Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

A Stiff Note On D Day.

by Patrice Ayme Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 02:32:05 PM EST

Those who don't know what to learn from history are still living it, same as before, and the time before that.


A STIFF NOTE ON JUNE 6 1944.

TO ERADICATE WAR, ONE HAS TO ERADICATE ITS DEEPEST ROOTS.
*

Abstract: Great Franco-Americano-British-Canadian mutual celebration about D-Day in Normandy. The funny part, rich in wisdom, is that D day would never have happened if the USA had done its duty as republic, democracy, and progeny of France and Britain, right from the start. Instead of waiting for Hitler to call it to order. The lesson has not been drawn: apathy allowed plutocracy to get away with murder.
*

Sarkozy said "we" will never forget the children of the USA that fell in Normandy, and that "we" owe them our freedom, etc... True enough for those who fought on the Allied side in 1944. A slight difficulty though, is how we got there. OK, an infection of fascism in Germany was the main ingredient, certainly in 1870 and especially in 1914. By 1939, many Germans, at least in the military, had learned their lesson, but still, W.W.II happened. American plutocracy made the difference, as it turns out, and that lesson was not learned, because it is little known.  

The soldiers of D day were heroes, etc. Sure, and thank you. But why did the American army not disembark, four years earlier, on May 6, 1940? It would have been easier; they could have used any French port, and they would have been welcome with flowers and big smiles. The Nazis would have been crushed quickly (the German generals would have revolted against Hitler). So the big question is: why did the USA come so late into the war? The first American soldiers saw combat against the Nazis more than three years after the French did. When the Americans engaged the Nazis seriously, the later were much weaker, having endured gigantic defeats in Russia (Moscow, Stalingrad), and had been decimated from massive British long range bombing at night, which drove them crazy (and forced them to keep more than one million men mobilized for ineffectual air defenses).

The atrocious behavior of the Nazis was well known by May 1940. Some will say; no. But those holocaust deniers don't know anything. For example, people love to claim that the extermination camps were a big surprise (and that is why, they say, nothing was done against them before). Nice; OK, suppose nobody could understand what the French authorities had been saying about the deliberate massacre of civilians, including at least 700,000 Jews, by October 1940. Please explain how to hide more than 20,000 camps? Remember, the USA was a practical ally of Hitler, and Americans could go all over Germany. All the Americans were going around Germany with their eyes closed, except when Hitler was offering them the Order of the Great German Eagle, and they adored him with their eyes? (This was a snide remark about some top American bosses: Ford, Watson, etc...)

Because, indeed, amazingly, there were more than 20,000 camps of concentration and extermination all over Germany. In the best cases, people were treated as slaves. The major camps, like Auschwitz and Buchenwald (just visited by Obama), had galaxies of camps around themselves. Buchenwald had at least 117 such secondary camps. Some, such as Auschwitz, were mixed up with factories managed by Americans (Bush with the American Silesian AG), or outright created by Wall Street (such as IG Farben, the world's largest chemical monopoly, maker of extermination nerve gas).

In truth, people often know only what they want to know. The USA was not interested in Hitler's bad behavior. After France fell, the ambassador of the USA, Kennedy, declared that democracy had proven to be an inferior system, and that it was also finished in Britain and the USA. He made no mystery that he would make it so that his sons would soon command-in-chief.

An excellent example of knowing only what one wants to know is Obama's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is a strict extension of the strategy pursued by the USA since 1945: using a religion, Islam, to keep people subjugated. But now the Islamists, ironically, have figured it out, so they are fighting back with the very instrument that was used to oppress them, Islam. This is getting confusing. What to do? Well, simplify. Use forever 9/11 as a pretext for great American outrage, justifying the Forever War. Never mind that the USA killed at least several hundred times more civilians in the Middle East than was killed during 9/11, since 9/11.

There was no such outrage in 1940. During the 6 weeks of the Battle of France, about 5,000 people died every single day. Two 9/11 a day, Two 9/11 a day in beloved republican, democratic France, every day, for five weeks, and what did the USA do? Nothing. Proportionally to the size of France then, and of the USA now, it was around the proportional equivalent of TEN (10!) September Elevens, every day single day, for five weeks.

Yes, Auschwitz had been open for business (exterminating Poles) for more than six months. In May 1940. But no outrage in the USA. Good business, through: direct investment of the USA in the Nazi Third Reich, had augmented considerably since the racist Nuremberg "laws" had passed in 1935. Great racist minds invest alike.

The USA did not intend to go to war in 1942. Fortunately, Hitler declared war to the USA on December 11, 1941. Thank you, Adolf!  

Ah, and why were France and Britain defeated by the Nazis in 1940? Well, American military and industrial technologies played a fundamental role. So the problems with Wall Street did not start in 2008. Wall Street had financed Wall Street massively, and corporations of the USA had signed monopolistic treaties, transferring for example artificial rubber and oil, and computer tech to the Nazis, so secretly that they were not supposed to transmit said technologies to their own war department.

Another point: Americans know about Omaha Beach. 2374 Americans died there. Nobody knows about the simultaneous attack in Vercors, a high giant plateau in the French Alps, 70 kilometers long, 50 kilometers wide. The French resistance was asked to seize it, and it did, and to prepare a runway. The assumption was that the disembarkment would be there. But it was a feint made to divert large Nazi reserves. The heavy weapons that had been promised never came. Instead, after many weeks, four elite Nazi divisions landed and parachuted and attacked the flanks of the mountain. The more than 20,000 elite Nazi troops deployed there were as many not deployed during the battle of Normandy (where the Nazis were always a division short of throwing the allies in the sea). The battle of Normandy was long and terrible (until 29 August). But it killed far less than the Battle of France of May-June 1940.

Meanwhile the Nazis deployed enormous means for the battle in Vercors. About 1,000 resistants and civilians died, completely betrayed. By the way the French resistance destroyed 500 bridges in the night before D day (to hamper Nazi movements, and thus the Nazis could only bring a trickle of armor to the beaches). There were 50,000 Nazi soldiers for 135,000 Allied soldiers (which, by the way, included slightly more Canadians and British soldiers than American ones; the American sectors had the two beaches of Utah and Omaha, way west, so they were not in contact with the Brits and Canadians and their three beaches, and may have thought they were liberating France all by themselves; the front extended over 80 kilometers).

Answering my own question: the USA did not collaborate with the democracies, Britain and France, against fascism, because of flaws it is still exhibiting today (albeit fewer, hence the importance of celebrating D day for Americans: it reminds them that their culture at some point dropped the ball, and the price was heavy).

OK, the USA collaborated when with Britain and France when it was forced to (by Hitler).

There were two main flaws in the American character, as Hitler engaged in his holocaust of Europe, and they are related.

One was that many American plutocrats collaborated extensively with Hitler, and made a fortune this way (the Bush family being the most famous example; but there are many such examples: IBM had 35 factories in Hitler's Reich, one of hundreds of large American corporations that boosted Hitler). That was bad, and that mentality of American plutocracy to have no restraints whatsoever still shows up in the economic troubles of 2008-2009. The American plutocracy is still influential enough to have requested and received 13 trillion dollars of gifts, loans and guarantees, so that it can stay rich, owning the world. That was just in six months, and it's equal to the GDP of the USA. So Americans have decided to serve their lords, an interesting twist on the concept of serfdom. When serfdom appeared in the Middle Ages, it was not by choice, and the lords had duties.

In 1939, American plutocracy brought us the Second World War: 73 million killed. Right now it is just bringing us the Forever War in the Middle East-South Asia area. Only a few millions killed so far. Does this means it is getting reasonable?

Some will say I exaggerate, and I distort. But, without American (plutocratic) support, and push, the Nazis did not have a chance, and the German generals would have revolted (as they did on a chronic basis, but they would have done it earlier, and, more carried by enthusiasm, they would have succeeded.)

The most fundamental reason why the USA was not involved in 1939, 1940, and 1941, was APATHY. Apathy is a master emotion because it makes people cool until there is nothing for them to do, or learn. And it subsumes the preceding one. Indeed, plutocracy is strong in the USA because people don't care, or don't care enough, about what they ought to care about. If the plutocracy wants them to watch sport on TV all day long and have no health insurance, so be it... (An example of apathy: Obama seems to be conniving all alone to provide Americans with public health care: but he gets no support from massive demonstrations).

Conclusion: Parrots repeat the history they know, making lots of noise. But it does not mean they got it right. True, WWII and its 73 million killed happened in first order because of fascism in Germany. But, instead of talking about Munich, one does ask the proper question: Chamberlain gained time to build a modern Air Force, instead of the obsolete one Churchill wanted to mass produce right away. Munich was about whether Paris and Prague would fight Hitler alone, or whether France would wait until Britain had some combat capability (Britain had made a pact with Hitler in 1935, and was defenseless). These were details. The big picture about Munich was that the USA was not there. Its brain was completely missing.  Lack of intellectual activity, that is what apathy is. A-pathy: no-pain, no emotion.

The brain gets richer in a richer environment, but this environment, the brain itself can create. Those who only obsess about sport scores and reject intellectual debate as "arguments" (a pejorative term in the USA), fabricate for themselves an intellectually poor environment.

Apathy is still around, in the refusal to consider many important things (hence impoverishing one's mental environment). This is what has to be fought now. The fight starts by shunning facile conventional wisdom, which can be as wrong as wrong can be. Obama just celebrated "Holy" books which have caused more people killed than any other ideologies, and that should get intellectuals going: was it good to kill all these people, was it "Holy"? After all, Hitler just renewed with the Catholic program against the Jews (among others) during the period 380 CE to 580 CE (the Jews, the Franks, and the Visigoths of Spain were the only ones to survive).

Inquiring minds will want to know what "Holy" means.

Another example: was giving as much money again to those who stole just as much, just before, crucial to the functioning of civilization as Obama knows it? That, and bombing Pakistan?

And is fighting the greenhouse by burning ever more carbon, never taxing it, the American way to cook the planet? Or is it the way to organize the next holocaust, same as the old one, just way bigger?
*
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

Display:
The most fundamental reason why the USA was not involved in 1939, 1940, and 1941, was APATHY. Apathy is a master emotion because it makes people cool until there is nothing for them to do, or learn. And it subsumes the preceding one.

calling it Apathy is incorrect, throughout the world there was  a general reluctance to go into battle. If the UK and France had acted when Hitler had invaded Chekeslovakia there is a good chance that the war would have been over very quickly. however the British and French Population were similarly comitted to peace after the casualties of the first world war. It was thought that another war would have a similar lack of motion, and similar trench carnage. Noone wanted that.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 03:01:12 PM EST
According to Failure of a mission - written by the brittish embassador at the time - the theory behind appeasement was that Versailles created the conditions for Hitler by treating Germany unfairly. Thus treating Germany fairly (and in the 30'ies this meant drawing borders according to ethnic divisions) would undo those conditions and leading to more peaceful parts of the nazi party gaining in prominence, eventually leading Germany back to pre-Hitler conditions.

