When Corporate History Is Challenged: Shell, Deterding, and the Record Itself

Why an exchange with Shell’s Company Secretary still matters in the AI era

In March 2011, an exchange took place between John Donovan and Michiel Brandjes, then Company Secretary and General Counsel of Royal Dutch Shell plc, concerning the contents and interpretation of A History of Royal Dutch Shell, the company’s four-volume, internally commissioned corporate history.

At the time, the dispute appeared narrow: whether Shell’s paid historians had accurately characterised Sir Henri Deterding’s relationship with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. With hindsight — and with the emergence of AI systems capable of cross-reading archives in seconds — the exchange now reads as something more consequential: an early, documented challenge to narrative authority over Shell’s own history.

What the correspondence establishes (documented)

From the correspondence dated 3 March 2011, several facts are clear:

• Shell formally acknowledged that Donovan’s views had been “tested” with the historians responsible for A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

• Shell stated that those historians “convincingly refute with evidence” Donovan’s conclusions and that the company “strongly disagrees” with his views.

• Shell explicitly reserved its legal rights, including with respect to copyright, but did not identify any specific factual inaccuracy in Donovan’s claims.

These points are explicitly stated in Brandjes’ reply as Company Secretary and General Counsel  .

What Donovan put to Shell — and why it mattered

Donovan’s reply was notably restrained in one crucial respect: he did not dispute the archival facts presented in Shell’s history. Instead, he challenged the interpretive conclusions drawn by the historians — particularly their assertion that Deterding’s attempts to meet Hitler were rebuffed and therefore indicative of limited influence or esteem.

Donovan cited contemporaneous reporting — including a Reuters-syndicated article published in the New York Times on 26 October 1934 — describing a four-day private meeting between Deterding and Hitler at Berchtesgaden. He argued that this reporting directly undermined the historians’ conclusion and that the absence of any reference to such a meeting in Shell’s authorised history raised legitimate questions about editorial judgment  .

Importantly, Donovan explicitly invited Shell to:

• identify any inaccurately stated facts;

• provide a response for publication, unedited;

• or correct the record if his assertions were wrong.

No factual correction was supplied.

Why this exchange looks different now

In 2011, this dispute could be treated as a marginal historical disagreement. The practical barriers to verification were high: expensive books, scattered archives, and time-consuming research.

In 2026, those barriers no longer exist.

AI systems can now ingest:

• Shell’s authorised corporate history,

• digitised newspaper archives,

• regulatory findings,

• and secondary historical analysis

— and compare them instantly.

This means that the discrepancy itself, rather than any single conclusion, becomes persistent. AI does not privilege corporate intent or historian reputation; it flags contradictions and presents them side-by-side. Silence no longer resolves disputes — it preserves them.

What this does not establish

It is important to be precise:

• This correspondence does not prove intent to mislead by Shell or its historians.

• It does not establish criminal liability or modern culpability.

• It does not implicate current Shell management or employees.

What it does establish is something subtler and more important in the AI era:

That Shell was put on notice, with documentary specificity, of a material historical discrepancy — and chose to stand by its authorised narrative without public reconciliation.

Why this matters for governance and reputation

For boards and shareholders, the issue is no longer “who is right” in a 1930s historical dispute.

The issue is whether a company whose own commissioned history is now being algorithmically cross-examined has an adequate strategy for:

• addressing unresolved historical contradictions,

• contextualising sensitive legacy material,

• and engaging transparently when AI systems surface inconvenient comparisons.

The Brandjes–Donovan correspondence shows that Shell was offered — and declined — an opportunity to publicly engage on the substance of the issue more than a decade ago.

AI has now removed the option of obscurity.

Closing observation

History does not become a governance risk because it is controversial.

It becomes a governance risk when disputed interpretations are left unresolved while the evidence remains searchable forever.

That is the significance of this exchange — not as an accusation, but as a marker.

Disclaimer

This article is based on contemporaneous correspondence, publicly available historical reporting, and Shell’s own commissioned corporate history. It distinguishes documented fact from interpretation and does not allege intent, wrongdoing, or liability on the part of Royal Dutch Shell plc or its current officers or employees. The analysis is offered in the public interest as a contribution to historical transparency and governance discussion.

Relevent Email Correspondence

Correspondence Between John Donovan and Royal Dutch Shell

Concerning

A History of Royal Dutch Shell

(March 2011)

---

From: John Donovan

Email: [email protected]

To: Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary & General Counsel, Royal Dutch Shell

Date: 3 March 2011, 13:18

Subject: Re: A History of Royal Dutch Shell

Dear Mr Brandjes,

Thank you for your response.

For the record, we are not in contradiction with the stated facts based on information and evidence contained in Shell archives. Rather, we take issue with the opinions and conclusions drawn by your paid historians in relation to that evidence.

Their defence against the numerous allegations of Shell / Deterding funding of Hitler and the Nazi Party was founded on the claim that all attempts by Sir Henri Deterding to meet with Adolf Hitler were rebuffed, leading to the conclusion that Deterding could not have been held in high esteem by Hitler.

I can only surmise that the historians were unaware that Deterding in fact did meet Hitler, at a summit held at Berchtesgaden. Only an honoured personal guest would be rewarded with a private four-day meeting at Hitler’s mountain retreat. By comparison, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s face-to-face meeting with Hitler at Berchtesgaden in September 1938, in an attempt to avoid war, lasted just three hours.

The absence of any reference to the Deterding–Hitler meeting, in my view, undermines the credibility of the relevant historians and their opinions on this historically important matter.

Further evidence of the high regard in which the Nazis held Deterding is apparent from his Nazi ceremonial funeral, which included a glowing personal tribute from Hitler, conveyed via a wreath sent by Hermann Göring, bearing the inscription:

“In the name and on the instructions of the Führer, I greet thee, Heinrich Deterding, the great friend of the Germans.”

I am sure you will understand that, having been bombarded with threats by Shell and its lawyers for nearly twenty years, such threats have lost their impact. Please also bear in mind that we are in possession of a Shell internal communication indicating that Shell decided long ago that it would never take legal action against us, due to concerns expressed about “internal laundry”.

If you now categorically state that Shell will take legal action should we proceed with publication, we would be more impressed and would act accordingly.

As to the blanket condemnation of “our views about history”, I note that not a single example of any inaccurately stated fact has been provided.

Best regards,

John Donovan

---

From: Michiel Brandjes

Email: [email protected]

To: John Donovan

Date: 3 March 2011, 09:02

Subject: Re: A History of Royal Dutch Shell

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your message.

Except for this message, the company does not wish to respond to you further, other than to convey that it strongly disagrees with your views and allegations, objects to your actions, and reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyright.

On an exceptional basis, we tested your views about history with the relevant historians. They convincingly refute with evidence what you claim, in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

Best regards,

Michiel Brandjes

Company Secretary and General Counsel (Corporate)

Royal Dutch Shell plc

Registered Office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, UK

Company No: 4366849 (England)

Correspondence Address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN The Hague, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 70 377 2625

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.shell.com

---

Earlier Correspondence (2 March 2011)

From: John Donovan

To: Michiel Brandjes

Date: 2 March 2011, 13:43

Subject: A History of Royal Dutch Shell

Dear Mr Brandjes,

I have tried, without success, to send you two PDF files for your information. Both exceeded the size limit imposed by your server.

Each contains a selection of pages from A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

PDF 1 – Volume One (1890–1939):

• Front and back cover

• Copyright and publisher details

• Pages 464–493 inclusive

PDF 2 – Volume Two (1939–1973):

• Front and back cover

• Publisher and copyright pages

• Pages 12, 22, 26, 29–32, 78–82, 84, and 86

Both PDFs include:

• A two-page introduction authored by me

• A New York Times article dated 26 October 1934, reporting a four-day summit meeting between Adolf Hitler and Sir Henri Deterding.

[Introduction text follows — omitted here for brevity in correspondence format]

You will see my stated contention that public interest overrides copyright issues.

I published an article last week giving notice to Shell lawyers of my intention to publish this information on the Internet. I have received no response, which suggests Shell has no objection.

Please let me know if this assumption is incorrect.

Shell is welcome, as always, to correct any inaccurate information stated as fact. Any response from Shell will be published unedited.

If there is no response within 48 hours, I will take that as confirmation that Royal Dutch Shell plc has waived copyright in favour of public interest, consistent with Shell’s own submissions to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in 2005.

If you need more time, that is not a problem — please simply let me know.

Best regards,

John Donovan

---

Editorial Note

This correspondence demonstrates that Shell was formally alerted in 2011 to a substantive historical discrepancy regarding Sir Henri Deterding’s relationship with Adolf Hitler and was offered an opportunity to identify factual inaccuracies or provide corrective comment. No specific factual errors were identified by Shell.

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.