RE: When the U.S. Invaded Russia - the Polar Bear Expedition
Thanks so much for doing this topic next. As I mentioned on the last one, it is hard for me to decipher what is what as the money trail does not back the history thrown at us. I was unaware of the invasion (which I also mentioned) by the U.S. and I have to wonder at the reasons as you do. Not knowing what was going on in Russia save what I have read from outside of it, my first question would be how much control Rothschild had at the time of the invasion within Russia.
I know the bankers funded the Bolshevik movement that toppled the government there. The money being funneled via banker Jacob Schiff in New York. I also know many of the Bolsheviks came out of the U.S. So if they were still controlling the show as seems likely given the short window of time, it leaves me more puzzled.
The U.S. was definitely their bitch by the time of this invasion, the not so Federal Reserve having been put back in place in 1913. But, the Rothschild dynasty does have a history of funding both sides. Maybe it was just the usual reasons, loan money to both sides to buy weapons from factories they also own a stake in.
shrugs
Of course this all is going against the narrative of the ever expanding Soviet empire. Hitler talked of it as a looming threat in Mein Kampf, and I have no doubt that many governments feared being toppled. I had read that Patton had wanted the U.S. to continue pushing into Russia to topple the communist government, but I am guessing that did not fit into the plans of the bankers.
Well, we are definitely going down the rabbit hole here. So many implications.
Let's start with Patton (and many others) that publicly supported the destruction of the Soviet Union or at the very least, pushing them out of Eastern Europe. While widely popular at home, Patton was not in good graces with the military high command by the war's end. Eisenhower, Bradley and others saw him as a thorn in their side and kind of a bull in the china shop politically. It's hard to believe that anyone in power would have seen him as someone to back.
In the very best case scenario, you have the allies in a heavily destroyed Europe trying to push back an army that is 3 to 4 times its size (at minimum) with better tanks and artillery. Likely the allied air power wouldn't have been enough and they would have looked at the atomic option again, unfortunately it would have to be used at great risk of being shot down. Then you also have to win public support to keep the boys fighting against someone we were told was our ally (remember the Uncle Joe campaign with Stalin).
I think the Allies got the best deal possible to be able to keep control of 1/2 of Germany and are lucky that the Soviets didn't press the issue. France and most of the Europeans would have been virtually useless in such a conflict because there were SOOOO many communists already gaining political power especially in Southern Europe.
In the end, we put on some mock trials of German leaders that we didn't like, forgave all the nations that joined and/or capitulated (Denmark, Austria, Finland, Czechoslovakia, France and even Sweden - although they claimed to be "neutral"), and used the wars end as cover for expansion of banking influence throughout the world ala Breton Woods.
Clearly the U.S. was brought into the War to begin with under false pretenses. For years, children were taught that it was the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a lie. Then, we started hearing more about the supposed Zimmerman Telegram that just happened to get intercepted by the British. Children write more believable stories than these, but the American public still buys them today. The reason to enter the war was to keep England and France from losing. End of story. The people that benefitted from this in 1917 is not so clear.
However, this was not the beginning of the U.S. being manipulated by non-elected officials. The first real evidence of this was the "sinking" the Maine and our declaring war on Spain (an unpopular regime in Europe with vast holdings in the world including Cuba and the Philippines). We had ZERO justification for the war, but it changed our worldview politically and eased the public consciousness into thinking we SHOULD be involved in European affairs, which is something that we had avoided for 150 years.
I don't think the propping up of the Bolsheviks was something that American Jews, bankers, or family elites wanted. I do believe that the Germans helped get the Bolsheviks some footing. Nobody seems to have believed that the Bolsheviks could/would remain in power. They were just a tool to get Russia out of the war. This is why we see so much money and effort thrown into supporting the Whites during the civil war. I think Schiff is a historical scapegoat much like Soros is today - yes, they are both scumbags, but their exposure is/was way too easy to be plausible in my opinion. The Rothschilds and other elite families are always far removed from the events so it makes it nearly impossible to link them. Anyone who could link these types of cartels is either paid off handsomely (everyone has a price) or has an accident.