So they hoped to avoid war - and any need for war - by rectifying the Versailles peace. We know it was a failure, but that is with the help of hindsight.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 04:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
were gaining time, arming themselves to the teeth...
Daladier knew war was unavoidable, so did Chamberlain. I know this is contradictory to CW.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 05:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Britain had only a Navy in 1938

British planes were hopelessly obsolete in 1938. PM Chamberlain scrambled to get state of the art planes massively produced (Churchill's advice was terrible in this matter: he advised to mass produce the obsolete planes; thankfully, he was not PM yet).

So Munich meant that France had to go at it alone, with Prague. The war would not have been over quickly.
France would have looked as an aggressor, losing moral superiority: there were three million Germans in the Sudeten Lands, occupied by Prague, the way they, and the Nazified Germans saw it.

Moreover, the French knew they were the object to the active enmity of the Americans (the emotion the extensive D Day ceremonies are supposed to soothe and totally cure). French policy since 1815 had been dominated with the principle of friendship and alliance and reunification with Great Britain. France had to wait for Britain to be ready. No reason to stress the relationship again considering the 100 years war (which lasted from 1337 until 1815, as everybody knows).

Another point was that the economic-military-industrial power of the French and British empires combined was much greater than that of Hitler's Third Reich. the Nazis knew this perfectly well.  

Anyway, this was a red herring of sorts. Back to my question: where were the Americans in 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941? They were not even getting ready to play hero in 1944. They just liked it the way it was.  

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 05:07:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
Britain had only a Navy in 1938

Not quite.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 05:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Britain also had an army instantly available of 70,000 men, and France, fully mobilised, had an army Four times the size of Germanys, In terms of Armour, combined British, and  French forces were over twice the size of German forces, and with the addition of Czech armour, would have vastly outnumbered the Germans.

The German Blitzkrieg was only possible in 1940 because of extra tanks obtained through the peaceful capture of Czech supplies, which allowed the Germans to flesh out skeleton units.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 07:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The »Blitzkrieg« came as a great surprise to the German General Staff who was very disappointed by the performance during the Polish campaign and expected a drawn out conflict along the lines of the First World War.
The most important result was that during the »phony war« (drôle de guerre) the German troops were trained for the next campaign while the French troops were exhausted by silly drudgery. The nominally far superior French tanks suffered from the fact   that the French kept their fuel in the back area – when the French tanks arrived in the combat zone there was but little fuel left, – while the German used tank vehicles that closely followed their troops.

Nevertheless, sheer luck played a decisive rôle, but, on the other hand the German army was able to exploit the chances when they suddenly  opened up.

As it happened, however, the German leadership very easily convinced itself that it's victory was the result of superior skill and that the »Blitzkrieg« would be the solution to every strategic problem.

Cf. Blitzkrieg-Legende : der Westfeldzug 1940  / von Karl-Heinz Frieser. – 2. Aufl. – München : Oldenbourg, 1996 . – XXII, 473 S. : Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. – (Operationen des Zweiten Weltkrieges ; Bd. 2)

by Humbug (mailklammeraffeschultedivisstrackepunktde) on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 06:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but I think that Guderian and a few people around him made the difference. Guderian violated orders and hid what he was doing with the 10 Panzer divisions (he ordered them to not use the radio!... To hid from the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht!!!!). Ironically he picked up the doctrine from de Gaulle (who was not listened to and blocked in his carreer)
The excellent French roads were helpful, as he found out 18 months later in Russian mud...
Also the top French generals were incredible idiots, and they had sent 50% of the French air force out of France... Not satisfied with this they rushed the French mobile army (7 armored divisions) into the Netherlands. Plus duke of Windsor wrote to Hitler to tell him where to break through ... Und so weiter...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 02:42:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just trying to set record straight about PM Chamberlain, who was much correct than ex Lord of the Amiralty, Churchill (at that point).  
Chamberlain's RAF built up with appropriate planes may have saved Europe from total Nazi occupation. Most probably.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 01:47:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There's also a suggestion that Chamberlain played a semi-aware delaying role. The UK wasn't militarised enough to take on Germany on its own. Relations with France were by no means smooth.

Chamberlain wasn't necessarily personally aware of this, but the chiefs of staffs were, and Munich was as much about playing for time as seriously hoping for peace.

The giveaway is that rearmament had already started by 1935 and was accelerated towards the end of the decade.

And the plan worked. There was no chance at all of the UK successfully attacking Germany in 1938, and the idea that Hitler could have been ousted in a coup is wishful thinking. He might have been assassinated, but the political fallout would have been chaotic and it's not clear that something nastier might not have appeared in his place.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 07:43:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme: Anyway, this was a red herring of sorts. Back to my question: where were the Americans in 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941? They were not even getting ready to play hero in 1944. They just liked it the way it was.

Just so I understand your complaint more clearly:  Are you saying that the U.S. failed in its moral obligation because it did not protect its allies from an aggressor, or because it did not protect fellow democracies from tyranny, or because it did nothing in face of the evil of  the Nazi regime?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 10:45:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There was a very strong isolationist sentiment in the U.S. prior to WW2 and there was a very strong isolationist contingent in Congress. Most Americans were opposed to entering the war in Europe before Pearl Harbor. This has not yet been discussed here.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 03:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To come soon. Here is an extract from that follow-up:

"Why did the relation between France and the USA become so bad in 1934? Answer: because hyper powerful American plutocrats had created Hitler, and they did not want the French to break their wonderful instrument, toy, and source of immense profits, Adolf Hitler. As it turned out, Hitler gave them the most beautiful gift imaginable, the world itself.

Fast forward to 2009, Sunday, June 7. The New York Times writes an editorial deploring that "The Obama administration ... does not go far enough ... to regulate the derivatives. the multitrillion dollar market in financial contracts that misfunctioned disastrously last year." Why so? Why cannot Congress do anything about it? well, the answer is the same as that explaining why the relationship between the French republic and the USA so wrong in the period 1934-1945. So the question is why can't Congress regulate the plutocracy? Representative Collin Peterson introduced a weak bill for regulating derivatives saying that Congressional politics left him no choice. Rep. Peterson says, speaking of Congress: "THE BANKS RUN THE PLACE."

After 1934, the USA was not neutral, but heavily supported Hitler with immense direct investments through its plutocrats and pernicious diplomacy (led by the likes of the fascist J. Kennedy). (Claiming, in the "Neutrality Act" that a democracy, the French republic, was a hostile aggressor of sort, subject to embargo; Roosevelt tried to reverse this after Poland fell.)

"

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 04:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, isolationism was so strong in the U.S. that Hitler gave FDR an early Christmas gift when he idiotically declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, thus handing the president a mandate to enter the war in not just one but two arenas.

What I would like to understand better is exactly what criteria made it the United States' "duty" to enter the war against Nazi Germany (was it the U.S.'s racial and cultural origins ["progeny of France and Britain"]? was it the scale and nature of Germany's crimes against humanity? was it the geopolitical and economic implications of a Nazi victory?)  I would also like to understand if these are the same criteria that justified NATO's war against Serbia in 1999.  Hopefully, it will also shed some light on why the U.S.'s entry into the war against Nazi Germany was not only justified, but morally required, although the war in Afghanistan is deeply immoral and idiotic.

In short, what is the formula that will tell future U.S. governments when they are justified, and when they are morally obligated, to intervene militarily overseas?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 05:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
this in the fullness of time, I AGREE it looks confusing.
But I do not feel confused. Right now Obama is recruiting for Taliban by killing thousands of innocents, and trying to establish his own fascist rule ( de facto).
I am trying to write a post answering all... Hard..

1919: The USA played a major role in the Paris Peace Conference. Blocked the stiffer guarantees France was looking for. Was a guarantor of the peace accord. Thereafter failed in that role 100%, since waited like a cow that Hitler declare war to it before being concerned.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 03:17:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Marco: "Just so I understand your complaint more clearly:  Are you saying that the U.S. failed in its moral obligation because it did not protect its allies from an aggressor, or because it did not protect fellow democracies from tyranny, or because it did nothing in face of the evil of  the Nazi regime?"

All this, plus USA plutocrats aiding and abetting Nazis. They made the difference. USA was actively undermining France 1934 to 1945, and helping Nazis, 1922 to 1980s.... Bush family should be condemened to give back all its billions to institutions devoted to peace and reparations.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 05:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme: All this, plus USA plutocrats aiding and abetting Nazis. They made the difference. USA was actively undermining France 1934 to 1945, and helping Nazis, 1922 to 1980s.... Bush family should be condemened to give back all its billions to institutions devoted to peace and reparations.

Okay, thanks for your reply.  I get this.  But please see my follow-up comment which I guess I was writing as you were writing this one.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 05:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
P/S: The reactions on the Internet to the preceding essay were of course insulting and uncomprehending. People know the propaganda they were taught, and consider an insult to ever find out their world picture was wrong.

Even when many simple questions are in their face, with obvious ugly answers. For example: why was the USA not at Munich? It  is one of the many simple questions which has no non paradigm shattering answer (there are many of these, such as the deliberate ignorance of the extermination). Before people get started to howl, a useful book is "IBM and the Holocaust" [Edwin Black, 2001]. That book addresses only one of the hundreds of American corporations that were part of Hitler's war machine. Moreover, some were the chicken to that egg.

Patriceayme.com has several essays on the subject.


Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 04:53:00 PM EST
Why would the US be invited?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 04:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
after it did bad. It's a bit like a child, but, instead of burning the house, 73 million died. But then the child did good in some ways. So smile, but teach the lesson about the matches.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 05:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I meant, why would the US - a major power, but situated on another continent and without bases or territory in Europe - been invited at all to a conference between major european powers?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jun 6th, 2009 at 05:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
italy has american bases.

just saying...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 06:46:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not in 1938. My suggestion is that the answer to:

why was the USA not at Munich?

Is that they were irrelevant and thus not invited.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 08:52:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the USA was responsible. In truth the USA was conducting a sort of war against France since 1934.

Truth is that the USA has had a me-first-to-insane-extent psychology since ever, the sort of psychology that Euro powers have learned to do without.

Many in the USa were dighted with Hitler, and STILL are. They are still gloating about French defeat in 1940. Now, 69 years later. Then they whine about the holocaust, and say nobody could have suspected (it was obvious since 1935).

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 01:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(it was obvious since 1935)

Really? What happened in 1935 that made it obvious, long before the actual decision?

  • Reichskristallnacht pogroms: 9-10 November 1938;
  • First time Hitler threatens to wipe out Jews in Europe: 30 January 1939;
  • Göring gives the task to Heydrich: 31 July 1941 (after the start of the invasion of the Soviet Union);
  • Wannsee Conference: 20 January 1942...


