Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 20, 2020

Putin On World War II

Due to decades of Hollywood propaganda many people in "western" countries believe that the U.S. did the most to defeat the Nazis during World War II.


Nothing could be further from the truth.

The President of Russia Vladimir Putin has taken the opportunity of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II to describe the build-up to the war, the diplomatic and military considerations Russia took into account during that time, and the results of the allies' victory.

His essay was published in multiple languages on the Website of the Kremlin:

75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future.

The English version is also published in the National Interest magazine:

Vladimir Putin: The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II.

The part with the Russian view of the behavior of various nation in the late 1930s is most interesting. But this passage, related to the graphic above, is also very relevant:

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism.
This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission's task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that “the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft.” On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army “ground up” 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that “it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine…”

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320.

As a German and former officer who has read quite a bit about the war I agree with the Russian view. It was the little acknowledged industrial power of the Soviet Union and the remarkable dedication of the Red Army soldiers that defeated the German Wehrmacht.

At the end of his essay Putin defends the veto power of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. In his view it has prevented another clash on a global scale from happening since World War II ended. Putin rejects attempts to abolish that system.

I have found no major flaw with the historic facts in the essay and recommend to read it in full.

Posted by b on June 20, 2020 at 17:07 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

Leee C | Jun 21 2020 21:25 utc | 98 ....
"...that's the price they paid because they were one of the major if not THE major reason that WW1 occurred."

Gerry Docherty & James MacGregor strongly disagree... Read a bit... expand your understanding

Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War

Posted by: Mr. | Jun 21 2020 22:17 utc | 101

Taking advantage of the topic and some comments on historical revisionism, what books on general history do you recommend? I'm reading Will Durant (history of civilization). Do you know Will Durant? Recommend? Which reliable and, as far as possible, without political bias books do you recommend?

Posted by: Neuromancer | Jun 22 2020 4:10 utc | 102


Thank you, this is the kind of material I had in mind. If I remember well, in particular American trucks were key for the logistics of the Red Army.

Without discounting all the sympathizers of the nazis in the Western world, the facts themselves cannot be disputed. From the very beginning (1939) the US elite did its utmost to help the UK ; and the real UK elite (I'm not talking about some weird aristocrats harbouring nazi sympathies) rejected every peace offer by Hitler, and went to war over the flimsiest of pretexts. I mean, defending Poland, come on. If that was the case, how come no one gave it a damn after the war when Poland was absorbed into the USSR ? If we take it at face value that this was the casus belli, then Germany undoubtedly won the war :-).

My conclusion in the end would be that talk of aggression is futile, apart from scoring propaganda points. There were three totally incompatible entities in 1939, and sooner or later war would have broken out. Fatality, in a way...

Posted by: Vince | Jun 22 2020 6:46 utc | 103

I'm late to this & haven't read all comments, but have noticed some have mentioned the Soviet-Nazi non aggression pact/treaty signed by USSR foreign minister Molotov and Nazi 3rd Reich dumbkopf von Ribbentrop.

After the treaty was announced both england and France whined like stuck pigs without ever telling the world & particularly their own citizens how the pact came to pass. William Shirer explains the big picture in his book "The Rise & Fall of the 3rd Reich". England & France had been pressuring the USSR to come to a mutual deal should the Nazis attack Poland.
The Soviets who knew damn well that the Nazis meant them harm, were keen too. However there was one big sticking point.
The Soviets wanted a deal in which if Poland were attacked Soviet troops would be able to go into poland and fight the nazis. The poles refused this which would mean that if Germany invaded Poland the USSR could do nothing until they had taken over all of Poland right up the the Soviet border, am entirely untenable situation for the USSR as by that time Poland would be full of nazi troops and materiel knowing they had a declared enemy just across the river/road.
How could USSR protect Poland in that situation?> They would still be unable to invade Poland under the terms of the treaty and in fact would have to wait until the nazis attacked them.
There could be no help from Britain or France as they had no way of getting troops into Poland from the South or west so why even bother with a treaty.

All Molotov & Stalin wanted was for Poland to be told by england & france that was the deal get used to it cos its the only way we can save yer arse, but neither the poms nor the frogs would do that.
That left the USSR with only one option - get into a peace treaty with the Nazis - sure it wouldn't last for ever, but the deal to split Poland in half means that should the nazis renege (an inevitability) there would be a good chance of the fight being away from the motherland on polish soil.

