Who funded Hitler’s war?

Before Theodor Herzl created the Zionist organization in 1897, pre-Zionists had wanted to restore Jews to Palestine already for one hundred years. Early pre-Zionists included Christian Zionists, like Lord Shaftesbury; Jewish Freemasons, like Manuel Mordecai Noah; Jewish Kabbalists, like Zvi Hirch Kalisher; Jewish Leftists, like Moses Hess; and Jewish bankers, like the Rothschild family and Jacob Schiff.

           In 1836 Kalischer suggested to Moses Montefiore and to the Rothschild family of bankers that Palestine be bought from Mehemet Ali (Muhammed Ali of Egypt). Probably Kalischer proposed something in 1836. Kalischer wrote in 1862 that Jewish redemption would come through Jewish self-help by Jews immigrating to Palestine; and that influential Jews, like Adolphe Crémieux (Freemason), Moses Montefiore (Freemason) and Edmond James de Rothschild would help in the restoration, as they did: Alliance Israélite Universelle, founded by Crémieux, started agricultural schools and Edmond James de Rothschild bought land in Palestine for future settlers, both actions proposed by Kalischer. We can conclude that the time when rich Jews started supporting Zionism is about 1840. In 1917 pre-Zionists got the Balfour declaration of a Jewish homeland in Palestine as a payment for bringing the USA to the First World War to the side of the Entente.

            One hundred years after 1840 Hitler started moving Jews to concentration camps and transferring them to the East. Demographic calculations from the Jewish death toll show that Hitler did not intend to exterminate Jews of Europe, but to settle them somewhere after the war. He underlined a statement in a book in his personal library that Austrian and Polish Jews must be relocated to Palestine. He proposed in the first peace offer to England that Jews are sent to Palestine. He made Ha’avara agreement with Zionists, which took Jews with capital to Palestine. We can conclude from these that Hitler aimed to restore Jews to Palestine.

           The Nazi party was created by a Theosophist, Rosicrucian and Freemason Rudolf von Sebottendorf as DAP. Sebottendorf stepped aside from being the leader of DAP in 1919. Dietrich Eckart, Rudolf Hess and other leaders of DAP were looking for a leader for DAP, a future dictator to appear. German army intelligence sent Hitler to a DAP meeting as a spy. Hitler was selected as the future dictator. Eckart trained him for the job. This is not a natural way to select a leader. A Masonic person from Turkey, like Sebottendorf, is not a natural founder of an anti-Semitic Aryan party. We can conclude that Sebottendorf infiltrated the Germanorder, split from it a part as the Thule Society, Thule created DAP and even named it NSDAP shortly before Hitler joined it. Hitler was selected by some other people than Eckart and Hess and was sent to DAP to make it the Nazi party. As restoring Jews to Palestine was a Masonic goal, we can assume Sebottendorf’s goal was to create a party that would make a war and collect Jews to be later send to Palestine, and Hitler was chosen as the dictator to lead the party and the war.

            If so, then we would expect that some Masonic or pre-Zionistic forces helped Hitler to power and rearmed Germany for a war. Anthony C. Sutton claimed in his book (1976) that the Wall Street financed Hitler’s rise to power. I will try to derive the conclusion from other sources.

            Historians know well who supported Hitler and NSDAP in the early years. Those people were almost all Germans with extreme rightist opinions. They were not Masons or pre-Zionists. But this is not enough: we should know what forces were behind these people.

            Let us divide the problem into three parts:

1) Were there any Masonic or pre-Zionistic forces behind Aufbau Vereinigung (Die Brücke), which supported NSDAP economically with funds coming e.g. from Freemason and anti-Semite Henry Ford.

2) Were there any Masonic or pre-Zionistic forces behind the group of German industrialists, who helped Hitler to become German Chancellor in 1933.

3) How the gold was lost and how Germany managed to rearm after the WWI?