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 04:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Afew" will probably ask for references or "then leave". "Way things are done at the ET".

Yes the Nazis passed horrendous laws as early as 1933, but by 1935, they had gone off the deep end. Sorry about the lack of references, Afew.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 08:21:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
made many minorities into sub humans deprived of basic rights. No need to wait for the next step, the outright destruction of sub humans. People deprived of jobs, marriage, equality to law, safety, etc...  

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 08:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme: Nuremberg Laws made many minorities into sub humans deprived of basic rights. No need to wait for the next step, the outright destruction of sub humans. People deprived of jobs, marriage, equality to law, safety, etc...

Following up on my question above:  Would you say that the regime imposed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan deprives women of basic rights?  If so, by your logic are we not then obligated to wage war against the Taliban in order to stop these offenses against humanity, as we were when the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:18:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I seem to be totally incoherent, because I say the USA ought to have sided with France and Britain at Munich, and that I am now against the Af-Pak war.

Well, it's a question of cost benefit analysis. The air bombing war made by USA in Af-Pak is recruiting Taliban. Sitting with France and Britain would not have recruited Nazis, just the other way. Because the German generals.

Now I wrote a piece earlier in the ET about Qur'an and sexism, and got rewarded with various insults and threats. After that I became public "Islamophobic" enemy #1. But I spent my entire infanthood and youth in Muslim countries (which, at tthe time, were not applying the Qur'an), and I deeply detest Wahhabism. But right now the USAF behaves more like Hitler's Luftwaffe, and I understand people who join the Taliban.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you agree that all things being equal, the U.S. has a moral imperative to wage war against the Taliban for the same reasons that it had a moral imperative to enter the war against the Nazis, but it has forfeited that mandate (to fight the Taliban) because of the immoral way in which it is waging the war.  If that is your position, then if there were some way to fight the Taliban without killing too many civilians and alienating the population -- for example, something more like NATO's bombardment of Serbia -- then would you agree that the U.S.'s "duty as republic, democracy" (to use your words) would compel it to wage this war against the Taliban in order to prevent the crimes against humanity that they are inflicting and threaten to spread?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
of cost benefit, as I said. it was a question with what was at stake. Roosevelt made no mystery that he wanted to destroy the British and French empires (to Afew: well known, I have no references at the ready). That is why the USA was not at Munich in 1938.

I was initially 100% behind the attack and invasion of Afghanistan. I detested the Talib. But then NATO and the USA bungled it. Now the Taliban is more like a resistance movement against the vile invaders. Can't win that. (Let alone the moral side.)

With the Nazis, as I said, there would have been no war if the USA had been at Munich. German generals would have made a coup, killed a lot of SS, and the republic would have been progressively reestablished, a bit like with Pinochet, except the SS would have been in the stadiums.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 10:12:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme: It's a question of cost benefit, as I said. it was a question with what was at stake.

Okay, so your point is that the cost to Roosevelt of going to München was trivial while the benefit of provoking an implosion in the Reich would have been huge.

Of course, you are assuming that Roosevelt's attendance would have had such a result.  And even if it did, you are assuming that such a result would have been good.  (I too would have assumed that Hitler's would surely have put an end to the Nazis, but ThatBritGuy seems to have doubts.)

Patrice Ayme: Roosevelt made no mystery that he wanted to destroy the British and French empires (to Afew: well known, I have no references at the ready).

Can you at least provide the name of a book or researcher?  Are you referring to Sutton's work?  If I am to enlighten my American friends (even the ones who are left-leaning, liberal, open, curious, and Europhile) about the perfidious role their country played in World War II against their supposed closest allies, I will need something a bit more substantial than "This guy on a group blog I participate in said so" to back me up.

From my own point of view, as someone who grew up in the U.S., you are making "extraordinary" claims in this discussion, and if one of your objectives is to educate and persuade me (not me in particular, but me as a member of your reading audience), then you -- or someone who agrees with these claims -- will have to provide correspondingly "extraordinary" supporting material to back up those claims.  (I hope you will understand why I call your claims "extraordinary".)

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 10:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can refer your American "left" friends to my sites,

patriceayme.com
patriceayme.wordpress.com

They can read, contest, contact me (comments can be put on second site).

There is quite a bit of material there, but it's dispersed. I usually puts more energy writing new stuff.

Last year I was spending lots of time sending my thoughts towards the Other One. The One.

Pretty time consuming, not going to do it with the ET.

But I despise Summers. Among others.

I generally prefer to use direct facts and quotes rather than secondary references. Roosevelt wanted to occupy France, complete with fake currency, for example. Le Monde discovered that fact (I already knew) a few years back...

My experience with US friends is that they are nearly all on the right of Sarkozy. Even when they think they are left (I know some exceptions, but those I have known since they were children).

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Come on. By that argument, slavery and then Jim Crow was a sign of US Southern whites' intention to exterminate blacks...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 07:11:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and shouldn't proposition 6 result in the invasion of California?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 07:29:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
8 not 6

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:12:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
be funny, you are succeeding, I laughed. It's prop 13 and the like that is destroying CA.There is not enough money, because of low tax on the rich and old, while huge hispanic pressure on public services, squeezing middle class. Taxes can only be passed at 2/3 majority since prop 13.

They have basically no tax on gas....

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Several slave states had majorities of blacks, so blacks were burned, etc... 18 C. I am "coming on". History slavedry is not just the semi comical KKK. It was more serious 2 centuries earlier.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's see I get this right: you equate lynchings and murders of some slaves with a genocide intent on complete eradication?...

You should know to admit where you're wrong.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 11:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did Hitler kill "some" Jews too? The murdering of blacks on an industrial scale is not "some".

I agree one should know to admit where one is wrong. Otherwise one cannot learn math and physics, BTW...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The murdering of blacks on an industrial scale is not "some".

  1. WHat do you call "industrial scale"?

  2. Compared to "all", even thousands is "some".

  3. Of course you know all this.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 01:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So much abuse, they died... Most of them in some places...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 03:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now you don't make any sense.

I suggest you admit that genocide doesn't automatically follow from racist laws and move on to something else.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 03:54:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From your posts I get the impression that you involve yourself (too) emotionally. It's not really helpful for the debate, and I'm not so sure if you particularly enjoy it yourself.

We come here to learn and question and, as has happenened to many, be shown differently. The last bit is hard but it comes with the package.

Finally, if you think that the Nuremberg laws were the first key evidence of what would become the Holocaust, I don't see it how it can, and some further context would be welcome.

by Nomad on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 06:42:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
detected. I will make sure to ask myself whether I am certain I enjoy myself. Nuremberg Laws clearly created the subhuman category. then Nazis embarked in official program of euthanasia.

BTW, recently Pentagon about its robotic flying bombing that they killed 17 Talibs (or so) for 700 innocents killed. In PAKISTAN. Pentagon was clearly enjoying itself. I have my emotional holocaust detectors flashing red.

The Nazis kept holocaust hidden from Germans (but everybody could guess, with 20,000 camps), although the allies knew 100%. Jews were abandonned mostly for the same reason Nazis killed them.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:55:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It wasn't meant as an attack.

I guess I'll stop this conversation right here.

by Nomad on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 10:38:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only france (with Britain in the fine print in the appendix starting mid 1939) insured independance of Eastern Euro powers. But the USA was responsible; it was at the Paris 1919 Peace conf in which it messed up as much as possible.

Instead of acting as an honest broker, the USA acted as a vile exploiter (stole Hamburg Amerika Line, and then gave it to plutocrats, for example, then destroyed all documentation about the transaction).

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 01:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
destroyed all evidence, to the extent it still appeared to be owned by the same Germans who'd owned it before hand?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 04:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
to USA plutocrats, and the deal's nature was destroyed. USA plutocrats used the shipping line to feed Nazis with USA weapons.

writing follow up...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 04:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well All the things I can see show a few of its ships being seized as war reparations, or captured, but No change in ownership of the line. So Put up some evidence,

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Jun 7th, 2009 at 05:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The line became magically the property of Brown Brothers Harriman/Lloyd.  

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 03:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
calling me a liar at the first occasion... U obviously no zero about this piece of history.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 03:07:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are not being called a liar, and you will accept questions and contradiction here or leave.

Show some evidence for what you assert, on your own authority alone, is the truth. That's the way things work on ET, and no exception will be made for you.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 02:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
be denounced for my alleged "fascist streak".
That, Afew, by the way, is called a threat, what you just did. I do not know when "My own authority alone" is engaged. How could I know? I know, as this threat once again shows, that I am operating here under hostile conditions, and I find this very interesting.

It is a sort of prisoner experiment: no more recommendations, and when some, not in the list, etc...

I had no idea that people had so little ideas about how Hitler was financed. It is at the limit hilarious.

Except if it were not so sad... The only book I know which put some of the picture is the following:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

It does NOT have the Hamburg Amerika stuff. The reason I gave no reference is that I have a huge brain, full of information, but references are not something I keep.

I know the Bell theorem in QM, for example, and can kind of demonstrate it, but I have no reference. Same for Louis XI putting people in cages, or Louis IX wanting to kill unbelievers by stabbing them through belly.

I am a philosopher, not a reference robot, Afew. Thanks for the threat, anyway.  

 

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 08:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
That, Afew, by the way, is called a threat, what you just did.

There is no threat at all. You have a choice. You accept the rules of engagement here, or you stop posting.

Patrice Ayme:

The reason I gave no reference is that I have a huge brain, full of information, but references are not something I keep.

"Huge brains" may be an asset, but they generally come with the realisation that it is necessary to marshal evidence for one's assertions. You seem in a confused way to understand the need for this, since you say above:

Patrice Ayme:

There is hard data behind the positions above

So where is the hard data?

Patrice Ayme:

I am a philosopher, not a reference robot, Afew

Then stick to philosophy. As a historian, you're very wide of the mark.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 01:50:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
historians (say N. Ferguson) use even much less evidence than me for the crucial stuff. Plus, I did answer the questions. Plus, I said I would write a follow up article. "As a historian you're very wide of the mark" is another gratuitous ad hominem attack, and, in this case, it should be easy for you to provide evidence, since you attack me personally, on, I suppose something I said in the ET. Instead of insulting, just produce the alleged "mark". Let's see how wide off I was. Many genuine historians REINTERPRET known facts in a different context.

I said it was hard for me to use an abundance of facts and provide right away evidence for every single one. My practice does not differ very much from that of historians (I have a library with more than 10,000 history books, some 2009).

It's easy nowadays for people to do their a little bit of their own search, confronted to data they don't know at all. Although that has posed me problems in the past, for example when the Wiki data is biased. In any case, then one can have a dialogue.

Anyway thank you for "You accept the rules of engagement here, or you stop posting". I did accept the rules of engagement, as far as I know. I replied to insults and threats, that's different, but I did not reply with insults and threats. To be called a "troll" or "Islamophobic", as I was seemed clearly insulting, and accusing me, or threatening me more does not change that basic fact.

