Germany Cries: "Europe Is Coming For Our Money", Greece Promptly Obliges

Tyler Durden's picture

"Greece is an exception in the Euro Zone" - Angela Merkel, December 9, 2011

"Exception from ESM Seniority only applies to Spanish aid" - Angela Merkel, June 29, 2012

 

It took about a year, but finally Germany, with a little assistance from Merkel on Friday morning, has figured it out. And is now blasting it on the front pages of its various newpapers:

Translated:

Europe is coming for our money!

What else does Die Welt say:

When economic historians in a few years determine the turning point at which the euro zone turned into a debt community, they may refer to the last Thursday night. In those dramatic hours when Angela Merkel after massive pressure from Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy buckled - and agreed to an agreement whose scope is now very difficult to estimate.

Specifically, what is now painfully clear to everyone in Germany is that if indeed Merkel's declarations over the past few days are to be taken at face value, then Germay has just lost control over European supervision: a topic very near and dear to all Germans' heart, as up until this point money would be handed out only in exchange for conditionality. A move whie Welt calls a paradigm shift: "To date the Germans insisted that the €-aids come equipped with shackles. Money was always associated with reform programs that were monitored by the Troika of the EU, European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF)." That is now no longer the case. At least according to conventional wisdom:

Precisely for this reason were countries like Portugal and Ireland long afraid to apply for assistance. Now dipping into the bailout pot will be far easier... The federal government has always stressed that any bailout will come with strict conditions. Now all has changed, partly because of pressure from the financial markets. Italy and Spain struggling with risk premiums at record levels. So far, however, they refused to implement emergency measures. That could now change. Monti has already cheered: "the Troika will never come to Rome."

Die Welt may be on to something: while in the case of the Spanish bailout, the European action opened the door for proactive demands for future assistance, what happened last week has also activated the retroactive lever, and the cries for equitable EFSF/ESM treatment (where there is no seniority for bondholders despite Citi's clear explanation the EFSF and ESM will always have implied seniority over other private sector bondholders no matter what promises politicians throw around) will now come from all the other countries bailed out by Europe. Because what kind of union is it if among the countries in distress some are more equal than others. After all, first it was only Greece who was an exception. Now it is Spain. Who will be the next exception?

But before we pretend to even answer that rhetorical question, we already know how long it took Greece to demand the same treatment as that offered to Spain: 24 hours.

From Kathimerini:

Athens to ask for EFSF deal to apply to Greece, too

 

The government is considering to ask for the European Council agreement of Thursday for banks to get direct funding from the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) to apply to Greece, too, even though the recapitalization of local lenders was agreed to be included in the state’s bailout agreement.

 

The issue was discussed, according to reports, during a meeting at the Prime Minister’s residence in Athens on Saturday evening, ahead of the visit of the representatives of Greece’s creditors from Monday.

And since in Europe now every beggar is empowered to be a chooser, there is no stopping how much Germany will have to pay out of pocket to keep the insolvent ones content.

Main opposition leader Alexis Tsipras urged the government on Saturday to press for local banks to benefit from the new system of direct recapitalization from the EFSF, or threaten to veto the European Union’s Treaty for Stability Co-ordination and Governance and refuse to accept the visit of the creditors’ inspectors in Athens.

Expect many more demands from Ireland and Portugal next. Also expect many more and far angrier headlines out of Germany.

All of this means, that as we calculated last July, with Germany no longer able to kick the can, Merkel will soon have to front well over 30% of its GDP and likely over 50%, just to keep the Eurozone alive. it also means that, as we said last July, spreads of core European bonds will soar in a great compression trade where the PIIGS become the core and vice versa, an outcome that will anger Germany even more as it bring the implied outcome of Eurobonds without Eurobonds ever having been activated.

There is however a catch: earlier today we speculated that Merkel's move was merely one that puts the Constitutional Court, and thus a broad referendum, in action. Already numerous parties are demanding that the highest court scrap the ESM as it is both undemocratic and unconstituional.

From Deutsche Welle:

The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Fiscal Pact have been approved by the German parliament. But thousands of Germans have joined forces to take legal action against these measures.

 

The Euro Stability Mechanism's capital stock of 700 billion euros is intended to provide a buffer against the convulsions of the euro debt crisis. The 17 signatory states will each pay a proportional amount into the ESM - irrevocably and without restrictions - or set the money aside to be handed over, if required.

 

The signatory states came to an agreement on the ESM because, as is stated in the treaty, they are "committed to ensuring the financial stability of the euro area".

