America didn't do much in World War II (in Europe)

a reply to: crazyewok

Ah the tirpiz. You know in america when you mix the words lancaster and a pair of tallboys I think of some dude in Lancaster sitting on his porch drinking a pair of 16oz beers called tallboys. Kinda like in the UK, except there the lancaster was a bomber and the tallboys out weighed the american version by about 4,947,000 grams. They brought new meaning to "pop the top" when they introduced their "tallboys" to the tirpaz. And to be expected from too much consumption the tirpaz keeled right over.

This is the greatest Mind f*ck in history believed by the majority of humanity 
Why because it was painfully paid for in blood of those who fought

History is always best comprehended from present to past with every event having a reason leading up to it 

Germany was never trying to win the fight against Great Britain and the US on the western front 
Otherwise they would have never invaded Russia before invading England thereby making a 2 front war highly unlikely and victory truly possible. 

Or the fact that Germany who practically walked into France and took over.
Assumed command of the the french naval fleet which was one of the most power full in the world, decide to not use it eventually allowing the Brits to scuttle a fleet that would have given Germany a huge advantage at sea which is another blunder since Hitler never closed the straits of Gibraltar

Also Dunkirk in May 1940 Which in itself calls into question the Nazis’ goal of conquering the europe since the German held back for three days, thereby enabling British and French troops to escape across the channel. Or D-day where Hitle held his panzer forces back allowing the Allies to gain a foot hold in europe
Plus the fact that the USA took the longest route goin thru north Africa into Italy and then across the channel to Normandy

These along with many other blunders made during the war for whatever reason given to explain for them. There existed an incompetence on such a level that one should question the purpose and motive behind these actions.

 Western European people experienced the realities of the wars and its intrusion into their daily lives far differently than the people of Eastern Europe. The disregard for human life was practiced by both sides on the eastern front; with widespread scorched earth tactics and large scale terror against civilians, which never systematically took place in Western Europe. 

With German and Russian forces treating eastern civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages. 

Even the Holocaust was strikingly different from East to West
with 90,000 of the Jewish population being exterminated in France, 
Belgium 40,000 killed 
Netherlands 105,000 where exterminated, 

whereas the Jewish population in Eastern European countries 
the Baltic countries totaled 228,000 killed 
Romania 300,000 killed
Ukrainian 900,000 killed
Poland suffered an estimated 3 million deaths (90%) of the Jewish population wiped-out (that’s half the of all Jewish holocaust deaths). 
Germany & Austria also had 90% of their Jewish population exterminated together totaling 210,000, 
Hungary had over double that 450,000 killed (70%) the total Jewish population

These mass killings distinguish Germany from Great Britian and the USA, they allowed for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. This would not have been possible without the blood scrafice of millions mostly poor eastern european Jews whose mass deaths shocked the world into allowing the western powers into the middle east. Further cementing the new world wide authorities, intustutions and corporations.

But most important to remember is the differences in the war from east to west because the number doesnt lie

30 million people died on the eastern front.
compared to 5 million in the west. 

With such a differance its as if there was a show war in the west and a total war fought in the east. know this leaves me with little doubt as to the purpose of WW2

The war wasn't Axis vs. Allies it was pick one of these 2 sides or abstain from choosing for every other world nation

But those who today are the 7 of the 8 most powerful nations ( USA Britain Russia France and Germany Japan Italy) these main players from both sides of WW2 went onto become the foundation of what would become the slow western subjugation of the whole world using the Cold War, Globalization and Economics. If you look at the EU whose to leading nations are Germany and France you see that 70 years after WW2, Europe is united with Germany conquering it with economics and not tanks forcing smaller nations like greece and spain into debt because there economies can't keep pace.

This was a War of domination fought to protect and enhance the wealth of the wealthiest people on Earth. Allowing them to ensure a system that would protect as well as insulate them from any instability that would threaten their New World

Whatever you want to call the wealthy powerful groups of people, who for generations now have manipulated events. This is back up by a fact I found in a college history book.