Afew: Are you the owner of the site? If you are, although I do find many of the articles and contributors intelligent and most helpful in this site, I may reconsider my participation. I am tired of all the hatred, and getting A-FEW threats a day when I open the ET. Nothing personal.

I had a similar problem with BO's closest entourage 7 months ago. Now they are on their own, they can go, and devastate the planet. No more personal communications, I don't even reply. I will not stoop. And I don't like threats (although the ones Afew  style are Mickey Mouse, relative to the real thing, which is, let's say, rather Gestapo style, complete with the most extraordinary assertions. Yes you read that correctly, and I will not provide evidence, although this exists, including witnesses).

In the past, I had the honor of being physically, even lethally attacked by people who had no idea what I was talking about, precisely because of this, and it's always the same thing: anger, accusations and threats which are not supported by evidence of wrong doing.

If saying the Qur'an is sexist and saying that Hitler got enormous direct help from the same class of people who brought the 2008 crash is wrong, and not respecting the rules of engagement, there is nothing I can do.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:34:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
It's easy nowadays for people to do their a little bit of their own search, confronted to data they don't know at all

No. If people ask you for evidence of what you say, it's up to you to provide it. It is quite unacceptable to send people searching for background data you refuse to provide.

I am an editor here, and when I remind you that ET works in this way, and not in the way you seem to wish, I speak for the editorial team.

I'm glad what you call my "threats" are only "Mickey Mouse". I suggest you seriously "reconsider your participation" here, it's much too cartoon for someone of your level.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:41:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
to provide sources. Or, at least, never intended to provide that impression. When I provided plenty on my Qur'an essay, which started the entire hostility, I was insulted in violation of what I suppose is correct civilization, although I had plenty of evidence.

By the way, I had a follow up article on that one with more than 500 quotes, but did not put it up, because of the hostility. If you speak in the name of the ditorail team, let me inform you that I view the ambiance as hostile against me, just because I presented ideas you did not like.

To say I do not quote sources when confronted happened just once, on the Hamburg Amerika line, which is high interesting because that is one of the smoking guns of the connection between Alerican plutocracy and Nazism. Some of the gentlement who disagreed with me on this, NTW, recognized most of the line had been confiscated, so maybe I can provide this as evidence?

I used to do research on this subject years ago, but, although I know it's true, it's also true I do not have the references at the ready. If I say that Justinian devastated Anatolia, killing millions, I can tell you that is in Procopius' Secret History. But I could very well have forgotten this. Plus, that has meaning only in context (which supports it). No need for a witch hunt.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 10:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
historians (say N. Ferguson) use even much less evidence than me for the crucial stuff.

I have a  copy of the 1998 Penguin edition of Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War" open in front of me.

The references to primary sources run to 83 pages (pp463-545 inclusive), with the smallest number of citations in any chapter a highly atypical 70.  Most chapters contain around the 150 mark or more.

As you claim Niall Ferguson's standards of evidence are exceeded by yours, then surely you could provide the references asked for?

by Sassafras on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ferguson is a professional impressionist, of course he is going to put zillions of references. That's impressive.It is to hide his ignorance.  The ocean makes waves, but no ideas.

Read in "War of the World" his piece on the Great Depression. He touches to a few things, with zillion references, but in the end, he says only things every body knew already since, like, ever. Out of this foundation on nothing special, he then feeds the right wing think tanks with his aura, too prove the stimulus was wrong (not taht all he says is stupid, BTW).

"References" are much abused. First they are of two types: primary, and derivatives. That's why I attack the Qur'an, directly, but I am careful with the Sunnah and Hadith.

Most "references" are derivative, so authoritatively useless (although they can be great pedagogically).

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So again you seem to be claiming to be better than Ferguson.

Show us, then, how referencing should be done. Just one or two apposite, non derivative ones should be enough.

by Sassafras on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
case. Ferguson's analysis of Great Depression is hogwash. He says nothing beyond what is well known. I mean he is not even wrong. The guy has nothing to say, no wonder he spends his time with references. Ferguson is very active right now trying to shut down the stimulus.

Now as far as ad hominem, who is better than whom... You really want me to answer this?  

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:07:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You were indeed precise.  You brought up Ferguson as an example of a professional historian whose practice with regard to evidence and references (in your view) was inferior to yours.

Having been unable so far to match his inferior standard, or to demonstrate your own superior system, you now appear to be saying that his many references to primary sources are evidence that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Even if that were true, I'm sure you would not make the elementary philosophical mistake of concluding that the corollary must also be true.  Because believing that lack of evidence proves a writer to be an expert would be self-evidently absurd.

It's not news that Ferguson's selection and interpretation of the evidence is often controversial. However, he does make very sure he can prove his facts, and that is what you have been asked to do.

And, for the record, if Ferguson pitched up here claiming as fact what you are claiming, he'd be asked to provide evidence as well.

by Sassafras on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 02:37:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
references are not something I keep

Then you should start with it before you write a book on contentious subjects -- or before you go into a debate with someone without the information in your head.

As for now, your claims about HAPAG aren't supported by any evidence you presented, thus they are unsupported allegations -- worse, they seem to be contradicted by well-known evidence I pointed out. (And which I will be glad to source in case you choose to contest them.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 07:16:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
you should cite your sources, I am very interested. That you know of no connections between H-A line and American plutocrats baffles me. (I do admit that I ought to write a book on this, but I don't have the time)

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:38:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You did not allege "connections", you alleged (1) ownership, (2) the establishment of that ownership in the Treaties of Versailles, (3) and the destruction of evidence. Still giving zero evidence. And still failing to say anything about contrary evidence.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 11:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Much of H-A line was transfered (as far as I know) to US gov which then transferred it secretly, later, to American plutocrats. A maritime TARP, like with Goldman sachs...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you mean by "secretly"?

And why do you keep talking about HAPAG, when it was the ships, and the ships ofall German shipping companies?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 02:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you should cite your sources, I am very interested.

The Treaty of Versailles, part VIII, Annex III, §1 second half:

Der Vertrag von Versailles - Teil VIII - Wiedergutmachungen The Treaty of Versailles - Part VIII - Reparations
Die deutsche Regierung überträgt in ihrem Namen und mit verbindlicher Wirkung für und gegen alle anderen Beteiligten den alliierten und assoziierten Regierungen das Eigentum an allen den Reichsangehörigen gehörenden Handelsschiffen von 1600 Bruttotonnen und darüber, ferner die Hälfte des Tonnengehalts der Schiffe, deren Bruttotonnengehalt zwischen 1000 und 1600 Tonnen beträgt, und je ein Viertel des Tonnengehalts sowohl der Fischdampfer wie der anderen Fischereifahrzeuge.On its behalf and with binding effect, for and against all other parties, the German government transfers to the Allied and Associated Governments the ownership of all merchant ships belonging to citizens of the [Second] Reich of 1600 gross tons or above, also half of the tonnage of the ships with gross tonnage between 1000 to 1600 tonnes, and one fourth each of the tonnage of both trawlers and the other fisheries vessels.

This, BTW, should be common knowledge: that's how the largest ships built by that time, HAPAG's Imperator class, changed names from Imperator into RMS Berengaria (for Cunard), from Vaterland into SS Leviathan (for United States Line; actually, this ship was already confiscated during WWI), and from Bismarck into RMS Majestic (for the White Star Line).

The post-war re-construction of HAPAG by Wilhelm Cuno is described in short on this page (in German). The text mentions

  • the re-start of the first Atlantic services (not yet to the USA) with chartered ships and two small newly built ones in 1919;
  • a law in Germany, the Reedereiabfindungsgesetz, which made the re-purchase of old and the construction of new ships easier;
  • cooperation with various US companies in the form of servicing ships in ports;
  • a first agreement with Harriman in 1921, characterised explicitely as one made between equal partners, followed by another cooperation pact enabling Transatlantic services from 1921;
  • the restoration of full service by 1922.

They also describe HAPAG's expansion by taking control of other companies and expanding into the airline business; including the takeover of United American Line from Harriman in 1926.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems that we are in agreement! Everybody can see that the ships were confiscated/stolen...

I mentioned Harriman Brothers before (and he was not alone!). so he got the ships (free, probably, although the documentation was notoriously destroyed by the USA), and sold them back to his German friends (while keeping some, or enough, control).

The H-A line fed the Nazis with USA weapons in the 1932 civil war in Germany, foiling the Weimar embargo.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems that we are in agreement! Everybody can see that the ships were confiscated/stolen...

Please don't shift your positions. You said the company was, and maintained it while I already pointed out that the ships were. To boot, most ships went to Britain, while you spoke about a complete US control. Furthermore, you claimed all documentation was destroyed, something that can't be said about the Versailles Treaty -- the documentation of this confiscation.

As for calling street clashes using at most pistols a civil war -- that is a bit much...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...in the streets... The semantics of "civil war" was introduced by me (Copyright Patrice Ayme), although it's a no brainer because war is defined as more than 1,000 killed.

I have studied math, long and hard, and learned there that 10,000 was more than 1,000. Now, true, I do not have a reference, and I beg for mercy... when a distorting troll, always a distorting sourceless obtuse troll...

It seems we are pretty much in agreement with H-A line, and trying to strangle me with split hair won't work. I never claimed the Versailles treaty burned down, just some building in the USA (I think that's how the doc for H-A line property transfer is supposed to have disappeared, but don't quote me on this, hahahaha, please, the censors are watching all mu huffing and puffing in the smoke...)

 

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
war is defined as more than 1,000 killed
Is it?

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 01:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not anywhere I've seen

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 02:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More than 1,000 killed: war.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose to ask you for a reference to a source document would be futile.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 02:03:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
SS killed 10,000 in 1932

Hartdly.

First of all, the main force of the brownshirts on the streets in 1932 were the SA, not the SS, which was a mere oversized elite bodyguard at the time (the SA was decapitated by the SS on the Night of the Long Knives on 30 June - 1 July 1934.) Even the Stahlhelm guys were bigger.

Second, casualty figures I can find are much lower -- in the hundreds. Though the figures are only for Prussia, most of the violence concentrated there: 300 in 1931, 155 in January to September 1932, of this 86 during the peak in July. The SA's own casualty until 1932 was 94 dead.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 02:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sources. I cannot give you references, as usual, and I am not going to ask yours, since all references are probably highly polluted. Remember the Nazis never killed a Jew according to themselves, and Stalin never heard of a Polish officer dying in Soviet captivity.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:12:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As a cop-out, this takes the cookie.

I cannot give you references, as usual, and I am not going to ask yours, since all references are probably highly polluted.

Then what are we talking about, exactly, and why does it matter?

That the credibility of the sources is under question only makes the sources more necessary, because that's the only way their credibility can be investigated.

