Category Archives: Politics

Is War Between Israel And Hezbollah Imminent?

The US has raised the level of tension with Iran without taking any concrete steps to pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal. The reason why Trump is expected to limit himself to verbal abuse and continue threatening hostile measures against Tehran without executing them is fundamentally to avoid a breach between the US and the EU. The Nuclear deal is not bilateral, so the withdrawal of the US theoretically cannot scupper it. Nevertheless Iran is likely to consider the deal totally void if the US pulls out, with all that that implies. So the US continues its aggressive verbal campaigns against Iran, confusing the Europeans, who rightly fail to predict what decisions this US President is capable of adopting in the medium to long term.

However, the target is not only Iran but also its main ally and military arm in the Middle East: the Lebanese Hezbollah. The US posted bounties on two Hezbollah members of the military council (the highest military authority within the organisation), Haj Fuad Shukr and Haj Talal Hamiyeh, allocating “$12 million to whomsoever is able to offer information” that brings these two to justice. The US bounty purposely showed old photos of the two men to avoid revealing the intelligence sources which have provided the most recent ones. The main question remains: which country is going to take advantage of such an offer, and how?


Hezbollah troops at a rally and speech. Image source: Anadolu

Iran is not longer interested in what Donald Trump will do in relation to the nuclear deal. The Iranian leadership has created hundreds of commercial companies during the embargo, mainly in Oman, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi, to counter over 30 years of US sanctions and embargo. Moreover, Iran used gold and oil in exchange of goods and technology and managed to hold on for many years, accepting to buy at a higher price in the open market.

Today the nuclear deal has opened the thirsty Iranian market and connected it to the European markets. The EU is unwilling to lose that now – especially with the financial crisis the old continent has been going through since 2008 – all because Trump, the US President (alone among all the signatories) considers unilaterally that the “spirit of the nuclear deal has been violated”. The US would like to see the Iranian missile program halted and the supply of weapons to Hezbollah cease: this would also please Saudi Arabia and Israel. However these issues are considered by all the countries who signed (including Iran but excepting the US) as unrelated to, and excluded from, the nuclear deal.

Saudi Arabian officials visited recently Washington, offering unlimited financial assistance as long as the US helps to destroy Hezbollah and limit Iran’s influence in the Middle East. In fact, Hezbollah is considered responsible for spoiling the game of the international and regional countries who were supporting a regime change in Syria. Therefore, many would like to see Hezbollah, the strong arm of Iran, cut off completely because this would transform Iran into a giant without arms.

Moreover, during the Saudi Arabian King Salman’s visit to Moscow, the monarchy told the Russian President Vladimir Putin that all groups operating in Syria, such as the “Islamic State” (ISIS), al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are considered terrorist and should be eliminated. Putin, despite the King’s generous financial offer of contributions to invest in Russian products was very clear: any country or group fighting in Syria following the request of the legitimate government is not a terrorist group. The “head of Hezbollah” was not on the table in the Russian capital.

As for as the US rewards are concerned, the Hezbollah leaders of the first, second and third ranks of the organization are moving freely between Beirut, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad according to the requirements of the “war on terror” the organization is involved in against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq.

No authority – neither the Lebanese authorities nor the US authorities – would dare to arrest any of Hezbollah’s leaders without suffering direct consequences that would backfire against their solders or interests in the Middle East. Abduction (or capture) is expected to be treated similarly and rejected without hesitation.

The most recent “incident” occurred in Iraq when Washington expressed its desire – when Baghdad asked all US forces to pull out from Iraq under President Barack Obama – to take the Lebanese Hezbollah commander, Ali Moussa Daqduq, to ??America. Hezbollah then sent a clear message to the US administration – through Iraqi leaders – that taking Daqdouq away from Iraq meant that every US soldier and officer in the Middle East, mainly in Iraq, would be held hostage.

This prompted Washington to turn a blind eye and leave the Iraqis to decide the fate of the Hezbollah officer who had participated in the killing of five American soldiers and officers in an impressively planned operation in Karbala. In January 2007 Daqdouq – along with Moqtada al-Sadr’s resistance group AsaebAhl al-Haq – used bulletproof black cars belonging to an Iraqi minister that the same US had given him as a donation. The fact that Daqdouq was on board facilitated the entry of the convoy into the government building without raising the suspicions of the American forces stationed inside the building.

Hezbollah is aware there are many American soldiers and officers who travel freely within Lebanon, mainly operating with the Lebanese Army. Therefore, the organization is reassured that the United States is conscious of Hezbollah’s capability for responding by reciprocity and will not leave their men prisoners without an action or reaction. Hezbollah thereby considers its own leaders safe from kidnapping, though not from assassination attempts.

Thus, the US ”bounties” on the two Hezbollah commanders aim to please the US’s Middle Eastern allies (mainly Israel and Saudi Arabia) saying “we are all in one boat against Hezbollah’s presence and operational capabilities”. Indeed, it shows how Washington is serious about taking political – rather than operational – measures to limit Hezbollah and Iran in the Middle East. Both are considered enemies of the US and its close Israeli and Saudi Arabia associates.

Tel Aviv – like Washington – is limiting itself to adopting a threatening rhetoric, talking about “a nearby war” against Hezbollah but without taking the narrative further or adopting any belligerent steps besides the rumbling of its drums.

In the unlikely event of war between Israel and Hezbollah, there is no doubt that Israel has the destructive military capability to bring back Lebanon to the “Stone Age,” as it claims. However, this is a situation that the Lebanese have already experience of since the civil war in1975 and the two (1982 and 2006) Israeli wars. In these wars, Israel launched attacks and destroyed the Lebanese infrastructure, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of Hezbollah militants.

However, there is also no doubt that Hezbollah would give Israel a taste of a similar “Stone Age” scenario, with its tens of thousands of rockets and missiles, among them some of the very highest accuracy. The Israeli population however is not accustomed to such a harsh possible scenario: Hezbollah missiles will hit the infrastructure (bridges, concentration locations, markets, water, electricity, chemical plants and more), harbours, airports, military barracks and institutions, and civilian homes.

It is true that Israeli political and military leaders are not naïve and will never exchange their own security against economic and financial support (which was offered by Saudi Arabia to destroy Hezbollah), no matter how substantial the offer. Israel won’t exchange a public diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia and most of the Gulf countries to give up its own safety and the well-being of its people. Israeli commanders are fully aware of the unique military experience which Hezbollah developed in Syria and Iraq, and how Hezbollah is using new underground caches for its long-range accurate missiles on the Lebanese-Israeli borders.

Nevertheless, Israel and the US are capable of carrying out security and intelligence attacks to strike Hezbollah leaders, as both countries have done in the past with the late Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Abbas al-Moussawi, with Sayed Hasan Nasrallah’s vice Imad Mughnniyeh and against other minor positions within the leadership such as Hussein al-Lakis, Samir Qantar, Jihad Mughnniyeh, and others.

The “account” is still open between Hezbollah and Israel. The Lebanese organization has certainly tried similar intelligence strikes against Israel. However, several attempts have failed due to poor planning and a US-Israeli intelligence breach of Hezbollah security by an officer involved in the external operations unit.

But the balance of terror between Hezbollah and Israel remains: Hezbollah feels more at ease in Syria today and is able to dedicate more resources to the fight against Israel and its allies in the region.

Thus, American pressure remains within the limits of the inability of anyone to take it further: there is no country or entity that wants to confront a rival like Hezbollah, trained in the art of war and politics and an essential player in the Middle Eastern and international arenas.

Something Very Big and Very Evil Is About to Happen

 

adams bio level 4 suit

Where is the Vegas massacre headed? This is not a stand alone event. The event has purpose and it is a means to an end. I believe I have that answer because of my past affiliations and I have some small ability to connect the dots. The Vegas shooting is just the very beginning.

Only four months after the birth of this website, I ran one of the biggest stories I had ever covered. At that time, I had been friends with a FEMA employee for almost 15 years. As I recounted the following story, as on one night, he and his wife showed up at my office and told me they were bugging out witin 60 days and that things were about to get really ugly in America.

Ex-FEMA Relocations

Almost five years ago, I was told by a close friend who happened to be an Ex-FEMA counter-bioterrorism operative, that he was bugging out in order to get out of harms way. He was very clear on one point, when Americans begin to see the massively shifting of military assets as well as a UN troops on American soil, it is a clear sign that things are about to happen. What he then told me was bone-chilling. To repeat what he had previously reported, he stated (late 2012) that there is a rising tide of populism in this country. And that if the elite could not stem the tide of populism, which was blocking the final establishment of the New World Order, they would embark on a plan to exterminate as many Americans as possible and thereby, destroy the country. He said what we all know, that America, with its Constitution and 300 million hand guns, is the last real obstacle to the establishment of a New World Order. This message was telling, about stemming the tide of populims, because it was years ahead of Trump and the awakening of the American people. 

It was more than 3 years ahead of anyone thinking that Donald Trump would awaken millions of Americans with a resurgence of American populism.  He went on to say that we have stockpiled CBN’s that the world does not even know we have in terms of their lethality. He warned me that when we started to see UN on our soil, that our time was short. The UN began making a significant appearance, as I have previously reported, in 2014 during the Central American illegal alien invasion. When we see the presence of the UN on American soil, this is a harbinger of bad things to come and that the UN will swoop in under the guise of humanitarian aid but they will be the ones who will seize the guns and operate the “re-education” camps. 

The reason that this man and his wife came to my office, then we strolled across open ground to discuss this, with our cell phones left behind, was that he was telling me he that like-minded retirees from both DHS and FEMA were doing the same thing. In fact, he told me that they were cohabitating in the same remote area with like-minided people. Because of his extreme knowledge in biological and chemical warfare, he knew his life would be in immediate danger if the globalists were to launch such an attack to stem the rise of populism in America because dead men tell know tales. He warned me to stop broadcasting on the radio and “forget” about my website because he felt I was putting myself in danger. 

WHAT WERE THEY RUNNING FROM?

These FEMA and DHS retirees, that I have had contact with say they are running for the hilsl for the following reasons:

  1. World War III
  2. A deadly purge within the military and the intelligence agencies
  3. Chemical and/or biological attack.

The answer is all three. However, the most immediate threat, according to these sources is number 3, chemical and biological attack. This is why many of these ex-alphabet soup agency personnel have maintained a portable air supply in their constructed hideaways.

I have also been told that a planned chemcial/biological attack could be used to frame an enemy and be the reason to begin World War III.

 

In 2016, NPR Report Confirmed Validity of Ex-Intel Bugging Out

Back in 2012, I published the following photo taken by Sherrie Wilcox and her companion. An uncountable number of FEMA coffins were discovered on a lonely road approximately 50 miles outside of Atlanta. As I stated, the discovery was made by Sherrie Wilcox who has since bugged out for her own safety

An uncountable number of FEMA coffins were discovered on a lonely road approximately 50 miles outside of Atlanta. The discovery was made by Sherrie Wilcox who has since bugged out for her own safety.

We all know these FEMA coffins, but we were not sure when they would be employed and in what form and following what event? We now may know the answer to this question.

The breadcrumbs of clues are accumulating and a patern is beginning to emerge. The following is information I came across just over a year ago. The following photo contains stacks of boxes containing critical supplies stretch almost :as far as the eye can see in this Strategic National Stockpile warehouse”. The photo was made available courtesy of the CDC. The public is not allowed to know the location of any of the facilities designed to respond to a chemical and/or biological attack. The only thing that the public knows is that stockpiles for these facilities are growing. The location of this facility and its contents are classified. 

 

secret anti-venom npr

 

greg-burelGreg Burel is on record of admitting to supervising several of these stockpiled facilities. In other words, the NPR report is accurate in that these facilities exist.

Dr. Irwin Redlener is the director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University.

Francisco Kjolseth of the The Salt Lake Tribune was allowed to visit one of the facilities. Interestingly, he made the following observation: “… the inside is huge. If you envision, say, a Super Walmart and stick two of those side by side and take out all the drop ceiling, that’s about the same kind of space that we would occupy in one of these storage locations.” Interesting reference to Walmart after what I wrote yesterday on who Walmart is at the center of future control of food by DHS.

The NPR article is essentially accurate in portraying the fact that various government agencies have such facilities. However, these facilities are not for the public. This means that the public will not be receiving these supplies designed to counteract the effects of a CBN attack.

Are the Globalists Beta-Testing This Plague for Later Release Within the United States?

The pneumonic plague is devastingly deadly. It is passed from person to person (ie human contact). This version of the plague is airborne, it spreads with great rapidity. Victims of this plague who come into contact with this deadly disease usually proves  fatal in less than 24 hours of exposure.

Health officials in Madagasca are scrambling as “the plague” is apparently preparing to sweep to across the country. Health authoriteis are in the identification of victims phase. And the frightening thing, aside from the absolute devastation, is the fact that the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) is already on scene and are rushing to identify anyone who has come into contact with those affected and are moving to quarrantine the infected.

What used to be called the “Black Death,” as it previously killed 5o million Europeans is now beginning to ravage Madagascar. If one recalls their history will remember that  this plague claimed the lives of 50 million Europeans during as the plague is known have peaked in 1347 and wiped out 33% of European population.

This unnatural reoccurance has raised this author’s suspicions that this is not a natural event. Below is a graphic from the World Health Organization about the plague.

 

Very Concerning Development In Southern California

I interviewed Paul Preston on my show last Sunday and we deviated from our planned topic as he revealed that there is a very serious outbreak of Hepatitis A and the spread and occurance is not natural.

 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEPATITIS A OUTBREAK 2017

 From the NBC affiliate channel 7,  in San Diego announces that 18 Die From Hepatitis A, Emergency Declaration Extended in San Diego County. This looming health disaster is getting ready to spread to the rest of the state and beyond. I feel like I am watching the movie Outbreak.

There have been 18 deaths reported and 490 cases confirmed. Paul Preston reports that the number is actually six times larger.

In light of the previously presented information, I believe we are likely seeing beginning of chemical and biological attacks. We are entering uncharted waters.

US government quiet as Chinese agents cripple spy operations in Beijing

A US consulate official was plucked off a street by plain clothes security officers last year in Chengdu, interrogated overnight and forced to confess his involvement in acts of treachery, Politico wrote, the latest in a series of similar reports by US media.

Detained by China’s security apparatus because they believed the American to be a CIA officer, he had to be “rescued” and immediately evacuated from China, Politico reported, citing anonymous US national security officers.

Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that the Chinese government killed or imprisoned more than a dozen agents working for the US in China between 2010 and 2012.

Newsweek magazine followed The New York Times report with a piece detailing how, a decade ago, undercover Chinese agents began targeting American workers constructing the US embassy in Beijing by tempting them with sex workers. To this day, CIA employees in the embassy “are afraid to talk above a whisper in their own technologically insulated offices out of fear of bugs”, Newsweek wrote.

These reports suggest a more aggressive effort by the Chinese government to bribe, intimidate, and gather intelligence on US nationals. It’s an issue the US government keeps quiet about for reasons including Washington’s strategy towards North Korea and the damage a public outcry would do to US companies operating in China.

Regardless of how prepared the US government is against espionage and counter espionage, Washington would not likely discuss with Chinese counterparts any details about detentions such as the one reported in Politico or the lost spies in Beijing either publicly or behind closed doors.

“Even as nations spy on nations, they also cooperate with each other. If espionage is front and centre, it makes cooperation more difficult,” said Robert Daly, a former Beijing-based diplomat and director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the US at the Washington-based Wilson Centre.

“In the case of China if this was something that the US were howling to the press about, it would be harder for the US to cooperate with China on North Korea.”

North Korea emerged as the US’s most pressing foreign policy and military threat after a series of nuclear detonations and intercontinental ballistic missiles that experts say could reach the US mainland. Pyongyang’s military provocations will be at the top of the agenda when US President Donald Trump meets with his counterpart Xi Jinping in Beijing next month as planned.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley worked with her Chinese counterpart Liu Jieyi to get two new sets of sanctions against North Korea unanimously passed this year in the UN Security Council. Liu recently left his post as China’s UN ambassador and was appointed deputy head of the country’s Taiwan Affairs Office.

Espionage, infiltration and influence “are different things, but all part of China’s quest for what it calls comprehensive national power, which it wants in order to create an international environment that’s more amenable to the purposes of the [China’s Communist Party]”, Daly said.

“Within that context, and with China having the money that it has, that it would be more aggressive in the area of international espionage is no surprise.”

Espionage by China against the US became easier, Politico and other media have reported, after China’s 2015 hack of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which delivered personal data on millions of US federal workers to Beijing’s intelligence units. Information in that hack ranged from Social Security numbers and birthdays to details about personal relationships.

“We have considerable vulnerabilities that Chinese are adept at exploiting,” Daly added. “There have always been major problems with our being underresourced and with a lack of coordination particularly between the CIA and the FBI.”

Another reason why the US will not likely bring up espionage is the extent to which Washington conducts its own espionage and counter espionage operations against China.

“What neither you nor I know is what the other side of this equation is. What does the US do?” Daly said. “Analogous stories of this kind will never be in the Chinese press because it’s state controlled and they hold it much tighter.”

While reports of Chinese espionage have been more prevalent recently, that doesn’t mean it is a new phenomenon.

Spying on the US by China’s Communists predated the establishment of diplomatic relations between the People’s Republic of China and Washington in the 1970s and the revolution in 1949 that brought the Communists to power. As with the OPM hack, a lack of vigilance caused some US vulnerabilities.

Larry Wu-tai Chin, who worked as a translator for the US Army in China during second world war and then at the US Consulate in Shanghai after the war, supplied the names of Communist Party prisoners of war collaborating with the US government, noted China scholar John Pomfret pointed out in his recent book, The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom.

Responsible for the deaths of many Chinese soldiers returning after the war, Chin wound up working for the CIA in California, where he found ways to get classified reports to Beijing, according to the book. “During a polygraph test at the CIA, Chin admitted to being a ladies’ man and a gambler with domestic troubles. Those admissions, bizarrely, did not set off any alarm bells, and Chin was granted top-secret security clearance.”

Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler

his article was first published by Global Research more than 13 years ago on 8 June 2004.

While America is at war in Ukraine, supportive of a Neo-Nazi proxy regime, this incisive and carefully researched article by Dr. Jacques Pauwels provides us with a historical understanding of the relationship between American corporations and Nazi Germany.

The support of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine is part of a longstanding relationship.  M. Ch, GR Editor, October 2017

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/3391529-4874273.jpg

***

In the United States, World War II is generally known as “the good war.”

In contrast to some of America’s admittedly bad wars, such as the near-genocidal Indian Wars and the vicious conflict in Vietnam, World War II is widely celebrated as a “crusade” in which the US fought unreservedly on the side of democracy, freedom, and justice against dictatorship.

No wonder President George W. Bush likes to compare his ongoing “war against terrorism” with World War II, suggesting that America is once again involved on the right side in an apocalyptic conflict between good and evil. Wars, however, are never quite as black-and-white as Mr. Bush would have us believe, and this also applies to World War II. America certainly deserves credit for its important contribution to the hard-fought victory that was ultimately achieved by the Allies. But the role of corporate America in the war is hardly synthesized by President Roosevelt’s claim that the US was the “arsenal of democracy.” When Americans landed in Normandy in June 1944 and captured their first German trucks, they discovered that these vehicles were powered by engines produced by American firms such as Ford and General Motors. 1 Corporate America, it turned out, had also been serving as the arsenal of Nazism.

