Neutrality during the war

If you think American companies were neutral in the beginning..think again..and even supplied Germany with secret dealings and thru third-parties during the war...profits mattered more to some.

How the Allied multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War II

 

Absolutely. Fascist/Nazi sympathies were all over American Industry due to the Corporatism philosophy of Fascism/Nazism.

 

Had nothing to do with their political sympathies, only the pursuit of profit.
They tried doing the same thing in the USSR, when Stalin was industrializing his nation, but they met with less success than they did in Germany.

Now, does that mean they were also Communist sympathizers?

 

While I agree profit was the primary motive, we cannot deny that both antisemitism and anticommunism played a role in both the US and UK on the political and business front with respect to Nazi Germany.

 

After a meeting on October 23, 1940 to discuss details about the alliance between Spain and Germany, Hitler was famously quoted telling Mussolini: "I prefer to have three or four of my own teeth pulled out than to speak to that man again!”

Diplomacy is where the term ‘non-belligerency’ is distinguished from absolute neutrality. While Spanish volunteers technically assisted both the Allies and Axis during World War Two militaristically, General Franco also provided the Axis Powers with both economic assistance and useful intelligence. In 1940, Franco signed the Protocol of Hendaya, which provided for close cooperation among the governments of Spain, Italy and Germany. To me Franco was more of an opportunist depending on which way the war was going, even acquiring Heinkel-111's from Germany between 1941-43. Seen below with Karl Wolff, Heinrich Himmler and his Minister Ramon Serrano Suner to his right.

 

Depends...
Ford began construction of the first German auto plant in 1930 & General Motors got majority stake in Opel in 1929 and complete control in 1931.

Ford helped the USSR start NAZ/GAZ in 1928 & maintained their relationship, as contracted, until 1938.

 

Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway were all neutrals in 1939.
Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway were all founding members of NATO in 1949.
Lesson learned [though it took my mother's native Belgium twice].

 

Neutrality only works if the warring nations are willing to respect it.

Truthfully, all 4 nations you have mentioned tried it twice. Holland declared neutrality in WW1, and it was respected by Germany. Denmark did the same, trading with both sides during WW1. Norway declared neutrality, but because of it's large merchant fleet, became essentially an English neutral ally. Only Belgium failed, because German war plans could not abide by, nor respect, Belgian neutrality - whereas the other 3 nations hardly figured in the German war plans.

 

After the Civil War Spanish agriculture was wrecked and the country was dependent on food imports. After the fall of France any French surplus was going to feed Germany. Britain with naval superiority was in a position to block seaborne imports. If he didn't want the country to starve Franco had to stay neutral.

In both World wars Germany was dependent on Sweden for iron ore.Had Sweden stopped supplying this a German invasion would have been probable.

 

Agreed. By "twice" I meant Belgium had to be overrun twice by Germany to think it through.

 

Neutral countries could trade with belligerents, and that included selling weapons.
Belligerents couldn't use the territory of a neutral country for military purposes - this basically was the definition of a neutral country.

 

Still Franco owed his position to the Condor Legion but I do understand Franco"s reluctance to help the nazi cause.

During the WW2 neutral countries helped in getting rare minerals though and possibly spy information to both sides.

 

Some other info on "legal" sabotage:

Aalders, Gerard and Cees Wiebes The Art of Cloaking Ownership: The Secret Collaboration and Protection of the German War Industry by the Neutrals: The Case of Sweden

This book definitely gives alot of thinking to do. And not just for Sweden´s part.

During and after WW1 several companies owned by Germans were taken over. This led to the cloaking of businesses so that in the future this could not happen. Thus many firms led by Germans had other owners but only in name. The real decisions were made in Germany but as this could not be proved these factories and production methods ( protected by patents ) stayed untouched in WW2 and could not be forced to join the war production like in WW1.

The book gives some examples and I was wondering if anyone has read about these elsewhere:

-The US diesel engine production was delayed because Robert Bosch industrial companies (from Stuttgart) and the American Bosch (ABC) had a patent. Thus the US could not answer the German U-boat threat as well in 1941 as they should have when the war started.

-production of magnesium, army´s optical equipment, navy´s and air force´s fuel injection machinery were also delayed for the same reason.

-Standard Oil and IG Farben had a deal ( from 1929 ) due to which Standard Oil would have to give all the technical paper work to IG Farben.The US Army could not agree to this and Standard Oil refused to produce 100 octane cerosine for the aeroplanes.

-On 22nd Sept 1939 (!) IG Farben and Standard Oil made the so-called " Hague memo" in which co-operation was agreed to continue even if the US joined the war. This deal led to a huge demand for artificial rubber once the war started, because IG Farben had the monopoly for the patents used, and the US had to start literally from nothing to produce articial rubber.

-Deal between American Aluminium Corporation and IG Farben caused restrictions in Aluminium production.

-1929 Remington Arms and IG Farben made a tetracene deal, which made it impossible to ship this important chemical to Britain until 1941
( used in hardening of the barrel, I think )

-SKF Philadelphia ball bearings production levels : 150,000/ month ordered, 20,000/month produced.

 

Such was the absurdity of the conventions...
If it was a land war, the selling of war material by neutrals was AOK.
If it was a naval war...No No No.

 

5

Funny how France bought all those Curtis Hawks she used against Germany and Britain got all those rifles etc etc in 1940!

 

It didn't violate the provisions of Cash and Carry.