But I forget you do philosophy, not history, which means you investigate what goes on in your head, not what went on in the world.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 02:23:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As an actual degree bearing philosopher, I can tell you for nothing that being one dosent absolve you of a need to supply sources. In actual fact references are more needed to track down chains of thought for arguments.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 03:43:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I cannot give you references, as usual

So where did that information in your head originate from? Thin air?

Do Your Own Research or don't make claims.

Remember the Nazis never killed a Jew according to themselves, and Stalin never heard of a Polish officer dying in Soviet captivity.

  1. These stats are from before the Nazi era.
  2. While there were establishment figures that protected the brownshirts, there were others. The SA and SS were banned in April 1932 (a ban lifted two months later).
  3. What the official statistics could have ignored were some of the back-alley stabbings. But you claimed civil war. That presupposes large clashes in the open. Those are well-documented in contemporary newspapers.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 02:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
SS doing killing.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are continuing to make assertions without providing sources and references. This is unacceptable on ET.

Back up what you say with "hard data", which you claim to have.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 02:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope. The SA were doing
  1. marching in figuration into communist-held areas, then disperse to fight the communists. (Most of the deaths came this way.)
  2. Fighting communists in pubs or in a back alley when meeting up on them.
  3. Lynching people.

You should read up on history before making bold claims that can be refuted easily by referencing just about any general history book.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 01:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sold them back to his German friends (while keeping some, or enough, control).

Control over what? The ships? HAPAG?

Evidence?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
United American Lines - Wikipedia
United American Lines, the common name of the American Shipping and Commercial Corporation, was a shipping company founded by W. Averell Harriman in 1920.

1920. That's after the confiscations, and after the re-start of HAPAG. Further:

His inexperience taken advantage of by HAPAG and the almost complete end of immigration to the United States drained millions of dollars from the company and led Harriman to sell the company to HAPAG in 1926.

I find that two of UAL's six ships were indeed ex-German, and one of them ended up back in HAPAG's ownership. However, the pages on these ships do describe the successions of ownership. The one which was also ex-HAPAG, SS Cleveland, was seized by USSB after the war, purchased from them by the British Byron Steamship, which sold it to UAL in 1923, that to HAPAG in 1926. However, the two other ships going from UAL to HAPAG were Dutch in origin.

UAL was a relatively small line. However, apart from UAL, I find there were shenanigans with ex-German ships -- albeit they did not work out quite as planned, it dores not look like there was any plan back from the time of the peace treaty, and if it involved lutocrats, then different ones who ended up with the ships during the rise of the Nazis:

United States Mail Steamship Company - Wikipedia

The United States Mail Steamship Company - also called the U.S. Mail Steamship Company, the United States Mail Line, or the U.S. Mail Line - was a passenger steamship line formed in 1920 by the United States Shipping Board (USSB) to run the USSB's fleet of ex-German ocean liners that had been seized by the United States during World War I or awarded as war reparations after the end of the war. Receivers were appointed for the line after financial improprieties and massive losses came to light. After review of the financial data, a United States District Court ordered that all the U.S. Mail Line ships be returned to the USSB.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 01:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I forgot something on Wilhelm Cuno; but here the Wikipedia pages should suffice. Of those, the German-language one is much more detailed; I should translate the wartime government posts and tasks through which he got to HAPAG:

  • bureaucrat in the Reichsschatzamt (Imperial Treasury)
  • Geheimer Regierungsrat (privy councillor to the government)
  • Leiter der Reichsgetreidestelle (leader of the Imperial Cereal Office)
  • Abteilungsleiter im Kriegsernährungsamt (division leader in the War Alimentation Bureau)
  • Leiter des Generalreferats für kriegswirtschaftliche Fragen (leader of the General Department for War Economic Issues)
  • in the former office, he was responsible for working out the Gesetz über die Wiederherstellung der deutschen Handelsflotte (Law on the Re-Establishment of the German Merchant Navy)
  • was invited into the HAPAG Directorate then
  • became HAPAG CEO after his predecessor committed suicide in reaction to the November Revolution (2 days before the end of WWII).


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for telling me about this Cuno.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 01:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep, WWI.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 02:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have a huge brain

I know a cranium is not a brain, but it will do as a proxy. What's your head's perimeter, so we can judge for ourselves whether it's indeed huge?

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:47:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(stole Hamburg Amerika Line, and then gave it to plutocrats, for example, then destroyed all documentation about the transaction)

Huh!? Source?

Such a transaction would have made little sense, given the peace accord condition that HAPAG had to cede all its large ships, leaving a rump cmpany for your plutocrats to own. HAPAG was then rebuilt by the famed Wilhelm Cuno (who also got to be chancellor), and I can't find anything about him acting merely as a front for (US?) plutocrats...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 04:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting... we may be both victim of some intox. My version of the Hamburg America line has it confiscated by USA and then property of the Anglo-Saxon plutocrats as mentioned above. They then used it crucially to finance Hitler. I wish I had time to write a book on this, the documantation is all spread out, and I will have to dig around, no time... How Hitler was financed does not seem to fascinate many... You and me excepted, of course...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 at 08:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My version of the Hamburg America line has it confiscated by USA

Again, I ask for a source, and a resolution of the apparent ccontradiction with HAPAG's peace-treaty-ordered near-destruction.

(The US connection I can find for later years is that Wilhelm Cuno made agreements with Harriman to first lease ships, then, once HAPAG had its own ships again, to share ports and routes. Also note that Wilhelm Cuno was very much part of the Prussian-German imperial establishment, having worked in the war ministry; so doing stuff for outside investors doesn't fit the picture.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 07:10:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in 1920, I read that Harriman has contracts with HAPAG, they are quoted in a U.S. supreme court case between Harriman and another German line. You would have thought that if Harriman actually was an owner of HAPAG then this would be a major difference  between the two contracts under discussion that would have been noticed by the court.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 07:17:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know anything about HAPAG, but the definitive Hitler-Wall St write up is probably this book, which can be read online.

It doesn't look like it was written by a nutter typing away in his vest in a basement.

But it would be interesting to have someone who's more of a historian than I am check over the sources and references.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 07:52:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
although if you click on the authours name, then read the editors note at the bottom of that page, it dosn't fill you with confidence on the basement factor.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:00:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The rest of the website is completely bonkers.

But so far as I can tell, he's scanned and uploaded a book he had nothing to do with.

Unlike most conspiranoid rantings, there are primary sources quoted in the book, and they can be checked.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:10:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My impression at first glance across the first chapter is that he overstates his case (that is I can't see his quotes fully justifying his claims).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 08:12:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, ThatBritGuy!

There is much more information than in this Sutton book, BTW I already mentioned it, but it fle under Afew's radar, apparently). Another book that one must read is "IBM and the Holocaust" [2001] that no doubt "Afew" read in the last a few days.

Somehow I have more information than that, but, true, my Nazi library has well above 1,000 titles... I see very well the entire picture. As it is, by chance, part of my family connects to Helmuth Johann Ludwig von Moltke (so I had some emotionally correct inside information, by the age of 6...)  

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:48:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have Sutton's work beside me, Patrice, in book version. It does not support your assertion re Hamburg-Amerika Line.

But this is not the point. If your general thesis is that American industry and Wall Street did business with the Nazis, invested in Nazi Germany, and ideologically supported Hitler as a bulwark against Bolshevism, then I personally think that is without dispute true.

What I am attempting to tell you, and you apparently refuse to understand, is that, when you write a piece containing as many assertions of fact as you do above, then you should provide references and evidence. If you don't, you should expect to be asked for them. If you make no effort to do so, there is no reason for people to take your assertions seriously.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 10:14:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I already said somewhere above Sutton does not have the H-A line gift to the US plutocrats (which was implicitly agreed to by some of my critiques above, since they recognized the ships had been confiscated! Or is there something I misunderstood?). I don't think he has IBM or Ford either, and many other things I know (see my Tyranosopher site for more on this). I do not own the book, and probably should read it.

I know the H-A line thing is in my patriceayme.com site, somewhere, way back, years ago. It dawned on me I should get organized and write a book on the subject.

Meanwhile I was just going to write an essay that followed up, but I had no time.

I have a serious problem with references, because, although it's possible to remember fact, because one recall them from the context to which they belong, not so with references (which belong to no context).

For example I know lots of math and physics (having graduate degrees in these), but, if I say that a fuel cell is not a Carnot engine, although I know it's true (and it has big consequences!), I cannot stop and provide a reference. I even doubt there is a "reference" about it. On my essay on Antarctica recently, it was easier to provide references, so I did.

If someone asks me, though, and I have time, or find the argument, I will try to explain.

I am happy that we agree that, as you put it so well,  "American industry and Wall Street did business with the Nazis, invested in Nazi Germany, and ideologically supported Hitler as a bulwark against Bolshevism, then I personally think that is without dispute true."

I thank you for agreeing with me on this. It's all that ought to matter.

I go even a bit further than this, BTW: Hitler was such a great idea, they invented him (meaning he was massively financed before 1922. This was proven with German plutocrats, but of course there is only circumstantial evidence for the support of Ford, Carnegie, Du Pont)

I do not pretend to be God on all my facts, although I do try to present only facts I am sure of, and I wellcome people who correct my mistakes, because I want only true data as input. I am trying to be a honest debater.

I have had an essay on the Qur'an with more than 500 quotes, BTW... Did I already say this? But I have been terrorized of being called bad names, so I have not published it, and it has been written years ago...

Precisely because I want to be taken seriously, and I know that would not go well... Thus it is why Gauss never published his work on curvature (no I am not trying to compare the works, just the worries. I do have some ideas in science, and decided actually to keep the science site secret, in a similar vein, knowing well some ideas therein may be decried, even if people know nothing of it: non locality is not part of CW and MSM).

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 12:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
was in 1921

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 01:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the USA?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 02:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Transfer of what?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 02:07:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ayme, with some help, I think I did your job and found your source for you. I find all your claims in The Nazi Hydra In America - Supressed History of a Century by Glen Yeadon and John (CON) Hawkins, the claims of which are reproduced on several consiracy and LaRouche-ist web pages, and which can be found on-line on Google Books.

Below I will quote and deconstruct all referenes to HAPAG and Wilhelm Cuno. Unlike Niall Ferguson's books, this one does without references to original sources, so I all info had to be tracked down with hard work.

page 35:

A complete list of Hitler's financial backers may never be known. However, Walter Funk named many business leaders and industries as financial supporters of Hitler during his Nuremberg testimony: ...Wilhelm Cuno of the Hamburg-Amerika Line, the shipping company seized from Prescott Bush for trading with the enemy;...

