StarmanSkye wrote:Some tidbits about the hidden side of the Dulles brother's covert connections to Nazi war-industry collaboration, with implications for how the bros' respective OSS/CIA and State Dept. influence was used to facilitate selective prosecutions of Nazi war criminals while excusing others who were rolled-over into aiding US intelligence, business and financial interests.
Don't forget the nazi scientists and engineers aiding US Defence industries, science and technology areas as well.
StarmanSkye wrote: I'm quite convinced that the Dulle's bros were instrumental in managing & guiding the US's post-war decidedly right-wing lurch . . .
I can't agree that the Dulles family were in any position to jointly orchestrate official US Gov policy and political events to the extent you suggest until the Eisenhower Administration. The post-war 'lurch to the right' you refer to follows the impetus set by FDR and Harry Truman. A massive 'lurch to the right' is not a bad way to describe Truman's evolution from accidental commander-in-chief, to Coldwarrior between 45 and 48.
StarmanSkye wrote:In short: The Dulles Brothers are among the pre-eminent scoundrels, traitors, mass-murderers, war-mongers, radical zealots and ideological opportunists that have poisoned our democracy with their brand of elitist special-interest rule by deceit-fraud-and-force that has betrayed American ideals and sabotaged the cause of justice, liberty, equality, opportunity & peace for untold hundreds of millions of people -- their legacy being the endemic corruption and degradation of this nation's society, politics, economics & ethical culture which has caused the numerous impending disasters the US now faces, ie. on the brink of global war, facing financial armegeddon, a bankrupt political process, 2-tiered 'justice', blatantly criminal 'leadership' and with collapse of the environment.
******
http://jasonweixelbaum.wordpress.com/20 ... ness-ties/Collaboration in Context: New Historiographical Approaches to Alleged American/Nazi Business Ties
--snip quote--
A significant book that helps tie together some of the disparate studies that have been reviewed so far is Nancy Lisagor and Frank Lipsius’ The Untold Story of Sullivan & Cromwell (1988). Lisagor and Lipsius demonstrate that the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell was centrally involved in helping American corporate leaders consolidate economic and political power in the late nineteenth century.[22]
They then explain that under the direction of John Foster Dulles from the early 1920s through the end of World War II, the firm helped create a network of holding companies, corporate managers, and lawyers, to facilitate corporate development within Germany.Although Lisagor and Lipsius meant to simply produce a history of the firm from its inception to the 1980s, this work inadvertently presents a significant challenge to historians who would argue that American corporate cooperation with the Third Reich was uncoordinated and small scale.
The authors demonstrate that Sullivan & Cromwell specialized in both maintaining managerial control and obscuring overseas corporate operations in providing legal representation for nearly all the businesses discussed here: Ford, GM, IBM, the BIS, IG Farben, ITT, Chase Bank, JP Morgan, and Standard Oil. Additionally, the authors show that influential policymakers, John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles on the American side, and Heinrich Albert and Gerhard Westrick on the German side, were intimately involved in these business relationships – dispelling the notion that their respective governments were completely uninvolved in these collaborative activities. Lisagor and Lipsius have called attention to a crucially important organization involved in these events, exposing the need for more research into the role they played in facilitating Nazi war aims.
--unquote--
Thanks StarmanSkye. Tremendous article by Weixelbaum and I'm going to be hunting for that Lisagor & Lipsius book.
Jim Di Eugenio wrote:
. . .Joe Green once told me that the Mosley book really underplays the Dulles cooperation and profiteering with the Nazis prior to the war, especially by Allen. It also underplays just how radical a change Allen made in the mission and culture of the CIA once he took the helm. Made possible by the presence of his brother at State.
When Truman wrote his famous December 1963 article condemning the CIA, SIdney Souers saw an early draft of it and sympathized with the sentiments by saying that Dulles had certainly twisted around the agency that Truman had Souers start up for him. To the point that they both barely recognized what had become of it. . .
This is a point that can (and should) be enlarged by wider reference. The facts are readily available. Truman approved the very first NSC recommendation 1/1 that did indeed authorize traditional spooky cloak and dagger stuff in November 1947 for the Italian elections, moreover,
he specifically directed the incoming Secretary of State, General Marshall, to ‘coordinate psychological warfare against the communists in Italy.’ (C.Andrew
For the Presidents Eyes Only,p172). But he went further than that by approving NSC 102 in December of the same year, ‘ ordering the creation within the CIA of an office to plan and engage in: propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures, subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.’(ibid.p173).
To put the icing on the Cold Warrior cake of Harry S Truman, we have in his NSC 102 as Andrew points out,
‘. . .contrary to the maxim prominently displayed on Truman’s desk, the buck- as far as covert action was concerned - was not to reach the Oval Office. Covert operations Truman ordered, were to be so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. (p173).
‘During his twenty-year retirement Truman sometimes seemed amazed, even somewhat appalled, at the size and power of the intelligence community he had brought into being. He wrote inaccurately to the managing editor of Look magazine in 1964 that he had never intended the CIA to do more than get ‘all the available information to the president. It was not intended to act as an international agency engaged in strange activities’. NSA was so secret that Truman did not mention it at all. He would probably have been pleased that his biographers have shown a similar disinclination to dwell on his responsibility for the creation of the biggest peacetime intelligence community in the history of western civilization.’ (p197-8.)
Andrew is undoubtedly right about this failure on the part of liberal historians. Robert Dallek, for example, is especially culpable in this regard. I'm reminded of the excellent article by Charles Davis from this thread:
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34909“There’s a long tradition of liberals, especially in the first few decades after the Cold War, of being opposed to, say, the vulgar witch-hunting, hysterical anti-communism of Joseph McCarthy,” says Madar, “but being supportive of the much more professional anti-communism of, say, Harvard University.” You can see the same dynamic at play now. Bush’s imperialism was crude and unilateral, so it was condemned; Obama’s is more sophisticated and multilateral, so it’s condoned – or cheered.
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:50 pm
