Talk:Prescott Bush

Current state of this Wikipedia article

At this point, this hardly constitutes an encyclopedia entry on Prescott Bush. Anything remotely politically sensitive has vanished without a trace (um... the man was a politician, among other things).

How is it even possible that the lack of consensus over how to represent the Union Banking Corporation / Trading with the Enemy Act matter has led to an article that completely fails to mention the matter (much less to differentiate historical record from speculation). I refuse to believe that expunging the record entirely is any sort of consensus solution! Get sourcing, Wikipedia writers, and let's make this article something worth bothering to read! 67.183.223.38 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The only verifiable fact about UBC is in the first paragraph. The archive mentioned in the Guardian article is fully cited. It was not expunged from the article at all. Surmise from people whose purpose appears to be political rather than biographical is not relevant to biography. And for some strsnge reason, I think it more important to use facts than to make something "worth bothering to read." If that is the main reason for an encyclopedia, then the National Enquirer should be an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of your views on this article: It is not supposed to be an "entertaining" read, but I do think that this article needs to have at least a paragraph explaining the controversy about Bush/Nazi ties. It is unfortunate that there is so much misinformation circulating around, but I think it is important for a Wiki article to answer the questions people have when they look up Prescott Bush. In the case of this article, my guess would be that at least 50% of the people who view this page are interested in discovering the truth about these allegations. I think it is important for a Wiki page to address popular misconceptions. Not addressing this controversy means that people will find another source that does address the controversy, and that most likely means a biased and poorly referenced article. The debate should be settled here, and not on someone's personal blog. Mediokerman (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mediokerman, for your well-expressed distillation of the problem at hand. As for User:Collect's assertion that "the only verifiable fact about UBC is in the first paragraph," well that's simply incorrect. All the first paragraph says about UBC is that Bush was "a director of Union Banking Corp." That's it. Nothing whatsoever about the fate of Union Bank Corp. So I suppose every reader of this page should be expected to follow the link to Union Bank Corp.'s own page to learn anything at all -- those for whom this bank's name means nothing already (no incentive to follow link) will therefore learn nothing about this scandal to which Bush was, in one way or another, connected! The next sentence does explain that "his involvement with that bank, of which he owned exactly 1 share," didn't cut short his political career. So that sort of implies, in a non-specific, weaselly way, that the bank has negative implications, but with no further information... unless you count the blatantly defensive language about him "owning exactly 1 share" (read: "1 measly share"). Again, someone might have to look elsewhere to discover that the 1 measly share has been rumored to have been reimbursed to the tune of over a million dollars. This is a pretty shabby approach to the topic, and what is there is hardly as neutral as User:Collect would like to suggest.24.18.223.55 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Prescott Bush. Hence it must have facts about Prescott Bush. The "scandal" has been shown to have nothing in particular to do with Prescott Bush. The cite given shows exactly "1 share" which means that "measly" might be POV, but "esactly" is not POV. If that one share was worth 1 million dollars, then Harriman was given 4 BILLION dollars. No evidence whatsoever for that claim. And incase you did not know it, WP policy is that rumors do not belong in articles. OK? Collect (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Bush stuff

(prior statements repeatedly and wrongly removed by Dhartung -- who wanted cites for the claim that a scurrilous claim is, indeed, scurrilous -- here are the cites which would certainly appear to imply that a statement that the charges are not supported is in order. If that person has any dignity at all, that is.) ) http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051111.html http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06128/688443-84.stm

"Even so, there is no indication the letter writer or the recipient, F. Trubee Davison -- who went on to become director of personnel at the CIA and who died in 1974 -- took part in any grave robbery. Many historians maintain that, if there is a skull at The Tomb, it is unlikely to be Geronimo's since there is no evidence that his grave was ever disturbed.

David H. Miller, a history professor at Cameron University, in Lawton, Okla., says Fort Sill records indicate that until 1920 -- two years after the purported robbery -- Geronimo's grave was unmarked and covered by thick brush. "I don't think Prescott Bush dug up the bones," he says, "because I don't think he could have found the grave."

Towana Spivey, director of the Fort Sill museum, has researched the story for 20 years and thinks it's a hoax. One piece of evidence he has gathered is an 1878 photograph showing several members of Skull and Bones standing around a skull on a pedestal. Mr. Spivey, an archaeologist, says the same photo appeared in a publication after Geronimo's death with a caption indicating that the skull belonged to the Apache warrior." http://chronicle.com/news/article/387/letter-suggests-yale-club-stole-indian-leaders-remains "The allegation is not new, but the letter is. Even so, some scholars regard the story as an elaborate hoax."

All that is known for sure is that the famed photo was not of Skull and Bones, and that the only photos of any skull at Skull and Bones is definitely not Geronimo's. This is sufficient for Wiki to indicate doubt about the tale -- and not to keep re-editiing the Talk page in order to conceal the dispute :( Collect 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DEFENITELY? That's DEFENITE, as in 100% - no possibility of an error. Wich I have a hard time swallowing. I take it someone has contemporary DNA samples of Geronimo that they can compare to any skull then? Maybe an eyewitness that buried Geronimo and then uhm wrote a letter detailing his grave? Some archeologist that wants 15 minutes of fame, claims something maybe?

The only question at hand is what reliable sources say about the topic, not what could be done with e.g. unlimited funds and unlimited access to the skull and descendants/relatives of Geronimo and so forth. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The ADL quote was cut off by the prior edit -- without proper closing quotation marks, and without the link to the ADL page in question. If people really want to lop off half a quotation, they should make sure that the quotation is correctly terminated, and that links for the benefit of Wiki users are retained. This is not a matter of POV, but of intellectual honesty. 70.152.31.242 13:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable to mention Cecil Adams' doubts about the Harrimans receiving $4 billion for their lion's share of Union Banking Corporation. Removal of that mention verges on being, in itself, not NPOV. 67.35.150.227 19:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"and Nazi ties" - type language in a header when nothing of the sort is proved is decidely far from NPOV. 65.1.8.15 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

More anti-Bush stuff has been sneaking in -- including the bit about "Geronimo's Skull" which Cecil Adams demolishes. Also claims of not cooperating with the government etc. all of which is on the ragged edge of what the Graudian would dare to print <g>. In short -- anything which is not absolutely *factual* ought to be at least labeled, and preferably effaced. And then this page ought to be locked tighter than a drum. Gosh -- the stuff which defends Bush gets deleted regularly -- does any Editor drop in here to make sure that the defamatory stuff is kept under some sort of control?

Moved this off the main page, where it had no business being -

Someone has appended the parenthesis that "The Guardian" in England is roughly the equivalent of "The National Enquirer" in America. Are you kidding. Whatever troll managed to get that posted to this page is obviously hoping to exploit the total ignorance Americans have of other cultures, even our Anglophones to the East. "The Guardian" has top level journalists of highly literate levels of skill and comparing the two publications, both for quality and style, is like comparing The Royal Shakespeare schools of acting to vaudeville. You've got to be kidding. And here when I was just about to promote wikipedia to everyone I know, far and wide. What a disappointment. Please remove such an absurdist commentary, parenthesis or no.

