Billionaires and World War Two?..

[Iersuko]

Did the early 20th century billionaires of the world, after seeing what WW1 did for Industry and production. Come up with a plan to fund the Nazi party and provide a mad man with the desire, the means and supplies with which to start WW2?

What happened after WW2 ended!???????????????????????

How powerful are they now???

I think not only did they make more money and get more powerful but they opened their eyes to the power of propaganda and made it a point to promote the distribution of tools to disseminate their propaganda. Swaying opinions that influence events that predictions of can be capitalized off of... :lol:

 

[Iersuko]

" Meeeg... Prouda you."
-- Peter Griffin

 

[Sticki]

Thats a very good point and here is some information you may find interesting on a plan the Nazi's formed during World War 2 to print British money and to drop it from the sky causing hyper inflation, something Hitler and the rest of Germany witnessed after World War 1.
However with the Luftwaffe dying they decided to use the counterfeit notes to fund thier own espionage service.

hxxp://www.lawrencemalkin.com/kruegers- ... story.html

 

[Iersuko]

Yes. Most citizens only think of war as one side shooting or blowing up the other side and etc...that kind of war died long ago. War can be waged on many different fronts through finance, trade, propaganda. My point is all American men were free on paper after the civil war was won by the industrial north. Not long after that though we all became slaves

 

[Sticki]

World War 2 also provided the USA a good excuse to build the largest naval and air force fleet the world had ever seen, Securing thier title as a super power.

Hitler also brought people and country's together, United against a common goal and help lead to such things as the UN, NATO and possibly even the EU in some twisted way.

If it was a strategical move, It did alot more behind the scene's then most realize. Fighting keeps the focus while those governing it do the work they wish..

 

[Iersuko]

These things also make me wonder why the cold war really took place..
And ponder ALL of the reasons why communism ultimately failed in the soviet union.

 

[ophiuchus]

...communism didn't fail in my eyes. it's only set the stage for a new standard to be built

 

[Iersuko]

...communism didn't fail in my eyes. it's only set the stage for a new standard to be built

I see. My mistake. Failure would imply utter death in all forms.

 

[Crimzen]

yea world war 2 was pretty much one big organized set-up
get what you can while the gettings good

look how the world has changed since ww1 and ww2
i'd say the largest economic/military/power shifts ever in human history?

 

[Iersuko]

Right but why would they have stopped there. Do you think after the Japanese surrendered all the corporation were like "ok we made a ton of money from and even blackmailed our own government so.. Let's just take a some time to reflect.." . I doubt it.

GDR died in office and was replaced by Truman! who's committees had already failed miserably to bring them down before the war even ended. If anything there are a hand full of people or a few organizations that run the world as a whole. Nothing or no one stopped them then and perhaps nothing can stop them now.

 

[Crimzen]

right but they lost the war
to the victor go the spoils..

If anything there are a hand full of people or a few organizations that run the world as a whole.

yeah im willing to assume this is certainly possible..
and so they made massive amounts of money and power which has fueled a great deal of change (for better or worse)

 

[Iersuko]

very true "for better or worse" depending on who you are or what country you were born in and what resources your country, if any, has to offer. What doesn't work for everyone probably isn't what should work for anyone with knowledge and a healthy conscience.

 

[ophiuchus]

just noticed you did say in the soviet union, while i was being general... anyways i agree, and my statement still stands

 

[itsscience]

In my opinion Communism is a flawed concept because it requires someone to dole out the necessities equally to everyone - that someone or something, by the nature of their/its role, immediately takes themselves/itself out of the intended equallity into a position of power.

 

[Apeiron]

Yea wouldn't it be nice if we could use selfless logic and relinquish things we acquired but didn't require to someone who would find use for it. Not for profit of course. What some would call a perfect world.
Perhaps with out cash their would be no urges for greed and perhaps hoarding is a mental flaw of individuals... Just thoughts. Not law. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. What are yours?

 

[Sprax]

In my opinion Communism is a flawed concept because it requires someone to dole out the necessities equally to everyone - that someone or something, by the nature of their/its role, immediately takes themselves/itself out of the intended equallity into a position of power.

Take the practical requirement for a strong state and combine that with the human tendency to by corrupted by power... result: disaster, as we have seen in every single case where communism has been tried.

 

[IJesusChrist]

we have never seen a communist government.
we have never seen a capitalist government
we have seen dictatorships

a pure capitalist government is funny to think about, so is a purely communist one. Even a socialist one.

The thing is you can't have a government if you're striving for communism or socialism. And you certainly can't have a leader... hahaha.

politics are funny.

 

[Sprax]

WHY haven't we seen pure capitalist or communist governments? Imo the reason is that the concepts are flawed and CANNOT be successfully implemented.

For instance, about communism:

- A basic idea in communism is that we should be "paid" in accordance with our needs and not according to how we perform. Unfortunately, humans are selfish and won't work hard unless they do it for ourselves. Consequently, even if everyone gets a "fair" share of the pie, it's a really small pie and thus even a relatively large share will be small in absolute numbers.

- In order to control how resources are divided in a nation, there needs to be a strong government. And what happens when you concentrate power? Invariably powers gets abused.

Socialism is an interesting term. It gets used a lot but there doesn't seem to be a consensus about what it means. The wiki article seems to equate it with communism (more or less), but that's not how many people use it. I have no idea what it means anymore.

politics is dirty

we have never seen a communist government.
we have never seen a capitalist government
we have seen dictatorships

a pure capitalist government is funny to think about, so is a purely communist one. Even a socialist one.

The thing is you can't have a government if you're striving for communism or socialism. And you certainly can't have a leader... hahaha.

politics are funny.

 

[IJesusChrist]

I thought communism was you were paid more on terms of how much you benefit the government, but at the same time never exceeding a certain amount - which is what you're saying.

Socialism is the inverse of communism.

In communism you benefit the government which in turn will benefit you - the farthest left of the american spectrum. Complete governmental control, and complete reliance on the government. Government first, then society. Money would go to implanting better regulations and equal distribution. Strong government, weak individual.

In socialism the government is strictly there to benefit you and society. Society itself is first, government second. So money would go to benefiting people's will, rather than the government. When people ask, their voice is basically the controlling factor, not the governments. Majority vote on most subjects would be most powerful. Weak government, strong individual.

Socialism is very far right, but republicans will never admit that, because most of em are retarded. Doubly sorry for that statement. Communism is far left.

We want extremes of each so we meet in the middle and feud.

 

[Sprax]

Hmm sorry but this seems factually inaccurate.

I thought communism was you were paid more on terms of how much you benefit the government, but at the same time never exceeding a certain amount - which is what you're saying.

Communism in its current form started with Marx and the communist manifesto, which can be summarized as: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. As far as I recall from reading the manifesto years ago, Marx wanted government to be ran by those producing goods, rather than other individuals in control of production. So factories would be owned by its workers, for instance.

The problem with this system is that it cannot be organized. How do you distribute resources according to any particular principle, in a system with distributed ownership? You don't, and this is why there never has and never will be a true communsit country. A country cannot be ran this way. If resource control is to be this tightly controlled, there needs to be a strong government, which in turn invariably turns into a dictatorship.

Socialism is the inverse of communism.

The situation is far more complicated than that. Marx actually used the word "socialism" to describe his system and the word is still used by communists to describe their ideology. To confuse the picture, many parties around Europe at least, use the term socialism as a form of "communism light", a system where the government owns certain institutions seen as particularly important, but where the market is largely free.