1. The case of Die Brücke

Aufbau Vereinigung was created by Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, who was an early supporter of Hitler and who died in Hitler’s Beer Hall Putch of 1923. Aufbau Vereinigung is known to have supported NSDAP economically in the early years. The organization soon disappeared when Scheubner-Richter died.

            Scheubner-Richter had strong ties with White Russian émigrés (from the White army of the Russian civil war, not Belarus) and with Baltic Freikorps. It is interesting that Scheubner-Richter was in Turkey as German vice consul and he was one of the people, who told of the Armenian Genocide.

            Members of Die Brücke included Alfred Rosenberg, Max Amann, Erich Ludendorff several White Russians. Max Amann apparently was a fried of Franz Ritter von Epp (as they went hunting together). Epp founded the first Freikorps in Germany and was not killed in the Night of Long Knives.

            From the White Russian members we find Fyodor Vinberg. He had joined the Union of Archangel Michael, also called the Union of Russian People (1905-1917), the most important of the Black Hundredist organizations, the right-wing group of Alexander Dubrovin, Vladimir Purishkevich and Pavel Krushevan. Krushevan published the earliest version of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in 1903. It would be natural to assume that Krushevan may have himself penned the Protocols, but this cannot be the case. Though the author of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is disputed, the content of this document gives a good hint of the author and an idea why the document was written.

            First we have to investigate what the document says of the Elders. In Protocol 8: “We shall surround our government with a whole world of economists. That is the reason why economic sciences form the principal subject of the teaching given to the Jews. Around us again will be a whole constellation of bankers, industrialists, capitalists and – THE MAIN THING – MILLIONAIRES, BECAUSE IN SUBSTANCE EVERYTHING WILL BE SETTLED BY THE QUESTION OF FIGURES.” This says that the Elders surround themselves with Jewish bankers and millionaires. Protocol 8 mentions Jews as brothers of the Elders: “For a time, until there will no longer be any risk in entrusting responsible posts in our State to our brother- Jews, we shall put them in the hands of persons whose past and reputation are such that between them and the people lies an abyss, persons who, in case of disobedience to our instructions, must face criminal charges or disappear – this in order to make them defend our interests to their last gasp.” Protocol 2 says: “To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.” Additionally there are several references to the King of the Jews.

            These references to Jews do not say in a clear way that the Elders are ethnic Jews. References to brother-Jews fit even better to the members of the Sanhedrin of Mizraim lodges. As A. E. Waite in The Holy Kabbalah says, they were called Rabbis. Maurice Joly in Dialogues refers to Machiavellis as evil people, who have adopted Jewish ways, and the Machiavellis in Joly’s book are not Jews: they are the people behind Napoleon III, that is, the saint-simonists and ultimately the Mizraim lodge. The King of the Jews, a term appearing in the Protocols, is messianic, but does not necessarily imply that the person is ethnically a Jew.

            Protocol 3 says: “There remains a small space to cross and the whole long path we have trodden is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolize our people.” This text refers to people, whose symbol is an ouroboron as the associated drawing confirms. Ouroboron is not a symbol in Judaism or Kabbalism. It is an Egyptian symbol and was used by Cagliostro’s Egyptial Freemasonry (which is why it appears in La Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789) and in the sigul of the Mizraim Rite, which is a direct descendant of Egyptian Freemasonry. Further confirmation that the document specifies the Elders as Masons is in Protocol 9: “The words of the liberal, which are in effect the words of our Masonic watchword, namely, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,…” Finally, the document ends as “Signed by the representative of Zion, of the 33rd degree”. We can very well conclude that the Protocols mean by Elders the high council of the Mizraim Rite. They considered Jews as smaller brothers. Thus, these are the Jews. Most Mizraim Freemasons were Catholics, but they had a close connection with some ethnic Jewish bankers.

            The Elders are presented as very powerful people. In Protocol 7 it is said: “In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim in Europe in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan.” It is quite correct to identify these Elders with the so called Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, at that time Leftist. Revolutionary Memphis and Mizraim Freemasonry was Leftist, and it was funded by bankers.

