Harold Pinter speaks up. Is he right?

JustWonders wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Take what you read at that page with a very large grain of salt. Keep in mind that this member has done little since arriving at this site other than rant, usually without reliable substantiation, against the United States as great Satan.

Maybe he's trying to get the attention of the Nobel prize committee.

0 Replies

Just for the record, here is what the site said about American "support" for Adolf Hitler

"ADOLF HITLER
Chancellor of Germany
As German bombs fell on London and Nazi tanks rolled over US troops, Sosthenes Behn president and founder of the US based ITT corporation, met with his German representative to discuss improving German communication systems. ITT was designing and building Nazi phone and radio systems as well as supplying crucial parts for German bombs. Our government knew all about this, for under a presidential order, US companies were licensed to trade with the Nazis. The choice of who would be licensed was odd, though. While the Secretary of State gave the Ford Motor Company permission to make Nazi tanks, he simultaneously blocked aid to German-Jewish refugees because the US wasn't supposed to be trading with the enemy. Other US companies trading with the Third Reich were General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Davis Oil Co., and the Chase National Bank. President Roosevelt did not stop them, fearing a scandal might lead to another stock market crash or lower US moral. Besides, the same companies that traded with Hitler were supplying the US with its armaments, and some corporate leaders threatened to withdraw their support if Roosevelt exposed them. Henry Ford was a good friend of Hitler's. His book -- The International Jew -- had Inspired Hltler's Mein Kampf. The Fuhrer kept Ford's picture in his office, and Ford was one of only four foreigners to receive Germany's highest civilian award. As for Sosthenes Behn, at the end of the war, he received the highest civilian award for service to his country -- the United States of America".

Would be interested to know how much of that is actually true.

0 Replies

That account employs very seriously warped descriptions of the political situation in the United States in the period 1933-1941 (the eight years from Roosevelt's entry into office and the German declaration of war on the United States). Roosevelt at no time relied upon corporate support to remain in office--a contention that he feared a backlash from corporations is nonsense. It is worth noting that Roosevelt always attempted to accomodate corporations for the benefit to the American economy--at no time was he a political hostage to them. Henry Ford and Armand Hammer both became friends of and advisors to Vladimir Ulyanov--Lenin. Hammer continued his relation with the Soviet Union throughout his long capitalist career. On that basis, is it reasonable to state that the United States supported every act of Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Kosygin, Chernyenko and Adropov? Hardly.

Hitler became chancellor after the elections in which the National Socialists won about 37% of the vote, in 1933. That gave the National Socialists the largest party representation, and with a center-right coalition, Hitler became chancellor. The office of chancellor, as created by Bismark to suit himself, gave Hitler enormous powers--and in fact, far more personal governmental control than that which Roosevelt could exercise.

Roosevelt took office upon his inauguration in 1933. He had a hell of a lot on his plate to worry about, none of which concerned European politics and an otherwise obscure, ranting Austrian street politician suddenly vaulted to the pinnacle of power in Germany. The corporations listed in the piece had contractual relationships with German companies long before 1933. Herbert Hoover, who preceeded Roosevelt in office, had been responsible for distributing relief provided by the victorious Allies in Europe after 1918. He already had the contacts with Germans who formed a part of the Weimar Republic. There was no Office of the United States Trade Representative in 1933, and Roosevelt had no control over such international trade relationships, except to the extent that he could influence Congress. The continued use of terms such as "licensed to trade with the Nazis" and "Nazi radio and phone systems" is tendentious and ignores that at the time that these companies made contractual arrangements in Germany, the National Socialist German Workers Party did not control the Reichstag. It was not necessary for any American company to have a special license to trade with Germany.

The sketch provided depends upon innuendo, distortion and outright lies.

Those who credit every bit of that as gospel truth are invited to peruse my collection of prospectii for lake front properties.

0 Replies

The idiots at Third World Traveler wrote:

While the Secretary of State gave the Ford Motor Company permission to make Nazi tanks, he simultaneously blocked aid to German-Jewish refugees because the US wasn't supposed to be trading with the enemy.

This is one of the most ludicrous contentions. The Secretary of State had no power to interfer in any contractual arrangement made by Ford in Germany. The reference to "trading with the enemy" is so obvious a lie that one would think they would have been too embarrassed to have employed it. Germany was not "the enemy" until they had declared war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That account employs very seriously warped descriptions of the political situation in the United States in the period 1933-1941 (the eight years from Roosevelt's entry into office and the German declaration of war on the United States). Roosevelt at no time relied upon corporate support to remain in office--a contention that he feared a backlash from corporations is nonsense. It is worth noting that Roosevelt always attempted to accomodate corporations for the benefit to the American economy--at no time was he a political hostage to them. Henry Ford and Armand Hammer both became friends of and advisors to Vladimir Ulyanov--Lenin. Hammer continued his relation with the Soviet Union throughout his long capitalist career. On that basis, is it reasonable to state that the United States supported every act of Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Kosygin, Chernyenko and Adropov? Hardly.

