The Attempted Takeover of the US Government In 1934

[Rush Limbaugh]

I asked for a link because I don't know what you are speaking off, so what your quoting from is a history book. At least give me a time line or anything specific on said events.

The only thing I know about FDR supplying weapons to the Russians is during WW2, is that is what you are referring to

Yes . Thats exactly what Im referring to.

I fail to see how it's the same as what Bush did. We weren't at war with the Russians at that time

We werent at war with Germany either during the time your referring to. He in the end wound up supplying our enemy just like Bush did according to you.

[Last Roman]

He did a pretty good job of it.

oh gawd, I may certainly disagree with his centralization, but it's hardly fascist. Are you really gonna compare FDR with Mussolini and Hitler?

[Rhinosaur]

oh gawd, I may certainly disagree with his centralization, but it's hardly fascist. Are you really gonna compare FDR with Mussolini and Hitler?

Why ask? You know he is, bet it's not favorably for FDR either.

[Kiljan Arslan]

What dthe hell dose what Prescott Bush did or did not have to do with the attempt to overthrow (IMO) one of our greatest presidents?

[Rush Limbaugh]

Why ask? You know he is, bet it's not favorably for FDR either.

No he was a bum. If not for the War he may have gone down as a terrible president. Im not saying he was a fascist but he certainly did trample all over the constitution and set us on the miserable path we are on today of big and bloated government.

[Rhinosaur]

No he was a bum. If not for the War he may have gone down as a terrible president. Im not saying he was a fascist but he certainly did trample all over the constitution and set us on the miserable path we are on today of big and bloated government.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Doesn't excuse a Fascist coup attempt either way, and is semi off topic. And our path has only gotten "miserable" since Republicans have been given the reigns.

[Black Hawk]

I'll provide evidence to dispute your claim as soon as you show me a source that is not a politically charged piece of propaganda like that Unauthorized biography or the website that did the review. They are not legitimate media. The book would never be accepted in an academic setting.

So your arguments are that my sources are propaganda, how so and which ones?

Both the Guardian and BBC are legitimate media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=195008

Yes . Thats exactly what Im referring to.



We werent at war with Germany either during the time your referring to. He in the end wound up supplying our enemy just like Bush did according to you.

We where at war with Germany during 1942, which is when the government decided to step in and stop Bush's dirty dealings under the Trading with the enemy act. So no it's not the same, specially when you consider that what FDR did was government sanctioned and he gained nothing from it other than helping an ally defeat a stronger enemy.

What dthe hell dose what Prescott Bush did or did not have to do with the attempt to overthrow (IMO) one of our greatest presidents?

Prescott Bush was one of the people who participated in the coup acoording to the BBC report.

You can listen to it here on the bottom of the page:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=195008
or you can download it directly from the BBC page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20070723.shtml

[Lord Condormanius]

So your arguments are that my sources are propaganda, how so and which ones?

Both the Guardian and BBC are legitimate media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=195008

Have you actually read those articles?

The first one even goes so far as to say "What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper." This is not the "Slam dunk" that you are making it out to be. There is not one place in the article that says that Bush dealt with the Nazis while we were at war with them. It details the 1930s dealings with Germany. It also does not say anywhere that these dealings continued up until the investigation was launched.

Your second source is not from the BBC, as you claim. It is from a propaganda website called libertypost.org, which is not legitimate media, that is claiming to report what the BBC reported.

The sources I was originally referring to, however, were the Unauthorized biography of George Bush and the article that talks about the book that you posted. They are both politically motivated sources that are not legitimate. Also, that first article that talks about the book does not back your argument that this activity continued up until 1942; it only says that is when the investigation was launched.

None of your sources are conclusive.

[Black Hawk]

Have you actually read those articles?

The first one even goes so far as to say "What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper." This is not the "Slam dunk" that you are making it out to be. There is not one place in the article that says that Bush dealt with the Nazis while we were at war with them. It details the 1930s dealings with Germany. It also does not say anywhere that these dealings continued up until the investigation was launched.

Your second source is not from the BBC, as you claim. It is from a propaganda website called libertypost.org, which is not legitimate media, that is claiming to report what the BBC reported.

The sources I was originally referring to, however, were the Unauthorized biography of George Bush and the article that talks about the book that you posted. They are both politically motivated sources that are not legitimate. Also, that first article that talks about the book does not back your argument that this activity continued up until 1942; it only says that is when the investigation was launched.

None of your sources are conclusive.

Yes I have read said articles.

My claim has always been that companies which Bush was the owner or director of had business dealings with the Nazis, which went on until in 1942 the government stepped in and stopped them. So the article does support my claims, and here is the part that says that Bush dealt with the Nazis while we where at war:

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.
Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

The very fact that he owned it implicates him in whatever dealings they had.

True the second article is from a non legitimate news organization, the reason why I posted it is because it was easier to listen to the broadcast from there. Whoever if you would like the direct link from the BBC here it is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20070723.shtml

I had already posted it on my answer to Kiljan

[Lord Condormanius]

Let me point out one sentence that you just quoted: "The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel."

Again, you are drawing conclusions that the material doesn't actually support.

These articles are speculative at best.

[Kiljan Arslan]

To you big goverment is bad to me its mostly good, but needs to be watched, and once again WHAT THE HELL DOES WHAT PRESCOTT BUSH DID OR DID NOT DO HAVE TO DO WITH THE PLAN TO OVERTHOW FDR?

[Black Hawk]

Let me point out one sentence that you just quoted: "The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel."

Again, you are drawing conclusions that the material doesn't actually support.

These articles are speculative at best.

The fact of the matter is they where still directors of the company that traded with the Nazis and was charged under the trading with the enemy act. The funny thing is that Bush only had 1 share in UBC for it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000 in 1951. Who new that 1 share could be worth so much, and it supposedly wasn't even his share .

War seizures controversy

Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but who by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. Business transactions for profit with Nazi Germany were not illegal when Hitler declared war on the United States (December 11, 1941), but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City. President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The order, published in obscure government record books and kept out of the news, cited only the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) connections with Von Thyssen. Fox News has reported that recently declassified material "The 4,000 Union Banking shares owned by the Dutch bank were registered in the names of the seven U.S. directors, according a document signed by Homer Jones, chief of the division of investigation and research of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, a World War II-era agency that no longer exists"[2].

• E. Roland Harriman--3991 shares (managed and under voting control of Prescott Bush)
• Cornelis Lievense--4 shares (He was the New York banker of the German Nazi Party)
• Harold D. Pennington--1 share (Employed by Prescott Bush at Brown Brothers Harriman)
• Ray Morris--1 share (a business partner of the Bush and Harriman families)
• Prescott S. Bush--1 share (director of UBC, which was co-founded and sponsored by his father-in-law George Walker; senior managing partner for E. Roland Harriman and Averell Harriman)
• H.J. Kouwenhoven--1 share (organised UBC for Von Thyssen, managed UBC in Nazi occupied Netherlands)
• Johann G. Groeninger--1 share (German Industrial Executive, a not unimportant member of the Nazi party)

The Harriman business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:

• Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman). The President of UBC at that time was George Herbert Walker, Prescott Bush's father-in-law. He is the grandfather and great-grandfather of the former and current Presidents Bush.
• Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)
• the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)
• Silesian-American Corporation (this company was partially owned by a German entity; during the war the Germans tried to take full control of Silesian-American. In response to that, the American government seized German owned minority shares in the company, leaving the U.S. partners to carry on the business.)

The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward. UBC was dissolved in 1951. Prescott Bush was on the board of directors of UBC and held one share in the company. For it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000. These assets were later used to launch Bush family investments in the Texas energy industry.
Toby Rogers has claimed that Bush's connections to Silesian businesses (with Thyssen and Flick) make him complicit with the mining operations in Poland which used slave labor out of Auschwitz, where the Auschwitz concentration camp was later constructed.
The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The underlying importance is Hitler's known ideology; intelligent business partners like Bush and Thyssen and Harriman clearly knew who they were doing business with and were willing to do so. Some records in the National Archives, including the Harriman papers, document the continued relationship of Brown Brothers Harriman with Thyssen and some of his German investments up until his 1951 death.[4] Investigator John Loftus has said, "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averell Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany." Two former slave laborers from Poland have filed suit in London against the government of the United States and the heirs of Prescott Bush in the amount of $40 billion. A class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. in 2001 was dismissed based on the principle of state sovereignty.[5]
(For more information on the Bush family and the arms industry, see Samuel P. Bush.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

Also that company was co-founded by Presscots father so you'll pardon me if I don't believe the cop out he told the investigator that he was simply holding the stocks for another person.

Convinced yet?

To you big goverment is bad to me its mostly good, but needs to be watched, and once again WHAT THE HELL DOES WHAT PRESCOTT BUSH DID OR DID NOT DO HAVE TO DO WITH THE PLAN TO OVERTHOW FDR?

I wouldn't say that big government is bad as I want a government similar to that of our European brothers in which many things are provided by the government ( Health care, education, etc.)

The link I provided you with details Prescott's involvement in the coup among many other rich individuals. Here they are again

You can listen to it here on the bottom of the page:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=195008
or you can download it directly from the BBC page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20070723.shtml

[Lord Condormanius]

Also that company was co-founded by Presscots father so you'll pardon me if I don't believe the cop out he told the investigator that he was simply holding the stocks for another person.

pure speculation.

Convinced yet?

no

[Black Hawk]

pure speculation.



no

You forgot to answer one area of my post.

The fact of the matter is they where still directors of the company that traded with the Nazis and was charged under the trading with the enemy act. The funny thing is that Bush only had 1 share in UBC for it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000 in 1951. Who new that 1 share could be worth so much, and it supposedly wasn't even his share :wink:.

What do you think of it?

[Lord Condormanius]

You forgot to answer one area of my post.
What do you think of it?

I did not address it because it is speculation. There is no proof of any wrongdoing. Any conclusion that you have drawn from the statement that you quoted is not based on the factual information of the statement.

Happy?

[Black Hawk]

I did not address it because it is speculation. There is no proof of any wrongdoing. Any conclusion that you have drawn from the statement that you quoted is not based on the factual information of the statement.

Happy?

No

That part of my post is not speculation but historical fact according to the news organization, the wiki, and history (nobody has disputed that, what was disputed was if his one share was actually his), the proof is in the fact that he was director of this company and vice president that automatically makes him an accomplice for the actions of said company. For UBC's continued dealings with the enemy the company was seized under the trading with the enemy act and a trial was set, but was dismissed on the grounds that we where at war and there was no time for it. Not to mention all the other companies which he was involved with that where also accused of consorting with the enemy, Prescott Bush's directorship of the Hamburg-America Line, a company that the committee investigated for Nazi propaganda activities.

Wiki:

Business Plot

On July 23, 2007, the BBC Radio 4 series Document reported on the Business Plot and the archives from the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings. The program also mentioned Prescott Bush's directorship of the Hamburg-America Line, a company that the committee investigated for Nazi propaganda activities. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescot...#Business_Plot

I suggest you read the article again and look at all the other points which you yet have to address. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...312540,00.html



Another factor that I posted on which you have not commented on is his involvement on the coup, this should give you insight as to what type of man he was.

[Last Roman]

No he was a bum. If not for the War he may have gone down as a terrible president. Im not saying he was a fascist but he certainly did trample all over the constitution and set us on the miserable path we are on today of big and bloated government.

sorta. Most of his programs were ended right after his presidency (social security being the obvious exception)

[Rush Limbaugh]

sorta. Most of his programs were ended right after his presidency (social security being the obvious exception)

How about income tax? No most of his baggage is still with us. Its deplorable. Government programs rarely go away.

[Last Roman]

How about income tax? No most of his baggage is still with us. Its deplorable. Government programs rarely go away.

the income tax was started in 1913. you're about 20 years too early.

[Rush Limbaugh]

the income tax was started in 1913. you're about 30 years too early.

FDR made it what it is today.

THE PRICE OF CIVILIZATION: TAXATION IN DEPRESSION AND WAR, 1933-1945

Until World War II, only the rich paid income taxes. Lawmakers had traditionally confined the tax to the upper strata of American society, but wartime mobilization prompted change. Policymakers broadened the base, increasing the number of taxpayers tenfold between 1939 and 1945. They also established a highly progressive rate structure, with rates reaching 94 percent for the richest taxpayers. Together, these changes made the individual income tax a fiscal workhorse; between 1939 and 1945, revenues soared from $1.0 billion to $18.4 billion. By war's end, the tax accounted for 40 percent of total revenue, making it the centerpiece of federal finance.

War was the catalyst for change, but mass income taxation was never a foregone conclusion. Alternatives, including a national sales tax, were real possibilities, popular with many business, political, and intellectual leaders. The wartime decision to create a broader, steeper income tax was complex and contested, part of a longer political process beginning at least a decade earlier.

Between 1934 and 1937, Franklin Roosevelt and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau Jr., championed a variety of important tax reforms, including the Wealth Tax of 1935, the undistributed profits tax of 1936, and the anti-loophole Revenue Act of 1937. All three measures did much to alienate Roosevelt from business leaders, but none worked lasting change on the overall structure of the tax system. The first and last were more symbolic than substantive, while the undistributed profits tax met an untimely death at the hands of a hostile Congress. The modest achievements of early New Deal tax reform should not, however, obscure the importance of these years. Two factors were especially important. First, Roosevelt developed a moral -- and moralistic -- approach to tax policy that ultimately played a decisive role in wartime tax changes. Second, the 1930s witnessed the growth of an intellectual consensus for mass-based income taxation, especially within the Treasury Department. Together, these factors shaped the American fiscal response to the Great Depression and World War II. Ultimately, they established the foundation of a postwar tax regime that would last through the remainder of the 20th century.