HOW GETTING STARTED GERMAN AGGRESSION PREPARATION

American counterfeiters and their Anglo-French accomplices are trying to create the impression that the preparation of German aggression, which spilled over into World War II, began in the fall of 1939. But who nowadays, except for completely naive people who are ready to believe in any exaggerated sensation, can fall for this bait? Who does not know that Germany began preparations for the war immediately after Hitler came to power? Who further knows that the Hitler regime was created by German monopoly circles with the full approval of the ruling camp of England, France and the United States?

        In order to prepare for war and provide itself with the latest weapons, Germany had to rebuild and develop its heavy industry, and above all, metallurgy and military industry in the Ruhr. After the defeat in the first imperialist war, Germany, which was under the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles, could not do this in the short term on its own. German imperialism received strong support from the United States of America.

        Who does not know that American banks and trusts, acting in full agreement with the Government, invested in the German economy in the post-Versailles period and granted Germany loans worth billions of dollars, which went to restore and develop the military-industrial potential of Germany.

        It is known that the post-Versailles period was marked for Germany by a whole system of measures aimed at restoring the German heavy industry, in particular, the German military-industrial potential. A huge role in this matter was played by the so-called Dawes reparation plan for Germany, with the help of which the USA and England hoped to make German industry dependent on the American and British monopolies. The Dawes Plan cleared the way for an increased inflow and introduction of foreign, mainly American, capital into German industry. As a result, already in 1925 the rise of the German economy began, due to the intensive process of re-equipping the production apparatus. At the same time, German exports rose sharply, reaching 1913 by 1927, and even for finished products even exceeding this level by 12 percent (in 1913 prices). For b years, from 1924 to 1929, the influx of foreign capital into Germany amounted to more than 10-15 billion marks of long-term investments and over 6 billion marks of short-term investments. According to some sources, the amount of investment was much larger. This led to a gigantic increase in the economic and, in particular, the military potential of Germany. In this case, the leading value belonged to American investment, which amounted to at least 70 percent, the sum of all long-term loans.

        The role played in financing German heavy industry, in creating and expanding the closest ties between American industry and German industry, is well known for the American monopolies led by the families of Dupons, Morgan, Rockefellers, Lamontov and other US industrial magnates. Leading American monopolies were closely associated with German heavy industry, military concerns and banks. Leading American chemical concern Dupont - De Nemour, one of the largest shareholders of the General Motor automobile trust , and the British imperial chemical trust (Imperial Chemical Industries) were in close industrial relations with the German chemical concern I. G. Far-Benindustri ”, with which in 1926 they entered into a cartel agreement on the division of world markets for gunpowder. Before the war, the chairman of the board of the Rom and Haas firm in Philadelphia (USA) was a companion to the head of this firm in Darmstadt (Germany). By the way, now the former director of this concern, Rudolf Muller, strives for Bison and plays a prominent role in the leading circles of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Between 1931 and 1939, the German capitalist Schmitz, chairman of the "I. G. Far-Benindustrii ”and a member of the Deutsche Bank Board, controlled the American company General Destaf Corporation. After the Munich conference (1938), the American Standard Oil trust concluded an agreement with I. G. Farbenindustri ”, according to which the latter took part in profits from aviation gas produced in the USA, instead of this he easily refused to export from Germany his synthetic gasoline, which Germany had accumulated at that time for military purposes.

        Such ties are not unique to the American capitalist monopolies. Closest economic relations, not only of commercial but also of military importance, existed, for example, just before the war between the Federation of British Industry and the German imperial industrial group. Representatives of these two monopolistic associations issued a joint statement in Dusseldorf in 1939, which, incidentally, stated that the purpose of the agreement was "the desire to ensure the fullest possible cooperation between the industrial systems of their countries." And this was in the days when Nazi Germany swallowed Czechoslovakia! It is not surprising that, in this connection, the London-based journal Economist wrote: “Is there anything in Düsseldorf’s atmosphere that makes intelligent people lose their minds?” 1
  1 Corwin D. Edwards, International Cartels in Economics and Politics, 1947.

        A typical example of the close interweaving of American and German capital, as well as English capital, is the famous Schroeder bank, in which the German Steel Trust, Fereinigte Stahlwerke, organized by Steen Ness, Thyssen and other industrial magnates of the Ruhr, with centers in New York and London. Allen Dulles, director of the London, Cologne and Hamburg Schroeders in New York, the I. firm, played a leading role in the affairs of this bank. G. Schroeder Bzking Corporation. ” The leading law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, led by John Foster Dulles, current chief adviser to Mr. Marshall, and closely associated with the Standard Oil global oil rockefeller trust, as well as the most powerful law firm, played a leading role in the bank’s New York center. Bank of America "Chase National Bank", which invested huge capital in German industry.

        In a book published in New York in 1947, R. Seuxuli emphasizes that as soon as inflation was stopped in Germany after the Versailles period and the brand strengthened, foreign loans poured into Germany. Between 1924 and 1930, Germany's foreign debt increased by more than 30 billion marks

        With the help of foreign, mainly American capital, German industry, especially Fereinigte Stahlwerke (a German company), was widely reconstructed and modernized. Some loans went directly to firms that played a major role in re-equipment1.

