Talk:Silesian-American Corporation

Untitled
The amount of anti-Bush trash in [the previous -PR] article was substantial. Have people no shame in making Wikipedia into a laughingstock? (sigh) 67.35.150.227 19:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have factual objections, state them. Don't just smear the article. --65.189.6.52 04:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The previous article was completely misleading. Silesian American Corporation was never owned or controlled by Flick. The author probably confuses Silesian American with some different company, as Consolidated Silesian Steel. But these are two different companies. The article should be deleted or rewritten from the beginning. There are legal sources proving that Silesian American was a subsidiary of Anaconda Copper Mining.

The original article was no more misleading than your affirmations that there are "legal sources" proving Silesian American was a subsidiary of Anaconda Copper Mining. As to your affirmation that Consolidated Silesian Steel Company was separate from SAC - that is amazingly misleading. CSSC was OWNED by SAC from 1934-35 but after 1935 all record of the relationship disappears. If anything this actually lends credence to the original article. This strikes me as being a case of cognitive dissonance.

I am afraid what you wrote is completely idle. Every thinking human can distinguish legal sources, as American court verdicts with written opinion (reasons for the judgement) that my article is based on – from fictional sources, as press articles, interviews, novels, which constitute yours. On Dec. 26, 1950 (case CONWAY v. SILESIAN-AMERICAN CORP before United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit) Judge Charles Edward Clark in his detailed opinion described the history of Silesian-American Corporation, its business and ownership relations. As American courts base their opinions on original documents: registration files or accountant reports and audits, I guess it is a little bit more trustful than your sources: “Dear Cecil ... Cecil replies …” There are many false statements in your article and other articles on the web, suggesting that /a/ Silesian-American Corporation was the American holding company for Friedrich Flick's German steel empire; /b/ two thirds of Silesian-American was controlled by Flick; /c/ Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation […] became Silesian American Corporation. These are absurd opinions not worth to bother. More sophisticated imputation appeared in Guardian in September 2004 where Ben Aris was quoting Eva Schweitzer, the German journalist (note again: one journalist is quoting the other one, no official sources): "SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month. This is what you now raise with opinion that “this actually lends credence to the original article”. God knows why. When you put a statement in the encyclopedia, you should be able to prove it is true. Assuming the statement is true until somebody else proves it is false, is putting things up-side-down. Personally I doubt Silesian-American bought or took over (even temporarily) capital stock of CSSC. Silesian-American was organized as a holding company for Polish company Giesche. The sole role of this holding company was to hold stake in the subsidiary company, especially that relations between owners were strained and the equilibrium was very unstable (American owners had 51% of common stock, German owners 49%). Moreover, German owners of Silesian-American, who held their shares through Giesche’s Erben, a German company, where direct market competitors of companies belonging to Flick. It is thus hard to believe anybody would decide for such an abnormal mixing of ownership as Eva Schweitzer suggests, having thousands of simpler and easier possibilities within reach of a hand. On top of that, one trifling detail is very odd here. Eva Schweitzer (the same as you) uses abbreviation SAC for Silesian-American Corporation, while the proper abbreviation for this company is SACO. SAC, in turn, is commonly used for Sullivan and Cromwell, American law-firm engaged in Bush-Harriman businesses. Who knows if only abbreviations are confused here, not the companies themselves…? Finally, I am not protecting Bush and Harriman and their ambiguous relations with Nazis. I rather think much of the accusations against them are very plausible. But this does not justify mistakes, mixing up one company with the other one and putting false statements in Wikipedia. PR

PEOPLE like calling name as antisemitist racist when its useless
or without arguing but there... no subject about NAZI because silesian american corporation was really working for nazi? understood what Trading with the ennemy act means ? Who were the ennemy ? hm... NAZI ? or what ?

So every enterprise under the Trading with the ennemy act were almost NAZI, pure logic.

Its crazy to see how people think nowadays, truly sad.

Basic facts and pure bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterdru (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)