I found this site earlier this evening, and to the least it is "thought provoking". Even is you do not believe any of it, it's worth reading through.
I would really like to hear of some of your honest thoughts... after you read through it of course.

What Really Caused WWII

Now that was quite a read Actually it was hard to follow at times. I do have a personal connection to this story I was responsible for the maintenance and operations of the I.G. Farben Complex in Frankfurt, West Germany from 1981-82. Then it was called the C.W. Abrams Complex and home for the HQ, Vth Corps. In the 1930s the Farben Building was the largest office building in Europe.

Not only was I.G. Farben the producer of the gas used in the death camps, but they ran their own slave labor camps and the leadership of the company was tried for war crimes.

I.G. Farben did own, before the war started, many of the bauxite mines in east Tennessee!!

I know that Opel and Ford made trucks and cars for the Germnas, but I never knew they were major producers of German Armor.

Thanks for that interesting read

Yes, it was an interesting read. I have read other articles about how American firms, or at least branches of American firms, did a great deal of business with Germany both before, and during, WWII. I've no doubt that there is a great deal of truth in the article. I also feel though that, like most conspiracy theories, there is probably a lot of items taken out of context, exaggerated, and other items containing great assumptions.

The one item in the article that I have absolutely the hardest time believing is the claim that American, or British for that matter, bombing spared plants owned by American interests in Germany. That, to me, is inconceivable. It would mean that someone high up in an American firm would be able to assert control over some member, or members, or government and that those government members would be able to assert control over military leaders who had influence on target selection of the bombing campaign. None of the commanders of the USAAF or RAF questioned why certain plants were not being bombed? I find that way to hard to believe.

I do have one small political aside. I believe I’ve read similar articles that the Bush clan, possibly George Bush’s father or grandfather, made his fortune from his dealings with Germany prior to WWII. I could be completely wrong about this, it’s been known to happen from time to time.

I have the same draw on this as Hafyank. I am sure everything is quite true, but it is put together in such a way as to prove CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidince. You had the Germans and Japanese military's smarting after WW1, one becuase of getting kicked in the face and beaten after losing, and the other for being what they felt was short changed despite being on the wining side. Of course Hitler led everyone dow the Garden path in his rise to Power. The big companies, politicians and the military all thought they could control him...of course, the rest is history.

sorry, to me sounds like anti-globalization propoganda.

Have to agree with Halfyank and Sergeant major.
It is all circumstantial evidence and anti-globalization conspiracy theory.
Don't tell me that the Rothchild's (who were bankrolling J.PMorgan) just allowed the genocide of European Jewry just to make some more money?
And the US also had plans to fight Britain and France in 1915 as well, how come that isn't mentioned, after all isn't that why T Roosevelt wanted a Navy "second to none"?
Don't tell me that when Isoruku Yamammoto was inthe US in the 1920s, he was gotten into the plan because the big wheels at I.G.Farben enlisted him to attack Pearl Harbor 20+
years hence?
And just where do the Illuminati and the Grey aliens fit in with all of this? :-)

I have to agree with Dave. The article seems to be nothing more than a collection of half-truths, supposition, and gigantic leaps of logic. The author appears to have a talent for sifting through various publications and finding little bits of information that back his half-baked premise and assembling them completely out of context to "prove" his point. I mean, WW2 caused by U.S. companies trying to help rebuild German industry and profit from it and the fact that Germany could make synthetic gas and chemicals? Yeah, right. Also, if any of the chemical plants weren't bombed, it wasn't because there were orders not to. It was, in all likelihood, because the bombers just plain missed them, as was often the case. For all the hype and hoopla, daylight precision bombing wasn't so accurate that they could identify a particular plant from 25,000 feet and tell 200 bombers to not hit it. The Germans weren't known for painting big signs on top of there plants for easy identification from the air. I think that the other posts have done a solid job of refuting the piece's other points.
The essay is good for a few laughs, but nothing more.

I got a big kick out of it when I read it too. The author, in my opinion seems to be delusional at best. I found him to be borderline paranoid, but with an adept ability to twist facts for those who are less well informed. It's quite unfortunate that there are and will always be some out there that buy into this sort of swill.
Still, I thought it was thought provoking and entertaining.
Thanks for your comments.

PS: Where's DJ?

I have read stuff like this before...just not to the extreme of this. Even if American compaines were doing business with Germany...it was still Germany that invaded Poland in 39, not the USA.

HalfYank-- I have also read an essay about the Bush family and its ties to a firm that made money with Germany. It probally is true, but yet again it may be exagerated by political rivals.

Sean

Sorry to post again but...I you read further on the site it says World War 3 is already planned, like its a movie releae or something...I just think this decredits the author and site further.

Sean

Sounds to me like this guy is folding up his tin foil hat while listening for the black helicopters. He has a bunch of subscripts in the text which are suppose to reference the material he is quoting but I can't find links to the material on his site anywhere. I did hear a long time ago that Ford repaired trucks and shipped limited amounts of spare parts to the Germans through South America. I don't know how true that is either...

Thanks for the link and the discussion!



Shaun

AS history shows, the nations known as the Axis Powers started by waging a war of aggression on their neighbors. But that was just the immediate cause. To understand why, one needs to search for the underlying causes.

One perspective lies in the economy of the period. The economy of Germany and Japan was in a far worse shape following WWI. In the case of Germany, Hitler, who was then, an aspiriing political hotshot, capitalized on this by playing the nationalism card. He used nationalism as his rallying cry to get people to buy his ideas. Basically it means, "we don't need this sort of thing..." again, reminding the German people of what a proud nation they once were. And somewhere along the way, the Jews became a very convenient scapegoat.

Hitler subscribed to F. Nietzsche's "Ubermansche" (The Superman), the individual who won't take any guff from anybody, who is not restrained by society. An individual who makes his own rules. He wanted to rebuild Germany's empire (hence, Third Reich) and added his concept of Aryan superiority (the Master Race) which makes everybody else inferior.

As for Japan, it's a combination of the economy and nationalism. Japan was hard-hit by the Great Depression since the US cut off its flow trade with Japan, plus widespread hunger due a fast-growing population. Japan is a country that does not have a lot of raw materials (it imports). With its back to the wall, conquest was the only solution. The militarists took over when Japan's fledgling democratic government could not give any working solutions.

The Japanese militarists, like Hitler, used nationalism to rally people to their cause. Their nationalism is centered on the Emperor who was then revered as a god.

AS you noticed, both countries were gradually gobbling up neighboring territories as soon as they rebuilt their military might. Hitler is really lving up Nietzsche's Superman dictum. The League of Nations could not stop him, no amount of sanctions could. Hitler knew this because he knew these nations no longer had the stomach for fighting after WWI. It made him a lot bolder in getting more territory. The appeasement at Munich made it much worse with people thinking they averted war and preserved peace. It just stoked Hitler's ego and made him even more bolder than ever.

The rest as we say, is history.

What Really Caused WWII?




How about a well-oiled and hard-hitting propaganada campaign? Much like what this web site is attempting to do. Brain-wash people into thinking everyone should go out and burn down the nearest corporate headquarters building. Nothing but a bunch of anarchists who think the planet would be better off without humanity in general. A waste of a human brain if you ask me.

I like the fact too that there are numbers for footnotes...yet their are NO footnotes.

Jim

Having looked at the site, the bloke appears to be an utter crackpot. I mean, he's quoting David Irving, one of the most well-known Holocaust deniers. With sources like that, I don't think he's a trustworthy source of information

Well, that was quite a read. However, it is not a trusty sort of information. Just like my professor stated, as with internet and books, books are more of a realiable source since books take a lot of time to compile, edit and publish. Plus the fact that IT must be approved by critiques. Now anyone can just type and publish what they want in the net which makes it inaccurate at some point.

Saving myself the read...WWII was an outgrowth of the territorial wars that had been flaring up and dying down in Europe almost since the Crusades. As Blaster notes, Germany and Japan were still PO'd over their treatment at the Treaty of Versailles and the punishments laid on Germany almost guaranteed a rise in nationalism. Hitler was judiciously placed by the fates or chance or whatever to be the charismatic (and unspeakably evil) leader a downtrodden country needed as it struggled with humiliating reparations and the great depression. Japan had been an empire building nation off and on for most of its history. Its invasion of mainland East Asia was a gambit to get resources. Its attack on Pearl Harbor is not surprising, given how un-neutral we were in that theatre. (The AVG for all its bravery was, for all practical purposes, a branch of the US Army AIr Corps.)

Good points all, AJ, except for the fact that the AVG did not go into combat until around 2 weeks after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Just a little nitpick!

It's been many years (last days of JFK or first of LBJ)I read "God Is My Co-pilot" so I'll defer to you on that point.

To understand Japan's motives, one must also go back to WWI. Japan joined on the side of the Allies by virtue of a treaty it signed with Britain in the early 1900's. They are hoping that they will get respect as an equal of the great powers of the time. But you're right, the've gotten somewhat of a raw deal at Versailles, considering they were one of the allies. We can surmise that it was the fault of the people there who could not seem to picture the prospect of having an Asian superpower in their midst (these western nations have Asian colonies). Big mistake. Another is that Naval Conference in Washington which gave them yet another raw deal when they were required to reduce their warships significantly compared to the token reduction of US and British warships. This riled the ultra-nationalists who never forgot.

One word mates. GREED

Not just greed but delusions of grandeur. Mussolini who boasted he can restore the old Roman Empire. Unfortunately, (if I may use a cliche) his ego wrote a check his armies could not cash.

Hitler was able to sell his idea to the people to restore Germany's old glory (going back to the days of Frederick the Great) by establishing the 3rd Reich. But then again, his personality negated any advantage he had over the allies.

A circular and simplistic read, but I prefer "Paris 1919" by Margaret MacMillan.

I can tell you what started WWII -- Hitler. Pretty much begins and ends with him when you think about it.

Maybe it's more PC nowadays to blame good old American greed. Who knows...

I try not to waste too much time on Internet 'research.' The person who wrote this is probably down in their bunker right now! Or maybe in their Unibomber style shack!

Steve

It`s a bit easy to state that Hitler started WW II , it was one big machinisation planned by a political party based on frustration (the Versailles Treaty ) and greed in combination with an unhealthy sense of racism, of course it is evident that top-industries jumped on the wagon (moneymaking was and still is their business) even IBM had a hand in the German Registration System . Without financial support from the top industrials ,the Nazi-party would never have flourished .
Let`s just state that in every war , someone gets richer .
Greets , Phil

Well, you can blame economic conditions, treaties, race hatred or whatever, but in the end it was very much Hitler's war. Specualting about 'what if' is not at all what historians do and they can only look at the facts that exist.

It was Hitler who choose war and most historians will agree on that. The other factors were the tools he used to get his war, the climate was right for him to act on his desires. That's not to say war wouldn't have been a possibility if there were no Hitler -- again we can only look at the facts that are...

I think you could explain your above statement. You seem to imply that part of the motivation for the war was greed. Certainly there is benefit from the economic factors that drive conflict, but how is that a cause of WWII and in particular American participation?

Steve