Bradford Snell's point in his submission to congress was that the US
government paid reparations to GM after the war. (I recall the figure
$24M.) He also detailed the managerial links between the home office
and the militarized branch plants in Nazi-held territory. His new book
is scheduled to come out shortly, and it will be interesting to see what
he has come up with.
Peter Dorman
James Michael Craven wrote:
>
> On 3 Dec 98 at 9:59, Jim Devine wrote:
>
> does anyone know about the truth of the story (that circulated years ago
> and I think first appeared in RAMPARTS magazine) that the Allied air forces
> deliberately refrained from bombing GM- and Ford-owned factories in greater
> Germany during World War II?
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
>
> Jim,
>
> Sometime ago when I first posted portions of the speech of Parenti, I
> got two messages from a regular reader of pen-l who personally likes
> Parenti and did not want to debunk him but who had been with the
> Eight Air Force in combat over Europe during World War II. He noted
> that they would bomb at 25,000 ft, were continually under fire from
> flak and fighters, were often shit scared and wanted to bomb and get
> out. He noted that precision bombing from that altitude and under
> those conditions would be impossible--to save selected plants. He
> noted further, that the British bombed at night and would have had to
> declare whole cities off-limits to save a few plants. He also noted
> that literally hundreds of aircrews would have had to have been
> briefed--letting them all in on the dirty little secret and risking a
> security leak from someone incensed about treason and aid and comfort
> to the enemy.
>
> Later he wrote that he had found some memorabilia and noted that his
> old bomb group on May 14, 1943 (before he got there) "... the second
> mission of 17 aircraft...bombed General Motors and ford Plants and
> nearby locks at Antwerp Belgium." He said that he had heard the idea
> of off-limits targets (US companies) many times before and found it
> amusing.
>
> I most certainly defer to this gentleman's experience--and courage I
> might add--and find his arguments compelling. But as I wrote back to
> him I also found it very odd that targets would be explicitly named
> in bombing reviews as "General Motors" and "Ford" plants--retaining the
> American names of firms supposedly totally expropriated by the Nazis.
>
> I do believe that Charles Higham--with the assistance of I.F.
> Stone--gave compelling and overwhelming evidence of extensive and
> ongoing contacts/collaboration between American businessmen and even
> government officials and German, Japanese and Italian businessmen and
> officials; and I believe that Higham gave compelling evidence that
> the Ford, GM, Texaco, Standard Oil and other entities in occupied
> territories were anything but expropriated by the nazis.
>
> Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. Perhaps some plants
> were bombed due to their proximity to other strategic targets and
> perhaps others--relatively isolated--were not bombed. In his
> "Sovereign State of ITT", Anthony Samson records that as late as 1967, ITT
> received $27 million for the bombing of the Focke Wulf (fighter)--made
> by ITT indirectly--plants in Hamburg. That alone is a very
> significant finding (An "American" company gets reparations for the
> bombing of a plant manufacturing fighter aircraft shooting down
> American aircraft--priceless).
>
> I know that Parenti is an excellent and careful researcher. On the
> other hand, we have all fallen victim to myths that were honestly and
> innocently transmitted to and by us for the best of reasons.
>
> Jim Craven
>
> James Craven
> Dept. of Economics,Clark College
> 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
> property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
> (Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789)
>
> "To speak of atrocious crimes in mild language is treason to virtue." (Edmund Burke)
>
> "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause
>for
> severity? I will be as harsh as truth,and as uncompromising as justice. On this
>subject,
> I do not wish to think,or speak,or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose
>house
> is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the
>hands
> of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into
>which
> it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am
>in ernest--
> I will not equivocate--I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch--and I
>will be heard.
> (William Lloyd Garrison, 1831, Abolitionist Leader)
>
> *My Employer has no association with My Private and Protected Opinion*
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
