Comments on: Did the Nazis Really Invent Fanta?

By: Max Keith

Max Keith — Mon, 25 May 2009 00:39:19 +0000

i am a nazi

By: AskWhy

AskWhy — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:32:56 +0000

Let me get this straight…Keith saved all the profits to turn over to Coke but Coke had nothing to do with selling to the Germans? Uh huh, what planet’s he from? That’s like our government claiming that the guards at gitmo were acting on their own accord. It is correct as mentioned above that Corporations are psychopathic. All involved simply claim they are not responsible for the murderous actions. BS. That is the issue that needs to be resolved. That and making lobbying illegal and campaigning narrowed to equal public access time. Period. All other problem solving would be attainable.

I don’t drink Coke or any other soda anyway. High fructose corn syrup is not only very unhealthy but contains mercury. Read about it here:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/14/Most-Common-Source-of-Calories-in-US-is-LOADED-With-Mercury.aspx

Have you noticed the campaign to convince the consumer that it is ‘ok’ in moderation? That’s strictly corporation PR. How stupid are the people? Their banking on it.

Diet soda is even worse. Rumsfeld is making a bundle off Aspertame, it’s no wonder nothing is being done about this poison in so many food products. And don’t think you can turn to substitutes like splenda, they are peeled from the same bad apple.

My advice? Kick the soda habit altogether.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:54:32 +0000

It sure does seem like Zizany wants desperately to condemn Coca-Cola and to exaggerate its ties with Nazi Germany, perhaps even a little too desperately. Coca-Cola sucks as a soft-drink, and the Coca-Cola Corporation sucks as an institution, and often proceeds psychopathologically. But that doesn’t legitimize presuming that they’ve done every evil thing that they *might* have done, and ignoring evidence to the contrary of some charge. The article above does a good job of laying-out the actual relationship of Coca-Cola to Nazi Germany.

By: chippybomber

chippybomber — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:57:14 +0000

some people seem to be under the – mistaken – impression that corporations have moral obligations, or should act morally. Corporations only have one purpose: to make and increase profits, by any means. At least Coca-Cola didn’t actively support the Third Reich’s war effort – unlike GM (Opel) and Ford.
By the way, Allied bombers were instructed not to bomb the Ford factory in Cologne – the population soon realised this and used it as an air raid shelter.

By: Andi

Andi — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:35:19 +0000

According to wikipedia (Quote: “Da die kriegsbedingte Verknappung der Rohstoffe die Produktion von Coca-Cola in Deutschland erschwerte, wurde 1940 vom Chef-Chemiker Dr. Schetelig in Essen Fanta als Ersatzprodukt zunächst auf Molkebasis entwickelt, so dass Coca-Cola nicht auf das Geschäft in Deutschland verzichten musste.”) it was not Keith who invented Fanta, but the head chemist Doctor Schetelig.

Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getränkemarken_der_Coca-Cola_GmbH

By: JayDog

JayDog — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:23:59 +0000

While I agree that there were a great many Germans that didn’t latch on to the NSDAP, let’s not forget that they let the party take over legally. Nazi or not, folks have obligations to feed and protect their families first and foremost. That said, an American company has a moral duty to it’s own country before any other.
I can empathize with any hard-working German business manager for making sure his employees had jobs to provide for their families–I would do the same. On another note, considering the magnitude of the War and the far-reaching costs if the allies lost should have made Coca Cola cease doing business with Germany all together. It’s well known that economic hardship helps bring an end to things–whether a devasted country/governement ups and quits or the people rise up and take the matter into their own hands. The quality of life for most Germans didn’t REALLY take a turn for the worse until the last 1.5 years of the War.
Forcing economic hardship has the same concept of strategic bombing: to destroy industry and put people out of their homes and jobs. The moment that Germany declared war on the US was the moment that Coca-Cola should have severed their German connections. Again, I can empathize with the US business managers of Coca-Cola leading up to US involvement. The American Public was isolationist at that time and any good company has an obligation to its stockholders and employees. Helping the enemy’s economy thrive when our own are dying at their hands is not the path to take, in my opinion.
I still admire Coca-Cola and purchase their products. Globalization is a great thing and I firmly believe that it helps spread unity, capitalism, and democracy. However, whenever I look at their American marketing and advertising during the War, it makes me take a step back and think. I doubt anyone would refute that Coca-Cola would still have come out on top if they had taken a different stance.

By: qwerty

qwerty — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:57:12 +0000

snopes.com/cokelore/fanta.asp

By: Hurricane

Hurricane — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:45:55 +0000

I for one don't agree with this assessment of the situation. Being that Coca Cola Germany was still in operation before, during and after the war and still shared communication with the Coroprate office, conducting corporate level transactions with Germany made them guilty of collusion.

I feel that Coca Cola felt that at first the Allies were going to lose the war. In that eventuality they made a business decision to keep the Coca Cola German subsidiary open cause if they won then Coca Cola would retain it's position and continue to conduct business with the Nazis. They severed all direct lines of communication so there wouldn't be any appearance of impropriety. and being that they had a prominent presence in Germany they musta known more than the average person what the Nazi Ideology was and what they intended to do. They should have made a moral choice and completely close down operations in Germany and move everything out.

Not only that but the fact that Coca Cola Germany gave it's profits directly to Atlanta and did not funnel it back into the then completely destroyed Germany after the war made it's motive even more obvious.

By: Zizany

Zizany — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:15:10 +0000

It sure does seem like someone wants desperately to absolve Coca-Cola and to diminish its ties with Nazi Germany, perhaps even a little too desperately. I’m sure the average readers will read between the lines and question this Nazi-free portrayal of Coca-Cola. Money is money, even when product resources are scarce because of war. If Coca-cola Germany could talk to Coca-cola USA via Coca-cola Switzerland, then for sure, it was business as usual. Much like now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa as well as all areas of the world that are under war-like conditions, we can still get a Coke and a smile. Bravo Coca-cola for transcending cultural and military divides, and joining the world together. But Coca-cola should own that notion, promote themselves for what they are and be proud. Don’t distance yourself from the Taliban whom record sales in 2000 was a sure sign of the beginnings of westernilization. Don’t distance yourself from the Nazi’s and try to make a hero out of Max Keith (resistance fighter for not joining the nazi party… yeah, right.) Own it, Coca-cola, own that you are above petty cultural borders and military disputes. Be proud of making profit without recognizing borders.