Fans of the Führer

Mussolini enjoyed a great deal of admiration in corporate America from the moment he came to power in a coup that was hailed stateside as “a fine young revolution.” 2 Hitler, on the other hand, sent mixed signals. Like their German counterparts, American businessmen long worried about the intentions and the methods of this plebeian upstart, whose ideology was called National Socialism, whose party identified itself as a workers’ party, and who spoke ominously of bringing about revolutionary change. 3 Some high-profile leaders of corporate America, however, such as Henry Ford liked and admired the Führer at an early stage. 4

Other precocious Hitler-admirers were press lord Randolph Hearst and Irénée Du Pont, head of the Du Pont trust, who according to Charles Higham, had already “keenly followed the career of the future Führer in the 1920s” and supported him financially. 5

Eventually, most American captains of industry learned to love the Führer. It is often hinted that fascination with Hitler was a matter of personalities, a matter of psychology. Authoritarian personalities supposedly could not help but like and admire a man who preached the virtues of the “leadership principle” and practised what he preached first in his party and then in Germany as a whole.

Although he cites other factors as well, it is essentially in such terms that Edwin Black, author of the otherwise excellent book IBM and the Holocaust, explains the case of IBM chairman Thomas J. Watson, who met Hitler on a number of occasions in the 1930s and became fascinated with Germany’s authoritarian new ruler. But it is in the realm of political economy, not psychology, that one can most profitably understand why corporate America embraced Hitler.

In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizeable investments in Germany. IBM established a German subsidiary, Dehomag, before World War I; in the 1920s General Motors took over Germany’s largest car manufacturer, Adam Opel AG; and Ford founded a branch plant, later known as the Ford-Werke, in Cologne. Other US firms contracted strategic partnerships with German companies. Standard Oil of New Jersey — today’s Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT. Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America’s investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman.

The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funnelled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business. 6 American overseas ventures fared poorly in the early 1930s, as the Great Depression hit Germany particularly hard. Production and profits dropped precipitously, the political situation was extremely unstable, there were constant strikes and street battles between Nazis and Communists, and many feared that the country was ripe for a “red” revolution like the one that had brought the Bolsheviks to power in Russia in 1917.

However, backed by the power and money of German industrialists and bankers such as Thyssen, Krupp, and Schacht, Hitler came to power in January 1933, and not only the political but also the socio-economic situation changed drastically.

Soon the German subsidiaries of American corporations were profitable again. Why? After Hitler came to power American business leaders with assets in Germany found to their immense satisfaction that his so-called revolution respected the socio-economic status quo.

The Führer’s Teutonic brand of fascism, like every other variety of fascism, was reactionary in nature, and extremely useful for capitalists’ purposes. Brought to power by Germany’s leading businessmen and bankers, Hitler served the interests of his “enablers.” His first major initiative was to dissolve the labour unions and to throw the Communists, and many militant Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps, which were specifically set up to accommodate the overabundance of left-wing political prisoners.

This ruthless measure not only removed the threat of revolutionary change — embodied by Germany’s Communists — but also emasculated the German working class and transformed it into a powerless “mass of followers” (Gefolgschaft), to use Nazi terminology, which was unconditionally put at the disposal of their employers, the Thyssens and Krupps. Most, if not all firms in Germany, including American branch plants, eagerly took advantage of this situation and cut labour costs drastically. The Ford-Werke, for example, reduced labour costs from fifteen per cent of business volume in 1933 to only eleven per cent in 1938. (Research Findings, 135–6)

Coca-Cola’s bottling plant in Essen increased its profitability considerably because, in Hitler’s state, workers “were little more than serfs forbidden not only to strike, but to change jobs,” driven “to work harder [and] faster” while their wages “were deliberately set quite low.” 7

In Nazi Germany, real wages indeed declined rapidly, while profits increased correspondingly, but there were no labour problems worth mentioning, for any attempt to organize a strike immediately triggered an armed response by the Gestapo, resulting in arrests and dismissals. This was the case in GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim in June 1936. (Billstein et al., 25) As the Thuringian teacher and anti-fascist resistance member Otto Jenssen wrote after the war, Germany’s corporate leaders were happy “that fear for the concentration camp made the German workers as meek as lapdogs.” 8 The owners and managers of American corporations with investments in Germany were no less enchanted, and if they openly expressed their admiration or Hitler — as did the chairman of General Motors, William Knudsen, and ITT-boss Sosthenes Behn — it was undoubtedly because he had resolved Germany’s social problems in a manner that benefited their interests. 9

Depression? What Depression?

Hitler endeared himself to corporate America for another very important reason: he conjured up a solution to the huge problem of the Great Depression. His remedy proved to be a sort of Keynesian stratagem, whereby state orders stimulated demand, got production going again, and made it possible for firms in Germany — including foreign-owned firms — to increase production levels dramatically and to achieve an unprecedented level of profitability.

What the Nazi state ordered from German industry, however, was war equipment, and it was soon clear that Hitler’s rearmament policy would lead inexorably to war, because only the spoils resulting from a victorious war would enable the regime to pay the huge bills presented by the suppliers.

The Nazi rearmament program revealed itself as a wonderful window of opportunity for the subsidiaries of US corporations. Ford claims that its Ford-Werke was discriminated against by the Nazi regime because of its foreign ownership, but acknowledges that in the second half of the 1930s its Cologne subsidiary was “formally certified [by the Nazi authorities] … as being of German origin” and therefore “eligible to receive government contracts.” (Research Findings, 21) Ford took advantage of this opportunity, though the government orders were almost exclusively for military equipment. Ford’s German branch plant had posted heavy losses in the early 1930s, however, with lucrative government contracts thanks to Hitler’s rearmament drive, the Ford-Werke’s annual profits rose spectacularly from 63,000 Reichsmarks in 1935 to 1,287,800 RM in 1939.

GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim near Mainz fared even better. Its share of the German automobile market grew from 35 per cent in 1933 to more than 50 per cent in 1935, and the GM subsidiary, which had lost money in the early 1930s, became extremely profitable thanks to the economic boom caused by Hitler’s rearmament program. Earnings of 35 million RM — almost 14 million dollars (US) — were recorded in 1938. (Research Findings, 135–6; and Billstein et al., 24) 10 In 1939, on the eve of the war, the chairman of GM, Alfred P. Sloan, publicly justified doing business in Hitler’s Germany by pointing to the highly profitable nature of GM’s operations under the Third Reich. 11

Yet another American corporation that enjoyed a bonanza in Hitler’s Third Reich was IBM. Its German subsidiary, Dehomag, provided the Nazis with the punch-card machine — forerunner of the computer — required to automate production in the country, and in doing so IBM-Germany made plenty of money. In 1933, the year Hitler came to power, Dehomag made a profit of one million dollars, and during the early Hitler years the German branch plant paid IBM in the US some 4.5 million dollars in dividends. By 1938, still in full Depression, “annual earnings were about 2.3 million RM, a 16 per cent return on net assets,” writes Edwin Black. In 1939 Dehomag’s profits increased spectacularly again to about four million RM. (Black, 76–7, 86–7, 98, 119, 120–1, 164, 198, and 222)

American firms with branch plants in Germany were not the only ones to earn windfalls from Hitler’s rearmament drive. Germany was stockpiling oil in preparation for war, and much of this oil was supplied by American corporations. Texaco profited greatly from sales to Nazi Germany, and not surprisingly its chairman, Torkild Rieber, became yet another powerful American entrepreneur who admired Hitler. A member of the German secret service reported that he was “absolutely pro-German” and “a sincere admirer of the Führer.” Rieber also became a personal friend of Göring, Hitler’s economic czar. 12

As for Ford, that corporation not only produced for the Nazis in Germany itself, but also exported partially assembled trucks directly from the US to Germany. These vehicles were assembled in the Ford-Werke in Cologne and were ready just in time to be used in the spring of 1939, in Hitler’s occupation of the part of Czechoslovakia that had not been ceded to him in the infamous Munich Agreement of the previous year. In addition, in the late 1930s, Ford shipped strategic raw materials to Germany, sometimes via subsidiaries in third countries; in early 1937 alone, these shipments included almost 2 million pounds of rubber and 130,000 pounds of copper. (Research Findings, 24, and 28)

American corporations made a lot of money in Hitler’s Germany; this, and not the Führer’s alleged charisma, is the reason why the owners and managers of these corporations adored him. Conversely, Hitler and his cronies were most pleased with the performance of American capital in the Nazi state. Indeed, the American subsidiaries’ production of war equipment met and even surpassed the expectations of the Nazi leadership.

Berlin promptly paid the bills and Hitler personally showed his appreciation by awarding prestigious decorations to the likes of Henry Ford, IBM’s Thomas Watson, and GM’s export director, James D. Mooney. The stock of American investments in Germany increased considerably after Hitler came to power in 1933. The major reason for this was that the Nazi regime did not allow profits made by foreign firms to be repatriated, at least not in theory. In reality, corporate headquarters could circumvent this embargo by means of stratagems such as billing the German subsidiary for “royalties” and all sorts of “fees.” Still, the restriction meant that profits were largely reinvested within the land of opportunity that Germany revealed itself to be at the time, for example in the modernization of existing facilities, in the construction or acquisition of new factories, and in the purchase of Reich bonds and real estate. IBM thus reinvested its considerable earnings in a new factory in Berlin-Lichterfelde, in an expansion of its facilities at Sindelfingen near Stuttgart, in numerous branch offices throughout the Reich, and in the purchase of rental properties in Berlin and other real estate and tangible assets. (Black, 60, 99, 116, and 122–3)

Under these circumstances, the value of IBM’s German venture increased considerably, by late 1938 the net worth of Dehomag had doubled from 7.7 million RM in 1934 to over 14 million RM. (Black, 76–7, 86–7, 98, 119–21, 164, 198, and 222) The value of the total assets of the Ford-Werke likewise mushroomed in the 1930s, from 25.8 million RM in 1933 to 60.4 million RM in 1939. (Research Findings, 133) American investment in Germany thus continued to expand under Hitler, and amounted to about 475 million dollars by the time of Pearl Harbor. (Research Findings, 6) 13

Better Hitler than “Rosenfeld”

Throughout the “dirty thirties,” corporate profits in the US remained depressed, at home firms like GM and Ford could only dream of the kind of riches their branch plants in Germany were accumulating thanks to Hitler. In addition, at home corporate America experienced problems with labour activists, Communists, and other radicals. What about the vicious trademarks of the Führer’s personality and regime?

Did they not disturb the leaders of corporate America? Apparently not much, if at all. The racial hatred propagated by Hitler, for example, did not overly offend their sensibilities. After all, racism against non-Whites remained systemic throughout the US and anti-Semitism was rife in the corporate class. In the exclusive clubs and fine hotels patronized by the captains of industry, Jews were rarely admitted; and some leaders of corporate America were outspoken anti-Semites. 14

In the early 1920s, Henry Ford cranked out a vehemently anti-Semitic book, The International Jew, which was translated into many languages; Hitler read the German version and acknowledged later that it provided him with inspiration and encouragement. Another notoriously anti-Semitic American tycoon was Irénée Du Pont, even though the Du Pont family had Jewish antecedents. 15 Corporate America’s anti-Semitism strongly resembled that of Hitler, whose view of Judaism was intimately interwoven with his view of Marxism, as Arno J. Mayer has convincingly argued in his book Why Did the Heavens not Darken? 16

Hitler claimed to be a socialist, but his was supposed to be a “national” socialism, a socialism for racially pure Germans only. As for genuine socialism, which preached international working-class solidarity and found its inspiration in the work of Karl Marx, it was despised by Hitler as a Jewish ideology that purported to enslave or even destroy Germans and other “Aryans.” Hitler loathed as “Jewish” all forms of Marxism, but none more so than communism (or “Bolshevism”) and he denounced the Soviet Union as the homeland of “Jewish” international socialism.

In the 1930s, the anti-Semitism of corporate America likewise revealed itself to be the other side of the coin of anti-socialism, anti-Marxism, and red-baiting. Most American businessmen denounced Roosevelt’s New Deal as a “socialistic” meddling in the economy. The anti-Semites of corporate America considered Roosevelt to be a crypto-Communist and an agent of Jewish interests, if not a Jew himself; he was routinely referred to as “Rosenfeld,” and his New Deal was vilified as the “Jew Deal.” 17

In  his book The Flivver King, Upton Sinclair described the notoriously anti-Semitic Henry Ford dreaming of an American fascist movement that “pledged to put down the Reds and preserve the property interests of the country; to oust the Bolshevik [Roosevelt] from the White House and all his pink professors from the government services … [and] to make it a shooting offense to talk communism or to call a strike.” 18 Other American tycoons also yearned for a fascist saviour who might rid America of its “reds” and thus restore prosperity and profitability. Du Pont provided generous financial support to America’s own fascist organizations, such as the infamous “Black Legion,” and was even involved in plans for a fascist coup d’état in Washington. (Hofer and Reginbogin, 585–6) 19

Why Worry about the Coming War?

It was quite obvious that Hitler, who was rearming Germany to the teeth, was going to unleash a major war sooner or later. Whatever misgivings America’s captains of industry may initially have had in this respect soon dissipated, because the cognoscenti of international diplomacy and business in the 1930s widely expected that Hitler would spare western countries, instead attacking and destroying the Soviet Union as promised in Mein Kampf. To encourage and assist him in the task that he considered his great mission in life, 20 was the hidden objective of the infamous appeasement policy pursued by London and Paris, and tacitly approved by Washington. 21

Corporate leaders in all western countries, including most emphatically the US, loathed the Soviet Union because that state was the cradle of the communist “counter system” to the international capitalist order of things, and a source of inspiration to America’s own “reds.” Furthermore, they found particularly offensive that the homeland of communism did not fall prey to the Great Depression, but experienced an industrial revolution that has been favourably compared by American historian, John H. Backer with the widely celebrated “economic miracle” of West Germany after World War II. 22

The appeasement policy was a devious scheme, whose real objective had to be concealed from the British and French publics. It backfired spectacularly because its contortions eventually made Hitler suspicious about the real intentions of London and Paris, which caused him to make a deal with Stalin, and thus led to Germany’s war against France and Great Britain rather than the Soviet Union.

Nevertheless, the dream of a German crusade against the communist Soviet Union on behalf of the capitalist West refused to die. London and Paris merely launched a “Phoney War” against Germany, hoping that Hitler would eventually turn against the Soviet Union after all. This was also the idea behind quasi-official missions to London and Berlin, undertaken by GM’s James D. Mooney, who tried very hard — as did the US ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy, father of John F. Kennedy — to persuade German and British leaders to resolve their inconvenient conflict, so that Hitler could devote his undivided attention to his great eastern project. In a meeting with Hitler in March 1940, Mooney made a plea for peace in western Europe, suggesting “that Americans had understanding for Germany’s standpoint with respect to the question of living space” — in other words, that they had nothing against his territorial claims in the East. (Billstein et al., 37–44) 23

These American initiatives, however, did not produce the hoped-for results. The owners and managers of American corporations with subsidiaries in Germany undoubtedly regretted that the war Hitler had unleashed in 1939 was a war against the West, but in the final analysis it did not matter all that much. What did matter was this: helping Hitler to prepare for war had been good business and the war itself opened up even more extravagant prospects for doing business and making profits.

Putting the Blitz in the Blitzkrieg

Germany’s military successes of 1939 and 1940 were based on a new and extremely mobile form of warfare, the Blitzkrieg, consisting of extremely swift and highly synchronized attacks by air and land.

To wage “lightning war,” Hitler needed engines, tanks, trucks, planes, motor oil, gasoline, rubber, and sophisticated communication systems to insure that the Stukas struck in tandem with the Panzers. Much of that equipment was supplied by American firms, mainly German subsidiaries of big American corporations, but some was exported from the US, albeit usually via third countries. Without this kind of American support, the Führer could only have dreamed of “lightning wars,” followed by “lightning victories,” in 1939 and 1940.

Many of Hitler’s wheels and wings were produced in the German subsidiaries of GM and Ford. By the end of the 1930s these enterprises had phased out civilian production to focus exclusively on the development of military hardware for the German army and air force.

This switch, requested — if not ordered — by the Nazi authorities, had not only been approved, but even actively encouraged by the corporate headquarters in the US. The Ford-Werke in Cologne proceeded to build not only countless trucks and personnel carriers, but also engines and spare parts for the Wehrmacht. GM’s new Opel factory in Brandenburg cranked out “Blitz” trucks for the Wehrmacht, while the main factory in Rüsselsheim produced primarily for the Luftwaffe, assembling planes such as the JU-88, the workhorse of Germany’s fleet of bombers. At one point, GM and Ford together reportedly accounted for no less than half of Germany’s entire production of tanks. (Billstein et al., 25,) 24

Meanwhile ITT had acquired a quarter of the shares of airplane manufacturer Focke-Wulf, and so helped to construct fighter planes. 25 Perhaps the Germans could have assembled vehicles and airplanes without American assistance. But Germany desperately lacked strategic raw materials, such as rubber and oil, which were needed to fight a war predicated on mobility and speed. American corporations came to the rescue.

As mentioned earlier, Texaco helped the Nazis stockpile fuel. In addition, as the war in Europe got underway, large quantities of diesel fuel, lubricating oil, and other petroleum products were shipped to Germany not only by Texaco but also by Standard Oil, mostly via Spanish ports. (The German Navy, incidentally, was provided with fuel by the Texas oilman William Rhodes Davis.) 26 In the 1930s Standard Oil had helped IG Farben develop synthetic fuel as an alternative to regular oil, of which Germany had to import every single drop. (Hofer and Reginbogin, 588–9)

Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect and wartime armament minister, stated after the war that without certain kinds of synthetic fuel made available by American firms, Hitler “would never have considered invading Poland.” 27 As for the Focke-Wulfs and other fast German fighter planes, they could not have achieved their deadly speed without a component in their fuel known as synthetic tetraethyl; the Germans themselves later admitted that without tetraethyl the entire Blitzkrieg concept of warfare would have been unthinkable.

This magic ingredient was produced by an enterprise named Ethyl GmbH, a daughter firm of a trio formed by Standard Oil, Standard’s German partner IG Farben, and GM. (Hofer and Reginbogin, 589) 28 Blitzkrieg warfare involved perfectly synchronized attacks by land and by air, and this required highly sophisticated communications equipment. ITT’s German subsidiary supplied most of that apparatus, while other state-of-the-art technology useful for Blitzkrieg purposes came compliments of IBM, via its German branch plant, Dehomag. According to Edwin Black, IBM’s know-how enabled the Nazi war machine to “achieve scale, velocity, efficiency”; IBM, he concludes, “put the ‘blitz’ in the krieg for Nazi Germany.” (Black, 208) From the perspective of corporate America it was no catastrophe that Germany had established its mastery over the European continent by the summer of 1940.

Some German subsidiaries of American corporations — for example the Ford-Werke and Coca-Cola’s bottling plant in Essen — were expanding into the occupied countries, riding the coat-tails of the victorious Wehrmacht. IBM’s president, Thomas Watson, was confident that his German branch plant would gain advantage from Hitler’s triumphs. Black writes: “Like many [other US businessmen], Watson expected” that Germany would remain master of Europe, and that IBM would benefit from this by “[ruling] the data domain,” that is, by providing Germany with the technological tools for total control. (Black, 212)

On 26 June 1940 a German commercial delegate organized a dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York to cheer the victories of the Wehrmacht in western Europe. Many leading industrialists attended, including James D. Mooney, the executive in charge of GM’s German operations. Five days later, the German victories were again celebrated in New York, this time at a party hosted by the philo-fascist Rieber, boss of Texaco. Among the leaders of corporate America present were James D. Mooney and Henry Ford’s son, Edsel. 29

What a Wonderful War!

