a6) Der Erste Weltkrieg als gutes Geschäft der Wall Street zulasten Deutschlands


Kriegshysterie der USA gegen Deutschland 1917

“Sinngemäß gab die Wall Street einen Seufzer der Erleichterung ab”, als 1917 endlich der Krieg gegen Deutschland in Aussicht war.
John Kenneth Turner, Shall it be again?, (Wird es so seinen Krieg wiedergeben?), New York 1922


Turner – Shall it be Again (warning for the next war) (1922)

Amerikanische Chronologie der Katastrophe für Deutschland

Ab S. 146:
To what extent was America’s war a war for business ?   Did Woodrow Wilson lead America into war in order to serve the selfish interests of the few ?
The answer is determined by looking into the essential facts.  In the first place, Wall Street wanted war.

Not a single recognized spokesman of our greatest financial and industrial interests, anywhere in public life, expressed opposition to war during the critical weeks of February and March, 1917. On the contrary, our leading financiers themselves, who up to that period had seldom been quoted on political questions, personally endorsed the proposition of belligerency.

April 4, 1917, the New York Times said : “Not since Woodrow Wilson became President has any utterance of his met with such instant and hearty approval by leaders in the financial district as his war address to Congress.” This conclusion was backed by a column of quotations. “It [the war message] was … exactly right,” said Judge Gary, head of the U.S. Steel Corporation. “It was 100 per cent. American,” said Frank Vanderlip, moving genius of the American International Corporation and head of the National City Bank. The President’s address was magnificent,” said James Wallace, head of the Guaranty Trust Company. “It was well worth waiting for,” said A. Barton Hepburn, another of our leading bankers. “The speech breathes the true spirit of the American people,” said Martin Carey, of the Standard Oil Company. These opinions of the President’s address, said the Times, “were echoed in one form or another by bankers, brokers, and executives in large number.

Nor can this attitude on the eve of war be taken as an eleventh-hour move to “get on the right side”; for the spokesmen of our large business interests openly favored war at a time when to “stand behind the President,” was supposed to mean not belligerency, but pacifism. During the “armed neutrality” period, the Wall Street correspondent of the Philadelphia Public Ledger diagnosed financial sentiment (March 22, 1917) as follows :

“Briefly stated, Wall Street believes that war is just one move ahead. And Wall Street is glad that it is so. The financial district here is unqualifiedly for war as soon as it can be declared. ‘It is a good thing for the country,’ one trust president declared. … This is the way Wall Street feels about the prospects of war. Only a few of the men thus interviewed were willing to have their names mentioned; their enthusiasm for war, however, was too real to be misunderstood.”

Going back to the breaking of diplomatic relations, within five minutes after the news reached the financial district, according to the Times: “Wall Street was bright with the Stars and Stripes floating from banks and brokerage offices. Figuratively, the street gave a concerted sigh of relief.”  On the Produce Exchange, 300 brokers sang “The Star Spangled Banner.”

February 20, 1917, the New York Merchants’ Association held what theHerald declared was “the greatest demonstration in the history of that organization.” The organization drank to the President. During this period, the State and local Councils of Defense, upon which business leaders everywhere shone, were constituted. Business organizations besieged the President and Congress with petitions for vigorous action. The directors of the National Safety Council, claiming to represent 2,814 American corporations employing 3,000,000 workmen, adopted resolutions “pledging to the President of the United States the loyal support of this organization in whatever measures may be necessary to defend the national honor and to protect the lives and property of Americans.”

As early as December, Mr. Schwab had offered his vast plants to the government, in case of war, “at the government’s price.” This example was followed in February and March by many great corporations.

March 26, 1917, at the solicitation of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, J.P. Morgan & Co. loaned the government $1,000,000 without interest and without security, for the purchase of supplies immediately desired in anticipation of war.

During March, J.P. Morgan, Mrs. E.H. Harriman, George Baker, Jr., Vincent Astor, and others of their class offered their private yachts for service as submarine chasers in the event of war. At the same time, Wall Street was giving the President the fullest assurances that it was ready to coöperate also in the matter of loans. March 23, we find Thomas W. Lamont delivering a patriotic address entitled “America Financially Prepared,” in which he promised : “If the Treasurer should decide to issue a government obligation to-morrow for a billion dollars, the whole sum would be waiting for it.”

One of the most effective things that big business did, in those critical weeks, in working its will for war, was to demand naval guns and crews for its ships and to tie up transportation and commerce until that demand was satisfied.