            In Protocol 9 of the Protocols is the text: “Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us it is only PROFORMA at our discretion and by our direction, for THEIR ANTI-SEMITISM IS INDISPENSABLE TO US FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR LESSER BRETHREN.” This claim is not copied from any document, like Maurice Joly’s book, that has been proposed as a source of the Protocols.

            A claim that there is no other anti-Semitism than what the Elders allow and need for their own purposes implies that also the Protocols is published only because the Elders allow it and need it for their own purposes. Why would a true anti-Semitic author, like Krushevan, make such a claim? Instead, if the author wants to move Jews to Palestine by force because the Elders have decided that Jews must go to Palestine, then the claim is perfectly logical, and possibly even true. The wave of anti-Semitism started at the time when pre-Zionists decided that Jews should be restored to Palestine.

            The Protocols cannot be an authentic document because if they were an authentic document, the Elders would have to be high members of Mizraim Freemasonry. However, Mizraim and Memphis Freemasonry lost most of their members after the Paris Commune when France gave amnesty to Masonic revolutionaries. In 1890s there was left only one Mizraim lodge, the mother lodge L’Arc en Ciel in Paris, but it could not any more plan a world revolution. In 1881 and 1899 Mizraim and Memphis Rites were reformed and finally unified to the (nonrevolutionary) Memphis-Mizraim Rite. Protocol 10 mentions the Panama scandal of 1893, thus Yuliana Glinka could not have obtained the Protocols in 1884, as some story tells, and Mizraim high members did not write the document after 1893.

            It is fairly obvious from what happened in Russian Revolutions that the author of the Protocols meant Communists. Communism started from Leftist Freemasonry and Carbonaries and copied much of their methods. This is why the Protocols often seem prophetic to the Bolshevik rule. It appears that the author had Mizraim documents but no documents from Communists, but wanted to write a warning of Communist plans of a revolution in Russia. Communists of that time were often ethnic Jews and they were supported by ethnic Jewish bankers, a descendant of the banker group which supported Mizraim and Memphis. However, the author wanted also to create an anti-Semitic document for some purpose that the Elders (this time, clearly the Jewish bankers) accepted and needed. These Jewish bankers were pre-Zionists. They needed anti-Semitism for pushing Jews to Palestine. The author of the Protocols had to be Masonic in order to have access to Mizraim documents and in order to have a connection to pre-Zionists. I see only Theosophists or Martinists are logical candidates as the authors of the Protocols. There is a clear link between Nazis and Theosophists in Sebottendorf and Eckart, while there is no such link to Martinists. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the author of the Protocols was a Theosophist.

            This conclusion agrees well with the claim that Yuliana Glinka, an occultist and Theosophist, obtained the Protocols from Theosophist circles of Paris. There are some stories of the origin of the Protocols. One, which has to be discarded, is that Yuliana Glinka got them in 1884 from Jew Schorst. A more reliable sounding version is that Philip Stepanov got the Protocols in 1897 from Aleksey Sukhotin, who received them in 1895 from an unnamed woman. This version at least is not in contradiction with the internal dating of the document.

            The first announcement of the Protocols is from April 7, 1902 by Mikhail Osipovich Menshikov, who got them from a Petersburg lady, who had stolen them from Nice.  

            It seems difficult to verify any of these stories. According to one source, Sergei Nilius said that he got the Protocols from Aleksey Nikolaevich Sukhotin and tells that Sukhotin was a noble and later a vice-governor of Stavropol, but according to another souce Nilius quotes Aleksei Nikolaevich Sukhotin, who was a landowner in Chern, in the Tula district. As Leo Tolstoi’s daughter Tatiana married Mikhail Sergeevich Sukhotin, a landowner in the Tula region, this would likely to be the same family.

