Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: henchman on June 10, 2009, 07:08:17 AM
-
Article from CNN.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/09/sweden.ww2.sub/index.html
-
Interesting find, you tend not to hear as much about Soviet subs, usually it's German, Japaneses, & U.S subs you hear more about. :aok
I wonder who the 4 passengers were that were on it.
-
Question:
If Sweden was neutral in WW2.....why are they claiming "credit" for the sinking? (Along with Finland)
Things dat make ya go hmmmmmm.
-
Question:
If Sweden was neutral in WW2.....why are they claiming "credit" for the sinking? (Along with Finland)
Things dat make ya go hmmmmmm.
Because it was in Swedish waters?
Many people make the mistake of assuming "neutral" means "friendly" when it in most cases means "shoots at everyone". However, Sweden was a de facto German ally in WWII.
-
Question:
If Sweden was neutral in WW2.....why are they claiming "credit" for the sinking? (Along with Finland)
Things dat make ya go hmmmmmm.
Because the swedes defended their borders just like any country would? Don't you remember the swedes depth charging russian u-boats in 80's?
-
WHAT!!!! Posted 7:08 Wednesday morning??No wonder I dont see any gain share pay at work!!!!Instead of working your goofing off on the internet!I am saving this to my "evidence" file for when I present my case to Garry,As soon as he comes back from his big D+D meet in Vegas :aok
I remember when Norway or Sweeden I believe it was caught some Soviet sub in a net during the 80's
Pipz
-
Because it was in Swedish waters?
... However, Sweden was a de facto German ally in WWII.
How did they then allow damaged allied bombers to land in Sweden? :rolleyes:
Anyhow, this event happened already in Jan 1940, when Germany and Soviet Union were still "allied".
This S-2, like other type Stalinets subs, was even designed and built together by Germans and Russians for Soviet Union.
-
One of the passengers was the Commander of 13. submarine divison, Gavril Tutyškin.
-
Isn't it funny how the fact that Russia was the first and biggest supporter of Hitler gets completely overlooked? They were landgrabbing at full force together untill Adolf decided he didn't want to share with Stalin anymore.
-
From common russian perspective WW2 ("The Great Patriotic War", in which they defeated the evil nazies all by themselves) began only in 1941. Before that there were just some insignificant border clashes not worthy of mention :rolleyes:
Claiming otherwise is history distortion.
They just recently founded a commission to monitor the "distortion attempts":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277297306236553.html
-
How did they then allow damaged allied bombers to land in Sweden? :rolleyes:
Land, yes. Take off again, no. The air crews were prisoners until the war was over and the victors were decided.
Sweden stayed neutral because it was more economical and politically necessary to do so, much like the US did prior to Pearl Harbor.
-
Question:
If Sweden was neutral in WW2.....why are they claiming "credit" for the sinking? (Along with Finland)
Things dat make ya go hmmmmmm.
I belive it hit a minefield in swedish waters.
-
Finnish or Swedish waters... Swedish or Finnish mine. The divers have not revealed in public on which side of the border it is, just to protect the wreck from possible thieves... to keep it peaceful at the burial site.
-
Isn't it funny how the fact that Russia was the first and biggest supporter of Hitler gets completely overlooked? They were landgrabbing at full force together untill Adolf decided he didn't want to share with Stalin anymore.
"Western" voices against the Soviets were unfortunately very few and far between after 1941 (Patton comes to mind). The pragmatic view of needing "Uncle Joe" to bleed Hitler's Germany won out very quickly.
Shamefully so, IMO.
-
With the benefit of hindsight a lot of things can be shameful.... or not.
-
Question:
If Sweden was neutral in WW2.....why are they claiming "credit" for the sinking? (Along with Finland)
Things dat make ya go hmmmmmm.
Russians have a nasty habit of not recognizing neutral status of countries or their territory.
ack-ack
-
I have a brilliant idea!
Why dont every country on the planet get a neutral status and noone can attack anyone :aok
Me soooo Einstein
-
Neutrality = Lack of internal power or external support to have an own public opinion about a powerful neighbor's business? :uhoh
-
Neutrality = Lack of internal power or external support to have an own public opinion about a powerful neighbor's business? :uhoh
Or caring more for the wellbeeing of people than picking sides in conflicts that are not black and white.
-
How did they then allow damaged allied bombers to land in Sweden? :rolleyes:
Because officially they were neutral and it was in the Swedes' best interest for it to stay that way. However, Sweden also supplied the Germans with iron ore; escorted German merchant ships in the Baltic; German deserters (from Norway) were handed over to the Germans; Sweden supplied Germany with machinery parts essential to the war effort (especially ball bearings after Schweinfurth), the USAAF and RAF strategic bombing campaign failed in its goal to paralyze German industry largely because the Swedes sold everything the Germans needed. The German invasion of Norway had in essence only one objective: Protect the shipping route for Swedish iron from Allied interdiction. Sweden was also traditionally and culturally friendly with Germany. The Swedish king, Gustav V, was well befriended with many of the high-ranking Nazi leaders; Hermann Göring for example actually received a Knight Grand Cross First Class of the Swedish "Order of the Sword" from the king himself. Just like Spain, Sweden was a de facto German ally, though not militarily engaged in the war.
-
So you are saying that any country that was not officially against Germany and had commercial relations with Germany was "de facto allied with Germany"? e.g. Switzerland?
-
So you are saying that any country that was not officially against Germany and had commercial relations with Germany was "de facto allied with Germany"? e.g. Switzerland?
Well to be honest Switzerland wasn't clean - their banks AFAIK still contain millions worth of nazi gold that was melted from holocaust victims fillings among other sources.
-
Well... there are laws and bank secrets etc. I see some similarity to attorneys who defend guilty murderers or to priests who keep secrets told to them in confessions. Should we call them dirty as well?
-
Some quite interesting and intelligent posts about neutrality and about taking sides on another board:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070629004819AAHzX0P
-
Well... there are laws and bank secrets etc. I see some similarity to attorneys who defend guilty murderers or to priests who keep secrets told to them in confessions. Should we call them dirty as well?
In this case, again AFAIK my info is from documentaries, the Swiss offered a safe haven for the nazi treasure knowing full well what was the origin of the gold. Also, large part of the treasure seems to be unaccounted for after the war..
Someone made a fortune..
-
Russians have a nasty habit of not recognizing neutral status of countries or their territory.
ack-ack
Every time when i see comments about Russians i tend to deffend them,i don't know why. I got nothing out of living in
USSR-Rus.Fed. except for 3 times broken beyond reapair nose and knuckles.
My grand parents highly decorated WW2 solders died in poverty, not even mentioning constant arrests for not being Russian when war in Chechnya broke out.
I need help :x
-
Question:
If Sweden was neutral in WW2.....why are they claiming "credit" for the sinking? (Along with Finland)
Things dat make ya go hmmmmmm.
Because it was in Swedish waters?
Many people make the mistake of assuming "neutral" means "friendly" when it in most cases means "shoots at everyone". However, Sweden was a de facto German ally in WWII.
You two must enjoy the embarrassment you cause yourselves.
-
(http://www.nomansblog.com/wp-content/themes/3ColumnK2/images/gustavgoring.jpg)
The Swedish King Gustaf V and Prince Gustaf Adolf in Berlin 1939 to present a medal to Hermann Göring. More than a medal really, Göring was made a Swedish Knight.
-
Because officially they were neutral and it was in the Swedes' best interest for it to stay that way. However, Sweden also supplied the Germans with iron ore; escorted German merchant ships in the Baltic; German deserters (from Norway) were handed over to the Germans; Sweden supplied Germany with machinery parts essential to the war effort (especially ball bearings after Schweinfurth), the USAAF and RAF strategic bombing campaign failed in its goal to paralyze German industry largely because the Swedes sold everything the Germans needed. The German invasion of Norway had in essence only one objective: Protect the shipping route for Swedish iron from Allied interdiction. Sweden was also traditionally and culturally friendly with Germany. The Swedish king, Gustav V, was well befriended with many of the high-ranking Nazi leaders; Hermann Göring for example actually received a Knight Grand Cross First Class of the Swedish "Order of the Sword" from the king himself. Just like Spain, Sweden was a de facto German ally, though not militarily engaged in the war.
Whoa! Quite a bit true I'm afraid, but some NOT perhaps.... Some things to be added are that lots of the Iron ore was from N-Norway but since the RN was hunting on the North sea, the land route (rail) was much better through Sweden. (From upland Norway there was no heavy transport, - look at a map and you will see why).
Norway also offered a coastal opening to the N-Atlantic, which Sweden does NOT, and I'm afraid you have things turned over, - the capture of Norway offers no benefit in transporting Swedish goods to Germany. Or please explain this statement "Protect the shipping route for Swedish iron from Allied interdiction" ????????????????????? :uhoh
As for the deals, they worked both ways. Sweden would sell to anyone (Just as the USA would have until Pearl), and Sweden DID. Both the RN and the Kriegsmarine were well familiar with Bofors guns for instance. However, Sweden's geographical position was very much favourable for trading with Germany than the UK, who additionally was about bankrupt in 1940...
Now, some little thing in Sweden's favour...
They did also work with the Western allies. Nels Bohr was evacuated from Sweden (?), - anyway, there was a specially equipped Mosquito doing runs from the UK to Sweden. "Special" means that the bomb bay was equipped for carrying a person in the bomb bay on a sort of a bed.
Isn't this aircraft at Hendon BTW??
-
Whoa! Quite a bit true I'm afraid, but some NOT perhaps.... Some things to be added are that lots of the Iron ore was from N-Norway but since the RN was hunting on the North sea, the land route (rail) was much better through Sweden. (From upland Norway there was no heavy transport, - look at a map and you will see why).
Norway also offered a coastal opening to the N-Atlantic, which Sweden does NOT, and I'm afraid you have things turned over, - the capture of Norway offers no benefit in transporting Swedish goods to Germany. Or please explain this statement "Protect the shipping route for Swedish iron from Allied interdiction" ????????????????????? :uhoh
The Swedish mined iron in Kiruna and Malmberget in northern Sweden, and Germany's war effort would be crippled without this ore. During the summer the ore could be sent by freighter to Germany via the Swedish port of Luleĺ in the Gulf of Bothnia. However, when the Gulf of Bothnia froze during the winter, ore shipments had to be shipped from Narvik. The Swedes transported the ore to the Norwegian port of Narvik by rail. The British threatened to mine Norwegian waters (Operation Wilfred) and possibly invading Norway, and that was the main impetus of the German invasion. The British completed Operation Wilfred one day before the German surprise invasion. The critical need for Swedish iron is also why the German campaign focused on capturing Narvik quickly; to prevent sabotage of the port and railway. The Norwegians did mine iron, but not anywhere near the Swedish output. In 1940, iron ore from Sweden and Norway constituted 11,550,000 of the 15,000,000 tons Germany consumed that year; however the total Norwegian ore production in 1939 was only 191,000 tons, or just 1.6% of the Swedish export to Germany.
(http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Lapland1940.png)
-
(Just as the USA would have until Pearl), [/quote] err no. We had cut off trade with Japan due to the barbarity of their Asian empire building. Remember? We froze all the axis money, and trade, long before Pearl harbor as well. In fact it took an Act of Congress to allow the cash and carry Lend Lease to Britian because we had legislation in place that prevented trade with warring parties.
-
Not quite right Rich, America continued to trade with Germany after the German annexation of the Sudetenland and invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and the invasion of Poland in 1939. Despite the British blockade several U.S. companies, such as Ford, continued to do business with the Germans until war was declared between America and Germany.
-
"We froze all the axis money, and trade, long before Pearl harbor as well. In fact it took an Act of Congress to allow the cash and carry Lend Lease to Britian because we had legislation in place that prevented trade with warring parties."
I have not been able to find a source about German money and trade being frozen, but have been looking. However Germany didn't have a particularly good chance of picking anything up due to the RN's embargo.
But Japan, - that I know.
The lend lease act as well. It made it through congress with a stiff resistance and was won with few votes. That was in 1941 if I recall right.
And DieHard, - last time I knew, Lulea is linked to the Swedish rail network, from there it reaches all the way south to Skane and the ports in the south. Sweden spans amazingly though, - from the southern point to the Northern the distance equals the distance from the southern point to Rome.
-
June 1941 if I remember right. Thats when we embargoed everything against Japan except for food. But the real killer was the oil, ore, scrap metal embargo. Its also the same month we froze German and Italian assets. If you'd like I could point you to a search engine as I'm sure these facts are all over the web. Roosevelt was overwhelmingly anti-Axis and by that time so were most Americans. Dont forget that we had a Alien registration act that required all foreign born Germans to register and restricted many of their rights too. While we didn't put them in internment camps en-masse many thousands of foreign born Germans and German Americans did indeed spend the war in camps.
Thats the first I ever heard about Ford Motor Company doing business with Hitler like that. I know both admired the other, at least in the early years. If any of you have any facts and figures to support your claims please post them.
BTW The Lend Lease act passed by 260 to 165 in the House and 60 to 31 in the Senate. The Nays were "nay" because they didn't want anything to do with European wars so dont even suggest they voted "nay" because they were Pro-Nazi.
Yaknow at the Dawn of WW-ll many Euro-nations owed America a ton of money. By then Finland had already defaulted on her loans.
As far as German/American trade, and I dont have exact figures in front of me, but no munitions or weapons could be sold. And from 1 Sept. '39 onward to June 1941 the Germans would have had to transport their own goods thru the Brit controlled north Atlantic, "remember no Yank ship would transport for warring parties in that period". So how much trade could have really taken place? No arms, no Loans, and German merchant marine would have had to hump their own home.
And what the Hitler regime was really going to mean didn't start materializing until Nov. '38 Kristallnacht, 1939 Poland. Our different "neutrality acts", and there were 4 or 5 of them, progressively became more and more anti-Nazi and more and more Pro-France/England. Of course by the time of Lend Lease all pretense was over. America was firmly behind her eventual allies.
I would say the over-running of France was the real turning point in the opinion of the American Public. Before that we both hated the thought of getting dragged into another war in Europe, and like most of the Europeans, thought a peaceful solution was still possible.
The fact is that Germany simply didn't need anything America had anyways. They had access to everything their war machine needed, even after invading Poland. In fact right up to the morning of Barbarossa the trainloads of easterns goods, food stuffs, oil, were still heading into Germany. In fact Germany was drowning in Eastern bloc oil pre-Barbarossa. Almost all her iron ore was supplied by Sweden, Germany was herself a huge coal producer. So again? What were these great Anglo/German trade products?
Now Japan was different. We had already chased Japan out of China in the '20s with an oil/metal embargo. The Jap economy was enslaved to Yank exports.
-
June 1941 if I remember right. Thats when we embargoed everything against Japan except for food. But the real killer was the oil, ore, scrap metal embargo. Its also the same month we froze German and Italian assets. If you'd like I could point you to a search engine as I'm sure these facts are all over the web. Roosevelt was overwhelmingly anti-Axis and by that time so were most Americans. Dont forget that we had a Alien registration act that required all foreign born Germans to register and restricted many of their rights too. While we didn't put them in internment camps en-masse many thousands of foreign born Germans and German Americans did indeed spend the war in camps.
Thats the first I ever heard about Ford Motor Company doing business with Hitler like that. I know both admired the other, at least in the early years. If any of you have any facts and figures to support your claims please post them.
BTW The Lend Lease act passed by 260 to 165 in the House and 60 to 31 in the Senate. The Nays were "nay" because they didn't want anything to do with European wars so dont even suggest they voted "nay" because they were Pro-Nazi.
Yaknow at the Dawn of WW-ll many Euro-nations owed America a ton of money. By then Finland had already defaulted on her loans.
As far as German/American trade, and I dont have exact figures in front of me, but no munitions or weapons could be sold. And from 1 Sept. '39 onward to June 1941 the Germans would have had to transport their own goods thru the Brit controlled north Atlantic, "remember no Yank ship would transport for warring parties in that period". So how much trade could have really taken place? No arms, no Loans, and German merchant marine would have had to hump their own home.
And what the Hitler regime was really going to mean didn't start materializing until Nov. '38 Kristallnacht, 1939 Poland. Our different "neutrality acts", and there were 4 or 5 of them, progressively became more and more anti-Nazi and more and more Pro-France/England. Of course by the time of Lend Lease all pretense was over. America was firmly behind her eventual allies.
I would say the over-running of France was the real turning point in the opinion of the American Public. Before that we both hated the thought of getting dragged into another war in Europe, and like most of the Europeans, thought a peaceful solution was still possible.
The fact is that Germany simply didn't need anything America had anyways. They had access to everything their war machine needed, even after invading Poland. In fact right up to the morning of Barbarossa the trainloads of easterns goods, food stuffs, oil, were still heading into Germany. In fact Germany was drowning in Eastern bloc oil pre-Barbarossa. Almost all her iron ore was supplied by Sweden, Germany was herself a huge coal producer. So again? What were these great Anglo/German trade products?
Now Japan was different. We had already chased Japan out of China in the '20s with an oil/metal embargo. The Jap economy was enslaved to Yank exports.
Hitler had one portrait displayed behind his desk and one portrait only. Who of? Henry Ford.
-
And DieHard, - last time I knew, Lulea is linked to the Swedish rail network, from there it reaches all the way south to Skane and the ports in the south. Sweden spans amazingly though, - from the southern point to the Northern the distance equals the distance from the southern point to Rome.
Your solutions are overly, almost childishly, simplistic. There's a reason why the Swedes built the ore line to Narvik: While Lulea was connected to the rest of the Swedish rail network the ore railway wasn't. Even if the Swedes had connected the two lines he rest of the Swedish rail network could not handle the weight of the heavy ore cars, and even if it could there were no other Swedish ports capable of handling the ore shipments. It took the Swedes more than 20 years to build an efficient ore harbor in Lulea capable of handling one third of the ore mining output. Two thirds of the ore was shipped from Narvik. The LKAB mining company still only has two shipping harbors: Narvik and Lulea.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmbanan
Well Angus?
-
Thats the first I ever heard about Ford Motor Company doing business with Hitler like that. I know both admired the other, at least in the early years. If any of you have any facts and figures to support your claims please post them.
GM and Ford, through their subsidiaries, controlled 70 percent of the German automobile market when war broke out in 1939. Those companies "rapidly retooled themselves to become suppliers of war material to the Germany army," writes Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post.
"When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization programs ever undertaken," observes Dobbs. "It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel — a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary — and flying Opel-built warplanes."
"The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks," according to a 1974 report printed by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. "On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored ‘mule’ 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich’s medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as ‘the backbone of the German Army transportation system.’"
"General Motors was far more important to the Nazi war machine than Switzerland," says researcher Bradford Snell. "Switzerland was just a repository of looted funds, while GM was an integral part of the German war effort. The Nazis could have invaded Poland and Russia without Switzerland. They could not have done so without GM."
After the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939, GM Chairman Alfred P. Sloan commented that the Nazis’ behavior "should not be considered the business of the management of General Motors." The GM plant in Germany was highly profitable. "We have no right to shut down that plant," Sloan declared.
In 1946 General Electric stood accused of criminal conspiracy with Krupp, a major German munitions firm. Their partnership artificially raised the cost of U.S. defense preparations while helping to subsidize Hitler’s rearmament of Germany. The arrangement continued even after Nazi tanks smashed into Poland. Hitler was getting 12 pounds of tungsten carbide at the price the U.S. government was getting one pound. For every pound of the material sold in the U.S., Hitler through Krupp was getting royalties with which he bought more munitions. In 1940, with Europe at war, Krupp arranged to have its royalties from GE collected by a Swiss go-between. GE, its subsidiaries and company officials were found guilty on five counts of criminal conspiracy with Friederich Krupp A.G. of Essen, Germany.
In 1998 Ford spokesman John Spelich defended the company's decision to maintain business ties with Nazi Germany on the grounds that the U.S. government continued to have diplomatic relations with Berlin up until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
-
There is a law suite underway yes? Or there was?
I'll reply to this later as Im in a rush now. Our companies did business with Japan right up to PH too. Only oil and scrap metals were embargoed from them. Trucks and cars have never been considered munitions or weapons, perhaps they should have been.
Old man Ford was a schmuck. Of that we can agree on, as well as the fact wealthy Industrialists little eyes light up when they hear the word "war". Hitler and his regime went totally out of their way to assure big Industry.
America was just then trying to awaken from a terrible market crash, "as was the rest of the world". No Politician, under such circumstances, would easily chase jobs away. And big industry always danced to their own tune, or tried to.
Besides the Nazis took over the Ford plants during the war.
-
Your solutions are overly, almost childishly, simplistic. There's a reason why the Swedes built the ore line to Narvik: While Lulea was connected to the rest of the Swedish rail network the ore railway wasn't. Even if the Swedes had connected the two lines he rest of the Swedish rail network could not handle the weight of the heavy ore cars, and even if it could there were no other Swedish ports capable of handling the ore shipments. It took the Swedes more than 20 years to build an efficient ore harbor in Lulea capable of handling one third of the ore mining output. Two thirds of the ore was shipped from Narvik. The LKAB mining company still only has two shipping harbors: Narvik and Lulea.
Do you have a comparison of the quantity shipped from Lulea vs Narvik? Since the Baltic freezes over in winter, it would be more logical to use Narvik at winter, - the daylight comes to mind there, - or rather the lack of it. After all, Narvik-Germany goes straight across treacherous waters, and the German surface navy could not muster proper escorts there. But again, they weren't exactly expecting their naval affairs to go...as they did.
Childishly simple? I presume that the vital copper ore also went through Narvik or Lulea. From Falun?
-
Oh, DieHard, - your Post on the GM-OPEl-Krupp etc was very..something. Been looking all over for that. Some may get a knot in the stomach about it I guess, but "Thanks" is my take on that :aok
-
Great posts.. Henry Ford was a schmuck :rofl :aok
Isn't it strange when you start looking behind the scenes of
well known WWII history... Shocking stuff!!!
Financial institutions, they are some dirty little buggers aren't
they? Look closer and you'll find that the, Bank of England, JP
Morgan, Chase Manhatten, BOA, and THE US TREASURY, and
THE ENGISH ROYAL FAMILY, all made major transactions with
the Reichbank right up to early 44... Creepy Huh!!!
With all those ppl dead, just thinking about this angle of WWII
history, Makes me feel dirty!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
RC
-
There is a law suite underway yes? Or there was?
Both Ford and GM were investigated after the war, but any charges were later dropped before trial. Ford was sued by Jewish interest groups in the 1990s, but settled out of court.
I'll reply to this later as Im in a rush now. Our companies did business with Japan right up to PH too. Only oil and scrap metals were embargoed from them. Trucks and cars have never been considered munitions or weapons, perhaps they should have been.
No one specified "munitions or weapons", this is what you asked:
"Thats the first I ever heard about Ford Motor Company doing business with Hitler like that. I know both admired the other, at least in the early years. If any of you have any facts and figures to support your claims please post them."
Consider it answered.
Besides the Nazis took over the Ford plants during the war.
Not until war was declared in December 1941, and even then Ford retained control over its assets and production plants in Vichy-France until 1943. Profits were paid trough Swiss banks.
-
Do you have a comparison of the quantity shipped from Lulea vs Narvik?
In the summer about two thirds of the iron ore was shipped from Narvik. In the winter all the ore was shipped from Narvik. You could do some research on this subject yourself you know.
- the daylight comes to mind there, - or rather the lack of it. After all, Narvik-Germany goes straight across treacherous waters, and the German surface navy could not muster proper escorts there.
Norway has a great seafaring history (I've been on a cruise there, beautiful country), and its coastal shipping lanes were well lit by lighthouses. There were no treacherous waters per se. The only threat was the RAF and RN subs, but by invading Norway and building Luftwaffe bases all along the coast the Germans managed to protect most of its shipping in Norwegian waters.
I presume that the vital copper ore also went through Narvik or Lulea. From Falun?
You presume a lot, but apparently know very little. Why don't you simply research these things yourself?
No. The Swedes didn't export copper ore; they refined the ore in Sweden and exported copper bars, which could easily be transported on common freighters or trains or even trucks.
-
A part of research is asking...and asking for sources if needed.
I will take your word for this, but stick to my presuming that then the route would have been the one of hugging the coast, since by treacherous waters I rather meant the RAF and RN. Now there were safe ports en route as well, - Bergen, Stavanger, and then the eastbound turn past Kristianssand, or straight to Denmark. (Kristianssand-Hirtshals some 6 - 8 hrs, or carry on after downwards)
I too have been sailing the North Sea, and in 12 on the Beaufort scale. That alone is quite a show, although it gets very ugly in the Denmark Strait which once was my "workplace". No presuming here though, the North Sea can get very rough.
Now for my "presuming" of copper ore, I must confess it was a tad of a teaser. I knew they exported copper, and that it was needed, there sometimes was a shortage. The route from Falun would be southbound for sure. After all, Sweden has some nice routes from the south leading to Germany. I have sailed those as well, and those would be very much safer vs the RAF. RN...no chance. BTW, Trelleborg-Travemunde would be quicker than the pass of S-Norway past the head of Jutland. (Been on that route as well :D)
It's interesting to put yourself in the boots of the planners who were at this some 70 years ago.
-
Not until war was declared in December 1941, and even then Ford retained control over its assets and production plants in Vichy-France until 1943. Profits were paid trough Swiss banks.
According to the report released by Ford in 1999 in response to a lawsuit filed by former forced slave laborers, Ford had no control over its subsidiary, Ford Werke and did not profit from war time operations at the German plant.
Report summary (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Ford1.html)
Full report (need Adobe Acrobat) (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Ford.pdf)
ack-ack
-
Have you read the report? Even such a nice sanitized PR publication can only sugarcoat the truth:
"After war broke out in September 1939, commercial
transactions between the United States and Germany
were difficult. Ford and Ford-Werke had problems
communicating. In June 1941, the German
government froze all U.S. assets in Germany. A postwar
U.S. military investigation concluded that American
influence over Ford-Werke decreased after the outbreak
of war and ceased altogether in December 1941 with
U.S. entry into the war."
"Soon after the United States entered the war in
December 1941, Ford-Werke was directly regulated by
the Reich Commissioner for the Treatment of Enemy
Property. On May 15, 1942, the Superior Court in
Cologne declared Fo r d - We r ke to be under enemy
influence and appointed Schmidt, a German who had
been a key manager at Ford-Werke since 1926, as custodian."
The fact remains that Ford did indeed do business with the Germans after war broke out. Whether Ford made any profits (they did, but not much) or were responsible for using slave labor is irrelevant.
-
Whoa!
Impressive.
Always reminds me of the little shock I had when I found out that the lend-lease to Britain was passed with a very little majority.
The arms most vital were escort DD's and then a ... lot.
But very much was obsolete, - would have been scrapped had no war on the USA occured, and for the rest, it was both under, at, and above standard.....
-
Whoa!
Impressive.
Always reminds me of the little shock I had when I found out that the lend-lease to Britain was passed with a very little majority.
The arms most vital were escort DD's and then a ... lot.
But very much was obsolete, - would have been scrapped had no war on the USA occured, and for the rest, it was both under, at, and above standard.....
The "opposition" you speak about was opposition to involvement in another European war. The general public, and a pretty big chunk of congress, was against getting involved in another Euro-shenanigan where millions are killed over what? Dont confuse that sentiment with Pro-Nazism because very few Americans were Pro-Nazi. Americas Congress rightly saw passage of Lend Lease as Americas first actual involvement in the war and it didn't play out to well with the public who wanted none of it.
If I had to pick what slice of America had a pro-Nazi bent, at least in the early days, I'd probably pick big Industrialists like Ford who no doubt liked the way Hitler destroyed the German labor unions and enslaved the German worker to his Industrialist master. Then, like every other country, we no doubt had our Jew haters as well. I remember old man Kennedy was a Hitler admirer in the beginning. I dont know what that was about maybe as an Irish Yank he saw Hitler as an antagonist of England and welcomed it. There was fairly significant Nazi/Irish collusion in the war. Or maybe Kennedy was just a flake. Either way his early Pro-Nazi views killed his chances for later public office, tho he was able to later buy an ambassadorship to England.
You seem to state Ford ran its German outfit after PH as if a state of war didn't even exist between America and Germany. And then post evidence it was indeed taken over by the Reich. Which is it? And does anyone here really believe Ford Mo.Co. continued to do business building products for the German war machine even after a state of war existed between us? Such things are called "treason" and we put people to death for it back then.
So I dont know where this thread is going. Hitler had a lot of people fooled until he started persecuting the Jews, killing his own disabled citizenry, and then started a major war. There was no wide scale support for him in America at the time, simply wide scaled distrust at being drawn into another war. The neutrality acts themselves started off as vehicles to keep us out of the conflict, "of course later they became vehicles to lean towards the Democracies involved".
Dont forget that when bullets first started flying in 1938 the US army was only the 18'th biggest in the world. With only 175,000 soldiers all told. The German army had 1.5 million for the invasion of Poland. 2.5 million under arms for the attack on France. So America was hardly a world player at the time.
-
Major corporations have always made huge profits from war. Just look at Haliburton today and who are in the executive board..
-
Rich, the bullets of WW2 started flying in 1939. And that was September. Almost...1940. And while the US army was not up to scratch in manpower, you omit the resources, industrial output, and the geographical location. Something of a mistake here mate, same as the Japanese high command did....
Here:
"The "opposition" you speak about was opposition to involvement in another European war. The general public, and a pretty big chunk of congress, was against getting involved in another Euro-shenanigan where millions are killed over what? Dont confuse that sentiment with Pro-Nazism because very few Americans were Pro-Nazi. Americas Congress rightly saw passage of Lend Lease as Americas first actual involvement in the war and it didn't play out to well with the public who wanted none of it."
The "Opposition" was almost half of your political force voting AGAINST LEND-LEASING arms (of which very much was WWI vintage) to the British as late as 1941. What made the difference was Roosevelt. This could have gone the other way without the push of the president. Would perhaps have turned history otherwise, and if it hadn't, it would still be interesting, - the day the US senate flushed the proposal of lend-leasing military accessories to the only power in the world fighting the Axis at the time.
Some nice figures in the opposition camp (not necessarily senate members) would count as one Kennedy and Lindberg.
The deal had nothing to do with cannon feeding in land warfare, and included a pre-payment in gold (picked up in S-Africa) as well as the USA getting UK bases....and very much more.
You can call it neutralism, - maybe it was. Or an amalgam of that and opportunitism...
-
You seem to state Ford ran its German outfit after PH as if a state of war didn't even exist between America and Germany. And then post evidence it was indeed taken over by the Reich. Which is it? And does anyone here really believe Ford Mo.Co. continued to do business building products for the German war machine even after a state of war existed between us? Such things are called "treason" and we put people to death for it back then.
You're right. There is no supporting evidence that Ford had any control over Fordwerke after the Germans took it over or the US executives had any knowledge of the use of slave labor.
So I dont know where this thread is going. Hitler had a lot of people fooled until he started persecuting the Jews, killing his own disabled citizenry, and then started a major war. There was no wide scale support for him in America at the time, simply wide scaled distrust at being drawn into another war. The neutrality acts themselves started off as vehicles to keep us out of the conflict, "of course later they became vehicles to lean towards the Democracies involved".
There was popular support for Nazi Germany prior to 1941 in the United States, one of the most vocal US supporters was Charles Lindburgh.
ack-ack
-
You're right. There is no supporting evidence that Ford had any control over Fordwerke after the Germans took it over or the US executives had any knowledge of the use of slave labor.
Quite correct, but the Germans didn't take over Ford-Werke until war was declared between Germany and the U.S. in December 1941. The world war started in 1939, and Germany started invading countries in 1938. Also Ford continued to exact some control over Ford Of France in Vichy-France until at least November 1942. The Ford report you posted corroborates this. So the original argument by Rich that U.S. companies didn't trade with warring parties due to legislation prior to the lend-lease deals is incorrect. Several U.S. companies, including Ford, were instrumental in arming Nazi Germany in the 1930s and continued to do business with Germany long after the war started. That is an incontrovertible fact.
-
...And a sad fact.
Doesn't exactly hit all history books though.
-
Although the original topic is completely lost, these are some of the most interesting posts I've read in a long time. Thanks for all the info. :salute
-
Although the original topic is completely lost, these are some of the most interesting posts I've read in a long time. Thanks for all the info. :salute
I agree. I just posted an article i saw on CNN, and it turned into some interesting reading. Thanks Fellas. :aok