Truth be told, I got only halfway through the video before I turned it off. The video is filled with half-truths, distortions (American firms continued to operate when the Nazis entered Paris- well, of course! The US was still a neutral in 1940!), and outright inaccuracies (contending that the chemical concern IG Farben made panzers, for example).

The relationship of industrial capital and the Third Reich is one that is highly complex and the nature of international business adds a further layer of complexity. In 1920s, American companies saw Germany as a plum market by virtue of its large population and high degree of industrialization. This led to large-scale investment in German industries and subsidiaries opened up. Opel, for example, was established with the help of GM as a parent company in 1928. These international relationships continued after the advent of Hitler in 1933, but were often freighted with new political meaning.

Hitler's drive for rearmament caused some alarm among German industrial circles. Although support for the Weimar Republic was very shallow among these types, they were seldom fans of the new order. Many German industrialists resented state interference in the running of the factory floor and while more than a few welcomed the Third Reich's anti-labor laws, they also became packaged together with NSDAP organs like the Deutsche Arbeitsfront which was a sinecure for NSDAP cronies. On the extreme end of opposition, Hugo Junkers, head of one of the most prominent aviation companies of the interwar period and a firm believer in the peaceful use of airpower, was put under house arrest and the state forced him to surrender his patents and shares in the Junkers firm. Most German industrial leaders sought a cooperative relationship with the Nazi state, but the example of Junkers was a chilling one for those that thought of resistance. American-owned companies or their subsidiaries often had to deal with this new reality, but it was sill an incredibly complex picture. The Third Reich encouraged the cartelization of the German economy, which already was one of the most centralized in Europe prior to 1933, and American multinationals had to operate in this environment. Opel, for example, had to comply with the 1936 Schell Program, which streamlined German automobile production making it more suitable for military use, but Ford's Cologne plant was exempt from these restrictions. In contrast to Ford, IBM lost day-to-day control of its German Dehomag, but the New York company also wanted to keep control of its near monopoly on tabulating machines, so it kept Dehomag in operation to preserve the company's monopoly in Germany.

The idea that the Nazis were "thugs for the rich" is a charge that actually dates back to the 1930s and was a staple of both socialist and communist propaganda of this time and in the later case remained an orthodoxy through the Cold War. It has also been taken as a given by various anti-capitalist movements seeking to tar existing multinational concerns like Ford with the taint of the Third Reich. Such contentions generate more heat than light. Hitler may have held Ford and Fordism in high esteem, but so to did many other world leaders at this time, including the USSR of Stalin which practically enshrined Fordist/Taylorist industrial management as state doctrine. The reality was of course far more complicated and part of the problem of examining American multinationals and the Third Reich was that of the latter's twelve-year existence, Germany was at peace with the US for eight of these years. American firms, like their German counterparts, found themselves having to adjust to a state predicated both on military expansion and a subordination of industry to the needs of the state. Most industrial leaders accommodated these demands, but many were uneasy with them.

Therein lies the damage that videos like the one linked to by the OP. Industrial collusion and corporate profits from the Third Reich is a serious issue and one that American companies like Ford and GM have been less than forthcoming about. But a hyperbolic argument that is unsustainable (hired thugs) actually makes holding these firms accountable much harder to accomplish and makes it harder to distinguish serious scholarship about corporate responsibility from noise.