        1 Richard Sasuly, “IG Farben,” Boni and Gaer, New York, 1947, p. 80.

        At the same time as the Schroeder Anglo-German-American Bank, one of the largest New York banks, Dillon Reed & Co., played a leading role in financing the German Steel Trust “Fereinigte Stahlwerke” over the years, among whose directors the current Minister of Defense Forrestol2 has been a director for several years.

        2 Stock Exchange Year Book, London, 1925; Who's Who in America; Who's Who in Finance, Banking and Insurance; Moody's Manual of Railroads and Corporation Securities; Poor's Manual, 1924 - 1939.

        This golden rain of American dollars impregnated the heavy industry of Nazi Germany and, in particular, the military industry. These are billions of US dollars invested by overseas monopolies in the military economy of Nazi Germany, recreated the German military potential and put into the hands of the Nazi regime the weapons necessary for its aggression.

        In a short time, relying on financial support, mainly from American monopolies, Germany recreated a powerful military industry capable of producing first-class weapons in large quantities, many thousands of tanks, aircraft, artillery pieces, modern-day naval ships and other types of weapons.

        All this I would like to forget the falsifiers of history, trying to evade responsibility for their policies that armed Hitler’s aggression, unleashed the Second World War and led to an unprecedented military catastrophe that cost millions and millions of victims to humanity.

        Thus, we must not forget that the first and most important prerequisite of Hitler aggression was the revival and renewal of the heavy industry and the military industry of Germany, which became possible only due to the direct and wide financial support of the ruling circles of the United States of America.

        But that's not all.

        Another decisive circumstance that contributed to the outbreak of Nazi aggression was the policy of the ruling circles of England and France, which is known as the policy of "appeasing" Hitler Germany, the policy of renouncing collective security. Now it should be clear to everyone that it was this policy of the Anglo-French ruling circles, which was expressed in the rejection of collective security, in the rejection of the resistance to German aggression, in the indulgence of the aggressive demands of Nazi Germany, which led to the Second World War.

        Let's move on to the facts.

        Soon after Hitler came to power, as a result of the efforts of English and French

        Governments, in 1933 in Rome was signed the "Pact of consent and cooperation" of the four powers - Britain, Germany, France and Italy. This pact signified a conspiracy of the English and French Governments with German and Italian fascism, which even then did not hide! their aggressive intentions. At the same time, this pact with fascist states signified a rejection of the policy of strengthening the united front of peace-loving powers against aggressive states. In collusion with Germany and Italy, bypassing the rest of the powers that were participants in the then disarmament conference, which discussed the Soviet proposal to conclude a non-aggression pact and a pact to determine the attacker, Great Britain and France struck a blow to ensuring peace and security of peoples.

        Subsequently, in 1934, England and France helped Hitler use the hostile position of the pan-allied Poland with them in relation to the USSR, as a result of which a German-Polish non-aggression pact was concluded , which was one of the serious stages in the preparation of German aggression. Hitler needed this pact in order to upset the ranks of supporters and collective security and to show with this example that Europe does not need collective security, but in bilateral agreements. This made it possible for German aggression to decide for itself with whom and when to conclude an agreement, on whom and when to attack. Undoubtedly, the German-Polish pact was the first serious breach in the collective security building.

        Osmelev, Hitler took a number of measures to openly restore the armed forces of Germany, which did not cause any opposition from the British and French rulers. On the contrary, soon, in 1935 ”

        in London, where Ribbentrop arrived for this, an Anglo-German naval agreement was concluded, by virtue of which Great Britain agreed to restore the German naval armed forces in a volume almost equal to the French navy. In addition, Hitler received the right to build submarines with a total tonnage equal to 45 percent of the British submarine fleet. The unilateral acts of Nazi Germany, aimed at the elimination of all other restrictions on the growth of the armed forces of Germany established by the Treaty of Versailles, which did not meet any opposition from England, France, also belong to the same period.

        The appetites of the fascist aggressors were played out1 every day, with the obvious connivance of the USA, Great Britain and France. It is no accident, of course, that at that time both Germany and Italy easily got away with their military interventions in Abyssinia and Spain.

        1 V.M. Molotov, Articles and speeches, 1936 - 1936, p. 176.

        Only the Soviet Union consistently and firmly pursued its policy of peace, upholding the principles of equality and independence of Abyssinia, which was also a member of the League of Nations, and the right of the legitimate Republican Government in Spain to support from democratic countries against German-Italian intervention.

        “The Soviet Union,” said V.M. Molotov at the CEC Session of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on January 10, 1936 regarding the Italian attack on Abyssinia, “demonstrated in the League of Nations its loyalty to this principle, the principle of state independence and national equality of all states, as an example of one of small countries - Abyssinia. The Soviet Union also used its participation in the League of Nations,

        in order to practice its own line with respect to the imperialist aggressor ”

        V. M. Molotov said then that “the Italo-Abyssinian war shows that the threat of a world war is growing more and more, capturing Europe more and more” 2.