Hitler became chancellor after the elections in which the National Socialists won about 37% of the vote, in 1933. That gave the National Socialists the largest party representation, and with a center-right coalition, Hitler became chancellor. The office of chancellor, as created by Bismark to suit himself, gave Hitler enormous powers--and in fact, far more personal governmental control than that which Roosevelt could exercise.

Roosevelt took office upon his inauguration in 1933. He had a hell of a lot on his plate to worry about, none of which concerned European politics and an otherwise obscure, ranting Austrian street politician suddenly vaulted to the pinnacle of power in Germany. The corporations listed in the piece had contractual relationships with German companies long before 1933. Herbert Hoover, who preceeded Roosevelt in office, had been responsible for distributing relief provided by the victorious Allies in Europe after 1918. He already had the contacts with Germans who formed a part of the Weimar Republic. There was no Office of the United States Trade Representative in 1933, and Roosevelt had no control over such international trade relationships, except to the extent that he could influence Congress. The continued use of terms such as "licensed to trade with the Nazis" and "Nazi radio and phone systems" is tendentious and ignores that at the time that these companies made contractual arrangements in Germany, the National Socialist German Workers Party did not control the Reichstag. It was not necessary for any American company to have a special license to trade with Germany.

The sketch provided depends upon innuendo, distortion and outright lies.

Those who credit every bit of that as gospel truth are invited to peruse my collection of prospectii for lake front properties.

very well said and thanks

of course USA had trade deals with Germany in the 1930's, as did Britain (Neville Chamberlain's business interests not withstanding)

0 Replies

I know that old Joe Chamberlain made a pile in manufacturing, but once he went political, the bios tend to lose sight of his business interests. Did the Chamberlain clan continue to do a good deal of industrial business in the 20th century?

(I believe that my memory serves in recalling that Joe's grandpappy was a cobbler, and that Joe got his start by being sent off to manage a newly acquired machine tool plant which manufactured steel screws.)

0 Replies

I hesitate to getting into the nitty gritty of history Set...

Joe and Neville were Brummies ie made their name in Birmingham, which was the (at one time world) centre for manufacture of iron and steel bits and pieces...nuts bolts screws etc etc (not forgetting shackles chains and cuffs for the slaves and getting thereof)..

The Chamberlains were big wheels in Birmingham. Both became Lord Mayors. Neville spent some time as a manager in a local company before going into local then national politics. I dont know the extent of their business interests in Germany before the war, but I do believe they had some...

But as it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany (and I dont recalling him saying except those factories in .....and ....) I think its safe to say he put the national interest above his family business interests such as they were.

0 Replies

How very thoughtful of him . . .

0 Replies

whereas Churchill of course was a right capitalist b******

0 Replies

Better for his memory to portray him as an Imperialist, something he was good at. As a capitalist, he didn't have much to recommend him.

Now Joe Chamberlain, he managed not only to acquire a huge fortune in manufacturing, he managed to single-handedly topple two governments of which he was a member, completely shattering two political parties in the process--and both times on issues (home rule for Ireland and an alliance with Imperial Germany) which were doomed to fail . . . i don't know how praiseworthy that is, but it certainly seems to qualify as unique . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Better for his memory to portray him as an Imperialist, something he was good at. As a capitalist, he didn't have much to recommend him.

Now Joe Chamberlain, he managed not only to acquire a huge fortune in manufacturing, he managed to single-handedly topple two governments of which he was a member, completely shattering two political parties in the process--and both times on issues (home rule for Ireland and an alliance with Imperial Germany) which were doomed to fail . . . i don't know how praiseworthy that is, but it certainly seems to qualify as unique . . .

I'm sure you're right Set. just wish I had the instant command of history that you have.

0 Replies

I don't know, you'd pretty well have to give up all the other interesting things which have filled your life in order to have done the reading. I've spent quite a few of the nights of my life home alone--without regrets, mind you.

0 Replies

Keep in mind that this member has done little since arriving at this site other than rant, usually without reliable substantiation, against the United States as great Satan.

Can't remember ranting or painting satan pictures. I have been polite and have asked questions.

In return I get the full press hatred of some of you. Facts are hard to argue with, so one attacks the poster. True to form.

0 Replies

When you posted your drivel about the United States and "gunboat diplomacy" in another thread, i politely pointed out that the United States could not have been guilty of having oppressed other nations for a few centuries, in view of the fact that it has only existed for a few centuries, and did not begin its career as hegemon immediately. Your response was to ignore this and to post a link to a page as unreliable as the one you've given in this thread.

I answered the idiocy of the linked page in this thread with regard to Hitler. I'm not going to waste my time on every line of every other blurb on that page. I have never disputed that the United States has used military power to impose on other nations, nor denied that it has supported disgusting dictators. I am more likely than anyone else at this site to point these things out. However, your linked page indulges in hysterical charges, without foundation, some of which are patently lies, most of which are distortions which rely on innuendo. You do your thesis no service by ramping up the rhetoric to the hysterical level and providing so many opportunities to discredit your sources.