Fact, the world’s top 100 companies before WW2 did 30% of all business, after the war the top 100 did 70% The real goals behind WW2 where to ensure that Capitalism and Western Europe culture dominated the world. Not through force but by playing both sides and offering people the choice of the lesser of two Evils. 
By giving choices to people, groups or nation and forcing them to decide, between either choosing the lesser of two evils (which was the Allies who mostly represented democracy and capitalism, while the Axis powers being largely fascists who began the war but also because of the Nazi Holocaust where the more evil )
or the  2 side option in which both are polarizing to the others opposing position thus making a problem unending and frustrating.

Through using the established divisions and subdivisions so prevalent throughout history in all human cultures like race, religion, class in addition to any other idea or belief they can influence or corrupt (i.e. , nationalism to divide up and maintain power over the world, without being known or held accountable, similar to corporate structure where CEOs can be vilified and replaced so to can a nation states leaders or government take the fall to appease discontent. To achieve this is amazing because if you understanding that those with wealth are the most invested in society and its continuation because wealth seeks power in order to protect itself, you know anyone would choose to protect what they have.

a reply to: IblisLucifer

I don't have time now to go through your post point by point, but the French Navy was not one of the most powerful in the World at the time. It was dwarfed by the Royal Navy and even the USN. The fear was the Kriegsmarine taking possession of those ships and adding to their own, which would have posed a massive threat to convoys, not the Fleet.

It would not have given Germany any "massive" advantage at sea at all. Even the German and French Navies combined would have been annihilated by the RN in a Fleet engagement, which is why the Germans avoided it and concentrated on cruiser raiding of convoys and avoiding engagement with the RN wherever possible.

EDIT: Quickly, your bits about D-Day and Dunkirk are also bunk - I'll come back later to say why..... No time now.

a reply to: IblisLucifer

Sorry, but your post has massive errors in it. Hitler did not hold the panzers back at Dunkirk, he agreed with the conclusions of Von Rundstedt that the panzers were unsuitable to be used in an area with so many canals and that besides they needed to be held back for Case Red, the next offensive against France. By the way, Germany did not virtually walk into France, it used a highly innovative plan and was helped by the fact the French CinC Gamelin was an idiot.
I fail to see your point about the two front war, because the US wasn't allied to the UK at the time of the Battle of Britain.
D-Day did not see Hitler hold the panzers back. 21st Pz attacked on the day itself, but because it had to go all the way around Caen it took too long. The rest of the Pz Divs had been placed inland by Rommel and Rundstedt's bad compromise agreement.
As for the route that the US took it would have been total slaughter to land the forces from Torch in Normandy. Kasserine Pass taught some valuable lessons.

a reply to: queenofsheba

If you can find one left alive? I knew a man in the community who was well known for having been a veteran of the battle of the bulge. One of just a few men that survived from his company if I remember correctly. He passed a few years ago

I just want to say while I am on here that we MUST respect EVERY country and the people that live and die for their country/families. To have been in ANY action during WW 2 would be a terrifying experience to say the least, but to have been in the conditions generated at the Russian Front and the Battle of Bulge and MANY other scenario's throughout world war 2 ( and every war for that matter). Would have been mind numbing torture. I RESPECT EVERY man or woman of whatever nationality ( even our enemies )that were subjected to such experiences whether willingly or not. We ( those of us fortunate enough not to have seen combat in this life) should consider ourselves snot nosed punk ass little brats for even opening our f#@king whine ass mouths about ANY combat soldier not pulling their weight ( from ANY war ) . If our fu@king whine asses had to go through the #!! that those Russian men and women ( and ALL the others )had to go through our asses would be curled up in the f@cking corner trembling like f@#king babies

I would also like to say that the men and women fighting in the wars today are subjected to equal or maybe even In some cases greater combat stress. I mean when you factor in suicide bombers and all the other terrorist type tactics it creates MAXIMUM stress. I REALLY wish all the leaders would realize that there is ABSOLUTELY NO GLORY in killing anyone the way that we do in modern times. I mean to pull a trigger or push a button or punch a keyboard and destroy 1,10,100,1000 people and maybe from miles away. I mean REALLY what kind of man could feel honorable in any way whatsoever by killing another man that way ??? I know our soldiers have NO say in how a war should be fought and they have to fight with what they are given. But it is the men and women that have the power to end it that I am speaking to. If we hate a man bad enough to kill him and feel justified in it, then we should kill him with our bare hands and get the full challenge and enjoyment from it. And have enough respect for your enemy to at least give him a fighting chance. It's just too dishonorable and degrading to mankind to do such things.

