The strange clemency of the USA and Britain toward Germany after World War I

Just after WWI, the treaty of Versailles (June 1919) forced Germany to pay reparations to several countries it had fought. Germany had to pay 20 billion gold-marks before May 1921. A commission had to estimate the total amount of reparations Germany would finally pay. In 1921, at the conference of London, the final estimation of the amount due was 132 billion gold-marks. The repartition was the following: France 52 %, England 22 %, Belgium 10 %, Italy 8 %, and 8 % for other Allies.

But, immediately, voices in England said the reparations were unfair for Germany and bad for the European economy. It started with a book from the famous economist John Maynard Keynes "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" (1919), which knew a great success.

Those fears about economic problems caused by the payment of reparations seemed to become real when hyperinflation hit Germany (between 1923 and 1924). At least, the USA and England seemed to think so. Then, Germany declared it could not pay the reparations and asked for a moratorium.

Quickly, the USA, more and more followed by England, didn't stop pushing for a decrease of the amount of reparations and finally, for an annulation of them.

France, on the other side, which had been hit very hard by the war, defended the idea that reparations had to be paid until the last gold-mark. When Germany said in 1923 it couldn't pay, France, with Belgium, invaded the Ruhr in order to get paid (by taking control of mines, industries, etc…). But, being under the pressure of the USA and England and isolated diplomatically, France finally evacuated the Ruhr in 1925. And progressively, it accepted more and more decreases of the German reparations, until finally, the payment ceased.

So, the USA and England were indeed very merciful with Germany.

Some things are quite strange regarding this clemency and the reasons of it:

1. The USA were already entirely controlled by Jewish leaders and Freemasons (as France and Belgium). Why would jews from the USA let European countries get all the money? They would have certainly asked for a part of it.
2. Even if we stay in the official history, the USA government was not known for its selflessness. So, they would most probably have wanted a part of the German reparations. And they would have some reasons to ask for it. They lost many young men during the war. They were forced to invest in the war machine, which is not productive. They had legitimacy to ask for this.
3. England and the USA should have been very happy with the German reparations. Germany was their greatest economic competitor. With the reparations, England and the USA had the opportunity to gain market shares. France just played second fiddle. It wasn't a great threat. And France had to reconstruct a part of its economy. So, the reparations weren't going to give it a decisive economic advantage. So, the only great adversary was Germany. And England and the USA weren't known to be apologists of economic equilibrium. For example, the USA was very happy with the poverty of countries from South America; it didn't want to have an economic power which would become a competitor there. And when the economic crisis hit the Occidental countries in 1929, England and the USA should have been more eager to weaken Germany. Thus, why try to favor Germany? And as Germany didn't waste its money on military things anymore, it had a very important economic advantage against Britain and the USA. It was quite unfair. So, Britain and the USA should have taken the reparations as a way to reduce this unfair disadvantage.
4. Germany was still an economic giant. With England, it was the factory of Europe. As war was over, they didn't have to pay incredible amounts of money anymore into the war machine. Also, as Germany didn't have to maintain an extremely costly army anymore (its army was reduced to only 100.000 soldiers), its economy was extremely advantaged. So, there was no risk at all for Germany to fall into economic depression. The best proof is that they were able to rearm. It has been estimated that rearmament cost yearly 7 times more than would have cost reparations each year. And for example, in 1928, Germany was making 10 % of all world commercial exchanges (13 % in 1913). It was once again first in chemistry, optic, electro-technic, and mechanical industries. The USA and Germany knew all that of course. So, why fear that Germany would fall into economic chaos or depression?
5. The quick change of opinion of England regarding the reparations is a little too shady. At first, they accept the idea of reparations. They accept to get 22 % of the total amount. And they accept the amount of 132 million gold-marks in 1921. And suddenly, after just three or four years they change their idea and decide it won't be good for the economy and political stability of Europe. Of course, in-between, there had been the German hyperinflation. But still. They could have thought, as France, that it was a trick from Germany in order to avoid paying. And because of points 3 and 4, they wouldn't have thought that the situation of Germany was catastrophic.
6. Of course, there could have been the ultimate argument that Germany could fall into political chaos and would finally become a communist country. But as Germany had no army, there was no risk of anything like this. If such a thing had become real, France would have invaded Germany and in one month, would have re-established a democratic government. If we consider things with a more conspirationist point of view, we can add England and the USA knew that as Germany was then a democracy controlled by jews and freemasons, there was no more risk of rebellion from people than there was in Jewish controlled countries as France or England or the USA, etc... In such a case, the Jewish controlled government would have killed as many people as required, and the rebellion would have ended very quickly. Thus, the only threat with Germany was an economic one, eventually. But we have seen that this threat was phony. So, why did the USA and England fear so much about an economic or a political chaos in Germany?

If you analyze the situation via the theory that Hitler was a Zionist jew working for more powerful Jewish leaders who wanted to create Israel and to push ordinary jews to go there, you have another version of the story.

Reality, my friends, is the following.

Jewish leaders planned to have WWII nearly twenty year after the first one. They needed this amount of time after WWI in order to stage all the events leading to WWII. They planned this at least 80 years before those events happened.

But, during all this time, Germany was going to rearm, to rebuild its army. Thus, as this rearmament couldn't stay unknown from England and France, the question was going to be: "why France didn't attack Germany when its army was still weak? Why didn't France do anything?". As France had suffered enormously from WWI, it should have been totally inflexible about any attempt of rearmament coming from Germany. The immediate consequences of it should have been an invasion.

