Economy of Third Reich was a socialist economy

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,851
At present SD, USA
Continued...
The facts say otherwise. The same people built more than one. You need to come to grips with reality. American financiers and industrialists with government blessing created, for example, IG Farben (which produced most of Germany's explosives, by itself, as well 100% of other critical war materials). US-German companies gave money to the Nazi's in the late 20s, and the relationships continued. A few of them were exposed and had to pay a public price, like the Union Bank in 1943 Yes, 1943. You know whose bank that was?
But no one was at war in the 20s, and in the 20s the Nazis were still just a random nationalists running around southern Germany with nothing much to do beyond arguing with everyone. The Americans couldn't have known in the 20s that Hitler would come to power and thus would be using those companies for their coming war. And that "public price" would represent what happened when America joined the war and what little power Roosevelt actually had in dealing with private businesses.

Surely "madman" is a colorful exaggeration, and like every other political memoir writer, Manstein is self-serving. However, that doesn't make the essence of his argument wrong. Again, the broad-brush and obvious inference is that Hitler destroyed Germany, Prussia in particular. That, again, is just 20-20 hindsight.
The "madman" reference to Hitler has often been used in military history in reference to his "no-retreat" orders and the complaints of various generals after the war that they disagreed with Hitler and that Hitler's interference cost them victory. And just about every German general did this, Manstein is simply the most famous of them. And it represents a predictable pattern of ignoring issues where Hitler interfered and Germany won. For example take the fighting around Kiev in 1941. Many German generals, like Guderian, repeatedly argue that Germany should have rushed to Moscow following the capture of Smolensk and secure the Russian capital with the argument that "this would have beaten the Soviets."

More recent historians like David Glantz have begun to make arguments that these sorts of claims are false or pure bias as more of the Soviet archives became open after the end of the Cold War. This should have a list of his books: David Glantz - Wikipedia. His argument about Kiev is that the Red Army was massing large numbers in the Kiev area, and with Army Group South struggling against the more alert southern commanders in the Red Army, it is possible that had the Germans gone to Moscow immediately after Smolensk fell, that those units around Kiev could have attacked north and potentially encircling Army Group Center. Thus by interfering and ordering the encirclement of Kiev, while Hitler sacrificed taking Moscow, he took out large numbers of Red Army soldiers, secured much of the Ukraine, which Germany would need for food, and provide a staging ground to push for the Caucasus in 1942 to get the oil that the German army also needed.

Thus was Hitler's interference what created problems or where those problems already there and guys like Manstein, Guderian, and Halder able to call Hitler a madman with Hitler dead and unable to defend himself?

First, he doesn't have to control every company. As I have explained, this interlocking and interrelated network of German-American cooperation is a cartel of a finite number of companies, with a finite number of directors each of whom sits on the boards of several of these companies - and it is a relatively finite number of banks, mostly out of the federal-reserve/JP Morgan orbit (as if the federal reserve is not part of JP Morgan).
Agreements between companies in peacetime generally aren't made with the expectation of going to war. If war happens... things will ultimately change, and did change.

Second, you statement is factually false. Just look at Proclamation 2040, and its reference to the enabling legislation, the "amended" 1917 Trading With The Enemies Act. It was specifically created to allow the President to seize German property, amended to apply to all
But there was no war in 1933. In this, any action that could be taken couldn't be done or handled until December 1941 when Germany and America were officially at war.

Sorry, I don't live in fantasy land and I don't cease thinking and following the money because of words like "socialism" or "fascism" or "democracy."
But you do seem to live in a conspiracy theory where there is no good in the world...

Look at the Neutrality Acts of 1936, and the companies that were exempted from trading with belligerents. It includes the same three US companies I already identified as critical to the Nazi war machine. Right from the Wiki page, "nor did it cover materials such as trucks and oil. U.S. companies such as Texaco Standard Oil, Ford and General Motors." And don't be surprised, London, Paris, Moscow, Rome know exactly what was going on.
And who was America at war with in 1936? What actual war was going on in 1936 was Germany fighting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,397
Caribbean
I'm agreeing that the Vatican could have done more
Sounds like you missed the point, which was you are assuming which side Raitti and Pacelli are on, or not on.

