Misplaced Pages

Talk:Prescott Bush: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:40, 30 September 2008 editCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Geronimo skull: yet again← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:35, 19 October 2024 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,064 edits →top 
(698 intermediate revisions by 77 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{OH-Project|class=C|importance=}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|living=no|listas=Bush, Prescott|1=
{{notforum}}
{{WikiProject College football|class=}} {{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}}
{{WPBiography
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}}
|living=no
{{WikiProject College football|importance=low}}
|class=B
{{WikiProject Connecticut|importance=High}}
|priority=Mid
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=Low}}
|politician-work-group=yes
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}}
|listas=Bush, Prescott
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|OH=yes|OH-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|subject=person|importance=}}
}} }}
{{annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Prescott Bush/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index=/Archive index |
* ] <small>(Jan 2003 – August 2009)</small>
* ] <small>(Jan 2010 – May 2011)</small>
* ] <small>(May 2011 – )</small>
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
__TOC__
{{Clear}}


== Prescott Bush, the Business Plot, and Nazi-entanglement. ==
== 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 :( ] 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 ] 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. -- ] | ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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[REDACTED] 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. Misplaced Pages 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. -] 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[REDACTED] article on ] can see. As for the ]'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 ] 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. -] 12 October 2005

-----

'''G.H.W. Bush's motivation to join the Navy contested'''How 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.''? -- ]

: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 ], ]. This was his 18th birthday and also the day he graduated from Philips Academy. It was common practice at the beginning of ] for young men to enlist on their 18th birthdays. ] 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. ''

] 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&mdash;which of course he was not directly involved with but one would not be surprised if he were being groomed to inherit&mdash;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 GHWB''s 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 ], 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. ] 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 &ldquo;Hitler&rsquo;s Angel&rdquo; , 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. ] 03:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

--------
'''The 'sleve labor' remark'''

----
The statement regarding slave labor in Poland '''STRONGLY''' needs some kind of documentation. ]

: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. ] 17:40 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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

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

The world hath truly turned upside-down! ]

::The connection between later slave labor and Bush the New york banker is extremely strained and NPOV. It's out. ] 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? ] 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. ] 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 &mdash; it's not really common knowledge. ] 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... ]

----
Daniel, I'm curious: why did you delete the external link to the recent New Hampshire Gazette article? ] 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. ] 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. --] 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. ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages article on the Military Industrial Complex. If "Merchants of Death" was a neutral and widely used term, the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

(Jeez, why don't I have anything better to do than criticize a Misplaced Pages 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 ] connection for ] companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of ], who had been an early financial backer of the ] party until ], but who by ] had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing ]. Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after ], President ] signed the ]. On ], ], the U.S. government ordered the seizure of ] banking operations in ].

:Prescott Bush's business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:
:* ] (UBC) (for Thyssen and ])
:* ] (with Harriman)
:* the ] (with Harriman)
:* ] (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, ] and ], plus two identified nazi party members, ] (4 shares) and ] (1 share).
:] has claimed that Bush's connections to the Silesian-American Corporation makes him complicit with the corporation's ] operations in ] which used slave labor out of ], where the ] 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 ] to Harriman, and ]. From 1939 until stopped by the '''Trading With The Enemy Act''' in 1942, Prescott Bush was manager of ], renamed ], associated with ] slave labor and nazi money laundering through late 1942, almost a year after Pearl Harbor. The ] 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 ] 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." 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, ], 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 ]." From 1926 Max Warburg was involved in ] founded as a holding company controlling ] assets in the United States. Three other members of the Board of Governors for ] were later tried and convicted as German war criminals. ] was the reason they put ] there, to make synthetic aviation fuel and synthetic gasoline from Thyssen's nearby coal operations. ] made the ] cyanide gas used at ], 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 ] and ] gained control of the ] shipping line. The deal, arranged through the chief executive of German Hamburg-Amerika, ], and through one of the shipping line's bankers, ]. The name of the firm was changed to ]. After being involved in the deal, ] of ] is named to serve on the board of the renamed corporation. ] later becomes a heavy contributor to Nazi Party funds.

:The '']'' 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 ] 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. , , , }}

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 Misplaced Pages 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--] 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

== Possible information to add to Misplaced Pages ==

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.--] 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:See the section titled ]. 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. --] | ] 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)¶
::Please read the ]. It is unacceptable to edit (or remove) comments by other editors. --] | ] 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
also found this next piece <br>
Read More <br>
also found in that article
And a little Bonus <br>
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html Timeline of events --] 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. --] | ] 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I just found this site if you want another source <br>--] 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 --] 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". --] | ] 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--] 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some extra stuff From The Only Magazine At Yale About Stuff At Yale
:Howmee, the NARA link leads to a list of records relating to ], 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. --] | ] 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.--] 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. --] | ] 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.--] 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 -- --] | ] 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!''' --] 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. ] 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 ] considered Prescott Bush to be his political mentor and consulted him before his famous ] "]", in which Nixon, then the ] candidate, addressed his exoneration of receiving $18,000 in illegal campaign contributions. However, Nixon admitted accepting a ] 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.). --] | ] 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. --] | ] 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. ] 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? --] | ] 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! ] 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 ] and ] policy for why this is correct. I am also unaware of information removed from this Talk page; could you be more specific? --] | ] 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!!] 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. --] | ] 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 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Yet again someone tries inserting trash. Geronimo's skull has no connection with the Bush family at all. ] (]) 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.
] | ] 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.--] | ] 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.
] | ] 14:26, 25 July 2006
:Then provide a better citation than the Chicago Tribune. That's ] and ] compliant.--] | ] 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.
] | ] 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. --] | ] 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.
] | ] 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.
] | ] 20:13 30 July, 2006 (UTC)
:FDR, please learn how to ]. 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. --] | ] 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.
] | ]
11:28, 31 July, 2006 (UTC)

I also put back in the citation.
] | ] 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 ]. 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.--] | ] 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 ]. Chaitkin is the editor of ], a ] 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. --] | ] 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 ]. 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."
] | ] 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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 Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy.
] | ] 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. --] | ] 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.
] | ] 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." 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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
: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 ] policy. As a rule, it may not be helpful to drop highly biased bits of text into an article and expect it to remain. --] | ] 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. Thus the relationship to the Prescott Bush investments is dubious. --] | ] 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.

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." <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

:Under Misplaced Pages ] policy, attribution and ] of a biased claim is necessary. It is not for Misplaced Pages 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. --] | ] 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. --] | ] 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:
: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 ] it should not be the focus of the article. --] | ] 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
--] 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see anything that looks like vandalism. Could you be more specific? --] | ] 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 ], President ] signed the ]."''

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

== Failed Coup ==

I removed the reference to the "Failed coup" ]. The only source given is to the BBC 4 series Document's .

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
<blockquote>
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."
<p>
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.
</blockquote>

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)

] 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.


I first learned of Prescott Bush's involvement with the Business Plot from reading Misplaced Pages.
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.
Now both the articles about the Business Plot and Prescott Bush have been scrubbed of reference to each other.
I read the talk page for Prescott Bush, and found that the great editors determined that there was flimsy evidence to support the claims. And while I think it is admirable to clear a man's name decades after his death on the basis of good sense, I think their is ample evidence to link Prescott Bush to both incidents.
Just a quick Googling of "Prescott Bush Business Plot" links you to this article from Harper's Magazine. http://harpers.org/blog/2007/07/1934-the-plot-against-america/
And a quick search for "Prescott Bush Nazi" returns this article from The Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar


Now Harper's and the Guardian are not rags dedicated to the cause of paranoia, and to say that they don't rise to the level of credible Misplaced Pages sources is, to my mind, a little nuts.
] 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if this is not enough citation to prove Prescott Bush's guilt, I think it is more than enough to warrant mentioning the allegations.


:The connection between Prescott Bush and the Business Plot is the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee, the precursor of what became the ]. That committee investigated both Bush (or a company he was involved in; I rather doubt Bush himself was investigated) and the plot - but in separate investigations. Bush was of interest due to his involvement with the ], suspected of Nazi links, and that's what Harper's Blog is talking about. The Guardian similarly discusses Bush's business connections to Nazi Germany and to German businessmen that supported the Nazi Party. The Business Plot was completely unrelated. It had nothing to do with Germany, Nazis, the Hamburg America Line and, by extension, Prescott Bush. This article already discusses Bush's Nazi ties (or lack thereof), based on more reliable sources than Harper's Blog, but there simply is nothing but a misunderstanding connecting Bush to the Business Plot. ] (]) 20:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
'''LACK OF NEUTRALITY'''
:: The Guardian article contains more info that could be used in this article. It also mentions several books which could probably be used. --] (]) 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
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."


Agreed, this information should be included as it is a matter of record. Harper's and the Guardian are both top-tier primary sources.] (]) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
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.
: There's clearly some whitewashing going on here. Prescott was a goddamned Nazi, he made money doing business with other Nazis, and his son went into the family business as head of the CIA, a key institutional enemy of liberty. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:::Interest in issue may increase due to the release of the film Amsterdam.(2022) Parmets article also suggests that the sins of the father are not the sins of the son(s).] (]) 16:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
no username yet - ] (]) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
::My friend you good, or just intellectually illiterate? ] (]) 08:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
OK, the entire Plot section sho9uld be deled. I did dele unreferenced claims which made their way into other sections. ] (]) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Five days should be enough for comments. Plot is deled shortly. Thanks! ] (]) 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
==What was his degree in?==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024054819/http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/findaids/Bush_PS/MSS19910001.html to http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/findaids/Bush_PS/MSS19910001.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
The article says he graduated but doesn't say with what degree. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== need help - nazi medal to bush is real? ==


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
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).


== Business Plot ==
It sounds as "On march 7, 1938, Bush receveid a distinguished cross of the German Eagle Order, third class"
12 years after Scott Horton's article in Harper's Magazine, there is still no clear evidence of Bush's involvement in the Business Plot.


Since so many people apparently believe this as fact, I have re-inserted a short section about the plot and quickly explained that no evidence has been found to support it. My reasoning is that it is better to record it in the article as false rather than not have it in the article at all.
Is it a real stuff? Please help us! --] (]) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


I have also contacted Scott Horton by email and requested he make an updated statement about his 2007 article.
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. ] (]) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Thank you very much! --] (]) 23:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC) --] (]) 06:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


== Interesting facts reported in the Guardian ==
== Unlink years ==


There is a lot of interesting factual information in this article I was thinking of adding, because the wiki article is currently spare on the war-time subject:
From Misplaced Pages Manual of style ] "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."


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
== references and notes duplicate ==


Any reason to keep both when they have the same material? ] (]) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I don't know when I will have time, but perhaps someone else here might be up to it anyway ] (]) 04:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:35, 19 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prescott Bush article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prescott Bush. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prescott Bush at the Reference desk.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconBush family (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family
WikiProject iconBusiness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCollege football Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConnecticut High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Ohio Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Prescott Bush, the Business Plot, and Nazi-entanglement.

I first learned of Prescott Bush's involvement with the Business Plot from reading Misplaced Pages. Now both the articles about the Business Plot and Prescott Bush have been scrubbed of reference to each other. I read the talk page for Prescott Bush, and found that the great editors determined that there was flimsy evidence to support the claims. And while I think it is admirable to clear a man's name decades after his death on the basis of good sense, I think their is ample evidence to link Prescott Bush to both incidents. Just a quick Googling of "Prescott Bush Business Plot" links you to this article from Harper's Magazine. http://harpers.org/blog/2007/07/1934-the-plot-against-america/ And a quick search for "Prescott Bush Nazi" returns this article from The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Now Harper's and the Guardian are not rags dedicated to the cause of paranoia, and to say that they don't rise to the level of credible Misplaced Pages sources is, to my mind, a little nuts. Even if this is not enough citation to prove Prescott Bush's guilt, I think it is more than enough to warrant mentioning the allegations.

The connection between Prescott Bush and the Business Plot is the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee, the precursor of what became the House Un-American Activities Committee. That committee investigated both Bush (or a company he was involved in; I rather doubt Bush himself was investigated) and the plot - but in separate investigations. Bush was of interest due to his involvement with the Hamburg America Line, suspected of Nazi links, and that's what Harper's Blog is talking about. The Guardian similarly discusses Bush's business connections to Nazi Germany and to German businessmen that supported the Nazi Party. The Business Plot was completely unrelated. It had nothing to do with Germany, Nazis, the Hamburg America Line and, by extension, Prescott Bush. This article already discusses Bush's Nazi ties (or lack thereof), based on more reliable sources than Harper's Blog, but there simply is nothing but a misunderstanding connecting Bush to the Business Plot. Huon (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian article contains more info that could be used in this article. It also mentions several books which could probably be used. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this information should be included as it is a matter of record. Harper's and the Guardian are both top-tier primary sources.98.207.14.143 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There's clearly some whitewashing going on here. Prescott was a goddamned Nazi, he made money doing business with other Nazis, and his son went into the family business as head of the CIA, a key institutional enemy of liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:34D1:780B:76A2:643F:A13A (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Interest in issue may increase due to the release of the film Amsterdam.(2022) Parmets article also suggests that the sins of the father are not the sins of the son(s).Johnsagent (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
My friend you good, or just intellectually illiterate? NewDealChief (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prescott Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Business Plot

12 years after Scott Horton's article in Harper's Magazine, there is still no clear evidence of Bush's involvement in the Business Plot.

Since so many people apparently believe this as fact, I have re-inserted a short section about the plot and quickly explained that no evidence has been found to support it. My reasoning is that it is better to record it in the article as false rather than not have it in the article at all.

I have also contacted Scott Horton by email and requested he make an updated statement about his 2007 article.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting facts reported in the Guardian

There is a lot of interesting factual information in this article I was thinking of adding, because the wiki article is currently spare on the war-time subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

I don't know when I will have time, but perhaps someone else here might be up to it anyway Pythagimedes (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Prescott Bush: Difference between revisions Add topic