Hatred makes strange bedfellows: Ahmadinejad and David Duke

that is right, saw a special on that also. jews were invited to poland because they were persecuted during the black plague because people blamed them for the plague. so the the king of poland gave them refuge because he had a jewish mistress, its the irony of the holocaust, that the largest number of victims came from poland because they were in poland to escape persecution hundreds of years earlier.

 

did the documentary mention anything about the presidents grandfather, prescott?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.

Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.

Although the additional seizures under the Trading with the Enemy Act did not take place until after the war, documents from The National Archives and Library of Congress confirm that Bush and his partners continued their Nazi dealings unabated. These activities included a financial relationship with the German city of Hanover and several industrial concerns. They went undetected by investigators until after World War Two.

http://www.geocities.com/bushfamilynazis/
After 60 years of inattention and even denial
by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in
The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that
Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush,
served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative
for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926
until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush
and his "enemy national" partners.

The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according
to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to
conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz
Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s,
personally funded Adolf Hitler's rise to power by the subversion
of democratic principle and German law.

Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush
and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger
brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George
Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather,
continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for
nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.

 

wow...those numbers are beyond my comprehension.

 

This in and of itself would not have been a crime. Nor would we hold IBM shareholders guilty of Nazi war crimes.

You're talking about a relationship with an industrialist that started in the 20s. This seems a bit much.

Were his company's assets seized or the industrialists company's assets seized? And if so, then what are we talking about extending to 1951?

These two statements are really the only two that might lead to further inquiry into misconduct. The rest appears to be extrapolated garbage.

This is typically vague. He worked for companies that were closely involved with German companies - its like six degrees of kevin bacon for war crimes.

 

Done. Let me know if you don't get it.

 

The generally accepted estimate is somewhere between 4-6 million Jews. But seriously, even if it was a 'just' a million Jews, does it make it any less of a holocaust?

I would like to think that genocide is abhorant regardless of numbers...

 

no it doesn't make it any less. this is why I hesitate to even bring it up, people get out of shape if you question the number. no on said the holocaust was alright, if it was just a 100,000, its still a stain on humanity.

and I didn't write "just" one million.

 

you always have nut jobs who say things like:

"the holocaust never happened"

"9/11 was a gov't conspiracy"

"bin laden is on the CIA payroll"


They are hilarious. All these halocaust survivors making it up????

The best is the bombs in the WTC set to detonate perfectly in a cascade. How were these bombs placed un-noticed by all the thousands of employees? Of course, puffs of air coming out of a building couldn't be because of pancaking floors - nooooo, that's too obvious of an explanation...

I wish you could put all these nimrods into a big place like austrailia and leave there to conjure up fantastical delusional realities. They make me sick.

 

ah, more fun hayesian semantics! are you sure you arent bill clinton - "it depends on what the definition of is is"

from the article, it appears that prescott's, or rather the company that he was the director of, had its assets siezed.

"on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized."

actually, he was the director of companies that were closely involved w/ nazi-supporting companies. stop being so vague!

i suppose you are also going to tell me that the bushs and bin ladens are not buisness partners?

 

Sadder still is that Louisianans could only choose between him and Edwin Edwards, the most openly corrupt politician in the last quarter-century. Didn't he take Eddie DeBartolo down with him, on some casino construction bribery scandal?

 

This thinking, though obviously sarcastic, would be just as destructive as the Holocaust denial myths. RocketMan doesn't mean it, but he unwittingly reflects the thoughts of other Americans, or at least their frivolous opinions of how military action should be used.

 

Are these total deaths under Stalin's rule (ie purges and collectivization starvings) or just WWII deaths? Either way, it can partly be attributed to Stalin's cold-bloodedness and incompetence: not evacuating cities that were under German attack, executing deserters (even though I guess we all did that back then, I thought I read that Russian military conditions were bad enough that soldiers had more incentive to flee).

Looks like we owe the Russians a big debt of gratitude, what with their 40:1 casualty ratio. And maybe we can stop hogging credit for "saving" the French, 60 years after the fact.

 

wasn't the fact that hitler had to fight two fronts one of the reasons he eventually lost. the russian winter is a mofo.

 

Sounds like a 'Prank'

Rocket River

 

It says he was 'a' Director, not 'the' director. That implies more than one director, no? That could mean a lot of things. It doesn't mean he was collaborating with the Nazis nor that he was even making the decisions. It's important to pay attention to what you're reading instead of jumping to conclusions. That's why some things are labelled internet conspiracy chat and others are actually news.

Again you mistakenly imply he was in charge of these decisions when we don't know that from the passages you've supplied. Also....again....you've just reworded the passage to suit your own view. All the passage says is that he was working with companies that worked with German companies. Nothing more.

As far I know they were. And? That doesn't have anything to do with this controversy. Further, I don't want to read too much into you bringing that up, so maybe you can explain what you are implying from the statement.

Yeah, I'm sure the French would have LOVED for the Soviets to come save them much like the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians et al who were 'saved' by the Soviets.

 

If the Germans hadn't attacked the Russians and hypothetically the Russians hadn't decided to attack the Germans later on, I have a hard time believing that all of Western Europe wouldn't be speaking German today. You don't have to like their political philosophy to acknowledge that they paid a great price and in doing so saved us from paying that price, and it is disingenuous to take credit of spending our blood for defeating the Nazis single handedly when in fact both the French (free French not Vichy) and the Polish suffered more total causalities (including civilian deaths) than we did despite the fact that we had many times the total population that they had.

Furthermore, the myth of the United States in WWII 'fighting the good war' essentially drives the current regime of American belligerence. Every time people site an example of the way the war on terror or the war in Iraq should be they invariably site WWII as an example. In that way it is not simply a harmless vanity, but rather the driving force behind a positive martial mythology. This is essentially the same thing that drove German beligerance between 1820 and 1920; the image of Blucher (representing German militarism) at Waterloo saving Europe from Napoleon's tyrany. This image was universally referenced as proof that the German army was acting as a force for good.

 

you are being deliberately vague again. he was doing a little more than simply "working with companies that worked with german companies". he was A (got to make sure and not get my 'a' and 'the' mixed up) director of a company which was working with german companies with nazi-ties. you are trying to create false degrees of seperation by claiming that he was "working with companies that worked with german companies".

all i am implying that the bushs and bin ladens are buisness partners. dont you think that is an odd coincidence? do you have a problem with the bushs and bin ladens directly profiting from acts of terrorism and wars that their sons started?

be it adolph or osama, for some reason the bush's are always right there to make some money, arent they?

 

If we hadn't taken the war in Europe seriously I have a hard time believing that all of Western Europe wouldn't be speaking Russian today. That is, if the Soviet Union had survived without the mass material support it got from the US.

How is it a 'myth?' As for a 'good war,' some are better than others. Some have more legitimacy than others. To claim that is not so out of some fear of future belligerence is silly.

You're funny. I'm not being vague I'm using the exact quotes you put up: "he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power."

That's so oversimplified that it is scary. You are drawing a line from the Bush's to Osama with the motive of profits. That's why I asked you to explain your implication rather than assuming it was so absurd. I guess the world needs internet conspiracy nuts too.

 

more hayesian spin and obtuseness.

it is scary. the family of the president is buisness partners w/ the family of the guy who supposedly masterminded 9/11. small world, huh? both families have directly profited from the acts of terrorism and the b.s. wars started by their sons. these are facts - where is the "internet conspiracy"?

again, the only thing i was implying was that the bushs and the bin ladens are buisness partners. i will ask you again...dont you find that to be an odd coincidence?