German companies acknowledge responsibility for Nazi rise to power
Dozens of Germany's most prominent enterprises have acknowledged their responsibility for allowing Nazi tyrant Adolf Hitler to rise to power. In a letter published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the corporations, including Siemens, Uniper, and Volkswagen, have admitted that their forebearers' greed and silence contributed to Nazi crimes.
'The Nazi seizure of power in 1933 would have been unthinkable without the failure of the decision-makers of the time in politics, the military, the judiciary, and the economy,' the collective statement marking the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe said.
Many German companies 'contributed to consolidating the Nazi rule' and were 'complicit' in the Third Reich's crimes as they were solely driven by the desire to make profit, the document added.
The list of signatories included a total of 49 brands, including Adidas, Bayer, and BMW, as well as several major German banks, Deutsche Bahn, and Lufthansa. The companies stopped short of taking direct responsibility for the crimes of their predecessors and said instead that they 'assume responsibility for making the memory of the crimes of the Nazi era visible.'
'In 1933 and beyond, too many remained silent, looked away,' the companies said, adding that this past silence 'imposes responsibility… for the past, the present and the future' upon them. The companies vowed to 'stand against hatred, against exclusion, and against anti-Semitism' and called for the 'achievements' made by the EU after the end of the Cold War to be protected.
The murky Nazi-era history of the biggest German corporations and families that largely control them has repeatedly appeared in the media. In 2022, former Bloomberg journalist David de Jong released a book titled 'Nazi Billionaires', which detailed the ties of companies such as Porsche, Volkswagen, and BMW to the Third Reich.
According to the book, Germany's biggest automakers are still controlled by families that profited from Nazi rule. Some of their holdings include American brands ranging from Panera Bread to Krispy Kreme, in addition to luxury hotels across Europe.
'Businesses and many families in Germany were never really de-Nazified,' de Jong said at the time, adding that companies are only transparent when they are no longer controlled by the families of former Nazi collaborators.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Mission: Regrettable – Ukraine's drone strike blows up in its face
For most people, June 1st is a cheerful date – the start of summer, a celebration of children. But from 2025 onward, it may also be remembered as the day Ukraine launched its largest covert operation in Russia since the start of the conflict. While the full impact of the operation is still unclear, estimates suggest anywhere from a handful to several dozen Russian aircraft were damaged or destroyed. The precise details will likely remain shrouded in speculation. What is certain, however, is that the Russian military must rethink how it defends strategic facilities. The traditional approach – based on intercepting missiles and deploying advanced air-defense systems – has proven inadequate against cheap drones that can be assembled from off-the-shelf parts and launched from almost anywhere. That lesson is now painfully clear. But the military will draw its own conclusions. Our focus should be on the political meaning of what happened. Make no mistake – this was not just a military act. Like much of what Ukraine does, this was political theater, staged for a very specific audience: Donald Trump. Kiev's objective was simple. Derail the Istanbul negotiations and paint Russia as the intransigent party. How? By provoking a furious response – one that would make headlines, stir outrage inside Russia, and force Moscow to walk away from the table. The idea was to provoke a reaction that Ukraine could then parade before Washington. The message? 'See? We told you they don't want peace. Arm us more!' It's not the first time they've tried this tactic. From the attack on the Kursk Bridge to the shelling of Donbass civilians, Ukraine has repeatedly used provocation as a diplomatic weapon – seeking to engineer Russia's diplomatic isolation by sabotaging any steps toward negotiation. And yet, once again, it didn't work. Despite outrage from parts of Russian society, Moscow did not take the bait. Our delegation flew to Istanbul as planned. There, negotiators presented Ukraine with a memorandum reiterating the same terms previously offered. Not a step back. At the same time, humanitarian agreements were reached – including a new exchange of prisoners and the return of fallen fighters' remains. So did Russia 'turn the other cheek'? Hardly. Moscow has adopted a strategy one might call an 'Italian strike' – doing the bare minimum to deny our enemies a propaganda victory, while withholding the kind of breakthroughs that would reward bad-faith behavior. Yes, the humanitarian measures agreed upon in Istanbul are important. But let's not kid ourselves – they are not steps toward a peace settlement. Politically, the situation is unchanged. However, there is a deeper issue now at play – one with far more serious implications. On June 1st, Ukrainian forces didn't just target military bases. They targeted components of Russia's nuclear deterrent. Under our official doctrine, an attack on the strategic nuclear infrastructure is grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. Now, no one is suggesting we nuke Kiev over a few aircraft, no matter how advanced or expensive. That would be disproportionate. But here lies the paradox: If Russia does nothing, it risks undermining the credibility of its own deterrence posture, and that sends a dangerous message. In the Western capitals and among Ukrainian hawks, there are already whispers: 'If they didn't respond to this, maybe they'll tolerate even more.' That may sound absurd – but that's how these people think. Their fantasies become policy more often than one would like. So what is the answer? Let's be honest: repeating slogans like 'our response will be success on the battlefield' won't cut it here. Ukraine's leadership isn't acting out of military logic, but emotional desperation. Their calculation is political. So Russia's response must be political, too – emotionally resonant, unmistakably firm, and, above all, creative. This doesn't mean rash escalation, but we can't rely on the old playbook. Hitting the same military targets again and again achieves little. Striking Ukraine's energy infrastructure? Done. Launching another missile as a 'demonstration'? Predictable. Escalating to mass casualties? Unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive. So what's left? Innovation. Russia must now think asymmetrically. That might mean a covert action so unexpected that it catches Ukraine completely off guard. Or it could involve striking symbolic targets that shift the psychological balance. The key is to remind Kiev – and its patrons – that nothing they do goes unanswered, and that the cost of provocation will always outweigh the benefit. In truth, Russia has spent too long responding conventionally to a conflict that is anything but conventional. Our adversaries deal in optics, symbols, and theater. To counter that effectively, we must speak the same language – without abandoning our principles or resorting to theatrics of our own. The June 1st attack was not a turning point. But it was a warning. Not just about drones or airfields, but about perception and power. The next move, as always, is Russia's to make. And this time, it must be something they don't article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kiev sends the living to die, but won't accept its dead
It is sad, but peace remains elusive in the war between, on one side, Ukraine and – through Ukraine – the West and, on the other, Russia. Recently, the US has at least admitted that Moscow has plausible and important interests at stake and that the West has been using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia. While very late and still incomplete, such truthfulness could help fashion the kind of realistic compromise needed to end this war. Yet Washington's European vassals have chosen this moment to discover their usually terminally atrophied capacity for talking back to the US: They clearly want the war to continue, even though that means Ukraine – about which they pretend to care – will lose even more people and territory. Against this backdrop, it was no wonder that the latest round of the renewed Istanbul talks between Russia and Ukraine produced no breakthrough, little progress, and only very modest concrete results. Also, on the eve of the talks, the Zelensky regime launched terror attacks on civilian trains in western Russia and a series of sneak drone strikes throughout the country that – in the most generous reading – involved the war crime of perfidy: That, obviously, did not help find a way forward either. Indeed, by now it is clear that Kiev's sneak drone attacks in particular have only further undermined the Zelensky regime's already fragile standing in Washington: US President Donald Trump has been explicit that he accepts Russia's right to massively retaliate, or, in the original Trumpese, 'bomb the hell' out of Ukraine. Luckily for Ukraine, Moscow is generally more restrained than America would be in a similar situation, and it should stay so. Yet the fact remains, Kiev's sneak drones have made no substantial military difference in its favor, but they have done significant political damage – to Kiev, that is. Regarding the Istanbul talks, it is likely that these assaults were meant to torpedo them. Yet Moscow did not fall for that rather transparent play. Its delegation turned up; so the Ukrainian one had to do the same. In addition, Russia ended this round of the negotiations with several good-will gestures, including an agreement to exchange POWs who are particularly young or in bad health and the offer to hand over the frozen (a common practice in war) bodies of 6,000 fallen Ukrainians. Both initiatives have run into trouble. To be precise, both are being impeded by the Ukrainian leadership. The POW swap has been delayed, and Ukrainian officials have failed to show up at the border to receive the first 1,212 of their deceased soldiers. Regarding both, Kiev has blamed Russia. Yet, remarkably, the Ukrainian statements, in reality, prove that it is indeed Kiev that is – at the very least – slowing these processes down. For what Ukrainian officials are really accusing Russia of is moving faster. The reasons for this obstructionism are unclear. The Ukrainian authorities have not shared them with the public. But there are some plausible guesses. One very likely reason why Kiev is reluctant to accept the 6,000 bodies of its own fallen soldiers is that the 'preponderant majority' of them, according to a Ukrainian member of parliament, were killed specifically during Ukraine's insane and predictably catastrophic incursion into Russia's Kursk region. Started on August 6 of last year, the operation was initially hyped by Ukrainian propagandists and their accomplices and useful idiots in the West. For the clear-eyed, it was obvious from the beginning that this was a mass kamikaze mission, wasting Ukrainian lives for no military or political advantage. Was the Zelensky regime trying to create a territorial 'bargaining chip'? Or once more 'shift the narrative,' as if wars are won by rewriting a movie script? Influence last year's US elections? Prepare for a possible victory by then presidential candidate Donald Trump? All of the above? We don't know. What we do know is that nothing Kiev may have fantasized about has worked. Indeed, by now the Kursk fiasco has only made Kiev's situation worse. Russia has retaken the territory in Kursk Region that Ukraine had seized and is advancing on the Ukrainian side of the border, taking settlements at an accelerating pace and getting close to the major regional city of Sumy. Clearly, those fallen during that particular suicide mission are evidence of Kiev's recklessness, hypocrisy, and incompetence. No wonder they seem to be less than welcome at home. A second reason for Kiev's reluctance may be even more sordid. There is speculation, for instance on social media, that it is financial. More importantly, a Russian diplomat, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, has made the same claim on the Telegram channel of the Izvestiia newspaper. For according to Ukrainian legislation, the families of the fallen soldiers are entitled to substantial compensation. Painful as it may be to acknowledge it, the Zelensky regime is not incapable of such a massive lack of piety. Whatever the precise reasons for Kiev's odd refusal to take back its prisoners and dead, they are certain to be base. This may jar with the West's well-organized and stubbornly delusional Zelensky fan club. But the best they could do for 'ordinary' Ukrainians is to put pressure on their worn-out idol to accept the prisoners and the fallen. And, of course to finally end the war.
Russia Today
10 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO to limit Ukraine discussions to avoid provoking Trump
NATO is going to keep discussions of Ukraine 'short' at its upcoming annual summit in the Netherlands in order to avoid provoking US President Donald Trump, Reuters has reported, citing the organizers of the event. The summit is scheduled to take place in The Hague on June 24 and 25. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky, who had once been a regular guest of honor at NATO events following the escalation of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev in February 2022, has not been officially invited to attend yet. The European NATO members are 'desperate to avoid upsetting a volatile Trump' during the summit, Reuters said in an article on Friday. According to the sources, the written statement summarizing the results of the event is expected to be 'unusually short' in order to reduce the chance of disagreements. Whether the document 'will even identify Russia as a threat or express support for Ukraine is still up in the air,' they said. Unlike the two previous years, the leaders of the bloc's member states do not plan to hold a formal meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council as part of the summit, the officials said. According to a diplomat from the bloc, it could be replaced by a working dinner with either foreign or defense ministers. Another senior NATO diplomat told Reuters that it would be 'at least a PR disaster' if Zelenskiy does not attend the summit in some form. According to the sources, the Ukrainian leader would have to settle for an invitation to a pre-summit dinner, hosted by Dutch King Willem-Alexander. This way, he could travel to The Hague without angering Trump, they explained. The US president, who is trying to broker an end to the fighting between Moscow and Kiev, had previously ruled out the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. Russia has repeatedly stated that moves towards admitting the country into the bloc would be crossing a red line and have been one of the key reasons for the conflict, insisting that Ukraine should adopt a neutral status as a key condition for a lasting peace. The New York Times reported earlier this week that Trump, who had a public spat with Zelensky at the Oval Office in February, 'reserves special animosity' for the Ukrainian leader and considers him 'a bad guy.'
