Talk:Union Banking Corporation/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Union Banking Corporation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
REAL CONNECTION
hello,
W.A. Harriman & Co (bert walker averell harriman) make UBC (1924) with THYSSEN and his banker Hendrik J. Kouwenhoven (BHS bank, UBC, German Steel Trust), Thyssen on GST board too with Friedrich Flick... GST connected to FARBEN connected to Standard Oil...
BERT Walker is father in law prescott bush!
And nothing about bush ? OH LORD... prescott bush was working in W.A. harriman & co, UBC (holding share) and SILESIAN AM Corporation...
And Farish Bush connection.
The true remain alive whatever wrong people are trying to cover up.
sweet story isnt?--Misterdru (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Challenge to article content
In the article, it states that:
"Whether any or all part of the funds held by Union Banking Corporation, or companies associated with it, belong to Fritz Thyssen could not be established in this investigation."
Which is a blatant lie, largely based on omission of key documents, for example, this document states that:
"there is ample reason to believe that substantial German interests are involved."
http://historynewsnetwork.org/resources/Bush%20Documents0011.jpg
And this document states that (excuse my terrible transcribing of the companies involved, the characters are smudged):
"Union Banking Corp. carries on frequent transactions for N.V. Handels en Transport Haatschanij "Vulcaan" (on British Black List) and Wodan Handel-maetschapig H.V, both of Rotherdam, although such transactions are not in the names of these companies but rather for the account of B.H.S. It is believed that both of these companies, as well as B.H.S. are closely associated with the Vereinigte Stahlewerke A.G. of Dusseldorf, Germany. It would seem, there-fore, that the beneficial ownership of Union Banking Corp. is German rather than Dutch."
http://historynewsnetwork.org/resources/Bush%20Documents0009.jpg
Which makes to hugely contradict the above assertion that "could not be established" is a total lie. If there was no valid basis... why did they seize the funds? Obviously, then, there must have been a good reason and the document supports that - contrary to what Wikipedia is asserting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.159.48 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)