 

But opponents say that this should not be done at any cost, and using any means available. Dissenters are calling for more democracy, and there are a lot of them. More than 12,000 German citizens have joined "Mehr Demokratie" ["More Democracy"], the "Alliance for Constitutional Objections to the ESM and the Fiscal Pact".

 

They plan to file suits with the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe against the instruments being deployed to save the euro. Christoph Degenhart, a Leipzig-based expert on constitutional law, and Herta Däubler-Gmelin, a former federal justice minister, are spearheading the alliance, which also includes some of Germany's smaller political parties.

 

Another prominent critic is Peter Gauweiler, a parliamentary representative of the conservative Christian Social Union who has experience with lawsuits against euro bailout funds. He is fighting the bailout on two fronts: with a constitutional complaint, and with legal action against the federal government. He says, to date, parliament has not discussed the bill because important passages on the ESM are missing.

 

The Left party has launched a similar action against the government, and its delegates have also lodged constitutional complaints.

Also as we reported earlier, both Schauble and Weidmann would be delighted if things get to the referendum stage. And in the aftermath of last week's massive optical loss for Merkel, so will she. If it indeed gets to a referendum, Mario Monti may be far less exuberant with the outcome.

However, assuming that there was no grand master plan behind last week's decision, here is, once again, our math from last July showing just how much of Europe's bailout funding Germany has just footed. Keep in mind the context then was just Greece, as Italy and Spain were both "safe", now that is no longer the case. What hasn't changed one bit is the logic behind the amounts that Germany will have to backstop between Italy and Greece. To wit, from over 11 months ago:

  • An extension of the EFSF to cover Italy and Spain would require a €790bn (32% of GDP) guarantee from Germany

This number is even bigger now.

And what is truly hilarious is that all of this was already at the forefrunt of debate last summer, when the EFSF was once again the bailout ex machina, only then the world and capital markets were a little bit smarter, and realized that there was simply not enough cash to cover the funding needs of both countries. This in turn led to the whole 3x-4x leverage debate that would bring the EFSF to €1 trillion: a plan which was scrapped some time in October and promptly forgotten once it was deemed unfeasible.

In other words we are right back where we started one year ago! Next up: cue the debate over how to increase the funding ot the EFSF/ESM bailout complex. Just like last year. And cue the 3x-4x bailout fund leverage expansion discussions for August-September 2012, once again in carbon copy replica of 2011, all only to be quickly forgotten. Because institutional memories sure are short. And because there is just no more money left.

So for all those who have forgotten last year's full mathematical analysis (because math still trumps politican lies and empty promises any day), here it is. All over again.

* * *

The Fatal Flaw In Europe's Second "Bazooka" Bailout: 82 Million Soon To Be Very Angry Germans, Or How Euro Bailout #2 Could Cost Up To 56% Of German GDP

A funny thing happened in Euro spreads today. While the bonds of all PIIGS countries surged higher in price (and plunged in yield) upon the announcement of the second Big Bang bailout, the reaction in core Eurozone credit was hardly as exuberant, and in fact spreads of the two core European countries pushed wider by the end of the day, and over the last week. Why? After all the elimination of peripheral risk should have been seen as favorable for everyone involved, most certainly for those who had been seen as supporting the ever more rickety house of European cards. Well, no. Basically what happened today was a two part deal: the i) funding of future debt for countries that are currently locked out of the market (all the PIIGS and possibly core countries soon) or in other words the "liquidity mechanism" which is being satisfied by the EFSF "TARP-like" expansion, and ii) the roll-over mechanism for existing holders of debt which "allows" them to "voluntarily" transfer existing obligations into a "fresh start" Greece which can then emerge promptly from the Selective Default state that is coming from Moody's and S&P any second, and supposedly allow the country to access markets as a non-bankrupt country.

For all intents and purposes the second can be ignored, because as has been made clear over the past few days, and as will be demonstrated below, the actual rollover from non-Peripheral banks will be de minimis, the bulk of impaired debt being held by banks in the host countries as is, and used as collateral with the ECB in the form of par instruments for cash.

Now the second part of the mechanism was never an issue further demonstrated by the plunge in net notional in Greek CDS as core banks no longer needed to hedge exposure and instead opted to divest their holdings. This is merely a red herring that attempts to confuse the issues associated with the first, and far more important concept: the nuances of the EFSF and its imminent expansion. And expand it will have to, because in reality what is happening is that the net debt of the countries will end up growing even more over time for one simple reason: this is not a restructuring of existing debt from the perspective of the host country! Simply said Greek debt will continue growing as a percentage of its GDP, meaning it, and Ireland, and Portugal, and soon thereafter Italy and Spain will be forced to borrow exclusively from the EFSF. Therein lies the rub. In a just released report by Bernstein, which has actually done the math on the required contributions to the EFSF by the core countries, the bottom line is that for an enlarged EFSF (which is what its blank check expansion today provided) to be effective, it will need to cover Italy and Belgium. As AB says, "its firepower would have to rise to €1.45trn backed by a total of €1.7trn guarantees." And here is where the whole premise breaks down, if not from a financial standpoint, then certainly from a political one: "As the guarantees of the periphery including Italy are worthless, the Guarantee Germany would have to provide rises to €790bn or 32% of GDP." That's right: by not monetizing European debt on its books, the ECB has effectively left Germany holding the bag to the entire European bailout via the blank check SPV. The cost if things go wrong: a third of the country economic output, and the worst case scenario: a depression the likes of which Germany has not seen since the 1920-30s. Oh, and if France gets downgraded, Germany's pro rata share of funding the EFSF jumps to a mindboggling €1.385 trillion, or 56% of German GDP!

The Europarliament, ECB and IMF may have won their Pyrrhic victory today... But what happens tomorrow when every German (in a population of 82 very efficient million) wakes up to newspaper headlines screaming that their country is now on the hook to 32% of its GDP in order to keep insolvent Greece, with its 50-some year old retirement age, not to mention Ireland, Portugal, and soon Italy and Spain, as part of the Eurozone? What happens when these same 82 million realize that they are on the hook to sacrificing hundreds of years of welfare state entitlements (recall that Otto von Bismark was the original welfare state progentior) just so a few peripheral national can continue to lie about their deficits (the 6 month Greek deficit already is missing Its full year benchmark target by about 20%) and enjoy generous socialist benefits up to an including guaranteed pensions? What happens when an already mortally wounded in the polls Angela Merkel finds herself in the next general election and experiences an epic electoral loss? We will find out very, very shortly.

Below is Bernstein's full breakdown:

Continuation of the current strategy with a materially enlarged EFSF and private sector participation in liquidity support

Despite the failure of the current strategy, there is still a theoretical option of an extension of the current liquidity support with a materially enlarged EFSF that would also be buying government bonds in the secondary market. We believe this is the least likely option given the size of the fund required to achieve the objective.

An extension of the EFSF to cover Italy and Spain would require a €790bn (32% of GDP) guarantee from Germany

This strategy is not only unlikely to succeed but would also run into some serious structural difficulties. To cover 100% of the roll-over for Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy and Belgium as well as an allowance for bank support at 7% of the banks' balance sheets until the end of 2013, the support mechanism(s), would need to be able to deploy a total of €2.4trn in available funds.

Assuming the Greek Loan facility and the EFSM remain in place, the EFSF would have to increase its deployable funds from currently about ~€270bn to €1,450bn.

Given the 20% overcollateralization requirement on the current EFSF structure and the fact that countries that receive EFSF support are not able to provide valid guarantees mean that in order to create a €1.45trn funding capacity, the total fund would have to be €1.7trn. The guarantees to be provided by Germany would have to be €791bn or 32% of GDP.

There is a legitimate question whether in particular Germany would see the point of committing that kind of support to a concept that has so far been extremely unsuccessful. It also would expose Germany to a worst case scenario of a French downgrade. Without France, the guarantee need would rapidly move towards the whole of the €1.7trn. As the market is getting increasingly concerned about France, the odds are heavily stacked against an extension of the EFSF as a pure liquidity support mechanism.

If Banks were to participate in a liquidity expansion their contribution would be minimal

Within the current strategy one of the open questions is whether or not the private sector can participate by providing liquidity to the periphery countries. We believe this to be a fundamentally marginal discussion despite its enormous political importance.

Based on the stress test data released on Friday, we find that whilst the banks account for the majority of the very short term paper, their total share of the funding requirement into 2013 is just 23% and 16% of the total EFSF.

The question is how big the private sector participation could be. Taking the "French proposal" as a guide, the private sector participation would reduce the size of the EFSF by €137bn or 9% of the €1.45bn EFSF funding, assuming 70% of the debt is rolled over, 30% collateralization and 75% of banks participate.

The problem with this private sector participation so far has been the risk that this may be regarded as a default by the rating agencies. As a consequence the banks would have to write down these exposures to market prices. This exercise would lead to reported write-downs for the European banking sector of €75bn, 0.55 times more than the liquidity support that the EU is seeking. And in particular in Portugal and Greece the fallout of the MTM losses far outstrips the increase in liquidity.