So, Jewish leaders had to create the conditions which would explain why France didn't attack Germany when it was still possible to do it with very few losses.

During the 30's there was the explanation that the German army wasn't negligible anymore and that as French people were traumatized by WWI, they didn't want to fight another war. This is why pacifism dominated the French political life. But it was credible only during the 30's, when Germany's army was once again quite powerful.

In the 20's, as Germany's army was very weak, it was difficult to sustain this idea to explain the lack of action from the French government.

The feebleness, the cowardice and the chaotic aspect (of course staged) of the democratic French government was a good start. But it wasn't enough at all to explain its lack of action. After all, few years before, the French government had been able to win a war against Germany.

So, in order to explain this, Jewish leaders staged a phony opposition between the Anglosphere (England-USA) and France.

Reparations had to be imposed on Germany with the agreement of England, France and other allies. But very soon after, England and the USA had to show concern about a possible economic and political instability caused by them. These fears had to seem to become real with the German hyperinflation of 1923-24 (of course, this hyperinflation was created and organized by Jewish leaders). Then, England and the USA had to go back on their decision and to put the pressure on France to renounce to get paid by Germany. The argument from the Anglosphere would be that those reparations were undermining the world economy and the political stability of Europe. And thus, for the sake of the economic prosperity and political stability, France and the other beneficiaries of the reparations had to accept a reduction of the amount of reparations, or even to accept not being paid.

As England was being paid reparations by Germany and was a European country which had been quite hardly hit by the war, they had to be in an in-between situation which would evolve quite quickly. At first, they had to approve France (and Belgium) during the Ruhr affair. But quickly, they would break away from the action of those two countries and would promote with the USA an ever more important decrease of the amount of reparations.

In this relationship, France would be the weak one and England and the USA the strong ones. At the beginning, France would protest and would even act independently (with the Ruhr invasion of 1923 for example, made with Belgium). But after some time, France would obey to the English-American influence and would renounce to get paid. Of course, reparations were not the point. Jewish leaders didn't mind at all about the reparations. It was just a mean and not an end. The point was that France would renounce to invade Germany (because they would feel diplomatically pressured and isolated). The main goal of Jewish leaders was to explain partly why France didn't try to invade Germany whereas this one was slowly rearming.

What the psychodrama of the reparations allowed is that an invasion of Germany by France would be seen as a try to get the reparations by force. France could have claimed it only wanted to prevent a rearmament from Germany, people would have said the true goal for France was to get paid. And as England and the USA were on the side of Germany, there would have been diplomatic pressure and maybe even economic retaliations from them against France. As the French government was presented as weak and coward, the fear of being diplomatically pressured and isolated was supposed to be enough to explain why France didn't try to invade Germany after this Anglo-French psychodrama.

Of course, most of the other countries benefiting from the reparations would remain silent and neutral (except Belgium. France couldn't be entirely isolated; it would have seemed strange). This is because if they had united with France against England and the USA, it would have been difficult to explain why France finally renounced to get paid. France had to be almost alone in this affaire in order to explain why it renounced to the reparations.

All this had to lead to the impression that the Anglosphere was clement with Germany and hard with France. Somewhere, Germany was almost the new ally of England and the USA, and France was almost an enemy. Thus, France would not dare to invade the whole Germany.

This is why the USA could not demand reparations from Germany (whereas it would have been perfectly normal for them to claim a part of them). If they had been involved, them forcing France to abandon the payment would have seemed strange. But because of that, Jewish leaders have introduced another logical problem ("why didn't the USA demand reparations from Germany?").

Of course, John Maynard Keynes wrote his book on behalf of Jewish leaders. Certainly, John Maynard Keynes was a jew. His face is very Jewish. And his name is a derivative of Kahn or Cain, which are Jewish names. And his international celebrity, which is still intact nowadays, shows clearly he was a jew. Jewish leaders don't let Gentiles economists access to such a celebrity. So, Jewish leaders asked him to write a book in which he would defend the idea that German reparations were unfair and a threat on European prosperity and stability. And as a good sayanim, Keynes wrote it (or a think tank wrote it for him).

The hyperinflation of 1923 in Germany had also another goal. It allowed Jewish leaders to make Germans angry and consequently to boost the popularity of Hitler. Same thing for the invasion of the Ruhr by France. So, with the reparations, Jewish leaders could kill two birds with one stone: they could explain partly why France didn't invade Germany when the later began to rearm, and they could explain partly the anger of Germans and the rise of Hitler.

The 6th chapter of the book of Keynes (about the situation of countries of Central Europe) was so apocalyptic that it was ridiculous. Keynes predicted millions of death because of a hypothetical economic collapse. Nothing like that happened of course (in Germany or in other countries from Central Europe). And, as we have seen in point 4, Germany was still an economic giant. Keynes also thought goods wouldn't be transported to people because of the failure of the transport system. But during WWI, there was no problem to transport goods. Then, why would have there been any problem after the war? But the book of Keynes had to be exaggerated like this. Keynes had to make an apocalyptic presentation of the European situation (and especially the German one) in his pamphlet. English and U.S governments, and the newspapers, all controlled by Jewish leaders, also had to seem to take this ridiculous theory very seriously. And when there was hyperinflation in Germany, they had to apparently think that it fully confirmed the thoughts of Keynes. All this, in order to finally explain why France didn't invade Germany when the later was rearming.

PS: of course, some will say that the German rearmament began to take place only after 1933, which would make my theory pointless. But, even in 1933, it is still valid. And in fact, rearmament took place long before 1933. There has been a hidden rearmament since 1919. You can't create such an army in just 5 or 6 years.