Last thing before I go. Both the true believers of the American ideal and the Communist Ideal have relied far too heavily on the passions of the common man to rise up and support their ideals. Every leader or group of leaders has been heavily disappointed in the lack of groundswell support. It crushed Lenin emotionally in my opinion and it has done so with many American leaders like Lincoln, Wilson, Carter, and Reagan as well. Stalin realized this and took a much harsher approach to maintain control or he would have been ousted after the first famine. Just like the U.S. efforts to "win the hearts and minds" has never worked, the same happened to the Communist dream that others would join their cause and unite. Idealists often forget that people are sheep, which may be the best argument for those Anarchists out there.
Got to go. Talk to you soon.
I liked the article as it is, but I like @practicalthought's comment and your reply even better. I'm happily soaking all this in and prying the rusty History gears loose :)
I've become a firm adherent of "wars are ALWAYS about money in the end"--and the first time I ever came across that concept is where Rhett Butler schools Scarlett about it in Gone With the Wind, of all things. (Goes to show that people need to READ other books than what is put in the curriculum in school.) @libertylol has echoed that with "war is more profitable than peacetime." So I like your point about the sinking of the Maine getting public opinion to shift toward getting involved in European affairs after avoiding it for so long. The whole banking families aspect is a rabbit hole I've eyed but not yet explored :)
Avoid that rabbit hole! You will never return. Just saying.
The funny thing about the "War is more profitable than peacetime" argument is that it isn't true. The general welfare of society actually decreases with war. A French economist proved this years and years ago, but everyone keeps (like mindless masses) pushing the same slogan - war is good for the economy. Here is the debunking of this myth - short version I promise.
You own a shop that sells clocks.
I own a shop that sells windows.
I pay @practicalthought to throw rocks at your windows to break them.
You pay me to put new windows in your store.
The economy is good. @practicalthought is making money and I'm making money and your spending money.
Do you see the problem here? You didn't want to spend YOUR money buying my windows is the first problem. The 2nd problem is that your money could have been spent on something better in society like a new house that would need construction workers where @practicalthought could have worked instead of breaking windows. AND I could have sold you the windows for the new house. In this scenario ALL of us are happy and wealthier too.
The only people who make money off war are those that make armaments. Those armaments use our tax dollars that could have been spent on other things or better yet, not taken from us at all.
True, that makes perfect sense, but assuming @practicalthought doesn't get caught and lose his voting rights (or that he lives in California even if he did get caught), you and @practicalthought are 2 votes against 1 and can elect politicians who will support your version of a good economy, and will target certain people (like millionaires and billionaires) to keep it going (until it inevitably crashes, and then you'd all find a scapegoat to blame).
Also, while he's busy off breaking windows, his wife can go to work, taking the job he could have had putting windows in houses. Hooray! More people are being hired! @practicalthought and his wife have more money to spend! The economy is growing! (so it appears)
There's all the people who support a military on the move as well, (not to mention all the people employed in the military itself, which of course has to be increased in wartime. More jobs!) Wasn't there some big scandal around whatever contractor had the food contract for troops in Iraq? Food, mail, uniforms, and yes armaments... they all require people behind the scenes to make and move it all. Hooray! Jobs all around!!
All the hoorays were a lot of sarcasm by the way.
You're dead right that it IS an illusion, and temporary, and a waste of our tax dollars. A sneaky government redistribution system, really. But I think in a way it is more profitable--temporarily for the people enjoying bigger or dual paychecks, and longer term only for the politicians who get to appear as if they've delivered on promises of "more jobs" and a "better economy." (I've got some tinfoil theories around the constant wars, too, but won't get into that) ;)))
So much goodness in one comment. :)
I had fun writing it. I thought it was funny you dragged @practicalthought into being your window breaker, too😉
I was hoping to get him into the conversation. :)