If the errors were deliberate
Don't get so carried away. lol I wasn't referring to this battle or those men. It was just hypothetical. And it's a whole other topic. I have heard of Mr. Glantz. No criticism of him, but the quality of analysis can never exceed the quality of assumptions.

Thus with your line of considering the errors deliberate... I am curious to see if you're actually advocating that someone in France prior to May 1940 was actively trying to help the Germans win
Haven't I implicated enough Americans? You want French, too? lol Too bad Putzi Hanfstaengl isn't French.

But there was no war in 1933. In this, any action that could be taken couldn't be done or handled until December 1941 when Germany and America were officially at war.
Mr Nary, you have not read the statute. The grant of power is not conditional on anything. The first thing seized was in April 1933. I don't think you read the neutrality acts either.

But you do seem to live in a conspiracy theory where there is no good in the world..
Mr. Nary, I was not speaking about the world. I was speaking about the men who ruled the countries of western civilization from 1925-1945, the men in their military-industrial complexes, and the bankers who fed them credit. Men who know each other well. And no, I don't see any good in those rulers. Machiavelli tried to tell you - nice guys can't rule. So, what do we disagree on, then? You think FDR and Churchill are "good."

And your world has just as many conspiracy theories as mine. I am sure you like the HBO-BBC movie "Conspiracy" about Wansee as much as I do. Gee, the Holocaust was a conspiracy? Take it one more step. Hitler as the master of the holocaust is a conspiracy theory that we share, because we do not have a smoking gun written order. We infer from the Wansee notes and I from a Geobbels speech of 1944. And I infer because it is just as impossible that Hitler doesn't know about this as it is impossible FDR doesn't know his friends are IG Farben and what Hitler is going to do when he finishes growing up. So while we agree on some conspiracy theory, there are other times when we don't agree about exactly who is conspiring with exactly whom and for exactly what purpose.

But since I don't have to believe one of these two men is "good," I have no trouble figuring out that when Hitler said he wanted peace, he knew he was lying. And when FDR said I won't send your sons off to a foreign war, he knew he was lying. Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying?

But no one was at war in the 20s,
lol You are still overlooking the points. Germany is the great pariah? Why would JP Morgan, who could outright buy Venezuela, for example, just sink money into Germany so they can pay reparations to France and Britain? Does that make sense? No. He is going to create a Roaring Twenties in Germany why? Because he likes Cabaret life, Fritz Lang movies and Bauhaus architecture?

And where is this non war? How many putsch's were there altogether? How many exchanges of fire are there, like the one where Hitler was wounded? How many strikes? Isn't France occupying the Ruwer? Isn't Kahr talking Bavarian secession? Does this sound like a stable investment environment to you? So, he is making a no sense investment in a no sense location that is also politically unstable? Morgan and his agents, like Dawes, have to have long term plans. Because on the front end, this looks too much like flushing money down the toilet.
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,397
Caribbean
But you do seem to live in a conspiracy theory where there is no good in the world
Over the years I have enjoyed our marathon sessions. I think the first was the cause of McClellan's lack of aggression. You opined he was a coward and I opined he was a Democrat.

I really enjoyed this comment, because sometimes it is surprising how a post is perceived. I have tried to show the idea of the war as an epic international struggle between governing philosophies (socialism, fascism, democracy, etc.) fails because it is the same money sources that are propping up and empowering all the governments. So, I will give you a few quotes for you to consider as you proceed in your exploration of history.

“On April 27, 1932 the Federal Reserve outfit sent $750,000 belonging to American bank depositors in gold to Germany. A week later, another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany in the same way. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Federal Reserve banks. Almost every week, there is a shipment of gold to Germany”
--HS Kenan, The Federal Reserve Bank, 1968

"Early in 1933, the next development occurred. Planners in New York City set the stage, through the newly elected President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to begin to siphon out of this country our reserves of gold and silver, with the aid of Federal Reserve Board Members and others ensconced in high level stations in the New Deal and abroad."
--Curtis B. Dall, from the forward of he previously quoted book

You might recognize Mr. Dall's name. He is the author of a book called - FDR: My Exploited Father-in-law. Well, as I said, books about WW2 have useful information, even if I don't agree with the author's main premise. IMO, Mr. FDR knew exactly who he was getting in bed with when he made the decision to run for Governor. Mr. Dall's book is one I recommend for you. In his introduction, he states that his book sounds different that a lot of others, but insists he is witness to what he writes about (implying that the others aren't).