Even more importantly, more than half of these losses would occur in the banks of the periphery countries themselves. In the absence of an open market for these banks, the losses would have to be made up by the governments themselves and subsequently added back to the EFSF utilization.


And there you have it: the cost of the euro not plunging today as a result of the ECB not proceeding with outright monetization, is that Germany is now the ultimate backstopper of all of Europe's risk. And while before, when the EFSF was just over €400 billion or so, the market could largely ignore the risk, a €1.5 trillion "upgrade" certainly changes the equilibria dynamics. In an attempt to avoid the appearance of inviting inflationary pressures on Trichet's central bank, Germany has directly onboarded the risk associated with terminal failure of this latest and riskiest "bailout" plan and in doing so may have jeopardized anywhere between 32% and 56% of its entire annual economic output. One wonders if the risk of runaway inflation is worth offsetting the risk of a plunge into the worst depression in the nation's history? It sure isn't for the Fed.

The most ironic outcome would be if the eurozone, in an attempt to prevent further contagion at the periphery, simply invited the vigilantes to bypass Italy (recall how everyone was shocked that instead of attacking Spain, it was Italian spreads that got destroyed in a manner of days), and head straight for the country on whose shoulders lies the fate of the entire EUR experiment?

Is Atlas about to shrug and topple the entire oh so heavy house of cards?

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
williambanzai7's picture

I'm afraid the Greeks are going to get whipped royally by the angry Austerity Mistress. 

Master Chef's picture

But the Germans always win! (except of course for that 1966 world cup watched by 98000 people - I guess the crowd for this glorious defeat might be a bit bigger).

iDealMeat's picture

WB7, Seriously??  This is  a Goldman Sachs show... 

 

 

slewie the pi-rat's picture

i thought i knew what was going on

then i read this

the best part:  just like last year, BiCheZ! 

RockyRacoon's picture

Slewie, you sly dog... er, rat.   I wonder how long this yearly crying of wolf will work?  They save it for big downturns in markets so that the Ponzi can be rolled over for another period.   I think this will be the last time it works.  All this just to save a some banker fat asses.  Bondholders need to look into another line of work -- like mowing grass.

caconhma's picture

Let us skip all ZeroHedge BS and review the true reality: It was American, British, French, and other Europian countries policy for the last 100 years to "contain" Germany. All Germany's European allies’ policies were to deny Germany its right to defend itself militarily and to reduce Germany to some sort of a sub-colonial status. This is all EU is about.

Regardless what America and EU's members say, a collapse of EU will lead to reemergence of Germany freed from a sub-colonial status.

Back in 1933, A. Hitler broke Germany free and Zionist Banking Cartel has declared a war to Germany. Yes, check the history records: Jews declared war on Germany the next month Hitler came to power.

America, Britain, and France could not do much against Germany for a while since the Soviets' socialists supported their German Nationalist Socialist "brothers". So, America, Britain, and France have done everything possible to have another war between Germany and the Soviet Russia.

Both Hitler and Stalin where stupid enough to buy this shit. But, in a mean time, Germany became involved in a war with America, Britain, and France. It was not planed that way but any war is very unpredictable. Just ask Napoleon, Czar Nicholas, Hitler, Stalin, George W. Bush, and Obama.

The moment Germany gets free from its post-WWII status and unites with potentially Russians and Chinese, America, Britain, and France and Zionist banking mafia will be cooked for good. Until then, Germany will play by the America, Britain, and France rules.

In a mean time, as it happened back in the 1929-going forward, the world will go into a severe worldwide depression.

Master Chef's picture

All joking aside, I do believe you have nailed it caconhma.

Nachdenken's picture

Very depressing. 

ZH plays the conspiracy cliche without the loud pedal.  The caconhma premise however holds - recent history shows that the moves to limit German ascendancy have been well coordinated and carried out. Germany is often like a child with immense strength which it does not use optimally.

Sandmann's picture

Read up on the Morgenthau Plan and JCS1067 

Colombian Gringo's picture

The Banksters understands Deutchland. Germans are going to get it the way they like it, tied up,  ball gagged, whipped and begging for mercy. 

http://wolfibound.net/

Sandmann's picture

and then see how JCS1779 led to the Schumann Plan because France refused to accept a German State on its borders at the London Conference and tried to keep German as a non-sovereign occupied territory - pretty rich considering France had not even bothered to fight after May 1940

The Big Ching-aso's picture

 

 

"When everyone more equal, everyone more equally screwed."

