The slump led in 1931 to a major breakdown in the system of international payments. Production fell in country after country and trade plummeted. Gold became concentrated in the hands of the dominant capitalists in the USA, Britain, France and the countries associated with them. These states also had a monopoly of access to most of the sources and raw materials in the world. The world thus became divided into two groups; those countries which had the gold and raw materials and those which lacked them. Germany, Japan and Italy were in the second group and in a bid to solve the problems this presented, the governing parties organised on an aggressive totalitarian basis and resorted to policies which challenged the other, dominant group.

To get gold and currencies to buy essential raw materials the totalitarian states tried 'dumping', i.e. selling their products below cost. In their trade with other countries they used devices which avoided gold, such as barter and bilateral trade agreements and credits which had to be used to buy their goods. All these devices tended to tie their trading partners to them and thus take them out of the world market.

This decline in the use of gold threatened the financial centres of London and New York. London was also threatened as the centre of dealings in raw materials. Pursuing these aggressive economic policies Germany had considerable success in Southern Europe and Latin America, while Japan made headway in the markets of Southern Asia. In 1931 Japan used armed force in Manchuria to set up a trading monopoly there. In the past the imperialist powers had decided on an open door policy for trade with China as none of them was strong enough to exclude all the others. Now Japan was trying to do just this, a policy which inevitably led to conflict with America and Britain. Italy similarly used force to get an overseas market in Abyssinia in 1935.

By way of response, the dominant powers decided on a determined campaign to regain the markets lost to the totalitarian countries. German, Japanese and Italian goods were boycotted. Credits were offered to the countries of Southern Europe to win them away from dependence on Germany. The more successful these policies were the more desperate became the economic position of German capitalism. Without the funds to give credits, force appeared to be the only way. Hence the annexation of Austria in 1938, the breaking up of Czechoslovakia in 1939.

At this point the conflict of economic interests was coming to a head. Germany was trying to keep its gains in Southern Europe by all means, including force, and Britain and France were using credits to undermine German influence. There was no backing down on either side. War would break out as soon as Britain and France decided to resist force with force.

 http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=41359&group=webcast

its nice to see a coherent article which actually raises the quality of debate. returning to the theme of iraq, i personally feel that this is primarily a geo-political exercise in quelling the last remaining state which stands in defiance of israel. battered as it is, iraq is perhaps the last 'buffer' against israel mounting a massive expansion program (perhaps back into lebanon, or into jordan), which might finally secure for the usa's proxy- colony some oil. Israel effectively acts as a 'copper' on the entire region, very much as South Africa used to do in recent years.
the USA is constitutionally prohibited from establishing colonies as such; bad as it is, it rarely turns up in other parts of the world to eradiacate the idigenous culture, turn them into little americas, in the way say, Britain has done in Australia South Africa Etc. The USA stopped this crude, antiquated approach after Texas in the 1800s.
Nowadays, it has to be more 'subtle', if you can call Israel subtle. A colony in all but name, the USA can support it on the ostensible, immpeccable criteria of protecting a national minority, world Jewry. Ironically, that should never be overlooked; the fact is Jews never need to feel helpless and persecuted across the world again; as long as Israel exists, Jews will never be in danger of a return to the dark days of the 1930s and 40s. The tragedy is this has been achieved at the cost of persecuting another minority, that matter must be addressed and clearly the Israelis are not suficiently disinterested to do it.

If Israel is the reason for the US intervention as noted by flubblelub, then surely Israels defeat in the Lebanon by a combination of forces, Syria, Iran and the Palestinian resistance shows that Israel is currently in a very weak position. This weakness requires the US intervention, not least to change the balance of forces in their favour.

But past defeats cannot be easily overturned without a massive intervention and without a massive loss of life. As such US policy in the Middle East is stuck between a rock and hard place. Going forwards implies massive occupation armies and the defeat of Iraq, Syria and Iran. Standing still implies a haemmoraging of Israel. Going backwards implies giving up Israel and conceding defeat to the Arab masses.

Imperialism will not give up without a fight. History teaches us that. But imperialism is in rapid decline and as such does not have the will to have a land fight, but an aerial bombardment campaign. Will be able to achieve its aims?