very dubious records, make the idea of a secret ‘Nazi rescue’ plan seem not quite so nuts. Werner Von Braun, who went on to playing a leading role in NASA, was a colonel in the SS during the war, a rank that, according to many historians, only the most ardent Nazis were eligible to hold. What’s more, before Von Braun was brought to the United States, he was a senior figure at Peneemunde, a V2 rocket factory notorious for its appalling treatment of slave labour and prisoners of war. In addition, Reinhardt Gehlen, the Nazi mastermind of their spy network in Eastern Europe, was kept on by the United States, along with his entire spy network, after the war. Gehlen was effectively immune to prosecution. He continued to run the same Nazi-staffed spy network for the United States for the next thirty-odd years, fully-funded. What is even worse that decades later, after the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War thawed, released papers showed that a lot of the reports of Gehlen’s network were untrue and seemingly concocted purely to stoke Western paranoia with regard to the Soviets’ plans.
The famous Nuremberg Trials were a high-profile judgement and punishment of Nazi leaders and they were understandably celebrated by those who wished for the Nazi evil-doers to be brought to justice and punished. But the presiding judges at that famous series of trials seemed to completely ignore the critical question; Who paid for the Nazi regime? Who resourced a bankrupt country that was in the grip of a gaggle of psychopaths? Who bankrolled the creation of the Nazi’s massive, monstrous war machine? I can find little evidence so far that those Nuremberg judges focussed on that critical part of the Nazi story. The only comment I have encountered is that one senior Nazi in the trials admitted that the war would have ended two years earlier, if not for the help of Swiss banks.
Jewish commentators in the Guardian newspaper may feel they are doing a good deed by condemning ‘Red Ken’ for mentioning an uncomfortable but well-documented event in history but such a matter is of trivial importance compared to the massive festering wound that is the truth of the Second World War; who really were the paymasters of the Third Reich? If that question isn’t adequately answered, then we all face the deeply disturbing possibility that the descendants and successors of those people that paid for the Third Reich are our financial overlords right now. If that is true, then we are effectively in the same situation as so many German citizens were in the 1930’s; the power-elite of our land, the ones in financial control of all our lives, are the proteges of monsters with blood on their hands.
When the Allies re-took France and Germany in 1945, the citizens of those countries that had not put up a fight against their Nazi overlords and their toxic warmongering were seen by many to be supine, morally-bankrupt collaborators. As our entire planet's climate collapses due to massive over-consumption by the affluent western world and our leaders instigate illegal wars, are we supine collaborators under the thumb of effectively the same toxic elite? It's a situation that doesn't bear thinking, except that maybe it really does.