AUGUST 30, 2011 3:10PM

A Peace-Loving Nation

Rate: 12 Flag



Recently a poster took issue with a blog post of mine comparing and contrasting obama and Martin Luther King Jr.  As the poster chose not to reply to my response, I thought it to be an appropriate topic for a blog post.


Among the poster's contentions in addition to a disdain for the concept of negotiations were:


a.  the premise that negotiations would have been fruitless in stemming the Nazis.


I'd point out here, that negotiations with the Nazis would have been impractical as some of america's most prominent families were openly collaborating with them:


"If Borah, an isolationist Republican from Idaho, sounded naïve saying “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided,” then what should be said about Bush’s grandfather and other members of his family providing banking and industrial assistance to the Nazis as they built their war machine in the 1930s?

The archival evidence is now clear that Prescott Bush, the president’s grandfather, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from and collaborated with key financial backers of Nazi Germany.

That business relationship continued after Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and even after Germany declared war on the United States following Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. It stopped only when the U.S. government seized assets of Bush-connected companies in late 1942 under the “Trading with the Enemy Act.”


"These cartels provided the basis for and main financial backing of the Nazi regime. Collaboration between the German Nazi industry and American industry and finance continued, specifically with Morgan and Rockefeller interests, as well as Ford and DuPont. The Morgan-Rockefeller international banks and companies associated with them “were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry.”[53] Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire “was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II.”[54] On top of this, the Rockefeller Foundation was also pivotal in not only funding the racist and elitist eugenics movement in the United States, but played a pivotal part in bringing the eugenics ideology to Nazi Germany, facilitating the beliefs that brought about the Holocaust.[55]"


Concerning negotiations with Al-Qaeda, I'd like to point out that:


a.  We have been at war in the place "where empires go to die" for nearly twice as long as WWII, and


b.  Estimates range from there being only fifty to two hundred Al-Qaeda fighters. Surely, bombing them, with a high civilian casualty rate keeps their numbers stable, if not growing, so why negotiate, as after all, as Gerald Celente has oft stated:  "The business of america is war."


"In fact, America's business is war, more war, multiple wars, permanent wars, pillaging one nation after another for wealth, power, and dominance, while homeland needs go begging.

America never was and isn't now the "land of the free and home of the brave." In fact, it's become a "Let 'em eat cake" society." 



Further, concerning negotiations:


Since WWII america has found justification to militarily intervene in the affairs of Iran (four times), Yugoslavia, Uruguay, Greece, Germany, China, the Philippines (three times), Puerto Rico, Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala (twice), Egypt, Lebanon (twice), Iraq (three times and ongoing), China, Panama (twice), Vietnam, Cuba (twice), Panama, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic, Cambodia (twice), Chile, Angola, Oman, Laos, Libya (three times)), El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Honduras, Bolivia, Liberia (twice), Saudi Arabia, Somalia (twice), Yugoslavia (twice), Bosnia, Haiti (twice), Zaire, Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan (three times and ongoing), Yemen (three times), Macedonia, Colombia, Liberia, Pakistan, and Syria.


This does not count current obama wars (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya), nor covert ops,which are estimated to occur in seventy countries daily.


Anyone who wishes to scoff at me for using as a source a state college,should be aware that Evergreen has one of the finest faculties in the nation and this year: 


"Published: August 12, 2011 08:22 AM

The Evergreen State College Featured in the Princeton Review Book, "The Best 376 Colleges" - 2012 Edition

The Evergreen State College is one of the country's best institutions for undergraduate education, according to The Princeton Review. The education services company features the school in the new 2012 edition of its annual college guide, "The Best 376 Colleges."


Only about 15 percent of America’s 2,500 four-year colleges and three colleges outside the U.S.A. are profiled in the book, which is The Princeton Review's flagship college guide. It includes detailed profiles of the colleges with rating scores for all schools in eight categories."


Now if we take these wars and divide by the number of years, we see that america initiates an overt war about once every year and a half or more.


Furthermore: If I recall correctly, the last two unequivocal triumphs for our "vaunted" military were Panama, where we blasted heavy metal music to get Noriega to leave the Vatican diplomatic mission in Panama City.


"Then came the Army's clownish boom-box bombardment - American soldiers gathered at the Vatican embassy in Panama, playing rock music full blast around the clock, which made life hellish for the Pope's emissaries.


Suddenly we seemed to be in Dr. Strangelove country. Punishing the Vatican with heavy-metal rock?"


The operation was dubbed "Just Cause," and the General Assembly of the UN voted 75-20 labeling the invasion a flagrant violation of international law.


The just cause for this invasion was that Noriega who had been on the CIA payroll was threatening to no longer cooperate in hiding the program by which guns were sent to various Central American death squads in return for cocaine being trans-shipped into inner-city america, and this illegal american activity had to be covered regardless of the circumstances necessary to do so.


This activity was, by the way ILLEGAL based on The Boland amendment.


The prior american victory was in Grenada, a country of 100,000 people, (with a democratically elected government) two days after a bomb in Lebanon at the marine barracks took the lives of 241 american servicemen.


The UN voted 122 to 9 that the invasion was a flagrant violation of international law.


The operation was named Urgent Fury, and the urgency was to get the 241 service members killed, two days earlier in Lebanon, due to another inept american intelligence failure, off the front pages, so we could resume our delusional "It's morning in america again," myopic delusion under ronnie the clown.


The poster, also, claims that Gulf War one was justified, which I TOTALLY reject.


After poppy reneged on his: "Read my lips: no new taxes," pledge in 1990, he found himself, rapidly, sinking in the polls. Saddam had, always been kept around as a convenient punching bag. Many people lose sight of the FACT that prior to poppy's betrayal, Iraq had one of the finest educational  systems in the entire area. 


"UNESCO reports[citation needed] that prior to the first Gulf War in 1991 Iraq had one of the best educational performances in the region. Primary school Gross Enrollment Rate was 100% and literacy levels were high.