           It may be a Soviet response to these stories that Aleksey Nikolaevich Tolstoy, the son of Count Nikolay Alexandrovich Tolstoy, remotely related to Leo Tolstoy, witnessed that Nazis used gas vans in Stavropol area. But Aleksey Nikolaevich Tolstoy had died 23. February 1945 and the reports of The Extraordinary State Commission are not considered reliable.

           It is not known who Aleksey Nikolaevich Sukhotin was. Maybe it was a cover name of Aleksey Suvorin, who published anti-Semitic periodical Novoye Vremya, maybe the name referred to Sergei Mikhailovich Sukhotin, who killed Rasputin, but in the Russian Assembly there was some N. N. Sukhotin.

           There is a document where Philip Stepanov wittnesses having received the document form Aleksey Sukhotin. This document is witnessed by Prince Dimitry Galitzin. This must be Prince Dimitry Golitsyn. Prince Dimitry Golitsyn was the leader of the Russian Assembly (1900-1917).

           The careful use of the world Jew in a way that it fits to Mizraim Freemasons does not fit to most members of the Union of Russian People or the Russian Assembly, but Prince Dimitry Golitsyn may have had such information. He had investigated Freemasons because of the Decembrist uprising of 1825. Also Leo Tolstoy was also interested in Decembrists. Anyway, Golitsyn, or any other anti-Semite, would not have written the text in Protocol 9 that all anti-Semitism is in discretion by the Elders. I must conclude that Masonic circles, probably Theosophists, wrote the document and handed it to Russian anti-Semitic people in order to create pogroms, which would persuade Jews to move to Palestine. But it is very possible that Krushevan, being in the same circles as Golitsyn, got the Protocols from other rightist people.

           There are at least two connections between Nazis and Masonic circles: Sebottendorf and the Petersburg woman, who may have been Yuliana Glinka. Some financial help Nazis got in the beginning from Freemason Henry Ford through Aufbau Vereinigung. I do not believe that a Freemason like Ford was in reality an anti-Semite. He was doing his part in the Masonic anti-Semitic campaign to push Jews to Palestine. Tegtmeier (E. R. Carmin, Das Schwarze Reich) gives on page 216 and what follows more arguments that Hitler got foreign funding. Exactly on page 216 he mentions a secret group intermarium, which looks like Aufbau Vereinigung in some later stage. Thus, there are more hints to Hitler’s funding, but here the essential thing is that we can find a connections to Masonic circles.

2. The case of Kurt von Schröder’s group

NSDAP had lost four percent votes in the elections 6. November 1932 and it had 33% support. Though it was the largest party, Nazis failed to form a coalition. Franz von Papen and Paul von Hindenburg did not want Hitler as the Chancellor. After negotiations hosted by Kurt von Schröder first Papen and then Hindenburg agreed to let Hitler form the cabinet. After Hitler became German Chancellor there were no new elections before 1947. There are some questions as to what happened in these negotiations, for instance, what was the role of Hindenburg’s son, Oskar von Hindenburg.

           One question for us here is what was the group of industrialists that Kurt von Schröder represented. It was called The Circle of Friends of the Economy (Freundeskreis der Wirtschaft), and it was a lobbying group for Nazis formed by Wilhelm Keppler. According to Circle’s Wikipedia-page Hitler had asked Keppler to form this circle in 1932 and in 1936-44 the group supported Heinrich Himmler’s Ahnenerbe annually by one million marks, but according to Schröder’s Wikipedia-page, Schröder joined the circle in 1927, so Wikipedia information is contradictory. It seems like Fritz Kranefuss changed the original circle to a group supporting Himmler’s SS after Hitler got into power. We are interested in the time before Hitler became Chancellor.

            The circle is still useful, as the main supporters in German industry probably were in the circle, whenever the circle was formed. There is a list in the Circle-page. We only need to look at a few names.

            Kurt von Schröder from I.T.T.

