2007-06-12
05:37:59
·
9 answers
·
asked by
guiseppeamore
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
sorry should have included this link initially...
The Hitler Project
Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy
In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.
Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush.@s1
http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
2007-06-12
05:48:38 ·
update #1
Perhaps they are as unaware as most people about what's truly going on? Or in denial--very popular among humans? For those who'd like a bit of background along these lines, see, for example, http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/bushcrimefamily.htm
Incredibly revealing and wholly credible. This planet is owned and run by psychopaths with an agenda. And most of us come under the subheading of population reduction--means and methods. Have a good day :))
2007-06-12 05:47:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by drakke1 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
First of all, they do. For example, Jerusalem Post ran an article in 2003. At that time, some documents became unclassified, and the issue was in the news. But the connection has nothing to suggest a Nazi connection to the present President Bush.
Prescott Bush was connected to a variety of banking and industrialist projects that were connected to banks and companies owned by the Thyssen family. While it is clear that Prescott Bush was on the board of directors of a bank owned by Fritz Thyssen, who was, indeed, supporting Hitler, it is not at all clear that this was anything but a financial choice. (A really bad one, as it turned out.) When Hitler was first coming in to power, he garnered a lot of support by being anti-Communist. Hitler was supported by several private industrialists at the time (definitely not all).
However, in 1938 Thyssen broke with the Nazis and escaped out of Germany, before WWII officially began. Thyssen was not happy with the radical turn against Catholics and Jews that Nazi doctrine had taken. And Nazi Germany was very unhappy with Thyssen who was outspoken in his criticism. They actually arrested Thyssen, and eventually put him in a Nazi run concentration camp. (He did survive, and was rescued when the others in that camp were.)
The banks owned by the Thyssen family, that Prescott Bush worked for, were
Point being, that as far as standard press on this issue is concerned, the worst things the Bush's did regarding Hitler, had more to do with unscrupulous financial choices (making money, even if it was done in an illegal way) than political.
If there is proof that after Thyssen left, and after their banks were closed down, that Prescott Bush even tried (let alone succeeded) to support Hitler or the Nazis, it is not main stream.
So the answer to the question, is that the Jewish people *have* brought it up, but have decided it is not relevant, and have moved on.
To my mind, it is proof that business is more important than the rule of law in that family. But it doesn't seem to be a particularly Jewish issue, even though the story includes Hitler.
2007-06-12 14:09:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by nojunk_9 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
When did we start deciding who could be an effective leader based on the actions of their relatives and ancestors? Boy, if we start doing that, the pool from which we get future politicians is going to get VERY small.
2007-06-12 13:36:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush's Grandfather was slime, personally I dont have much respect for him either.
That being said why should someone be faulted for something his grandfather did? He was not even alive at the time.
Would someone be barred from politics if his great-grandfather was a slave owner?
2007-06-13 01:51:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Gamla Joe 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a game of give and take. It depends on how much you can receive and how much you can afford to lose.
2007-06-12 12:42:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by ShanShui 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not every one is intune to history as you are?
2007-06-12 12:42:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by fuzzykitty 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I would imagine many Jewish people have no idea what you are whining about!!
Another anti-Jewish rant.
2007-06-12 12:41:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by conranger1 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Because they Love Him for attacking an Arab nation..............
2007-06-12 12:43:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Your Teeth or Mine? 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
because that guy is dead. story over.
2007-06-12 12:40:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by TG79 5
·
0⤊
2⤋