  1. As said before, HAPAG never belonged to foreigners.
  2. The United American Lines was (correcting myself from earlier) a joint venture between HAPAG and the Harriman-controlled American Ship and Commerce Corp., but it operated only until 1926 (when all ships were sold off).
  3. What was seized from Prescott Bush were his shares in the Union Banking Corporation.
  4. Also in 1942, all properties of HAPAG and Norddeutscher Lloyd in the USA were seized. Among these were 500 shares in UAL, a sleeping company by then that "has done no business for a number of years", and was ordered to be liquidated (with a sleeping account of a mere ). The quote is from the official documents, as found reproduced on-line by a conspiracy theorist who can't add 2+2.
  5. I searched the entire German text of the Nuremberg trials, and Wilhelm Cuno doesn't appear once.
  6. I searched the other names listed. The only significant hits were not in the testimony of Walther Funk, but in the trial of Hjalmar Schacht (see 23 November 1945, 30 April 1946, 2 May 1946), and concerned the well-known February 1933 meeting organised by Göring, in which the industrialists were 'asked' to donate to the NSDAP and its allies. However, Wilhelm Cuno already died on 3 January that year...

page 49 to 50:

The two Wall Street firms that aided the Nazis the most were Sullivan & Cromwell, and Brown Brothers Harriman. ...Brown Brothers Harriman was the Wall Street investment firm that employed George Herbert "Bert" Walker and his son-in-law, Prescott Bush. ...

Harriman's firm did not merge with Brown Brothers until after the 1929 stock market crash. Their first success in investing in Germany came in 1920 when Averell Harriman announced that he would restart Germany's Hamburg-Amerika Line.

  1. HAPAG was already re-started by then, it was the United American Lines that was created in 1920.
  2. Even UAL was a joint venture, not a Harriman creation.
  3. You can read the actual announcement in the NYT, which is about joint operation. The article includes a full quote of the agreement about cooperation as equal partners.

After many months of scheming and political intrigue, the United states had confiscated Hamburg-Amerika's commercial steamships after World War I.

  1. There were no many months of scheming, there was the Treaty of Versailles (which I quoted) (though the US, unlike Germany, was a non-signatory; yet, the separate peace treaty with the US confirmed the confiscations post-facto).
  2. The seizing of ships started before the end of WWI: with those ships that were in US ports at the time of the US entry into WWI.
  3. It wasn't just HAPAG whose ships were seized, but all German companies.

By some arrangements with the U.S. authorities that were never made public, these ships then became the property of the Harriman enterprise.

  1. UAL indeed started operation with two seized German ships (one of them ex-HAPAG, the other ex-Norddeutscher-Lloyd). However, that's two out of hundreds of seized German ships.
  2. Two more UAL ships were newly built in 1921.
  3. The remaining two had a longer story that had nothing to do with seizure: they were built for HAPAG, but they were not finished by the start of WWI. Then Germany gave the half-finished ships as compensation to neutral Netherlands already during WWI. Then in 1922, their Dutch owner sold them to UAL.
  4. As stated upthread, following the use of the ships by the government for the military, a large number of the ex-German ships was to be operated by the newly created United States Mail Steamship Company, created by the USSB; but various shenanigans meant the dissolution of that company before it ran any of the ships in 1920.
  5. The largest private receiver of ex-German ships was the largest line, the United States Lines, founded by another business group.

George Walker, Prescott Bush's father-in-law, arranged the credits Harriman needed to take control of the Hamburg-Amerika Line. Walker and Averell Harriman gained control of the steamship company in 1920 through negotiations with its post-World War I chief executive, Wilhelm Cuno, and with the line's bankers, M. M. Warburg. Walker organized the American Ship and Commerce Corp. as a unit of W. A. Harriman & Co., with contractual power over Hamburg-Amerika's affairs. The Harriman 15 Corp., run by Prescott Bush and George Walker, held the Harriman-Bush shares in American Ship and Commerce Corp.

  1. Continuing mix-up of UAL and HAPAG, ignorance about the real development of the financial balance between the partners in UAL (e.g. that Harriman lost millions while HAPAG expanded), and ignorance about the Reedereiabfindungsgesetz (which enabled HAPAG's growth of financial muscle).
  2. Max Warburg was busy securing finance for exports from Germany, so the claimed help in a takeover doesn't fit his profile. But from what I can find, for example on HAPAG-Lloyd's own history page, Warburg was indeed helping in the UAL deal.
  3. I note Max Warburg was Jewish. He was eventually forced from his positions in 1933, including membership of HAPAG's board; according to HAPAG-Lloyd's history page:

Hapag and NDL, partly state-owned, are brought into line by the Nazis. Max Warburg, Ballin's best friend and especially close to Hapag for decades, is thrown off the supervisory board. The banker retains his dignity, delivering a passionate farewell speech to an embarrassed auditorium, sarcastically settling scores with the new top managers. His tremendous departure makes international headlines.

After also being forced to sell his properties, he fled to the USA in 1938. I note all this because I find that some conspiracy web pages reference his anti-boycott correspondence with US business partners up until Spring 1933 as evidence of being a Hitler supporter, a rather gross mis-representation of his situation.

...Voegler, Thyssen and Cuno all contributed heavily to the Nazis from 1930-32.

Vögler, Thyssen did, Cuno didn't. It was another man affiliated with HAPAG: the supervisory board leader Emil Helfferich. (I also note that Cuno, but Vögler too who preferred the DVU at the time, refused to sign the Industrielleneingabe, the infamous pro-Hitler letter of industrialists.)

Baron Rudolph von Schroeder was vice president and director of the Hamburg-Amerika Line.

  1. The only member of the bankier family called Rudolph I can find lived and died in the 19th century. All other referenes on the web originate in this book.
  2. I assume therefore that this is a corruption of the name of Kurt Freiherr von Schröder, who was a fervent Nazi supporter.
  3. This von Schröder also got on the board of several industrial companies. However, most of those after he started his Nazi career by joining NSDAP in 1933 -- yet, I can't find HAPAG among his board seats.

Finally, I note that Glen Yeadon's "credits" as historian are:

Progressive Press AUTHOR BIO'S

He was raised on a family farm in Minnesota and now lives in the Pacific Northwest. Glen has multiple degrees in chemistry and computer science. He has authored numerous articles on the Internet probing the roots of American fascism. His article Ties that Bind connecting George W Bush and the Neocons to the Nazis has received exceptional praise from readers.

...as for the oher guy, I can't find anything.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 01:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lessons from this:

  1. DO care about references.

  2. Do not trust sources that do not use references themselves.

And next time, I won't do your own research.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 01:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As Einstein said: "the key to creativity is hide your sources". in my case it's "Forget your sources" (See Sagan: CULTURE IS WHAT IS LEFT wHEN NE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING.

I have read well in excess of 1,000 books on Nazism. i had good personal reasons to be fascinated (connection to Molkte and the wrong side of the Gestapo's knife).

When refering to references, quality is important.

For example prescot bush got compensated, as Hitler had personally promised to him, for the American Silesian. Just for the one share he "symbollically" held. 13 million dollars.

Such an information can be managed in all ways, like Bush lost all hios shares, confiscated, and then got just one back, symbolically.

As a child, I was fascinated when my very old grand uncle told me he knew who was behind Hitler, and then he told the tales. His wife was Molkte. I was close to them... I have done some reading meantime...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 03:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
As Einstein said: "the key to creativity is hide your sources". in my case it's "Forget your sources"

When you're presuming to hand out lessons about history, creativity is hardly a virtue.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 04:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well if you want to admit your diary is creative rather than actually historical....

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 04:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...or, it's closer to what Einstein referred to jokingly: plagiarising...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 04:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, seeing as I can't find anything he's actually copied.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 04:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
are not virtuous if they are creative?
BTW, the Einstein's quote was both ironical and real. I do not try to hide my sources, and never ever heard of the authors DoDo found... I just know some (many) things to be true (as far as I know, as everybody else). Not everything is on the Internet. And the source and reference thing goes only that far. For example I visited Qom, in Iran, and I was a baby in Gardhaia (one of the world's oldest and most scared cities). No references for either.
Some of the most famous papers of Einstein and Feynman are full of mistakes, for example, and no references form Einstein (although he took from Poincare' and Lorentz, etc.)

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 01:36:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
never ever heard of the authors DoDo found

You reproduced their false claims with some formulations used almost verbatim. So you either forgot about them, or worse, you read their claims quoted on a conspiracy web page even less concerned about references.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:31:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
totally lost here... which "false" claims have I been reproducing, from authors I never heard of? "Formulations used almost verbatim" is beyond the pale. as I said, never heard of these people.

Just give one precise big "false" claim. I say big, because the fact that other people called something else by another name does not mean much...

It seems to me that the ferocity of this counter attack is akin to holocaust denying. It's basically saying: oh you had false claims about american plutocrats using shipping lines they owned or controlled to send weapons to the Nazis. That was my main allegation, and I am very sure of it, and did not read it anywhere on the Internet, except on sites of mine. I view strident denial of this by splitting hair on people I either never knew or forgot about, and are irrelevant, like mr. Cuno a red herring of the holocaust denying type.

There was actually an incendiary book on Warburg's connection with the Nazis, which was (legally) destroyed, because the authors got his name wrong (voluntarily or not). In 1933. It's widely suspected the author was the French secret service. I brace for 50 comments telling me there is no such thing, because it's called by other names, which seems to me basically DoDo's main argument, the veracity of which allows him to profusely insult me while hiding the truth, which was as I said above. This being said I am grateful for his research.  

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 12:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems to me that the ferocity of this counter attack is akin to holocaust denying.

The Crackpot Index

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.


The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 12:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems to me that the ferocity of this counter attack is akin to holocaust denying.

This is unsupported, hyperbole and intentionally incendiary.  Perhaps I'm a little sensitive due to yesterday's events, but I think I'm going to err on the side of sensitivity.  I politely suggest you would benefit from doing the same.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 12:46:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"the key to creativity is hide your sources". in my case it's "Forget your sources"

IOW your creativity is in making stuff up?

I have read well in excess of 1,000 books on Nazism.

What's the point if you fail to select crap from worthy?

When refering to references, quality is important.

When you don't refer to references, quality is zero.

Molkte

You did this twice so it's not a typo. Moltke.

QED.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 04:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One more insult for my little collection. I don't see why you are so aggressive.This all started on just one aspect of the tremendous connection between USA plutocrats and Hitler, as alleged by me. I mentioned shipping.
In the end, you confirmed most of my allegations, if i understood well. You just fought like crazy about who was exactly called what by whom when. You admitted hundreds of ships were concerned.
Then you seem to have fallen for the old bush lie that he got all his shares confiscated, etc... Your search around the Internet shows you are new to the subject. I am not. I am not used to meet such a strong denier, and that gets me to think. I just have the right emotion on the whole thing, you tell me the ships were not under Mr. Cune, blah blah blah. I am telling you they were used for the civil war in Germany in 1932. You tell me you just read in the Internet numbers the Nazis had plenty of time to look at long and hard, and you believe them, because it was before their time, like three days before... Whatever, thanks for the insults. And if your rage turn me dislexic, well, nothing you and your fellow haters should be proud of.
I communicare honestly, not with an agenda of proving people are wrong because I dislike.
BTW, Wall street created IG Farben, famous for Auschwitz, Zyklon B, etc... That was part of the conspiracy too...Good luck with the typos... I can go on like that for 6 months: Hitler was an American plutocracy puppet. And telling me the ships were not Cuno, etc... I never said anything about that Cuno.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 01:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
Wall street created IG Farben

Patrice Ayme:

Hitler was an American plutocracy puppet.