Immediately after the breaking of diplomatic relations, the International Mercantile Marine Company—a British-controlled corporation, in which, however, America’s most powerful financiers are interested—began holding its ships in port. February 12, its president made formal application for naval guns and crews. At the same time the railroads, which are under the control of the same American financiers who are interested in the International Mercantile Marine Company, began to refuse shipments because of alleged congestion due to the ships’ being held in port. This tying up of American domestic commerce “by Germany” was played upon with great effect by the press. When, on February 26, President Wilson appeared before Congress asking for authority to arm merchant ships, he was able to offer the argument that “our own commerce has suffered, is suffering … rather because so many of our ships are timidly keeping to their home ports than because American ships have been sunk.”
Had there been any good reason to believe that the means of “protection,” which the International Mercantile Marine demanded, would in fact protect, its demand for such means might be taken as sincere. But for many months, ships flying the British flag had been trying precisely the same means of “protection,” and it had been proven that these means did not protect. Five weeks later, the President himself admitted that such protective measures were futile, although meanwhile no new incidents had happened to render that truth any clearer than before. (See Chapter VI.)

We may well take the President’s word for this, especially as no one—much less the officials of the International Mercantile Marine—disputed it. Since this truth was as clear on February 26 as on April 2, the tying up of American shipping by big business in February and March cannot be explained in any other way except as a conspiracy to promote war sentiment.

Not only was Wall Street enthusiastically for war between February 3 and the declaration, but big business was a most powerful influence within the country working toward war previously to that period.


Aus:   http://www.mmnews.de/index.php/wirtschaft/16236-fed-gefaehrlich
# 36 Wilhelm II. 17. Dezember 2013 – 07:59 + 7
Wilhelm II., letzter deutscher Kaiser, Ereignisse und Gestalten 1878 – 1918, Leipzig 1922

Der letzte deutsche Kaiser Wilhelm II. über den Einfluß mächtiger Finanzgruppen Amerikas, der Wallstreet und das durch den Ersten Weltkrieg nach Amerika gekommene Gold


S. 63: “Professor Usher’s Mitteilungen bedeuten aber auch eine glatte Abfertigung für alle die Leute, die während des Krieges in einzelnen militärischen Handlungen seitens Deutschlands, wie z. B. dem Lusitania-Zwischenfall, der Verschärfung des U-Bootkriegs usw., den Grund für die Teilnahme der Vereinigten Staaten am Kriege suchen zu müssen glaubten. Nichts von alledem ist richtig. Das jüngst erschienene vortreffliche Buch von John Kenneth Turner “Shall it be again?” weist auf Grund überzeugenden Beweismaterials nach, daß Wilsons angebliche Kriegsgründe und -ziele nicht die wirklichen gewesen sind. Amerika – oder richtiger sein Präsident Wilson – war wohl von Anfang an, jedenfalls seit 1915, entschlossen, gegen Deutschland Stellung zu nehmen und zu fechten. Das letztere tat es unter dem Vorwand des U-Bootkriegs, in Wirklichkeit unter dem Einfluß mächtiger Finanzgruppen und auf das Drängen und Bitten seines Partners Frankreich, dessen Menschenmaterial sich mehr und mehr erschöpfte.”

S. 270 – 271: “Es besteht kein Zweifel darüber, daß Amerikas Eintritt in den Krieg und vorher die gewaltigen Munitions- und Kriegsbedarfslieferungen Amerikas an die Entente die Chancen der Zentralmächte, den Krieg durch die Waffen erfolgreich zu beenden, wesentlich beinträchtigt haben. …Es muß aber doch erwähnt werden, daß John Kenneth Turner in seinem bereits erwähnten Buche “Shall it be again?” an der Hand umfangreichen Materials nachweist, daß alle Gründe Wilsons für Amerikas Eintritt in den Krieg Scheingründe waren, daß er vielmehr lediglich im Interesse der mächtigen Hochfinanz der Wallstreet handelte. Der große Gewinn, den Amerika aus dem Weltkriege gezogen hat, liegt darin, daß die Vereinigten Staaten nahezu 50% des Goldes der ganzen Welt an sich ziehen konnte, so daß jetzt der Dollar an Stelle des englischen Pfund den Wechselkurs in der Welt bestimmt.“


Aus:  http://www.mmnews.de/index.php/politik/17128-us-eu-ukraine

US, EU: Kriegstreiber in Ukraine?

Von Paul Craig Roberts

“Es waren Narren wie Nuland, welche das Große Spiel spielten, das uns den Ersten Weltkrieg einbrachte. Der Dritte Weltkrieg wäre der letzte Krieg. Washingtons Drang, jede Gelegenheit auszunützen, um seine Vorherrschaft über die Welt zu etablieren, treibt uns alle in den Atomkrieg. Ein signifikanter Anteil der Bevölkerung der westlichen Ukraine besteht aus Russenhassern wie Nuland. Ich kenne die Ursachen für die Ablehnung Russlands durch Ukrainer, aber mit Geld aus Washington angeheizte ukrainische Emotionen sollten nicht den Lauf der Geschichte bestimmen. Es werden keine Historiker überleben, die dokumentieren könnten, wie leichtgläubige und gedankenlose Ukrainer die Zerstörung der Welt vorbereitet haben”

Paul Craig Roberts war stellvertretender Finanzminister in der Regierung Reagan