Reports: Volkswagen Was Warned of Emissions Cheating Years Ago 161
An anonymous reader writes: More fuel was thrown on the Volkswagen fire today after two German newspapers reported that Volkswagen's own staff and one of its suppliers warned years ago about software designed to thwart emissions test. Volkswagen declined to comment on the details of either newspaper report. "There are serious investigations underway and the focus is now also on technical solutions" for customers and dealers, a Volkswagen spokesman said. "As soon as we have reliable facts we will be able to give answers."
Link to Reuters News Story... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a Reuters link:
http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:3)
...than the latest Euroweenie, ecowussy diesels
But I thought that these VWs in question lacked Urea injection...
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The urea-injected models are also subject to the software cheat.
Has this been confirmed yet or is this just speculation?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it has been confirmed. All current VW models in the US do now use urea injection, by the way.
Why the hangup over this particular emissions control technique?
Re:Link to Reuters News Story... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it has been confirmed. All current VW models in the US do now use urea injection, by the way.
Why the hangup over this particular emissions control technique?
From what I have read in Europe at least there is a perceived consumer resistance to urea injection, as it is seen as "something else that needs to be bought and paid for". It looks like in practice its not a big issue, with it costing under 1% of the fuel costs and only needing filling every 10,000 miles. Hell, in my younger days I needed a new set of tyres every 10,000 miles - though my driving has settled down a bit since then!
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Urea injection is effective and has minimal technical drawbacks beyond
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand what the urea is used for.
In order to make modern diesel engines run the cleanest (soot reduction, no unburned fuel) and get greater mileage, the engine is tuned (to run very lean) to the point that there is so much O2 that NOx is formed. The urea solution breaks the NOx back down to their nitrogen and oxygen components.
Wikipedia has a good article on the chemistry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Requiring urea inherently indicates that the engine is running at maximum efficiency. S
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, the driveway, my 6.7L turbocharged Scoprion diesel engine just got 22mph heading to and from Duluth and the twin cities. And all with with no black soot what so ever in the tail pipe, looks just like the day I bought it, shiny new metal inside the exhaust.
As compared to 50-60 miles per gallon on a euroweeny? Yes the euroweeny diesel made a tiny amount more smoke and oxides of N. BUT THE FUCKING GAS HOG MONSTER TRUCK ENGINE JUST PUT a butt tonne more carbon dioxide per mile driven into the atmosphere so fuck off with the gas guzzling bullshit. Move to California and watch it burn, send your dollars to the oil industry and then complain when Bush the Third gets into power and the price of oil goes through the roof again. Short sighted bunch of fucking morons t
Re: (Score:2)
Umadbro? Prozac is ur friend bri.
Re: (Score:1)
Diesel engines haven't produced visible amounts of soot for over thirty years years.
Re: (Score:3)
The following is US-centric, but I believe is the case worldwide; at least in the west.
As the owner of a diesel passenger car bought new 33 years ago, I can dispute this categorically. It is no more than partially sort-of true. They did not make any smoke at idle, or much smoke at all in steady state, even cruising at 60+ mph, but at WOT they belched. The same was true of trucks, with the difference that WOT was frequently a
Soot from diesel (Score:2)
Diesel engines haven't produced visible amounts of soot for over thirty years years.
I will be happy to show you any number of vehicles that will prove that statement incorrect. Furthermore even if it isn't visible it doesn't mean it isn't present and isn't a problem. I don't generally seem much of the exhaust from my truck but I'm quite sure it pollutes plenty despite its ULEV certification. Diesels today are MUCH cleaner than they once were and I'm sort of a fan of diesel engines (in relation to gasoline ones) but it's not as if they don't have room for improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
> as if they don't have room for improvement.
I am suggesting they don't have much room for improvement, unless by improve, you mean : change to electric vehicles.
Diminishing returns (Score:3)
I am suggesting they don't have much room for improvement, unless by improve, you mean : change to electric vehicles.
Diesels can almost without question be made substantially cleaner than they currently are. Far more research and money has been put into making gasoline engines clean than diesel if for no other reason than because diesels don't sell in the US car market. I have little reason to doubt that diesels couldn't be similarly improved.