The english & french imagined the USSR could never sit down with nazis, so they stupidly tried to push the USSR into a lose:lose situation.

The rest is history.

Posted by: A User | Jun 22 2020 6:56 utc | 104

@ VK 79

The Soviet Union underwent during it`s excistence a process of gradual moderation. Right after the October Revolution immediate world revolution was the goal. (Lenin did not only "hope" for revolution in Germany, he did actively faciliate that goal by supporting the German communists and trying to conquer Poland in 1920 in order to establish a land bridge. That hadn`t been forgotten in Poland in 1939.) As this turned out to be unfeasible the policy switched ot "socialism in one country" first. But it was not until the 1960s under Khrushchev that "peacefull coexistence" became the offical slogan.B y the 1980s the Soviet Union had become a country that solved it`s external problems largely by diplomacy. However, even at that point it was still the official Marxist-Leninist notion that eventually the whole world would become communist in accordance with the Soviet model and that it was the mission of the Soviet state to support and speed up that process.

I agree that the Soviet leadership didn`t perceive itself as agressive and expansionist. From their perspective it was an inevitable social process and that in any case the means are justified by the end (an utopian world where everybody is happy). However, any decent contemporary American also thinks that "freedom and democracy" are good for the world and will eventually prevail globally.

The "regime change" methods that are now employed so excessively and in such a destructive manner by the USA have all been pioneered by the Soviets in the 1920s and 30s. There was a special organisation for world revolution called Comintern that supported communist parties and communist affiliated organisations (what we would today call NGO`s) with money, training, propaganda material and leadership in various countries all over the world. The 1921 "March Action" in Germany (35 dead policemen) for instance had been engineered in this way.

In 1929 a massive military build-up started. While up until that time the Soviet Union had produced no tanks at all and hardly any combat aircraft by 1939 it had the worlds largest military with the largest tank force, air force, artillery and submarine fleet. From the perspective of the Soviet leadership this had all been purely defensive measures. Marx and Lenin had predicted that the capitalist world would undergo regular economic crisis and that the ruling classes of capitals countries would try to solve their economic problems by agressive and imperialist foreign policies which would eventually lead to world war. That`s why the Soviets started to produce arms on such a massive scale with the beginning of the Great Depression in 1929.

But try to see this from the perspective of a non-communist who doesn`t believe in the teachings of Marx amd Lenin and probably doesn`t know them in detail. For an outside observer the Soviet Union started to build up it`s military out of the sudden in the middle of a global economic crisis without being threatened itself. Hence the conclusion that it was a military build-up not for defence but for conquest. All attempts of "regime change" in other countries had failed and now more direct means would be used in order to achieve world revolution.

Posted by: m | Jun 22 2020 8:32 utc | 105

@ Bardi | Jun 21 2020 16:49 utc | 87

Gee, did Russia "conveniently" forget the Katyn massacre in 1939, opening the door for Germany to start WWII by invading Poland? Like an arsonist who lights a building on fire, then puts it out claiming he is a hero. Like the arsonist, Russia first blamed it on Germany.

Seems no one else is questioning the stated timeline:

Please explain given:

1) 1943.04.13 --> Katyn graves "discovered"
2) 1940.~05.? --> estimated, by evidence, of when dead deed done
3) 1939.09.01 --> invasion by DE(hitler) & 1939.09.17 invasion by RU(stalin)

Posted by: MegaMicro | Jun 22 2020 9:52 utc | 106

@ team MoA,

Thanks all for the comments ( the good, the bad, and the ugly )

Humbly suggest the following perspective by political historian Michael Parenti

Michael Parenti - The Real Causes of World War II (1 of 2)

Michael Parenti - The Real Causes of World War II (2 of 2)

Posted by: MegaMicro | Jun 22 2020 10:01 utc | 107

@ Anonymous | Jun 21 2020 21:42 utc | 99

The United States also had a plan to invade Canada. It was on the books from the 1930's and involved the immediate use of poison gas. The plan was intended to be executed after completing victories in Europe and Japan.

Yes ... read that "many moons ago" and was shocked,
especially regarding use of POISON GAS to 'minimize casualties' :

let that sink in -&- all, everywhere, reassess any assumptions that "they are 'your' allies"

( "friends" do not wish upon their friends the unpleasant choking on poison gas )

Posted by: MegaMicro | Jun 22 2020 10:13 utc | 108

American steel sent to Russia in "Lend-Lease" was in the form of Edsel trucks. They had to be melted down in order to make useful items from their steel.

