Did the US support Nazi-Germany?

[trekker]

hese ships continued to carry oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where they refueled and siphoned oil to German tankers for shipment to Hamburg.

How did the German tankers avoid being caught by the British, they were fair game all the way from Canary Islands to Hamburg

The answer can be found with further investigation, there's no other way.

acquire 500 tons of tetraethyl lead from Ethyl, a British Standard subsidiary. A year later, Schmitz returned to London and obtained an additional 15 million dollars worth of tetraethyl lead which was to be turned into aviation gasoline back in Germany.

So it was a British company supplying the tetraethl lead, do we need a new topic (Did the British Support Nazi Germany) along with all the other countries mentioned

I don't think so. Checking aditional sources reveals that »British Standard subsidiary« is wrong but the rest of the information is confirmed. Here's about Ethyl Corporation and tetraethyllead for Germans:

»Ethyl Corporation is a fuel additive company headquartered in Richmond, Virginia in the United States. The company is a distributor of fuel additives. Among other products, Ethyl Corporation distributes tetraethyllead, a gasoline antiknock additive.
/.../
Founded in 1923,[3][4] Ethyl Corp was formed by General Motors and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Esso). General Motors had the "use patent" for tetraethyllead (TEL) as an antiknock, based on the work of Thomas Midgley, Jr., Charles Kettering, and later Charles Allen Thomas,[5]:340-41 and Esso had the patent for the manufacture of TEL. Since the patents affected the marketing of TEL, General Motors and ESSO formed Ethyl Corp; each parent company had a 50% stake in the new corporation. Since neither company had chemical plant experience, they hired Dupont to operate the manufacturing facilities. After patents ran out, Dupont started manufacture of TEL on their own, and Ethyl started running its own operations.«
Source:
Wikipedia: Ethyl Corporation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_Corporation

»Unfortunately, Germany's own tetraethyl lead plants were not scheduled to be ready until late 1939, more than a year away. The Air Ministry, fully aware of I.G.'s relationship with Standard Oil, requested Krauch to use his position in I.G. to borrow 500 tons of the desperately needed gasoline additive from its American partner.
/.../
Immediately, three of I.G.'s senior officials, Krauch, Schmitz, and Knieriem, traveled to London to negotiate the loan. There they met with officials of the Ethyl Export Corporation, a Standard Oil affiliate /.../ In any event, I.G. accomplished its mission for the Luftwaffe without mishap. It informed the Air Ministry on July 8 that the Ethyl Export Corporation would begin shipping the tetraethyl lead within the month. 3 The delivery was completed before the Czech invasion, materially strengthening Hitler's hand in the confrontation with Chamberlain and Deladier.
Some years earlier an American concern, the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation (owned fifty percent each by Standard Oil and General Motors), had become the principal developer of the technology of tetraethyl lead and its foremost if not exclusive producer. In the middle thirties, when the Nazi rearmament effort was gaining momentum, it became obvious to I.G. that Germany must have a tetraethyl lead capacity of its own. Without it the Luftwaffe would be seriously handicapped. Through the good offices of its cartel partner, Standard Oil, I.G. approached the Ethyl Gasoline Corporation with the suggestion that they enter into a partnership to build tetraethyl plants in Germany. The Ethyl Corporation was receptive and before long negotiations got under way.
/.../
At its conclusion Ethyl and I.G. entered an agreement to form a jointly owned company, Ethyl GmbH, to build and operate the tetraethyl lead plants in Germany. After studying the matter, the U.S. War Department expressed no objection and the joint enterprise was put into operation. These plants were not quite ready when Hitler was preparing his move into Czechoslovakia--hence the need to acquire the tetraethyl lead through Standard.«
Source:
The Marriage of I.G. and Standard Oil under Hitler at http://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/upl ... rriage.htm

»On September 22,1947, Judge Charles Clark delivered the final word on the subject. He said, ''Standard Oil can be considered an enemy national in view of its relationships with I.G. Farben-after the United States and Germany had become active enemies." The appeal was denied.«
Source:
excerpts from the book: Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi - American Money Plot 1933-1949 by Charles Higham, Delacorte Press, 1983, available at http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fasci ... erpts.html

[Hoist40]

So nothing about the US supporting Nazi Germany, just trade deals by international corporations.

[Leo Niehorster]

General Motors (GM) certainly profited from German war-time production. I don't think this can really be considered as supporting the Nazis. Depends on who you ask, of course.

By 1931, GM owned 100% of Adam Opel AG (Opel) in Germany. Even though GM and Opel ostensibly severed ties with each other after America entered the war — connections between Opel and General Motors were not entirely broken and profits during this time were administered by J.P Morgan. In 1939, the German government assumed control of Opel's production, but GM retained 100% ownership and maintained two American executives on the Board of Directors. Opel's profits during those war years were used to acquire other companies and properties in Germany. Furthermore, under a ruling by the US Treasury Department concerning assets in enemy hands — under which American companies were allowed to write off their investment against taxable income — GM took a complete tax write-off worth about $22.7 million. However, after the war, all of Opel and its acquired assets were absorbed by GM. Also after the war, GM collected some $33 million in reparations because the Allies had bombed its German facilities.


On the other hand — even though Henry Ford was known for his pro-Nazi leanings — the 100% owned Ford-Werke AG (Fordwerke) manufacturing motor vehicles since 1926 in Germany, made no profits during WWII. After 1939, when the Germany government took over of control of the Fordwerke operations, Ford was left with 52% ownership over its German company, but with no say over day-to-day operations. The US government only paid $1.1 million in consideration of bombing damage in Germany.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi trekker,

You write, "The answer can be found with further investigation, there's no other way."

This is a classic conspiracist defence.

1) First the proposer puts forward a proposition without any primary source or hard facts capable of investigation.

2) This is then shot to pieces by the more informed people (like Ironmachine, Hoist 40 or Leo Niehorster).

3) The proposer then unilaterally declares a draw by suggesing that further research is necessary!

Nope!

What is needed is for the proposer to come up with some hard facts and primary sources in the first place. Only then is the proposition worth following up.

In this case, there is, as yet, absolutely nothing substantive to require further investigation.

Cheers,

Sid.

[trekker]

Hi trekker,

You write, "The answer can be found with further investigation, there's no other way."

This is a classic conspiracist defence.

1) First the proposer puts forward a proposition without any primary source or hard facts capable of investigation.

2) This is then shot to pieces by the more informed people (like Ironmachine, Hoist 40 or Leo Niehorster).

3) The proposer then unilaterally declares a draw by suggesing that further research is necessary!

Nope!

What is needed is for the proposer to come up with some hard facts and primary sources in the first place. Only then is the proposition worth following up.

In this case, there is, as yet, absolutely nothing substantive to require further investigation.

Cheers,

Sid.

"The answer can be found with further investigation, there's no other way." was put as a general truth valid for anyone who is inquiring into unknown and at the same time as an acknowlegement that nothing more can be offered at the moment from my side. You could disregard it completely or you could take it as an invitation to investigate yourself for an answer to your reasonable doubts (that's hardly knowledge: „How did the German tankers avoid being caught by the British, they were fair game all the way from Canary Islands to Hamburg.“) I certainly couldn't imagine you'd see it as my draw – a draw from what? I posted an information in line with the topic and added its source. You are free to declare it not worth following up but to demand „the proposer to come up with some hard facts and primary sources in the first place“ is indecent behaviour. You haven't posted any primary sourcers yourself even though you are one of „the more informed people.“

Regards.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi trekker,

Early in the war perhaps half of all German merchant vessels made it home via the Iceland Gap, because the war broke out too late in the year for the British to equip enough armed merchant cruisers to cover it before the long nights of the northern winter provided cover.

In mid 1940 the Germans took over the French Atlantic coast, which gave an easier run using French, Spanish and Portuguese waters. There was therefore no need to go to Hamburg.

From memory, there were only one or two German tankers interned in the Canaries, one of which, at least, (Charlotte Schlieman?) was used to secretly resupply a few U-boats. However, the tanker were already loaded when war broke out.

There is nothingby way of "indecent behaviour" in requesting "the proposer to come up with some hard facts and primary sources in the first place“. Such practice is normal.

You offer no dates, no ship names, nor anything else to support the proposition about the German tankers in the Canaries.

For a start, if you could tell us which tankers you believe made it from the Canaries to Hamburg, and/or when, we might have something to check, but at present we don't.

I am flattered that you consider me "one of the more informed people", but I did not include myself in the list.

There is nothing to investgate until we have a few hard facts to check. Their provision is down to the proposer.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Ironmachine]

At least the part about "These ships continued to carry oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where they refueled and siphoned oil to German tankers for shipment to Hamburg" seems indeed to be not worth following up. I have never seen any reference to such activities in Spanish sources. See for example Colaboración Naval Hispano-Alemana en Canarias durante la II Guerra Mundial by Juan José Díaz Benítez (which IMHO is a much better reference that the completely unsourced on-line article that you posted).

[Hoist40]

General Motors (GM) certainly profited from German war-time production. I don't think this can really be considered as supporting the Nazis. Depends on who you ask, of course.

By 1931, GM owned 100% of Adam Opel AG (Opel) in Germany. Even though GM and Opel ostensibly severed ties with each other after America entered the war — connections between Opel and General Motors were not entirely broken and profits during this time were administered by J.P Morgan. In 1939, the German government assumed control of Opel's production, but GM retained 100% ownership and maintained two American executives on the Board of Directors. Opel's profits during those war years were used to acquire other companies and properties in Germany. Furthermore, under a ruling by the US Treasury Department concerning assets in enemy hands — under which American companies were allowed to write off their investment against taxable income — GM took a complete tax write-off worth about $22.7 million. However, after the war, all of Opel and its acquired assets were absorbed by GM. Also after the war, GM collected some $33 million in reparations because the Allies had bombed its German facilities.


On the other hand — even though Henry Ford was known for his pro-Nazi leanings — the 100% owned Ford-Werke AG (Fordwerke) manufacturing motor vehicles since 1926 in Germany, made no profits during WWII. After 1939, when the Germany government took over of control of the Fordwerke operations, Ford was left with 52% ownership over its German company, but with no say over day-to-day operations. The US government only paid $1.1 million in consideration of bombing damage in Germany.

I still don't see any evidence where the "US support Nazi Germany". I see trade and tax laws. If that is all you need then you argue about all sorts of countries "supporting Soviet Union". Or even ISIS since they are exporting oil and it ends up somewhere, maybe in your gas tank. Are you a ISIS supporter?

Are you arguing that the US government should have made all trade and other contracts with Germany after 1933 illegal? 1936 or 1939 or 1941?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Hoist 40,

I think "I don't think this can really be considered as supporting the Nazis." probably answers your questions.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Ironmachine]

one of which, at least, (Charlotte Schlieman?) was used to secretly resupply a few U-boats.

It was the Corrientes.

[trekker]

Dear Sid,

Referring to your posts regarding our discussion I would like to add the following:
A) General
1) I do agree that ultimately any information has to be based on primary sources.
2) It is an obvious state of matter that discussion on AHF is normally based on secondary sources. Discussing on strictly primary sources is just not an established standard.

B) Particular
3) The particular point of discussion is about Standard oil's ships carriyng oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where they refueled and siphoned oil to German tankers for shipment to Hamburg.
4) I mentioned that information based on a few secondary sources. After additional checking I see there are many more secondary sources stating the same, both in web sites and published books.
5) As I can understand authors mentioning that oil from the Canary Isand was shipped to Hamburg ultimately refer to the same source - Higham, Charles: Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1947. New York: Delacorte, 1983
6) If there are any primary sources they must have been found and cited by Charles Higham in his book. Unfortunately, that book is unavailable to me – I can't find in libraries and I don't intend to buy it.
7) I do not act as a proposer on this subject as I am not enough informed about it and I have already mentioned that in the beginning. I am aware of the fact that information in secondary sources depends on how much by extent and exactness their authors used primary sources. It seems that on this particular issue most (all?) of them have been limited to Charles Higham.
8) Based on your posts I take into account that Higham's information may be wrong. I don't know about your primary sources and I don't ask you to mention them. I realize that discussing on strictly primary sources is not an established standard on AHF and serves as a tool.

Best regards.

P.S.
I'll be off for a week.

[Ironmachine]

6) If there are any primary sources they must have been found and cited by Charles Higham in his book. Unfortunately, that book is unavailable to me – I can't find in libraries and I don't intend to buy it.

IIRC, the book does not have references to sources throughout the main text, so it will be a very hard work to look through all its sources to see if there is anything that substantiates this particular claim.
Also, Charles Higham's credentials are not what I would expect for an expert in the field. He was mainly known as a poet and biographer of Hollywood cinema stars. Of particular interest in the matter that concerns us is the following story, taken from his wikipedia entry:

In 1980, Higham's "most sensational work",[1] Errol Flynn: The Untold Story appeared. In this work he alleged that Errol Flynn was a bisexual fascist sympathizer who spied for the Nazis before and during World War II[12] and had affairs with Tyrone Power, Howard Hughes, and Truman Capote among others.[8]
Tony Thomas, in Errol Flynn: The Spy Who Never Was (Citadel, 1990) and Buster Wiles in My Days With Errol Flynn: The Autobiography of a Stuntman (Roundtable, 1988) identified Higham's claims as fabrications, an assertion substantiated by viewing the FBI documents, which were altered – rather than quoted verbatim – by Higham.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Trekker,

Spain had only one oil refinery - in the Canaries. Therefore all US oil imports requiring refining went there. This was so in peacetime as well, and is completely unrelated to the presence, or otherwise, of interned German tankers. Above, Hoist40 provided what currently appears to be the definitive study at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12228. This explains the refinery issue.

The German tanker in the Canaries, Charlotte Schliemann, put in there at the outbreak of war. She was already fully loaded with oil from Aruba. She did, in later years, provide fuel to German raiders and U-boats, but this was from her existing load or was picked up in the Far East. She apparently never went to Hamburg. (http://www.hmsrelentless.co.uk/opcanned.pdf)

As Ironmachine points out, Higham is neither particularly qualified, nor reliable.

Cheers,

Sid.

[GregSingh]

Has anyone looked closer into claim that German plants linked to major US corporations were excluded from bombing? Sutton gives several examples of these. So who exactly influenced Bomber Commands?

[ljadw]

One should never use Sutton as a source : the man was a conspirationalist and a phantast .