            Anthony Sutton points out that Schröder used his banking firms J. Henry Schröder in London and J. Henry Schröder Banking Corporation in New York for moving I.T.T. money to Himmler’s SS (probably to Anhenerbe). Bankhaus J.H. Stein based in Cologne, Germany, also channeled money to Himmler’s SS during the war and after the war the Allied tried to block the investigation into the bank’s activities. Schröder seems to be the least interesting person, but there are the other three with closer ties to Wall Street bankers.   

            Hjalmar Schlacht from Reichsbank

           In 1923 Hjalmar Schlacht became currency commissioner for the Weimar Republic. He managed to stabilize German hyperinflation of 1921-23 at the end of 1924 there was revaluation. . The Dawes plan of 1924 included 200 million dollar loans to Germany through Wall Street bond issues, led by J. P. Morgan & Co under the supervision of the US State Department. Schlacht was one of the architects of the Young plan of 1929 which corrected some problems with the earlier Dawes plan of 1924. It follows that Schlacht was heavily involved in distributing the loans of the Dawes plan.

            Heinrich Bütefisch and Albert Vögler from IG Farben

            IG Farben was founded 2. December 1925 and before the Nazi take-over of 1933 the company had ties to the German People’s Party. Nazis accused it of being an international capitalist Jewish company. Was it true? In order for IG Farben to have grown from 1925 to 1933 into a large company it must have got considerable funds. In 1926 Hjalmar Schlacht provided the funds for the formation of IG Farben. It follows that Schlacht got the funds for IG Farben from the Dowes plan, that is, from Wall Street bankers. Thus, the Nazi claim was in a sense true.

            Otto Steinbrick from Vereinigte Stahlwerke AB

            Anthony Sutton tells that Vereinigte Stahlwerke was another German company built by Wall Street loans through the Dawes and Young plans.

            Conclusions on Schröder’s group:

           We do not find Masonic characters, but there are strong ties to Wall Street bankers. The group consisted of important people representing Nazi war economy and many of the companies had got large loans from Wall Street bankers. Before Nazis took over in 1933 these people would probably not have supported Hitler despite of their personal political opinions, unless the real owners of those companies (the Wall Street bankers) accepted it.

3. Stealing the gold and rebuilding of the German military

            Rebuilding German military after the World War I was much helped by the Dowes and Young plans, funded by Wall Street bankers. The Young plan of 1929 was headed by Owen D. Young from the board of trustees of the Rockefeller foundation. Let us start by looking at certain financial issues before and after the First World War.

            Stealing the gold

            The starting point, around 1900, is that European states were in the gold standard and had gold reserves. The USA also was in the gold standard and had a gold reserve, but this reserve was held by the Federal Reserve System, made out of private banks, which had agreed to put a certain amount of gold to serve as a reserve against which the state could issue paper money. In any case, much of gold was in the hands of European states.

            At this time gold was kept in the state reserves and circulating money was paper money because gold was getting more expensive: economies were growing faster than gold reserves. Thus, it was profitable to keep gold and not let it circulate. Whether this argument gives sufficient reasons to pull gold out of circulation or not is not essential. Many countries believed that it is and money in circulation was paper.

            Then, for some reason, European nations, and also the USA, started an arms race. Usually one says that Germany tried to get equal with the UK in war ships, but whatever the reason was, when enough loan money is available, it may result into an arms race. This arms race consumed the gold these countries had and they had to take loans. Most of the loans of England and France were taken from the USA. I guess, the USA had to take loans from the Federal Reserve System banks in order to give European states these loans. Thus, the loans were finally taken from private banks. They gave gold to the USA, which gave the gold to some friendly European states. Germany also got loans, most probably from the same private banks, but not through the USA. The arms race and the following war consumed all this gold, but as gold does not disappear, it went to some other hands. I would imagine it went back to the same private banks which well knew how to invest the money so that it brings profit. Germany lost the war and had to pay war reparations. France required war reparations in gold, so Germany paid gold to France and France paid its loans to the USA with this gold. Thus, the gold went back to the USA. Then Americans gave loans to Germany, so the gold went there. In fact, this is the gold that Germans used for paying war reparations to France. Now it looks like the USA is the one which actually owns the gold, but the USA had taken loans to have this gold. Anyway, American tax payers still had the possibility to get their money back. 