Nineteenfourty proved an exceptionally good year for corporate America. Not only did the subsidiaries in Germany share in the spoils of Hitler’s triumphs, but the European conflict was generating other wonderful opportunities. America herself was now preparing for a possible war, and from Washington orders for trucks, tanks, planes, and ships started rolling in. Moreover, initially on a strict “cash-and-carry” basis and then through “Lend-Lease,” President Roosevelt allowed American industry to supply Great Britain with military hardware and other equipment, thus enabling brave little Albion to continue the war against Hitler indefinitely.

By the end of 1940, all belligerent countries as well as armed neutrals like the US itself were being girded with weaponry cranked out by corporate America’s factories, whether stateside, in Great Britain (where Ford et al., also had branch plants), or in Germany. It was a wonderful war indeed, and the longer it lasted, the better — from a corporate point of view.

Corporate America neither wanted Hitler to lose this war nor to win it; instead they wanted this war to go on as long as possible. Henry Ford had initially refused to produce weapons for Great Britain, but now he changed his tune. According to his biographer, David Lanier Lewis, he “expressed the hope that neither the Allies nor the Axis would win [the war],” and he suggested that the US should supply both the Allies and the Axis powers with “the tools to keep on fighting until they both collapse.” 30

On 22 June 1941 the Wehrmacht rolled across the Soviet border, powered by Ford and GM engines and equipped with the tools produced in Germany by American capital and know-how.

While many leaders of corporate America hoped that the Nazis and the Soviets would remain locked for as long as possible in a war that would debilitate them both, 31 thus prolonging the European war that was proving to be so profitable, the experts in Washington and London predicted that the Soviets would be crushed, “like an egg” by the Wehrmacht. 32 The USSR, however, became the first country to fight the Blitzkrieg to a standstill.

And on 5 December 1941, the Red Army even launched a counter-offensive. 33 It was henceforth evident that the Germans would be preoccupied for quite some time on the Eastern Front, that this would also permit the British to continue to wage war, and that the profitable Lend-Lease business would therefore continue indefinitely. The situation became even more advantageous to corporate America when it appeared that business could henceforth also be done with the Soviets. Indeed, in November 1941, when it had already become clear that the Soviet Union was not about to collapse, Washington agreed to extend credit to Moscow, and concluded a Lend-Lease agreement with the USSR, thus providing the big American corporations with yet another market for their products.

American Aid to the Soviets…and to the Nazis

After the war, it would become customary in the West to claim that the unexpected Soviet success against Nazi Germany had been made possible because of massive American assistance, provided under the terms of a Lend-Lease agreement between Washington and Moscow, and that without this aid the Soviet Union would not have survived the Nazi attack. This claim is doubtful.

First, American material assistance did not become meaningful before 1942, that is, long after the Soviets had single-handedly put an end to the progress made by the Wehrmacht and had launched their first counteroffensive. Second, American aid never represented more than four to five per cent of total Soviet wartime production, although it must be admitted that even such a slim margin may possibly prove crucial in a crisis situation. Third, the Soviets themselves cranked out all of the light and heavy high-quality weapons — such as the T-34 tank, probably the best tank of World War II — that made their success against the Wehrmacht possible. 34 Finally, the much-publicized Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was to a large extent neutralized — and arguably dwarfed — by the unofficial, discreet, but very important assistance provided by American corporate sources to the German enemies of the Soviets. In 1940 and 1941 American oil trusts increased the lucrative oil exports to Germany; large amounts delivered to Nazi Germany via neutral states.

The American share of Germany’s imports of vitally important oil for engine lubrication (Motorenöl) increased rapidly, from 44 per cent in July 1941 to 94 per cent in September 1941. Without US-supplied fuel, the German attack on the Soviet Union would not have been possible, according to the German historian Tobias Jersak, an authority in the field of American “fuel for the Führer.” 35 Hitler was still ruminating the catastrophic news of the Soviet counter-offensive and the failure of the Blitzkrieg in the East, when he learned that the Japanese had launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. The US were now at war with Japan, but Washington made no move to declare war on Germany.

Hitler had no obligation to rush to the aid of his Japanese friends, but on 11 December 1941, he declared war on the US, probably expecting — vainly as it turned out — that Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union. Hitler’s needless declaration of war, accompanied by a similarly frivolous Italian declaration of war, made the US an active participant in the war in Europe. How did this affect the German assets of the big American corporations? 36

Business as Usual

The German subsidiaries of American corporations were not ruthlessly confiscated by the Nazis and removed entirely from the control of stateside corporate headquarters until the defeat of Germany in 1945, as parent companies would claim after the war. Regarding the assets of Ford and GM, for example, the German expert Hans Helms states, “not even once during their terror regime did the Nazis undertake the slightest attempt to change the ownership status of Ford [i.e. the Ford-Werke] or Opel.” 37 Even after Pearl Harbor, Ford retained its 52 per cent of the shares of Ford-Werke in Cologne, and GM remained Opel’s sole proprietor. (Billstein et al., 74, and 141)

Moreover, the American owners and managers maintained a sometimes considerable measure of control over their branch plants in Germany after the German declaration of war on the US. There is evidence that the corporate headquarters in the US and the branch plants in Germany stayed in contact with each other, either indirectly, via subsidiaries in neutral Switzerland, or directly by means of modern worldwide systems of communications. The latter was supplied by ITT in collaboration with Transradio, a joint venture of ITT itself, RCA (another American corporation), and the German firms Siemens and Telefunken. 38

In its recent report on its activities in Nazi Germany, Ford claims that its corporate headquarters in Dearborn had no direct contact with the German subsidiary after Pearl Harbor. As for the possibility of communications via branch plants in neutral countries, the report states that “there is no indication of communication with each other through these subsidiaries.” (Research Findings, 88)

However, the lack of such “indication” may simply mean that any evidence of contacts may have been lost or destroyed before the authors of the report were allowed access to the relevant archives; after all, this archival access was only granted more than 50 years after the facts. Moreover, the report itself acknowledges somewhat contradictorily that an executive of the Ford-Werke did travel to Lisbon in 1943 for a visit to the Portuguese Ford subsidiary, and it is extremely unlikely that Dearborn would have been unaware of this. As for IBM, Edwin Black writes that during the war its general manager for Europe, Dutchman Jurriaan W. Schotte, was stationed in the corporate headquarters in New York, where he “continued to regularly maintain communication with IBM subsidiaries in Nazi territory, such as his native Holland and Belgium.” IBM could also “monitor events and exercise authority in Europe through neutral country subsidiaries,” and especially through its Swiss branch in Geneva, whose director, a Swiss national, “freely travelled to and from Germany, occupied territories, and neutral countries.”

Finally, like many other large US corporations, IBM could also rely on American diplomats stationed in occupied and neutral countries to forward messages via diplomatic pouches. (Black, 339, 376, and 392–5) The Nazis not only allowed the American owners to retain possession and a certain amount of administrative control over their German assets and subsidiaries, but their own intervention in the management of Opel and the Ford-Werke, for example, remained minimal.

After the German declaration of war against the US, the American staff members admittedly disappeared from the scene, but the existing German managers — confidants of the bosses in the US — generally retained their positions of authority and continued to run the businesses, thereby keeping in mind the interests of the corporate headquarters and the shareholders in America.

For Opel, GM’s headquarters in the US retained virtually total control over the managers in Rüsselsheim; so writes American historian Bradford Snell, who devoted attention to this theme in the 1970s, but whose findings were contested by GM. A recent study by German researcher Anita Kugler confirms Snell’s account while providing a more detailed and more nuanced picture. After the German declaration of war on the US, she writes the Nazis initially did not bother the management of Opel at all. Only on 25 November 1942 did Berlin appoint an “enemy assets’ custodian,” but the significance of this move turned out to be merely symbolic. The Nazis simply wanted to create a German image for an enterprise that was owned 100 per cent by GM throughout the war. (Billstein et al., 61)

In the Ford-Werke, Robert Schmidt, allegedly an ardent Nazi, served as general manager during the war, and his performance greatly satisfied both the authorities in Berlin and the Ford managers in America. Messages of approval and even congratulations — signed by Edsel Ford — were regularly forthcoming from Ford’s corporate headquarters in Dearborn. The Nazis too were delighted with Schmidt’s work; in due course they awarded him the title, “leader in the field of the military economy.” Even when, months after Pearl Harbor, a custodian was appointed to oversee the Ford plant in Cologne, Schmidt retained his prerogatives and his freedom of action. 39 IBM’s wartime experience with Axis custodians in Germany, France, Belgium, and other countries was likewise far from traumatic.

According to Black, “they zealously protected the assets, extended productivity, and increased profits”; moreover, “existing IBM managers were kept in place as day-to-day managers and, in some cases, even appointed deputy enemy custodians.” (Black, 376, 400–2, 405, and 415) The Nazis were far less interested in the nationality of the owners or the identity of the managers than in production, because after the failure of their Blitzkrieg strategy in the Soviet Union they experienced an ever-growing need for mass-produced airplanes and trucks.

Ever since Henry Ford had pioneered the use of the assembly line and other “Fordist” techniques, American firms had been the leaders in the field of industrial mass production, and the American branch plants in Germany, including GM’s Opel subsidiary, were no exception to this general rule. Nazi planners like Göring and Speer understood that radical changes in Opel’s management might hinder production in Brandenburg and Rüsselsheim. To maintain Opel’s output at high levels, the managers in charge were allowed to carry on because they were familiar with the particularly efficient American methods of production. Anita Kugler concludes that Opel, “made its entire production and research available to the Nazis and thus — objectively speaking — contributed to enhance their long-term capability to wage war.” (Billstein et al., 81) 40

Experts believe that GM’s and Ford’s best wartime technological innovations primarily benefitted their branch plants in Nazi Germany. As examples they cite all-wheel-drive Opel trucks, which proved eminently useful to the Germans in the mud of the Eastern Front and in the desert of North Africa, as well as the engines for the brand new ME-262, the first jet fighter, were also assembled by Opel in Rüsselsheim. 41 As for the Ford-Werke, in 1939 this firm also developed a state-of-the-art truck — the Maultier (“mule”) — that had wheels on the front and a track on the back end. The Ford-Werke also created a “cloak company,” Arendt GmbH, to produce war equipment other than vehicles, specifically machining parts for airplanes. But Ford claims that this was done without Dearborn’s knowledge or approval.

Towards the end of the war this factory was involved in the top-secret development of turbines for the infamous V-2 rockets that wreaked devastation on London and Antwerp. (Research Findings, 41–2) ITT continued to supply Germany with advanced communication systems after Pearl Harbor, to the detriment of the Americans themselves, whose diplomatic code was broken by the Nazis with the help of such equipment. 42 Until the very end of the war, ITT’s production facilities in Germany as well as in neutral countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain provided the German armed forces with state-of-the-art martial toys. Charles Higham offers specifics:

After Pearl Harbor the German army, navy, and air force contracted with ITT for the manufacture of switchboards, telephones, alarm gongs, buoys, air raid warning devices, radar equipment, and thirty thousand fuses per month for artillery shells … This was to increase to fifty thousand per month by 1944. In addition, ITT supplied ingredients for the rocket bombs that fell on London, selenium cells for dry rectifiers, high-frequency radio equipment, and fortification and field communication sets. Without this supply of crucial materials it would have been impossible for the German air force to kill American and British troops, for the German army to fight the Allies, for England to have been bombed, or for Allied ships to have been attacked at sea. 43

No surprise then that the German subsidiaries of American enterprises were regarded as “pioneers of technological development” by the planners in Germany’s Reich Economics Ministry and other Nazi authorities involved in the war effort. 44

Edwin Black also claims that IBM’s advanced punch card technology, precursor to the computer, enabled the Nazis to automate persecution. IBM allegedly put the fantastical numbers in the Holocaust, because it supplied the Hitler regime with the Hollerith calculating machines and other tools that were used to “generate lists of Jews and other victims, who were then targeted for deportation” and to “register inmates [of concentration camps] and track slave labor.” (Black, xx) However, critics of Black’s study maintain that the Nazis could and would have achieved their deadly efficiency without the benefit of IBM’s technology. In any event, the case of IBM provides yet another example of how US corporations supplied state-of-the-art technology to the Nazis and obviously did not care too much for what evil purposes this technology would be used.

Profits über Alles!

The owners and managers of the parent firms in the US cared little what products were developed and rolled off the German assembly lines. What counted for them and for the shareholders were only the profits. Branch plants of American corporations in Germany achieved considerable earnings during the war, and this money was not pocketed by the Nazis. For the Ford-Werke precise figures are available.

The profits of Dearborn’s German subsidiary rose from 1.2 million RM in 1939 to 1.7 million RM in 1940, 1.8 million RM in 1941, 2.0 million RM in 1942, and 2.1 million RM in 1943. (Research Findings, 136). 45 The Ford subsidiaries in occupied France, Holland, and Belgium, where the American corporate giant also made an industrial contribution to the Nazi war effort, were likewise extraordinarily successful. Ford-France, for example — not a flourishing firm before the war — became very profitable after 1940 thanks to its unconditional collaboration with the Germans; in 1941 it registered earnings of 58 million francs, an achievement for which it was warmly congratulated by Edsel Ford. (Billstein et al, 106; and Research Findings, 73–5) 46

As for Opel, that firm’s profits skyrocketed to the point where the Nazi Ministry of Economics banned their publication to avoid bad blood on the part of the German population, which was increasingly being asked to tighten its collective belt. (Billstein et al, 73) 47 IBM not only experienced soaring profits in its German branch plant, but, like Ford, also saw its profits in occupied France jump primarily because of business generated through eager collaboration with the German occupation authorities. It was soon necessary to build new factories. Above all, however, IBM prospered in Germany and in the occupied countries because it sold the Nazis the technological tools required for identifying, deporting, ghettoizing, enslaving, and ultimately exterminating millions of European Jews, in other words, for organizing the Holocaust. (Black, 212, 253, and 297–9)

It is far from clear what happened to the profits made in Germany during the war by American subsidiaries, but some tantalizing tidbits of information have nevertheless emerged. In the 1930s American corporations had developed various strategies to circumvent the Nazis’ embargo on profit repatriation. IBM’s head office in New York, for example, regularly billed Dehomag for royalties due to the parent firm, for repayment of contrived loans, and for other fees and expenses; this practice and other byzantine inter-company transactions minimized profits in Germany and thus simultaneously functioned as an effective tax-avoidance scheme. In addition, there were other ways of handling the embargo on profit repatriation, such as reinvestment within Germany, but after 1939 this option was no longer permitted, at least not in theory.

In practice, the American subsidiaries did manage to quite considerably increase their assets that way. Opel, for example, took over a foundry in Leipzig in 1942. 48 It also remained possible to use earnings in order to improve and modernize the branch plant’s own infrastructure, that too, happened in the case of Opel.

There also existed opportunities for expansion in the occupied countries of Europe. Ford’s subsidiary in France used its profits in 1941 to build a tank factory in Oran, Algeria; this plant allegedly provided Rommel’s Africa Corps with the hardware needed to advance all the way to El Alamein in Egypt. In 1943 the Ford-Werke also established a foundry not far from Cologne, just across the Belgian border near Liège, to produce spare parts. (Research Findings, 133) It is likely, furthermore, that a portion of the lucre amassed in the Third Reich was transferred back to the US in some way, for example, by way of neutral Switzerland. Many US corporations maintained offices there that served as intermediaries between stateside headquarters and their subsidiaries in enemy or occupied countries, and that were also involved in “profit funnelling,” as Edwin Black writes in connection with the Swiss branch of IBM. (Black, 73) 49

For the purpose of profit repatriation, corporations could also call on the experienced services of the Paris branches of some American banks, such as Chase Manhattan and J.P. Morgan, and of a number of Swiss banks. Chase Manhattan was part of the Rockefeller empire, as was Standard Oil, IG Farben’s American partner; its branch in German-occupied Paris remained open throughout the war and profited handsomely from close collaboration with the German authorities. On the Swiss side there also happened to be some financial institutions involved that — without asking difficult questions — took care of the gold robbed by the Nazis from their Jewish victims. An important role was played in this respect by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, a presumably international bank that had been founded in 1930 within the framework of the Young Plan for the purpose of facilitating German reparation payments after World War I.

American and German bankers (such as Schacht) dominated the BIS from the start and collaborated cozily in this financial venture. During the war, a German and a member of the Nazi Party, Paul Hechler, functioned as director of the BIS, while an American, Thomas H. McKittrick, served as president. McKittrick was a good friend of the American ambassador in Berne and American secret service [OSS, forerunner of the CIA] agent in Switzerland, Allen Dulles. Before the war, Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles had been partners in the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, and had specialized in the very profitable business of handling American investments in Germany. They had excellent connections with the owners and top managers of American corporations and with bankers, businessmen, and government officials — including Nazi bigwigs — in Germany. After the outbreak of war, John Foster became the corporate lawyer for the BIS in New York, while Allen joined the OSS and took up a post in Switzerland, where he happened to befriend McKittrick. It is widely known that during the war the BIS handled enormous amounts of money and gold originating in Nazi Germany. 50 Is it unreasonable to suspect that these transfers might have involved US-bound profits of American branch plants, in other words, money hoarded by clients and associates of the ubiquitous Dulles brothers?

Bring on the Slave Labour!

Before the war, German corporations had eagerly taken advantage of the big favour done for them by the Nazis, namely the elimination of the labour unions and the resulting transformation of the formerly militant German working class into a meek “mass of followers.” Not surprisingly, in Nazi Germany real wages declined rapidly while profits increased correspondingly. During the war prices continued to rise, while wages were gradually eroded and working hours were increased. 51 This was also the experience of the labour force of the American subsidiaries. In order to combat the labour shortages in the factories, the Nazis relied increasingly on foreign labourers who were put to work in Germany under frequently inhuman conditions.

Together with hundreds of thousands of Soviet and other POWs as well as inmates of concentration camps, these Fremdarbeiter (forced labourers) formed a gigantic pool of workers that could be exploited at will by whomever recruited them, in return for a modest remuneration paid to the SS. The SS, moreover, also maintained the required discipline and order with an iron hand. Wage costs thus sank to a level of which today’s downsizers can only dream, and the corporate profits augmented correspondingly.

The German branch plants of American corporations also made eager use of slave labour supplied by the Nazis, not only Fremdarbeiter, but also POWs and even concentration camp inmates. For example, the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company based in Velbert in the Rhineland reportedly relied on “the aid of labourers from Eastern Europe” to make “considerable profits,” 52 and Coca-Cola is also noted to have benefitted from the use of foreign workers, as well as prisoners of war in its Fanta plants. 53 The most spectacular examples of the use of forced labour by American subsidiaries, however, appear to have been provided by Ford and GM, two cases that were recently the subject of a thorough investigation.

Of the Ford-Werke it is alleged that starting in 1942 this firm “zealously, aggressively, and successfully” pursued the use of foreign workers and POWs from the Soviet Union, France, Belgium, and other occupied countries — apparently with the knowledge of corporate headquarters in the US. 54 Karola Fings, a German researcher who has carefully studied the wartime activities of the Ford-Werke, writes:

[Ford] did wonderful business with the Nazis. Because the acceleration of production during the war opened up totally new opportunities to keep the level of wage costs low. A general freeze on wage increases was in effect in the Ford-Werke from 1941 on. However, the biggest profit margins could be achieved by means of the use of so-called Ostarbeiter [forced workers from Eastern Europe]. 55 The thousands of foreign forced labourers put to work in the Ford-Werke were forced to slave away every day except Sunday for twelve hours, and for this they received no wage whatsoever.

Presumably even worse was the treatment reserved for the relatively small number of inmates of the concentration camp of Buchenwald, who were made available to the Ford-Werke in the summer of 1944. (Research Findings, 45–72) In contrast to the Ford-Werke, Opel never used concentration camp inmates, at least not in the firm’s main plants in Rüsselsheim and Brandenburg. The German subsidiary of GM, however, did have an insatiable appetite for other types of forced labour, such as POWs. Typical of the use of slave labour in the Opel factories, particularly when it involved Russians, writes historian Anita Kugler, were “maximum exploitation, the worst possible treatment, and…capital punishment even in the case of minor offences.” The Gestapo was in charge of supervising the foreign labourers. 56

A Licence to Work for the Enemy

In the US, the parent corporations of German subsidiaries worked very hard to convince the American public of their patriotism, so that no ordinary American would have thought that GM, for example, which financed anti-German posters at home, was involved on the distant banks of the Rhine in activities that amounted to treason. 57

Washington was far better informed than John Doe, but the American government observed the unwritten rule stipulating that “what is good for General Motors is good for America,” and turned a blind eye to the fact that American corporations accumulated riches through their investments in, or trade with, a country with which the US was at war.

This had a lot to do with the fact that corporate America became even more influential in Washington during the war than it had been before; indeed, after Pearl Harbor representatives of “big business” flocked to the capital in order to take over many important government posts.

Supposedly they were motivated by sterling patriotism and offered their services for a pittance, and they became known as “dollar-a-year men.” Many, however, appeared to be there in order to protect their German assets. Former GM president William S. Knudsen, an outspoken admirer of Hitler since 1933 and friend of Göring, became director of the Office of Production Management. Another GM executive, Edward Stettinius Jr., became Secretary of State, and Charles E. Wilson, president of General Electric, became “the powerful number-two man at the War Production Board.” 58

Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that the American government preferred to look the other way while the country’s big corporations squirreled in the land of the German enemy? In fact, Washington virtually legitimated these activities. Barely one week after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, on 13 December 1941, President Roosevelt himself discreetly issued an edict allowing American corporations to do business with enemy countries — or with neutral countries that were friendly with enemies — by means of a special authorization. 59

This order clearly contravened the supposedly strict laws against all forms of “trading with the enemy.” Presumably, Washington could not afford to offend the country’s big corporations, whose expertise was needed in order to bring the war to a successful end. As Charles Higham has written, Roosevelt’s administration “had to get into bed with the oil companies [and with the other big corporations] in order to win the war.” Consequently, government officials systematically turned a blind eye to the unpatriotic conduct of American investment capital abroad, but there were some exceptions to this general rule. “In order to satisfy public opinion,” writes Higham, token legal action was taken in 1942 against the best-known violator of the “trading with the enemy” legislation, Standard Oil. But Standard pointed out that it “was fueling a high percentage of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, [thus] making it possible for America to win the war.”

The Rockefeller enterprise eventually agreed to pay a minor fine “for having betrayed America” but was allowed to continue its profitable commerce with the enemies of the United States. 60 A tentative investigation into IBM’s arguably treasonous activities in the land of the Nazi enemy was similarly aborted because the US needed IBM technology as much as the Nazis did. Edwin Black writes: “IBM was in some ways bigger than the war.” Both sides could not afford to proceed without the company’s all-important technology. “Hitler needed IBM. So did the Allies.” (Black, 333, and 348) Uncle Sam briefly wagged a finger at Standard Oil and IBM, but most owners and managers of corporations who did business with Hitler were never bothered at all. The connections of ITT’s Sosthenes Behn with Nazi Germany, for example, were a public secret in Washington, but he never experienced any difficulties as a result of them. Meanwhile, it would appear that the headquarters of the Western Allies were keen to go as easy as possible on the American-owned enterprises in Germany. According to German expert Hans G. Helms, Bernard Baruch, a high-level advisor to President Roosevelt, had given the order not to bomb certain factories in Germany, or to bomb them only lightly; it is hardly surprising that the branch plants of American corporations fell into this category. And indeed, while Cologne’s historical city centre was flattened in repeated bombing raids, the large Ford factory on the outskirts of the city enjoyed the reputation of being the safest place in town during air attacks, although some bombs did of course occasionally fall on its properties. (Billstein et al, 98-100) 61

After the war GM and the other American corporations that had done business in Germany were not only not punished, but even compensated for damages suffered by their German subsidiaries as a result of Anglo-American bombing raids. General Motors received 33 million dollars and ITT 27 million dollars from the American government as indemnification. The Ford-Werke had suffered relatively little damage during the war, and had received more than 100,000 dollars in compensation from the Nazi regime itself; Ford’s branch plant in France, meanwhile, had managed to wrest an indemnification of 38 million francs from the Vichy Regime. Ford nevertheless applied in Washington for 7 million dollars worth of damages, and after much wrangling received a total of 785,321 dollars “for its share of allowable losses sustained by Ford-Werke and Ford of Austria during the war,” which the company has acknowledged in its recently published report. (Research Findings, 109)

Corporate America and Post-War Germany

When the war in Europe ended, corporate America was well positioned to help determine what would happen to defeated Germany in general, and to their German assets in particular. Long before the guns fell silent, Allan Dulles from his observation post in Berne, Switzerland, established contact with the German associates of the American corporations he had earlier served as a lawyer in Sullivan & Cromwell, and as Patton’s tanks pushed deep into the Reich in the spring of 1945, ITT boss Sosthenes Behn donned the uniform of an American officer and rode into defeated Germany to personally inspect his subsidiaries there. More importantly the administration in the US occupation zone of Germany teemed with representatives of firms such as GM and ITT. 62 They were there, of course, to ensure that Corporate America would continue to enjoy the full usufruct of its profitable investments in defeated and occupied Germany. One of their first concerns was to prevent the implementation of the Morgenthau Plan. Henry Morgenthau was Roosevelt’s secretary of the Treasury, who had proposed to dismantle German industry, thereby transforming Germany into a backward, poor, and therefore harmless agrarian state.

The owners and managers of corporations with German assets were keenly aware that implementation of the Morgenthau Plan meant the financial death knell for their German subsidiaries; so they fought it tooth and nail. A particularly outspoken opponent of the plan was Alfred P. Sloan, the influential chairman of the board of GM. Sloan, other captains of industry, and their representatives and contacts in Washington and within the American occupation authorities in Germany, favoured an alternative option: the economic reconstruction of Germany, so that they would be able to do business and make money in Germany, and eventually they got what they wanted. After the death of Roosevelt, the Morgenthau Plan was quietly shelved, and Morgenthau himself would be dismissed from his high-ranking government position on 5 July 1945 by President Harry Truman. Germany — or at least the western part of Germany — would be economically reconstructed, and US subsidiaries would turn out to be major beneficiaries of this development. 63

The American occupation authorities in Germany in general, and the agents of American parent companies of German subsidiaries within this administration in particular, faced another problem. After the demise of Nazism and of European fascism in general, the general mood in Europe was — and would remain for a few short years — decidedly anti-fascist and simultaneously more or less anti-capitalist, because it was widely understood at that time that fascism had been a manifestation of capitalism. Almost everywhere in Europe, and particularly in Germany, radical grassroots associations, such as the German anti-fascist groups or Antifas, sprang up spontaneously and became influential. Labour unions and left-wing political parties also experienced successful comebacks; they enjoyed wide popular support when they denounced Germany’s bankers and industrialists for bringing Hitler to power and for collaborating closely with his regime, and when they proposed more or less radical anti-capitalist reforms such as the socialization of certain firms and industry sectors.

Such reform plans, however, violated American dogmas regarding the inviolability of private property and free enterprise, and were obviously a major source of concern to American industrialists with assets in Germany. 64 The latter were also aghast at the emergence in Germany of democratically elected “works’ councils” that demanded input into the affairs of firms. To make matters worse, the workers frequently elected Communists to these councils. This happened in the most important American branch plants, Ford-Werke and Opel.

The Communists played an important role in Opel’s work’s council until 1948, when GM officially resumed Opel’s management and promptly put an end to the experiment. The American authorities systematically opposed the anti-fascists and sabotaged their schemes for social and economic reform at all levels of public administration as well as in private business. In the Opel plant in Rüsselsheim, for example, the American authorities collaborated only reluctantly with the anti-fascists, while doing everything in their power to prevent the establishment of new labour unions and to deny the works’ councils any say in the firm’s management. Instead of allowing the planned democratic “bottom-up” reforms to blossom, the Americans proceeded to restore authoritarian “top-down” structures wherever possible.

They pushed the anti-fascists aside in favour of conservative, authoritarian, right-wing personalities, including many former Nazis. At the Ford-Werke in Cologne, anti-fascist pressure forced the Americans to dismiss the Nazi general manager Robert Schmidt, but thanks to Dearborn and the American occupation authorities he and many other Nazi managers were soon firmly back in the saddle. 65

Capitalism, Democracy, Fascism, and War

“About the things one cannot speak about, one ought to remain silent,” declared the famous philosopher Wittgenstein, and a colleague, Max Horkheimer, paraphrased him with regard to the phenomenon of fascism and its German variety, Nazism, by emphasizing that if one wants to talk about fascism, one cannot remain silent about capitalism.

Hitler’s Third Reich was a monstrous system made possible by Germany’s top business leaders, and while it proved a catastophe for millions of people, it functioned as a Nirvana for corporate Germany. Foreign-owned enterprises were also allowed to enjoy the wonderful services

Hitler’s regime rendered to das Kapital, such as the elimination of all workers’ parties and labour unions, a rearmament program that brought them immense profits, and a war of conquest that eliminated foreign competition and provided new markets, cheap raw materials, and an unlimited supply of even cheaper labour from POWs, foreign slave labourers, and concentration camp inmates. The owners and managers of America’s leading corporations admired Hitler because in his Third Reich they could make money like nowhere else, and because he stomped on German labour and swore to destroy the Soviet Union, homeland of international communism.

Edwin Black wrongly believes that IBM was atypical of American corporations in flourishing from capitalism’s great fascist feast on the banks of the Rhine. Many, if not all of these corporations, took full advantage of the elimination of labour unions and left-wing parties and the orgy of orders and profits made possible by rearmament and war. They betrayed their country by producing all sorts of equipment for Hitler’s war machine even after Pearl Harbor, and they objectively helped the Nazis to commit horrible crimes.

These technicalities, however, did not seem to perturb the owners and managers in Germany and even in the US, who were aware of what was going on overseas. All that mattered to them, clearly, was that unconditional collaboration with Hitler allowed them to make profits like never before; their motto might well have been: “profits über Alles.” After the war, the capitalist masters and associates of the fascist monster distanced themselves à la Dr. Frankenstein from their creature, and loudly proclaimed their preference for democratic forms of government. Today, most of our political leaders and our media want us to believe that “free markets” — a euphemistic code word for capitalism — and democracy are Siamese twins. Even after World War II, however, capitalism, and especially American capitalism, continued to collaborate cozily with fascist regimes in countries such as Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Chile, while supporting extreme-right movements, including death squads and terrorists, in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere.

One might say that in the headquarters of the corporations, whose collective interest is clearly reflected in American government policies, nostalgia has lingered on for the good old days of Hitler’s Third Reich, which was a paradise for German as well as American and other foreign firms: no left-wing parties, no unions, unlimited numbers of slave labourers, and an authoritarian state that provided the necessary discipline and arranged for an “armament boom” and eventually a war that brought “horizonless profits,” as Black writes, alluding to the case of IBM.

These benefits could more readily be expected from a fascist dictatorship than from a genuine democracy, hence the support for the Francos, Suhartos, and other Pinochets of the post-war world. But even within democratic societies, capitalism actively seeks the cheap and meek labour that Hitler’s regime served up on a silver platter, and recently it has been by means of stealthy instruments such as downsizing and globalization, rather than the medium of fascism, that American and international capital have sought to achieve the corporate Nirvana of which Hitler’s Germany had provided a tantalizing foretaste.

Important References:

See Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation (London: Crown Publishers, 2001)

Walter Hofer and Herbert R. Reginbogin, Hitler, der Westen und die Schweiz 1936–1945 (Zürich: NZZ Publishing House, 2002)

Reinhold Billstein, Karola Fings, Anita Kugler, and Nicholas Levis, Working for the Enemy: Ford, General Motors, and Forced Labor during the Second World War ( New York: Berghahn, 2000) Research Findings About Ford-Werke Under the Nazi Regime (Dearborn, MI: Ford Motor Company, 2001)

Notes

1 Michael Dobbs, “US Automakers Fight Claims of Aiding Nazis,” The International Herald Tribune, 3 December 1998.

2 David F. Schmitz, “‘A Fine Young Revolution’: The United States and the Fascist Revolution in Italy, 1919–1925,” Radical History Review, 33 (September 1985), 117–38; and John P. Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America (Princeton 1972).

3 Gabriel Kolko, “American Business and Germany, 1930–1941,” The Western Political Quarterly, 25 (December 1962), 714, refers to the “‘skepticism’ displayed by the American business press with respect to Hitler because he was ‘a political and economic nonconformist.’”

4 Neil Baldwin, Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate (New York 2001), especially 172–91.

5 Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy: An Exposé of The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933–1949 (New York 1983), 162.

6 Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, “The Hitler Project,” chapter 2 in George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (Washington 1991). Available online at < http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm >.

7 Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country, and Coca-Cola: The Unauthorized History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company that Makes It (New York 1993), 221.

8 Cited in Manfred Overesch, Machtergreifung von links: Thüringen 1945/46 (Hildesheim Germany 1993), 64.

9 Knudsen described Nazi Germany after a visit there in 1933 as “the miracle of the twentieth century.” Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 163.

10 Stephan H. Lindner, Das Reichskommissariat für die Behandlung feindliches Vermögens im Zweiten Weltkrieg: Eine Studie zur Verwaltungs-, Rechts- and Wirtschaftsgeschichte des nationalsozialistischen Deutschlands (Stuttgart 1991), 121; Simon Reich, The Fruits of Fascism: Postwar Prosperity in Historical Perspective (Ithaca, NY and London 1990), 109, 117, 247; and Ken Silverstein, “Ford and the Führer,” The Nation, 24 January 2000, 11–6.

11 Cited in Michael Dobbs, “Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration,” The Washington Post, 12 December 1998.

12 Tobias Jersak, “Öl für den Führer,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 11 February 1999.

13 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, xvi.

14 The authors of a recent book on the Holocaust even emphasize that “in 1930 anti-Semitism was much more visible and blatant in the United States than in Germany.” See Suzy Hansen’s interview with Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt, authors of Holocaust: a History,< http:/salon.com/books/int/2002/10/02/dwork/index.html. >

15 Henry Ford, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem (Dearborn, MI n.d.); and Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 162.

16 Aino J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens not Darken? The Final Solution in History (New York 1988).

17 Neil Baldwin, Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate, 279; and Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 161.

18 Upton Sinclair, The Flivver King: A Story of Ford-America (Pasadena, CA 1937), 236.

19 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 162–4.

20 See Bernd Martin, Friedensinitiativen und Machtpolitik im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939–1942 (Düsseldorf 1974); and Richard Overy, Russia’s War (London 1998), 34–5.

21 See Clement Leibovitz and Alvin Finkel, In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion (New York 1998).

22 John H. Backer, “From Morgenthau Plan to Marshall Plan,” in Robert Wolfe, ed., Americans as Proconsuls: United States Military Governments in Germany and Japan, 1944–1952 (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL 1984), 162.

23 Mooney is cited in Andreas Hillgruber, ed., Staatsmänner und Diplomaten bei Hitler. Vertrauliche Aufzeichnungen über Unterredungen mit Vertretern des Auslandes 1939–1941 (Frankfurt am Main 1967), 85.

24 Anita Kugler, “Das Opel-Management während des Zweiten Weltkrieges. Die Behandlung ‘feindlichen Vermögens’ und die ‘Selbstverantwortung’ der Rüstungsindustrie,” in Bernd Heyl and Andrea Neugebauer, ed., “… ohne Rücksicht auf die Verhältnisse”: Opel zwischen Weltwirtschaftskrise and Wiederaufbau, (Frankfurt am Main 1997), 35–68, and 40–1; “Flugzeuge für den Führer. Deutsche ‘Gefolgschaftsmitglieder’ und ausländische Zwangsarbeiter im Opel-Werk in Rüsselsheim 1940 bis 1945,” in Heyl and Neugebauer, “… ohne Rücksicht auf die Verhältnisse,” 69–92; and Hans G. Helms, “Ford und die Nazis,” in Komila Felinska, ed., Zwangsarbeit bei Ford (Cologne 1996), 113.

25 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 93, and 95.

26 Jersak, “Öl für den Fühier”; Bernd Martin, “Friedens-Planungen der multinationalen Grossindustrie (1932–1940) als politische Krisenstrategie,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 2 (1976), 82.

27 Cited in Dobbs, “U.S. Automakers.”

28 Jamie Lincoln Kitman, “The Secret History of Lead,” The Nation, 20 March 2002.

29 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 97; Ed Cray, Chrome Colossus: General Motors and its Times (New York 1980), 315; and Anthony Sampson, The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies and the World They Made (New York 1975), 82.

30 David Lanier Lewis, The Public Image of Henry Ford: an American Folk Hero and His Company (Detroit 1976), 222, and 270.

31 Ralph B. Levering, American Opinion and the Russian Alliance, 1939–1945 (Chapel Hill, NC 1976), 46; and Wayne S. Cole, Roosevelt and the Isolationists, 1932–45 (Lincoln, NE 1983), 433–34.

32 The hope for a long, drawn-out conflict between Berlin and Moscow was reflected in many newspaper articles and in the much-publicized remark uttered by Senator Harry S. Truman on 24 June 1941, only two days after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union: “If we see that Germany is winning, we should help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we should help Germany, so that as many as possible perish on both sides ….” Levering, American Opinion, 46–7.

33 Even as late as 5 December 1941, just two days before the Japanese strike against Pearl Harbor, a caricature in Hearst’s Chicago Tribune suggested that it would be ideal for “civilization” if these “dangerous beasts,” the Nazis and the Soviets, “destroyed each other.” The Chicago Tribune caricature is reproduced in Roy Douglas, The World War 1939–1943: The Cartoonists’ Vision (London and New York 1990), 86.

34 Clive Ponting, Armageddon: The Second World War (London 1995), 106; and Stephen E. Ambrose, Americans at War (New York 1998), 76–77.

35 Jersak, “Öl fürden Führer.” Jersak used a “top secret” document produced by the Wehrmacht Reichsstelle für Mineralöl, now in the military section of the Bundesarchiv (Federal Archives), File RW 19/2694. See also Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 59–61.

36 James V. Compton, “The Swastika and the Eagle,” in Arnold A. Offner, ed., America and the Origins of World War II, 1933–1941 (New York 1971), 179–83; Melvin Small, “The ‘Lessons’ of the Past: Second Thoughts about World War II,” in Norman K. Risjord , ed., Insights on American History. Volume II (San Diego 1988), 20; and Andreas Hillgruber, ed., Der Zweite Weltkrieg 1939–1945: Kriegsziele und Strategie der Grossen Mächte, 5th ed., (Stuttgart 1989), 83–4.

37 Helms, “Ford und die Nazis,” 114.

38 Helms, “Ford und die Nazis,” 14–5; and Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 104–5.

39 Silverstein, “Ford and the Führer,” 15–6; and Lindner, Das Reichskommüsariet, 121.

40 Kugler, “Das Opel-Management,” 52, 61 ff., and 67; and Kugler, “Flugzeuge,” 85.

41 Snell, “GM and the Nazis,” Ramparts, 12 (June 1974), 14–15; Kugler, “Das Opel-Management,” 53, and 67; and Kugler, “Flugzeuge,” 89.

42 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 112.

43 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 99.

44 Lindner, Das Reichskommissariet, 104.

45 Silverstein, “Ford and the Führer,” 12, and 14; Helms, “Ford und die Nazis,” 115; and Reich, The Fruits of Fascism, 121, and 123.

46 Silverstein, “Ford and the Führer,” 15–16.

47 Kugler, “Das Opel-Management,” 55, and 67; and Kugler, “Flugzeuge,” 85.

48 Communication of A. Neugebauer of the city archives in Rüsselsheim to the author, 4 February 2000; and Lindner, Das Reichskommissariat, 126–27.

49 Helms, “Ford und die Nazis,” 115.

50 Gian Trepp, “Kapital über alles: Zentralbankenkooperation bei der Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich im Zweiten Weltkrieg,” in Philipp Sarasin und Regina Wecker, eds., Raubgold, Reduit, Flüchtlinge: Zur Geschichte der Schweiz im Zweiten Weltkrieg (Zürich 1998), 71–80; Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 1–19 and 175; Anthony Sampson, The Sovereign State of ITT (New York 1973), 47; “VS-Banken collaboreerden met nazi’s,” Het Nieuwsblad, Brussels, 26 December 1998; and William Clarke, “Nazi Gold: The Role of the Central Banks — Where Does the Blame Lie?,” Central Banking, 8, (Summer 1997),< http://www.centralbanking.co.uk/cbv8n11.html. >

51 Bernt Engelmann, Einig and gegen Recht und Freiheit: Ein deutsches Anti-Geschichtsbuch (München 1975), 263–4; Marie-Luise Recker, “Zwischen sozialer Befriedung und materieller Ausbeutung: Lohn- und Arbeitsbedingungen im Zweiten Weltkrieg,” in Wolfgang Michalka, ed., Der Zweite Weltkrieg. Analysen, Grundzüge, Forschungsbilanz (Munich and Zürich 1989), 430–44, especially 436.

52 Lindner, Das Reichkommissariat, 118.

53 Pendergrast, For God, Country, and Coca-Cola, 228.

54 “Ford-Konzern wegen Zwangsarbeit verklagt,” Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, 6 March 1998 as cited in Antifaschistisck Nochrichten, 6 (1998),< http://www.antifaschistischenachricten.de/1998/06/010.htm. >

55 Karola Fings, “Zwangsarbeit bei den Kölner Ford-Werken,” in Felinska, Zwangsarbeit bei Ford, (Cologne 1996), 108. See also Silverstein, “Ford and the Führer,” 14; and Billstein et al., 53–5, 135–56.

56 Kugler, “Das Opel-Management,” 57; Kugler, “Flugzeuge,” 72–6, quotation from 76; and Billstein et al., 53–5.

57 GM-financed patriotic posters may be found in the Still Pictures Branch of the National Archives in Washington, DC.

58 Michael S. Sherry, In the Shadow of War:The United States Since the 1930s (New Haven and London 1995), 172.

59 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, xv, and xxi.

60 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 44–6.

61 Helms, “Ford und die Nazis,” 115–6; Reich, The Fruits of Fascism, 124–5; and Mira Wilkins and Frank Ernest Hill, American Business Abroad: Ford on Six Continents (Detroit 1964), 344–6.

62 Higham, Trading With the Enemy, 212–23; Carolyn Woods Eisenberg, “U.S. Policy in Post-war Germany: The Conservative Restoration,” Science and Society, 46 (Spring 1982), 29; Carolyn Woods Eisenberg, “The Limits of Democracy: US Policy and the Rights of German Labor, 1945–1949,” in Michael Ermarth, ed., America and the Shaping of German Society, 1945–1955 (Providence, RI and Oxford 1993), 63–4; Billstein et al., 96–97; and Werner Link, Deutsche und amerikanische Gewerkschaften und Geschäftsleute 1945–1975: Eine Studie über transnationale Beziehungen (Düsseldorf 1978), 100–06, and 88.

63 Gabriel Kolko, The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943–1945 (New York 1968), 331, and 348–9; Wilfried Loth, Stalins ungeliebtes Kind: Warum Moskau die DDR nicht wollte (Berlin 1994), 18; Wolfgang Krieger, “Die American Deutschlandplanung, Hypotheken und Chancen für einen Neuanfang,” in Hans-Erich Volkmann, ed., Ende des Dritten Reiches — Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs: Eine perspektivische Rückschau (Munich and Zürich 1995), 36, and 40–1; and Lloyd C. Gardner, Architects of Illusion: Men and Ideas in American Foreign Policy 1941–1949 (Chicago 1970), 250–1.

64 Kolko, The Politics of War, 507–11; Rolf Steininger, Deutsche Geschichte 1945–1961: Darstellung und Dokumente in zwei Bänden. Band 1 (Frankfurt am Main 1983), 117–8; Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1945–1954 (New York 1972), 125–6; Reinhard Kühnl, Formen bürgerlicher Herrschaft: Liberalismus — Faschismus (Reinbek bei Hamburg 1971), 71; Reinhard Kühnl, ed., Geschichte und Ideologie: Kritische Analyse bundesdeutscher Geschichtsbücher, second edition (Reinbek bei Hamburg 1973), 138–9; Peter Altmann, ed., Hauptsache Frieden. Kriegsende-Befreiung-Neubeginn 1945–1949: Vom antifaschistischen Konsens zum Grundgesetz (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1985), 58 ff.; and Gerhard Stuby, “Die Verhinderung der antifascistisch-demokratischen Umwälzung und die Restauration in der BRD von 1945–1961,” in Reinhard Kühnl, ed., Der bürgerliche Staat der Gegenwart: Formen bürgerlicher Herrschaft II (Reinbek bei Hamburg 1972), 91–101.

65 Silverstein, “Ford and the Führer,” 15–6; and Lindner, Das Reichskommissariat, 121.

Vegas shooter used incendiary rounds in attempt to BLOW UP massive aircraft fuel storage tanks

As high as the number of people Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock killed and wounded was, the body count and destruction could have been far worse had one of the most diabolical aspects of his master plan had gone his way.

As reported by CNN, two law enforcement sources said that Paddock, 64, fired special “incendiary” bullets at a fuel tank holding 43,000 barrels in what investigators believe was an effort to ignite it and cause a massive explosion.

The so-called incendiary rounds were found in Paddock’s Mandalay Bay Casino hotel room. Experts say they are designed to ignite what they hit. Also, some rounds were found near the fuel tank just a short distance away from the McCarran International Airport, which is parallel to the heavily populated Las Vegas strip.

Police had already disclosed that Paddock had fired at the tank and actually hit it with two bullets at some point during his Oct. 1 attack on a crowd of 22,000 below him attending a country music concert at the Route 91 venue that killed 58 and wounded more than 500 people. However, they did not disclose the fact that he used incendiary rounds to do so. Tanks located near the airport contain jet fuel.

The sources who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity said that incendiary rounds were found in an area near the tank that was struck, though it isn’t clear if those rounds were of the incendiary variety, sources said. Airport spokesman Chris Jones told the network he was not aware of any bullets being recovered except those that struck the tank.

Last week, airport officials downplayed any notion that the kind of rifles Paddock used in his attack were capable of causing an explosion at the fuel tanks. They noted that jet fuel is refined in a way that allows it to withstand short-term exposure to flame without igniting.

“Contrary to speculation, there is almost zero likelihood gunfire could trigger a fire or explosion at a commercial fuel storage facility,” said an airport statement released on Oct. 5. That statement also did not mention anything about incendiary rounds being found next to one of its fuel tanks or whether such a round would change that equation at all. (Related: EXCLUSIVE: Forensic acoustic analysis confirms existence (and range) of second Las Vegas shooter)

CNN noted further:

The new detail about the ammunition is one of several pieces of information that investigators are attempting to put together to determine Paddock’s specific intent, precisely how he carried out the attack, and whether he intended to survive.

In addition to the incendiary rounds, police also recovered several tracer bullets which produce a flame when discharged allowing a shooter to follow the bullet’s path to targets for better aim.

Also, investigating officers found other equipment in Paddock’s room suggesting he likely intended to survive the attack such as bulletproof vets and a gas mask/breathing apparatus.

As reported by The National Sentinel, police said last week they had evidence suggesting that Paddock not only led a “secret double life” but that he “meticulously planned” his attack and that he planned to survive it.

Other developments indicating Paddock’s meticulous planning include:

— Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said that Paddock scoped out the Route 91 concert venue two weeks before he opened fire;

— Planning even included being able to find the right time to rent the very room he was in on the 32nd floor, which Lombardo said was difficult considering Vegas is a 24-7-365 tourist destination;

— Cops also discovered dozens of pounds of tannerite, which detonates when contacted by a bullet and is normally used in target practice.

Police also don’t believe that Paddock acted alone or that what he was planning was not known to anyone.

“At face value, he had to have some help at some point and we want to ensure that that’s the answer,” Lombardo said. “Maybe he was a superhuman who figured this out all on his own but it would be hard for me to believe that.”

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

CNN.com

TheNationalSentinel.com

DR MAX THE MIND DOCTOR: Sex addiction is a myth – whatever the rich and famous say

There’s been growing understanding around mental illness in the past few years. These days you can’t open a newspaper or switch on the TV without hearing someone talk about it — even the Royal Family are doing it.

While there is still considerable stigma and mental health continues to receive less funding and recognition than other areas of medicine, things are changing. But there is a sinister element to this new-found sympathy: people now invoke mental illness as an excuse for bad behaviour.

Consider Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood producer at the centre of a storm of sexual assault allegations this week. No sooner had the news broke than he was claiming to be addicted to sex and checking in to an exclusive clinic.

Let¿s be clear here: being a crass, offensive, misogynistic lech is not a medical condition. Sexually assaulting women is not a mental illness

Let’s be clear here: being a crass, offensive, misogynistic lech is not a medical condition. Sexually assaulting women is not a mental illness

This is a well-worn, PR-managed response to any indiscretion by the rich and famous.

Caught in a compromising position, pants around your ankles? Quick, get into rehab. No one will dare criticise you then because you’re unwell; it’s not your fault. In fact, you’re actually the victim here because you have a cruel illness. Poor you.

What tosh. In reality, these ‘rehab’ clinics are often little more than five-star hotels with therapists, who will nod sympathetically, tagged on.

Let’s be clear here: being a crass, offensive, misogynistic lech is not a medical condition. Sexually assaulting women is not a mental illness. Sex addiction is not a medical diagnosis. It is not a clinical condition recognised in either of the main diagnostic manuals used by psychiatrists.

No sooner had the news broke than Harvey Weinstein (pictured) was claiming to be addicted to sex and checking in to an exclusive clinic

No sooner had the news broke than Harvey Weinstein (pictured) was claiming to be addicted to sex and checking in to an exclusive clinic

It is a made-up condition invented to absolve the lecherous and the unfaithful from responsibility. It has been used to explain away the behaviour of selfish, wealthy, powerful men who don’t see why they should play by the same rules as the rest of us. Because once something has a label, any criticism is deemed heartless and uncaring.

In fact, the entire idea of addiction as a ‘disease’ is highly contentious within medicine. It first started being widely promoted within the medical community in the late Nineties in the U.S., where there is no free public healthcare. Some have argued that this was so health insurance companies couldn’t wriggle out of funding treatment for alcoholics.

However, the idea soon took hold over here. It was argued that although the use of substances was voluntary to start with, in some individuals it ‘flicked a switch’ in the brain that meant they could no longer stop. But a recent review published in the highly respected medical journal The Lancet Psychiatry concluded the research into addiction does not support this simplified view.

In fact, many doctors reject the idea that alcoholism and drug addiction are diseases, myself included. And that’s because it doesn’t actually help the person with the addiction.

I have spent many years working in the NHS, the charitable sector and privately with people who use drugs and alcohol. What always strikes me is how, regardless of wealth or privilege, addiction typically comes down to poor coping strategies for emotional pain and psychological distress.

Rather than being a switch that is flicked on in their brains and that they can’t shut off again, it’s that they’re using sex or alcohol, or whatever it is, as a crutch.

So calling addiction a disease is not only unhelpful, but actively counter-productive. The term removes any sense of responsibility or ownership and flies in the face of much of the psychological work that is done with addicts.

People do choose to drink alcohol or inject drugs. It is an active decision they make each day and pretending otherwise is to rob them of the fact that they can choose a different path.

The process of recovering from addiction involves taking responsibility and realising that you are the architect of your own — and often others’ — misery.

You can’t cure bad parenting with a pill 

ADHD — a psychiatric condition characterised by difficulties with attention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness — is in the news again after published research showed that younger children in a class were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with the condition.

Experts argued this seemed to suggest that greater immaturity could be what was driving the diagnosis, as parents and teachers misattribute their difficulties to ADHD.

ADHD ¿ a psychiatric condition characterised by difficulties with attention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness ¿ is in the news again after published research showed that younger children in a class were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with the condition

ADHD — a psychiatric condition characterised by difficulties with attention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness — is in the news again after published research showed that younger children in a class were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with the condition

For me, this further highlights why we need to approach a diagnosis of ADHD with great caution in children and consider if other factors could be contributing to their symptoms.

I feel very uneasy that so many children are given this label — and prescribed drugs such as Ritalin accordingly.

The World Health Organisation states that a diagnosis of ADHD can represent family dysfunction or inadequacies, rather than a problem with the child, and it’s this that worries me.

It’s easy to whack on a label and medicalise their behaviour rather than to accept, however uncomfortably, that it might be a problem with the parenting.

I say this not to blame parents, but to question how medicalising a child’s bad and disruptive behaviour really helps them.

Yes, it’s difficult to unpick complicated family dynamics that contribute to disruptive behaviour. But by taking the easy option and giving children — whose tender brains are still developing — behaviour-altering drugs, are we not letting down an entire generation by neglecting to look in to what’s really causing it?

Throwing cash at GPs just won’t help 

GP vacancy rates are at record levels, with one in eight posts empty and increasing numbers of practices finding it simply impossible to recruit. Latest figures show one million patients a week are unable to get an appointment, with one in five waiting at least a week to see a GP — a 56 per cent rise in five years.

This week, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt revealed plans to give GPs a ‘golden hello’ of £20,000 in a bid to encourage them to work in parts of the country struggling to recruit. While something has to be done, and quickly, I’m not convinced a cash bung is going to solve the crisis. After all, what’s to stop them taking the money and leaving soon after?

This problem is not new. When the NHS was introduced, GPs had to be redistributed from affluent towns to areas that needed them most. Financial incentives were offered, but it soon became apparent they were not the answer and did not attract the best candidates.

Instead, it was noted that ‘the good doctor will only be attracted into industrial practice by providing conditions which will enable him to do good work’. In other words, for a post to be appealing, the area has to have the adequate infrastructure and resources to enable them to practise medicine effectively.

Therefore, perhaps the cash would be better spent on improving resources in deprived areas, which would not only make working there more appealing, but would benefit the whole community.

The other factor was the background of doctors. Then, as now, medicine tended to attract people from affluent towns who, after qualifying, returned home.

Despite attempts to increase access to higher education, for the most part a degree in medicine remains the preserve of the wealthy — it is a long course and, therefore, financially more prohibitive.

Careful investment and support in deprived communities is what’s needed — not just throwing more cash at GPs.

Being lonely can be as bad for someone’s health as having a long-term illness such as diabetes, or so said the Royal College of General Practitioners this week.

For me, this emphasises that we are social animals. I worry that as the traditional family unit has broken down and families live further apart, more and more people are living isolated lives, particularly the elderly. But we can all help. Why should it be down to doctors or social workers to find ways of tackling such loneliness?

I remember an elderly patient I had a few years ago. She was withdrawn, unkempt and depressed. I struggled to know what to do to help her. In desperation, I referred her to a befriending service run by a charity. A volunteer started popping in once a week for tea and a chat.

Over the next few months, she was transformed. She began doing her hair, seemed brighter and even started smiling again. There’s no pill that could have achieved that.

Chelsea Clinton runs from questions about handing back Harvey Weinstein’s tainted $250,000 donations – and her father deploys security to keep the Press away

Chelsea Clinton fled to her car to avoid answering questions from a DailyMail.com reporter on Saturday about whether the Clinton Foundation will return up to $250,000 in donations from accused rapist Harvey Weinstein.

The former first daughter, who is a board member of the Clinton Foundation, ran from questions while she was attending a Clinton Global Initiative University event in Northeastern University in Boston.

The night before, Clinton Foundation press officials blocked a DailyMail.com reporter attempting to approach Bill Clinton to ask him questions at a public event.

Video playing bottom right…
Chelsea Clinton fled to her car to avoid answering questions from a DailyMail.com about if the Clinton Foundation will return Weinstein's donations

Chelsea Clinton fled to her car to avoid answering questions from a DailyMail.com about if the Clinton Foundation will return Weinstein’s donations

Bill and Chelsea were at Northeastern University to chair the Clinton Global Initiative University’s annual student conference.

A number of Democratic politicians and groups, including the University of Southern California, have said they will return donations from Weinstein after he was accused of sexual assault, harassment or rape by over two dozen women.

Clinton, a board member of the Foundation, ran while she was attending a Clinton Global Initiative University event in Northeastern University in Boston

Clinton, a board member of the Foundation, ran while she was attending a Clinton Global Initiative University event in Northeastern University in Boston

Hillary Clinton said earlier this week she would return Weinstein’s donations to her 2016 campaign. The disgraced movie producer gave over $30,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and $5,400 to Hillary for America.

But the Clinton Foundation has declined to comment on whether it will return Weinstein’s donations. Weinstein has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation, according to its records.

The Foundation declines to come clean on how much individual donors give.

‘Chelsea, will the foundation give back the donations from Harvey Weinstein?’ a DailyMail.com reporter asked Chelsea as she left a CGI lunch event through a side door on Saturday. ‘Do you plan to return the $100,000?’

Chelsea, flanked by Clinton Foundation officials, looked straight ahead and ignored the questions as she scurried through the side lot and ducked into her waiting black sedan. Security blocked the reporter from approaching her car.

Earlier in the day, Chelsea had ducked the same questions from DailyMail.com after her car dropped her off at the front of the building. When she left the event, Chelsea departed through the isolated side door as her car idled next to it, seemingly to give her a chance to flee quickly.