For those taken in by the continual lies concerning Gulf War one, the first step was to dispatch the heinous james baker to bribe a so-called "coalition of the willing."


He went from country to country offering exorbitant aid packages to countries willing to add their name to this list of "allies."  As we all know, very few countries meaningfully participated, as this was, from the very beginning an american contrived operation.


Gulf War one was initiated due to Hussein's objections to america supplying slant oil drilling to Kuwait so that they could drill oil out of Iraqi territory in the Rumaila oil field and was answered by poppy sending his envoy April Glaspie (united states ambassador to Iraq) to Iraq and giving Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait with these words of "diplomatic speak":  "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."



Then, next in the progression was testimony given to congress by a tearful UNIDENTIFIED young girl proclaiming her eyewitness accounts of Kuwaiti babies taken out of incubators.


This was orchestrated by the republican PR firm Hill and Knowleton. Her testimony was key to rallying incredible support for war, which was lingering around and under 50% at the time to 90%.


Three months later, it was revealed that :


a. Nariyah had never even been in Kuwait at the time of the events she testified to having seen; and


b. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US


Even within this backdrop, the senate and house of representatives votes authorizing force were the narrowest since the War of 1812.


Then bush senior claimed: "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression."[49]


The Pentagon claimed that satellite photos showing a buildup of Iraqi forces along the border were the source of this information, but this was later shown to be false. A reporter for the Saint Petersburg Times acquired commercial satellite images made at the time in question, which showed nothing but empty desert.[50]


At this point, 100,000 sorties were flown, dropping 85,000 tons of ordinance designed to destroy the Iraqi infrastructure, which has never recovered since.


After the official conclusion of hostilities, the no-fly zones were established and a harsh boycott put in place. At one point, sec. of state madeline albright was asked if the deaths of 1/2 million CHILDREN was worth our efforts, she replied affirmatively.


Finally I would like to point to this:


"A Secret War in 120 Countries 

By Nick Turse


"Somewhere on this planet an American commando is carrying out a mission.  Now, say that 70 times and you’re done... for the day.  Without the knowledge of the American public, a secret force within the U.S. military is undertaking operations in a majority of the world’s countries.  This new Pentagon power elite is waging a global war whose size and scope has never been revealed, until now.

Last year, Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe of the Washington Post reported that U.S. Special Operations forces were deployed in 75 countries, up from 60 at the end of the Bush presidency.  By the end of this year, U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me, that number will likely reach 120.  “We do a lot of traveling -- a lot more than Afghanistan or Iraq,” he said recently.  This global presence -- in about 60% of the world’s nations and far larger than previously acknowledged -- provides striking new evidence of a rising clandestine Pentagon power elite waging a secret war in all corners of the world."'s_secret_operations_in_the_obama_era/ 

Author tags:

no tags necessary

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
Why should we negotiate- we own the world (except we're bankrupt)?
This would be fine, if rooting out and destroying al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group, had ever been the point of going there to begin with. It was not. It was oil, it was always oil and land and minerals and power.
and defense contracts
Thank You for visiting, Dr. Lee. These wars are just the beginning of ANOTHER decades long war for oil.

Your conclusions are greatly appreciated.
Other than the prison-industrial complex and global armaments trade, what else, but war aka defense contracts, ONL, would america rely on to replace what used to be a manufacturing country?

Thanks for visiting, and Your, ALWAYS valued contribution.
People need to wake up and notice that our economy is more reliant on war and the prison-industrial complex. Our elite look for enemies a fear monger about crime because its big business. They have no interest in peace or fighting crime.

Peace is simply not profiable. Want to fight crime? Try education and good wages-but how do you make money with those things?'s better for business to keep locking people up at home and finding enemies abroad. That's where the profist are!
Okay-several typos in my comment above-but you get the drift-right?
Mark, no issue with the great bulk of the post, except for Grenada. When the U.S. invaded, if was after the government of Maurice Bishop was overthrown by a gang headed by Bernard Coard, a member of his cabinet. Bishop, who himself had seized power in a coup a few years before, seemed to be popular with the Grenadans. There were protests at his overthrow and he was killed/murdered/executed a few days later. Even though the invasion was illegal and the U.S. dressed it up as combating a (bogus) Soviet threat, the result was probably in the best interests of most Grenadans. Unlike the other cases you list, I see this one as probably a case of the ends justifying the means.
Thanks for this meticulous compilation, Mark. Many people wonder why people in other lands aren't more grateful for the explosive tons of "freedom and democracy" we keep dropping on their heads. What would happen if we fought a country capable of striking back at us, though? An opponent who could repeatedly do to us what our military is doing to them, on the same scale? I think Americans would lose their taste for war very quickly. It's only because Americans imagine there will be no blowback, no price to pay for these adventures they keep supporting them. Rated.
RW, if Americans were even remotely aware of the treasonous actions of their leaders that have been going on, since time immemorial, the insurrection would have come, long ago.

Thank You for Your valuable contribution to this blog post.
The typos are insignificant, John. The key to Your comment, in my opinion lies with Your mention of education.

This is what our leaders fear most.

Thank You VERY much for stopping by, John.
Abrawang, I take no issue with the comments You offer. I, only, think that the timing is suspect.

If the concern was purely altruistic, why would america have awaited nearly two weeks before the invasion.

We, often, see news designed to obscure other news in america.

In any case, Your comment and opinion is valued and adds to the discourse, and for this, I DO thank You.
Blowback, Donegal Descendent, is precisely the word coined by the late Chalmers Johnson, may He r.i.p.

The only time america has experienced any real blowback was on 9/11, and america reacted in horror as if some heinous act had been initiated against them, when in truth this was but a response to years of american meddling.