Posted by: William Gruff | Jun 22 2020 17:31 utc | 109

Funny, I just finished reading a book called The Real Reasons for WW1 not WW2 and most of the book is about how Russia kept pressing France to declare war so that Russia could grab the Bosphorus Straits. Their ambassador to Paris was very instrumental in the propaganda war prior to when the shooting started.

Posted by: Leee C | Jun 22 2020 20:53 utc | 110

RussianSoul | Jun 20 2020 19:48 utc | 19

Where Soviet Union or Russia were wrong was that after kicking out the Nazis from Soviet Union they should have stopped right there and not marched all the way to Berlin.

They should have left Poland and other occupied states to deal with it themselves.
Posted by: Where Soviet Union or Russia were wrong was that after kicking out the Nazis from Soviet Union they should have stopped right there and not marched all the way to Berlin.

They should have left Poland and other occupied states to deal with it themselves.

I should think that if they had done as you suggest, Churchill would have tried to activate his "Operation Unthinkable".

Posted by: foolisholdman | Jun 22 2020 21:13 utc | 111

@ Posted by: m | Jun 22 2020 8:32 utc | 105

None of your assertions have any foundation on the documented evidence.

It was already consensus by the 1930s that a world revolution wouldn't happen. The fear of the Western colonial powers was that a second world war would enable it. Hence the appeasement strategy.

The appeasement strategy didn't envision to avoid a second world war altogether; rather, it envisaged to throw the Third Reich against the USSR so they could destroy each other.

There's no evidence Lenin was an "utopian". The results speak for themselves.

The Comintern, by the 1930s already was a symbolic organization, with null deliberative power. They were used, however, as scapegoats by the British and French to justify not doing an alliance with the USSR. We know that is the case because the letters between Litvinov and his French and British counterparts survive.

Posted by: vk | Jun 22 2020 21:18 utc | 112

Jen | Jun 20 2020 21:50 utc | 32

Yes, it is a bit odd. The British used to have a film industry and it turned out quite a lot of films about "how Britain won the war", which were shown over and over again, long after the war ended. As you say the likes of the Mail and the BBC and the rest of the gutter press played their part in fostering this illusion. There was also the factor of a widespread contempt of the US military amongst British schoolboys, when I was growing up, during the war. They were largely derided as soft and cowardly, their camps being "well known" (aka thought) to be far more luxurious than wartime Britain. And GIs were often described as "Overfed, overpaid, oversexed and over here!" So I suppose it may be simply an unwillingness to believe that they did as much to win the war as they said they did. The Soviet contribution was consistently played down and the help that the US and Britain gave them played up by the media. (Almost unknown is that most of the "British" casualties were Indian and that the RAF fighter pilot with the highest score was a Czech.

After the war, I served in a unit of the British Army that had been left surrounded by the Chinese in Korea, when the US units on either side of them, retreated during the night,
without telling them!

Another factor is probably the British Chauvanism, which is/was pretty pervasive. We grew up with a sort of background myth of British invincibility, so how could it be that some other country did more than us to win the war?

Posted by: foolisholdman | Jun 22 2020 22:04 utc | 113

Leee C | Jun 22 2020 20:53 utc | 110c

"The Real Reasons for WW1 not WW2" Just finished reading??

Book? Book you say???

No author? No link? Nothing shows up as a book with that title as search items in multiple and varied search engines. BookFinder says nothing with that title" You watched something? A video? Listened to a Pod cast?

I think clearly there are more than "one take" on the general topic. Why should that which you have presented, without links or name of author, or any other checkable reference, be taken seriously? Especially as "THE" definitive one.

Really, I think blaming Russia for starting WW1; which is certainly not the historical prevailing contemporary or alt. major point of view, is an attempt to make random bits fit a preconceived narrative for the purpose of vilification and denigration.

You grinding an axe?

Convince me otherwise...

