DRomm said
If Prescott or Walker had written a book in the 1938-1945 period supporting Hitler’s theories, then you might have a valid point. As it stands, you don’t. You’ve merely repeated your mantra.
Excerpts from “Transnational economic cooperation and the national State” by Gerhard Kummel
“When war broke out, the commercial contacts between GM and Opel were used by the Roosevelt administration for diplomatic purposes. During the 1930s James D. Mooney, with whom Roosevelt made contact, had supported German trade policy wishes, called for an increase in American imports from Germany, approved barter exchange and attacked the boycott movement.”
“In February 1941 Mooney wrote a letter to Roosevelt, asking him to clearly state American aims in the European confict. Mooney himself suggested avoiding American intervention and recognizing the new German power in Central and east Europe as a buffer against the Soviet Union and cooperating with Germany and Great Britain to build a new world order.”
"The diplomat George Messersmith, who was assigned to duty in Cuba at that time, explained the Mooney “case” as follows:
Mooney is fundamentally Fascist in his sympathies....He is obsessed by this strange notion that a few business, including himself, could take care of the war and the peace. I am absoutely sure that Mooney is keeping up his contract with the Germans because he believes, or at least still hopes, that they will win the war, and he thinks if they do that he will be our Quisling."
Mooney was Vice President of General Motors.
<< Ps. I thought swearing was not allowed either? Are moderators above the law? >>
There’s no particular rule against swearing. There is a level and a limit, somewhat subjective, that varies by forum, but nothing against a well-placed expletive. And I did it deliberately, to let you know in no uncertain terms that you were stretching my patience. I swear only upon very rare occasions, when provoked.
Anyone who wished to follow the Mooney case further could also read Mooney/Georgetown which might shed some light on the topic. I don’t vouch for either point of view. Just providing what might be a balance.
samclem: So writing a book counts as support, but sending millions of dollars to a guy doesn’t? The moral relativism of the right is astonishing at times.
The fact remains that when the dust cleared, Cecil agreed with my main point – that Walker and Bush (and not GHWB) gave direct economic support to Hitler and the Nazis.
As far as I’m concerned, this means they should be held accountable for their actions, and are getting the benefit of a double standard. Remember, ‘Nazi’ was a political party, not just the ideology of its hatemongers. If you establish a company specifically set up to send money to the Republican party, many would consider you a Republican whether or not you were on record agreeing to their platform. Yet if you established a company specifically set up to send money to the Nazi party, it seems that the moral relativists don’t consider you a Nazi. Where is the outrage?
mystic: Yeah, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee went after the wrong guys after WWII. This is not news. The greatest generation sacrificed a lot to save the world, and one of the casualties was the truth about which Americans supported the country and which Americans supported the enemy. (Remind me to go on a rant on why Thomas E. Dewey didn’t win the presidency in 1948… in a different forum…)
I’ll talk s-l-o-w.
Point one. I’d appreciate it if you would quit calling everyone who disagrees with your point of view on this subject a “rightist.” You don’t know anything about my politics(which are decidely “left wing”). It wouldn’t be fair for me to bring up your Jewish background and suggest that it has influenced your perception of the topic under discussion. I realize that you hold your views honestly.
Point two. Tarpley and Chaitkin are not merely independent writers who happen to have a point of view on Bush which mysteriously coincides with the point of view of LaRouche. They are the equivalent of Goebels and Himmler in the LaRouche organization. If you don’t already know that, then I know you’re intelligent enough to Google up the facts.
Point three. “Sending millions of dollars to a guy” is a nebulous statement to me. If Walker or Bush personally transferred or caused to be sent “millions of dollars” to the Nazi party with the intent of specifically furthering the Nazi political causes once the horrors of the Nazis were known, then they would be Nazi sympathizers and perhaps worthy of the appelation “Nazi.” But they didn’t. They were evidently greedy businessmen. And ruthless. And perhaps amoral. But they weren’t Nazis.
Actually, amoral, apolitical businessmen today funnel money into the campaigns of both parties simply trying to buy favor. They aren’t any more Republican than they are Democrat. (This doesn’t include people such as Richard Mellon Scaife, IMHO)
.
I’ll return the favor and type slowly, and more grammatically.
We’re discussing facts here, not points of view. Heck, you’re the guy who conflates “staying on topic” with a “mantra”. In this case, I was discussing irony. If you don’t like to be associated with the right wingers, you shouldn’t stand with them. How about this: The moral relativism of the Bush apologists is astonishing at times.
Don’t get all condescending on me, bub (he says, doing a Cecil impression). If you’d bothered to read my column answering the same question, you’d see that I covered this ground, and you’re a thread or two behind. The basics of it: In the Tarpley book, the stuff that they footnote extensively and that matches other sources is considered worthy of being cited. Their poorly footnoted rants are ignored. (I’ll note that you haven’t actually disagreed with any of the points cited by me or Cecil from Tarply, Loftus or other sources. While it’s not necessary for you to prove a negative, it IS necessary for you to do more than wave your hand away from a cite.)
It seems odd that Tarpley and Chaitkin are guilty by association with LaRouche, which is certainly a fair knock on the book, but Walker and Bush AREN’T guilty by association with Thyssen, UBC and the Nazi party. This is known as irony.
Fortunately, it isn’t nebulous to the business records involved.
Point A: Intent has nothing to do with accountability. Are you seriously proposing that ignorance of the law IS an excuse? The point, which I’ve made several times but slides over you, is that “I was only following orders” was an excuse specifically disallowed for Nazi war crimes. Bert Walker went to Berlin to set up the UBC in the 20s. Prescott Bush was business partners with “Hitler’s Angel” for years in the 30s and 40s. If they didn’t know who they were dealing with, they were more than blind, they were stupid, and I doubt they were that dumb. Why are you giving Walker and Bush a pass? What ever happened to personal accountability?
Point B: And this is where Cecil stepped in: Prescott and co. continued to run their operations even when we were at war with the Germans. If “the horrors of the Nazis” includes the time period when they were shooting American soldiers and our allies, then they deserve the appelation “Nazi” even by your strict standards.
Point C: “Nazi” is not merely a hatemongering ideology, it was a political party.
Yikes! The return of the “Everybody does it” defense. That simply is no excuse for Walker or Bush. (It also tends to be wrong, but pointing out that amoral businessmen, eg Ken Lay, favored the current Bush ten to one over the Dems doesn’t seem to mean much to you. And… why are you giving Sciafe a pass? What ever happened to personal accountability? Where is the outrage? [insert most of Bob Dole’s campaign slogans here…])
And you seem to be tarring me with the same brush you objected to being tarred with. You’ll notice that my posts haven’t mentioned much about “Democrats vs. Republicans” or “liberals vs. conservatives” simply because the currently labels don’t map very well to the time period under discussion (1920-1952). Heck, Samuel Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman were Democrats, and I want their involvement known as much as I want Walker and Bush’s. Despite your attempts to drag this into a debate on the current political situation (which I’d be happy to do, but not here), it’s that I really, really, really hate the Nazis.
So let’s not give Walker and Bush a pass. That was, after all, the question asked of Cecil.
DRomm said:
Because Sciafe is not a blanket contributor to both parties, but rather a very conservative christian right-winger heavily funding the Republicans. His political leanings are clearly known.
I don’t see anyone calling you a left-winger, a liberal, a democrat, or any other labels. However, you continue to call anyone who disagrees with you a right-winger and a Dittohead. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a Bush supporter, rather than allowing someone might think the facts and their meaning are fuzzier than you give credit.
Rense.com recently posted a link to a vintage article about Prescott. Check it out:
Not to beat a dead horse, but check this [url=http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi%20Link] out.
Does it clarify anything?
Isn’t everyone’s great-grandfather a Nazi or a murderer or a thief or something else. I’m sure that, if Cecil Adams were a real person, we could find a great-granfather of his with a shady past and bringing it up is only wanting to slander a guy that “Cecil Adams” doesn’t (or don’t) like.
My uncle’s wife’s mum was a member of the Hitler Youth… I’m guilty,