Furthermore Your point concerning how americans would react, lose their taste for war, were they invaded in the manner that america has been fomenting global war for decades, is especially relevant, and I thank You for that.
Hitler was the financial creation of Brown Brothers Harriman incarnated as IG Farber in Germany at the time and the progenitor of the Bush fortune in America. He was deeply impressed when he read the anti-Semitic ranting's of Henry Ford during his incarceration after his failed beer hall putsch. The Nazis were a child of Wall Street just as much as they were the armistice of WWI and they were imported wholesale into America during operation paperclip after WWII and fused with the OSS to become the CIA (read the only link on my blog it go's to the White Rose Society a critically acclaimed website that exposes the whole travesty). As for your American history it couldn’t be more dead on than if I had wrote it myself. I have posted 2 pieces on the CIA’s drug dealing one which is a first hand account which I will swear to before God. There's only one thing Mark, if the Arabs had at least put up a good fight in 1990 all this need never have happened and we would never be where we are right now.
Holy shit, Mark!
You sit there so quietly commenting on various blogs here and there and then all of a sudden....BLAM! You blow all our minds with an incredible piece like this!!!

I will be copying blog this for my records and to send to some friends of mine. With your help I am going to shove some feet down some throats, like never before!

Well done, my friend, very, very well done indeed!

I was living in St. Lucia, a neighbouring island, when the invasion of Grenada went down. I have friends who were in Grenada during and shortly after the invasion. If you want some clarification on some of your points and a humorous anecdote about how the American Forces almost wound up in a shooting war with themselves during that invasion, please feel free to e-mail me for it.......

Oh yeah. I’m going to grab all the comments too. They are every bit as brilliantly erudite as your blog. My congratulations and thanks to all of you.

Jack, I'm glad You stopped by to confirm some of my contentions and add some of Your own.

Your contributions to my blog cannot be over-stated, and I am grateful for them.
To be quite honest with You, Skypixi0, for several days I was so disheartened by apologists, revisionists, people posting rampant delusions and making ignorant claims, that I seriously contemplated leaving.

Then I realized that if I ever posted again, as is common on my blog, I couldn't rely on the words of others, as I so often do, but instead had to express myself (with some annotations) directly and concisely (I'm not sure I succeeded in the latter area).

To read Your words is more than any reward I could've expected, and I am much more than just grateful.

Thanks to the umpteenth degree, and yes, I am eager to hear Your account (when You have the time).
You are right that the biggest problem is that we have previously supported most of not all of our enemies before they became enemies, including as you indicated Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, and even the Nazi's although in that case it wasn't universal support but there were many that preferred him early on because he opposed communism and they considered him the lessor evil or agreed with him. Some have doubted the claim about April Glaspie; however they fail to address the issues; instead they mostly try to forget about her. Besides more importantly the reports from that time period clearly indicate that GHW Bush could easily have made his intentions known before the invasion since they new about it weeks ahead of time. This clearly supports the report about April Glaspie.
Thanks for the answer. I went back to the original post too soon for you to have posted a response and hadn't realized you got to it later. (I was also on the road on business for a few days and what time I had I put into responding to replies on my own post before I went into my Activities file to check on answers to comments I'd left.) Actually, this was worth a post so, in that respect, I'm glad I didn't answer in a timely fashion.

I was unaware of most of this, though I was aware of some of the conversation between Ms. Glaspie and Saddam Hussein.

My point was not that the United States gets it right most of the time. Even if the amount of clandestine involvement listed here were grossly exaggerated, my country gets it wrong an alarming amount of the time just based on the stuff I knew. My point was that there are times when war is the only sensible answer left. This does not constitute a refutation of Dr. King's actions at all, whether I make that case or President Obama does. I believe that in the domestic situation that he was addressing, Dr. King brought the best possible solution. I'd imagine that the President agrees, though I can't of course speak for him. I'd also like to make clear that I am not defending Obama in general, I just don't think what he said at the Nobel ceremony constituted a general refutation of Dr. King's work.

Assuming you are right about Desert Storm (which I haven't investigated in detail up to this point), that leaves me with a few historical points and questions to address:

I'll start with the Nazis. God knows I'm not trying to clear Prescott Bush's name, but it would be a stretch to blame the results of the Wansee Conference (where the Final Solution originated) on American involvement, not that this point is even relevant to the war issue because the US didn't wage war over genocide in any way, shape, manner, or form. What started our involvement in WWII Europe was Germany's declaration of war on us. We didn't start that one. My point in bringing up the Nazis was that I don't believe that negotiation would have been effective in that direction. I'll finish my discussion of Hitler by saying that the extreme antisemitism displayed in Mein Kampf certainly predates any American influence on him.

Our involvement in WWII was a direct result of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Given the Japanese track record at the time, particularly in China, I can't imagine that a non-violent response would have been effective.

Regarding Al Qaida:
Let's say that there are/were very few fighters in total. After the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan made the choice to protect Al Qaida in spite of what they'd done (by their admission, if admission is the appropriate word). However few there were, they killed a whole lot of Americans, particularly civilians. I can't imagine any American administration reacting very differently to Afghanistan than Bush did, and not because of the corporate profits that such military involvement presumably entails.

I am not attempting to refute this post. My response on your previous post were geared toward and limited to answering two contentions:
1. That President Obama's statement at the Nobel ceremony about the necessity of war under certain conditions was not a general refutation of Dr. King, and
2. There are situations where war is, sadly, the most sensible alternative.
Kosh, in the previous blog post obama says:

“There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what
Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: ‘Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.’…

Is that not a rufutation?

In the previous post I listed FORTY-SIX wars. Of those forty-six, how many were "sensible alternative(s)?"

The "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor was not a surprise. america had broken the Japanese codes and the administration at the time knew it was going to happen.

The Wannsee Conference might not have ever taken place were it not for american complicity:

"Standard Oil. The Luftwaffe needed tetraethyl lead gas in order to get their planes off the ground. Standard Oil was one of only three companies that could manufacture that type of fuel. So they did.

Without them, the German air force never could've even gotten their planes off the ground.

When Standard Oil was dissolved as a monopoly, it led to ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP, all of which are still around today. (But fortunately, their parent company's past decision to make incredible profits off of war have not carried on.) (Source: MIT's Thistle)

After the Rockefellers, the next largest stockholder in Standard Oil was I.G. Farben, the giant German chemical company. This investment was part of a pattern of reciprocal investments between the U.S. and Germany during the Nazi years. During the Great Depression, Germany was viewed as a hot area in which to invest.

In fact, without the explicit help of Standard Oil, the Nazi air force would never have gotten off the ground in the first place.

I continue to hold You in great esteem, Kosh, but I fear You have only muddied to water with Your response.

Thanks for coming by.
Pierre, I've been reading You since You joined up, and almost immediately added You to my favorites list.

I agree with Your comment, but fail to see why You have omitted mention of the democrats role in all this.

Silence IS complicity, and save but a VERY few, democrats have not been silent, but have instead been enthusiastic supporters of the violence.

"totalitarianism comes to the US it will come draped in the American flag," and I thank You for adding that prescient quotation.

I am always, especially happy to have new commenters visit, and I hope to see You around here more often.

Thanks for making the time to stop by.
I accidentally deleted a comment I was mostly through. It was a long one. This time I’ll write it in Word and copy it to Comment. Oh well:

I'm not sure that the details offered here constitute refutations of the necessity of going to war with Germany or Japan in WWII. The fact that Americans practiced treason when it came to Nazis doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary to go to war with them. The contention that Germany couldn’t have waged war without American help is not one I’d accept without a lot of corroboration though it may in fact be beside the point. We know that Hitler came to his extreme views awfully early, presumably before he had American corporate connections. We know a reasonable amount about his lack of ethics (from Mein Kampf, the writings of Goebbels, and the ample historical record in general), and trust is a major issue in negotiation. We know how the British and French fared when negotiating with Hitler at Munich - so badly that the result literally gave negotiations in general a bad name (appeasement, “Peace in our time“). We also know the result of Hitler’s negotiations with Stalin. And, finally, we know that it was Germany that declared war on us rather than the other way around. Concerning Japan: Breaking their codes didn’t change the nature of who we were negotiating with (and we were, in late 1941, actively negotiating with Japan). We knew how they behaved in Manchuria and we found how they behaved at Pearl Harbor.

Regarding Obama’s refutation of King: I was wrong to say that there was no refutation but I will say that said refutation was quite limited. Obama refuted applying King’s approach universally to international relations but did not refute King’s actions or the use of his approach domestically. King didn’t live long enough to get to try his approach internationally. As I indicated above, I think there are cases where violence is necessary. Further, if we use WWII as an example: The US has had good relations with Germany and Japan steadily since the War in spite of the fact that these relations started on the tail end of extreme violence. This success was due to one of those times when US policymakers really got it right (the Marshall Plan). Are we sure that in these cases violence hasn’t brought permanent peace?

I’m making the case that violence is occasionally necessary. I’m not remotely interested in making the case that it’s been necessary every time we’ve tried it. I don’t favor it as First Resort.

There’s a point in your post that I might post about, specifically about SOCOM. We look at the vast number of countries in which US special ops is active. My first reaction, of course, is horror, but I’m not sure the majority of Americans would see it that way. If I do post about it, it will be more about raising questions than supplying answers.
As a jew, I find it surprising that so few people know of the works of George Seldes, am american-jew who happens to have won a Polk award for his work:

"George Seldes (pronounced /SEL-duhss/[aa][3]; November 16, 1890 in Alliance Colony, New Jersey – July 2, 1995 in Windsor, Vermont) was an American investigative journalist and media critic.
Influenced by Lincoln Steffens[1], his career would start with nineteen years old at the Pittsburgh Leader[4], and, in 1914, was appointed night editor of the Pittsburgh Post.[5]
In 1916, he went to the United Press in London and, during the World War I, starting in 1917, he moved to France to work at the Marshall Syndicate. In this country, he interviewed Paul von Hindenburg, the supreme commander of the German Army. Hindenburg commented on the defeat of Germany in the war, including U.S. envolvement; however this interview was censored by the U. S. military. Seldes would later comment that the publishing of this interview could have avoided the rising of the Nazis to power and, thus, World War II.[6][7]
After World War I, he would spend ten years as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. In 1922, he interviewed Lenin and, in 1923, got expelled from the Soviet Union, along with three colleagues, for disguising new reports as personal letters; a letter his published wrote for the Soviets only facilitated his expulsion.[8] The newspaper then sent him to Italy, where he reported on oppositon leader Giacomo Matteotti's murder, implicating Mussolini, being again expelled.[9]
In 1927, he became a reporter for the Chicago Tribune in Mexico, criticizing the use of the country's mineral rights by American companies. Later, he returned to Europe; however, he became increasingly sidelined since his political ideas didn't match with those of the newspaper's owner.[10]
He would later become a freelance reporter and author, writing a series of books and criticisms and, in 1940, founded a newsletter, In Fact, where one of the main targets was the National Association of Manufacturers.[11]
Having both staunch admirers and strong critics, he influenced many younger journalists. He received an award for professional excellence by the Association for Education in Journalism in 1980[4], and a George Polk Award for his life's work in 1981.[12] Seldes also served on the board of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting"

Much of the following written by Seldes contends that not only did highly placed americans support the Nazis during WWII, but were it not for this motley crew, who rebuilt Germany after WWI, there might not have been a second war at all:

Documented Evidence of a Secret Business and Political Alliance Between the U.S. Establishment and the Nazis, Before, During and After World War II

Did the Bush Family, including George Senior, as well as later-to-be CIA director Allen Dulles, plus General Motors, the Ford Co. and other powerful forces, help the Nazis before, after and even during WWII?