This next one is less important, but I just like it.
"Of the many bizarre tales seeping from archives around the world in the Nazi gold investigations, few are as strange as this one: In 1950, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York melted down hundreds of gold bars bearing the swastika imprint and recast them with the pristine stamp bearing the words ''United States Assay Office.''"
---NY Times, November 2, 1997
Nothing bizarre about it. The Federal Reserve is just a private bank, doing a little private banking. Before the war, they lent a lot of gold to the Nazi bankers, and after the war, they wanted it back. That's what banks do (and these people are all freinds and business partners anyway). Do you understand why - when the people who created the FED (See: Creature of Jekyll Island), who actually crafted the law, who handed it to banker-Congressman, who put it on the floor for a vote when most were on vacation - included a provision in the law that they cannot be audited by the US government?

See you round the school yard.
 
Last edited:

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,851
At present SD, USA
Sounds like you missed the point, which was you are assuming which side Raitti and Pacelli are on, or not on.
The Catholic Church is not limited to Raitti and Parcelli. And there were members of the church that ultimately were involved in anti-Nazi activities during the war. Which would run counter to the Pope's positions on the matter, regardless of which side you wish to say he was on. A lot of this I would actually put onto the overall decline of the power of the Catholic Church over the nations of Europe after the Reformation period. When countries started engaging in policies that often countered positions taken by the Popes, the less direct authority the Papacy had. And this in general created situations where the Papacy shifted more to trying to protect their parishioners from persecution than trying to wield outright control or power. And by period after 1917, that concern was more often than not aimed at opposition to the Bolsheviks, which made arguments against all religions. And I don't think that general sentiment really declined by the 1930s-1940s for the Catholic Church...

From a purely "moral" perspective, they could have and should have done more in the face of a movement that essentially argued for murder. But didn't because its leaders feared being targeted and feared the Marxist Socialists more than they feared the National Socialists. Which then left the lower ranking church leaders without Papal guidance and would see the actions of some of those lower ranking members, particularly in countries like Italy and France during WW2 side with the groups fighting against Hitler or trying to save the Nazi Party's victims. Thus showing how much the Catholic Church had changed from 1000 CE when the most powerful man in Europe was the Pope.

Haven't I implicated enough Americans?
In random bits of business deals that were made in the 20s, before the Nazis took power and before German re-armament began and with no expectation of there being WW2 or that the Nazis would gain power as though that somehow made the US government desiring to put the Nazis in power... Where there "connections?" Sure... Do they actually confirm your argument? No.

You want French, too?
Within the context of the Battle of France, yes. You made the claim that it was possible that the battle was the result of the French losing on purpose. Which would mean that Gamelin didn't fall victim to a feint but purposefully knew the move would lead to French defeat and made it to help the Germans...

Everything I've read on the battle would indicate that Gamelin wanted to win the battle, but bit on the feint and had no reserves, which then meant that when he found out he'd made a mistake, he had little to nothing to stop the Germans. Thus France lost... but the defeat wasn't intentional on the part of the French.

Too bad Putzi Hanfstaengl isn't French.
Indeed he wasn't... though keep in mind that he also defected away from Nazi Germany.

Mr Nary, you have not read the statute. The grant of power is not conditional on anything. The first thing seized was in April 1933.
The dealing with banks in the US was in relation to the fact that many of those banks were facing going bankrupt because of the 1929 crash and if they went belly up, that would likely take a LOT of private American citizen's money with it. The bank holiday that was done in the New Deal was to try and restore some sense of confidence in the banking system to allow it to ultimately recover. Which it generally did, and while things like the Federal Reserve wasn't abolished, that doesn't mean that the Federal Reserve took over every private bank and retained ownership after the "holiday" ended. It's more that both were there at the same time.

I was speaking about the men who ruled the countries of western civilization from 1925-1945, the men in their military-industrial complexes, and the bankers who fed them credit. Men who know each other well.
And when did Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and FDR meet Hitler personally and tell him that they intended to help him rise to power and start WW2?

And no, I don't see any good in those rulers. Machiavelli tried to tell you - nice guys can't rule.
A shame then. Though, keep in mind that Machiavelli was arguing more for an authoritarian regime that held little responsibility to its people... something very different from countries like the US and Britain in the 20th Century...