Evidence, please.

Patrice Ayme:

That was part of the conspiracy too

This seems to be a plain admission you are peddling a conspiracy theory, like the only sources that can be found to agree with your statements re HAPAG. On ET we're interested in history, not in conspiracy theories.

Patrice Ayme:

I can go on like that for 6 months

Not here, you can't. Your unsupported assertions are of no interest except possibly to you. Provide evidence or stop posting.

Put up or shut up.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 02:55:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that you never heard of this. The creation of IG Farben, how it happened. I guess you never did, because you ask for reverence.

The I.G. Farben cartel was created by loans from Wall Street in the Dawes plan (USA-Wall Street). The famous mainstream historian of civilization Carroll Quigley calls the Dawes Plan "largely a J.P. Morgan production." The J.P. Morgan Group set up the loan to I.G. Farben, which helped in Hitler's resurrection (after his imprisonement). 'Without the capital supplied by Wall Street, there would have been no I.G. Farben in the first place, and almost certainly no Adolf Hitler and World War II." (Quigley) Henry Ford merged his German assets with I.G. Farben in 1928 (I think?)IG Farben was made to collude with USA oil giants (anti trust prevented them to create a cartel in the USA, so they create it in... Germany!)

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 12:53:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Those aren't references, they're more unsupported assertions.

In fact I. G. Farben was created by evil gnomes who live in  a giant pumpkin under the sea and manipulated the American plutocrats into manipulating Hitler. They wanted some Volkswagen Beetles in bright yellow to match their submarines.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 01:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and i want reverence, I mean reference... Is there a Gnomipedia? Can we cut and paste from Gnomipedia and look real learned like you know the great ones?

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the end, you confirmed most of my allegations, if i understood well.

Apparently you didn't understood anything.

You admitted hundreds of ships were concerned.

LOL, now you're being intentionally dishonest. No I did not 'admit' that hundreds of ships were concerned in a shadowy deal to bring HAPAG into the ownership of Harriman which then used HAPAG to supply the Nazis, which was your thoroughly wrong claim. Ships ending up legally in the ownership of other companies and businessmen with no relationship with the Nazis doesn't support your general claim about US plutocrats creating Hitler, either. As for the rest of your claims about me and about history: wrong, wrong, wrong and just ridiculous; and I already told you that you should do your own research next time.

Since you failed to convince anyone on ET that your claim of a good knowledge of history has any connection with reality, I suggest that instead of wasting your time for 6 more months with us, try it elsewhere or keep it to your web page.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also in 1942, all properties of HAPAG and Norddeutscher Lloyd in the USA were seized. Among these were 500 shares in UAL, a sleeping company by then that "has done no business for a number of years", and was ordered to be liquidated (with a sleeping account of a mere

$325.77.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 02:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Roosevelt was trying to maneuver the US into war with Germany from the start of WWII, but faced a ton of opposition. This included large scale transfers of materiel to the UK and protecting convoys against U^boots. He also began the first peacetime military buildup in US history, again in preparation for war with Germany. You argue that the US could have done something in 1940, with what army? The US didn't have one. As far as land forces go, both the UK and France were far  more powerful at that time. In fact, the US wasn't even in the top five (Germany, the USSR, Britain, and France all had clearly more powerful land armies than the US) The notion of the US launching a land invasion of Europe at that point is about as nonsensical as France invading the US or China today.

As far as US corporations and the Nazis, it's quite a bit more complicated than you suggest. First of all, yes, they were happy to make money there (same goes for the USSR). But it was also impossible for them to withdraw from Germany without completely writing off their investments. The Nayis had very strict capital controls and didnàt allow foreign companies to transfer money abroad.

by MarekNYC on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 03:12:08 PM EST
But it's not just that American culture made the U.S. apathetic about the Nazis until Hitler forced it to enter the war; it's that the U.S. plutocratic elite actively supported and facilitated the rise of the Nazis while undermining French efforts to check them:

Patrice Ayme: All this, plus USA plutocrats aiding and abetting Nazis. They made the difference. USA was actively undermining France 1934 to 1945, and helping Nazis, 1922 to 1980s.

Also:

Patrice Ayme: ... Roosevelt made no mystery that he wanted to destroy the British and French empires

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 04:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The USA had a 150,000 men army. France mobilized 6 millions. France had a bit more than 100 divisions, the Nazis about 150 divisions. Overall the European equpment was way better.

But eveybody knew the USA had giant industrial capability. The USA just had to talk. Roosevelt did talk, but trading snide remarks with Hitler. Instead he should just have sent a letter saying Chamberlain and Daladier represented him. That would have been enough for the German generals: they would have killed Hitler.

But, in truth, Roosevelt wanted to destroy the French and British, and he was not unhappy that they had a Hitler problem. So he did as if he were against Hitler, but not really...Let me self refer...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 at 09:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Overall the European equpment was way better. To the extent that when American troops first turned up in Europe, they were refered to as 'Our Italians'. In 1937 The Chief of Staff of the US army (Which included the Army Air force at that time) calculated that it would cost $4 billion to bring the  armys land equipment up to modern strength. This was eight times the entire armys budget and you would have to extract the cost of aircraft (Which were prioritised) and wages out before buying new tanks and rifles (The design of which, but not production was being paid for)Congress refused to pay for any manufacture till after the fall of France, then only enough to cover extra troops to deter the Japanese from moving into European holdings in the Pacific.

Any American threat in the 1930's was hardly credible, Militarily or Politically.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 04:03:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
UK government to signal that they would go to war allied with France (1938). Then, using threat to national security as a pretext, they were going to destroy Hitler in a coup, the generals informed the Brits.

Instead British traitors told Hitler. Then Hitler told the entire officer corps he knew everything. He made a big purge. Still the officer corps was stuffed with anti Hitlerites.  

But, if the USA had just said they would join France, let alone if they had sent one bullet to help France, the German generals would have been back at the coup thing. And it would have worked.
The coup failed by 1944, because of bad luck, of course, but also because the SS were way too strong by then. Not so in 1939, 1940...

Truth is, the USA has been playing a double game in Europe, and they have been doing the same in the Middle EAst with Wahhabists (in lieu of the Nazis).
 

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 04:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Instead British traitors told Hitler.

Sources?

the only place I can find this claimed on the internet is on your own site! and even there you say its only Probably the British. What have you found to make you suddenly certain?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jun 10th, 2009 at 04:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's in the Qur'an... OK, Mr. Sleuth. There were several books in the last few years of dying Germans, published in French. They were in the heart of the matter. Some were all set to kill Hitler. Bought them, read them. But I am presently on the other side of the planet, far from my European library, the one in my Alpine Redoubt, where I plot my revelations in the reassuring safety of the Homicidal Alps. I do have a library where I am, make no mistake, but it has these books not. I don't even remember the names of the authors.  
Not everything is in the Internet, and there is lots of junk there. If I understand DoDo well now, he accuses me of "Crap" because he found some fascist site who said some things that sounded like mine... Alghough now he says hundreds of ships were confiscated, but he is not excusing himself, far from it.... I guess, that's acceptable behavior in ET...

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 02:02:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If I understand DoDo well now, he accuses me of "Crap"

The comment in question:

I have read well in excess of 1,000 books on Nazism.

What's the point if you fail to select crap from worthy?

In other words, you are not being described as crap.  Your sources are being described as crap. Bear in mind  that in a couple of hours with readily available public documents DoDo has been able to prove the claims within these still unnamed (by you) sources are untrue.  Please note that he has gone beyond showing that there is no evidence (and a philosopher of all people must, in any case, be aware that absence of evidence is not evidence for the absent), but that there is a decades'long trail proving something else.  As source credibility goes, this is pretty much the dictionary definition of crap.

by Sassafras on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words, you are not being described as crap.  Your sources are being described as crap.

Even more precisely, part of his sources. I don't know about the 999 other books he read.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
some sources, he alleged they were mine. They were not.

Ultimately DoDo seems to want to say my fundamental assertion, that USA plutocracy made the difference in the rise of Hitler, is false. He concentrated on Mr. Cuno, that I never mentioned.

The famous quote: "When I hear the word culture, I put out my gun", by a Nazi minister, was not initially so.

He said: I put out my Browning. An American gun.

I wonder why the intensity of the denial from a few individuals at the ET. Are the Nazis supposed to have come out of thin air? Just because the Germans were crazy?

Did Hilter have a giant painting of Henry Ford in his office in Munchen in 1923, just because he loved art, and offered Ford's book for free, just because he liked books?  

And Hitler's giant ressources in 1923 (he had a super equipped 2,000 men army): did they come only from a few German plutocrats? And that is why Hilter loved Ford so much? Und so weiter.

Next; ET explains Mengele never existed because he did not meet Cuno. Waiting for Cuno: better than waiting for Godot.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 01:05:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
some sources, he alleged they were mine. They were not.

DoDo already answered this charge here.

If you disagree, surely the clearest way to demonstrate that he's wrong would be to tell us what your sources actually are?

Did Hilter have a giant painting of Henry Ford in his office in Munchen in 1923, just because he loved art, and offered Ford's book for free, just because he liked books?

I assume you mean The International Jew.  Oddly, I can think of a reason apart from international financial conspiracy why Hitler might have admired or promoted a collection of slavering anti-semitic falsehoods. I'm surprised that reading 1000 books on the Nazis appears not to have equipped you to do the same.

Waiting for Cuno: better than waiting for Godot.

Well, quite apart from the fact that you originally thanked DoDo for his information on Cuno, the Cuno line of reasoning is pretty clear to me.  However, when an author who expects his conclusions to be accepted without examination of the evidence seems to be denying his ability to follow the logic of a 140 comment internet thread, it does not fill me with confidence.

by Sassafras on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
is that your "answering to the charge"

As far as I am concerned, I am dealing here with (cause of) holocaust denial, and para Nazi arguments. DoDo used Nazi statistics to call me a liar (about how many people got killed in 1932). That his numbers were Nazi numbers just come from the dates.

Now to systematically ask for internet references for everything is the denial of culture. DoDo went on and created what he alleged were my sources. I am just a honest person, with a honest brain in which knowledge is found. Then Afew, has apparently never heard of Dawes plan, then DoDo, the fabricator of evidence (fabricating my source, remember?) worries about the rise of the right wing...

