It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PROOF that British Royals are German Nazis

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
The House of Windsor is the current royal house of the Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on the 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of his family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during World War I. Currently, the most prominent member of the House of Windsor is Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch of the Commonwealth realms.

It's long winded, but for those DENIERS, here's 100% total proof!

The house of Windsor springs from the marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert in 1840. He was the son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Germany and his name became that used by the British royal family.
click for origin

David Irving comments:

THUS, four days late, The Sunday Times, London, though without acknowledgment, picks up the threads of the story I revealed on January 13 -- Hermann Göring's birthday, as folks of a certain age will recall.
They have still played down Prince Philip's other next of kin -- the gauleiters and SS generals who married all his sisters, all of whom lived in Nazi Germany during WW2.
I wonder why.

A bit of a mouthful, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha turned out not to be Albert's real surname, which was Wettin, the name of another aristocratic German dynasty.

It was only in 1917 that George V, worried by the anti-German feeling caused by the first world war, ordered the royal family to scrap Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Wettin for Windsor.

Matters are still not that simple. The name of the royal house is Windsor, but the surname of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh [Prince Philip] is Mountbatten-Windsor. The duke is also from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg and so, arguably, are his heirs.

However, more embarrassing than names the length of a bus are the family's links to Nazi Germany. The duke is Greek and some of his relatives sympathised with the Nazis; others joined them.

One brother-in-law, Prince Christoph of Hesse, was a member of the SS and flew fighters that attacked allied troops in Italy. In fact, so many of Philip's relatives had Nazi links that when he married Princess Elizabeth he was severely limited on the guests he could invite.

Like most of the British aristocracy in the 1930s, George VI and his wife, the late Queen Mother, hoped to avoid war with Germany. The king sent birthday greetings to Hitler weeks before Germany invaded Poland.

More notoriously, his brother, the former King Edward VIII, who became the Duke of Windsor after abdicating in 1936, was sympathetic towards Hitler. Even in 1970 he told one interviewer: "I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap."

The duke and his wife, Wallis Simpson, had visited Germany in 1937 and were taken to meet the Führer. When they left, Hitler said of Simpson: "She would have made a good Queen."

Suspicions lingered that if Hitler had successfully invaded Britain, he might have tried to make the duke king again. Confidential files released in 2003 revealed that Nazi officials thought the duke was "no enemy to Germany" and would be the "logical director of England's destiny after the war".

Last year files released from the national archives revealed how a former head of British naval intelligence thought the duke's return was a real possibility. The British admiral, who had attended Hitler's 1937 Nuremberg rally, featured in an MI5 report as having said that Hitler "would soon be in this country, but that there was no reason to worry about it because he would bring the Duke of Windsor over as king".

Other royals also had links to the Nazis. Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, the father of Princess Michael of Kent, was a party member and an honorary member of the SS. And the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, was a Nazi who said that Hitler had done a "wonderful job".

Thoughts?

edit on 1-7-2011 by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
edit on 7/1/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Woah cheers for that mate, interesting!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by eldard
 


Excellent link to an EXcellent thread, by Proto.

Nothing, and I mean... nothing surprises me anymore, about anything.

Still a good enough topic to be isolated itself, I 'spose.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM
David Irving comments:


David Irving? you believe anything he writes?

remember this?

Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead.12 Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present.

www.holocaustdenialontrial.org...



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I may have missed your points, but what I got from that is that British nobility was interrelated with German nobility and that King Edward VII, who abdicated 75 years ago, found Hitler to be pleasant or not so bad.

Your headline claims that multiple British Royals are still, today, Nazis. I just can't go that far without more evidence.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Your headline claims that multiple British Royals are still, today, Nazis. I just can't go that far without more evidence.


You honestly believe Harry was photographed wearing that swastika and the press were allowed to publish it without Her Majesty's approval?

By the time you get your "evidence" and "proof" it will be far, far too late...
edit on 1/7/11 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I may have missed your points, but what I got from that is that British nobility was interrelated with German nobility and that King Edward VII, who abdicated 75 years ago, found Hitler to be pleasant or not so bad.

Your headline claims that multiple British Royals are still, today, Nazis. I just can't go that far without more evidence.


Yes, well William and Kate got married on the same day (29 april) (66 years apart) that Hitler and Eva got married

Need any more proof that they are still in touch with old roots?

Oh yes, May day, the 1st of may, birth of the illuminati is also the day that
Worlds most wanted man, Hitler, was ANNOUNCED dead (1st may 1945)
Worlds most wanted man , Bin laden, was ANNOUNCED dead (1st may 2011)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by charles1952
Your headline claims that multiple British Royals are still, today, Nazis. I just can't go that far without more evidence.


You honestly believe Harry was photographed wearing that swastika and the press were allowed to publish it without Her Majesty's approval?

By the time you get your "evidence" and "proof" it will be far, far too late...
edit on 1/7/11 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)


Exactly


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
edit on 7/1/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM
David Irving comments:


David Irving? you believe anything he writes?

remember this?

Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead.12 Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present.

www.holocaustdenialontrial.org...


No but instead of trying to pick apart my thread, you'll find out all these facts are in the public domain.

Dont shoot the messenger



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


You do realise that in the UK the press have the freedom to write what they want, and as some of the papers accused the monarchy of having a hand in Princess Dianas death then there is proof the monarchy has no say in what the papers print at all.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
There is NO PROOF that British Royals ARE German Nazi's.
Our Royal family has German ancestry that's correct - It's no shock that it may have contained the odd Nazi supporter. England's been kinda Anglo - Saxon you know.
Being related to a Nazi does not make YOU one. If that's the case It's possible alot of us are in trouble and we don't even know it.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 

Dear NuclearPaul,

Thank you for reminding me of a point I should have made. I came into this thread with absolutely no prior knowledge, that's why it attracted me. I have no information about who was wearing a swastika or when. I was basing everything on the OP.

I am also not familiar with press restrictions in the UK, but I suspect that embarassing photos make it into the papers of most free countries from time to time.

I'm still open to learn.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM
David Irving comments:


David Irving? you believe anything he writes?

remember this?

Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead.12 Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present.

www.holocaustdenialontrial.org...


sorry, you're propaganda won't work today, I have watched David Irving speeches and he is a brilliant man and has a wily sense of humor. People are just pissed at him because in his history of world war 2 which is considered very scholarly he does not mention the holocaust because there are no official records of it. What's sad about the whole "let's burn Irving at the stake" crowd is that he isn't really even a holocaust denier. Nothing compared to this site for example:www.holocaustdenialvideos.com...

When I first clicked on this thread, I wondered why it was in the "skunk works section" (i.e. the Lesser Degree Hoax section), but when I saw Irving's name I completely understood, unless the OP intentionally placed this thread in the skunk works section although I don't know why anyone would willingly do that.


edit on 1-7-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Does this article from one of Britains biggest newspapers look like the Monarchy control the media to you?

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by eldard
 





www.abovetopsecret.com... ALL Roads Lead to Rome


Very good you are correct it is just the tip of a HUGE iceberg.

Here is more:


The Dark Roots of EUGENICS By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
www.crossroad.to...

.....during the 1870s, Oxford lecturer John Ruskin would instill in his students, like Cecil Rhodes, the concept that they were “the best northern blood” and should rule the world. Rhodes scholarships were not only given to students from America and Commonwealth nations, but also to those from Germany beginning in the very early 1900s. Germans at this time were also being conditioned to see historical progression in terms of “blood and land,” a sort of Teutonic knighthood descended from the Aryans. In 1914, Madame Blavatsky’s Aryan doctrine had spread through Germany and Austria, and it was from her writings that a young Adolph Hitler learned the meaning of the Aryan swastika. [So it was from BRITIAN the whole mess started in the first place
]

By this time, eugenics was a growing international movement with the first International Congress of Eugenics held in 1912 with Vice-Presidents Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Skull & Bones member Gifford Pinchot, and former Harvard University president Charles Eliot.

In this same year, eugenics proponent Woodrow Wilson signed into law a brutal sterilization act, and the next year eugenics adherent Theodore Roosevelt wrote of the need to improve “racial qualities.”....

Men of wealth like Andrew Carnegie and the Rockefellers played an important part in funding the eugenics movement. In 1904, the Carnegie Institution, with Skull & Bones member Daniel Coit Gilman as president, financed the establishment of a biological experiment station related to eugenics at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. In 1910, the Eugenics Record Office was begun there and later received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation after John D. Rockefeller, Jr. formed the Bureau of Social Hygiene.

It was during this time of the early 20th Century that Rockefeller introduced Margaret Sanger to the monied elite who would help her form the Birth Control League which would later become Planned Parenthood....

After WWII and the Nazis’ “supposed” defeat, you would think the world would find the Nazi philosophy abhorrent. However, when Fabian Socialist Sir Julian Huxley became the first Director-General of UNESCO, he authored UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY (1948) in which he revealed that


“even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

www.crossroad.to...


The Fabians, mentioned above, were very much PRO-HITLER.
George Bernard Shaw was a founding member of the Fabian Society this is what he had to say:
from the Real George Bernard Shaw



EXTERMINATION OF THE “SOCIALLY INCOMPATIBLE”

“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910

KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE”

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

You can search "george bernard shaw defends hitler" and find thousands of hits.

So who are the Fabians today?
Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was
Chairman of the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society Literally Controls the European Union

What about the USA? Our top Banking and corporate CEOs are educated in the Fabians London School of Economics as well as our politicians. see: www.modernhistoryproject.org...

And then there is the Rockefellers:



...In the early half of the 20th century, petrochemical giants organized a coup on the medical research facilities, hospitals and universities. The Rockefeller family sponsored research and donated sums to universities and medical schools which had drug based research. They further extended this policy to foreign universities and medical schools where research was drug based through their "International Education Board". Establishments and research which were were not drug based were refused funding and soon dissolved in favor of the lucrative pharmaceutical industry. In 1939 a "Drug Trust" alliance was formed by the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company IG Farben (Bayer)....

Auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human history. However, few people are aware that Auschwitz was a 100% subsidiary of IG Farben.



...After WWII, IG Farben attempted to shake its abominable image through corporate restructuring and renaming. So great has been their success that the public has no idea that it many of the men responsible for such atrocities, were able to carry on their work even after the collapse of the Nazi regime. Namely, a medical paradigm that relies almost exclusively highly toxic drugs. Such men were in control of the large chemical and pharmaceutical companies, both well before and after Hitler. The Nuremberg Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes. Incredibly, most of them had been released by 1951 and continued to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved IG Farben into Bayer, Hoechst and BASF, each company 20 times as large as IG Farben in 1944. For almost three decades after WWII, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (Aventis) filled their highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime. Bayer has been sued by survivors of medical experiments.... www.sourcewatch.org...


As I said the tip of a nasty smelly iceberg.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by charles1952
Your headline claims that multiple British Royals are still, today, Nazis. I just can't go that far without more evidence.


You honestly believe Harry was photographed wearing that swastika and the press were allowed to publish it without Her Majesty's approval?

By the time you get your "evidence" and "proof" it will be far, far too late...
edit on 1/7/11 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)


It was my understanding the photo was leaked.
The boy was at a private party. His outfit was in poor taste considering who he is, but I'm sure he never expected it to come out. Hell I went out in my Nazi tunic & not much else last halloween and nobody batted an eyelid not even the lovely old geezers in the other little pub we looked into. To be fair they were more interested in where the hell I got it from.

Oh my God! I just realised I'm sticking up for the Royal Family.
I feel peculiar...I should go and have a lie down.


edit on 1-7-2011 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


You do realise that in the UK the press have the freedom to write what they want, and as some of the papers accused the monarchy of having a hand in Princess Dianas death then there is proof the monarchy has no say in what the papers print at all.


The monarchy controls some editors, some papers... but no... you can't fool ALL the people ALL the time

BBC and ITV are the worst



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by eldard
 





www.abovetopsecret.com... ALL Roads Lead to Rome


Very good you are correct it is just the tip of a HUGE iceberg.

Here is more:


The Dark Roots of EUGENICS By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
www.crossroad.to...

.....during the 1870s, Oxford lecturer John Ruskin would instill in his students, like Cecil Rhodes, the concept that they were “the best northern blood” and should rule the world. Rhodes scholarships were not only given to students from America and Commonwealth nations, but also to those from Germany beginning in the very early 1900s. Germans at this time were also being conditioned to see historical progression in terms of “blood and land,” a sort of Teutonic knighthood descended from the Aryans. In 1914, Madame Blavatsky’s Aryan doctrine had spread through Germany and Austria, and it was from her writings that a young Adolph Hitler learned the meaning of the Aryan swastika. [So it was from BRITIAN the whole mess started in the first place
]

By this time, eugenics was a growing international movement with the first International Congress of Eugenics held in 1912 with Vice-Presidents Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Skull & Bones member Gifford Pinchot, and former Harvard University president Charles Eliot.

In this same year, eugenics proponent Woodrow Wilson signed into law a brutal sterilization act, and the next year eugenics adherent Theodore Roosevelt wrote of the need to improve “racial qualities.”....

Men of wealth like Andrew Carnegie and the Rockefellers played an important part in funding the eugenics movement. In 1904, the Carnegie Institution, with Skull & Bones member Daniel Coit Gilman as president, financed the establishment of a biological experiment station related to eugenics at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. In 1910, the Eugenics Record Office was begun there and later received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation after John D. Rockefeller, Jr. formed the Bureau of Social Hygiene.

It was during this time of the early 20th Century that Rockefeller introduced Margaret Sanger to the monied elite who would help her form the Birth Control League which would later become Planned Parenthood....

After WWII and the Nazis’ “supposed” defeat, you would think the world would find the Nazi philosophy abhorrent. However, when Fabian Socialist Sir Julian Huxley became the first Director-General of UNESCO, he authored UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY (1948) in which he revealed that


“even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

www.crossroad.to...


The Fabians, mentioned above, were very much PRO-HITLER.
George Bernard Shaw was a founding member of the Fabian Society this is what he had to say:
from the Real George Bernard Shaw



EXTERMINATION OF THE “SOCIALLY INCOMPATIBLE”

“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface
“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910

KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE”

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

You can search "george bernard shaw defends hitler" and find thousands of hits.

So who are the Fabians today?
Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was
Chairman of the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society Literally Controls the European Union

What about the USA? Our top Banking and corporate CEOs are educated in the Fabians London School of Economics as well as our politicians. see: www.modernhistoryproject.org...

And then there is the Rockefellers:



...In the early half of the 20th century, petrochemical giants organized a coup on the medical research facilities, hospitals and universities. The Rockefeller family sponsored research and donated sums to universities and medical schools which had drug based research. They further extended this policy to foreign universities and medical schools where research was drug based through their "International Education Board". Establishments and research which were were not drug based were refused funding and soon dissolved in favor of the lucrative pharmaceutical industry. In 1939 a "Drug Trust" alliance was formed by the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company IG Farben (Bayer)....

Auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human history. However, few people are aware that Auschwitz was a 100% subsidiary of IG Farben.



...After WWII, IG Farben attempted to shake its abominable image through corporate restructuring and renaming. So great has been their success that the public has no idea that it many of the men responsible for such atrocities, were able to carry on their work even after the collapse of the Nazi regime. Namely, a medical paradigm that relies almost exclusively highly toxic drugs. Such men were in control of the large chemical and pharmaceutical companies, both well before and after Hitler. The Nuremberg Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes. Incredibly, most of them had been released by 1951 and continued to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved IG Farben into Bayer, Hoechst and BASF, each company 20 times as large as IG Farben in 1944. For almost three decades after WWII, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (Aventis) filled their highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime. Bayer has been sued by survivors of medical experiments.... www.sourcewatch.org...


As I said the tip of a nasty smelly iceberg.


Thank you!! Finally, someone who has researched this as deep as me (well, deeper!)







 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join