You seem to want to portray yourself as a martyr. I see no evidence that anyone here hates you--although i'm sure you would like to think so. In my thread, in which i first saw you, you asked no questions, and what passed for courtesy on your part was marginal. Then you write tripe such as this:

Quote:

Facts are hard to argue with, so one attacks the poster. True to form.

I have disputed what you have purported to be facts. Using a locution such as true to form suggests that you have some deep and abiding knowledge of the people here as members of a category which you are priveleged to despise.

Your cross awaits you, the scourge is ready, your martyrdom is at hand . . .

Do you want some cheese with your whine?

0 Replies

Perhaps you should tell people with numbers tattoed on their arms that the US was not involved with Nazi Germany.

Simply calling something drivel is not enough. Splitting hairs on certain words is not debating. Prove to me that the US foreign policy is above reproach and I will stop arguing.

The reason that the US is not adored world-wide is its Real Politik. That started long before Bush.

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/articles/auschwitz.html

0 Replies

detano inipo wrote:

Perhaps you should tell people with numbers tattoed on their arms that the US was not involved with Nazi Germany.

Simply calling something drivel is not enough. Splitting hairs on certain words is not debating. Prove to me that the US foreign policy is above reproach and I will stop arguing.

The reason that the US is not adored world-wide is its Real Politik. That started long before Bush.

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/articles/auschwitz.html

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/silence.html

All Nations, including Canada, had issues in this regard.

0 Replies

I have never asserted that American foreign policy is above reproach, so there is nothing for me to prove. But more than that, you've already made up your mind that the United States is the great, single source of evil in the world, and anyone would be a fool to waste time attempting to convince you otherwise. Any assertion on your part that the United States supported National Socialist Germany requires proof on your part, which you have failed to provide. Mr. Black's contentions about IBM constitute no proof of an American government policy. International Business Machine, incorporated in New York in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company, set up three factories in Europe in the 1920's--long before the National Socialists took power in Germany. Therefore, Mr. Black not only does not provide any proof that the United States supported National Socialist Germany, he does not even provide proof that International Business Machine's corporate board colluded with the Nazis--it is completely reasonable to assume that IBM's European operations were seized and used by the Nazi's just as were all other useful enterprises in the areas of Europe overrun by the German army.

You have asserted that the United States is guilty of the repression of nations in the world. I have not disputed that this is true, and, as i have pointed out, the lists you have posted often leave out many of the occasions upon which the United States has interferred with other nations. It is the hysterical tone you adopt, and the low to non-existant standards of proof which you use to which i object. The sources you link use innuendo and outright lies to make the case worse than it is--and the record is bad enough not to need embellishment from wacko anti-globalization fanatics such as those at Third World Traveler. You personally asserted that the United States has been in the oppression business "for a few centuries" and continue to ignore that such a contention is a demonstrable absurdity. That is because your rage knows no proportions.

I'll ask you once again, by the way, how you, as a Canadian, react to the lynchings which occured during and after the War of 1812. How do you react to the Canadian citizens shot down and lynched and judicially murdered in Upper and Lower Canada in the 1830's? How do you react to John Colborne, known to the habitants of Quebec as "le Vieux Brulot" (the Old Firebrand), and his gang of English and Orangemen bully boys roaring through Quebec burning farms and lynching French speakers? How do you react to the history of Louis Riel, and not one, but two military expeditions against the metis of Manitoba, and the eventual execution of Riel? How do you react to expeditions against the first nations by the Northwest Mounted Police? No nation is simon pure, and it is possible to accuse any nation of enormities against the innocent and powerless. If the United States is a striking example, and has done far more harm than Canada, that neither excuses the Canadians their crimes, nor takes into account the greater resources of the United States.

You badly need to get a grip, and you badly need to develop some critical thinking skills to apply to the screeds you like to link in these threads.

0 Replies

All Nations, including Canada, had issues in this regard.

It is doubtful that Canadian or firms from other countries aided the Nazis during those years. Helping a regime like that during a war is not very nice.
IBM was one of the giants of US industry.

0 Replies

It is possible that Canada committed some crimes during the 19th century. Since then it has behaved correctly and is now seen as one of the best countries around.

How many Canadians sow an American flag onto their knapsacks when traveling overseas? Thousands of Americans carry little Canadian flags on their luggage. Sounds almost like a joke.

I am amused by all this; the hatred is in your camp.

0 Replies

You have not proven that any American firm aided the National Socialists in time of war, so your remarks are meaningless. On the street here in Tranna, there are Canadian flags everywhere. On Canada day, the street is just lousy with 'em . . .

Your contention about Americans with Canajun flags is not supported by anything other than your bald assertion, but that should surprise no one, given your demonstrably low standards of proof.

But, sure, you're right, Canadians would never go in for vulgar nationalistic symbolism . . .

http://www.carlroth.net/nanaimoparkjugglers/pics/canada_day04_1.jpg

0 Replies

Harold Pinter speaks up. Is he right?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know