But our greatest need right now is to have a point of possitivity for our nation and the world to focus on. Something that would instill hope and peace and would hold our attention.

So the OP counts the amount of casualties as how hard a side fought. Question is does he count the amount of casualties from Russians killing each other?

Imagine being a soldier being put on the front line your only ammo consists of 5 bullets if you run out and retreat your own command has you mowed down.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Here are just 18 anomalies from World War Two.

1. Why didn’t Hitler commandeer the French fleet?
France signed an armistice with the Germans on 22 June 1940. The armistices stipulated that the French fleet would be largely disarmed and confined to its harbors, under French control. This was an astonishing concession from the victorious Germans. Had Hitler commandeered the French fleet, he would have had overwhelming naval superiority in European waters. What is even more extraordinary, he made little attempt to prevent the British from scuttling the French fleet in three operations – Mers-el-Kebir (July 1940), the Battle of Dakar (September 1940), and the Battle of Toulon (November 1942).The Global Elite wanted major confrontations on land only. The outcome would be much easier to control and would ensure massive loss of life, unlike engagements at sea. The war would have swung too much in Hitler’s favor had he secured the French fleet.
2. Why didn’t Hitler close the Straits of Gibraltar?
This is related to Question No.1, but deserves to be addressed in its own right. One would expect the Germans to be anxious to reduce Allied activity in the Mediterranean. This could be achieved very simply by sealing the Straits of Gibraltar. So why did Hitler make no reasonable attempt to do so? Again, the Global Elite wanted to prolong the war as much as possible but to end with a German defeat. If Germany sealed the Straits, she would have been too secure on her western front. Historians have also argued that she should have closed the Straitsin order to strengthen her control of the eastern Mediterranean and thereby facilitateher access to oil in the Caucasus. However, in reality, she didn’t need the oil – see thenext question.

3. Where did the Nazis get all of their oil and fuel?
Germany fought a major war on two fronts for several years, while squeezing maximum output from her economy. During this period she massively boosted the production of armaments. And yet she had no indigenous oil reserves. So where did she secure her oil? The conventional answer is that she converted her coal and lignite deposits into oil. If you pause for a moment to reflect on this alleged solution, you will see how ridiculous it is. Oil produced by this process is of poor quality, with allow octane content. The conversion process itself is very energy consuming, and the quantities produced would not be nearly enough to meet the enormous demands of a two-front war and an economy firing on all cylinders. The Global Elite ensured Germany received a steady supply of oil for the duration of the war. This was shipped to Spain from the US by Standard Oil and then piped into German-controlled France. Even though Spain remained neutral throughout the war she was, with Franco at the helm, a silent ally of Germany.

4. Why did Hitler order a pause at Dunkirk, letting the British escape?
The German army had the massive British expeditionary force at their mercy at Dunkirk in May 1940 but, on Hitler’s direct orders, held back for three days, there by enabling 338,000 British and French troops to escape. The German generals, awaiting approval to launch a full-scale assault, were horrified. As military blunders go, this was one simply inexplicable by conventional standards. The truth, however, is very straight forward. The collapse of Britain was not part of the plan. The Global Elite were aiming, rather, to create upheaval in Eastern Europe, and to demoralize France and destabilize Germany so that the entire region could be remolded into a ‘united states’ of Europe – the European Union. Britain could not be invaded since she was needed to spearhead a counter-thrust from the west after Germany became entangled in Russia.

5. Why did Hitler prosecute the Battle of Britain in such a half-hearted manner?
The Battle of Britain, in the summer of 1940, was another deliberately half-hearted attempt by the Germans to invade Britain. [See #4 above] Where bombings where largely against civilian populations.