        2 Ibid., P. 177.

        What were the governments of the USA, Great Britain and France doing at this time, in front of which the fascist robbers were more and more brazenly cracking down on their victims? They did not lift a finger to curb the German and Italian aggressors, to defend the violated rights of peoples, to preserve peace and stop the impending Second World War.

        Only the Soviet Union did everything possible to block the path of the fascist aggressors. The Soviet Union initiated and advocated collective security. On February 6, 1933, in the General Disarmament Commission, the representative of the Soviet Union M. M. Litvinov proposed the adoption of a declaration on the definition of aggression and the attacking side. In proposing a definition of the attacker, the Soviet Union proceeded from the need, in the interests of universal security and to facilitate an agreement on the maximum reduction of armaments, to define the concept of "attack" in the most accurate way in order to "prevent any excuse for justifying it." However, this proposal was rejected by the conference, which was led by England and France, for the sake of German aggression.

        Everyone knows the persistent and long struggle of the Soviet Union and its delegation in the League of Nations, under the chairmanship of M. M. Litvinov, for the preservation and strengthening of collective security. Throughout the pre-war period, the Soviet delegation in the League of Nations defended the principle of collective security, raising its voice in defense of this principle at almost every meeting of the League of Nations, in almost every commission of the League of Nations. But, as you know, the voice of the Soviet delegation remained the voice of one crying in the desert. The whole world knows the proposals of the Soviet delegation on measures to strengthen collective security, sent on behalf of the Soviet Government to the Secretary General of the League of Nations, Avenol, on August 30, 1936, with a request to discuss these proposals in the League of Nations. But it is also known that these proposals were buried in the archives of the League of Nations, without receiving any movement.

        It was clear that England and France, who then led the League of Nations, were giving up the collective rebuff of German aggression. But they refuse collective security because it prevents them from pursuing the new policy of "appeasing" German aggression that they have learned, the policy of concessions to Hitler aggression. Of course, such a policy could not but lead to increased German aggression, but the Anglo-French ruling circles believed that this was not dangerous, since, having satisfied Hitler's aggression with concessions in the West, it could then be sent to the East and used as an instrument against THE USSR.

        In a report at the XVIII Congress of the CPSU (B.) In March 1939, explaining the reasons for the intensification of Hitler aggression, JV Stalin said:

        “The main reason is the refusal of the majority of non-aggressive countries and, above all, England and France, from a policy of collective security, from a policy of collective resistance to aggressors, in their transition to a position of non-interference, a position of“ neutrality ”1.

        1 I. V. Stalin, Report at the XVIII Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, “Questions of Leninism,” p. 570.

        In order to confuse the reader and at the same time slander the Soviet Government, American correspondent Neil Stanford argues that the Soviet Government opposed collective security, that M. M. Litvinov was removed from the post of People’s Commissar and replaced by V. M. Molotov because he pursued a policy of strengthening collective security . It is hard to imagine anything more stupid than this fantastic statement. It is clear that M. M. Litvinov did not pursue his personal policy, but the policy of the Soviet Government. On the other hand, everyone knows the struggle of the Soviet Government and its representatives, including M. M. Litvinov, for collective security throughout the pre-war period.

        As regards the appointment of V. M. Molotov to the post of People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, it’s quite clear that in the difficult context of preparations by the fascist aggressors of World War II, with the direct connivance and pushing of the aggressors to the war against the USSR from Great Britain and France, behind which they stood The United States of America, it was necessary to have in such a responsible post as the post of People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs, a more experienced and more popular politician in the country than M. M., Litvinov.

        The refusal of the Western powers from the collective security pact was not accidental. During this period, a struggle developed between the two lines of international politics. One line is the line of the struggle for peace, for the organization of collective security and for countering aggression through the combined efforts of peace-loving peoples. The Soviet Union led this line, consistently and steadfastly defending the interests of all large and small peace-loving peoples. The other line is the line of refusing to organize collective security, refusing to counteract aggression, which inevitably encouraged the fascist countries to intensify their aggressive activity and thereby contributed to unleashing a new war.

        From all this, it is clear that the historical truth is that Hitler aggression became possible, firstly, due to the fact that the United States of America helped the Germans create a military-economic base of German aggression in a short time and thus armed this aggression, and secondly, due to the fact that the refusal of the Anglo-French ruling circles from collective security disrupted the ranks of peace-loving countries, expanded the united front of these countries against aggression, cleared the way for German aggression and helped Hitler unleash a second world new war.

        What would happen if the United States did not finance the heavy industry of Nazi Germany, and England and France did not give up collective security, but, on the contrary, organize a collective rebuff of German aggression together with the Soviet Union?

        Hitler’s aggression would turn out to be. without enough weapons. Hitler's predatory policy would find itself in the grip of a collective security regime. The chances of a successful unleashing of the Second World War for the Nazis would be reduced to a minimum. And if the Nazis, despite these unfavorable conditions for them, would still decide to unleash a second

        world war, they would be defeated in the first year of the war.

        This, however, did not happen, unfortunately, due to the destructive policies pursued by the United States of America, England and France throughout the pre-war period.

        It’s who is to blame for the fact that the Nazis could not without success unleash the Second World War, which lasted almost six years and swallowed millions of victims.