Posted by: Mr | Jun 22 2020 22:23 utc | 114

I don't think it is correct to say that the Allies "turned on a dime" in 1945-6. They were working on details of the cold/hot war to follow WW2 at least as early as 1942. I think Operation Unthinkable went nowhere because the Army's Top Brass told Churchill that they could not sell the idea to the troops (They were in any case, already a bit worried about the possibility of a revolution!).
Perhaps, the original plan was that the USSR and Germany should fight each other to exhaustion and Britain and the US should go in and "clean up". That did not work out because the USSR was too strong. The second plan was to blackmail the USSR with atomic bombs, but that did not work out because the USSR was too big and the US did not have enough A-bombs, so the cold war was the substitute, a sort of holding exercise until the US felt strong enough to win WW3, which it never did.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Jun 22 2020 22:29 utc | 115

That post was intended as a reply to Real History | Jun 20 2020 22:54 utc | 42

Posted by: foolisholdman | Jun 22 2020 22:34 utc | 116

IMO, there's an historical item that everyone opining on this thread ought to read: Henry Wallace's 1942 speech, "The Price of Free World Victory" which is better known as "The Century of the Common Man." It can be downloaded freely in rich text format at the link and is only 6 pages long. Like most important speeches promoting collectivism as a public good, this very powerful speech was swept under the rug and isn't even mentioned in WW2 histories anymore. I was amazed, rocked out of my chair, when I discovered it in 1996, and prompted my deep inquiry into Mr. Henry Asgard Wallace. The following excerpt is about halfway through the speech; it may appear radical to today's reader but it wasn't considered so in 1942:

"The march of freedom of the past one hundred and fifty years has been a long-drawn-out people's revolution. In this Great Revolution of the people, there were the American Revolution of 1775, The French Revolution of 1792, The Latin-American revolutions of the Bolivarian era, The German Revolution of 1848, and the Russian Revolution of 1917. Each spoke for the common man in terms of blood on the battlefield. Some went to excess. But the significant thing is that the people groped their way to the light. More of them learned to think and work together.

"The people's revolution aims at peace and not at violence, but if the rights of the common man are attacked, it unleashed the ferocity of a she-bear who has lost a cub. When the Nazi psychologists tell their master Hitler that we in the United States may be able to produce hundreds of thousands of planes, but that we have no will to fight, they are only fooling themselves and him. The truth is that when the rights of the American people are transgressed, as those rights have been transgressed, The American people will fight with a relentless fury which will drive the ancient Teutonic gods back cowering into their caves. The Götterdämmerung has come for Odin and his crew.

"The people are on the march toward even fuller freedom than the most fortunate peoples of the earth have hitherto enjoyed. No Nazi counter-revolution will stop it. The common man will smoke the Hitler stooges out into the open in the United States, in Latin America, and in India. He will destroy their influence. No Lavals, no Mussolinis will be tolerated in a Free World.

"The people, in their millennial and revolutionary march toward manifesting here on earth the dignity that is in every human soul, hold as their credo the Four Freedoms enunciated by President Roosevelt in his message to Congress on January 6, 1941. These four freedoms are the very core of the revolution for which the United Nations have taken their stand. We who live in the United States may think there is nothing very revolutionary about freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom from the fear of secret police. But when we begin to think about the significance of freedom from want for the average man, then we know that the revolution of the past one hundred and fifty years has not been completed, either here in the United States or in any other nation in the world. We know that this revolution can not stop until freedom from want has actually been attained....

"We failed in our job after World War Number One. We did not know how to go about it to build an enduring world-wide peace. We did not have the nerve to follow through and prevent Germany from rearming. We did not insist that she 'learn war no more.' We did not build a peace treaty on the fundamental doctrine of the people's revolution. We did not strive whole-heartedly to create a world where there could be freedom from want for all peoples. But by our very errors we learned much, and after this war we shall be in position to utilize our knowledge in building a world which is economically, politically and, I hope, spiritually sound.

"Modern science, which is a by-product and an essential part of the people's revolution, has made it technologically possible to see that all of the people of the world get enough to eat. Half in fun and half seriously, I said the other day to Madame Litvinov: 'The object of this war is to make sure that everybody in the world has the privilege of drinking a quart of milk a day.' She replied: 'Yes, even half a pint.' The peace must mean a better standard of living for the common man, not merely in the United States and England, but also in India, Russia, China and Latin America — not merely in the United Nations, but also in Germany and Italy and Japan." [My Emphasis]

As we know, "We did not build a peace treaty on the fundamental doctrine of the people's revolution." The postwar leaders had in mind Luce's American Century and much more--they sought what Hitler sought--a way to keep consuming 60%+ of the world's resources without any objections. Those desiring that outcome were people from FDR's and Wallace's party--they flipped the stated War Goals on their head just 7 years after "Four Freedoms" and six after the above speech without any publicity whatsoever. IMO, we still must implement the "fundamental doctrine of the people's revolution" globally. And to those in the USA who think that doctrine was composed by Lenin, Mao, Fidel, or Che, they need to do some very deep soul searching for that doctrine was thought by a God-fearing Republican farmer from Iowa, whose only radicalness came from his adherence to the doctrine of Christian collectivity.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 22 2020 23:12 utc | 117

MegaMicro @ 106:

I couldn't be bothered answering Bardi @ 87. Sometimes it's best to let the comment damn its creator.