             Then the USA forgave the loans to Europeans in the Young plan of 1929. Who now has the gold? European states do not have it. They all had only loans. After the loans were forgiven, they still did not have money. They had to have some gold in the reserves to back up their currency, but they had loans that at least equaled the value of this gold. The USA did not have the gold. It had forgiven loans to it, so it only had its own loans left. Also the USA had gold in its reserves, but it did not own this gold. So, very clearly, gold disappeared. As gold does not disappear, it must have changed hands and be found in the hands of private bankers.  

            Could this have worked if Germany had been able to pay war reparations as products?

            The case is that Germany could have managed to pay war reparations as products if France had accepted products. This can be shown by comparing the war reparations Finland paid to the Soviet Union after the Paris Peace Treaties in 1947 with the war reparations imposed on Germany in the Versailles treaty in 1919, or actually in April 1921.  

            Could Germany had paid the war reparations?

            Niall Ferguson in The Pity of War concludes that Germany was able to pay. I come to the same conclusion by simple calculations.

            Germany lost in the First World War 70,000 km², 13% of its territory and 6.5-7 million people, about 10% of its prewar population of 67 million. Of the lost population 54% were German, the rest were Poles or other minorities. Finland lost in the Second World War 43,105 km², 12.37% of its territory. In this area there were 400,000 people, all Finns, which is 11% of its prewar population of 3.888 million. The people of the lost territory were evacuated to Finland and settled there. These percentages are quite comparable, and while Germany was not the only guilty for starting the First World War, Finland certainly did not start the Winter War, but the character of a war is not that it is fair to losers. War is not continuation of politics with other means. Traditionally, as can be seen e.g. from wars American Plane Indians had against each other, war is an event where the winner wins and the loser loses.

            The sum of war reparations Germany had to pay was not set in the Versailles treaty: it was decided in April 1921. Before the sum was fixed, Germany was to pay 20 billion gold marks. Germany paid 9 billion gold marks between 1919 and 1921. The war reparations were set to 132 billion German gold marks. Germany was to pay 2 billion gold marks every year until 50 billion gold marks are paid, (but it also said that Germany has to pay yearly 26% of the value of its export – using this the yearly payment would have been about 3 billion gold marks). The remaining 82 billion marks was not interest bearing and would be paid at some point in the future when German economy could allow it. Thus, German war reparations were set at 50 billion German marks. Before the war one dollar was 4 German marks, in 1919 one dollar was 14 German marks. Thus, the sum 50 billion gold marks of 1919 corresponds to 50/14=3.57 billion gold dollars.

            In the Paris treaty of 1944 Finland’s war reparations to the Soviet Union were set to 300 million gold dollars of 1938 to be paid in six years. The payment time was prolonged to 8 years in the end of 1945 and in the summer of 1948 the sum was decreased to 226.5 million gold dollars. This gives a schedule of the payments as: 1945/46 50 million, 1946/47 36 million, 1947/48 36 million, 1948/49 36 million, 1949/50 23 million, 1950/51 23 million, 1951/52 22.5 million: sum total 226.5 million.

            Germany had 17 times larger population than Finland before the war. After the war German population was 16 times larger, as Germany did not evacuate people of lost territories. Using this 16 as a factor, the war reparations of Finland correspond to 16*0.2265=3.62 billion gold dollars for a country of the size of Germany in 1919. It may be a bit higher, as the gold dollar of 1938 was 15% higher than the dollar of 1947. Thus, we see that the demanded war reparations of 50 billion gold marks from Germany in 1921 were quite comparable to those that Finland paid after the Second World War. The remaining 82 billion gold marks were to be paid later. Naturally it was an obligation, but if paid over a long time, it would not harm German economy. It would have been similar to the interest the USA pays of debts that will never be paid off.