So, what do we disagree on, then? You think FDR and Churchill are "good."
With regard to working within a democratic system and not overthrowing it... yes. FDR lost elections in the 20s and never employed thugs to try and violently overthrow the US. And even after winning the Presidency in the 1932 elections, the US didn't remove the democratic principles that its government relied on, which allowed the Republicans to remain an active and open opposition party to Roosevelt, and it had its fair share of successes. While they ended up losing the Presidential races up until 1952, there were also congressional elections.

By the 1932 election the Senate would have 59 Democrats 36 Republicans, in 1934 it would be 69 Democrats and 25 Republicans, in 1936 it would be 74 Democrats and 17 Republicans, in 1938 it would be 68 Democrats and 23 Republicans, in 1940 it would be 66 Democrats and 27 Republicans, in 1942 it would be 57 Democrats and 38 Republicans... and this number would carry over into 1944, and in 1946 it would be 50 Republicans and 46 Democrats. So while the Democrats gained seats in the early to mid 30s, they began losing seats if in the late 30s and lost control of the Senate by the mid 40s. Now... if Roosevelt were some kind of "tyrant," wouldn't you think he would have done more to limit what gains the Republican party could make in opposing him given the length of time that the Democrats controlled the Federal government and likely the state governments during the 30s?

And Churchill's position was similar in that he was largely an outsider through the 20s and 30s and only gained the Prime Minister's office in 1940 over dissatisfaction with Chamberlain. And while he held the British together through the war years... he was voted out of office in 1945 before the Pacific War ended.

In this, while neither was without fault, they did respect and work within a democratic form of government.
to be continued...
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,851
At present SD, USA
continued...

And your world has just as many conspiracy theories as mine. I am sure you like the HBO-BBC movie "Conspiracy" about Wansee as much as I do. Gee, the Holocaust was a conspiracy? Take it one more step. Hitler as the master of the holocaust is a conspiracy theory that we share, because we do not have a smoking gun written order. We infer from the Wansee notes and I from a Geobbels speech of 1944. So while we agree on some conspiracy theory.
But there is a lot of direct evidence that would demonstrate Nazi Party prejudices that are both written and non-written. And some of the non-written ones were in films that were made, either as propaganda or in private soldier's home movies. From this, we know the Holocaust happened and given Hitler's rants in "Mein Kampf" and the speech in which he claims that if the Jews start another world war it will mean the end of the Jews we can agree that even if Hitler didn't know about the actions taken in his name... he'd at least approve of them. Which would in turn make the arguments that Hitler knew more believable.

And I infer because it is just as impossible that Hitler doesn't know about this as it is impossible FDR doesn't know his friends are IG Farben and what Hitler is going to do when he finishes growing up. So while we agree on some conspiracy theory, there are other times when we don't agree about exactly who is conspiring with exactly whom and for exactly what purpose.
But your reference to Roosevelt "knowing" goes back to business dealings that occurred before Roosevelt was elected and automatically assuming that Roosevelt was a totalitarian dictator once he was elected. Which, if he were... that would have to mean that the Democrats would have at the very least made it impossible for the Republicans to hold a few token seats in Congress... which given the Senate elections from 1938-1946 would then say otherwise.

Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying?
The famous quip is that "his lips are moving." The more extensive answer is in relation to when things said differ from actions taken. However, there is often some context that often goes behind that quote. For with the context behind Roosevelt's promise about no foreign wars, is more in relation to the issue of isolationism and interventionism. Roosevelt was more firmly in the latter category but had to deal with a fair number of Republicans and Democrats that were in the former. Technically he claim to be right in that America didn't officially enter the war until after Pearl Harbor... but that's still a technicality, and one that various historians have debated over whether or not Japan was baited into attacking and the legal basis behind Roosevelt's actions regarding the Atlantic in the same timeframe. As technically American sailors were fighting the U-boats despite not being at war with Germany prior to December 1941. The context, though, comes back to the arguments over where to go on foreign policy and what was needed.