BTW, Battle of Stalingrad was over by the end of February 1943 so a month would have been enough time for the Nazis to spring its "discovery" and try to squeeze all the propaganda value out of it.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 22 2020 23:42 utc | 118

The Causes of the World War printed 1945 author - Harry Elmer Barnes.

it's 42 deg C here today and don't feel like dragging myself to the book shelf for the info.

It was rather eye opening, this book. It's funny how history gets rewritten to gloss over the sometimes forgotten important information. And the book is unequivocal in its declaration that the major player in the drive to war were the Russians who convinced the French because of Alsace-Lorraine and wounded pride from 1870. The motivation of the Russians was the acquisition of a warm water port by taking control of the Bosphorus.

Alexander Izvolsky was the Russian ambassador to Paris who made it his mission to start a war and I hope he is burning in hell. He has much to atone for.

Posted by: Leee C | Jun 23 2020 1:24 utc | 119

Harry Elmer Barnes (1889-1968) was a pioneer of historical revisionism, meaning the use of historical scholarship to challenge and refute the narratives of history promulgated by the state and the political class, or as Barnes himself termed it, "court history." Long regarded as a progressive intellectual leader of the American Left,

Posted by: Leee C | Jun 23 2020 2:04 utc | 120

Leee C | Jun 23 2020 1:24 utc | 119 & 120

The Causes of the World War printed 1945 author - Harry Elmer Barnes.

Tsarist Russian diplomat Alexander Izvolsky was duplicitous in his dealings with other power brokers of the time. That is no different than all the other representatives of power then and now. In his case He wielded the authority of autocrats who had held dynastic power for 300 years and had fantasies (The Romanovs and Izvolsky) way beyond their capabilities. One could even say his machinations (duplicity) brought on the conditions for the termination of that ruling dynasty. It was a (another) time of Empires and Nationalism and delusions of exceptionalism and assertions of innate superiority.

It seems to me that the Barnes' book dwells on some of the proverbial "Trees" While the Docherty/MacGregor piece more of the "Forest": The real powers pulling the strings.

See also Carroll Quigley: The Anglo-American Establishment ...

Cecil Rhodes, William Stead, Lord Esher, Lord Nathaniel Rothschild and Alfred Milner as "starters"...

Grand manipulations of others weaknesses and vulnerabilities... To realize an intent to hold sway and effective rule over, not just a geographic region but the World, seems a bit of a bigger vision than an attempt to obtain a deep "warm water" port beyond Sevastopol, Crimea.

Tsarist Russia posed no industrial economic threat to securing the continuation of the group highlighted by Quigley. Territorially large, it was, but of mostly feudal agriculture. However a tool for sure.

Posted by: Mr | Jun 23 2020 5:48 utc | 121

I really don’t care if the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting. They helped re-arm Germany even before Hitler came to power in violation of the Versailles treaty as well as helped start the war with the invasion of Poland. They also invaded several other nations. The Soviet controlled US Communist party interfered in US affairs by opposing US intervention then demanding it in accordance with Soviet policy. Even as we were providing Lend-Lease aid to the USSR months before Pearl Harbor the bastards were spying on us.

Screw them and their sympathizers!

Posted by: Kevin | Jun 23 2020 15:42 utc | 122

@ Posted by: Kevin | Jun 23 2020 15:42 utc | 122

The Soviets were collaborating with the Third Reich on trade for one very simple reason: they were embargoed by the Western colonialist powers, hence also international pariahs. Amid that reality, and keeping in mind that the welfare of the people comes first for every Nation-State, the Soviets had to hurt the colonialist feelings in order to develop their own economy.

And many American industrialists continued to help both the Third Reich (through Switzerland) and the USSR on an individual basis. As I mentioned in a previous comment here, the Americans were on all fours after the 1929 fiasco, so they were cheap during the 1930s (the original Koch, for example, sold himself to the USSR on oil infrastructure during that time).

The CPUSA opted to seek an international alliance with the other communist parties. This was a strategy chosen by many communist parties from many countries. Eventually, reality sunk in and the CPSU became the inevitable reference, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a sovereign initiative on the smaller communist parties that caused it, not the reverse (i.e. the smaller communist parties were founded and funded by Moscow).