The night prior, Clinton Foundation press officials blocked a DailyMail.com reporter from approaching Bill Clinton to ask him questions at a public event

The night prior, Clinton Foundation press officials blocked a DailyMail.com reporter from approaching Bill Clinton to ask him questions at a public event

Bill and Chelsea were at Northeastern University to chair the Clinton Global Initiative University¿s annual student conference

Bill and Chelsea were at Northeastern University to chair the Clinton Global Initiative University¿s annual student conference

Bill and Chelsea were at Northeastern University to chair the Clinton Global Initiative University’s annual student conference

The Clinton Foundation has taken pains to avoid answering press questions about its relationship with Weinstein and whether it has any intentions of returning his six-figure contributions.

On Friday night, Bill Clinton gave the opening address for the CGI University conference, and led a conversation with a panel of activists.

On Friday night, Bill Clinton gave the opening address for the CGI University conference, and led a conversation with a panel of activists

On Friday night, Bill Clinton gave the opening address for the CGI University conference, and led a conversation with a panel of activists

Clinton did not take questions during the event, and press access was tightly restricted.

Two Clinton Foundation communications officials physically blocked a DailyMail.com reporter who was credentialed for the event and threatened to call security when the reporter attempted to approach Clinton at the end of the event, while he was speaking to audience members near the stage.

After the officials asked the reporter and a photographer to leave, another official followed them out to ensure they left the venue.

The CGI University conference brought together thousands of student activist to discuss issues ranging from sexual assault to sustainable energy, and included keynotes and panel discussions with Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and Madeleine Albright.

The conference is a project of the Clinton Foundation, and a spin-off of the foundation’s annual Clinton Global Initiative meeting which brings together entrepreneurs, philanthropists, executives, and progressive activists.

The Clinton Foundation said after the 2016 election that it was ending CGI, but would continue to sponsor CGI University.

At least seven Democrats and the Democratic National Committee stepped forward to say they are returning Weinstein’s campaigns donations or re-gifting them to charity.

Weinstein has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation, according to its records

Weinstein has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation, according to its records

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, both considered likely contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, said they will donate Weinstein’s contributions to charity.

Senators Al Franken, Kristen Gillibrand, Richard Blumenthal, and Martin Heinrich also vowed to return the money.

The Democratic National Committee, which received over $250,000 from Weinstein since 2003, also said it would donate $30,000 to women’s groups.

Weinstein maxed out his political contributions to Clinton with a $5,400 check to her 2016 campaign and $30,000 to her Hillary Victory Fund. He was also a prolific bundler for Clinton and hosted fundraising events where celebrity guests paid thousands to meet with the presidential candidate.

Weinstein also gave between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation – joining other controversial donors, including convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and ex-MF Global CEO Jon Corzine.

Last week, the University of Southern California announced that it was rejecting a $5 million endowment from Weinstein to fund a program to support women filmmakers.

From A-list stars to budding actresses: The women who accuse Harvey Weinstein of rape and sexual harassment during his two decade reign of terror in Hollywood

Many were young, powerless and afraid to speak out in case their careers were ruined.

For nearly three decades their accusations remained bottled up, some suppressed by pay-offs.

More than 30 women have now come forward with allegations of sexual harassment against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, the man once described as ‘God’ of the film industry.

The accusations, including from some of the world’s most famous actresses, range from inappropriate massages to rape.

Here is a list of those who have come forward so far.

Kate Beckinsale In an Instagram post the Underworld star said Weinstein made a move on her when she was just 17. 

‘When I arrived reception told me to go to his room. He opened the door in his bathrobe. I was incredibly naive and young and it did not cross my mind that this older, unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him. After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left, uneasy but unscathed. A few years later he asked me if he had tried anything with me in that first meeting.I realized he couldn’t remember if he had assaulted me or not.’

Teen assault: Kate Beckinsale says Weinstein tried to ply her with alcohol and met her in his bathrobe when she was just 17

Teen assault: Kate Beckinsale says Weinstein tried to ply her with alcohol and met her in his bathrobe when she was just 17

 Gwyneth Paltrow

The star said that when she was 22, Weinstein touched her and suggested having joint massages in a hotel bedroom before she started shooting the 1996 Jane Austen adaptation Emma. She told the New York Times: ‘I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified’.

Paltrow (pictured with Weinstein in 2002) told the New York Times that when she was 22 Weinstein touched her and suggested having joint massages in the bedroom

Paltrow (pictured with Weinstein in 2002) told the New York Times that when she was 22 Weinstein touched her and suggested having joint massages in the bedroom

She said she told her then boyfriend Brad Pitt about the incident and he confronted the mogul. She said Weinstein then told her not to tell anyone and she feared getting fired.

Gwyneth Paltrow, 45, is an American actress, singer, and food writer who made her name starring in Seven (1995) and Emma (1996).

Angelina Jolie

The actress told the New York Times she had to turn down advances from Weinstein in 1998 and chose never to work with him again. She said she warned other women about him.

She said: ‘I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did.’

Angelina Jolie, 42, is cited as Hollywood’s highest-paid actress. She made her screen debut as a child alongside her father, Jon Voight, in Lookin’ to Get Out (1982).

Jolie (pictured speaking ahead of a screening of her new film In the Land of Blood and Honey) told the New York Times she had to turn down advances from Weinstein in 1998

Jolie (pictured speaking ahead of a screening of her new film In the Land of Blood and Honey) told the New York Times she had to turn down advances from Weinstein in 1998

Cara Delevigne

The model wrote on her Instagram page about a meeting with Weinstein in which he ‘asked her to kiss another woman.’

She wrote: ‘As soon as we were alone he began to brag about all the actresses he had slept with and how he had made their careers and spoke about other inappropriate things of a sexual nature. He then invited me to his room. I quickly declined and asked his assistant if my car was outside. She said it wasn’t and wouldn’t be for a bit and I should go to his room.

Delevigne wrote on her Instagram page about a meeting with Weinstein in which he 'asked her to kiss another woman.'

Delevigne wrote on her Instagram page about a meeting with Weinstein in which he ‘asked her to kiss another woman.’

‘At that moment I felt very powerless and scared but didn’t want to act that way hoping that I was wrong about the situation. When I arrived I was relieved to find another woman in his room and thought immediately I was safe. He asked us to kiss and she began some sort of advances upon his direction. I swiftly got up and asked him if he knew that I could sing. And I began to sing….i thought it would make the situation better….more professional….like an audition….i was so nervous. After singing I said again that I had to leave.He walked me to the door and stood in front of it and tried to kiss me on the lips. I stopped him and managed to get out of the room’.

Cara Delevigne, 25, is an English fashion model and actress. She signed with Storm Model Management after leaving school in 2009.

Eva Green 

Green’s mother says Weinstein sexually harassed her during a meeting at his suite in Paris.

The Bond Girl, 37, managed to escape however after being summoned to the movie mogul’s hotel room, her mother Marlene Jobert said in a radio interview on Friday.

‘He operated with her the exact same way he acted with all the others, under the pretext of a professional meeting, of a script that had to get to her with a nice part into the bargain,’ said Jobert.

‘Since his office was also in his hotel suite, she [Eva] followed him, and the exact same thing happened to her as to the others. She managed to escape, but he threatened to destroy her professionally.’

Jobert added: ‘[It was] the usual scenario, the same pattern he used for all the other victims.’

Weinstein allegedly harassed French actress Eva Green in his suite in Paris 

Weinstein allegedly harassed French actress Eva Green in his suite in Paris

Lea Seydoux

The French actress accused the mogul of jumping on her and trying to kiss her.

She wrote in The Guardian: ‘We were talking on the sofa when he suddenly jumped on me and tried to kiss me. I had to defend myself. He’s big and fat, so I had to be forceful to resist him. He tried more than once. This was never going to be about work. He had other intentions – I could see that very clearly. All throughout the evening, he flirted and stared at me as if I was a piece of meat.

The French actress (pictured in Spectre) accused the mogul of jumping on her and trying to kiss her

The French actress (pictured in Spectre) accused the mogul of jumping on her and trying to kiss her

‘It was hard to say no because he’s so powerful. I’m an actress and he’s a producer. We are in the same industry, so its impossible to avoid him. I’ve seen how he operates: the way he looks for an opening. The way he tests women to see what he can get away with. That’s the most disgusting thing. Everyone knew what Harvey was up to and no one did anything. It’s unbelievable that he’s been able to act like this for decades and still keep his career.’

Lea Seydoux, 35, starred in Bond film Spectre and was nominated for the César Award for Best Actress for her role as a lady-in-waiting to Marie Antoinette in the film Farewell, My Queen (2012).

Minka Kelly

The Friday Night Lights star said she met Weinstein at an event and soon after was asked by her agent if she would be willing to meet him at his hotel room to discuss her career.

Kelly said that she agreed to the meeting but refused to go to Weinstein’s room, and instead met him at the restaurant inside his hotel with an assistant.

‘He bulls*** me for 5 minutes re: movies he could put me in, then asked the assistant to excuse us,’ said Weinstein.

‘As she walked away, he said, “I know you were feeling what I was feeling when we met the other night” and then regaled me with offers of a lavish life filled with trips around the world on private planes etc.

‘IF I would be his girlfriend.’

Kelly posted a photo of a cross stitch alongside her post that read: ‘Boys will be Boys.’

The second ‘boys’ was crossed out at the bottom however, and stitched in was ‘held accountable for their f***ing actions.’

Kelly claimed the alleged encounter was the day-to-day b***shit of being an actress.’

Minka Kelly said she met Weinstein at an event and soon after was asked by her agent if she would be willing to meet him at his hotel room to discuss her career

Minka Kelly said she met Weinstein at an event and soon after was asked by her agent if she would be willing to meet him at his hotel room to discuss her career

Tara Subkoff 

The actress claims Weinstein  sexually harassed her when she was up for a part in one of his movies in the 1990s.

She told Variety: ‘That night I was offered the role, and I went out to a premiere after party that was also at.

‘He motioned for me to come over to him, and then grabbed me to sit me on his lap. I was so surprised and shocked I couldn’t stop laughing because it was so awkward.’

She said he could then feel him getting an erection.

‘It was implied that if I did not comply with doing what he asked me to do that I would not get the role that I had already been informally offered,’ she added.

‘I laughed in his face as I was in shock and so uncomfortable. I left the party right after that.’

After denying his advances, Subkoff claims she was stripped of the part.

Tara Subkoff claims Weinstein sexually harassed her when she was up for a part in one of her movies in the 1990s. She is pictured in 2017 

Tara Subkoff claims Weinstein sexually harassed her when she was up for a part in one of her movies in the 1990s. She is pictured in 2017

Asia Argento

The Italian actress has accused Weinstein of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was 21.

She told the New Yorker: ‘He terrified me, and he was big. It wouldn’t stop. It was a nightmare.’ She said she went on to have consensual sex with him over the years that followed. She documented the alleged attack in her 2000 film Scarlet Diva.

Asia Argento is an Italian actress, singer, model, and director, best known for the role of Yelena in the action film xXx (2002).

Asia Argento (left with Weinstein during 2004 Cannes Film Festival) accused Weinstein of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was 21

Asia Argento (left with Weinstein during 2004 Cannes Film Festival) accused Weinstein of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was 21

Zoe Brock

Model Zoë Brock was 23 when she allegedly had to lock herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein’s advances.

She wrote on Medium: ‘Harvey left the room, but not for long. He re-emerged naked a couple of minutes later and asked if I would give him a massage. Panicking, in shock, I remember weighing up the options and wondering how much I needed to placate him to keep myself safe.

Model Zoë Brock was 23 when she allegedly had to lock herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein's advances

Model Zoë Brock was 23 when she allegedly had to lock herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein’s advances

‘I told him I was uncomfortable and that I was angry that I had been tricked into this position. He pleaded with me to let him massage me and I let him put his hands on my shoulders while my mind raced. Harvey chased me, d**k, b**ls and all, and banged on the door with his fists, pleading with me to come out.’

Zoe Brock is a model and actress who was born in Christchurch, New Zealand, and raised in Australia.

‘Ducked and dived’: Claire Forlani said she refused Weinstein on multiple occasions

Claire Forlani 

The Meet Joe Black actress appeared in the 2000 Miramax film Boys and Girls. She says she escaped Harvey’s advances five times.  

‘I had two Peninsula Hotel meetings in the evening with Harvey and all I remember was I ducked, dived and ultimately got out of there without getting slobbered over, well just a bit.

‘Yes, massage was suggested. The three dinners with Harvey I don’t really remember the time period, I was 25.

‘I remember him telling me all the actresses who had slept with him and what he had done for them.’

I wasn’t drinking the cool aid [sic], I knew Harvey was a master manipulator.

‘He also announced to me at the last dinner I had with him at Dominic’s that his pilot knew to be on standby because he could never get me to sleep with him, to which I did what I always did, make light of the situation, a joke here or there and moved on.’

‘I’d had a fair amount of experience. Sometimes I got angry, really angry. I wondered why I had Prey stamped on my forehead but this I kept to myself.’ 

Louisette Geiss

The actress said she was called to a late night meeting with Weinstein in 2008. He allegedly emerged in a bathrobe and told her he would green light her script if she watched him masterbate. She left the meeting.

Geiss made her accusations in a press conference with high-profile attorney Gloria Allred on October 10.

The star was born in Miami, Florida. She is an actress and producer, best known for Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001).

Geiss was called to a late night meeting with Weinstein in 2008. He allegedly emerged in a bathrobe

Geiss was called to a late night meeting with Weinstein in 2008. He allegedly emerged in a bathrobe

Judith Godreche

The French actress says Weinstein tried to massage her and pull off her sweater after asking her up to his Cannes suite to see the view in 1996, the NYT reported.

Judith Godrèche, 45, is a French actress and author. She has appeared in more than 30 films and will soon star in an HBO comedy about a French woman moving to Los Angeles.

Judith Godreche (pictured at the premiere of Nasty Baby in 2015) says Weinstein tried to massage her and pull off her sweater after asking her up to his Cannes suite to see the view in 1996

Judith Godreche (pictured at the premiere of Nasty Baby in 2015) says Weinstein tried to massage her and pull off her sweater after asking her up to his Cannes suite to see the view in 1996

Dawn Dunning

The actress says she was called to a meeting about future film projects in 2003 aged 24. When she arrived she says Weinstein presented her with three scripts for his next three movies which he would let her star in, only if she had three-way sex with him. She fled the hotel, she told the NYT.

Dunning is a former actress turned costume designer best known for her role in Alias: The Roughest Cut (2006).

Tomi-Ann Roberts

The aspiring actress was 24 when she met Weinstein while serving tables as a college junior in 1984. She says he told her to meet him at his home. When she arrived, she says, he was naked in the bath and told her she would give a better audition if she was nude. She says she refused and left, reports the NYT.

Tomi-Ann Roberts was 24 when she met Weinstein while serving tables

Tomi-Ann Roberts was 24 when she met Weinstein while serving tables

Katherine Kendall

The Swingers actress was told Weinstein had to stop off in his apartment to pick something up after a screening in 1993.

He changed into a bathrobe and told her to massage her, she said. When she resisted she said the mogul returned naked and chased her, reports the NYT.

Kendall, 48, is an American actress from Tennessee. She made her name in Doug Liman’s Swingers (1996).

Kendall, 48, was told Weinstein had to stop off in his apartment to pick something up after a screening in 1993

Kendall, 48, was told Weinstein had to stop off in his apartment to pick something up after a screening in 1993

Lucia Evans

The actress, formerly known as Lucia Stoller claims Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex on him in 2004. Speaking to the New Yorker, she said that she suffered years of trauma after the incident which occurred in a ‘casting meeting’ in a Miramax office in Manhattan. He reportedly called her late at night after the incident.

Mira Sorvino

The Mighty Aphrodite actress told the New Yorker that Weinstein tried to massage her in a hotel room at the 1995 Toronto International Film Festival.

He then went to her home in the middle of the night but she called a male friend to protect her, she claimed. She said turning down the mogul adversely affected her career.

Sorovino, 50, is an American actress who came to prominence after winning the Academy Award and Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as a hooker with a heart of gold in Woody Allen’s Mighty Aphrodite (1995).

Mira Sorvino (pictured starring in Intruders in 2014) said Weinstein tried to massage her in a hotel room

Mira Sorvino (pictured starring in Intruders in 2014) said Weinstein tried to massage her in a hotel room

Rosanna Arquette

The actress also said her career suffered after she rebuffed Weinstein’s advances in the early 1990s. At a hotel meeting he tried to put her hand on his erect penis, she claims in the New Yorker.

Rosanna Arquette, 58, is an American actress, film director, and producer. She was nominated for an Emmy Award for her performance in the 1982 TV film The Executioner’s Song.

Rose McGowan

The actress, who made her breakthrough in 1996 in the Weinstein-produced slasher revival movie Scream, reportedly sued Weinstein after he assaulted her in 1997 at the Sundance Film Festival.

She signed a non-disclosure agreement at the close of the suit and has only referred to him obliquely in social media since. On Sunday she referred to being abused by a ‘monster’ and has previously referred to being raped by a studio head.

Producer Harvey Weinstein (left) and actress Rose McGowan arrive to the premiere of "Grindhouse" at the Orpheum Theatre on March 26, 2007 in Los Angeles

Producer Harvey Weinstein (left) and actress Rose McGowan arrive to the premiere of “Grindhouse” at the Orpheum Theatre on March 26, 2007 in Los Angeles

Ashley Judd

Judd says that during filming for 1997 thriller Kiss the Girls Weinstein repeatedly asked her to watch him shower.

She was one of the women who spoke out to The New York Times this week, saying: ‘Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.’

Judd says that during filming for 1997 thriller Kiss the Girls Weinstein repeatedly asked her to watch him shower

Judd says that during filming for 1997 thriller Kiss the Girls Weinstein repeatedly asked her to watch him shower

Emma De Caunes

French actress Emma de Caunes said that she met Weinstein in 2010. Soon after he told her he had a script he was producing based on a book with a strong female character. Weinstein offered to show her the script, and asked her up to his room at the Ritz in Paris, where he began to take a shower.

He then emerged naked and with an erection, asking her to lay down with him on the bed and telling her that many had done so before, she told the New Yorker. ‘I was very petrified,’ said de Caunes. ‘But I didn’t want to show him that I was petrified, because I could feel that the more I was freaking out, the more he was excited.’

French actress Emma de Caunes said that she met Weinstein in 2010 and he invited her to his room 

French actress Emma de Caunes said that she met Weinstein in 2010 and he invited her to his room

Sophie Dix

The British actress was 22 when she was invited up to his room at The Savoy after being cast in The Advocate alongside Colin Firth. Weinstein tried to massage her and started pulling at her trousers before he started masturbating. 

Harvey Weinstein is accused of accosting Sophie Dix in a hotel room

Harvey Weinstein is accused of accosting Sophie Dix in a hotel room

 ‘As soon as I was in there, I realized it was a terrible mistake. I got to the hotel room, I remember talk of a massage and I thought that was pretty gross. I think he showed me his big back and I found that pretty horrid.

‘Then before I knew it, he started trying to pull my clothes off and pin me down and I just kept saying, ‘No, no, no.’ But he was really forceful. I remember him pulling at my trousers and stuff and looming over me and I just sort of – I am a big, strong girl and I bolted … ran for the bathroom and locked the door.’

‘I was in there for a while, I think. He went very quiet. After a while I remember opening the door and seeing him just there facing the door, masturbating, so I quickly closed the door again and locked it. Then when I heard room service come to the door, I just ran.’

She said the incident left her bed bound with depression for six months and she decided to end her movie career.

‘I decided if this what being an actress is like, I don’t want it.’

Lauren O’Connor

The former creative executive at The Weinstein Company, told executives there in the fall of 2015 that there was ‘a toxic environment for women at this company’ after one of her colleagues told her that Weinstein had pressured her into massaging him while he was naked, the NYT reported.

A former creative executive at The Weinstein Company told executives there in the fall of 2015 that there was 'a toxic environment for women at this company'

A former creative executive at The Weinstein Company told executives there in the fall of 2015 that there was ‘a toxic environment for women at this company’

Ambra Battilana

The Italian actress and model, 24, told the NYT that in March 2015 Weinstein invited her to his New York office. There, she said, he asked if her breasts were real before grabbing them and putting his hands up her skirt. She reported the alleged incident to police, but they did not press charges. According to the NYT, Weinstein later paid her off.

Italian actress and model Ambra Battilana,  24, alleges that Weinstein grabbed her breasts and put his hand up her skirt

Italian actress and model Ambra Battilana,  24, alleges that Weinstein grabbed her breasts and put his hand up her skirt

Jessica Barth

Weinstein reportedly pressured Jessica Barth (pictured) to give him a naked massage

Weinstein reportedly pressured Jessica Barth (pictured) to give him a naked massage

Weinstein reportedly pressured the actress to give him a naked massage in the Peninsula Hotel in 2011.

Jessica Barth, 39, is an American stage and film actress, known for portraying Tami-Lynn McCaferty in the film Ted and its sequel.

Laura Madden

A former production assistant and the Weinstein company, she told the NYT that Weinstein had asked her to give him massages from 1991 onwards, while they were both in London and Dublin. ‘It was so manipulative,’ she told the NYT. ‘You constantly question yourself – am I the one who is the problem?’ Weinstein denied knowledge.

Emily Nestor

Nestor was a temporary employee of the Weinstein Company for just one day in 2014 when Weinstein approached her and offered to boost her career in exchange for sex, the NYT reported.

Zelda Perkins

Perkins was an assistant of Weinstein’s based in London. Aged 25 in 1998, she reportedly confronted Weinstein after she and ‘several’ others were harassed and later settled out of court.

She said she was subjected to inappropriate requests or comments in hotel rooms.

Zelda Perkins reportedly confronted Weinstein after she and 'several' others were harassed and later settled out of court

Zelda Perkins reportedly confronted Weinstein after she and ‘several’ others were harassed and later settled out of court

Elizabeth Karlsen

Produced Karlsen told The Hollywood Reporter on Sunday that almost 30 years ago an unnamed young female executive who had worked at Miramax with Weinstein had found him naked in her bedroom one night. The exec was in a house rented by Miramax at the time to cut its overheads.

Karlsen, 57, is the Oscar-nominated British producer of Carol and The Crying Game.

Liza Campbell

A freelance script reader, she told the UK’s Sunday Times that Weinstein had summoned her to his hotel room in London before telling her to get in the bath with him.

Campbell, 58, is an artist, calligrapher, columnist and writer, born in the north of Scotland and currently living in London, England.

Campbell, 58, (pictured in 2004) said that Weinstein had summoned her to his hotel room in London

Campbell, 58, (pictured in 2004) said that Weinstein had summoned her to his hotel room in London

Lauren Sivan

The former Fox news host said that Weinstein trapped her in a closed restaurant and masturbated in front of her to completion in 2007.

He allegedly took her to a closed restaurant beneath a club she had visited and attempted to kiss her, then when she refused he cornered her and made her watch him touch himself, according to The Huffington Post.

Sivan is now a TV reporter in Los Angeles and was a local journalist in New York 10 years ago when her encounter with Weinstein allegedly occurred.

Former Fox news host Lauren Sivan said that Weinstein trapped her in a closed restaurant and masturbated in front of her to completion in 2007

Former Fox news host Lauren Sivan said that Weinstein trapped her in a closed restaurant and masturbated in front of her to completion in 2007

Jessica Hynes

Hynes said she was invited to audition for Weinstein when she was 19 – in a bikini. She said she refused to wear the skimpy item – and lost the job.

British actress Hynes, 44, formally known as Jessica Stevenson, is best known for her roles in the Bridget Jones movies and for co-creating and co-writing the sitcom Spaced.

Jessica Hynes said she was invited to audition for Weinstein when she was 19 - in a bikini. She said she refused to wear the skimpy item - and lost the job

Jessica Hynes said she was invited to audition for Weinstein when she was 19 – in a bikini. She said she refused to wear the skimpy item – and lost the job

Romola Garai

British actress Romola Garai said she felt ‘violated’ following a meeting with Harvey Weinstein in his London hotel room when she was 18 in which he was in a bathrobe.

Garai, best known for her role in Atonement, said she had already been hired for a part but was told to audition privately with the Hollywood mogul because ‘you had to be personally approved by him’.

‘Like every other woman in the industry, I’ve had an ‘audition’ with Harvey Weinstein,’ she told The Guardian. ‘So I had to go to his hotel room in the Savoy and he answered the door in his bathrobe. I was only 18. I felt violated by it’.

Garai, 35, is an English actress, writer, and director. She is known for appearing in the films Amazing Grace, Atonement, and Glorious 39.

British actress Romola Garai said she felt 'violated' following a meeting with Harvey Weinstein in his London hotel room when she was 18

British actress Romola Garai said she felt ‘violated’ following a meeting with Harvey Weinstein in his London hotel room when she was 18

Florence Darel

French actress Florence Darel has claimed that she was harassed by the producer in 1993.

Darel, 49, who first came to notice in Eric Rohmer’s ‘A Tale of Springtime’ in 1990, told French media that Weinstein had promised to help make her big in America if she became his ‘part-time’ mistress.

She said she first had to beat off his advances after Weinstein’s company Miramax bought the 1993 fashion industry comedy ‘A la mode’ in which she appeared.

The following year, pushed by her agent, she agreed to meet Weinstein in a Paris hotel, where he he asked her to be his mistress ‘a few days a year’.

Actress Florence Darel, 49, revealed on Thursday to French media that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein had promised to help make her big in America if she became his 'part-time' mistress

Darel is the latest star Thursday to reveal that she was harassed by disgraced Hollywood producer

Actress Florence Darel, 49, revealed on Thursday to French media that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein had promised to help make her big in America if she became his ‘part-time’ mistress

Unnamed assistant

Weinstein allegedly behaved inappropriately toward a woman employed as his assistant in 1990. The case was settled out of court.

Another unnamed assistant

In 2015, Weinstein reportedly pressured another assistant into giving him a naked massage in the Peninsula Hotel, where he is also said to have pressured Barth.

Unnamed Miramax employee

At one point in the early 1990s, a young woman is alleged to have suddenly left the company after an encounter with Weinstein. She also settled out of court.

Unnamed woman

A woman who did not wish to be named because she feared Weinstein’s connections told The New York Times that the producer had summoned her to his hotel at an unknown date and raped her.

‘If Harvey Weinstein ever invites you to a private party, don’t go’: Courtney Love warned aspiring actresses of abuse in 2005 and claims she was ‘banned’ by mega agents at C.A.A afterwards

Courtney Love is further proof of the widening theory that more people in Hollywood knew of Harvey Weinstein’s decades of abuse than have claimed.

In 2005, the starlet was asked on the red carpet what her advice for aspiring young actresses was.

At first she hesitated, turning her head to mutter: ‘I’m gonna get libeled if I say it.’

But seconds later, she boldly and unequivocally went on the record with knowledge of his reputation.

‘If Harvey Weinstein ever invites you to a private party at the Four Seasons, don’t go,’ she said.

At the Comedy Central Roast of Pamela Anderson in 2005 (above), Courtney Love told a red carpet reporter who asked her what her advice for young actresses was: 'If Harvey Weinstein ever invites you to a private party at the Four Seasons, don't go.' 

At the Comedy Central Roast of Pamela Anderson in 2005 (above), Courtney Love told a red carpet reporter who asked her what her advice for young actresses was: ‘If Harvey Weinstein ever invites you to a private party at the Four Seasons, don’t go.’

Love's comments were revealed on Saturday by TMZ. She tweeted afterwards to say that C.A.A. agents 'banned' her for speaking out against Weinstein 

Love’s comments were revealed on Saturday by TMZ. She tweeted afterwards to say that C.A.A. agents ‘banned’ her for speaking out against Weinstein

A video of her remark was obtained by TMZ and was published by them on Saturday.

Love tweeted about it on Saturday and explained that she was never personally attacked by the Miramax mogul.

She however alleged that she was ‘banned’ by Creative Arts Agency for making the remarks.

Love is represented by United Talent Agency – the same agency which now represents Weinstein accuser Gwyneth Paltrow who was with C.A.A. when she says she was attacked by the mogul.

C.A.A managing partners, Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane, did not respond to DailyMail.com’s requests on Saturday.

But a source close to the company told DailyMail.com that they were mystified by the accusation and unsure what exactly she was levelling against them.

And in a follow-up tweet, Love was at pains to point out Lourd had never caused her any problems.

‘Bryan Lourd had nothing to do with banning me. He has always been a mensch and very kind and supportive of me and my peers’, she wrote.

Love was quick to exonerate Bryan Lourd of any wrongdoing

Love was quick to exonerate Bryan Lourd of any wrongdoing

Lourd is the ex-partner of Carrie Fisher. He married his long-term boyfriend Bruce Bozzi last year, before the Star Wars actress’s death.

Mega-agent Huvane has one of if not the most envied client roster in Hollywood and counts Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts and Jennifer Lopez among clients.

C.A.A. founder and managing partner Bryan Lourd (left) is pictured with Weinstein and Ben Affleck at the 2013 Critics' Choice Awards. Affleck, who has since denounced Weinstein, was accused of covering up his abuse when the scandal first broke 

C.A.A. founder and managing partner Bryan Lourd (left) is pictured with Weinstein and Ben Affleck at the 2013 Critics’ Choice Awards. Affleck, who has since denounced Weinstein, was accused of covering up his abuse when the scandal first broke

Mega-agent Kevin Huvane is also a managing partner at C.A.A. He is seen with Weinstein in 2013

Mega-agent Kevin Huvane is also a managing partner at C.A.A. He is seen with Weinstein in 2013

Love said the agency 'banned' her from its books. She is represented by United Talent Agency but has run in the same circles as Lourd and Huvane (pictured together 2010) for years

Love said the agency ‘banned’ her from its books. She is represented by United Talent Agency but has run in the same circles as Lourd and Huvane (pictured together 2010) for years

C.A.A. has been mentioned more than once in reports of the Weinstein scandal.

There is no suggestion that either Huvane or Lourd were aware of Weinstein’s abuse of actors (both declined his request for help from ‘the industry’ last week).

Their agency was however behind some of the now infamous meetings where Weinstein carried out the attacks.

Gwyneth Paltrow, speaking to The New York Times last week, revealed that it was at a meeting with Weinstein which had been set by C.A.A. where he tried to force himself on her.

She said she trusted the meeting, which took place at a hotel and where no one else was present, because it had been ‘put on the C.A.A. fax.’

Who knew and who didn’t know about Weinstein’s abuse has been the inevitable and fought-over question since it was revealed last week.

Some stars, namely Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, are accused of covering up for him. Both say they had no knowledge of how he treated women and have condemned him for it publicly.

Gwyneth Paltrow was represented by C.A.A. when its agents organized a meeting for her with Weinstein at a hotel in the early 1990s. She said he used the meeting to try to force himself on her. She later switched agencies to United - which also represents Love. She is pictured with Weinstein at the 1999 Oscars where they triumphed together with Shakespeare In Love 

Gwyneth Paltrow was represented by C.A.A. when its agents organized a meeting for her with Weinstein at a hotel in the early 1990s. She said he used the meeting to try to force himself on her. She later switched agencies to United – which also represents Love. She is pictured with Weinstein at the 1999 Oscars where they triumphed together with Shakespeare In Love

Weinstein (above last Friday the day after the scandal emerged) pleaded for help from industry insiders including Huvane and Lourd last week but was ignored 

Weinstein (above last Friday the day after the scandal emerged) pleaded for help from industry insiders including Huvane and Lourd last week but was ignored

Brad Pitt is said to have confronted Weinstein at a theater premiere after the alleged incident with Paltrow.

Jane Fonda revealed boldly last week that she was aware of his reputation a year ago but said nothing of it publicly, an abstinence she now says she is ‘ashamed’ of.

Others like Kate Winslet say they were aware of Weinstein’s reputation but hoped the ‘stories’ were untrue or exaggerated.

Meryl Streep, arguably the queen of Hollywood who was lambasted for taking four days to publicly denounce the man she once referred to as ‘God’ in an acceptance speech, promises that she was unaware.

As does Bob Weinstein, Harvey’s 62-year-old brother who, in a sensational interview with The Hollywood Reporter on Saturday described him as a ‘crazy liar’, claims he was unaware that his brother’s extra-marital sexual encounters were non-consensual.

He said he thought he was ‘just cheating’ but that he always knew his brother had a behavioral ‘sickness’.

From A-list stars to budding actresses: The women who accuse Harvey Weinstein of rape and sexual harassment during his two decade reign of terror in Hollywood

Many were young, powerless and afraid to speak out in case their careers were ruined.

For nearly three decades their accusations remained bottled up, some suppressed by pay-offs.

More than 30 women have now come forward with allegations of sexual harassment against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, the man once described as ‘God’ of the film industry.

The accusations, including from some of the world’s most famous actresses, range from inappropriate massages to rape.

Here is a list of those who have come forward so far.

Kate Beckinsale In an Instagram post the Underworld star said Weinstein made a move on her when she was just 17. 

‘When I arrived reception told me to go to his room. He opened the door in his bathrobe. I was incredibly naive and young and it did not cross my mind that this older, unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him. After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left, uneasy but unscathed. A few years later he asked me if he had tried anything with me in that first meeting.I realized he couldn’t remember if he had assaulted me or not.’

Teen assault: Kate Beckinsale says Weinstein tried to ply her with alcohol and met her in his bathrobe when she was just 17

Teen assault: Kate Beckinsale says Weinstein tried to ply her with alcohol and met her in his bathrobe when she was just 17

 Gwyneth Paltrow

The star said that when she was 22, Weinstein touched her and suggested having joint massages in a hotel bedroom before she started shooting the 1996 Jane Austen adaptation Emma. She told the New York Times: ‘I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified’.

Paltrow (pictured with Weinstein in 2002) told the New York Times that when she was 22 Weinstein touched her and suggested having joint massages in the bedroom

Paltrow (pictured with Weinstein in 2002) told the New York Times that when she was 22 Weinstein touched her and suggested having joint massages in the bedroom

She said she told her then boyfriend Brad Pitt about the incident and he confronted the mogul. She said Weinstein then told her not to tell anyone and she feared getting fired.

Gwyneth Paltrow, 45, is an American actress, singer, and food writer who made her name starring in Seven (1995) and Emma (1996).

Angelina Jolie

The actress told the New York Times she had to turn down advances from Weinstein in 1998 and chose never to work with him again. She said she warned other women about him.

She said: ‘I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did.’

Angelina Jolie, 42, is cited as Hollywood’s highest-paid actress. She made her screen debut as a child alongside her father, Jon Voight, in Lookin’ to Get Out (1982).

Jolie (pictured speaking ahead of a screening of her new film In the Land of Blood and Honey) told the New York Times she had to turn down advances from Weinstein in 1998

Jolie (pictured speaking ahead of a screening of her new film In the Land of Blood and Honey) told the New York Times she had to turn down advances from Weinstein in 1998

Cara Delevigne

The model wrote on her Instagram page about a meeting with Weinstein in which he ‘asked her to kiss another woman.’

She wrote: ‘As soon as we were alone he began to brag about all the actresses he had slept with and how he had made their careers and spoke about other inappropriate things of a sexual nature. He then invited me to his room. I quickly declined and asked his assistant if my car was outside. She said it wasn’t and wouldn’t be for a bit and I should go to his room.

Delevigne wrote on her Instagram page about a meeting with Weinstein in which he 'asked her to kiss another woman.'

Delevigne wrote on her Instagram page about a meeting with Weinstein in which he ‘asked her to kiss another woman.’

‘At that moment I felt very powerless and scared but didn’t want to act that way hoping that I was wrong about the situation. When I arrived I was relieved to find another woman in his room and thought immediately I was safe. He asked us to kiss and she began some sort of advances upon his direction. I swiftly got up and asked him if he knew that I could sing. And I began to sing….i thought it would make the situation better….more professional….like an audition….i was so nervous. After singing I said again that I had to leave.He walked me to the door and stood in front of it and tried to kiss me on the lips. I stopped him and managed to get out of the room’.

Cara Delevigne, 25, is an English fashion model and actress. She signed with Storm Model Management after leaving school in 2009.

Eva Green 

Green’s mother says Weinstein sexually harassed her during a meeting at his suite in Paris.

The Bond Girl, 37, managed to escape however after being summoned to the movie mogul’s hotel room, her mother Marlene Jobert said in a radio interview on Friday.

‘He operated with her the exact same way he acted with all the others, under the pretext of a professional meeting, of a script that had to get to her with a nice part into the bargain,’ said Jobert.

‘Since his office was also in his hotel suite, she [Eva] followed him, and the exact same thing happened to her as to the others. She managed to escape, but he threatened to destroy her professionally.’

Jobert added: ‘[It was] the usual scenario, the same pattern he used for all the other victims.’

Weinstein allegedly harassed French actress Eva Green in his suite in Paris 

Weinstein allegedly harassed French actress Eva Green in his suite in Paris

Lea Seydoux

The French actress accused the mogul of jumping on her and trying to kiss her.

She wrote in The Guardian: ‘We were talking on the sofa when he suddenly jumped on me and tried to kiss me. I had to defend myself. He’s big and fat, so I had to be forceful to resist him. He tried more than once. This was never going to be about work. He had other intentions – I could see that very clearly. All throughout the evening, he flirted and stared at me as if I was a piece of meat.

The French actress (pictured in Spectre) accused the mogul of jumping on her and trying to kiss her

The French actress (pictured in Spectre) accused the mogul of jumping on her and trying to kiss her

‘It was hard to say no because he’s so powerful. I’m an actress and he’s a producer. We are in the same industry, so its impossible to avoid him. I’ve seen how he operates: the way he looks for an opening. The way he tests women to see what he can get away with. That’s the most disgusting thing. Everyone knew what Harvey was up to and no one did anything. It’s unbelievable that he’s been able to act like this for decades and still keep his career.’

Lea Seydoux, 35, starred in Bond film Spectre and was nominated for the César Award for Best Actress for her role as a lady-in-waiting to Marie Antoinette in the film Farewell, My Queen (2012).

Minka Kelly

The Friday Night Lights star said she met Weinstein at an event and soon after was asked by her agent if she would be willing to meet him at his hotel room to discuss her career.

Kelly said that she agreed to the meeting but refused to go to Weinstein’s room, and instead met him at the restaurant inside his hotel with an assistant.

‘He bulls*** me for 5 minutes re: movies he could put me in, then asked the assistant to excuse us,’ said Weinstein.

