![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article is theoretically on Union Bank -- so why all the anti-Bush stuff? And deleting a comment about this page not being NPOV is absurd -- all it does is prove the reviser is anti-Bush as well. MEanwhile, with Wikipedia being in the cross hairs of potential lawsuits about defamatory material, the editors should probably simply scratch this article entirely. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051211/pl_afp/usinternetitwikipedia_051211131428
Thanks! A person gave me this article as "proof" of the Bush family being Nazis -- which somehow I find to be a dubious use of Wiki! Dec. 12, 2005
Nontheless, this page is about Union bank, so lets make it a seperate page? what do you guys think?
- The article retains it's neutrality. It is stating fact readily obtainable in The National Archives. Prescott Bush was on the Board of Directors and he was in charge of UBC Operations. He would have to know what they were doing, who they were dealing with and where the funds were going and what they were being spent on.
- This isn't a case of Bush bashing as much as a statement of fact relating, which is what Wiki is for. The fact that P.Bush was in cahoots with the Nazis is not pertinent to the relating of the facts in the article but part of the facts. This entry should stand as is.
Nope. Too much silliness exists in Wiki already. Do you really want wiki to be tinfoilcentral? At this point, it may well be. 65.1.6.123 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
As for the POV, I think there's a weakness of emphasis. It does latch onto the Bush connection and let the Harriman family fade into the background. Walker must have been trusted by the Harriman family, but what could he and Precott Bush have done without the Harriman familiy knowing?
I removed statement about "the younger Bush" receiving a Naval pilot commission since it was obviously just thrown into the article and had nothing to do with anything. Plus the reference to "the younger Bush" is ambigious.-- CReynolds 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Was there a corporate connection between the 2 ? 64.229.28.95 11:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the date of the start of auschwitz. The Auschwitz slave labor camp did exist before the nationalization of the Bush-Harriman assets. The infamous AuschwitzII camp was built a little later, construction began less than a year before the nationalization of the Bush-Harriman assets.
from the wiki page on auschwitz: Auschwitz I served as the administrative center for the whole complex. It was founded on May 20, 1940, on the basis of an old Polish brick army barracks.
The entrance to Auschwitz I was - and still is - marked with the sign "Arbeit Macht Frei", or "work makes you free." The camp's prisoners who left the camp during the day for construction or farm labour were made to march through the gate to the sounds of an orchestra. Contrary to what is depicted in several films, the majority of the Jews were imprisoned in the Auschwitz II camp, and did not pass under this sign.
and
Auschwitz II (Birkenau) is the camp that many people know simply as "Auschwitz". It was the site of imprisonment of hundreds of thousands, and of the killing of over one million people, mainly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies.
The Nazis established Auschwitz in April 1940 under the direction of Heinrich Himmler, chief of the SS (Schutzstaffel, armed forces of the Nazi Party NSDAP) and German police and Reich Minister of the Interior. The camp at Auschwitz originally housed political prisoners from occupied Poland and from concentration camps within Germany. Construction of nearby Birkenau (in Polish, Brzezinka), also known as Auschwitz II, began in October 1941
from the article "Adolf Hitler's financiers, the CLN family, formed UBC to manage investments in America." I find nothing regarding the "CLN Family" in a google search. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.81.112.188 ( talk) 06:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
The Union Banking Corporation article is full of factual errors and should be rewritten with rigorous Wikipedia:Verifiability. I propose to begin the rewrite.
The article says that the UBC was founded with George Herbert Walker as President. This is incorrect according to my sources. [1] Whether Walker later became president is easy to verify. Loclaro 23:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The entire article has become a Bush COATRACK. UBC has no other notoriety other than Prescott Bush. It was, in fact, an extremely minor player in anything related to WW II, and if the name "Bush" were not in it, it would be deleted speedily. Collect ( talk) 12:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have the National Archives documents regarding the seizure of UBC and it turns out that it was seized because their liabilities were mostly to Bank voor Handel.Bank voor handel was a Dutch bank that was seized by the Third Reich when they invaded so the Treasury seized UBC assets that were technically Nazi property.The only reason to believe this makes Prescott Bush a Nazi is because some conspiracy theorist said so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsglop ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Dsglop: sources? (NPOV & RS works both ways, my friend)-- 218.248.78.35 ( talk) 16:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You just asked me for my source even though I gave it.THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 ( talk) 05:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Regular editors of this article are displaying pretty blatant POV editing by excluding RS info and misrepresenting RS info in such a way as to give the impression that the activity of this company and Bush was commonplace and benign. Abbarocks ( talk) 15:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It makes no sense and is unacceptable behavior, for one contributor to repeatedly revert [1] RSs, like fox news, which have published articles directly related to this company. Abbarocks ( talk) 15:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, the sources retained completely support the claims for which they are cites. Amazingly enough, every cite you add is about the Bush family specifically, which might cause a person to think the purpose was to make the article about the Bush family.
Collect (
talk)
21:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Union Banking was owned by a Dutch bank, Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaardt N.V., which was "closely affiliated" with the German conglomerate United Steel Works, according to an Oct. 5, 1942, report from the federal Office of Alien Property Custodian. The Dutch bank and the steel firm were part of the business and financial empire of Thyssen and his brother, Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the report said."
I don't see Bush's name there but there is information relevant to Union Banking Corp. Please stop wasting my time with blatantly and easily disproven false assertions. Abbarocks ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This quote is from the source in question: this is important encyclopedic info re: the subject bank which is not available on your approved sources. this makes no mention of Bush.
Try the WP guidelines. "Guilt by association" charges are not looked upon with favor, which is what all of your attempted edits strive for. And edit summaries are NOT for making charges about editors. Thanks!
Collect (
talk)
11:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
You insisted on Thyssen being in the article. Therefore material directly connected with Thyssen should be in, or all of the Thyssen stuff should be out. Your choice. NO evidence of wrongdoing by the UBC was found, and its assets were returned after the war by the Alien Property Custodian. Trying to connect the bank to the Nazi war effort therefore are precisely "guilt by association." Thanks! Collect ( talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Noting your reverts -- you seem to think that your sole opinion is "consensus" which it is not. Either Tyssen is relevant -- in which case the facts about him are as well, or he is not.
Collect (
talk)
16:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at this, I can say there's WP:WEIGHT question about these edits, either way. From my outlook, it may be that one editor is deleting too much and another is putting too much back in. Please talk about that here before carrying on with any back and forth, thanks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that we can have a civilized discourse now (btw,Collect, I'd appreciate no caps or bold type when talking to me). You may not have noticed that Wikipedia:No original research includes the phrase "you must cite reliable sources that are directly related(bold is in the quote) to the topic of the article". I do not agree with you that expropriation of Thyssen's property is directly related to the topic. Abbarocks ( talk) 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The topic of the claim appears to be why UBC was seized. Therefore information pertinent to that is relevant. If the rationale for seizing in not relevant, than Thyssen is irrelevant as well.
Collect (
talk)
23:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The "Buchanan documents" have the actual list of the founders of Union Banking Corporation, which I figure is a sound source for the list. Collect ( talk) 14:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
As I stated in an earlier section,I have the documents regarding the seizure of UBC and Fritz was not an owner of UBC directly or even through Bank voor Handel past 1936 at the latest.His brother Heinrich,who spent most of the war in Switzerland,took Bank voor Handel when the brothers split the family fortune and has no conection to Bush in any way.This whole thing is an attempt by conspiracy theorists to make it appear as though the Bush family is in on some sort of grand scheme to control the world which uses puppets like Hitler to make war and then profit from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 ( talk) 06:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Any page that cites the ADL as a reference, or quote, violates NPOV. The ADL has a terribly contentious & biased history as a propaganda factory. (unsigned)
This is a "non-Bush" angle on the UBC which brings up some new material of historical interest - such as the real reasons why the Nuremberg trials of IG Farben, Krupp and Thyssen-Flick - the three major industrial partners of the Nazis, who supplied explosives and fuel, armaments, and coal and steel to the Nazi war machine.
These three all had major corporate partners in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s, and the while the UBC is just one, the close association with Brown Brothers Harriman means it was high up on the ladder, near the nexus of German & American robber baron cooperation, which also included people like the Dulles Brothers, Walter Teagle of Standard Oil, the DuPont family of corporations, General Motors, Ford, IBM - the list of U.S. corporate support for Nazi interests is shamefully long - and actually became one of the most tense issues behind the scenes at the Nuremberg Trials.
After the war, Averell Harriman, the past ambassador to the Soviet Union, as well as the older brother of Roland Harriman (a UBC director) insisted to Truman that the Soviets were the real threat, and that all German war crimes investigations should be put aside in favor of prosecuting the Cold War. As a result, the Soviets were able to use these facts to great propaganda advantage in Eastern Europe by claiming that the West was in bed with ex-Nazis (which was just true enough to work well as propaganda). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankOlson ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)