Posted by: vk | Jun 23 2020 16:02 utc | 123

@Posted by: Kevin | Jun 23 2020 15:42 utc | 122

re: rearming:

Suggest reading
Trading with the Enemy- An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949

Higham Charles

1. A Bank for All Reasons ......... 1
2. The Chase Nazi Account ........ 20
3. The Secrets of Standard Oil ... 32
4. The Mexican Connection ........ 63
5. Trickery in Texas ............. 76
6. The Telephone Plot ............ 93
7. Globes of Steel .............. 116
8. The Film Conspiracy .......... 130
9. The Car Connection ........... 154
10. The Systems Tycoon .......... 178
11. The Diplomat, the Major, the Princess, and the Knight 189
12. The Fraternity Runs for Cover 210

American businessmen who dealt with the Nazis
right through World War II. Among those who traded
on both sides of the war were certain executives of
Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Chase Bank,
the Texas Company, ITT, Ford, and Sterling Products.
And helping them with their dealings were
such government officials as a secretary of
commerce, an assistant secretary of state,
and ambassadors to France and Great Britain.

The Bank for International Settlements in
Basel, Switzerland, was Nazi-controlled but
presided over by an American, even in 1944.
At one of its yearly meetings, the bank's
president sat down with his German, Japanese,
Italian, British, and American executive
staff to discuss shipments of 378 million dollars
in gold sent to the bank by the Nazi government
for use by its leaders after the war.
This was gold looted from the banks of
Austria, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia, or
melted down from teeth fillings, eyeglass
frames, and wedding rings of murdered Jews.

But that is only one of the stories. Standard
Oil of New Jersey executives shipped the
Nazis oil through Switzerland while Allied
forces endured restrictions of supplies and
shortages abounded. Ford Motor Company
trucks were built for Nazi troops with authorization
from Ford directors in the U.S. The
chairman of ITT supplied much of Hitler's
communications system. The list of those who
chose Business as Usual -- even when the
business was with their country's enemy -- is
long and shocking.

... both before and after Pearl Harbor. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941, actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted. Often during the years after Pearl Harbor the government permitted such trading.


re: "spying":

On whom does the empire not spy ?
Hint : empire spies on everyone including their own
including all about the porn videos watched to "epstein you".

Posted by: MegaMicro | Jun 23 2020 18:06 utc | 124

VK @ 123, MegaMicro @ 124:

There is also the example of one Prescott Bush, father and grandfather of two US Presidents, who had been a partner and executive in the Wall Street private bank Brown Brothers Harriman and a director of one of its financial subsidiaries, the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), banker for Fritz Thyssen who financed the rise of the Nazi German government in the 1930s.

I'll let this link at the World Socialist Web Site do the talking:

In October 1942, 10 months after it had entered the Second World War, the US government seized UBC and several other companies in which the Harrimans and Prescott Bush had interests. In addition to Bush and Roland Harriman, three Nazi executives were named in the order issued by Washington to take over the bank.

An investigation carried out in 1945 revealed that the bank run by Prescott Bush was linked to the German Steel Trust run by Thyssen and Flick, one of the defendants at Nuremberg. This gigantic industrial firm produced fully half the steel and more than a third of the explosives, not to mention other strategic materials, used by the German military machine during the war years.

"... On October 28, 1942, the US government confiscated the assets of two firms that served as fronts for the Nazi regime—the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation, both controlled by UBC. A month later, it seized Nazi interests in the Silesian-American Corporation (SAC), directed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, George Walker.

The seizure order, issued under the Trading with the Enemy Act, described Silesian-American as a “US holding company with German and Polish subsidiaries” that controlled large and valuable coal and zinc mines in Silesia, Poland and Germany. It added that, since September 1939 (when Hitler unleashed the Second World War) these properties had been under the control of the Nazi regime, which had utilized them to further its war effort.

Among SAC’s assets was a steel plant in Poland in the same district as Auschwitz. The plant reportedly used the concentration camp’s inmates as slave [labour] ..."

Two Holocaust survivors brought a class action against the Bush family in the US for profiting from the labour of Auschwitz concentration camp inmates but their suit was thrown out of court.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 23 2020 23:38 utc | 125

Didn’t the Edsel come out in the 1950s?

Posted by: Kevin | Jun 24 2020 4:37 utc | 126

« previous page

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment