Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by andreweggleston 596 days ago
Reminds me of IBM’s (successful) attempt to skirt US regulations regarding trade with Nazi Germany: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehomag
1 comments

Coca-Cola did this too with Fanta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta

Fanta reminded us of that fact, in a likely to be unintended way.

They broadcast an ad in Germany for the 75 years of the brand, claiming to bring back "the feeling of the Good Old Times". Considering that the "Good Old Time" in question was when Nazis ruled, it caused quite a backlash.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/561589/Coca-Cola-pulls-...

Coca-Cola didn’t circumvent ban. They had to come up with a new product.
> During the Second World War, Germany was under a United States trade embargo, the British naval blockade and the import of Coca-Cola syrup was prohibited. To circumvent this, Max Keith, the head of Coca-Cola Deutschland (Coca-Cola GmbH), decided to create a new product for the German market, using only ingredients available in Germany at the time, including sugar beet, whey (a cheese byproduct), and apple pomace. He later described them as the "leftovers of leftovers".

An embargo is literally a ban on trading.

That's Coca-Cola GmbH, a German company that was owned by a US company. When the US and Germany were at war the US Coca-Cola lost control of Coca-Cola GmbH. It wasn't until after the war that the US company got control back.
A distinction that matters somewhat in the context of the comparison to IBM, but given that the two Coca-Cola companies recombined after the war, it’s one of little difference.