Should the US have gotten involved in Europe in WWII?

[PDJane]

31. The US got involved in the firing war because she had no choice.

However, the US was supplying England under the lend-lease programmes. US industrialists and bankers were also supplying the Nazis with materials because it was lucrative to do so, and because there was a hefty portion of the US who were anti-semitic. I. C. Farben and Vereinigte Stahlwerke build weaponry with American assistance and funding. Standard Oil gave Farben a monopoly on production of synthetic oil from coal, along with the patent for synthetic silk for parachutes. Just under one half of the high octane fuel produced in Germany during the period came directly from that programme, and much of the rest came from subsidiaries. Opel, a Subsidiary of General Motors, produced tanks. Ford himself was decorated by the Nazis for his investments in German manufacturing.

Alcoa and Dow transferred domestic technology, as did IBM. Bendix Aviation supplied Siemens & Halske A. G. in Germany with data on automatic pilots and aircraft instruments, along with technical data to Robert Bosch for aircraft and diesel engine starters and received royalty payments in return. I. G. Farben and Standard Oil of New Jersey suppressed development of the synthetic rubber industry in the United States, to the advantage of Germany. And yes, the Bush family was in there, too.

Why am I pointing out this old history? Because war, for the US, has been a mostly economic endeavor. US multinationals and the US banking system make money, lots of it, from being above the fray. Their investments have not been confined to helping America or her allies during the wars that have come their way; it's about money, only money. How to get it. How to control it. How to make sure that every death swells their pockets, no matter on which side the deaths occur. How to make sure that the people who control the money are 'citizens of the world,' with hegemony on their mind. They are above corruption, because they have no loyalties. The system is amoral and self-sustaining.

American financial rules mask the risk of big banks. Part of the reason that Canada didn't get hit as hard with the crisis in 2009 is that Canada uses international financial rules; mortgages are on the books, unlike the US, even though 75% are guaranteed by the government. The firewall between investment and commercial banking remains in place in Canada, despite Conservative efforts to move us to a US system. US banks have resisted more accountability and some necessary accounting changes. This masks risks. For example, as a percentage of GDP, Switzerland's UBS and Credit Suisse alone account for nearly 600% of the country's GDP. The US banking system, with much more risk, state the % of GDP as between 56 and 69%. No matter what the truth of the matter, it seems that the banking system in the first world is a very greedy behemoth, sucking up a totally incredible amount of money. It's not money for work, it's money for the sake of making money, and it's unsustainable.

These wars are an unsustainable expenditure, too.

All of it, from the wars to mortgages to the fees they charge the poor and disenfranchised for banking services, are the way that the banking giants control the economy. They, even more than the big corporations, are responsible for the dip in the economy and the attitude of the elite.