lol You are still overlooking the points. Germany is the great pariah? Why would JP Morgan, who could outright buy Venezuela, for example, just sink money into Germany so they can pay reparations to France and Britain? Does that make sense? No. He is going to create a Roaring Twenties in Germany why? Because he likes Cabaret life, Fritz Lang movies and Bauhaus architecture?
That was more on the perception that politicians like Clemenceau and Lloyd George were needlessly harsh on Germany at Versailles and betrayed a lot of the idealism that Wilson had brought with him to Europe with the 14 Points. It was something that various British politicians saw as transformative and could lead to a new and better Europe. And with the shadow of the Russian Civil War in the background there was also the perception on the part of some British politicians/economists that were present at Versailles that an economically strong Germany would be needed as a sort of shield against the Soviets. Thus by the time you get to the 20s, you see men trying to rebuild Germany to try and even out the balance that they felt had been wrongly done to Germany in 1919. It does not necessarily mean, though, that there was the desire to install a totalitarian regime that would only lead to another and bloodier war than WWI.

And where is this non war? How many putsch's were there altogether? How many exchanges of fire are there, like the one where Hitler was wounded? How many strikes? Isn't France occupying the Ruwer? Isn't Kahr talking Bavarian secession? Does this sound like a stable investment environment to you? So, he is making a no sense investment in a no sense location that is also politically unstable? Morgan and his agents, like Dawes, have to have long term plans. Because on the front end, this looks too much like flushing money down the toilet.
Things like the Spartacist uprising and the Bavarian Socialist Republic were internal German problems and France's occupation of the Ruhr was merely within the limits of what was allowed under the Treaty of Versailles (1919). And as said before... many saw Versailles as overly harsh and wanted to rebuild Germany as part of an idea for "stabilization" in Europe, likely with little to know real knowledge on the consequences of their actions. And even German politicians prior to Hitler didn't know that for sure. Those arguing for things like the Dawes and Young plans on the German side had the idea that the plans would enable them to snip the Nazis in the bud only to see them take advantage of what those plans did.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,851
At present SD, USA
Over the years I have enjoyed our marathon sessions.
Things would be boring if everyone just agreed with everyone else... There'd be no discussion. Just an echo chamber.


I really enjoyed this comment, because sometimes it is surprising how a post is perceived. I have tried to show the idea of the war as an epic international struggle between governing philosophies (socialism, fascism, democracy, etc.) fails because it is the same money sources that are propping up and empowering all the governments.
Money can tend circulate, but the fact that it does doesn't necessarily mean that all sides wanted the same thing or were fighting for the same thing at the expense of others. A lot of that ultimately relates to trade issues between countries, which despite economic claims by both the Soviets and the Nazis that they didn't need or want to trade with others, they often found that they still HAD to trade with others on some level to try and sustain their own policies. This often meant that they would have to engage in proverbial rhetoric bending to explain why it's okay to trade in certain respects while they argue against trade in general to others.

“On April 27, 1932 the Federal Reserve outfit sent $750,000 belonging to American bank depositors in gold to Germany. A week later, another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany in the same way. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Federal Reserve banks. Almost every week, there is a shipment of gold to Germany”
--HS Kenan, The Federal Reserve Bank, 1968

"Early in 1933, the next development occurred. Planners in New York City set the stage, through the newly elected President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to begin to siphon out of this country our reserves of gold and silver, with the aid of Federal Reserve Board Members and others ensconced in high level stations in the New Deal and abroad."
--Curtis B. Dall, from the forward of he previously quoted book

You might recognize Mr. Dall's name. He is the author of a book called - FDR: My Exploited Father-in-law. Well, as I said, books about WW2 have useful information, even if I don't agree with the author's main premise. IMO, Mr. FDR knew exactly who he was getting in bed with when he made the decision to run for Governor. Mr. Dall's book is one I recommend for you. In his introduction, he states that his book sounds different that a lot of others, but insists he is witness to what he writes about (implying that the others aren't).
While interesting and curious... I'm not sure it would necessarily prove things completely. Particularly with regard to Dall having the potential of ultimately being involved in some conspiracy theories of his own, thus lowering his own personal credibility.