~~John Ervin

Nota bene: The person who "corrected" the reference to the "Gaurdian" appended severely incorrect partisan claptrap. Since the article was put in place without any copyright notices, it ought to be removed in its entirety. Wikipedia has enough believability issues without reference to the ADL agreeing with "anti-Jewish claptrap" and the claim that Ariel Sharon is somehow a "maximalist" (whatever that may happen to mean). And a lot of the National Enquirer staff is British <g>.

You're welcome. -jowfair 12 October 2005

Also removed:

(The following is an example of yellow journalism by "The Guardian", a British newspaper considered to have the same rough validity as the American "National Enquirer." Copyright notices were not furnished for this article by the person appending it.) - This statement alone shows how whoever edited this is himself guilty of "yellow journalism" and partisan claptrap. The Guardian is an extremely well-respected newspaper, winning numerous international awards for its reporting, as anyone who wants to viist the wikipedia article on The Guardian can see. As for the Anti-Defamation League's support for Bush, that doesn't prove anything. While the ADL supposedly fights anti-Jewish propaganda, it openly allies itself with Christian evangelicals who "support" Israel, i.e. support Sharon's maximalist policies. These "pro-Sharon" evangilicals also happen to believe in the Rapture which has a central tenent that Jews (and others) who don't accept Jesus are doomed to eternal hell. Such beliefs are the most basic form of traditional anti-Jewish claptrap, so the ADL's ties to such groups make a mockery of its mission. Abe Foxman, head of the ADL is a Jewish partisan supporter of Bush. Hence his organization is hardly representative of American Jews, the overwhelming majority of whom voted against Bush in the 2004 election. Citing the ADl to clear Prescott Bush is about as useful as citing Karl Rove. (Quod erat demonstrandum)

As this adds nothing to the actual discussion.

For the record, my thoughts are that the Guardian is a paper of record, but often - especially as regards the Bushes - blatantly biased and too frequently in error. The article deserves an actual fact-check, not more snarking. Comparison with the Enquirer are infelicitous, inasmuch as the Enquirer publishes its inaccurate stories for entertainment value. -jowfair 12 October 2005

---

G.H.W. Bush's motivation to join the Navy contestedHow accurate is this statement: However the treason investigation did inspire Prescott's eldest son, George Herbert Walker Bush, to flee the family and join the U.S. Navy.? -- Zoe

Hard to say what is meant by 'inspire' here - maybe 'scare' ? Maybe 'convince'? Who knows. Some think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Not sure if 'accurate' is the right criterion for this kind of decision.

This is a contentious statement. According to the biographies I have read, he joined the Navy on June 12, 1942. This was his 18th birthday and also the day he graduated from Philips Academy. It was common practice at the beginning of World War II for young men to enlist on their 18th birthdays. Chadloder 02:49 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I just researched this a bit more. First, the timing of his entry into the armed services, compared to the timing of the treason investigation, makes this disparaging statement quite unlikely to be true. Second, why would a high school student put himself into certain mortal danger in order to "flee" an investigation into his father's business (with which he had NO involvement)?

Here is a quote:

In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

Chadloder 02:53 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

---

As I recall biographical data on the Vice President from the 1980s, patriotism was widely proffered as an explanation for his becoming disgusted with his family's business—which of course he was not directly involved with but one would not be surprised if he were being groomed to inherit—and over their strenuous objections to join the military, where indeed his life was at risk. I didn't see this as and fail to see how it could be a slur. I suppose a more direct statement evoking patriotism would have been appropriate. Obviously the timing of the Congressional Union Bank investigation and GHWBs enlistment are wrong; now I'll have to do research off-line. The Horror! Of course recent non-rant biographical material seem to omit Prescott's NAZI peccadillos entirely; such is the way of history.

June 12th would have been about the time is father was front page news at the NYTribune. Without going to New York I have had no luck finding a copy of the original article.

---

I know the article you're talking about. I think you are right about the timing of the "Hitler's Angel" Tribune article, but that article referred to Fritz Thyssen, not Bush. I don't think the Prescott Bush scandal broke until October, after his son was already in the Navy. Like I said, it doesn't make sense that he would "flee" a scandal that he didn't even know about and put himself in harm's way as a pilot in WWII. Unless you have some evidence (diaries or letters maybe...?) to back up the contentious statement "He fled into the Navy", I would advise you not to include it. Chadloder 04:47 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

---

It's currently not included. I merely state that I read this in 1987 in biographical material discussing the Vice-president and presidential candidate. My memory could be faulty (though I can't imagine how I could have invented that) or the report could have been false. The timing appears to be incorrect: the article seems to have apppeared in July, and you appear to be right that it was Thyssen labelled “Hitler’s Angel” , and Prescott was his banker. I would like to find a source with an accurate reproduction of the article if you know of any.

---

We were right to remove this interpretation of private motivation. Wetman 03:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

The 'sleve labor' remark

---

The statement regarding slave labor in Poland STRONGLY needs some kind of documentation. Pizza Puzzle

I agree. Indeed, it is specifically denied in the 'Straight Dope' article to which we link. I'm doing more research now, to see what else I can find out about Prescott Bush's activities in Poland in the 1930s. Quite possibly, there is an accurate story to be told here, but it seems that the way it was written was highly misleading.

Good call, Pizza Puzzle. Jimbo Wales 17:40 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

'Tis as if God himself had stepped out of the clouds to reward me, oh, delightful day this! Pizza Puzzle

Good edit, PP. FearÉIREANN 23:25 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The world hath truly turned upside-down! Pizza Puzzle

The connection between later slave labor and Bush the New york banker is extremely strained and NPOV. It's out. Wetman 03:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Seizures under the 'Trading with the Enemy' Act, 1942

Article phrasing seems contradictory. First it says the companies were seized, then it says there is no evidence that they were seized. Which is it? Daniel Quinlan 02:27 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Of course the companies were siezed. It is common knowledge and it is well documented. I'm going to revert that disclaimer. Chadloder 16:45, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

Now, there's no context at all to the seizures. I don't think you have improved the article with your last edit. Prescott Bush was not a Nazi collaborator, sympathizer, or anything of the sort, but it sure seems that way now. I merely wanted the phrasing to be cleaned up by someone more familiar with this — it's not really common knowledge. Daniel Quinlan 04:33, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

The seizures under the Trading with the Enemy Act are matters of public record. I've added some innocuous biographical material. I've removed "overseeing" Nazi slave camps: let's not get carried away here. But "patriarch of the Bush family' seems a little fatuous for the man who was the son of a rich steel manufacturer who married a rich wife... User:Wetman

---

Daniel, I'm curious: why did you delete the external link to the recent New Hampshire Gazette article[1]? Harris7 04:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the link is not NPOV (especially given the completely non-NPOV and one-sided quotes from the "article" as well as the authorship) and the 1940s involvement and the 1951 profits are already covered in other articles. The Snopes article presents the same information about the Nazi-Bush relationship far more NPOV. Daniel Quinlan 04:21, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

I'm reinstating the link Daniel Quinlan deleted because it has information in it that is not presented in the "straight dope" article (I believe that is what you mean when you say "snopes"). Mind you, the article is not particularly good, because it is not particularly specific about its sources, but the "straight dope" article is actually worse. I hope there are better researched sources out there. --snoyes 04:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you agree the article is not particularly good, then there's no good reason to include it. The extra information it has consists of people making unverifiable and speculative statements. In contrast, the Straight Dope (yes, that's what I meant) article is specific about its sources and conspiracies that it presents material neutrally. It remains a good external document. Daniel Quinlan 11:31, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

I disagree with the reason given for the deletion of the New Hampshire Gazette external link. (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2 )

This report was serious journalism by the Nation's Oldest Newspaper. It was the culmination of original investigative research of documents in the National Archive-- which was compiled after the 'Straight Dope' piece (and was thus is more up-to-date). It added authoritative detail to the story, and was written under higher journalistic standards.

The entry was not improved by removing this additional source.

---

There is a consistent pattern here of suppression of material. The honest Wikipedian, faced with factuaslly correct material that gives a false impression, provides authentic context for that material. Suppression of information is not part of preserving NPOV, and reflects poorly on the rest of us. At a certain point, suppression of material needs to be noted in the article itself. Wetman 03:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why link "Merchants of Death" to larger "Military Industrial Complex"?

The section that discusses inter-war munitions businesses has an external link in the sources section to an article on a U.S. Senate page about what are called "Merchants of Death" operating between the wars. That's fine, but the hotlink on the phrase itself links to the Wikipedia article on the Military Industrial Complex. If "Merchants of Death" was a neutral and widely used term, the Wikipedia article would be titled Merchants of Death, not Military Industrial Complex. The hotlink thus comes across, whether intended or not, as a political argument. I know some people think you can't write any history without making some kind of political argument, but perhaps some are more blatant than others? This seems to go against the norms of Wikipedia.

(Jeez, why don't I have anything better to do than criticize a Wikipedia article. Somebody help me.)

False history is not Neutral Voice

A number of inflamatory statements implying persecution of Bush have been embedded as truth. THEY are not neutral voice, but advocacy for false history.

The counter story, better documented with evidence is this:

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. Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City.

Prescott Bush's business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:

• Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman)
• Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)
• the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)
• Silesian-American Corporation (with Walker)

Bush's interest in UBC consisted of one share. For it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000. These assets were later used to launch Bush family investments in the Texas energy industry. If one share was worth $1.5 million, than Harriman's 3,991 shares were worth $5.987 billion, not a bad return for managing somebody else's money for a few years. Two Bush associates also held one share, Harold D.Pennington and Ray Morris, plus two identified nazi party members, Cornelis Lievense (4 shares) and Hendrick J. Kouwenhoven (1 share).

Toby Rogers has claimed that Bush's connections to the Silesian-American Corporation makes him complicit with the corporation's mining operations in Poland which used slave labor out of Oswiecim, where the Auschwitz concentration camp was later constructed. Allegations that Prescott Bush profited from slave labor or the Auschwitz concentration camp remain unsubstantiated in the minds of those whom have not reviewed the evidence.

In 1939 Thyssen sold his interests in Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation to Harriman, and Union Bank Corporation. [2] From 1939 until stopped by the Trading With The Enemy Act in 1942, Prescott Bush was manager of Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation, renamed Silesian-American Corporation, associated with Auschwitz slave labor and nazi money laundering through late 1942, almost a year after Pearl Harbor. The Silesian-American Corporation was one-third owned by Harriman, and two-thirds by Frederich Flick who was a Himmler advisor.

There are conflicting stories concerning Prescott Bush's associations with the Nazi party. The Anti-Defamation League has stated, "Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated." [3] Evidently some people don't like nazi politics and are motivated to oppose its ongoing stealth tactics of whitwashing history. The rumors began on George H.W. Bush during his 1980 presidential run and were renewed during his 1988 run. New interest in 2004 came from declassified documents never available before.

However, Max Warburg,[4] of the B'nai Brith, parent of the ADL, was a nazi collaborator. "1933 March 7 Prescott Bush's American Ship and Commerce Corporation notifies Max Warburg that Warburg is now the corporation's officially designated representative on the board of Hamburg-Amerika Line." From 1926 Max Warburg was involved in American I.G. founded as a holding company controlling I.G. Farben assets in the United States. Three other members of the Board of Governors for American I.G. were later tried and convicted as German war criminals.[5] I.G. Farben was the reason they put Auschwitz there, to make synthetic aviation fuel and synthetic gasoline from Thyssen's nearby coal operations. I.G. Farben made the Zyklon B cyanide gas used at Auschwitz, and Warburg was I.G.'s banker in the USA. He was also a partner with Prescott Bush, hardly a disinterested party to be trusted about Bush integrity.

In 1920 Averell Harriman and George Herbert Walker gained control of the German Hamburg-Amerika shipping line. The deal, arranged through the chief executive of German Hamburg-Amerika, William Cuno, and through one of the shipping line's bankers, M. M. 'Max' Warburg. The name of the firm was changed to American Ship & Commerce Corporation. After being involved in the deal, Samuel F. Pryor of Remington Arms is named to serve on the board of the renamed corporation. William Cuno later becomes a heavy contributor to Nazi Party funds.[6]

The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush only as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The label was ironic, since by the time the Tribune article appeared, Hitler had turned on Thyssen and imprisoned him. The Union Bank Corporation run by Prescott Bush sold over $50,000,000 of German bonds in three years. Thyssen wrote a book published in 1941 titled "I Paid Hitler". At a critical moment Thyssen funded the Storm Troopers, Hitler's SA, and Thyssen bought the Nazi Party headquarters as a gift for Hitler. Both Thyssen and Bush were Hitler's Angels regardless of which one the Tribune was referring to. [7], [8], [9], [10]}}

It is improper to falsify history in a Wiki.

Warburg was a nazi collaborator who used the B'nai Brith and Anti-Defamation League to quell US jewish protests against the Nazis. It might seem strange that a jew would be against a jew, but Hitler Purged Ernst Roelm and 200 other top Nazis in the Night of the Long Knives. Yes German can be against Germans, Jews against Jews, and American's against Americans -- it happens, grow up! Why do you think they have police and locks on your door. A jew's word that Bush was not connected is not more believable because he is a jew. Warburg was Bush's partner in business, and financed the Nazi party rise. So did George Herbert Walker, Prescott's father-in-law. So did Prescott.

This is not "controversial" -- it is documented history. Bush-controlled assets were seized under TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT. These assets were laundering nazi money until the day they were seized.

Not one word about Prescott's eugenics philospohy, yet he lost his first election attempt because of that. Eugenics was the nazi party line -- 'Master race', 'inferior races'. Why do you find it hard to believe Prescott was as bad as he was?

Do you think that Warburg didn't know that the Hamberg-America Line brought nazi agents into the country? He owned it eventually. Of course he knew.

Unbalanced the other way

It seems while we have gotten away from "Prescott Bush killed and ate little babies" this page has gotten out of control the other way. Now it's only "historians" that "allege" he may have had dealings with Adolf Hitler. The federal government seizing assets is a lot more than simply people in retrospect saying "hey maybe..." And no matter what Bush's intentions were, it is not an allegation that his companies were dealing with Nazi Germany, it is a well-documented fact. This article is now reading like a bio on a campaign site, not an honest-broker that Wikipedia should be.

• stop hating our freedom! There's no way to actually verify this information, the federal government might simply be a liberal conspiracy to make someone with the last name "bush" look bad, 000000000ooooooo00000h, LOL--172.160.151.140 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

so if there were sources verifying it would you still be so smarmy --Howmee 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible information to add to Wikipedia

This information comes from investigative journalist John Buchanan, but I am not familiar enough with this person to trust him completely. (He co-authored the New Hampshire Gazette article referenced on this discussion page.) Can Wikipedia users with the knowledge and know how look into this and update Wiki's site if appropriate? Buchanan says articles at the National Archives and Library Of Congress prove that Prescott Bush tried to overthrow the US Constitution, assassinate FDR, and turn the US into a Nazi camp. If this infomation is correct, it should definitely be added to Wikipedia so people can learn about it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/290904buchanantranscript.htm http://hnn.us/articles/1810.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html http://illuminati-news.com/Videos/keeping-it-in-the-family.wmv

06:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Possibly this could also be added

In 1942 Prescott Bush was charged with running Nazi front groups and those assets were siezed.13 from http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/ratlines.htm cited source 13 13. The Secret War, p358-361.--Howmee 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See the section titled Prescott Bush#War seizures controversy. Bush was never charged with any crime, but the assets of a private bank for which he was a director and shareholder were seized for the duration of the war. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)¶

Please read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It is unacceptable to edit (or remove) comments by other editors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

also found this next piece
[11] Read More
[12] also found in that article And a little Bonus
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html Timeline of events --Howmee 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the War seizures controversy section already covers this ground. There are numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the Bush family and many of the online sources about this information are highly biased, thus caution is warranted when examining them. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be biased but the names and companies siezed should be in public records somewhere. --Howmee 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found this site if you want another source [13]
--Howmee 00:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

union bank associating with nazism from http://www.archives.gov AKA "The National Archives" -Holocaust Era Assets; Bibliography: Nazi Gold [14]--Howmee 01:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Howmee, here is the text in our article:

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

* Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman)

* Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)

* the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)

* Silesian-American Corporation (this company was partially owned by German entity; during the war the Germans tried to take the full control of Silesian-American. In response to that, American government seized German owned minority shares in the company, leaving the U.S. partners to carry on the business.)

As I said, we already cover this, and those facts are not really in question. I appreciate your eagerness, but just be aware that this isn't "news". --Dhartung | Talk 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I recognize it is not news that's why I looked for and found it in the national archives. as you can see it is a bibliography of all that applies to the seizures--Howmee 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some extra stuff From The Only Magazine At Yale About Stuff At Yale[15]

Howmee, the NARA link leads to a list of records relating to Nazi gold, which has nothing to do with Bush. The "Union Bank" listed on that page is in Switzerland. The Rumpus link is a student humor magazine. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung, you deleted the following on the grounds that this info is already in the article: Even after America had entered WWII, Prescott Bush worked for and profited from companies closely involved with German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power (The Guardian, September 25, 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html last visited 8/30/06). I don't see in the article, the facts that: (1) Even after America had entered WWII, Prescott Bush worked for and profited ...; (2) ...companies closely involved with German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. Correct me if these are already included and explain where, or revert your deletion, please.--NYCJosh 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The first three paragraphs of the section, NYCJosh, discuss the Harriman businesses that were seized ("after America had entered WWII"), and how Bush "worked for" these businesses. I don't think that a redundant and POV pullquote is the best way to enhance this section. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Dhartung, "seized" after American entered WWII is quite different from Prescott working for...after US entry into WWII. The latter may say something about his concerns and lack thereof, and his priorities (possibly loyalties or lack thereof). Further, the close association between those German businesses and the Nazi rise to power is also quite significant, I think. These were not any old German businesses. I am not sure what you mean by "pull" quotes; in the interest of not wanting to seem like I am making up facts, I "pulled" the information from the source I cited. Would you be more comfortable with a looser paraphrase? It's a little like catch-22. If I paraphrase, I am accused of not being supported by the source, if I paraphrase very closely I am told it's a "pull" quote. As to the POV accusation, I am not sure what you mean. I am adding fully-sourced facts without adding an opinion. You and others are welcome to add other facts for "balance" if desired.--NYCJosh 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Text moved from article

The following may be a copyvio from The Guardian, but at least it isn't really on for our purposes. Someone may be able to glean some usable info from the mass of confusingly formatted text, and if so, all the better. It didn't seem a good idea to leave it in its present form:

From 'The Guardian':

((copyvio text deleted -- source --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

The cleanup needed is to remove an embedded copyrighted article, and to restore questions about the accuracy of the charges made in it.

Good luck! --Fire Star 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Corporate Success

The "Corporate Success" section contains the following:

In the 1980s, he was hired as an advisor by Susumu Ishii, Godfather of Japan's Inagawa-kai yakuza gang. Bush later denied having knowledge of his client's criminal background.

How can this be, when he died in 1972?

That portion now seems to have migrated out of the article when another portion, subjected to vandalism, was reverted. David Hoag 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

I notice that the this phrase has be removed from the biograpy without comment, "In 1942 he was the treasurer of Planned Parenthood's Capital Campaign, . . . . " Can anyone explain?

I have changed some parts related to Silesian-American Corporation, which were very inaccurate and one (quoting words of Toby Rogers) was completely false. I wonder how such an unrelible author may be cited in a - by definition - neutral source as Wiki. PR, 1st May 2006

Checkers/Nixon

I removed this paragraph:

Future president Richard Nixon considered Prescott Bush to be his political mentor and consulted him before his famous 1952 "Checkers speech", in which Nixon, then the vice-presidential candidate, addressed his exoneration of receiving $18,000 in illegal campaign contributions. However, Nixon admitted accepting a cocker spaniel pup from a supporter. Nixon was defiant, stating: "the kids, like all kids, love the dog and I just want to say this right now: that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it."

This is repeated elsewhere along with another dubious assertion, that Prescott was among the Republicans who recruited Nixon to run for Congress (in fact he auditioned for the nomination before the Orange County Republican club). In Nixon's memoirs, he does not mention Prescott Bush once (he does mention George H.W.). [16] --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A reminder that Nixon does not mention Prescott in his memoirs, which seems unlikely if he considered Bush a friend or mentor. I'm going to look for a citation about their relationship that we can use, since this apocryphal story keeps getting put back in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Geronimo skull

For some reason, the claim that Bush stole Geronimo's skull keeps wending its way into this page. Reputable sources (such as Cecil Adams) have pretty much demolished the anti-Bush speculations. Placing an article which does admit the story may be fake, but using that article to allow placing of the charge in the Wiki article, is intellectually dishonest. One might as well simply place all the Weekly World News articles in Wiki. 65.1.23.58 09:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that since Cecil wrote that column, a researcher found a letter in the Yale archives which confirmed some of the story? Before that letter surfaced I would have agreed with you. I agree it remains uncertain whether an actual grave robbery took place, and less certain that it's actually Geronimo's skull, but again, there have been recent developments in this story including a widely-reported letter to President Bush. Are you seriously comparing the Yale Alumni magazine to the Weekly World News? --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the TALK page -- the fact was, is, and shall be -- that there is zero credible evidence for the canard that Prescott Bush stole Gerinomo's skull! Removing material from the Talk page is quite absurd, by the way! Collect 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not weighing the evidence of whether Bush took the skull. We are reporting that he has been said to have taken the skull, in notable sources (most recently, in a private letter dating from near the time of the alleged deed). Please see citation and verifiability policy for why this is correct. I am also unaware of information removed from this Talk page; could you be more specific? --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"We are reporting the allegation" is not an excuse for excising the comments in the Talk page <g>. The fact is that the allegations are found ONLY on highly partisan sites, and that a non-partisan reviewer has found the allegations to be baseless. Kindly retain this comment no matter how you feel about reporting an :"allegation" -- which is on the level of someone putting on JFKs page that hois dad was a bootlegger who killed thousands of people with "bad booze" in Prohibition, or similar "allegations." "Allegations" which are scurrilous do not belong in Wiki, as has been made clear in the past. Now KEEP this part of the TALK page here. Thanks!!Collect 12:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, please keep your conversation in the appropriate place (the top of the page is a mess). You state the allegations are found ONLY on highly partisan sites, but the source used in the article is the Yale Alumni Magazine. Are you giving that publication that characterization? The May 2006 article -- written many months after the Cecil Adams examination you're so fond of -- includes a primary source, a letter which names Prescott Bush and makes the claim that the crime took place. There are two possible refutations at this point: 1, the grave robbery was a concocted story, and the bones were obtained from e.g. medical sources; 2. the bones were stolen from a grave at Ft. Sill but are not Geronimo's. Seriously, please read the sources before commenting. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The way i heard it bush's lawyers (on meeting with geronimos descendants) denied the documents that they had in their possesion were authentic..... and then asked that they be returned to the russel trust (aka skull and bones). Admittedly i've got nothing more to back up the factual nature of this published claim than the lack of evidence of any litigation that the author of the book in question provoked when he published the claim, but i think at the very least there should be a mention the INDISPUTABLE FACT that prescott bush has had allegations made about his alleged tendency to graverob body parts of famous american indians should be worthy of a mention. If only to stimulate further research into the validity of the claims. ashnbell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.121.21 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet again someone tries inserting trash. Geronimo's skull has no connection with the Bush family at all. Collect (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rockefeller Republicans

This artice says "Later he would be identified with the Rockefeller Republicans". Since Prescott Bush was an opponent of Nelson Rockefeller politically that is an absurd statement. FDR | Talk 11:30 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It was a pejorative term for the Eastern Establishment GOP. It wasn't a club run by Nelson or something, it was just a way to lump them all together. His politics prior to 1964 were very closely aligned with Rocky and other liberal Republicans from the region. Whether Barry's book gave him an ideological change of heart, though, it's difficult to tell.--Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

His politics were not closely aligned with Rockefeller's at all. True, Bush was less conservative than most Republicans. But he still held conservative views on many issues. Rockefeller was more liberal than the Democratic Party is today. If Bush was part of the liberal establishment then why did he support Goldwater. And the term Rockefeller Republican is named after Nelson Rockefeller. So to call Bush that is very misleading since he was an opponent of Rockefeller and supporter of Goldwater. And besides the term Rockefeller Republican is perjoritave and therefore not NPOV. So we should change the sentence from Rockefeller Republican to moderate Republican. FDR | Talk 14:26, 25 July 2006

Then provide a better citation than the Chicago Tribune. That's WP:V and WP:RS compliant.--Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What does the Chicago Tribune have to do with it. I never cited it as my source in this article. FDR | Talk 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I had added a citation for the Chicago Tribune using the term "Rockefeller Republican" to refer to Prescott Bush and others. You deleted that citation. I'm asking why. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I had deleted the citation was because I had deleted the reference to Prescott Bush as a Rockefeller Republican, since the reference was deleted the citation was no longer needed. FDR | Talk 21:31, 25 July, 2006

Just because some people called Prescott Bush a Rockefeller Republican does not make it apropriate to call him that. It is not accurate to call him that. Since he was an opponent of Rockefeller. And Bush was a moderate conservative, whereas Rockefeller was an extreme liberal. The sentence should call Bush a moderate Republican instead. FDR | Talk 20:13 30 July, 2006 (UTC)

FDR, please learn how to show preview. You can check your formatting and spelling before you save your comments. Also, you are completely missing the point of a citation in these circumstances. It is entirely encyclopedic and appropriate for us to communicate to readers of this article how Bush was perceived. Since you persist in deleting my citations, I am going to insist that you supply your own rather than substituting general and subjective wording. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As a concession to you, I have decided to put back in the article that Bush had been identified with the Rockefeller Republicans, but I still pointed out that the identification was incorrect. FDR | Talk 11:28, 31 July, 2006 (UTC)

I also put back in the citation. FDR | Talk 12:19, 31 July, 2006 (UTC)

Tarpley & Chaitkin

I wish to make a case here that the book Chaitkin & Tarpley book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography is not a reliable source. The book is fond of drive-by guilt-by-association claims of the "Bush was a close friend of ..." variety that simply do not check out in other sources, and don't believe we should use it in the article, although it may have things in it that are worth finding better sources for. In general, I think this is a good idea for any source, of course, but it's even more important when there are conspiratorial claims swirling around a subject.--Dhartung | Talk 17:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Tarpley and Chaitkin may say many things that are correct, but they also say many things that are clearly incorrect, poorly researched, not footnoted, or just speculative and POV. Chaitkin is the editor of Executive Intelligence Review, a Lyndon LaRouche organ, and Tarpley is peddling 9/11 "alternate realities". Anyway, I can't even find where they say that Pres and Barry were "close friends". If they did, I would check it with other sources first. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right that their book is very POV against Bush and many of their claims are inaccurate. But the claim that Goldwater was a close friend of Prescott is accurate. And you say cannot find where they say that in their so I will provide a link to where they say it. They it in George Bush:The Unauthorized Biography Chapter XIII Bush Attempts the Vice Presidency,1974 [[17]]. The specific quotation is "The big break came when Barry Goldwater, speaking in Columbia,South Carolina, told a Republican fund-raiser that he had a "gut feeling", that Ford was going to select Bush for the vice presidency,Barry, we recall, had been very cozy with father Prescott in the old days." FDR | Talk 11:50 7 Augsust 2006 (UTC)

"they also say many things that are clearly incorrect" Really? Don't suppose there's any chance of you supplying link(s) to article(s) about the people you think the authors said things that were "clearly incorrect" about suing the authors for libel? I'd love to believe that they were just making it all up (I really would prefer to live in a world in which they were verifiably full of sh*t) but they make a lot of allegations about a lot of very rich people (the majority of whom have lawyers on their staff) amd as far as i can tell, none of these people seem to have fancied their chances of clearing-their-good-names-of-any-suspician-of-wrong-doing/getting--some-free-money by proving their innocehce (on the balance of probability at least) in a court of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.121.21 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Sentence

I removed a sentence that talked about Prescott Bush's alleged Nazi links because the allegations are not credible and are POV against Bush and therefore violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. FDR | Talk 23:37 30 July, 2006 (UTC)

That was an unsourced statement and I'm OK with it being out of the article until cited, but the point of the sentence you removed was who was linking him with the Nazis and eugenics. For Prescott, it was the extreme right wing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contribution

I should clarify that I made a contribution to the article while I was not logged on so the article's history does not mention that I made it. The contribution was the sentence how Rockefeller's second wife was twenty years younger than him and that he had been having an adulterous relationship with. Sorry for forgetting to log on. FDR | Talk 12:14 31 July, 2006 (UTC)

Bush censorship

It appears some individuals are intent on censoring certain facts pertaining to Prescott Bush's wartime dealings. I fail to see how the paragraph below is an issue, if presented in conjunction with the already strong denial of inappropriate business dealings evidenced in the Wartime controversy item. It should be assumed, if this entry is removed, yet again, that there is a partisan agenda at play; therefore the objectivity of this section should be considered compromised.

However, despite attempts to divert attention away from allegations of having business dealings with the Nazis, it is noteworthy that on November 7, 2003, John Buchanan and Stacey Michael published an article in the New Hampshire Gazette titled "'Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951' - Federal Documents."[3] The article chronicles Prescott Bush's dealings with Thyssen through Brown Brothers Harriman and is based entirely on factual information derived from records at the National Archives and Records Administration. The Associated Press and The London Guardian reported and confirmed these findings.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.169 (talk • contribs)

I warned you against deleting parts of Talk pages; I hope you won't do that anymore. As a courtesy for your coming to Talk and discussing the issue, I converted your references to a usable statement with citation form. The major problem with this paragraph was that it essentially says "an article was published" and nothing more. My own reading of the article is that it's touted as explosive but reveals very little not previously known, and we already had that information in the article. (The Guardian article is slightly more useful.) The other paragraph, again, repeated information already in the article. In both cases the wording was in violation of neutral point-of-view policy. As a rule, it may not be helpful to drop highly biased bits of text into an article and expect it to remain. --Dhartung | Talk 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also included the lawsuit because the Guardian claims it has been filed against "the US government and the Bush family" but I can't find where they are really suing the Bushes. The U.S. lawsuit makes no mention of them. PDF Thus the relationship to the Prescott Bush investments is dubious. --Dhartung | Talk 13:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So what about the ADL?

So the article states that The Anti-Defamation League has said, "rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated"

But, this ADL statement is most obviously politically motivated. The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy

Criticism of the ADL:

"Some critics, especially on the left, allege the ADL willfully exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism, especially among Muslims. The critics also claim that the ADL defines legitimate criticism so narrowly that even moderate analysis of Israel could be categorized as anti-Semitic.

For example, linguist and activist Noam Chomsky wrote in his 1989 book Necessary Illusions:

"The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the U.S.… These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement."

Michael Lerner, a prominent left-wing rabbi, has criticized the ADL on similar grounds:

"The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern)."

The ADL has also drawn fire from some Orthodox Jewish leaders who charge it is more interested in promoting a dogmatic form of secularism than in promoting religious tolerance and in the process promoting anti-Christian bigotry and hatred. Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin has charged:

"The most deeply held values of the ADL are a hatred of Judaism and Christianity—and a secularization of society." [18] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.117.78.169 (talk • contribs) .

Under Wikipedia neutral point-of-view policy, attribution and citation of a biased claim is necessary. It is not for Wikipedia to say whether the original claim, or the rebuttal, is valid. There is probably a better source for a similar quote, though possibly not one as forceful. Basically the claims about the Bush family are so extreme that few sources with any salt actually reply to them directly. --Dhartung | Talk 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to add to my comment again, but the more I try to suss this out the more it confuses me. Are we to believe that the strict Zionism of the ADL means that they're covering for the Nazi conspiracy in the US? Is that the angle? (Which of course is the unasked question in all of the charges: how come these alleged Nazis are some of the most pro-Israel US ruling politicians in history?) But if this is just some kind of "ZOMG the source has POV" objection, then, well, every source has a presumed POV. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Look it, I have no interest in the Zionism debate, the influence of the Israeli lobby, and the collusion that exists between this force, the Neo-Conservatives, and American Christian Zionists, can not be disputed. This Wiki entry is biased in favour of conservative political interests. The allegations are not "extreme" as you suggest, business is business, and the Bush business is war, look at the record. Are conservatives (the ones who try to paint the POV rosey picture here) nieve enough to think that there is something exceptional about an American profitting from war, irrespective of where that war happens to be and the political persuaisions of those invloved? They tell you its conspiracy, that it's un-American, that these men were patriots and would never be engaged in such activities, hello! wake up and smell the coffee, this is business, there is no right or wrong as far as this goes, profit is the bottom line, and the American economy has benefitted from war for quite a long time, there is no disputing this, and there is no disputing that American industry has for years profitted from military-industrial contracts with its "enemies". Only a fool could go on believeing that things are any other way. Anthony C. Sutton, a Hoover Institute scholar (Stanford University) has plenty of details in his three volume series Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (published by The Hoover Institute). He also wrote Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler which can be viewed in it's totality here: Anthony C. Suttons Wall Street and The Rise Of Hitler

That's quite a rant, but it doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand. Keep in mind that this was not a criminal case, and most historians consider it an insignificant episode in Bush's life. Per undue weight rule it should not be the focus of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, "most historians"? that's a little vague, besides, historical records, particularly when they relate to the activities of people who are well positioned in society, will not always present the facts; rather, a particular version of events is presented, a version that attempts to preserve the "moral integrity" of the individual under scrutiny. I hardly think the average person would agree that it is insignificant that an American - particularly one who was as well placed in American society as Prescott Bush - had business dealings with the Nazis while America was at war with Germany. This is a fact. What's the problem? The problem is it's George Bush's grandfather, that's why this is all hush hush, it's bad for his image, but lets be objective, lets present the facts as they actually are rather than trying to spin them one way or another. That's something that will never happen in America, becasue the country is swimming in bullshit, so much so that when truths are presented, nobody wants to know, it makes them too uncomfortable to know how deep the rot goes. All this wiki, impartial, impirical, objective this, that, and the other, amounts to nothing, if ultimately wiki cowers from the truth; becasue it happens to offend the beliefs of one individual or another. That's weak. POV my ass the entire P. Bush "war conspiracy" entry tends to stink of POV - depending on who was last to edit it. When someone presents something sensitive there is a revert, or a claim of vandalism, or some ADL nonsense - like suddenly the ADL is a voice of authority in America? Like gee, I wonder who asked them to say that? Again this is weak. It really shows wiki up for what it is, and what it always will be, until genuine impiricism is utilised throughout.

Changes to the talkpage?

It seems this page is being vandalized --Howmee 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything that looks like vandalism. Could you be more specific? --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Hitler declared war on the US / Trading With the Enemy Act

This statement was added by User:TDC:

"Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act."

Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. The Trading With the Enemy Act was passed in 1917. What gives? 207.69.139.140 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed Coup

I removed the reference to the "Failed coup" Business Plot. The only source given is to the BBC 4 series Document's "The Whitehouse Coup" (23 July 2007).

The program does not in any way state or imply that Prescott Bush was involved in the plot. What the program says (starting at 20:24) is

Later in the McCormack-Dickstein report, a shipping company called Hamburg-America Line was accused of providing free passage to Germany to American journalists willing to write favorable copy on Hitler's rise to power. The company is also alleged to have brought Nazi spies and pro-fascist sympathizers into America. John Buchanan has studied this latest section of the report and has discovered that one of the company's managers came from a very famous family. "The thing that surprised me most was to discover in the documents of this company that Hamburg-America Lines had, in fact, been managed on the U. S. side at the executive level by Prescott Bush as part of a web of Nazi business interests that were all seized in late 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act by the U. S. Congress and Prescott Bush is the grandfather of the sitting President of the United States." [John Buchanan]

Of course, at the time it was perfectly legal to have dealings with Hitler's Germany. Prescott Bush was not called to account for this until America entered the war.

The McCormack-Dickstein report is "Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities." United States Congress, House of Representatives. Special Committee on Un-American Activities.Dec 29, 1934. (73rd Congress, 2nd session. Hearings No. 73-D. C.-6). (Washington, Government Printing Office; 1935)

Ken Hirsch 03:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people are claiming that this does say that Prescott Bush was involved with the Business Plot, despite the fact that it is clearly talking about completely separate activities. My only guess as to how people are arriving at this conclusion is that they are assuming that the Business Plot is the only subject of the McCormack-Dickstein report. If that were true, then there might be some connection, but this assumption is false. The committee looked into many different activities, not just the Business Plot. Hence the name of the report, "Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities."

The committee held hearings in six cities and took testimony from hundreds of witnesses. The Business Plot was not its only or even its primary focus of investigation. Notice how it says "Nazi Propaganda Activities". The Business Plot was not a Nazi (that is German government) operation. The BBC report is saying that Hamburg-America Lines was involved in Nazi activities, not the Business Plot.

If there is some other possible interpretation of this, or there is some other information, then explain it here in plain words before you change the main page to say that Prescott Bush was involved. There is simply no evidence for that.

Ken Hirsch 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

LACK OF NEUTRALITY I'm not sure how to phrase this criticism yet, but this section: "The facts presented here must be known, and their implications reflected upon, for a proper understanding of President George Herbert Walker Bush and of the danger to mankind that he represents. The President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler project. The powerful Anglo-American family associations, which later boosted him into the Central Intelligence Agency and up to the White House, were his father's partners in the Hitler project."

seems to lack sources, and to be preaching rather than factually stating something. If the fortune comes from the dealings with Nazi Germany, it should be known and cited. Saying someone is a "danger to mankind" is biased.

no username yet - 141.217.44.176 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The "plot" is back on the main page. Was there a consensus that it belonged? Or ought someone with clout consign it to the depths? Collect (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The program does not in any way state or imply that Prescott Bush was involved in the plot." is now inserted. Collect (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the entire Plot section sho9uld be deled. I did dele unreferenced claims which made their way into other sections. Collect (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Five days should be enough for comments. Plot is deled shortly. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What was his degree in?

The article says he graduated but doesn't say with what degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.10.7 (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

need help - nazi medal to bush is real?

Hi, first of all excuse me for my english. I write from it.wikipedia.org In the italian voice of Prescott Bush, someone wrote "Il 7 marzo 1938 gli fu conferita la croce al merito dell'Ordine dell'Aquila germanica, terza classe (Verdienstkreuz des Ordens vom Deutschen Adler, dritter Stufe).[19][20]

It sounds as "On march 7, 1938, Bush receveid a distinguished cross of the German Eagle Order, third class"

Is it a real stuff? Please help us! --TheDRaKKaR (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No verification for it. Prescott Bush was not a major player as far as the Nazis were concerned. I understand Henry Ford might have gotten a medal well before WW II, but Bush was not quite as important. Collect (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --TheDRaKKaR (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlink years

From Wikipedia Manual of style MOS:UNLINKYEARS "Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations."

references and notes duplicate

Any reason to keep both when they have the same material? Collect (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Guardian/Hitler article has been debunked?

84.30.88.83 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) By Cecil Adams? And since when has Cecil Adams' myth-busting site become a 'reliable' news source?

Wikipedia becomes more laughable by the minute.

Certainly true of the political BLPs, thanks to thinkpol comedians scripting the articles and their talk pages 24/7 now. — Writegeist (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually debunked by a number of sources. This Guardian article was previously discussed here, and has no place in this article on Bush. Collect (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect - list your sources so we can validate their credibility. Cecil Adams alone is not enough of an accurate source, sorry.84.30.88.83 (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First -- NO suit against Bush was made. Second NO one has found the US giving the Harrimans $4 BILLION for UBC. Even the Guardian, by the way, admits "although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942. " The claim "The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen. " is overstated since the ONLY record is of his havinf a single share in UBC. "By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized. : Unfortunately, there is no record of him OWNING any of that company. "A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort". But these were wrt I.G. Farben, with which Buush had no connection. "The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family. " Ascribes a very high level of power to Mr. Walker, and seems to lower the power of the real owners -- the Harrimans. "He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party." Fine -- except that book was NOT his autobiography. See WP for "The book was in fact written by a journalist called Emery Reves, based partly on memoirs dictated by Thyssen, but containing much material invented or exaggerated by Reves. This book is the source of views about Thyssen, including the view that the German industrialists as a class supported and funded Hitler and put him into power. After the war Thyssen disputed the authenticity of this book, and this was upheld by the postwar denazification tribunal." Thyssen's complete break with Hitler came in Septermber 1939, long before the US was invovled in WW II. The Guardian story in fact rests on this particular claim. "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." Actually contradicts the earlier claim of Bush "owning" these companies. Usually, though, a single share helb by a nominee is a sign that the nominee has no real financial stake in a corporation. "Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company. " is "coatrack" by WP standards as no allegation has been made by anyone that Bush or the Harrimans had anything at all to do with I.G. Farben.

So what we have is an "autobiography" found to be false in German courts and stated to be fake in WP. "Coatracking" to link Bush to I.G. Farbem without a scintilla of evidence other than assertion in the Guardian, CONTRADICTORY remarks as to whether Bush actually owned ANY of the company involved, and so on.

Cecil Adams states the facts -- that business with Germany before WW II was common for all major businesses, including ones in the UK, US, France and more. His statement is dispassionate and accurate.

It is further interesting that the ONLY "National Archives" document ever furnished has been the one showing the single share of UBC. NO other documents have been furnished in ANY form to back the outlandish claims.

So all that is left is that Bush was a director of a company which did business with Hitler when it was common to do so, that it was owned by a person who was CLEARED of WW II Nazi ties in court, and, by inference, of having been a Nazi when his assets were seized in the US, and whose family is prominent in Germany still. Collect (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And why should we put stock in anything Fritz Thyssen says? Admitting that he was enabling Hitler would not look pretty on his resume after the war was over, so of course he would break his ties with him at some point.

Secondly, the Wikipedia article on 'I Paid Hitler' states that it contains material invented or exaggerated by the author. What source do you base this on?

Third, I asked for the sources, not your fact-gathering evidence. I am now supposed to take your word for it, but can not verify your claims. That Wikipedia states something to be 'fake' proves nothing if the source is faulty.84.30.88.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

And lastly, you mention the denazification tribunals. I take it you're referring to the Nuremburg trials. Recent evidence points to it being a farce/a whitewash/a dog and pony show.84.30.88.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

Collect, I see you're also trying to put the genie into the bottle when it comes to the Geronimo story, while Dhartung pointed out to you numerous times that you did not accurately read or address the sources, and instead brush it off as 'oh, that's only on highly partisan sites', when the comments have appeared in the Yale Alumni magazine. You never replied either.

Are you covering up the truth? Do you have a vested interest in making this page look like a PR campaign article for the Bushes? Trying to put stuff in the 'memory hole' like Winston Smith did in 1984? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks as if the family history is being sanitized in preparation for some attention when Bush 41 shuffles off his mortal coil and Bush 43 minces off into the sunset. (Though not necessarily in that order.) And this is a theory I might be inclined to consider if I were not already super-confident that WP's code geeks will surely have built-in an infallible top-secret high-tech defense against such abuses. I rather fancy it could be some kind of new-fangled Ray Detector like I once saw on The Twilight Zone. (The stuff they can do these days!) But I must say, the more you look at it, the more it looks a snow job. Gosh darn it, it really does! It's uncanny! — Writegeist (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You again? Kindly deal with facts here, not personal attacks on editors. Collect (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no "vested interest" and I would suggest you think twice before attacking editors here. The trials of Thyssen were not a farce, and your accusation that somehow a man who had his property seized by Hitler was an active contributor to WW II is outre. If you have FACTUAL references, by all means show them here in the Talk page. Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"[P]ersonal attacks on editors"? This from someone who attacks another editor with an accusation of "stalking" him, just for having the temerity to post a comment to a discussion about an article you happened to be involved in. And from someone who, instead of apologizing, defends the accusation on the nonsensical grounds that (1) the article was vandalized on the same day (so?) and (2) the accusation arose from an overriding concern for NPOV! You people make me laugh.

Does it look as if the PB BLP is being sanitized? As Caribou Barbie would say, goshdarn it you betcha! Even if it isn't! (And hey, who knows?) Darn it, wouldn't you agree? — Writegeist (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted. All references are dealt with approriately, and ones which conflict with court cases are given proper weight. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What does Cecil Adams really debunk?

Cecil Adams, in his The Straight Dope article from February 14, 2003, does a reasonably good job of refuting claims that Prescott Bush was a Nazi, and supports his analysis with references and sources.

Adams does acknowledge that companies that Bush was affiliated with had ties to the Nazis and did business with them ("So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company.")

I don't think Cecil Adams debunks the article "Bush/Nazi Link Confirmed" by John Buchanan of The New Hampshire Gazette [21] that was published on Oct. 10, 2003. In "Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler," Jonathan Salant, then working for Associated Press, confirmed most of what John Buchanan wrote in his article. [22] Both of these articles do not claim Bush was a Nazi, but add more details of the business dealings between Bush-related companies and the Germans.

The Guardian article by Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell [23] which came out Sept. 25, 2004 (more than 18 months after Adam's The Straight Dope piece) also does not claim that Bush was a Nazi, but provides more context and details of the business relations with German- or German-controlled entities. Wayfinder650 (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The article by Adams has not been superceded. The Guardian has now backed far away from its most sensational claims. Note particularly how far the Guardian is running from Buchanan. "Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth". " Not precisely a ringing endorsement, is it? Result: The Guardian says Bush had a share in at least one company connected to Thyssen. Stated, and cited in this article. Collect (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The light-hearted--not to say lightweight--columnist and blogger Cecil Adams is not a reliable source. As he has no credibility his babbling does not warrant serious consideration in any discussion about Prescott Bush. Or about anyone else with links to the Nazis, for that matter. — Writegeist (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you think Cecil Adams is of no weight at all. However, his opinion is given weight by others, ad that is important here, not just your own distaste for him. His column, by the way, is not considered a "blog" as you appear to imply. Therefore, I look at the German court case -- absent a reason to pretend I am the Supreme Court of Germany, I tend to give court decisions quite a bit of weight. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no--thank you most kindly. Really. Cecil Adams is of "no weight at all" because he does not exist. Cecil Adams is not even a deceased parrot. There is no Cecil Adams, human or avian. "Cecil Adams" is a fiction, a made-up byline used by several babbling lightweight columnists and bloggers. Goshdarn it, how you make me laugh. Yes, really, thank you most kindly for the entertainment! — Writegeist (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Final total evidence is a piece of paper showing PB with one share of a company which was not owned by a Nazi when it was seized. Right? Collect (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Myfro (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) nice to see the illuminati deleting all of bush's ww2 and fdr articles,hey it now looks like ole prescott is mother theresaMyfro (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Find solid facts. Anything not solidly backed up is not valid for a biography. Especially the "Geronimo's Skull" stuff. Collect (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC does not state Bush knew of Nazi WW II activities

See Cecil Adams' debunking. The BBC show, in fact, is of minimal relavance to the biography at hand. All major US corporations did business with Nazis, including at least five in which FDR held stock. Collect (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Gold Bullion

It is common knowledge that the original Bush wealth came from prescott bush trading nazi gold bullion during the war and then taking that money and investing it in oil and weapons, prescott bush came under federal investigation for this and was brought to trial. this is what ended his business career --69.230.211.183 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)