That said your point is a fair one that we probably are well into diminishing returns on emission controls for internal combustion engines of any description. I think electric veh
Re: (Score:2)
22mpg isn't impressive (Score:3)
Really, the driveway, my 6.7L turbocharged Scoprion diesel engine just got 22mph heading to and from Duluth and the twin cities.
You're proud of 22mpg? Seriously? That's not even remotely impressive. If you got that kind of mileage out of a 6.7L engine then it means you weren't hauling anything which means you have a ludicrously over sized engine for the trip. 22mpg isn't anything special by the today's standards for truck fuel economy.
And all with with no black soot what so ever in the tail pipe, looks just like the day I bought it, shiny new metal inside the exhaust.
Unless you bought it yesterday I'm going to call BS on that one. No tailpipe, diesel or gas, stays shiny on the inside for long. I'm sure it's a nice truck but I'm equally sure about what comes o
Pulling a trailer (Score:2)
Yeah, 22mpg sounds pretty low until you realize that he can get that while pulling 10,000lbs+ behind him more than likely.
No he won't. He'll be lucky to get half that pulling a trailer. The weight of the load plus the wind resistance will drop his fuel economy like lead balloon.
Price of diesel relative to gasoline (Score:2)
the 3.0L turbo diesel in my wife's Ram 1500 is very clean.. the tailpipe chromies still shine on the inside after 16,000 miles
Well that would be a first in my experience. Interesting since that's the very truck I'm considering for my next vehicle when I replace my current ride. I'm dubious that it's actually clean inside the tailpipe but I won't argue the issue.
The payback period for the added cost of the diesel engine is about 30-35K miles.
Diesel is about 15-20% more efficient than gasoline for an engine of equivalent power. If the price of diesel exceeds the price of gasoline by more than 20% then you will never recoup the added cost. Right now where I live diesel is about 25% higher than gasoline so for
As soon as we have reliable facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
"Facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Re: (Score:1)
and? (Score:2)
Reagan stated "facts are stupid things" and corrected himself after saying that. Are you attempting to claim that the correction after the statement completely negates the statement? That, is irrational to the extreme.
The person provided a _correct_ quote. Is your next argument context that was not provided?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As soon as we have reliable facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Any fact that can cause a loss in profits for a corporation is an unreliable fact.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! Facts shmacks
-- Homer Simpson
Yes. So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would a "warning" make any difference? They knew what they were doing. You cannot just completely change the emission profile of a motor by magic, so every competent motor designer knew the performance the VW diesel-engines where claiming to have was bogus. That alone will be up to a hundred people. Of course their bosses knew and so did the VW leadership. The really interesting thing is whether this can be proven.
Re:Yes. So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not (Score:1)
My advice to all "underling" involved in such a story : make sure to make
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the manager at A or B level are half as clever as those I know, they will have left no paper trail. They will have organized informal meeting with the engineer/C level manager/underling telling them to ignore the things. Face to Face. No per email or paper. The underling will be where the trail end off cold , despite the underling protest they reported the problem there will be no trail. Not the first time I have seen that happen. My advice to all "underling" involved in such a story : make sure to make a solid paper and email trail leading to your superior. Do not under any circumstance limit yourself to verbal acknowledgment. As for those who will ask me Why no advice to whistleblow ? Well duh because this is the easiest way to not only torpedoe your carrier, but the story will be buried AND nobody will hire you again for your honesty.
i wonder why they didn't try the "it must have been a virus uploaded into our production system!" ploy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes. So? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a "cover my ass" letter. Bosch was complicit in coming up with this scam, but wanted to make sure that the final decision to go ahead was clearly VW's. There is no possibility with this letter in existence that VW can deny knowledge and point the finger at their suppliers.
Re: (Score:2)
*Were
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The test lab did do their job. Unfortunately, the job they were assigned was rather limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. We can be pretty sure that was by design.
Re: Yes. So? (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess none of your have done required tests.
There is a strict test procedure. It gets followed by the lab to a T.
They are not allowed to deviate.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? And why do you assume I do not know that? The "design" here was rather obviously not done by the lab. In fact it is so obvious that I did not bother to mention it.
Re: (Score:3)
The 'design' here was done before engines became computerized and hasn't been changed since.
What was a meaningful way to compare different vehicles, because they are all following the exact same profile, became a weakness once the cars could recognize the test by themselves because of the suite of sensors cars now carry.
Re: (Score:2)
That is rather unlikely. The people that wrote the test protocol where doing the industry a favor and very likely left the door wide open to this kind of cheating intentionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how do you propose to design a test that will give a consistent and "realistic" measurement of emissions, yet will defeat attempts to cheat on the test? What is "realistic"? Is it my stop-and-go commute, or your long straight steady-speed highway run? You can't just write a test spec that s
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently WVU figured it out well enough to catch VW cheating. So, it's not entirely impossible . . .
Basically:
Drive between 50-70 mph
Use the steering wheel from time to time in a non-rhythmic pattern (read: don't stick to an oval track)
Just pick a length of road, merge into traffic, and drive with the testing unit in the trunk that WVU used. Good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
They found a way to show that a model of car behaved differently inside and outside of a test, they have not provided a way to test 2 different cars and directly compare the results which is part of the point of the rolling road tests.
I suspect new tests will be introduced which still uses the rolling road for the baseline test results, but then some sort of real road test in which the cars must be within a different limit, either an absolute limit or within a percentage of what ever they get in the rolling
Re:Yes. So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would still blame the test labs for not doing their jobs which would have been actually testing the thing's performance, rather than trusting the vehicle performs like in their rather unrealistic lab setting.
The test labs did their jobs perfectly. It's not their fault the standardized tests they were required to do were faulty. To be honest, it wouldn't even surprise me if the pollution laws were faulty (eg must pass faulty test), and VW technically legally in the right. "Technically legally in the right" includes if they can successfully cast the blame on a small group of underlings.
Of course, VW are still rotten cheaters for exploiting the test like this.
Lucky we found this out before we passed the TPP of "corporations can sue the government if they don't like its laws".
Re: (Score:2)
The Facts (if anybody is interested) (Score:2, Interesting)
Before this becomes Naci bashing thing, just some facts:
-> this cars are probably illegal only in the USA (where they should conform to almost the same standard as EURO 6) in EU they are declared to be EURO 5
-> it looks like this motors are only a bit off in the laboratory test (they are almost EURO 6 - but not without the cheat)
-> in real life all cars produce more exhausts as allowed => problem is in the testing procedure which should be fixed (see reports bellow)
-> EURO 6 from VW is fine (
Re:The Facts (if anybody is interested) (Score:5, Interesting)
-> it looks like this motors are only a bit off in the laboratory test (they are almost EURO 6 - but not without the cheat)
"Only a little bit off"? They emit 10-40 times as much NOx as they're supposed to (EPA source [epa.gov][PDF warning]). That's not "a little bit", that's "actually a fuckload".
-> EURO 6 from VW is fine (see http://www.theicct.org/nox-con... [theicct.org]) as other German manufacturers, but some others have problems.
The linked paper only shows test results from a single VW vehicle. Not enough to say anything about VW's general compliance or lack thereof.
Re: (Score:1)
"Only a little bit off"? They emit 10-40 times as much NOx as they're supposed to (EPA source [epa.gov][PDF warning]). That's not "a little bit", that's "actually a fuckload".
Come on.. .. the limit is 0.053 parts per million..... 40 times that 2.12 parts per million. Only in the top 15 polluted cites in the US will the monitors even have a chance of noticing it and that is mostly because there are only 500,000 in the entire US. Europe and Asia the story is obviously different do to the volume of the cars 11M.
Re: (Score:1)
Except when it's a significant proportion of the cars on the road that'll easily be noticed by the sensors. It's not an issue when it's a single car, it's when it's hundreds/thousands of them. When 10 cars have the impact on the road of 400 it's noticeable.
Re: (Score:2)
10 cars from 10 years ago would (if not for this fraud) have the NOx impact of 1000 new cars.
FTFY
Your statement won't be true until cheating like this is put to an end.
VW dumped toxic waste illegally (Score:2)
Come on.. .. the limit is 0.053 parts per million..... 40 times that 2.12 parts per million.
40X is 40X. The limits exist for a reason and the PPM figures themselves are not important to the discussion. This is no different than any other company illegally dumping or burning toxic waste instead of paying to having it properly disposed of. Just because 2.12 PPM doesn't sound like a lot to you is irrelevant. They had the ability to dispose of this pollutant properly and knowingly chose to pollute instead to save a few bucks. I don't care if they were just barely over the limit or way of the limi
Re: (Score:1)
Come on.. .. the limit is 0.053 parts per million..... 40 times that 2.12 parts per million.
I had a BAC of 0.053 once and didn't feel that drunk. 2.12 doesn't sound too bad.
Don't worry (Score:2)
Who Pays (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who Pays (Score:5, Informative)
No it doesn't. LLC or Limited means that shareholders are only on the hook for the value of their shares if something goes wrong. If you are a shareholder in a non Limited company you can be on the hook for your entire asset pool if something happens. Both forms of corporations exist, however non limiteds are extremely rare.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe they call the non-limited liability company a partnership. It would the equivalent of a sole proprietorship. A sole proprietorship isn't all that rare. Pretty much every person operating a business that hasn't incorporated it is doing so knowingly or otherwise as a sole proprietorship. Most small businesses will either setup an LLC to avoid liability or these days a sub chapter s corporation. The courts have 'pierced the veil' of the LLC so now smart business persons are moving to the sub chapter
Re: (Score:2)
It is a little more complicated because you are looking at different laws between countries. But there is a specific form of Unlimited company, examples include American Express (pre 1965), Credit Suisse International, Land Rover (pre 2013) GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, Apple Computer's Irish subsiduary. In the US they tend to be called Joint-Stock Companies (JSC).
Partnerships are closely related to sole traders and I do not believe they can be traded on the stock exchange.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought you might be an academic by the word choice, or perhaps you're English. But given the fact you didn't provide any substantiating evidence to your claims of outrage, I'm going to go with English politician. Am I close?
Re: (Score:2)
God damn, the mods are fucking morons.
Re: (Score:2)
You are just now figuring this out? Wholly hell, try to bring up points like "vaccines have risks" and "science has not dis proven a creator, only certain parts of theology". Good times.
Re:Who Pays (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously? Ok VW is an Aktiengesellschaft. Aktiengesellschaft, is a German term for a public limited company — a company whose shares are offered to the general public and traded on a public stock exchange, and whose shareholders' liability is limited to their investment. The shareholders are not responsible for the company's debts and their personal assets are protected in case the company becomes insolvent.
Re:Who Pays (Score:5, Informative)
VW is not a LLC, though. LLC is more like a German GmbH. VW is an AG, a civil law publicly traded corporation..
Always a warning (Score:4, Interesting)
Whenever something bad happens - 9/11, Challenger, Katrina, Bill Crosby, SUV rollovers, every president, Deepwater Horizon - someone will selflessly step forward and say "I knew it was going to happen, I warned you, but nobody would listen!"
Next time a screw-up is in the news, pay attention and wait for the inevitable soothsayer.
Re:Always a warning (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever something bad happens - 9/11, Challenger, Katrina, Bill Crosby, SUV rollovers, every president, Deepwater Horizon - someone will selflessly step forward and say "I knew it was going to happen, I warned you, but nobody would listen!"
Next time a screw-up is in the news, pay attention and wait for the inevitable soothsayer.