This next one is less important, but I just like it.
"Of the many bizarre tales seeping from archives around the world in the Nazi gold investigations, few are as strange as this one: In 1950, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York melted down hundreds of gold bars bearing the swastika imprint and recast them with the pristine stamp bearing the words ''United States Assay Office.''"
---NY Times, November 2, 1997
Nothing bizarre about it. The Federal Reserve is just a private bank, doing a little private banking. Before the war, they lent a lot of gold to the Nazi bankers, and after the war, they wanted it back. That's what banks do (and these people are all freinds and business partners anyway). Do you understand why - when the people who created the FED (See: Creature of Jekyll Island), who actually crafted the law, who handed it to banker-Congressman, who put it on the floor for a vote when most were on vacation - included a provision in the law that they cannot be audited by the US government?
Curious... though it should be noted that the Federal Reserve is more of a new incarnation of the "Bank of the United States," and would actually be a government institution. A bank like Wells Fargo is a more private bank. Though that doesn't necessarily stop something like the Federal Reserve operating like other banks do and trying to make money. And that can present financial risks and problems... but it doesn't change the political reasons that many of the countries had for war when they joined WW2.

For if America was "funding" the Nazis, then the argument that they needed to go to war in 1939 to avoid economic collapse is weak, because they're getting an influx of wealth from outside Germany. Yet the economically analysis of the Reich's economy was that they WERE facing economic troubles if they didn't go to war and that they did so to try and solve them.

And if Roosevelt was truly aware of how much America had "invested" in Hitler's Germany, it would then make logical sense to defeat Britain to defend those investments, as was partially the case for why America joined the Entente Powers in WWI.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,629
"Of the many bizarre tales seeping from archives around the world in the Nazi gold investigations, few are as strange as this one: In 1950, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York melted down hundreds of gold bars bearing the swastika imprint and recast them with the pristine stamp bearing the words ''United States Assay Office.''"
---NY Times, November 2, 1997
Nothing bizarre about it. The Federal Reserve is just a private bank, doing a little private banking. Before the war, they lent a lot of gold to the Nazi bankers, and after the war, they wanted it back. That's what banks do (and these people are all freinds and business partners anyway). Do you understand why - when the people who created the FED (See: Creature of Jekyll Island), who actually crafted the law, who handed it to banker-Congressman, who put it on the floor for a vote when most were on vacation - included a provision in the law that they cannot be audited by the US government?
source for this claim that they lent a lot of gold to Nazi Bankers?
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,397
Caribbean
While interesting and curious... I'm not sure it would necessarily prove things completely.
For your consideration, I use a rule for myself. If I am trying to find the truth, and I hear myself sounding like a guilty man's lawyer I stop. The ultimate example of the guilty man's lawyer is the one with the client who was alone in the room with the deceased with the gun in his hand, etc. Parodied brilliantly in the move A Shot in the Dark.



Just to be clear. I am not trying to prove anything. I am disproving things, by showing how highly unlikely they are.

Particularly with regard to Dall having the potential of ultimately being involved in some conspiracy theories of his own, thus lowering his own personal credibility.
Or he is the eye witness and you are the conspiracy theorist.

Curious... though it should be noted that the Federal Reserve is more of a new incarnation of the "Bank of the United States," and would actually be a government institution.
Incarnation?

Some banks like to create names for themselves that make them sound like the government. The Bank of the US could just as easily have been called The House of Rothschild or McDonalds' or Cash R Us or Friends of Alexander. They are all pretty much set up to privatize profits and socialize losses.

None of the three central banks in America were a "government institution."
"The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government,..."

Lewis v United States 1982
Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as “wholly owned” government corporations nor as “mixed ownership” corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names. . . .​

For if America was "funding" the Nazis
Never said "America," said Americans. Henry Ford is not"America," he is an American.

[QUOTE="Sam-Nary, post: 3207995, member: 16452"And if Roosevelt was truly aware of how much America had "invested" in Hitler's Germany, it would then make logical sense to defeat Britain to defend those investments, as was partially the case for why America joined the Entente Powers in WWI.[/QUOTE]In one scenario, yes. Just not the one that played out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Von Manstein
Aug 2018
337
America
The US and especially Britain, the latter of which had over 90% of its population without any representation and even basic voting rights, not being authoritarian like Machiavelli's Prince is hilarious. Pretty sure people who defend the US in particular think it was okay for the US to expand to its current borders while slaughtering Native Americans.
 
Oct 2013
1,329
Monza, Italy
I'd say Hitler's economics were Keynesian, not different from Roosevelt's or Mussolini's at least on some aspects. National-socialism never realized its economic utopia, Hitler wanted to change Germans socially and economically and never achieved this target. And yeah, Von Hayek's book is a great masterpiece.