Neoconfucius

Ar-Pharazôn's picture

you know really good history........ YOU SAY JUST BS

 

you know what is L`Armée libre francaise? no? GO AND STUDY IDIOT

 

my grandfather served from 1940 to 1942 in north africa as captain, under the command of Montgomery. he was french and he fought for L'Armée libre francaise (which mean free french army)

 

now shut up and open a book

jonjon831983's picture

Thx for refresher.  Parts of history we probably forgot to look deeper in (or rather, don't bother looking deeper into) back in high school.

German industrial base was taken down by post-war occupational policy... which basically means everybody else with productive capacity could take over the slack.

Of course, taken in context Germans had lost the war and Allies probably feared a resurgence.

slewie the pi-rat's picture

all 3 at once?  just amazing 

schatzi's picture

I'm Austrian and I feel extremely uncomfortable with such conspiracy assertions. There is no way to justify the Axis behaviour during that time, no matter who had cornered Germany and its satellites into fascism (under the assumption that Germany was actually cornered by others - which is highly debatable). I'd agree that Germany's central geographical position made it difficult for the other larger European powers to accept it as a dominant power and the stars were therefore never positively aligned for Germany and never will.

disabledvet's picture

Since when is war about justification...

TheGardener's picture

@disabledvet

"Since when is war about justification..."

Nietzsche had it just like you and asked if "any good war"
ever needed justification. He served (not really fought but)
in 1871/2 while having been a professor in Switzerland and still joined the German campaign for the season . Good war wrong point? Any good war worth fighting ? Maybe, but never ever join their wars.

Sandmann's picture

There is no way to justify the Axis behaviour during that time

Germany wasn't Fascist but National Socialist. Very different programme from the Socialist Intellectual Mussolini who invented Fascism having been a British agent in WW1. BTW, as an Austrian, can you tell us what year Stalin planned to invade Western Europe as follow up to the 1920 invasion of Poland ? Do you think the 1923 Uprisings in Thuringen and Dortmund were Comintern inspired - they did ship the guns ?

Why do you think there was a Locarno Treaty but France created alliances with Poland, Czechoslovakia etc to encircle Germany in the East  and then failed to honour them ?

Stackers's picture

Sandman you are only focusing on one side of the paradigm. Hitler was itching for a fight just as much as western "elites - aka zionist jew bankers (rothschilds, cough cough) were trying to provoke him into one. This is not about Britian and France vs Germany. It's about certain european banking oligarchs playing everyone against each while they profit from the death and debt paradigm as they play both sides of the game at the same time. They've been doing it for hundreds of years, over and over and over.

JuicyGrabs's picture

"Back in 1933, A. Hitler broke Germany free and Zionist Banking Cartel has declared a war to Germany."

What a load of steaming BS.

Who funded Hitler`s wars? Know anything about IBM`s involvement in the nazi camps? What about the Henry Ford poster on the wall in Hitler`s office?(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8)

Hitler`s socialist party rose to power by implementing something similar to Obama`s job bill, giving government jobs to people and setting up soup kitchens, after the Weimar inflation wiped out many people out.

Aside the socialist setup, Hitler also beat the drum on racial supremacy of the blonde, blue eyed(ironic again because many Germans and Austrians have hazel nut brown eyes) so called aryan race. Everyone who was not tall(funny since Hitler was very short man, nicknamed like Napoleon "the tiny corporal"), blonde and blue eyed was gonna be fucked by not being allowed to reproduce in the New World Hitler envisioned. "Reproduction" party centers were setup where certain German officers who passed the "racial purity exam" were allowed to party and freely impregnate german women.(the hazel nut eyed germans were ofc left out, not invited to those parties).

 

They`ve also setup programs to castrate those who didn`t fit certain profile, including their own with alleged mental illness(which is funny because both Hitler and Stalin were proven psycopaths).

If you read Mein Kampf you`ll learn that his plan was to turn Berlin into world`s capital city into a big giant crazy planned economy, a NEW WORLD ORDER(famous word here) of the worst kind. He took literally the German "Deutschland Uber Alles"(Germany above all) hymn.

His political creed was based on total war. He believed and famously said that "every generation should go through a war" because war builds character. He borrowed lots of Nietzsche idea regarding this issue as Nietzche valued warmongering nations for not being pussies. Nietzsche basically labeled Germans few decades back, prior to Hitler`s ascension, as pussies who only rarely showed warrior attitude and argued that it was something that needed to change.

 

No one declared war on Germany. Germany declared war on the world. Plain and simple

sabra1's picture

you didn't mention that Hitler was born a Hungarian!

JuicyGrabs's picture

Hitler was Austrian not Hungarian. He also had a Jewish grandmother which made his whole racial supremacy thing even more idiotic.

Sandmann's picture

Why ? He simply saw Jews as either Capitalists or Bolsheviks and not Germans or Austrians - hardly a unique position. Stalin purged Jews in his Show Trials and set up camps to round them up in 1950-  but the Jewish Doctors Plot saw him murdered in 1953 so his plans were unfinished

http://www.amazon.de/Hitlers-Judenhass-Ralf-Georg-Reuth/dp/3492051774/re...

JuicyGrabs's picture

ehh.... headscratch.

Wrong.

He saw Jews as semitic Untermenschen, an inferior evil race who only seek to corrupt pure gentile souls.

 

Stalin, on the other hand, was afraid of growing circle of Jewish party members that might take over power in some kinda` kinship, overthworing the regime and forming an alliance with US and Western powers as these powers were backing Israel. 

He had disagreements with Beria(guy who eventually killed him) on whether to back Israel in the Middle East or the Arab States. Stalin voted in favor on arab states and Beria was for Israel. Reign of Beria was short lived however.

On January 12, 1931, Stalin gave the following answer to an inquiry on the subject of the Soviet attitude toward anti-semitism from the Jewish News Agency in the United States:

            In answer to your inquiry:       

National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.       

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.       

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.

 
caconhma's picture

You both right and both wrong.

The Soviet Bolshevik leaders were exclusively Jews financed by both the City of London and the WallStreet. Their leader was L. Trotsky. He has joined the Bolshevik Party just few weeks prior to" the October Bolshevik Revolution". Trotsky came to Russia with ~3,000 Jewish thugs and humongous amount of money but he did not have any roots in the Russian society.

The second Bolshevik group came from Germany and was led by Lenin. Lenin (Bloch) was a part Jew on his mother side. He was the founder of the Bolshevick Party.

The Bolshevik goal was to destroy and dismember the Russian Empire. However, as soon as Lenin took over power in Russia he forgot who his masters were. He was a professional revolutionary. He was craving for a world revolution under his leadership. This was the primary conflict between Lenin going for a world revolution and Trotsky loyally serving to his Zionist Banking Cartel (the City and the WallStreet). Lenin was an extremely capable master of intrigues and politic. He understood that he could not rely of his Jewish comrades. After all they almost assassinated Lenin in 1918 but he was able to survive. So, Lenin decided to use a man he could trust. This man was Stalin. The Stalin’s goal was to contain Trotsky and his thugs.

Since almost the entire Bolshevik leadership was Jewish, Stalin had worked with them. Stalin concentrated his primary efforts building/creating the Communist Party bureaucracy and security services loyal exclusively to him. Jews were selected and appointed by Stalin to lead/control NKVD (the People Commissariat for Internal Affair -- Stalin’s SS and Gestapo) and were in charge of his personal security.

Trotsky, his people, and Lenin’s Old Guard were agents of the Zionist Banking Cartel and Stalin wanted to become the New Russian Empire (a.k.a. the Soviet Union) Czar. A conflict became inevitable. Stalin has won and slaughtered almost entirely old Bolshevik guards. These people were thugs and gangsters. Killing each other was their way to do business. Stalin did not go for innocent people. Stalin has killed other gangsters who otherwise would kill him. Consequently, Zionist controlled media declared Stalin to be a bloody and sadistic monster since he liquidated Zionist agents in the Soviet Union.

During the WWII, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Zionist Banking Cartel were helping Stalin in his fight with Nazi Germany. As a part of the deal in helping Stalin in WWII, the Zionist Banking Cartel forced Stalin to agree to a creation of “an independent Jewish Homeland” inside the Soviet Union. By the WWII end, Stalin has changed his mind about “an independent Jewish Homeland” inside the Soviet Union. Instead Stalin has helped to create an independent Jewish Homeland in Palestine (a.k.a. Israel).

However, the Zionist Banking Cartel was not happy with Staling “changing his mind”. Consequently, Soviet Jews started openly challenge Stalin trying to overthrow his regime. Stalin struck back hard and intended to get rid of many Soviet Jews. At the same time, Stalin was involved in another internal struggle for power. Stalin wanted to transform the Soviet Union in a way similar to the China transformation after the Mao rule. The Soviet Communist Party bureaucracy did not like it and they have killed Stalin.

The bottom line: there were not too many innocent victims among power elite in the XX-century. However, there were close to 200 million common people slaughtered as the result of endless XX-Century wars and “revolutions” financed and promoted by the City of London and the WallStreet.

PS

If only Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky could imagine what has become of his great-grandson, David Axelrod (the Chief Obama advisor). It appears that after all Bolsheviks took over America…

Bringin It's picture

Hard to be stunned these days, but the last part about David Axelrod (the Chief Obama advisor) being Trotsky's grandson is truely stunning.

What happened to bankster agent Trotsky?  Didn't he get killed in Mexico?  Guess the Banksters don't win 'em all.

Element's picture

 

 

"No one declared war on Germany. Germany declared war on the world."

 

People with first-hand experience and observation say that's all ignorant bullshit:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html

JuicyGrabs's picture

Which part of the "all non-blonde blue eyed aryan will get fucked" war against humanity Hitler wanted to wage on the world you don`t understand?

Way too many people regurgitate neo-nazi crap websites instead of picking up some books and actually read what Hitler and Nazis were all about.

Wjunk's picture

Great comment and first comment above as well.

 

Way too many people imbue the 'Joooos' with some kind of superhuman power - as a race/religion/creed/whatever - to secretly control the world.

The idea that evil people exist - of all races, creeds and religions - doesn't pass the reality barrier these whacked people maintain in their xeno-phobic bubbles.

All craziness leads to the Jews as a secret cabal: Hitler, neo-nazis, too many Ron Paul supporters (and maybe the RP savior himself) and too many here at ZH as well.  Otherwise logical and rational people lose their minds when it comes to the Jews. No wonder Hitler did so well.

JuicyGrabs's picture

I`m a Ron Paul supporter myself. Lots of groups are drawn to the Liberty movement.  There are some misguided supporters, just like there are plenty of anti-semites in the Occupy Wallstreet pro-Obama camp or in the Romney camp.

Spastica Rex's picture

Welcome to teh Zero Hedge. Enjoy the batshit crazy. +1 for you.

Element's picture

Benjamin Freedman is a J E W ... you knee-jerking populist clown.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html

He must be batshit crazy, right?

Cretin!

Element's picture

HA!  ... same goes for you fuckhead!

Benjamin Freedman is a ...  J E W !

Do you even have any clue who he is, or was?

Did you even look at it before you commented ... you pathetic fool?

caconhma's picture

I would not be surprised finding out that almost all neo-Nazi crap has been created by paid Zionist provocateurs masquerading as neo-Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.

They are good on it. Just look at “Free Syrian Opposition” or “Freedom Fighters” in Libya committing barbaric atrocities against civilians or Turkey’s government masquerading as Muslim fighters against Israel but in reality they are a loyal Zionist/Nato member spearheading aggressions against Arab and Muslim countries on behalf of the USA and Israel.

 

Element's picture

Hey before you go making assertions of 'neo-NAZI'-ism, you might actually want to look at some facts before you start talking shit.

Benjamin Freedman is a J E W

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html

So he must be a wonton NAZI, right? ... I mean ... yeah ... that makes sense ...

In this place, we tell

A L L   T H E   F A C T S

 

Not just the ones you don't find suitably 'pretty', or else, omit the ones that cause you some dystopic processing issues.

Grow-up and learn to cope.

Element's picture

LOL!

It might interest you to know, shit-for-brains, that Benjamin Freedman is a ...

 ... wait for it ... a ...

J E W !

If that equates to 'NAZI' in your mind, well, you might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

What an ignorant dumb-shit  lol

Element's picture

 

 

"Which part of the "all non-blonde blue eyed aryan will get fucked" war against humanity Hitler wanted to wage on the world you don`t understand?

Way too many people regurgitate neo-nazi crap websites instead of picking up some books and actually read what Hitler and Nazis were all about."

--

You can try talking populist and propagandising arse here, but don't think you'll get away with it sport, here's a direct quote from your beloved former leader ... yeah ... I'm sure you're not ... riiiight!  ; 

 

"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves."
 
— Menachem Begin - Israeli Prime Minister 1977–1983

--

Yeah, have a look fool, it's right there on the sidebar:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/index.html

So then, what were you saying about racists and nazi filth?

Is what Begin said, you know, not just a wee bit 'off' then?

Couldn't it maybe be interpreted as, possibly the most blatant fascist racist comment ever put into print?

Is it not a standing and lasting tribute to the mental and cultural sickness called Zionism?

You can see how people might have a bit of a problem with a poisonous little zionist cunt like that ... right?

