Who Funded World War II?
There is an opinion that once the list of forces that funded World War II — and be sure to note their ethnic affiliations — is published, many things will become clear. This idea is surprisingly simple. We can even start exploring the answer now, because the required list can be found in middle school textbooks, and it clearly indicates the ethnic attributes. After all, this war was launched by sovereign states using their budgets and relying on defense industries... In addition, there was the Soviet Union, which later joined the war and had strongly denied being a nation-state.
Certainly, the policies that triggered the war, as well as the entities directly involved in the war, were sovereign states. This point is controversial. It is usually believed that the policies of nation-states reflect the interests of the entire nation. However, communists argue that policies reflect the interests of the ruling class. It is also undeniable — especially in monarchies and authoritarian regimes — that leaders' considerations of their own interests influence the direction of state policies. However, the core demand of a dictator is power. The foundation of power is the "sum of support from the government, the army, and the people." Therefore, leaders inevitably strive to enhance their prestige and the strength of the country. After all, governing a state with no autonomy and constantly constrained by others is far less satisfying than ruling a powerful country that shakes the world.
Incidentally, the names and ethnic attributes of the leaders of various countries at that time were public information. For example, Stalin's name was Joseph, and his ethnicity was Georgian.
... However, the commentator who put forward the above view obviously had something else in mind. He did not mean the issue of class — because according to Lenin's theory (which Stalin would also agree with), warring bourgeois classes are divided along national lines. In the 20th century, the outbreak of war — I want to emphasize again, this is the view of communists and Soviet textbooks; if someone wants to refute it, they are arguing against them — often stemmed from the German bourgeoisie's attempt to seize interests from the British bourgeoisie. The people were drawn into the war because the profits of the bourgeoisie would eventually translate into income for the people. At least, national capital would pay taxes to its own country, not to mention that it could create employment opportunities, etc... The textbooks do not elaborate much on this, but it is an undeniable fact.
The so-called "Jewish bankers" that the commentator implied have never appeared in any historical records. The concept of "the British bourgeoisie" is by no means a synonym for "Jewish bankers."
In the bourgeois group, only a few people could truly make a fortune from the war. Because even during wartime, the capital invested in weapon production is only a small portion; moreover, during the war, the state, as a monopolistic buyer, directly sets prices, and the profit from arms production is actually minimal... Even so, the profits of these few people come at the expense of the interests of the majority of the bourgeoisie. After all, the total amount of social wealth does not increase out of nowhere. The money that arms dealers gain is exactly what other groups — such as restaurant owners — should have earned.
Therefore, the war itself is not in the interest of the bourgeoisie as a class, only wars with low cost and high returns are beneficial to them. For instance, a large market can be seized through a military campaign within just a few weeks... Hence, only "blitzkrieg" would receive the support of the bourgeoisie.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7580942267897119273/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author himself.