3 ms·

Potato - Kartoffel. In the end the subsidiaries still meant a profit for the main company/conglomerate.

simonh 6y ago
So what? Subsidiaries of German company subsidiaries in the US still did business and even contributed to the US war effort. What else do you expect the US citizens working for them to have done? In general in war time the property of nationals of the country you’re at war with, in your country, remains their property. It can be frozen or confiscated or commandeered, sure, according to local law but confiscation is not the normal expectation. In Germany after WW2 the property of US companies was returned to their control, and vice versa for the assets of German companies in the US. You use the term profit, but we don’t even know if those subsidiaries even made a profit during the war. They may have come out of the war better off than they started I suppose in theory, but given the devastation of German industry during the war that seems unlikely. Do you have any evidence the value of those subsidiaries in Germany was higher at the end of the war than when it started? Even if it was, what would you propose be done about it?
- leipert 6y ago
  Well, your comment was: > The German subsidiaries of those companies, in Germany run by German citizens, still traded in Germany yes. That sounds a bit simplistic, of course if the German government ceases their operation and severs ties to the US, there is not much to be done, on the other hand e.g. Ford employed slave labor even _before_ ties to the US company were cut [0]. While Nazi Germany is ultimately responsible for these atrocities; in my opinion: companies still have / should have a moral duty. Some companies are exploring their past, e.g. Coffee companies with their ties to human trafficking. I think we need more of that, even just acknowledging our past, because "with power comes great responsibility" and those large companies, more powerful as some smaller countries should be held accountable and should do everything to prevent abuse and exploitation. You seem to focus on the economics only, I agree profit might not have been the right term, but if a company actively exploited people it shouldn't matter too much whether they turned a profit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_labor_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_lab...
  - simonh 6y ago
    I agree completely, but it is the people doing the exploiting that are responsible. Lots of people have benefited from all sorts of crimes through no fault of their own, nor any way to know what was happening or even any way to stop it even if they had. History is full of examples. You and I are probably included.

So what? Subsidiaries of German company subsidiaries in the US still did business and even contributed to the US war effort. What else do you expect the US citizens working for them to have done? In general in war time the property of nationals of the country you’re at war with, in your country, remains their property. It can be frozen or confiscated or commandeered, sure, according to local law but confiscation is not the normal expectation. In Germany after WW2 the property of US companies was returned to their control, and vice versa for the assets of German companies in the US. You use the term profit, but we don’t even know if those subsidiaries even made a profit during the war. They may have come out of the war better off than they started I suppose in theory, but given the devastation of German industry during the war that seems unlikely. Do you have any evidence the value of those subsidiaries in Germany was higher at the end of the war than when it started? Even if it was, what would you propose be done about it?

leipert 6y ago
Well, your comment was: > The German subsidiaries of those companies, in Germany run by German citizens, still traded in Germany yes. That sounds a bit simplistic, of course if the German government ceases their operation and severs ties to the US, there is not much to be done, on the other hand e.g. Ford employed slave labor even _before_ ties to the US company were cut [0]. While Nazi Germany is ultimately responsible for these atrocities; in my opinion: companies still have / should have a moral duty. Some companies are exploring their past, e.g. Coffee companies with their ties to human trafficking. I think we need more of that, even just acknowledging our past, because "with power comes great responsibility" and those large companies, more powerful as some smaller countries should be held accountable and should do everything to prevent abuse and exploitation. You seem to focus on the economics only, I agree profit might not have been the right term, but if a company actively exploited people it shouldn't matter too much whether they turned a profit. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_labor_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_lab...
- simonh 6y ago
  I agree completely, but it is the people doing the exploiting that are responsible. Lots of people have benefited from all sorts of crimes through no fault of their own, nor any way to know what was happening or even any way to stop it even if they had. History is full of examples. You and I are probably included.