All I've pointed out are some KNOWN FACTS, and also the first-hand eye-witness reporting of a person on the spot, from a JEW no less!

 

At best, you're a low-grade idiot ... really, ... ... at best.

Sandmann's picture

Chamberlain wasted his time at 11am on 3 September 1939 then ? Should have told the French so they didn't need to declare war at 5pm.

blabam's picture

Didn't the allies declare war on Germany when they invaded Poland? Why didn't those same allies declare war on uncle Joe at that time? Just asking. 

JuicyGrabs's picture

I assume you`re talking about the Soviets(Uncle Joe). Germany and Soviets had the Ribentrop Molotov deal when they`ve decided to divide Poland between themselves.

Why didn`t allies also declare war on Soviets? They were hoping to turn them against eachother and win them as allies. The British knew there was big distrust among the Germans and Soviets and played that to their advantage. Declaring war on both would have only strengthened a German Soviet alliance against the western powers.

Wolferl's picture

Soooo, you agree that WW2 was about anglo-american world domination and not things like democracy and humanity?  

JuicyGrabs's picture

Hitler and Stalin had several meetings discussing how to divide "The British Empire" as they`ve called it. They just couldn`t settle on some things as Germans believed they were trully superior to the red nazis(which they were technologically at the time). They didn`t want to make concessions to the Soviets and give them too much power. Hitler naively thought he could take down the Soviets and then focus on taking out the Western powers himself or perhaps force a surrender.

Was Soviet victory possible without the US-British help, selling Stalin tech and weapons? Probably not.

This doesn`t change the fact Hilter wanted a German empire by conquering the world and a "Deutschland uber alles" based on a racial supremacy theory.

Sandmann's picture

Hitler naively thought he could take down the Soviets

 

Not naive at all. He would have done so without Greece. Ig Italy and Bulgaria hasn't screwed up in Greece he would not have diverted divisions. If Japan has attacked the USSR as planned and not Pearl Harbour, Zhukhov's troops could not have reached Stalingrad and the US would have stayed neutral.

JuicyGrabs's picture

Correctly assessing power of your forces and that of the enemy is still part of the strategy. Hitler tended to overestimate himself as military leader, overestimate the German combat potential and underestimate the enemy. Fatal combination.

After Hitler`s initial success in taking out Poland, France and Benelux countries in Blitzkrieg, he saw himself as a brilliant, failure free commander, when infact the Blietzkrieg worked well because it only suited his fiery temperament and worked in that limited, specific context.

He was convinced the was on a divine path of manifest destiny. He strongly believed that even more after the failed assassination attempt against him, when he barely survived.

German units got bogged down in the Russian winter, where many have died(same as happened to Napoleon when he went against Russia). History didn`t teach him a lesson there. Things you`ve mentioned were also a part of strategic failures but he made many mistakes.

caconhma's picture

Correction. Hitler was forced to fight Soviets. Hitler was not ready to start a war with Russia in the summer of 1941. Hitler invaded USSR with 1 million horses as his main transportation. Hitler had no choice. A 5.7 million strong Red Army was in a midst of a final deployment for invading Germany.

Nazi struck first with 220 divisions, 2,300 combat aircrafts, 2,800 tanks against the Red Army with 335 divisions massed on the German border with 13,500 combat aircraft and 21,000 tanks. This was a self-defense for Germans. The major Stalin miscalculation was that the Red Army was not too eager to fight and die for sadistic murderer Stalin and his Jewish commissars. However, due to Hitler personal military incompetence, Nazi Germany lost too many opportunities.

Hitler was a very naïve fool. This is how Stalin called Hitler in his inner circle. Hitler wanted to destroy Soviet Jewish Bolshevism and have a loving peace with Zionist Banking Cartel (the City of London and the WallStreet). Hitler indeed was a fool.

 

Sandmann's picture

Democracy and Humanity - my you must have been breast-fed at secondary school. Poland was not a Democracy in 1939 and not in 1948 either - it was an Anti-Semitic Dictatorship. WW2 was about Saving Stalin and the US and UK succeeded in bring Stalin into the heart of Berlin and almost gave him Denmark and Germany too.

Sandmann's picture

The Allies were Britain and France.......the US declared Neutrality on 2. September 1939 and was simply too overwhelmed by Big Powers fighting - after all the Japanese sank USS Panay in 1937 and the US simply rolloed over and asked the Japanese to forgive them

 

DavidC's picture

Napoleon was 5' 6" or 5' 7". Hitler was 5' 8".

Neither of them short.

DavidC