Maybe it would not rise if one was a bit more honest intellectually. The mental weirdness of what DoDo did to me is unsurpassed: he apparently found some hyper right wing site (if I understand well), and claimed my ideas came from there, and if they did not, I had to prove it. This sort of argument was used against Jews about the protocol of the Elders of Zion.

The hatred of some started at the ET when I quote the Qur'an. A proof of Islamophobia, if there ever was one.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Now to systematically ask for internet references for everything is the denial of culture.

You freely admitted you cannot give any sources, internet or otherwise.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am dealing here with (cause of) holocaust denial, and para Nazi arguments. DoDo used Nazi statistics to call me a liar (about how many people got killed in 1932). That his numbers were Nazi numbers just come from the dates.

You cannot be serious.

Any more suggestions that DoDo is a Nazi apologist will be met by me with uncontrolled laughter and a zero rating.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buiter

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
Afew, has apparently never heard of Dawes plan

I asked you for evidence that Wall Street created IG Farben.

You have none. In this thread you have twisted and turned in order to refuse discussion in good faith. You cannot prove your ridiculous assertions, you have no sources and cannot recall the authors of all the books you have read (in spite of your "huge brain"). Now you are resorting to provocation by suggesting we are holocaust deniers and users of Nazi propaganda. This however fails to disguise your pitiful lack of understanding and ability to marshal sources.

You are wasting our time and you have no place on this forum.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
from a very respected historian

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:45:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The hatred of some started at the ET when I quote the Qur'an. A proof of Islamophobia, if there ever was one.

Patrice, that is the most twisted accusation you have yet made. The facts are that you used quotations from the Qu'ran in order to write a vile anti-Islamic diary that was soundly condemned.  In my view, it was very close to the line of incitement to racial hatred, and the only reason I personally didn't argue for it to be deleted was that the ET community was doing such a good job of showing up your arguments as false.

For you to now turn around and accuse others of Islamophobia for challenging your misuse of the Qu'ran is utterly beyond the pale.

by Sassafras on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
initially because I thought he had done some honest research to help. when later on he called my assertion "crap" I finally understood... He mixed up everything as his total confusion about shares and who got what and shell companies... Etc... It's useful to have a deep culture that leads to the right emotions. Can't acquire it in one hour of frantic cut and paste. I made a lot of other allegations, which were graver, and left unanswered.

In the end DoDo 100% agreed with the first hafl of the gist of my argument (he recognized hundreds of German ships were seized by the USA, and fell in USA plutocratic hands)in a very small portion of my general argument.

Then as I said, the exceptional Afew comes and asks me for reference for the Dawes plan... What did they say about young people nowadays knowing nothing? Do they want a reference on WWII too?  

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I also asked you for evidence that "Hitler was an American plutocracy puppet".

Of course, you have come up with none at all, as in every other case where you were asked to back up your statements.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Qur'an includes a section on British traitors informing Hitler? now if that was true thats evidence for Islam having a far better holy book than Christianity.

Not everything is in the Internet, and there is lots of junk there. Are you talking about your own site? thats the only place I mentioned directly.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 04:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
would be more like it... Anyway, most of what's wrong about Islam was made up generations after the already made up Qur'an (Muhammad's family members denounced the Qur'an as fake)

Another of my themes is that Christianity created the Dark Ages, it is the Dark Ages. Amusing myself by reading presently a history book by a Muslim fanatic, by the way: I have no qualms financing the enemy, I bough the hardback, full price... Notice I did not put history in ""... I admit all historical point of views, my work is to reinterpret them. That is what historians do.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 01:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
was definitive progress, in his day and age, BTW. Especially about murder of girls.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 01:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I give up, I will no longer be answering anything you post. I will no longer crawl through your pathetic asenine ramblings trying to make sense of them.

You sir are a fool, a half wit, someone who im surprised even has the skills to read and write. You claim to be a historian, but the most basic historical knowledge appears to elude you as easily as a butterfly avoiding a three toed sloth. Christianity caused the dark ages? How stupid are you to think something like that? Go and read any reputable history of the end of the Western Roman Empire and I'll Guarantee it won't say "It was the christians what done it" Your grasp of german political history in the 1930's appears at best Superficial.

Argument is not your friend either. You have been told  many times here that argument is not substantiated without supporting evidence, yet you still carry on, pushing out worthless drivel, insulting the inteligence of people here. GPlease if you're still convinced of your genius, take it elsewhere to people who will obviously worship it in the way that you crave. Otherwise go away and come back when you have understood the basics of logic and understand how to properly justify your claims.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 04:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mr,. "Ceebs" never heard of Gibbons, obviously...
The intellectual level of the ET is abysmal...

A laughable stock: never heard of JP Morgan, the dawes plan, now Gibbon....

Edward Gibbon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the historian. For other Edward Gibbons, see Gibbon (disambiguation).
Edward Gibbon

Portrait, oil on canvas, of Edward Emily Gibbon (1737-1794) by Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792)
Born April 27, 1737
Putney, Surrey, England
Died January 16, 1794 (aged 56)
London

Edward Gibbon (April 27, 1737[1] - January 16, 1794) was an English historian and Member of Parliament. His most important work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788. The History is known principally for the quality and irony of its prose, its use of primary sources, and its open denigration of organized religion, though the extent of this is disputed by some critics.


Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:51:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
less than one million pages is going to be oversimplifcation. But USa kept on investing throughout war and beyond with the Nazis. IBM is a case in point. Barbie another, in a completely different dimension.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To quote DoDo (above):

By some arrangements with the U.S. authorities that were never made public, these ships then became the property of the Harriman enterprise.

UAL indeed started operation with two seized German ships (one of them ex-HAPAG, the other ex-Norddeutscher-Lloyd). However, that's two out of hundreds of seized German ships.

Two more UAL ships were newly built in 1921.

The remaining two had a longer story that had nothing to do with seizure: they were built for HAPAG, but they were not finished by the start of WWI. Then Germany gave the half-finished ships as compensation to neutral Netherlands already during WWI. Then in 1922, their Dutch owner sold them to UAL.

As stated upthread, following the use of the ships by the government for the military, a large number of the ex-German ships was to be operated by the newly created United States Mail Steamship Company, created by the USSB; but various shenanigans meant the dissolution of that company before it ran any of the ships in 1920.

The largest private receiver of ex-German ships was the largest line, the United States Lines, founded by another business group.

END OF DODo'quote...

Notice: hundreds of ships confiscated... The largest private receiver of ex-German ships was the largest line, the United States Lines, founded by another business group.

My main allegation has been that American controlled shipping was used to smuggle the weapons into Germany in the early thirties (there was a Weimar embargo). To which DoDo, using statistics of 1933!!!!!! (Hitler came to power on January 21, 1933, something like that)replied that the Nazis killed only a few hundred people in 1932, not around 10,000 (as I alleged). And what does DoDo use? Nazi certification of glorious number, claiming they were gathered by the preceding adminstration.

We are very close to sheer Nazi propaganda here: taking Nazi influenced numbers for the real thing.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 01:25:03 PM EST
You make me laugh.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 05:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...This all seems to show it's high time for me to write a book on the whole thing, and I would if i had time, but got to earn a living.

What's amazing though is the ignorance...The incredible ignorance, as the latest tirade of ceebs attest. Not only he has it hot for islam, but even hotter for christianity... I respectfully cordially despise both, except when they stay in their little cage.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, someone who reads "1932 January to September" as "1933" and then makes far-reaching conclusions from that, deserves only laughter, doesn't he.

At any rate, I found stuff in the meantime which others may find useful.

1) This study (in German) focuses on political violence involving the least prominent militia, the Social Democrat's Reichsbanner. in the process of it, they quote various statistics, which indicate that ten thousand is the order of the number of casualties, but the overwhelming majority of those were injured.

  • 1924-29, all Germany: Communists 94 dead, NSDAP 30, Stahlhelm 26, Reichsbanner 16 dead;
  • 1930-32, own losses recorded by the SA: 143, by the RFB (Communists): 171, by the Reichsbanner: 32
  • 1931, all of Germany, interior ministry stats: 8248 dead and injured;
  • Oct+Nov 1931, all of Germany, interior ministry stats: 21 dead, 1186 injured;
  • Jan-Nov 1931, Prussian police stats: 61 political dead;
  • Jan-Sep 1932, Prussian police stats: 155 political dead (55 NSDAP, 54 Communists, 10 Reichsbanner, 34 other, 1 policeman); of this Jun-Jul: 105 [this is a more detailed account of the 155 figure I found and referenced earlier]

2) The Correlates of War is a database of internal and external armed conflicts 1816-2001, currently maintained at Penn State University. For example, here is their list of Intra-State Wars (the smallest casualty is 90 for the Belgian secession war of 1930-1; of course, Germany in 1930-1933 is not listed).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 07:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
3) This is not something I found yesterday, but something relevant that says a lot about the nature of the brownshirts and their rise of power.

When quoting the own loss figures of the militias, the Reichsbanner study rightly notes that these lists were partly assembled for propagandistic reasons, thus they are not indubitable. However, the result of those propagandistic reasons wasn't under- but over-statement. The most important case is that of Horst Wessel.

Horst Wessel was a poor student and lower SA officer living in a bad area of Berlin. On 14 January 1930, he was shot in the head under unclear circumstances (according to the judge, his tenant contacted the local communist party office for help in a dispute over outstanding payments; according to the Nazis, a political murder; according to the communists, a drama of jealousy; according to more conspiracy-monded, an SA inside job for a deviation), and died a month later. What is certain is that he lived together with an ex-prostitute at the time, which got him into conflicts with just about everyone (and was even intent on leaving the SA for that reason).

His probable killer, a man sentenced multiple times for pimping, was also a member of the communist militia RFB, something NSDAP propagandist Goebbels seized upon. So he and his men retouched the ex-prostitute from the story, turned Horst Wessel into an exemplary National Socialist, and his killer into an evil Communist. With a broad campaign, they exerted massive pressure on the trial -- and then whipped up a national outrage when the judge failed to sentence the killer & accomplices to death.

The idolising campaign was escalated until Horst Wessel became a de-facto Nazi saint. Total mobilisation with a 90% false hero story. Lots of statues, memorials, schools and streets and squares were named for him, even a district of Berlin. A poem written by him (and slightly re-written) was combined with the tune of a sailors' song into the Horst-Wessel-Lied, the number one SA and NSDAP anthem (also sung by Neo-Nazis to this day).

(Of course, the truth can no more be ascertained. The man sentenced as, and who most probably was, Horst Wessel's shooter was hijacked on a prison transfer and murdered by an SA squad after the Nazi takeover. The 11 others in the trial were killed by the Gestapo, too. The documentation of the trial in 1930 disappeared. Thus: no witnesses.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jun 12th, 2009 at 03:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries