Conference taveng::bagels

    It depends on what you mean by support:  there's the private
    individual who happens to be a company owner or executive who 
    freely supports a small party;  the company which offically
    supports a small party;  the private individual who is forced
    to support a governement; the company which is forced to officially
    support a governement, etc.
    
    There's a hypothesis that the party was supported by a consortium
    of industrialists who wanted someone to combat Communist organizers
    back in the early 1920's--it doesn't imply any agreement by the
    industrialists with the party's principles (any more than hiring a
    band of non-ideological thugs would imply the employer liked riding
    motorcycles).  A number of histories cover this aspect (including,
    I believe, William Manchester's _The_Arms_of_Krupp_).
    
    By the time Germany was a dictatorship, every organization had to
    offer formal support for the system, including churches and hiking
    clubs--typical totalitarianism, just as in China of the 1960's,
    when "Mao thought" was given credit for everything, including growing
    big radishes.  Even so, there were degrees of complicity: I don't 
    think anyone but a few fanatics was fooled by the "Aryan Christianity"
    (or whatever it was called).
    
    In between 1923 and 1936, however, there would have been some
    companies which resisted a little and some which were allies.
    That might be the significant moral difference you are interested
    in.  I'm sorry to say I don't have any pointers to information 
    here, but I believe the topic has been written about extensively.
    
    If you do find good references, please share them with us!
    
    		-John Bishop

    re: original request,
    As distasteful as silence may be, perhaps this topic should not be 
    carried to the point of naming companies in a corporate medium such 
    as a public notesfile. Such information is probably best left to more
    private transmissions such as E-mail. Not to imply that there is any
    transgression in asking the question, just a note of caution in the
    manner of responses.
    
    
    DL
     

I am inclined to agree with .2.  If specific companies start to be mentioned, the
topic will be write locked.  I will leave it open for now for the discussion of
some of the differences mentioned in .1.

In particular, I would like to point out another choice that was made at some
companies, non-cooperation.   There were companies whose executives/owners fled
to Switzerland or were imprisoned rather than cooperate.  In at least one case
that I know of, they were reinstated to control of the company after the war.  
It is unfortunate that so few had the strength of character to take that kind of
stance.

Gav

    
    Re: .2 & .3
    
    Am I missing something? The base noter asked a legitimate
    question about corporations having done business with the
    Nazis, and a threat of write-locking is immediately made!
    Why the paranoia? Why shouldn't such information be made
    known if it is available? Lawsuits? Just use the words
    "alleged" or "reputed" if that's a real concern. Please
    explain.
    
    Jem
    

re .4

Stating that a particular company cooperated with the Nazis might be
interpreted as accusing them of complicity in war crimes.  It also might
violate corporate policies regarding what is and is not allowed to go out on
the Easynet.  As you guessed, fear of lawsuits (against Digital, not us
individuals) is the primary motivating factor.

I suggest that the moderators post, in a reply to .1, the above-mentioned
corporate policies.

And speaking of "shah shtill", could the author of .0 (or a moderator) please
change the topic title to something a bit more explanatory?  Thanks.

Stating that such-and-such a company has been accused by so-and-so of
complicity with the Nazis is simply a statement of fact.  I don't see
how there's any legal risk in this.

OK, let's be little clearer.  If you site some source which describes a company
as having cooperated in the Holocaust, I'll let it stand.  If you don't have an
explicit source, your note will be sent back to you.

So, something along the lines of, "the Wall Street Journal, on <date>, claims
that XXX used Jews for pharmaceutical experiments," is OK.  Something like,
"I heard that YYY used the remains from the camps in their manufacturing
process," is right out.

Gav

    This note should be cross written to the corporate paranoia file.
    I for one see nothing wrong in identifying something which is
    documented.
    
    It disturbs me that several of our largest customers are some
    of the corporations which were instrumental in the rise of the 
    third reich, and supported the oppression and systematic murder 
    of Jews.
 
    I do not think the initiator of this note had mom & pop companies
    in mind which employed 5 or 6 people.
    
    The names of the companies which supported the nazi regime are
    public domain.  If everyone thinks it's too hot to put in the
    notes file, go to your local library.
    
    Who do you think manufactured Zyclon-B gas?  Who do you think manufactured
    the  ME-109 fighter, who do you think manufactured uniforms?
    
    Ron