6. Where did the Nazis get the money to finance their massive rearmament program?
The Nazis had to build up the German economy in order to reinforce the popular perception that they offered strong, effective leadership. This meant providing the population with both standard necessities and a range of luxury items. On top of this, they had to undertake a massive program of rearmament – building planes, ships, tanks, artillery, and an extensive military infrastructure. This had to be achieved in a very short time frame. For any modern economy this would have been a major achievement, but for one on the brink of bankruptcy, it was a miracle – unless of course they received a substantial influx of foreign capital. Just as foreign bankers funded the Russian Revolution and kept the Bolsheviks solvent for many years, they also funded the rise of Hitler. Furthermore, they provided significant technological assistance to ensure that the German program of rearmament got up to speed as quickly as possible.

7. Why did Roosevelt impose an oil embargo on Japan in July 1941?
One of the best ways to provoke a country into war is to cut off its energy supply. This is what Roosevelt did in July 1941 when he imposed an oil embargo on Japan. The Japanese depended on the US for 80% of its oil imports (At that time the US was a major oil exporter). The Americans increased the pressure by imposing a steel embargo at the same time. These twin embargoes caused a crisis in Japan and virtually forced them onto a war footing with the US. Roosevelt and the Global Elite wanted a major war with Japan. Victory (which was assured) would give the US an unassailable foothold in Asia. It would also draw the Japanese out of China and hand control of that vast country to their socialist puppet, Mao Tsi Tsung. Both countries were deliberately devastated over this period – by World War II itself, the Sino-Japanese conflict and the Chinese Civil War – thereby allowing the Global Elite to shape them exactly as they wished over the ensuing decades. This, in effect, was an early phase in the creation of a New World Order (An even earlier phase had been achieved with their take-over of Russia in 1917). Apart from a very small interruption, Japan has been ruled by a single party ever since, just like Singapore. Following the devastation of Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the installation of strong dictatorships in countries like Indonesia and Taiwan, virtually the whole of Asia now marches in step with the dictates of the Global Elite. India was already under their control – the hand-over of 1947 was purely for show. Notice the way they work – smash and reform. They devastated Russia in order to shape it according to their will. Then they devastated Japan and China, Germany and Eastern Europe. Next came Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia. Their philosophy is very simple – crush, devastate and rebuild. The next major country on their list is the United States.

8. Why did the Americans leave Pearl Harbor so poorly defended?
Once the logic of #9 above is understood, the reason for Pearl Harbor is perfectly plain. It was deliberately engineered to create outrage among the American public and win their support for America’s entry into the war. Up to then, the American public was totally opposed to any involvement in the war. Roosevelt betrayed them, just as Woodrow Wilson betrayed them in World War I.

a reply to: stumason

9. Why were the main US vessels removed from Pearl Harbor just prior to the Japanese attack?
The Americans wanted a major calamity at Pearl Harbor, but they did not want to lose their best ships. So they simply removed them to the open ocean before the ‘surprise’ attack.

10. Why was a professional Movietone cameraman available and ready early on a Sunday morning to record the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?
Incredibly, the Americans had color movie footage of the Japanese attack. Even though the ‘surprise’ attack took place early on a Sunday morning, a professional Movietone cameraman, Al Brick, was in place to record this historical event. As intended, the footage would later prove invaluable as a propaganda tool in American cinemas (via the Movietone newsreel,
Pearl Harbor - Now It Can Be Shown,
January1943, and the John Ford documentary re-enactment,
December 7
, which included some actual footage of the attack).

11. Why did Churchill and Truman agree to the enslavement of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union?
Following decisions made at three major international conferences – Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam – Eastern Europe was handed over to the Soviets. Several countries and millions of people were enslaved. These included Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Bulgaria. Two other countries – Yugoslavia and Albania – were governed by local socialist despots, under the umbrella of Moscow (Albania later switched to Beijing). There was no strategic or military reason why this vast region should be enslaved by communism, except that Stalin ‘demanded’ it. Given the military might of Western Europe and the US, far smaller concessions were possible (if, indeed, any concessions were even required). This was a complete sell-out by the Western powers. The deliberate impoverishment and indoctrination of half of Europe was one of the intended outcomes of the Second World War. So too was the breakup of Germany, with the most Christian half – Protestant Prussia – being subjected to intense atheistic indoctrination and religious persecution while under Soviet control. Another major aim was the annihilation of half of the world population of Jews and the creation of anew state (Israel) to house the other half who could then be annihilated completely in the next war (World War III). The Second World War also achieved a major aim of the Vatican Illuminati. In addition to the destruction of the heart of Protestant Europe and the mass murder of the European Jewish population, the War provided a cover for the whole sale destruction of the leadership of the Orthodox Church. For example, the murder of over a million Orthodox Serbs by Croat Catholics, with direct institutional support from the Catholic hierarchy (notably Franciscans and Jesuits), was especially heinous. The death camp in which most of this took place – Jasenovac – had a murder rate second only to Auschwitz. (Most people have never heard of Jasenovac because the Illuminati-controlled media made sure it was treated as little more than a footnote in the annals of history.)

12. Why did Churchill order the return of 45,000-50,000 Cossacks to the Soviet Union after the War, knowing Stalin would kill them all?
During the War, a large number of Soviet POWs, who were always opposed to the Stalinist regime, offered to fight alongside the Nazis. Most of these were ethnic Cossacks or similar groups persecuted under communism. The western powers forcibly repatriated these Cossacks to the Soviet Union, knowing full well that Stalin would kill every last one of them, either by execution or by working them to death in labor camps – which he did. A few escaped to tell the tale of these awful atrocities. Modern historians estimate that between 45,000 and 50,000 Cossacks were murdered on foot of this western betrayal. If the western powers were the ‘good guys’, then this would never have happened. But when one understands that the entire course of the War was dictated by a Global Elite, then this horrendous outcome is actually quite consistent with their bloody agenda. Indeed, it would be surprising if they passed up the opportunity to quietly butcher 50,000 people, most of whom were Orthodox Christians.

13. Why did Churchill order the repeated firebombing of several German cities?
By now, the reason for this should be fairly obvious. This vicious and sadistic campaign, which served no useful military purpose, traumatized the local population, leaving them so shocked that they would be easy to manipulate and control after the war. They also constituted a series of massive human sacrifices to Satan, notably the burning to death of thousands of children. The same bombers could have been ordered to bomb the factories of Krupp and IGFarben, or the German rail network, or the German supply lines to the eastern front, or German military bases, or German airports, or the German road network, or German shipping and ports. But no. The incineration of thousands of women and children took precedence. The Illuminati ‘Shock Doctrine’ was well and truly at work in this ghastly enterprise.

14. Where did the Nazis get their Ford and GM trucks and the large number of Hollerith machines to help them manage the roundup of Jews and dissidents?
Many historians marvel at the efficiency with which the Nazis tracked and documented the Jewish population. Yet none of them can explain where the Nazis obtained, under wartime conditions and a strict trade embargo, the large number of Hollerith machines (produced by IBM) which were needed to underpin their brutal efficiency. The truth is that several major American companies continued to supply essential equipment to the Nazis after the declaration of war with Britain in 1939.Through its factories in France, Ford Motor Company produced a steady supply of trucks to the Nazis for use in its campaign on the Eastern front. General Motors did the same through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Opel. Where necessary, machine tools and other essential parts were imported from the US.A report of the US Senate Committee oo the Judiciary, 1974, stated: On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as “the backbone of the German Army transportation system.”...While the number of trucks and other vehicles supplied in this way is difficult to estimate, it is clear from this Congressional report that it was very substantial. Given that the Nazis were heavily dependent on horses to support their supply lines at the start of the War, this assistance was invaluable.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

15. Why did Stalin take no steps whatever to repel the planned German invasion of 22 June 1941?
The German military build-up along the Russian front, prior to the invasion of 22 June 1941, was so conspicuous that countless observers reported the fact to Stalin and his top generals. It was plain for several months that the Nazis were about to attack their former ally (Stalin had signed a secret pact with Hitler in 1939). Stalin had continued to purge his army of top generals and military advisers to ensure that no one could pre-empt the planned Nazi invasion.
Even after the Germans crossed the Soviet frontier, Stalin still refused to mobilize his defenses. This ensured the Nazis could advance far into Russia before meeting any real resistance. It also meant that a significant proportion of the Russian army, plus large quantities of valuable materiel, would be destroyed at the outset. These factors would guarantee a long and bloody campaign, which is exactly what the Global Elite had intended. The Soviet body count at the end of the War was astronomical – estimated at some 20 million fatalities (almost all of whom were Orthodox Christians). Some historians believe the true figure was much higher. The ill-fated invasion was also designed to destroy the German army, to literally bleed it to death. This would add greatly to the German trauma and facilitate the break-up of Germany after the war. Between them Hitler and Stalin, serving as willing tools of the Illuminati, ensured the massacre of nearly two million German Protestants on the steppes of the Ukraine and Russia.

16. Why did the Allies take the slowest possible route into Europe, via North Africa and southern Italy?
Again, the answer should be clear from the foregoing analysis. The Global Elite wanted to leave plenty of time for Hitler and Stalin to create mayhem in Eastern Europe.

17. How did so many top Nazis escape to South America and elsewhere after the War?
Nuremberg was designed to give a distorted view of the war. The world was led to believe that the ‘evil’ Nazis wanted world domination, that the ‘good’ west opposed them, that their leaders were little better than common criminals, and that those who survived were solemnly executed. The reality was very different. Few senior Nazis were either imprisoned or executed. Most vanished without trace. Under Operation Paperclip, several thousand were given entry into the US, either clandestinely or via more public channels. Others were allowed to ‘escape’ to South America (notably Paraguay, Argentina and Chile, all controlled by the Jesuits). The latter was facilitated by Pope Pius XII and the Vatican-run Rat Line.
Another major deception of Nuremberg was the complete suppression of all evidence, including extensive documentation, that the Nazi leadership was deeply involved in the occult, and that National Socialism itself was a pagan religious system. Few people today realize that all members of the SS, Himmler’s hand-picked military elite, were actually initiates in a black magic cult which had its headquarters in Wewelsburg Castle, North Rhine-Westphalia, where Satanic rites were regularly conducted. Their extermination camps in Poland and elsewhere were actually designed as centers of human sacrifice to Satan (Their crematoria were intended primarily for living, not dead victims). The SS itself was modeled on the Jesuits, with a similar vow of strict, unquestioning obedience to a superior and an unswerving belief that the end justifies the means. Both were religious-military orders which prohibited membership to anyone with a trace of Jewish blood going back five generations.

18. Why did France fall with barely a murmur in just six weeks in 1940?
France was not the target. The war was created to demolish Eastern Europe, not Western Europe. The French simply sat back and let the Nazis roll in – it took a mere 6 weeks! The leadership in France knew it would simply be a matter of sitting back and waiting a few years until their country was ‘liberated’. Any major engagements on the western front (and there were a few) were primarily to complete the illusion that the Germans were serious about invading Britain. In reality, they were not even serious about exploiting France, where half the country was left under Vichy control. Most high-ranking Germans in France were on vacation from the eastern front or came from privileged families and were thus excused from the horrors of war. Other western European countries occupied by the Germans – Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Norway – suffered little hardship during the war in comparison with the savagery inflicted on the east.

(This statement is not meant to detract from the genuine suffering experienced by many in that occupied region (such as that of the Dutch in the food shortages of the winter of 1944), but merely to point out that the western campaign was utterly different, in both nature and degree, from the one conducted on the eastern front.)

a reply to: stumason

Central banks could control the supply of money by trading in government bonds. For example, by buying, they releases money into the economy. Since reserve requirements are a fraction of the money supply, a small change in reserves creates a large change in the money supply. Governments could control the supply of money in several ways, including: controlling the central bank (e.g. by changing reserve requirements, or the drastic impact of changing the money-value of gold) taxation (deflationary) spending (inflationary) Up to 1931, international bankers could dominate industry, because industry depended on them for capital. Rothschild dominated many European railroads, while Morgan dominated many American railroads. Bankers could leverage their way onto boards of directors and create interlocking directorships. Quigley quotes German industrialist and politician Walter Rathenau, who was on dozens of boards, "Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves." (p61) International bankers could dominate governments during this period of financial capitalism (roughly 1850-1931) via governments' need for short-term as well as long-term loans. Quigley quotes Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1852: "government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." Quigley quotes The Financial Times, 1921: "Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills." Bankers could also influence governments by becoming advisors, taking advantage of government officials' ignorance in finance. Their advice was consistently good for bankers, bad for everyone else. Bankers could use their financial leverage to have their advice implemented. Quigley claims that Morgan dominated President Cleveland's 2nd term in this manner. (p62) Bankers' influence peaked from 1919-1931. Since 1931, in most European countries, bankers were subordinate to either industrialists or government. This represents a shift from financial capitalism to monopoly capitalism. This shift happened earlier in Germany, and barely ever in France, largely explaining France's economic weakness in 1938-1940. (p62)

CONCLUSION
The Global Elite have been in the process of bringing about a New World Order, comprising a One-World Government, One-World Currency and One-World Religion. They already control the world banking system, the armaments industry, the world drug and pornography industries, virtually all multinational corporations, and the principal indigenous industries of the main world economies. With power of this magnitude, their influence pervades and controls all levels of government in the western world. In the course of the 20th century they secured absolute control of both Russia and China, adding to the control they already exercised over Africa, South America, India, and other parts of Asia. They are now stepping into high gear and are on the verge of imposing a similar regime of absolute control over the US.

With out question the action take throughout the 20th century have made the Globalized world existing today, both WW1 and WW2 be seen as long term plans to solidify the already powerful nations and institutions of the Western World over the entire world though consent creating the World Bank, IMF United Nations. Giving multi-national Corporations free rain over the worlds resources, This has been further enforced overtime by removing any nation who would oppose there action Because as history teaches us nations can be made and remade like Israel and the European Union or Iraq and Lybia.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: IblisLucifer

I don't have time now to go through your post point by point, but the French Navy was not one of the most powerful in the World at the time. It was dwarfed by the Royal Navy and even the USN. The fear was the Kriegsmarine taking possession of those ships and adding to their own, which would have posed a massive threat to convoys, not the Fleet.

It would not have given Germany any "massive" advantage at sea at all. Even the German and French Navies combined would have been annihilated by the RN in a Fleet engagement, which is why the Germans avoided it and concentrated on cruiser raiding of convoys and avoiding engagement with the RN wherever possible.

EDIT: Quickly, your bits about D-Day and Dunkirk are also bunk - I'll come back later to say why..... No time now.

The French Navy would have made the Africa Corps a well supplied and most likely victorious force. Britain would have lost the Suez Canal and the Middle Eastern oil fields.




On the topic of the thread, the Western Allies took out as many Axis troops in North Africa as the Soviets did at Stalingrad.

Strategic bombing did cripple the German production of war material, especially aircraft.

Russia suffered more than 2 to 1 casualties every year of the war, and Germany never applied its entire armed force against Russia.

Without the Western Allies, Nazi Germany would have beaten the USSR sooner or later.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The French Navy would have made the Africa Corps a well supplied and most likely victorious force. Britain would have lost the Suez Canal and the Middle Eastern oil fields.

In your little fantasy, perhaps. In reality, a good portion of the French fleet was already in Allied hands, either by them fleeing to the UK or by the RN taking control of them at the point of French surrender, becoming the "Free French Navy". More ships were sunk @ Mers-el-Kébir in North Africa when they refused to surrender and the few remaining ships left in France (one old Battleship and a collection of cruisers and destroyers) were scuttled at Toulon.

At the start of the war, the French Navy had 8 Battleships (5 of an obsolete design), 1 carrier, 18 cruisers and around 70 destroyers. By comparison, the Royal Navy Mediterranean fleet alone was not much smaller - 3 Modern battleships, 6 modern cruisers, a modern carrier and assorted destroyers and had already shown it's mettle against the Italian Navy, where despite being outnumbered by the Italians, they inflicted a crushing defeat. And that was just one small part of the Royal Navy - had any part of the Home Fleet or West African Squadrons got involved, then there would have been no contest for the Med.

So, in short, no, the French Navy would not have helped the Germans much as it simply would have been sank, as much of it indeed was if it wasn't captured already.

a reply to: IblisLucifer

I'm not sure where you got your facts, but I strongly suggest that you return the book and ask for your money back, because most if not all of what you wrote was stone dead wrong. The French fleet wasn't commandeered because Hitler genuinely thought that he didn't need it, as the UK would see sense and give in. Guess what, it didn't and instead it sunk the French ships in Mers-el-Kebir and Oran. Please tell me how on earth Hitler could have stopped that? As to why Hitler didn't close the Straits of Gib, again, how? Spain's list of territorial demands for entering the war was basically most of French North Africa, which would have resulted in French fury. Where did the Germans get their fuel? Have you never heard of the Romanian oil fields at Ploesti, now defunct? Plus their ersatz oil? Battle of Britain? The Invasion was never a realistic prospect because the German Navy was so much scrap metal in Norwegian fjords. Dunkirk? Ever tried to run panzers through a canal? Besides, they had to be pulled back to refit before Case Rot. Pearl Harbour? There were battleships in Pearl Harbour, those WERE the main ships in the Pacific Fleet. Carriers were at that time seen as being the scouts for the fleet. As your 'facts' about the French campaign are not just wrong they are also offensive. Ever heard of the last stand of the French 1st Army around Lille? Go look it up and learn something.

originally posted by: IblisLucifer


Here are just 18 anomalies from World War Two.

Are you going to continue to post others' work as yours or is plagiarism OK in your world?

a reply to: IblisLucifer

One last thing - the casualty reports from the Battle of France. According to you the French just sat back and did nothing. Well, the facts tell a different story. The Allies lost around 360,000 men, in dead, wounded and missing over that six week period, as well as losing 1,900,000 in POWs. They inflicted 157,621 German casualties, along with another 6,029 Italian casualties. Hundreds of tanks were lost, along with thousands of planes.

Another amuseing narative that keeps popping up from the US is operation torch being a heroic american campaign to save a defeated british.


What history book do they get that from?


Everything seems to point toward the fact the British had to hold the American hands throughout the whole campaign as they were so badley equiped and inexperianced! With Kasserine pass being a embaressing failure due to it.

what America did, according to Troll Science

- Fund scientific growth
- Allow Europe to decimate itself
- Come in strong at the end to seize the intellectual property of an entire nation
- ???
- $$$ Profit

It was the greatest heist in world history.

We had a lot of folks die in Europe, not for the US. But for Europe. Something to remember. They died, at least in their mind, to save Europe (and the world, and the Jews). And that may be what happened. But the main reason the US came in was to gain access to Nazi science. The Nazi's had no prohibition on what they would allow to be done in the name of research. And they were well funded.

It could be said that the government felt it was owed that information, due to the investment of US dollars to fund the research. I think it is more that our government ignored the US corporate investments as long as they could, and calculated to come in and clean up a weakened Nazi regime at the end.

All of them were bastards. And in the middle you had our soldiers, trying to do the right thing. And to be honest, they did a pretty damn good job of it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The US saw a oppotunity to seize the spot of world super power off the UK and took it.

They knew full well haveing worlds only untouched heavy industry meant they could call the negotiating shots once the war was finnished.

Im pretty sure your politicians did not give a flying toss about Europe, jews, the chinese or even sunken American shipping, they saw power and money and took it. Hence why they left half of Europe ( the poorest half too) to Stalin.

And as you said many brave men died for it.


Im pretty sure japan forced the US hand early and that really the whitehouse world have loved to wait a year of two more for Russia to be worn down more.

Still they got the UK and france out of the way.

a reply to: crazyewok

Wouldn't say any ligitimate US governing body is CAPAPBLE of that kind of vision,AT ALL.
Rothchild sattelite maybe but TRUMAN,nope ,not buying THAT BS.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: crazyewok

Wouldn't say any ligitimate US governing body is CAPAPBLE of that kind of vision,AT ALL.
Rothchild sattelite maybe but TRUMAN,nope ,not buying THAT BS.

Maybe I am giving your goverment too much credit eh ?

Stillthe Roservelt goverment seemed pretty with it and with 3 terms under its belt was going strong.