‘As she walked away, he said, “I know you were feeling what I was feeling when we met the other night” and then regaled me with offers of a lavish life filled with trips around the world on private planes etc.

‘IF I would be his girlfriend.’

Kelly posted a photo of a cross stitch alongside her post that read: ‘Boys will be Boys.’

The second ‘boys’ was crossed out at the bottom however, and stitched in was ‘held accountable for their f***ing actions.’

Kelly claimed the alleged encounter was the day-to-day b***shit of being an actress.’

Minka Kelly said she met Weinstein at an event and soon after was asked by her agent if she would be willing to meet him at his hotel room to discuss her career

Minka Kelly said she met Weinstein at an event and soon after was asked by her agent if she would be willing to meet him at his hotel room to discuss her career

Tara Subkoff 

The actress claims Weinstein  sexually harassed her when she was up for a part in one of his movies in the 1990s.

She told Variety: ‘That night I was offered the role, and I went out to a premiere after party that was also at.

‘He motioned for me to come over to him, and then grabbed me to sit me on his lap. I was so surprised and shocked I couldn’t stop laughing because it was so awkward.’

She said he could then feel him getting an erection.

‘It was implied that if I did not comply with doing what he asked me to do that I would not get the role that I had already been informally offered,’ she added.

‘I laughed in his face as I was in shock and so uncomfortable. I left the party right after that.’

After denying his advances, Subkoff claims she was stripped of the part.

Tara Subkoff claims Weinstein sexually harassed her when she was up for a part in one of her movies in the 1990s. She is pictured in 2017 

Tara Subkoff claims Weinstein sexually harassed her when she was up for a part in one of her movies in the 1990s. She is pictured in 2017

Asia Argento

The Italian actress has accused Weinstein of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was 21.

She told the New Yorker: ‘He terrified me, and he was big. It wouldn’t stop. It was a nightmare.’ She said she went on to have consensual sex with him over the years that followed. She documented the alleged attack in her 2000 film Scarlet Diva.

Asia Argento is an Italian actress, singer, model, and director, best known for the role of Yelena in the action film xXx (2002).

Asia Argento (left with Weinstein during 2004 Cannes Film Festival) accused Weinstein of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was 21

Asia Argento (left with Weinstein during 2004 Cannes Film Festival) accused Weinstein of forcibly performing oral sex on her when she was 21

Zoe Brock

Model Zoë Brock was 23 when she allegedly had to lock herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein’s advances.

She wrote on Medium: ‘Harvey left the room, but not for long. He re-emerged naked a couple of minutes later and asked if I would give him a massage. Panicking, in shock, I remember weighing up the options and wondering how much I needed to placate him to keep myself safe.

Model Zoë Brock was 23 when she allegedly had to lock herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein's advances

Model Zoë Brock was 23 when she allegedly had to lock herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein’s advances

‘I told him I was uncomfortable and that I was angry that I had been tricked into this position. He pleaded with me to let him massage me and I let him put his hands on my shoulders while my mind raced. Harvey chased me, d**k, b**ls and all, and banged on the door with his fists, pleading with me to come out.’

Zoe Brock is a model and actress who was born in Christchurch, New Zealand, and raised in Australia.

‘Ducked and dived’: Claire Forlani said she refused Weinstein on multiple occasions

Claire Forlani 

The Meet Joe Black actress appeared in the 2000 Miramax film Boys and Girls. She says she escaped Harvey’s advances five times.  

‘I had two Peninsula Hotel meetings in the evening with Harvey and all I remember was I ducked, dived and ultimately got out of there without getting slobbered over, well just a bit.

‘Yes, massage was suggested. The three dinners with Harvey I don’t really remember the time period, I was 25.

‘I remember him telling me all the actresses who had slept with him and what he had done for them.’

I wasn’t drinking the cool aid [sic], I knew Harvey was a master manipulator.

‘He also announced to me at the last dinner I had with him at Dominic’s that his pilot knew to be on standby because he could never get me to sleep with him, to which I did what I always did, make light of the situation, a joke here or there and moved on.’

‘I’d had a fair amount of experience. Sometimes I got angry, really angry. I wondered why I had Prey stamped on my forehead but this I kept to myself.’ 

Louisette Geiss

The actress said she was called to a late night meeting with Weinstein in 2008. He allegedly emerged in a bathrobe and told her he would green light her script if she watched him masterbate. She left the meeting.

Geiss made her accusations in a press conference with high-profile attorney Gloria Allred on October 10.

The star was born in Miami, Florida. She is an actress and producer, best known for Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001).

Geiss was called to a late night meeting with Weinstein in 2008. He allegedly emerged in a bathrobe

Geiss was called to a late night meeting with Weinstein in 2008. He allegedly emerged in a bathrobe

Judith Godreche

The French actress says Weinstein tried to massage her and pull off her sweater after asking her up to his Cannes suite to see the view in 1996, the NYT reported.

Judith Godrèche, 45, is a French actress and author. She has appeared in more than 30 films and will soon star in an HBO comedy about a French woman moving to Los Angeles.

Judith Godreche (pictured at the premiere of Nasty Baby in 2015) says Weinstein tried to massage her and pull off her sweater after asking her up to his Cannes suite to see the view in 1996

Judith Godreche (pictured at the premiere of Nasty Baby in 2015) says Weinstein tried to massage her and pull off her sweater after asking her up to his Cannes suite to see the view in 1996

Dawn Dunning

The actress says she was called to a meeting about future film projects in 2003 aged 24. When she arrived she says Weinstein presented her with three scripts for his next three movies which he would let her star in, only if she had three-way sex with him. She fled the hotel, she told the NYT.

Dunning is a former actress turned costume designer best known for her role in Alias: The Roughest Cut (2006).

Tomi-Ann Roberts

The aspiring actress was 24 when she met Weinstein while serving tables as a college junior in 1984. She says he told her to meet him at his home. When she arrived, she says, he was naked in the bath and told her she would give a better audition if she was nude. She says she refused and left, reports the NYT.

Tomi-Ann Roberts was 24 when she met Weinstein while serving tables

Tomi-Ann Roberts was 24 when she met Weinstein while serving tables

Katherine Kendall

The Swingers actress was told Weinstein had to stop off in his apartment to pick something up after a screening in 1993.

He changed into a bathrobe and told her to massage her, she said. When she resisted she said the mogul returned naked and chased her, reports the NYT.

Kendall, 48, is an American actress from Tennessee. She made her name in Doug Liman’s Swingers (1996).

Kendall, 48, was told Weinstein had to stop off in his apartment to pick something up after a screening in 1993

Kendall, 48, was told Weinstein had to stop off in his apartment to pick something up after a screening in 1993

Lucia Evans

The actress, formerly known as Lucia Stoller claims Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex on him in 2004. Speaking to the New Yorker, she said that she suffered years of trauma after the incident which occurred in a ‘casting meeting’ in a Miramax office in Manhattan. He reportedly called her late at night after the incident.

Mira Sorvino

The Mighty Aphrodite actress told the New Yorker that Weinstein tried to massage her in a hotel room at the 1995 Toronto International Film Festival.

He then went to her home in the middle of the night but she called a male friend to protect her, she claimed. She said turning down the mogul adversely affected her career.

Sorovino, 50, is an American actress who came to prominence after winning the Academy Award and Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as a hooker with a heart of gold in Woody Allen’s Mighty Aphrodite (1995).

Mira Sorvino (pictured starring in Intruders in 2014) said Weinstein tried to massage her in a hotel room

Mira Sorvino (pictured starring in Intruders in 2014) said Weinstein tried to massage her in a hotel room

Rosanna Arquette

The actress also said her career suffered after she rebuffed Weinstein’s advances in the early 1990s. At a hotel meeting he tried to put her hand on his erect penis, she claims in the New Yorker.

Rosanna Arquette, 58, is an American actress, film director, and producer. She was nominated for an Emmy Award for her performance in the 1982 TV film The Executioner’s Song.

Rose McGowan

The actress, who made her breakthrough in 1996 in the Weinstein-produced slasher revival movie Scream, reportedly sued Weinstein after he assaulted her in 1997 at the Sundance Film Festival.

She signed a non-disclosure agreement at the close of the suit and has only referred to him obliquely in social media since. On Sunday she referred to being abused by a ‘monster’ and has previously referred to being raped by a studio head.

Producer Harvey Weinstein (left) and actress Rose McGowan arrive to the premiere of "Grindhouse" at the Orpheum Theatre on March 26, 2007 in Los Angeles

Producer Harvey Weinstein (left) and actress Rose McGowan arrive to the premiere of “Grindhouse” at the Orpheum Theatre on March 26, 2007 in Los Angeles

Ashley Judd

Judd says that during filming for 1997 thriller Kiss the Girls Weinstein repeatedly asked her to watch him shower.

She was one of the women who spoke out to The New York Times this week, saying: ‘Women have been talking about Harvey amongst ourselves for a long time, and it’s simply beyond time to have the conversation publicly.’

Judd says that during filming for 1997 thriller Kiss the Girls Weinstein repeatedly asked her to watch him shower

Judd says that during filming for 1997 thriller Kiss the Girls Weinstein repeatedly asked her to watch him shower

Emma De Caunes

French actress Emma de Caunes said that she met Weinstein in 2010. Soon after he told her he had a script he was producing based on a book with a strong female character. Weinstein offered to show her the script, and asked her up to his room at the Ritz in Paris, where he began to take a shower.

He then emerged naked and with an erection, asking her to lay down with him on the bed and telling her that many had done so before, she told the New Yorker. ‘I was very petrified,’ said de Caunes. ‘But I didn’t want to show him that I was petrified, because I could feel that the more I was freaking out, the more he was excited.’

French actress Emma de Caunes said that she met Weinstein in 2010 and he invited her to his room 

French actress Emma de Caunes said that she met Weinstein in 2010 and he invited her to his room

Sophie Dix

The British actress was 22 when she was invited up to his room at The Savoy after being cast in The Advocate alongside Colin Firth. Weinstein tried to massage her and started pulling at her trousers before he started masturbating. 

Harvey Weinstein is accused of accosting Sophie Dix in a hotel room

Harvey Weinstein is accused of accosting Sophie Dix in a hotel room

 ‘As soon as I was in there, I realized it was a terrible mistake. I got to the hotel room, I remember talk of a massage and I thought that was pretty gross. I think he showed me his big back and I found that pretty horrid.

‘Then before I knew it, he started trying to pull my clothes off and pin me down and I just kept saying, ‘No, no, no.’ But he was really forceful. I remember him pulling at my trousers and stuff and looming over me and I just sort of – I am a big, strong girl and I bolted … ran for the bathroom and locked the door.’

‘I was in there for a while, I think. He went very quiet. After a while I remember opening the door and seeing him just there facing the door, masturbating, so I quickly closed the door again and locked it. Then when I heard room service come to the door, I just ran.’

She said the incident left her bed bound with depression for six months and she decided to end her movie career.

‘I decided if this what being an actress is like, I don’t want it.’

Lauren O’Connor

The former creative executive at The Weinstein Company, told executives there in the fall of 2015 that there was ‘a toxic environment for women at this company’ after one of her colleagues told her that Weinstein had pressured her into massaging him while he was naked, the NYT reported.

A former creative executive at The Weinstein Company told executives there in the fall of 2015 that there was 'a toxic environment for women at this company'

A former creative executive at The Weinstein Company told executives there in the fall of 2015 that there was ‘a toxic environment for women at this company’

Ambra Battilana

The Italian actress and model, 24, told the NYT that in March 2015 Weinstein invited her to his New York office. There, she said, he asked if her breasts were real before grabbing them and putting his hands up her skirt. She reported the alleged incident to police, but they did not press charges. According to the NYT, Weinstein later paid her off.

Italian actress and model Ambra Battilana,  24, alleges that Weinstein grabbed her breasts and put his hand up her skirt

Italian actress and model Ambra Battilana,  24, alleges that Weinstein grabbed her breasts and put his hand up her skirt

Jessica Barth

Weinstein reportedly pressured Jessica Barth (pictured) to give him a naked massage

Weinstein reportedly pressured Jessica Barth (pictured) to give him a naked massage

Weinstein reportedly pressured the actress to give him a naked massage in the Peninsula Hotel in 2011.

Jessica Barth, 39, is an American stage and film actress, known for portraying Tami-Lynn McCaferty in the film Ted and its sequel.

Laura Madden

A former production assistant and the Weinstein company, she told the NYT that Weinstein had asked her to give him massages from 1991 onwards, while they were both in London and Dublin. ‘It was so manipulative,’ she told the NYT. ‘You constantly question yourself – am I the one who is the problem?’ Weinstein denied knowledge.

Emily Nestor

Nestor was a temporary employee of the Weinstein Company for just one day in 2014 when Weinstein approached her and offered to boost her career in exchange for sex, the NYT reported.

Zelda Perkins

Perkins was an assistant of Weinstein’s based in London. Aged 25 in 1998, she reportedly confronted Weinstein after she and ‘several’ others were harassed and later settled out of court.

She said she was subjected to inappropriate requests or comments in hotel rooms.

Zelda Perkins reportedly confronted Weinstein after she and 'several' others were harassed and later settled out of court

Zelda Perkins reportedly confronted Weinstein after she and ‘several’ others were harassed and later settled out of court

Elizabeth Karlsen

Produced Karlsen told The Hollywood Reporter on Sunday that almost 30 years ago an unnamed young female executive who had worked at Miramax with Weinstein had found him naked in her bedroom one night. The exec was in a house rented by Miramax at the time to cut its overheads.

Karlsen, 57, is the Oscar-nominated British producer of Carol and The Crying Game.

Liza Campbell

A freelance script reader, she told the UK’s Sunday Times that Weinstein had summoned her to his hotel room in London before telling her to get in the bath with him.

Campbell, 58, is an artist, calligrapher, columnist and writer, born in the north of Scotland and currently living in London, England.

Campbell, 58, (pictured in 2004) said that Weinstein had summoned her to his hotel room in London

Campbell, 58, (pictured in 2004) said that Weinstein had summoned her to his hotel room in London

Lauren Sivan

The former Fox news host said that Weinstein trapped her in a closed restaurant and masturbated in front of her to completion in 2007.

He allegedly took her to a closed restaurant beneath a club she had visited and attempted to kiss her, then when she refused he cornered her and made her watch him touch himself, according to The Huffington Post.

Sivan is now a TV reporter in Los Angeles and was a local journalist in New York 10 years ago when her encounter with Weinstein allegedly occurred.

Former Fox news host Lauren Sivan said that Weinstein trapped her in a closed restaurant and masturbated in front of her to completion in 2007

Former Fox news host Lauren Sivan said that Weinstein trapped her in a closed restaurant and masturbated in front of her to completion in 2007

Jessica Hynes

Hynes said she was invited to audition for Weinstein when she was 19 – in a bikini. She said she refused to wear the skimpy item – and lost the job.

British actress Hynes, 44, formally known as Jessica Stevenson, is best known for her roles in the Bridget Jones movies and for co-creating and co-writing the sitcom Spaced.

Jessica Hynes said she was invited to audition for Weinstein when she was 19 - in a bikini. She said she refused to wear the skimpy item - and lost the job

Jessica Hynes said she was invited to audition for Weinstein when she was 19 – in a bikini. She said she refused to wear the skimpy item – and lost the job

Romola Garai

British actress Romola Garai said she felt ‘violated’ following a meeting with Harvey Weinstein in his London hotel room when she was 18 in which he was in a bathrobe.

Garai, best known for her role in Atonement, said she had already been hired for a part but was told to audition privately with the Hollywood mogul because ‘you had to be personally approved by him’.

‘Like every other woman in the industry, I’ve had an ‘audition’ with Harvey Weinstein,’ she told The Guardian. ‘So I had to go to his hotel room in the Savoy and he answered the door in his bathrobe. I was only 18. I felt violated by it’.

Garai, 35, is an English actress, writer, and director. She is known for appearing in the films Amazing Grace, Atonement, and Glorious 39.

British actress Romola Garai said she felt 'violated' following a meeting with Harvey Weinstein in his London hotel room when she was 18

British actress Romola Garai said she felt ‘violated’ following a meeting with Harvey Weinstein in his London hotel room when she was 18

Florence Darel

French actress Florence Darel has claimed that she was harassed by the producer in 1993.

Darel, 49, who first came to notice in Eric Rohmer’s ‘A Tale of Springtime’ in 1990, told French media that Weinstein had promised to help make her big in America if she became his ‘part-time’ mistress.

She said she first had to beat off his advances after Weinstein’s company Miramax bought the 1993 fashion industry comedy ‘A la mode’ in which she appeared.

The following year, pushed by her agent, she agreed to meet Weinstein in a Paris hotel, where he he asked her to be his mistress ‘a few days a year’.

Actress Florence Darel, 49, revealed on Thursday to French media that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein had promised to help make her big in America if she became his 'part-time' mistress

Darel is the latest star Thursday to reveal that she was harassed by disgraced Hollywood producer

Actress Florence Darel, 49, revealed on Thursday to French media that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein had promised to help make her big in America if she became his ‘part-time’ mistress

Unnamed assistant

Weinstein allegedly behaved inappropriately toward a woman employed as his assistant in 1990. The case was settled out of court.

Another unnamed assistant

In 2015, Weinstein reportedly pressured another assistant into giving him a naked massage in the Peninsula Hotel, where he is also said to have pressured Barth.

Unnamed Miramax employee

At one point in the early 1990s, a young woman is alleged to have suddenly left the company after an encounter with Weinstein. She also settled out of court.

Unnamed woman

A woman who did not wish to be named because she feared Weinstein’s connections told The New York Times that the producer had summoned her to his hotel at an unknown date and raped her.

Drivers who kill will now face life sentence – Dangerous drivers who cause death while using their mobile phones or speeding will face life in prison, ministers have confirmed. Drivers who kill while under the influence of drink or drugs will also face a life sentence.

Dangerous drivers who cause death while using their mobile phones or speeding will face life in prison, ministers have confirmed. The decision to go ahead with a major extension of sentences comes after a campaign by families and a cross-party group of MPs.
Drivers who kill while under the influence of drink or drugs will also face a life sentence. And there will be a new offence of causing serious injury through careless driving, as part of renewed efforts to improve road safety.
The new measures mean such drivers could face the same length of sentence as those convicted of manslaughter, with maximum penalties raised from 14 years to life.
Last year 157 people were sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving, with a further 32 convicted of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Tory MP Heidi Allen has been campaigning for life sentences for death by dangerous driving. The South Cambridgeshire MP has been supporting the family of a 21-year-old who was killed after being hit by a car on a night out. The killer was sentenced to four years, but was released after two. Labour’s Judith Cummins also pressed the government on the issue in July.
Dominic Raab, the justice minister, said: “We’ve taken a long hard look at driving sentences, and we received 9,000 submissions to our consultation. Based on the seriousness of the worst cases, the anguish of the victims’ families, and maximum penalties for other serious offences such as manslaughter, we intend to introduce life sentences of imprisonment for those who wreck lives by driving dangerously, drunk or high on drugs. We will introduce a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, punishable by imprisonment, to fill a gap in the law andreflect the seriousness of some of the injuries suffered by victims in this category of case.”In response to a government consultation on dangerous driving, 70% of responses backed extending the maximum penalty for the offence to life imprisonment.