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . .

"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there."

-- William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937. (1)

A large volume of documentary evidence exists that reveals that many of the richest, most powerful men in the United States, and the giant corporations they controlled, were secretly allied with the Nazis, both before and during World War II, even after war was declared between Germany and America. This alliance began with U.S. corporate investment during the reconstruction of post-World War I Germany in the 1920s and, years later, included financial, industrial and military aid to the Nazis.

On the pages which follow we will review which prominent Americans and corporations were involved, what aid and comfort they gave our nation's enemies - treasonable offenses during time of war, and investigations into these matters which produced evidence of a US/Nazi corporate conspiracy to bring a fascist state to America, and eliminate competition in the industrial raw materials market in order to force world-wide dependance on oil-based petrochemicals.


According to journalist George Seldes:

". . . Hitler had the support of the most widely circulated magazine in history, 'Readers Digest,' as well as nineteen big-city newspapers and one of the three great American news agencies, the $220-million Hearst press empire.

". . . William Randolph Hearst, Sr., . . . was the lord of all the press lords in the United States. The millions who read the Hearst newspapers and magazines and saw Hearst newsreels in the nation's moviehouses had their minds poisoned by Hitler propaganda.

"It was . . . disclosed first to President Roosevelt (by Ambassador Dodd) almost on the day it happened, in September 1934, and it is detailed in the book 'Ambassador Dodd's Diary,' published in 1941, and again in libel-proof documents on file in the courts of the state of New York. William E. Dodd, professor of history (at the University of Chicago), told me about the Hearst sell-out . . .

"According to Ambassador Dodd, Hearst came to take the waters at Bad Nauheim in September 1934, and Dodd somehow learned immediately that Hitler had sent two of his most trusted Nazi propagandists, Hanfstangel and Rosenberg, to ask Hearst how Nazism could present a better image in the United States. When Hearst went to Berlin later in the month, he was taken to see Hitler."

Seldes reports that a $400,000 a year deal was struck between Hearst and Hitler, and signed by Doctor Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. "Hearst," continues Seldes, "completely changed the editorial policy of his nineteen daily newspapers the same month he got the money."

In the court documents filed on behalf of Dan Gillmor, publisher of a magazine named "Friday," in response to a lawsuit by Hearst, under item 61, he states: "Promptly after this said visit with Adolf Hitler and the making of said arrangements. . . said plaintiff, William Randolph Hearst, instructed all Hearst press correspondents in Germany, including those of INS (Hearst's International News Service) to report happenings in Germany only in a friendly' manner. All of such correspondents reporting happenings in Germany accurately and without friendliness, sympathy and bias for the actions of the then German government, were transferred elsewhere, discharged, or forced to resign. . . ."

In the late 1930s, Seldes recounts, when "several sedition indictments (were brought by) the Department of Justice . . . against a score or two of Americans, the defendants included an unusually large minority of newspaper men and women, most of them Hearst employees." (2)


"Thurman Arnold, as assistant district attorney of the United States, his assistant, Norman Littell, and several Congressional investigations, have produced incontrovertible evidence that some of our biggest monopolies entered into secret agreements with the Nazi cartels and divided the world up among them," states Seldes in his book, "Facts and Fascism," published in 1943. "Most notorious of all was Alcoa, the Mellon-Davis-Duke monopoly which is largely responsible for the fact America did not have the aluminum with which to build airplanes before and after Pearl Harbor, while Germany had an unlimited supply." (3)

Alcoa sabotage of American war production had already cost the U.S. "10,000 fighters or 1,665 bombers," according to Congressman Pierce of Oregon speaking in May 1941, because of "the effort to protect Alcoa's monopolistic position. . ."

"If America loses this war," said Secretary of the Interior (Harold) Ickes, June 26, 1941, "it can thank the Aluminum Corporation of America."

"By its cartel agreement with I.G. Farben, controlled by Hitler," writes Seldes, "Alcoa sabotaged the aluminum program of the U.S. air force. The Truman Committee (on National Defense, chaired by then- Senator Harry S. Truman in 1942) heard testimony that Alcoa's representative, A.H. Bunker, $1-a-year head of the aluminum section of O.P.M., prevented work on our $600,000,000 aluminum expansion program." (4)


General Motors is included here because, by 1929, the Du Pont corporation had acquired controlling interest in, and had interlocking directorships with, General Motors.

Irenee du Pont, "the most imposing and powerful member of the clan," according to biographer and historian Charles Higham, "was obsessed with Hitler's principles.

"He keenly followed the career of the future Fuhrer in the 1920s, and on September 7, 1926, in a speech to the American Chemical Society, he advocated a race of supermen, to be achieved by injecting special drugs into them in boyhood to make their characters to order." Higham's book on this subject, "Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949," is highly recommended.

Du Pont's anti-Semitism "matched that of Hitler" and, in 1933, the Du Ponts "began financing native fascist groups in America . . ." one of which Higham identifies as the American Liberty League: "a Nazi organization whipping up hatred of blacks and Jews," and the "love of Hitler."

"Financed . . . to the tune of $500 000 the first year, the Liberty League had a lavish thirty-one-room office in New York, branches in twenty-six colleges, and fifteen subsidiary organizations nationwide that distributed fifty million copies of its Nazi pamphlets. . . .

"The Du Ponts' fascistic behavior was seen in 1936, when Irenee du Pont used General Motors money to finance the notorious Black Legion. This terrorist organization had as its purpose the prevention of automobile workers from unionizing. The members wore hoods and black robes, with skulls and crossbones. They fire-bombed union meetings, murdered union organizers, often by beating them to death, and dedicated their lives to destroying Jews and communists. They linked to the Ku Klux Klan. . . . It was brought out that at least fifty people, many of them blacks, had been butchered by the Legion." (5)

Du Pont support of Hitler extended into the very heart of the Nazi war machine as well, according to Higham, and several other researchers: "General Motors, under the control of the Du Pont family of Delaware, played a part in collaboration" with the Nazis.

"Between 1932 and 1939, bosses of General Motors poured $30 million into I.G. Farben plants . . ." Further, Higham informs us that by "the mid-1930s, General Motors was committed to full-scale production of trucks, armored cars, and tanks in Nazi Germany." (6)

Researchers Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, in their book, "Power Inc.," describe the Du Pont-GM-Nazi relationship in these terms:

". . . In 1929, (Du Pont-controlled) GM acquired the largest automobile company in Germany, Adam Opel, A.G. This predestined the subsidiary to become important to the Nazi war effort. In a heavily documented study presented to the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly in February 1974, Bradford C. Snell, an assistant subcommittee counsel, wrote:

"'GM's participation in Germany's preparation for war began in 1935. That year its Opel subsidiary cooperated with the Reich in locating a new heavy truck facility at Brandenburg, which military officials advised would be less vulnerable to enemy air attacks. During the succeeding years, GM supplied the Wehrmact with Opel "Blitz" trucks from the Brandenburg complex. For these and other contributions to (the Nazis) wartime preparations, GM's chief executive for overseas operations (James Mooney) was awarded the Order of the German Eagle (first class) by Adolf Hitler.'"

Du Pont-GM Nazi collaboration, according to Snell, included the participation of Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) in one, very important arrangement. GM and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint subsidiary with the giant Nazi chemical cartel, I.G. Farben, named Ethyl G.m.b.H. (now Ethyl, Inc.) which, according to Snell: "provided the mechanized German armies with synthetic tetraethyl fuel (leaded gas). During 1936-39, at the urgent request of Nazi officials who realized that Germany's scarce petroleum reserves would not satisfy war demands, GM and Exxon joined with German chemical interests in the erection of the lead-tetraethyl plants. According to captured German records, these facilities contributed substantially to the German war effort: 'The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans (Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil) had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable.'" (7)

At about the same time the Du Ponts were serving the Nazi cause in Germany, they were involved in a Fascist plot to overthrow the United States government.

"Along with friends of the Morgan Bank and General Motors," in early 1934, writes Higham, "certain Du Pont backers financed a coup d'etat that would overthrow the President with the aid of a $3 million-funded army of terrorists . . ." The object was to force Roosevelt "to take orders from businessmen as part of a fascist government or face the alternative of imprisonment and execution . . . "

Higham reports that "Du Pont men allegedly held an urgent series of meetings with the Morgans," to choose who would lead this "bizarre conspiracy." "They finally settled on one of the most popular soldiers in America, General Smedly Butler of Pennsylvania." Butler was approached by "fascist attorney" Gerald MacGuire (an official of the American Legion), who attempted to recruit Butler into the role of an American Hitler.

"Butler was horrified," but played along with MacGuire until, a short time later, he notified the White House of the plot. Roosevelt considered having "the leaders of the houses of Morgan and Du Pont" arrested, but feared that "it would create an unthinkable national crisis in the midst of a depression and perhaps another Wall Street crash." Roosevelt decided the best way to defuse the plot was to expose it, and leaked the story to the press.

"The newspapers ran the story of the attempted coup on the front page, but generally ridiculed it as absurd and preposterous." But an investigation by the Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities - 74th Congress, first session, House of Representatives, Investigation of Nazi and other propaganda - was begun later that same year.

"It was four years," continues Higham, "before the committee dared to publish its report in a white paper that was marked for 'restricted circulation.' They were forced to admit that 'certain persons made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country . . . (The) committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler.' This admission that the entire plan was deadly in intent was not accompanied by the imprisonment of anybody. Further investigations disclosed that over a million people had been guaranteed to join the scheme and that the arms and munitions necessary would have been supplied by Remington, a Du Pont subsidiary." (8)

The names of important individuals and groups involved in the conspiracy were suppressed by the committee, but later revealed by Seldes, Philadelphia Record reporter Paul French, and Jules Archer, author of the book, "The Plot to Seize the White House." Included were John W. Davis (attorney for the J.P. Morgan banking group), Robert Sterling Clark (Wall Street broker and heir to the Singer sewing machine fortune), William Doyle (American Legion official), and the American Liberty League (backed by executives from J.P. Morgan and Co., Rockefeller interests, E.F. Hutton, and Du Pont-controlled General Motors). (9)


"On November 23, 1937," states Higham, "representatives of General Motors held a secret meeting in Boston with Baron Manfred von Killinger, who was . . . in charge of West Coast espionage (for the Nazis), and Baron von Tipplekirsch, Nazi consul general and Gestapo leader in Boston. This group signed a joint agreement showing total commitment to the Nazi cause for the indefinite future. . . ." (10)

Seldes describes the plotters as "the great owners and rulers of America who planned world domination through political and military Fascism" including "several leading American industrialists, members of the Congress of the United States, and representatives of large business and political organizations . . ."

He obtained the text of the agreement, and published it in his newsletter, "In Fact," on July 13, 1942. The plan "goes much further than the mere cartel conspiracies of Big Business of both countries," writes Seldes, "because it has political clauses and points to a bigger conspiracy of money and politicians such as helped betray Norway and France and other lands to the Nazi machine. The most powerful fortress in America is the production monopolies, but its betrayal would involve, as it did in France, the participation of some of the most powerful figures of the political as well as the industrial world." (11)


"On February 27, 1942," according to Higham, "Arnold, with documents stuffed under his arms, . . . strode into the lion's den of Standard at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. Just behind him were Secretary of the Navy Franklin Knox and Secretary of the Army Henry L. Stimson." They confronted Standard official William Farish and "Arnold sharply laid down his charges" that "by continuing to favor Hitler in rubber deal and patent arrangements," Standard Oil "had acted against the interests of the American government . . . suggested a fine of $1.5 million and a consent decree whereby Standard would turn over for the duration all the patents" in question.

"Farish rejected the proposal on the spot. He pointed out that Standard" was also selling the U.S. a "high percentage" of the fuel being used by the Army, Navy, and Air Force "making it possible for America to win the war. Where would America be without it?"

Blackmail? Yes, says Higham. And effective. Arnold was finally reduced to asking the oil company official "to what Standard Oil would agree. After all, there had to be at least token punishment. . . . Arnold, Stimson, and Knox soon realized they had no power to compare with that of Standard."

The price Standard Oil "agreed" to pay for its crime? A modest fine of a few thousand dollars divided up among ten defendants. "Farish paid $1,000, or a quarter of one week's salary, for having betrayed America."

In New Jersey, charges of "criminal conspiracy with the enemy" were filed against Standard, then "dropped in return for Standard releasing its patents and paying the modest fine." But Arnold, and his ally, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, weren't finished with Standard Oil just yet. They approached Senator Truman, chairman of the Senate Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program. "With great enthusiasm Give 'em Hell Harry embarked on a series of hearings in March 1942, in order to disclose the truth about Standard."

Between the 26th and the 28th of March, 1942, Arnold "produced documents showing that Standard and Farben in Germany had literally carved up the world markets, with oil and chemical monopolies all over the map," according to Higham. (12)

Mintz and Cohen describe the confrontation:

"Four months after the United States entered World War II, the Justice Department obtained an indictment of Exxon and its principal officers for having made arrangements, starting in the late 1920s with I.G. Farben involving patent sharing and division of world markets. Jersey Standard agreed not to develop processes for the manufacture of synthetic rubber; in exchange, Farben agreed not to compete in the American petroleum market. After war broke out in Europe, but before the attack on Pearl Harbor, executives of Standard Oil and Farben, at a meeting in Holland, established a 'modus vivendi' for continuing the arrangements in event of war between the United States and Germany - although the arrangements interfered with the ability of the United States to make synthetic rubber desperately needed after it entered the war in December 1941. Rather than face a criminal trial, Exxon and the indicted executives entered no-contest pleas - the legal equivalent of guilty pleas - and were fined the minor sums which were the maximum amounts permitted by law. A few days later, on March 26, 1942, the Senate Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program held a hearing at which Thurman Arnold, chief of the Antitrust Division, put into the record documents on which the (criminal) indictment had been based, including a memo from a Standard Oil official on the 'modus vivendi' agreed to in Holland. After the hearing, the committee chairman, Harry S. Truman, characterized the arrangements as treasonable." (13)

Another source book on this subject of US / Nazi corporate activities is "The Secret War Against the Jews," by Mark Aarons and John Loftus. Here is their version of the events:

"Before the war Standard of New Jersey had forged a synthetic oil and rubber cartel with the Nazi-controlled I.G. Farben," which "worked well until the United States joined the war in 1941. . . . Next to the Rockefellers, I.G. Farben owned the largest share of stock in Standard Oil of New Jersey. Among other things, Standard had provided Farben with its synthetic rubber patents and technical knowledge, while Farben had kept its patents to itself, under strict instructions from the Nazi government."

Evidence which Thurman Arnold turned over to the Truman Committee, which Truman would declare "treasonous," included "Standard's 1939 letter renewing its agreement, which made it clear that the Rockefellers' company was prepared to work with the Nazis whether their own government was at war with the Third Reich or not. Truman's Senate Committee on the National Defense was outraged and began to probe into the whole scandalous arrangement, much to the discomfort of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Suddenly, however, the whole matter was dropped.

"There was a reason for Rockefeller's escape: blackmail. According to the former intelligence officers we interviewed on this point, the blackmail was simple and powerful: The Dulles brothers (John Foster, later Secretary of State, and Allen, later director of the CIA) had one of their clients threaten to interrupt the U.S. oil supply during wartime."

When confronted by Arnold on the Standard - Farben arrangement "Standard executives made it clear that the entire U.S. war effort was fueled by their oil and it could be stopped. . . . The American government had no choice but to go along if it wanted to win the war." (14)

July 13, 1944, Ralph W. Gallagher, attorney for Standard Oil, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government's seizure of the contested patents. "On November 7, 1945, Judge Charles E. Wyzanski gave his verdict," according to Higham. "He decided that the government had been entitled to seize the patents. Gallagher appealed. On September 22, 1947, Judge Charles Clark delivered the final word on the subject. He said, 'Standard Oil can be considered an enemy national in view of its relationships with I.G. Farben after the United States and Germany had become active enemies.' The appeal was denied." (15)

One aspect of this Standard - I.G. Farben relationship, revealed in testimony during the Patents Committee hearings, chaired by Senator Homer T. Bone in May 1942, is of interest to those who seek direct evidence of a conspiracy by big oil companies to suppress development of synthetic substitutes to petrochemical products such as industrial chemicals, aircraft lubricants and fuel, all of which can be made from hemp:

"On May 6th, John R. Jacobs, Jr., of the Attorney General's department, testified that Standard had interfered with the American explosives industry by blocking the use of a method of producing synthetic ammonia. As a result of its deals with Farben, the United States had been unable to get the use of this vital process even after Pearl Harbor. Also, the United States had been restricted in techniques of producing hydrogen from natural gas and from obtaining paraflow, a product used for airplane lubrication at high altitudes. . . ."

On August 7th, "Texas oil operator C.R. Starnes appeared to testify that Standard had blocked him at every turn in his efforts to produce synthetic rubber after Pearl Harbor. . . ."

On August 12th, "John R. Jacobs reappeared in an Army private's uniform (he had been inducted the day before) to bring up another disagreeable matter: Standard had also, in league with Farben, restricted production of methanol, a wood alcohol that was sometimes used as motor fuel." (16)

The restriction against methanol production apparently did not apply to the Nazis, however. "As late as April 1943," Higham reveals, "General Motors in Stockholm (Sweden) was reported as trading with the enemy. . . . Further documents show that, as with Ford, repairs on German army trucks and conversion from gasoline to wood-gasoline production were being handled by GM in Switzerland." (17)

The use of hemp as a source of methanol was known to the Nazis.

The Nazis considered hemp a vital war material that could be used to produce methanol, or "wood gas," at the same time, in 1943, that Du Pont-controlled General Motors in Switzerland was "converting from gasoline to wood-gasoline production." This, taken into consideration along with the earlier statement that Standard Oil- I.G. Farben had "restricted production of methanol" and the GM- Standard Oil-I.G. Farben joint venture, Ethyl, Inc., whose profitability depended on the production of lead-tetraethyl for oil- -based petrochemical gasoline - in direct competition with the alternative methanol, or "wood gas," certainly opens new avenues of investigation into the existence of a conspiracy against hemp as an alternative, and competing, industrial raw material, by these very same corporations which sold America out to the Nazis for profit and control of world resources and markets.

"Just after Pearl Harbor," writes Seldes, "the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Thurman Arnold, issued a sensational report of the sabotage of the national (war production) program, the first report naming the practices which were later to be referred to as the treason of big business in wartime. Said Mr. Arnold:

"Looking back over 10 months of defense effort we can now see how much it has been hampered by the attitude of powerful basic industries who have feared to expand their production because expansion would endanger their future control of industry.

"'Anti-trust investigations during the past year have shown that there is not an organized basic industry in the United States which has not been restricting production by some device or other in order to avoid what they call "ruinous overproduction after the war."' (19)

By "ruinous overproduction," of course, they meant free-market competition. So, to question the existence of an industrial conspiracy against competition, during the 1930s and 1940s, is pointless. It has long been totally documented by volumes of evidence, available in the public record. And among this list of convicted corporate conspirators are murderers, racists, pro-Nazi collaborators, blackmailers and American Fascists who plotted at least one armed take-over of the U.S. government. And the list is not yet complete.


Henry Ford, writes Higham, "admired Hitler from the beginning, when the future Fuhrer was a struggling and obscure fanatic. He shared with Hitler a fanatical hatred of Jews."

"Ford's book 'The International Jew' was issued in 1927. A virulent anti-Semitic tract, it was still being distributed in Latin America and the Arab countries as late as 1945. Hitler admired the book and it influenced him deeply. Visitors to Hitler's headquarters at the Brown House in Munich noticed a large photograph of Henry Ford hanging in his office. Stacked high on the table outside were copies of Ford's book. As early as 1923," when Hitler heard that Ford was planning to run for President, he "told an interviewer from the 'Chicago-Tribune,' 'I wish that I could send some of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help.'"

As late as 1940, Ford Motor Company "refused to build aircraft engines for England and instead built supplies of the 5-ton military trucks that were the backbone of German army transportation." (20)

I still see no comment on my pertinent question:

"In the previous post I listed FORTY-SIX wars. Of those forty-six, how many were "sensible alternative(s)?"

Thanks for stopping back, Kosh, and continuing the dialogue in the mode and manner I've come to expect of a Mensch like You.
Brief comment to long and HUGELY appreciated thread:

Where to start? Hard to know. I've blogged, commented, and "pm"'d elsewhere on the topic of "the social media" per se. For a shortcut on that theme, Open Salon seems to me to be an online community comprising an interesting admixture of people who define themselves primarily as writers &/or are primarily interested in craft and styles of writing and people who are drawn to read and post here primarily out of their concerns about ... well, for a shortcut (*): "politics". [(*) Looks like my comment isn't going to be so "short" after all so I'll try to work next on an updated blog of my own. :-( ;-)]

More specifically as to this thread of Mark's and the comments of the comment-ers so far: My deep, deep personal appreciation for all the work you're all doing on these fundamental (and for me personally so almost overwhelmingly important [read "frightening"? "Discouraging"? 'those who are ignorant of history', etc., etc.]) issues of history, factuality, and responsibility. Governmental responsibilities; corporations' responsibilities; media responsibility and ... and this is where I "come from" at the moment: Individualperson responsibility.

Into this ?"morass"? this thread is -- quite simply -- helping me "keep going". But that's more a podunkmarte topic than the topic of this discussion. I do just want all of you who have been participating here to know how much I appreciate your posting your thoughts and, where necessary/appropriate, attaching links to other writings. Most of the factual information referred to here so far has been long known to me (including some of the inherent disputes or disagreements) but my personal ?"podunk" problem" is that you people, here, "in" (so to say) this one thread are the only people I'm likely to have direct contact and interaction with during the course of this unfolding day who -- to be blunt -- either "know or care". Not that they wouldn't if they did (if you follow me). But too many people have too little actual information.

O.K., "so shoot me". :-( ;-)! Couldn't make it a "short comment" after all. September Greetings to all of you and most very especial thanks for posting to a public forum so much of the kind of factual information so buried from so many people's awareness! If this thread continues long enough I might even chime in again next time on some of the factual details themselves ... in the context (at least in part) of "so now what do 'we' do"? The "who the why and the which" of those of us reading this one online thread". I, for one, will now SHUT UP, rate Mark's post and thank all of the commenters once again.
I realized that my answer appeared in my original comment that I alluded to losing.

The answer, of course, is that I asume that most of the 46 were completely unnecessary. My point was never that most of the violence practiced by this country was necessary; my point is that some of it was.

The Nazi collaboration you're outlining is horrifying and I was unfamiliar with it. I wonder how aware people like General Eisenhower were of this stuff. Still, as awful as it is and as much as I thank you for introducing me to it, it doesn't lead me to the conclusion that violence is never necessary. If anything, it makes me doubt my own opposition to the death penalty, but for our own people. (I'm exaggerating a bit in this last sentence.)
Comments are now closed.