Document:Conjuring Hitler - Chapter 6

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The concluding chapter of Guido Preparata's seminal work of World War II historical revision - Conjuring Hitler

Disclaimer (#3)Document.png book extract  by Guido Preparata dated 2005
Subjects: World War II, Adolf Hitler, The Great Game
Example of: Historical revision
Source: Guido Preparata's web site (Link)

Note: All headings and sub-headings in the text have been added by Wikispooks as aids to on-line readability and citation. Otherwise the text and emphases follow the original as closely as the wiki-format allows.

Wikispooks Comment

The concluding chapter of Guido Preparata's seminal work of historical revision on the 20th century inter-war years:

The sheer amount of lies perpetrated by the Anglo-American establishment against its public in order to preserve the myth that World War II was a ‘good’ war, won for a just cause, is incalculable. The proof lies in the myriad of classified files documenting the vital phases of this intrigue, which to this day remain unavailable to the public eye - for reasons of ‘national security,’ they say.

The present geopolitical policy of the United States is a direct and wholly consistent continuation of the old imperial strategy of Britain. It is that unmistakable cocktail of aggression, subversion and mass murder waged at the vital nodes of the landmass, from Palestine and Central Asia to the gates of China, in Taiwan and Korea, that seeks to undermine any movement towards a confederation of nations capable of turning the continental base into a Eurasian league of socio-political cooperation and defense (against Anglo-American assault).

★ Start a Discussion about this document

’E sono tanto semplici gli uomini...’

Yet it is feign, greatly, and to dissemble, for men are so simple, and so prone to obey the exigencies of the moment, that he who deceives will always find someone ready to be deceived. Machiavelli, The Prince (XVIII, 3)

Leadership of the British Imperial Project transferred to America

The elimination of the German menace of 1900 cost Britain dearly: her empire, her military and economic strength. Yet the English-speaking idea, the imperial creed, and the cultivation of the oligarchic bent were all traits that she bequeathed upon her natural, insular heir: they live on in the American establishment. Britain's was a conscious decision; she knew the risks involved.

Continuity of current geo-political policy after two world wars

The present geopolitical policy of the United States is a direct and wholly consistent continuation of the old imperial strategy of Britain. It is that unmistakable cocktail of aggression, subversion and mass murder waged at the vital nodes of the landmass, from Palestine and Central Asia to the gates of China, in Taiwan and Korea, that seeks to undermine any movement towards a confederation of nations capable of turning the continental base into a Eurasian league of socio-political cooperation and defense (against Anglo-American assault).

It took two world conflicts to destroy the German threat. World War I was a conventional siege in which the British empire sacrificed roughly 1 million men - the first bloodletting that shook the establishment to its foundations. In the second round, which was necessary given that World War I had in fact left the Fatherland unscathed, no such effusion would have been tolerable - Britain would sacrifice 400,000 soldiers in World War II. So deception was employed on a major scale to trip the Nazis into the inescapable war on two fronts.

That such was the intention at Versailles may not be doubted — the astonishing prophecy of Veblen is there to attest it. Though this is not to say that schemers of the Round Table expected the engineers of the Final Solution. As has been argued throughout this book, they rather conjured a reactionary movement that could then be attracted into the Russian swamp. Which was sinister enough.

The enigma of Bolshevik Russia

The position of Bolshevik Russia is assuredly one of the greatest enigmas of the affair. Even its origin is most mysterious. But one thing is certain: never, either during the interwar period or even in the course of the Cold War, did the Soviet Union play directly against the West — that is why Egyptian President Anwar Sadat thought it ‘an imaginary foe.’ Rather, it appeared to mimic the slow motions of an enormous circus bear, whose tamer was elsewhere - a buttress in the Orient that slumped studiously, shifting its weight around to keep the Eurasian union in check. Otherwise the Trebitsch affair, the German-Bolshevik ’secret’ entente, the terrorist agitprop of the KPD, the sabotage of the common front with the German Socialists for the ultimate benefit of Hitler, the extraordinary massacre of the leadership of the Red Army, and Stalin’s appeasement, are inexplicable: Stalin played always in line with the geopolitical designs of Britain. Besides, the Bolsheviks owed virtually everything to the West: the deposition of the Czar, the timing of Rasputin's death, the political void after Kerensky, the slush funds — German and otherwise — the double-crossing of the Whites, capital equipment, giant investments, military know-how...

Hitler a pro-British rabble-rouser

When the hyperinflation climaxed in 1923 the natural candidate for leading the Radikalisicrung at home came in full view. Of all the rabble- rousers of Germany, Hitler was not only the most charismatic but also the most fervently pro-British: for Britain he was almost too good to be true. That Professor Karl Haushofer was the inspiration for Hitler’s British fancy is by no means unwarranted. And Haushofer was himself a mysterious character, of whom we should know infinitely more.[1] What is certain, however, is the idiocy behind the claim that Hitler assembled the Nazi philosophy and geopolitical plans in the raving solitude of his disarrayed bedroom.

The Wall St crash triggered by the BOE

The Wall Street Crash triggered by Norman was the signal that Germany had in fact completed her first informal Five-Year- Plan; thereafter it became a foregone matter that Hitler would become Chancellor. Yet Germany was more resilient than what the British stewards could have imagined: throughout Weimar she would never give the Nazis more than 1 out of 3 votes, and that only under the most catastrophic of social circumstances. But by 1933, with further ‘tightening from outside,’ the circle was closed. The weave of Britain's interaction with the Nazis consisted in fact of one of history's most astounding exploits of choral dissimulation, which unraveled for more than a decade (1931-43). The problem, however, was that this was no swanky gimmick but a deliberate tampering with forces that were ‘other’ - and Veblen, again, intuited this eerie drift as early as 1915. Britain courted fire and in the end wished for a holocaust — which came. That of the war, and that of the Jews.

The ‘Bolshies' took the shock of the German offensive and paid with 20 million dead, half of them civilians. This was probably a price that Tukhachevsky was not willing to see his people pay. Nor should it ever be forgotten that 3.5 million German civilians had perished by the end of this game.

Versaille intrigues and the financing of Nazi-ism

If it is true that the British stewards intrigued at Versailles to conjure a reactionary movement that would feed on radicalism and be prone to seek war in the East; if it is true that the Anglo-Americans traded heavily with and offered financial support to the Nazis, continuously and deliberately from the Dawes loans of 1924 to the conspicuous credits via the Bank of International Settlements in Basle of late 1944; [2] if it is true that the encounter in Cologne ofJanuary 4, 1933, in von Schroder’s manse was the decisive factor behind Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor; if it is true that such financial support was accorded to make Nazism an enemy target so strong as to elicit in war a devastating response - retribution that would make the Allied victory clear-cut and definitive; if it is true that appeasement was a travesty since 1931; if it is true that Churchill refused deceitfully to open a western front for three years, during which the expectation was that the Germans would find themselves so hopelessly mired in the Russian bog as to make the British closing onslaught from the West as painless as possible; and if it is true that Hess brought with him to Britain plans for evacuating the Jews to the island of Madagascar, for such was the last policy pursued by the German government before adopting the Final Solution - [3] a plan which clearly was given no sequitur; if all the foregoing is true, then it is just to lay direct responsibility for incubating Nazism and planning World War II, and indirect responsibility for the Holocaust of the Jews, at the door of the Anglo-American establishment.

The denial and suppression of documented fact through 60 years of Victor's history

Clearly, the last 60 years have been devoted by the restless and most faithful archivists of the empire, seconded by a legion of no less devout academics, publicists and film-makers, to deny each of the above statements in the most categorical fashion.

To begin, Veblen’s review is literally ignored: on Versailles Keynes is still the adopted ‘classic.’

‘It is of course an exaggeration,’ we read in textbooks, ‘to claim that the Dawes loans set in motion foreign lending by the United States...’; [4] rather, these loans are depicted as a yet another wave of little nest eggs from America in search of a good yield, and some ‘corporate greed’ on the side - but nothing more.

The Crash and the crisis? Those, intimated an acclaimed Nobel Prize winner, were but the product of the ‘somewhat fortuitous combination of structural factors and monetary policy errors' [5] On the other hand, we are also told that the collapse of the gold- exchange standard and the surreal devaluation of the pound were due to ‘an inescapable err0r...of the British who knew [not] the size of the problem they labored under’: [6] that is to say that the British Governor was too ‘intermittently ill’ to be able to look after his messy construction, and ‘even when well, [he was] distracted by other pressing matters...’ [7] Yet one wonders what those ‘other pressing matters’ could be...

Thus of Montagu Norman — admittedly the greatest central banker of the modern era, who spent a quarter of a century leading the most powerful financial outfit of his age —we should be satisfied with a caricature featuring him as psychopathic Scrooge of the old school, with only a shaky grasp of modern financial dynamics.

Von Schroder? Schroder counts for nothing, we hear: ‘he was merely a partner in a medium-sized provincial bank...’ [8]

The fairy-tale of British 'appeasement' of Hitler

As to that revolting show known as British ‘appeasement’ (of Hitler), they tell us it was the misguided policy of an ‘imbecile Foreign Office’[9] that sought to combine ‘morality and expediency’ in reaching an agreement with what, alas, proved to be an intractable interlocutor. [10] And the latter- day trumps of the Peace Party who deliberately prolonged the war to gain time? Their cynicism is excused on the grounds that the empire was fighting for its own survival, [11] when in fact it was sacrificing millions to extricate itself from the bloody mess it had forged since 1919.

And the Wehrmacht: was it indeed a strong, luxury item, fitted to its teeth with materials of the highest quality? Of course not, retorted the ‘American’ Schacht: ‘Foreign investigations — some conducted with extreme accuracy— on Germany’s financing of warlike expenditure have shown unanimously how thoroughly inadequate our rearmament, and thereby how insubstantial the attending financial outlay has been' [12] This is from the self-apologetic post-war production of the individual who, for his sixtieth birthday in 1937, had been hailed by the hebdomadary publication of the German army, the Militdr-Wochenblatt, as ‘the man who made the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht possible' [13] And the damage the Wehrmacht could inflict did not escape the record, irrespective of the falsehoods that Schacht hawked, lying and recanting ignominiously at Nuremberg to save his skin and the name of his protectors. He hid behind the following lies:

  1. The Nazis came to power by means of self-financing,
  2. the army was of a shoddy make,
  3. the Hitlerites violated the economy, and
  4. the Nazi economic experiment was a failure as a whole.

The professional literature on the topic has latched onto the Schachtian fabrications with fervor: of the German army it is still said that it was ‘a chaos of competing organizations,’ worsened by Hitler's paranoid style [14] Nazi work creation, instead, is described as a ‘fragmented’ and ‘decentralized’ endeavor, which owed nothing to Nazi leadership other than ‘coercion' [15] Even the obvious commentary to the steep, sudden boost that Germany experienced afterjanuary 1933 in employment, production, and welfare - namely, that such an exceptional recovery after so much misery was a willed feat propitiated by the financial elites of Germany and Anglo-America in collusion with the Hitlerites — has been drowned in a preposterous and interminable debate as to whether, in fact, the Nazi boom was more the bitter fruit of luck than of deliberate intervention and efficient economics. [16]

Dissembling the massive allied investment in the Third Reich

It naturally behooves the establishment to circulate the old superstition that there had been a fortuitous turnaround in the second semester of 1932 [17] a ‘natural economic upswing,’ whose wind, so the fantasy goes, Hitler luckily caught in his own sails. This noxious fable disposes in one blow of all the thorny issues that bristle in the biennium of 1932-33: namely, the foreign financing of the Nazis, their rigged election to the Chancellery, and the decisional forces behind the full-blown resumption of economic activity under the Third Reich.

Moreover, Nazi economics, fueled by its potent blend of free enterprise, communitarian appeal, industrial brilliance, deep ecology, redistributive policies, anti—plutocratic invective, hi—tech virtuosity, tight regulation, monetary swiftness, and efficient planning, is clearly a phenomenon that comforts no one: neither the Liberal apologists of business nor the doctrinaires of the Left, and not even the anarcho-reformers of regionalism — it is a deep embarrassment for it features too many traits that are dear to them all and is thus better left unmentioned, or at the very least, distorted.

All the more so as the Allies had sunk massive investments in the Third Reich. And this was not done for the cynical sake of profits, but in view of the future reconstruction of Germany under the American aegis — the clubs were already gazing two steps ahead. That Hitler, in time, would lose the war, was understood - and this despite the reprieve the Nazis were afforded by such economic ‘help.’ Eventually, in 1949, when Germany was torn along the East—West divide, the new Federal Republic was not asked to pay any reparations in cash: it surrendered in kind a mere 4 percent of its industrial capacity. The securities of the German absentees were temporarily sequestered by the occupying Command; the giant industrial combines of the past were broken into smaller concerns and reintegrated into the Common Market of Europe, which was, by way of the new clearings, the IMF, and Marshall Aid, solidly anchored to the outlets of the American empire. Now Washington had Germany and the Meditarranean, along with the Pope, whose absolution it bought by refurbishing the bank of the Vatican with millions of dollars earmarked for pro-American action. [18]

The Shoa

And the Shoah? The Anglo-American elites vetoed the Schacht Plan of late 1938. In May 1939, the United States — the future home of much Holocaust museology - would not even offer sanctuary to 1,000 wealthy Jews whom Hitler had allowed to ship out of Hamburg. [19] Nothing came out of the Madagascar Plan, and when the SS penetrated the Russian forests, Churchill allowed them in fact, for his own ends, three long, uninterrupted years to set out on their ‘task,’ presumably knowing the intentions of the black squads even before they began. [20]

Victor's history - a vast volume of lies

The sheer amount of lies perpetrated by the Anglo-American establishment against its public in order to preserve the myth that World War II was a ‘good’ war, won for a just cause, is incalculable. The proof lies in the myriad of classified files documenting the vital phases of this intrigue, which to this day remain unavailable to the public eye - for reasons of ‘national security,’ they say.

In sum, the Allied elites have told a story. The story that the Germans have always been disturbers of the peace; they disturbed it once and were punished for it, although a little too harshly. Out of such blundering castigation, an evil force materialized out of nowhere — a force whose evil greatly exceeded the petty severity of the Allies that caused such evil to emerge despite themselves. And, the story goes, the evil of this force grew to be such that a violent global conflict became necessary to uproot it.

More than a cock-and-bull story, this is an insult. And what is worse, every day more and more people, for the sake of psychological tranquillity, choose to believe it. Because individuals, as the loathsome Machiavelli put it in his ‘classic’ vademecum for subhuman conduct, are ‘simple’ and willing to trust the word of the constituted authorities. Constituted authorities, which we think embody our will, when in truth they are nothing but high battlements hiding oligarchy and lies, both of which must come to an end.


  1. Like Prisoner No. 7 of the Spandau fortress ~ the man said to be Rudolf Hess ~ in 1987, Haushofer, too, seemed to have been assassinated, along with his wife, by the British Secret Services on the ides of March of 1946 (for instance, this presumption has reappeared in Martin Allen’s The Hitler/Hess Deception, p. xvm).
  2. Charles Higham, Trading With the Enemy: An Exposé of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1949 (New York: Delacorte Press, 1983), pp. 8-20.
  3. Alfred Smith, Rudolf Hess and Germany's Reluctant War, 1939-1941 (Sussex: Book Guild Ltd., 2001), pp. 341-391.
  4. Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression, 1929-1939 (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), p. 39.
  5. Paul Samuelson quoted in Kenneth Mouré, The Gold Standard Illusion. France, the Bank of France, and the International Gold Standard, 1914-1939 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 4; emphasis added.
  6. Kindleberger, World in Depression, pp. 32, S2; emphasis added.
  7. Stephen Clarke, Central Bank Cooperation, 1924-1931 (New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1967), p. 142.
  8. Henry Ashby Turner Jr., German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 314-15; emphasis added.
  9. R. H. Knickerbocker, Is Tomorrow Hitler's? (New York: Reyna] St Hitchcock, 1941), p. 271.
  10. Martin Gilbert, The Roots of Appeasement (New York: New American Library, 1966), p. 187.
  11. Martin Allen, The Hitler/Hess Deception (London: HarperCollins, 2004), pp. xvm, 72.
  12. Hjalmar Schacht, 1933: Wie eine Demokratie stirbt (Dusseldorf: Econ-Verlag, 1968), p. 88.
  13. Peter Allen, The Windsor Secret. New Revelations of the Nazi Connections (New York: Stein & Day Publishers, 1984), p. 98.
  14. Klaus Fischer, Nazi Germany. A New History (New York: Continuum, 1996), p. 443.
  15. Dan P. Silverman, Hitler's Economy. Nazi Work Creation Programs, 1933-1936 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 146, 243.
  16. F. W. Henning, ‘Die zeitliche Einordnung der Uberwindung der Wirtschaftskrise in Deutschland,’ in Harald Winkel (ed.), Finanz- und Wirschaftspolititische Fragen der Zwischenkriegszeit, Band 73 (Berlin: Duncker 8t Humblot, 1973).
  17. Pierre Aycoberry, The Social History of the Third Reich, 1933-1945 (New York: The New Press, 1999), p. 158.
  18. John Cornwell, Hitler's Pope. The Secret History of Pius XII (New York: Viking, 1999), p. 328.
  19. John Weitz, Hitler's Banker: Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (Boston: Little, Brown St Company, 1997), p. 243.
  20. According to the American military attaché at the London embassy, who claimed to have spoken with Hess after the latter arrived in England, the Deputy Fuhrer supposedly confessed to a British psychiatrist sent to examine him that the Nazis were on the verge of obliterating the Jews (Louis Kilzer, Churchill's deception. The Dark Secret that Destroyed Germany (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), pp. 60-2). Moreover, author Alfred Smith relates that on May 13, 1941, only three days after Hess landed, Churchill sent a memo to his colleague, Anthony Eden...It concludes with the words ‘Like other Nazi leaders this man is potentially a war criminal and he and his confederates may well be declared outlaws at the close of the war. In this his repentance stands him in good stead.’ Smith raises the question: ‘Why did Churchill describe Hess as a potential war criminal?...The “Crimes against humanity," and in particular the Holocaust, did not take place until after the launch of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, a month after Hess's flight.’ Smith concludes: ‘The only construction that makes sense of Churchill's remarks is that he was aware of the war crimes that were going to be committed in the future’ (Smith, Rudolf Hess, p. 341).