You don't need to be a soothsayer to figure out that cheating on emissions tests and then manufacturing and selling millions of cars based on those falsifications is going to get you into a shitload of trouble. This is especially true if all somebody has to do to catch you red-handed is attach an emissions analyser to the exhaust pipe of one of your cars and drive it through town for a while. Even when the idea of doing this was first proposed it was just bloody obvious it was a dumbs thing to do. Between plunging stock prices, the product recall, the government fines in the US/EU, the class action lawsuits that will doubtless be filed in the USA, law suits by VW stockholders, falling sales and the massive damage to VW's reputation there is a chance this could bankrupt VW. I just got through watching a debate on German TV where they were talking about this costing VW several tens of billions of euros and most of those costs could have been calculated accurately enough to demonstrate the galactic stupidity of cheating on emissions tests years ago and without the use of a crystal ball.
Re: (Score:2)
So where were you two years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the latest example: https://news.yahoo.com/feds-pl... [yahoo.com]
Serious Investigations... (Score:3, Insightful)
... to find a couple of middle managers and engineers to throw under the bus.
Every since emissions happened people cheated (Score:1, Interesting)
Every since emissions began to be implemented cheating to bypass them has gone on. From the "test pipe" for catalytic converters to chips that basically fool the system into adding more fuel thus making horsepower or putting custom pipe in place a emissions. Today with VW it simply proves a gradual technical step in trying to get around emissions. I think its clear rather then just simply lightning regulations and testing procedures. We need to be asking how can we make sure almost everyone can accept and m
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually wondering if I can sue. I live near a main road, I have respiratory issues. It's looking like a large percentage of diesel cars sold in the UK have this kind of defeat device... I should get some free medical treatment to correct the problems they have caused me.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. The people who are telling us that NOx kills people seem to mostly be the same ones who think CO2 is the GREATEST THREAT TO THE WORLD, EVAH!
In the real world, this is just the end result of letting politicians design cars instead of engineers. A bunch of lawyers and other low-lives say cars must meet safety standards, and must meet emission standards, and must meet mpg standards, and believe that magic will make it so.
Re: (Score:3)
So your argument is that since we have had theft as long as there have been things to steal, it's not really wrong to steal?
VW defrauded a few million people.
hahaha "years ago" (Score:4, Interesting)
If you just watch Autoline After Hours 303 [youtube.com] (if you're not interested, you can skip all the stuff about the Honda unibody and jump to after the break) you'll hear that the EPA was warning automakers about the illegality of "defeat devices" (terminology which covers device or code) for gaming the emissions tests in the seventies. This is so far from being a new idea, it's not even funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My 2001 GMC Jimmy had a "secondary oxygen injector pump." When it failed, I tried to figure out what it did. Near as I could tell, all it did was blow extra air into the exhaust while the engine was cold.
Yeah, they colloquially call those a "smog pump". There was one on my IROC. It went bad...
Re:hahaha "years ago" (Score:5, Informative)
When your vehicle is cold the combustion is less complete and there is left over fuel. On top of this your catalytic converter is cold. So air is injected into the exhaust for two reasons. The first is to provide oxygen for unburnt fuel to be burnt and the second was to rapidly increase the temperature of the catalytic converter to it starts working.
Then once you car is up to temp the air is pumped into the exhaust system just infront of the cat. This allows the cat to be much more efficient and more complete in its transformation.
They were called smog pumps because they reduced smog. But it wasn't through bending the rules it was actually because it did something to reduce emissions.
Re:hahaha "years ago" (Score:4, Interesting)
Then once you car is up to temp the air is pumped into the exhaust system just infront of the cat.
No, that's backwards. The smog pump is only supposed to pump air into the exhaust system until the car is up to temp. When the car is cold, it runs rich, so additional oxygen is needed to make the catalyst burn all the fuel, which in turn makes it come up to temp quicker. Once it comes up to temp, the car goes into closed loop mode and crosses back and forth across a stoichiometric ratio somewhere from 2-10 times a second based on feedback from the O2 sensor[s] and there's no longer any need for a smog pump.
Never mind (Score:2)
As it turns out, you're right, that's what GM did with the smog pump. No wonder they fail, they have to run all the time. Sorry. Hope I get this comment in past the too many comments per minute filter before you squeeze off a reply.
Oh, Slashdot... (Score:2)
Even after I wrote this comment, my prior comment got modded up.
Incidentally, if anyone is wondering where the smog pump went, they moved to better catalysts and it did indeed go away because you indeed don't need it once the vehicle is in closed loop mode and the catalyst is hot.
Re: (Score:2)
All good. Different manufacturers used different processes, and it has changed many times.
Warned about a system they designed? (Score:2)
Isn't this kind of a non-story.
They specifically designed a system to cheat the emissions test.
It's like saying bank robbers were warned they were robbing a bank.
Unless VW is some kind of wild west company, nothing gets done in large corporations like this without a project, funding, management buy in, probably management pressure.
Re: (Score:1)
>> Volkswagen needs to replace all models concerned with a brand new compliant car.
ummm. no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Consumers bought the cars in good faith and got the performance they were promised. They didn't get the emissions controls the state was promised. The customers got "better performance than was possible with compliance " cars, despite the regulators attempts to artificially suppress MPG for the sake of NO2 emissions.
The only* reason consumers should be unhappy is if they are forced to get 2016 firmware upgrades to pass smog testing. Under those circumstances: they will no longer be getting the performance t
Re: In The End...Consumers Are Stuck With The Cars (Score:1)
Unless you are driving your car around in your home, I don't think you have to worry about keeping the pollution away from yourself
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In The End...Consumers Are Stuck With The Cars. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unrealistic.
The existing cars are already able to run in a compliant mode. All VW needs to do is patch them so they're always in that mode rather than only during emission tests.
Mind you, resulting engine performance will suffer and they'll probably get sued for false advertising, end up paying major penalties on top of what the governments are going to hammer them with, and have an uphill battle for future sales which might make them wish they could have just offered everyone brand new cars.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of compensation could be more than the value of the car. People are talking about hundreds of Euros a year in fuel, plus the devaluation of the car itself. If you take the lifetime of the car to be 15+ years, no unreasonable for a well made diesel engine, that could easily be more than the current value of the car itself.
In that case I wonder if VW will try to write those cars off and simply pay the pre-revelation market value.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the cars were modified to meet emission standards, they don't qualify as "lemons", which is pretty much what is necessary to *force* a complete buyback. They function okay, they're not unsafe, etc. They just don't perform as advertised.
Some compensation might happen, but I'd be surprised if on average it amounts to more than a few tanks of fuel...
Re: (Score:2)
If advertised MPG is half real world MPG when the fix has been applied then it would seem people are entitled to sue for half their fuel costs every year. For many people that will be hundreds, maybe thousands of Euros a year. Diesels are often bought as company cars due to having low taxes (due to low emissions) and engines that can easily do 500k+ miles.
If the car is worth â5,000 and you expect to get at least about 200,000 miles out of it, the lifetime fuel cost due to decreased performance is likel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how you came to that conclusion given that the same article you linked to lists (all the way down at the bottom) some situations ending in other than just a full buy-back (and ranging all the way down to "fuck all").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think you're overestimating the socialist influence. I worked there from 2010-2014, and most of the upper management I met there was definitely capitalist rather than socialist.
Re: What else would you expect from... (Score:3, Interesting)
Capitalists always overestimate the socialist influence when the issue in question is a symptom of something wrong with capitalism, which this situation is.
Short term profits at any cost at all, including extra pollution, lying, deception. The surprise isn't that they did it, it's that other corporate misdeeds aren't published to this extent.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're overestimating the socialist influence. I worked there from 2010-2014, and most of the upper management I met there was definitely capitalist rather than socialist.
I think he's overestimating the socialist influence of Nazis, in that Nazis outlawed socialism, arrested tens of thousands of German socialists and communists, put them in concentration camps and executed them, years before they began arresting Jews; and were supported in this Godly activity by major US corporations, such as Ford Motors, General Motors, Standard Oil, ITT, Chase National Bank, etc. and American rightwing individuals such as Henry Ford and J. Edgar Hoover.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to be a Godwin Nazi, but the German system of government/politics has nothing to do with a corporation cheating on American laws for profit.
Re: What else would you expect from... (Score:1)
The nazi's are not socialists. They did called them selfs national socialist. Really socialists are anti-nazi and many where killed by the nazi's.