            The schedule, when this 82 billion gold marks was to be paid, was not set. The Young plan of 1929 theoretically reduced the total sum to 112 billion gold marks to be paid in 58 years, but in practice it reduced German reparations form the original 32.3 billion dollars to 713 million dollars. Thus, Germany paid about 20-36 billion gold marks in total.

            German state debt (war obligations) to its own citizens in 1921 had decreased to 24 billion gold marks because of inflation. In 1921 total debts of Germany included 24 billion gold marks to own citizen and the 50 billion gold marks as war reparations. Together they make 74 billion marks. Niall Ferguson (p. 465) calculates that it was 160% of the net domestic product. This gives the net domestic product in 1921 as 46 billion marks considering that Germany’s net domestic product in 1913 was 48.8 billion marks according to data given by Ferguson.

            In order to derive the net domestic product in 1913 from Ferguson’s data, notice from Tables 14, 15 on p. 173 that the German debt in 1913 was 21,679 million marks and it was 44.4% of net domestic product. Thus the net domestic product was 48.8 billion marks, which equals 1.061 billion pounds. From pp. 153 and 158 follows that German military expenses in 1913 were 93.4 million pounds and it was 3.9% of the net domestic product. Thus, the net domestic product was 2.395 billion pounds, which equals 48.9 billion marks.

           In 1931-32 all debts of the state of Finland were one fourth of the net domestic product. The yearly income of the state was about half of the loans. In 1944 Finland’s foreign debt was about the same as the total debt in 1931-32. Additionally Finland had four times as much domestic debt as foreign debt. Inflation decreased the domestic debt, but did not annihilate is as German hyperinflation. Adding war reparations to this state debt leads to a similar total debt percentage in Finland in 1944 as in Germany 1921.

            Ferguson is quite correct stating that Germany would have been able to pay the 50 billion marks and did not need to choose a hyperinflation. Finland was able to pay its war reparations with controlled inflation. The problem that the Allied saw in this was that Germany could pay the reparations only if it would increase its export. England did not want it, as German export was competition for British export. Additionally, France did not accept reparations as products, but only as gold. The Soviet Union accepted Finnish war reparations as products. Thus, Finland gave over 500 ships and large amounts of other products to the Soviet Union. War reparations lowered investments to half in Finland, private consumption dropped by one fourth, and export was only one fifth of the level before the war, but the reparations were paid.

            So, what actually happened?

           But as it was, France did not accept war reparations in the form of products. Probably this was so because France had to pay its loans to the USA in gold. And as it was, Germany has to sell paper currency and buy gold backed foreign currency or gold. Germany took loans from the USA. These loans were used for building German industry. The circle of friends made Hitler German Chancellor. These friends represented companies, which had received loans from the Wall Street. I guess this all had some purpose. At least there is no compelling reason to discard the theory that Hitler fought and lost the war in order to move Jews to Palestine because the International Jewry and the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy wanted them there. Hitler’s economic success before the war should also be considered against the background that the war reparations and loans (both internal and external) were largely removed by inflation and Dowes and Young plans. German industry had got Wall Street loans and was growing, directing this growth to military rebuilding simply added a client.

Nazis did add something to the economic growth: putting opponents to concentration camps eliminated strikes and imposing a work duty eliminated unemployment. Yet, such measures are hardly recommendable. But it fits to the image of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy that Harvard economists and other similar minded organizations praised Hitler’s achievements. We may also ask why there was the hyperinflation in Germany 1921-1923. Mark had stabilized in 1920 after the after-war inflation. Then mark was hyper-inflated without a good reason. It helped Hitler to power, so probably it was done on purpose. Well, fortunately those times are past. Today, there is no conspiracy. Yes? Of course not, that would be a crazy idea.