In 1918-1919, the Wilson administration confiscated all German private property, and then tried to eliminate German coal-tar chemical firms from the American market. Alien Property Custodian A. Mitchell Palmer, the driving force behind these measures, justified them because of the danger to national security caused by the state-supported monopolistic cartels and agents of German imperialism. He cited as prominent example the American branch of the Farbenfabriken vormals Friedrich Bayer, or Bayer Company.;Based on German coal and steel firms, German corporations during the Wilhelmine era have been described as very bureaucratic and anti-competitive; also, in Germany market monopolies were legal and encouraged by the government. Such monopolies were bound to offend Americans, who during the Progressive Era were deeply concerned about their political power. Using the archives of the Bayer Company in Leverkusen, Germany, and holdings at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., Suitland, Maryland, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and New York City, the trade press and other sources, this study looks at Bayer's activities in the United States. Bayer's business-oriented and flexible culture was similar to that of American firms, and differences not due to its German ownership. So was its conduct angering American authorities, such as the use of kickbacks for sales and hiding owning the branch to avoid the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. But Bayer's aggressive profit seeking culture, and idiosyncratic events, prevented the creation of a general German dye and drug cartel in the United States.;The branch clashed with American interest groups such as druggists, who to gain public sympathy portrayed the firm as a German trust. After 1914, the dye firms were also accused of political conspiracy. Yet until March 1918, the American government did not move against them, partly because such charges were clearly false, until Palmer took advantage of wartime Manichaeism and Progressive ideology to convince Wilson that the charges were true. This study shows that differences between German firms and those of other Western countries could be smaller than they seemed at the time, and fear of German economic imperialism often due to misunderstanding. The emphasis on national differences to explain conflict between Imperial Germany and the United States seems unjustified, at least in the economic sphere.
展开▼
机译：在1918-1919年，威尔逊政府没收了所有德国私有财产，然后试图从美国市场淘汰德国煤焦油化工公司。这些措施背后的推动力是外国人财产保管人米切尔·帕尔默（A. Mitchell Palmer）为之辩护，因为国家支持的垄断卡特尔和德意志帝国主义分子对国家安全构成了威胁。他举了一个著名的例子，即Farbenfabriken vormals Friedrich Bayer（拜耳公司）在美国的分支机构。基于德国的煤炭和钢铁公司，在威廉峰时期曾被描述为非常官僚化和反竞争的德国公司。同样，在德国，市场垄断是合法的，并受到政府的鼓励。这种垄断势必会冒犯美国人，而在进步时代，美国人深深地担心自己的政治力量。利用德国勒沃库森的拜耳公司档案，以及华盛顿特区，suitland，马里兰州，费城，宾夕法尼亚州和纽约市的国家档案馆中的藏品，商业媒体和其他资料，本研究着眼于拜耳在全球范围内的活动。美国。拜耳面向企业的灵活文化与美国公司的文化相似，差异并非归德国所有。它的举动也激怒了美国当局，例如使用回扣进行销售，以及隐瞒拥有该分支机构以避免《谢尔曼反信任法》。但是拜耳积极进取的牟利文化和特质事件阻止了在美国建立德国一般的染料和毒品卡特尔。该分支机构与美国利益集团（例如药贩子）发生冲突，后者赢得了公众的同情，将公司描绘成德国人。信任。 1914年之后，染料公司还被指控犯有政治阴谋。但是直到1918年3月，美国政府才对他们采取行动，部分原因是这种指控显然是错误的，直到帕尔默利用战时的摩尼教和进步意识形态说服威尔逊说这些指控是正确的。这项研究表明，德国公司与其他西方国家之间的差异可能小于当时的差异，而且人们常常由于误解而担心德国的经济帝国主义。至少在经济领域，强调国家差异来解释帝国德国和美国之间的冲突似乎是没有道理的。
展开▼
