50% of NAZI oil was supplied from US

(monkey) wrote:

h yeah that's right, everything the usa has ever done has been for
:the good of the world, sorry that i keep forgetting that it is
rdained by god to rule forever and never does anything wrong (i think
:thats what you guys learn in school isn't it?)

Too stupid to bother with.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

plonk


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Subject: 50% of NAZI oil was supplied from US
From: (monkey)
Date: 10/29/03 9:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

you know the funny thing, i'm sure it's true because the good 'ol
US of A will do anything for money, as history has proven time and

At least the Republican party will. But be fair. They really need that mney for
more tax cuts for the rich.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:55:50 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

I can certainly understand that Japan and Germany could and did
believe the US was hostile. What I dont see is how that put the
USA at cross purposes with itself.

Do you see an advantage to the US in allowing Japan to
dominate the Pacific and/or Nazi Germany to dominate
Europe ?

See the subject of this message thread.

In article ,
(monkey) wrote:

Steve Hix wrote in message
...
In article ,
(monkey) wrote:

E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:57:57 GMT, "eravanna"
wrote:


The article discuss the oil balance of NAZI Germany in 37 - june
44.
The funny side is that some 50% of oil and petrolium products
were supplied by US based companies (the standard oil of New
Jersey,
the standard oil of California and the Davis oil company) mainly
via
Spain. This includes 100% of oil supply for NAZI subs operating
in
Atlantic. All these operations were authorised by US government.

Michael
very smart move on the us part as when we cut the oil off they lost


It's also pure, unadulterated bull****.

yah, you know the funny thing, i'm sure it's true because the good 'ol
US of A will do anything for money, as history has proven time and
again, even if it is against its own stated democratic principles.

Now tell us about the trading behavior of Sweden and Switzerland during
WW2.

oh yeah that's right, everything the usa has ever done has been for
the good of the world, sorry that i keep forgetting that it is
ordained by god to rule forever and never does anything wrong (i think
thats what you guys learn in school isn't it?)

Too bad you couldn't actually answer the question...

(The Enlightenment) wrote in message . com...
(monkey) wrote in message . com...
E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:57:57 GMT, "eravanna"
wrote:


The article discuss the oil balance of NAZI Germany in 37 - june 44.
The funny side is that some 50% of oil and petrolium products
were supplied by US based companies (the standard oil of New Jersey,
the standard oil of California and the Davis oil company) mainly via
Spain. This includes 100% of oil supply for NAZI subs operating in
Atlantic. All these operations were authorised by US government.

Michael
very smart move on the us part as when we cut the oil off they lost


It's also pure, unadulterated bull****.

yah, you know the funny thing, i'm sure it's true because the good 'ol
US of A will do anything for money, as history has proven time and
again, even if it is against its own stated democratic principles.

Their democratic principles are also national prnciples. Waging war
on behalf of imposing those principles was most definetlyu NOT one of
them.

I'm
sure that lots of businesses made a wad of cash off WWI and WWII and
lots of other wars while allies were dying.

A lote lost a lot. I take you point. Irresponsible elites drag us
into stupid wars.

The whole argument of
whether or not the nation was a stated ally is bull****. The US knew
what was going on in both wars for years, knew about all the brutal
**** the axis were doing, and basically ignored it and made money off
it for years while other countries were spilling blood to save
themselves.

You Can't substantiate that.

Actually one of the reasons the US population was reluctant to enter
the war was because during the frist world war UK disinformation and
propaganda had created a number of serious anti-german allegations
that were expoosed as fraudulent including and not limited to:
1 The Germans were throwing babies into the air and catching them on
Bayonets.
(I believe the Japanese coped this one in WW2 in Malaya as well)
2 The Germans were raping ALL the Belgian women.
3 The Germans were turning Belgian and French corpses into soap.

The disinformation was first used to incite the British people into
war and then to draw the Americans in. ("We could all be Dead in 45
minutes" Tony Blair in parlaiment)

The frauds and docotored photographs were exposed and the British
being rather Gentlemently actualy appologised.

Americans were thus disinclined to be drawn into WW2 or even to
believe the concentration camp stuff after the war. (The soap stuff
certainly is a concoction)


*********************

One of the most most enraging documents in Hansard is the
report of the Commons debate the day before war was
declared
in 1914 and Britain entered the most disastrous conflict
in
its and Europe's history. It is clear from Hansard
that
the grave and novel dangers of entering into a war
with
modern technology were understood by many MPs. Worse,
from
the pathetic evasions of the Foreign Secretary, Sir
Edward
Grey, it is clear that Parliament and consequently
the
British people had been kept in the dark over
secret
agreements between the British and French Governments,
which
obligated Britain to go to war if France was attacked.
And
so off Britain went to war, ostensibly because of an
1839
treaty Britain had signed guaranteeing
Belgium's
sovereignty, but in reality because the British elite of
the
time had committed itself to the French elite without
any
Parliamentary oversight or agreement.



http://64.143.9.197/books/connors/dealinginhate.html

"To make matters still worse, the British foreign secretary, Sir
Edward Grey, even refused to promise British neutrality during the
Franco-German (1st world war) war in return for a German counter
promise to respect Belgian territory!"

The simple truth is that, as Grey later admitted, Britain was so
committed to the support of France by secret agreements that, with or
without the invasion of Belgium, she would have entered the war.
Otherwise he would have felt compelled to resign. Indeed, it is
evident from John Morley's famous Memorandum On Resignation as well as
from the personal assurance of John Burns to Professor Barnes that the
actual decision of the British Cabinet to go to war was made before
the matter of Belgian was even mentioned!"


Can anyone be assure that the follishness of WWI that lead to a
Whit eracial bloodbath has been learned?

************************************************** *************
http://64.143.9.197/books/connors/dealinginhate.html

In this connection, the invasion of "little Belgium" was widely
advertised as a particularly reprehensible though typical
manifestation of a brutal and ruthless German policy. On the other
hand, the entry of Britain into the war for the ostensible purpose of
defending Belgian territorial integrity received almost universal
acclaim. The posture of a crusading knight on a white steed charging
to the defense of the outraged little country was, despite its
essential falsity, assumed with relish and exploited with consummate
skill by pro-British propagandists.

The shabby dishonesty of this posture becomes evident when we realize
that during a Franco-German crisis in 1887, at a time when
Anglo-German relations were most cordial, the British press had openly
and unashamedly discussed the advisability of giving the green light
to the German army to cross Belgium for the purpose of initiating
military operations against France. Finally, the British minister,
Lord Vivian, informed the distraught Belgian government that Belgium
would have to prepare to act alone in such a contingency. As Professor
Langer aptly remarks, "considering all this, it is hardly possible to
take the denials of the British government during the World War very
seriously."

As a further commentary on alleged Allied "idealism" in this matter we
may cite the facts, since uncovered, that the Anglo-French war plans
of 1911, 1912, and 1913 themselves contemplated the violation of
Belgian territorial integrity in certain circumstances that might
arise during a war with Germany!

"To make matters still worse, the British foreign secretary, Sir
Edward Grey, even refused to promise British neutrality during the
Franco-German war in return for a German counter promise to respect
Belgian territory!"

The simple truth is that, as Grey later admitted, Britain was so
committed to the support of France by secret agreements that, with or
without the invasion of Belgium, she would have entered the war.
Otherwise he would have felt compelled to resign. Indeed, it is
evident from John Morley's famous Memorandum On Resignation as well as
from the personal assurance of John Burns to Professor Barnes that the
actual decision of the British Cabinet to go to war was made before
the matter of Belgian was even mentioned!



The Allies, and particularly Great Britain, by contrast, proved
themselves most capable of adroitly manipulating world opinion by
widespread diffusion of fantastic tales of German villainy. Britain,
of course, had the additional technical advantage of control of the
cables and hence could rigidly censor all news coming to America. As
C. Hartley Grattan expressed it, "honest, unbiased news simply
disappeared out of the American papers along about the middle of
August, 1914."44

Incredible tales of German barbarism in Belgium and France gave rise
to a myth of unique German savagery that continues to color the
thinking of many persons to this day. German soldiers, the world was
gravely informed, amused themselves by cutting off the hands of
Belgian babies. Another oft-repeated tale related how German soldiers
amputated the breasts of Belgian women out of sheer viciousness. A
slightly different variation of this story asserted that the
amputation had been carried out by syphilitic Germans who, having
ravished the women, wished to warn their countrymen thereby. There
were persistent rumors about the crucifixion of Canadian soldiers.
Perhaps the most repulsive and widely circulated of these fabrications
was that concerning a German corpse factory where the bodies of both
Allied and German soldiers killed in battle were allegedly melted down
for fats and other products useful to the German war effort. The fact
that Arthur Ponsonby utterly demolished the canard45 did not prevent
the Soviets from charging again at Nuremberg that during World War II
a "Danzig firm ... constructed an electrically heated tank for making
soap out of human fat."46

Atrocity propaganda was immeasurably effective in the United States
during the first World War. When in the American papers of May 11-12,
1915, which was during the very week following the torpedoing of the
Lusitania, there appeared the notorious Bryce Report on alleged German
atrocities, American indignation at Germany reached a blind and
febrile peak. The membership of the Bryce Committee, appointed by
Parliament to investigate reports of alleged German atrocities,
comprised some of the most distinguished jurists and historians in
great Britain. To Americans it seemed that the chairman, Viscount
Bryce, was one Briton who would never offer himself as the tool of
tendentious propaganda. Bryce was a scholar of profound erudition and
was considered by many to be the ablest foreign student of American
government and institutions.

The "proofs" advanced by the Bryce Committee in support of the wildest
tales of German fiendishness, as well as the methods employed in
gathering them, violated every elementary rule of evidence. Careful
non-German scholars, above all Arthur Ponsonby, have long since
demonstrated the entire project to have been a tissue of distortions
and outright falsehoods.47 Evidently, Bryce and his esteemed
colleagues had few qualms about perverting the truth if it redounded
to the benefit of what they termed the "high cause" of Mother England.
In later years other scholars in both Britain and America would
display a similar willingness to prostitute talent and reputation in
the interest of writing vicious propaganda.

The grave consequences of all this lurid atrocity propaganda can
hardly be exaggerated. Indeed, "propaganda" of atrocities ... might be
said to have contributed more than any other single factor to the
making of a severe peace."48 The extreme severity of that peace, it
should be pointed out, provided certain assurance of the rise of
Hitler or someone like him who would beguile the long-suffering and
much-maligned German people with promises to snap the chains of
slavery forged by the untried and unpunished "war criminals" of
Versailles.

sorry guys unlike some people i guess i have a life that exists
somewhere other than on the internet...i don't have the time to get
dragged into monotonous debate.

On 31 Oct 2003 12:47:35 -0800, (monkey) wrote:

The whole argument of
whether or not the nation was a stated ally is bull****. The US knew
what was going on in both wars for years, knew about all the brutal
**** the axis were doing, and basically ignored it and made money off
it for years while other countries were spilling blood to save
themselves.

Well, the US is isolationist since long and it was not in his
interests to enter war. In wwI, it became only when France & UK were
on the edge of losing and thus being unable to pay their huge loans...
which would have means the end of very large americans banks.
Woodrow Wilson was elected by his promises to not enter war

Nobody ever entered war for nice emotions. France commited troops for
1776 independance war especially because Vergennes (the foreign
relations minister) hated Great Britiain and to take revenge for the
lose of Quebec during the seven years war.


Actually one of the reasons the US population was reluctant to enter
the war was because during the frist world war UK disinformation and
propaganda had created a number of serious anti-german allegations
that were expoosed as fraudulent including and not limited to:

Which is very comprehensive, especially since the horrors of wwI.

which obligated Britain to go to war if France was attacked.
And so off Britain went to war, ostensibly because of an
1839 treaty Britain had signed guaranteeing
Belgium's sovereignty, but in reality because the British elite of
the time had committed itself to the French elite without
any Parliamentary oversight or agreement.

Uk was also very committed in fighting any dominant power who could
take lead of Europe by war, and this since Napoleon. In 1900, and even
before, it was clear than Germany was strong enougth to take the
continent by force. That's why they made an alliance with France.
But basically, UK wasn't drained in the war by France, it was the
result of a policy of security... who unfortunatly backfired for all
country at this time.

Incredible tales of German barbarism in Belgium and France gave rise
to a myth of unique German savagery that continues to color the
thinking of many persons to this day. German soldiers, the world was
gravely informed, amused themselves by cutting off the hands of
Belgian babies.

Remind me the story of iraqies soldiers killing babies in hospitals...
I liked the idea of crucifiction of canadian soldiers, but don't ask
me why.

The NSDAP may not have been popular with the Kriegsmarine, but like good soldiers they obeyed orders from the politicians currently in office.

The "Nazis" didn't usually call themselves "Nazis" but National Socialists (Nationalsozialisten).

Originally Posted by Ron

om...[color=green][i]
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=16866&lang=ru

It isnt even accurate to call them Nazi subs either, since the German Navy was
not a big fan of the Nazis at all.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter