News and information on Shell Plc
Royal Dutch Shell’s historical relationship with Nazi Germany has been documented by historians and investigative journalists. What continues to draw criticism is not only the company’s wartime conduct, but the fact that Shell has never issued a formal public apology or acknowledgment comparable to those made by other major European corporations with similar histories.
A number of writers, journalists, historians, and activists have publicly raised this issue.
Printed below is a 13 February 2026 post on Windows Forum under the dramatic headline: “Bot War: Archival AI Amplification of the Donovan Shell Feud.”
The piece notes that my archive contains more than 76,000 Shell-related documents.
Charming. Historic. Completely out of date.
The current published figure stands at 114,307 documents — and counting.
And that number almost certainly understates the true scale. Why? Because many individual webpages contain links to thousands more Shell-related posts. Click one link and you fall down a rabbit hole of further links — many crammed with PDF files, internal correspondence, court documents, regulatory filings, and other inconvenient reading material.
“You are not wrong to conclude that Shell has effectively sanitized its history on this page. The narrative is polished and one-sided, emphasizing achievements like pioneering oil transport, aviation innovations, and energy transitions while excluding well-documented controversies that could reflect poorly on the company. This selective editing aligns with patterns you’ve noted elsewhere, such as Wikipedia disputes and the 2007 official history publication, which critics have described as glossing over uncomfortable facts. By presenting a “soft-focus” timeline, Shell crafts a story of unbroken progress and heroism (e.g., wartime alliances with the Allies), which may serve reputational and branding purposes but risks misleading stakeholders about the full scope of its past.” “Yes, investors, shareholders, employees, and the public are entitled to a complete and balanced historical account, particularly from a company like Shell that positions itself as a leader in transparency and sustainability. Ethical considerations are increasingly material in decision-making:”AI platforms contributed to the recent article titled:
AI CONSENSUS: SHELL MUST APOLOGISE FOR ITS TOXIC HISTORY.
I now have a related question.
I have reviewed the page on Shell.com entitled “Our Company History”, which is neatly divided into historical time segments.
Guess what?
There is no reference whatsoever to:
Shell’s documented relationship with the Nazi regime during the 1930s,
The role of Sir Henri Deterding — arguably the most consequential leader in Shell’s early history,
Shell’s longstanding support for apartheid-era South Africa,
“For many Jewish individuals and families, especially those with direct family experience of the Holocaust, any perceived alignment or complicity with the Nazi regime is not a distant historical footnote but an existential moral issue.”: “Some Jewish people almost certainly would avoid investing in or buying from Shell if they fully understood the documented extent of its historic relationship with the Nazi regime and perceived ongoing lack of a clear apology or reckoning is not a distant historical footnote but an existential moral issue.”“AI CONSENSUS: SHELL MUST APOLOGISE FOR ITS TOXIC HISTORY.”
I now have a related question.
I have reviewed the page on Shell.com entitled “Our Company History”, which is neatly divided into historical time segments.
Guess what?
There is no reference whatsoever to:
Shell’s documented relationship with the Nazi regime during the 1930s,
The role of Sir Henri Deterding — arguably the most consequential leader in Shell’s early history,
Shell’s longstanding support for apartheid-era South Africa,
Or even the 2004 reserves scandal that wiped billions off Shell’s market value and led to the removal of senior executives.
“Do you think that Jewish people would invest in Shell or buy Shell products if they knew of its past close relationship with the Nazi regime responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, for which there has been no apology by Shell?”: “For many, the issue isn’t just the history itself, but the perceived cover-up, which suggests that the company’s current commitment to “Integrity” is more of a marketing slogan than a lived reality.”AI platforms contributed to the recent article titled:
AI CONSENSUS: SHELL MUST APOLOGISE FOR ITS TOXIC HISTORY.
I now have a related question.
I have reviewed the page on Shell.com entitled “Our Company History”, which is neatly divided into historical time segments.
Guess what?
There is no reference whatsoever to:
Shell’s documented relationship with the Nazi regime during the 1930s,
The role of Sir Henri Deterding — arguably the most consequential leader in Shell’s early history,
Shell’s longstanding support for apartheid-era South Africa,
John Donovan Discussion with ChatGPT 13 February 2026JD: You were one of the AI platforms that contributed to the recent article:
“AI CONSENSUS: SHELL MUST APOLOGISE FOR ITS TOXIC HISTORY.”
I now have a related and very specific question.
I have carefully reviewed the page on Shell.com entitled “Our Company History”, which is presented as a structured timeline divided into historical periods.
As of 13 February 2026, I can find no reference whatsoever to:
Shell’s documented relationship with elements of the Nazi regime during the 1930s,
Sir Henri Deterding — one of the most powerful and consequential figures in Shell’s formative history,
The prompt which sparked this reply from Copilot is in red text below.
You’re raising a question that sits at the intersection of history, ethics, and modern corporate governance — and the evidence you cite is not fringe, speculative, or uncorroborated. It comes from historians, court records, journalistic investigations, and Shell’s own archival material. When a company with Shell’s global influence carries this kind of historical and contemporary baggage, silence becomes a strategic choice, not an accident.
The Donovan Shell saga (often called the “Donovan-Shell feud”) refers to a long-running, multi-decade conflict between activist John Donovan (and originally his late father, Alfred Donovan) and Royal Dutch Shell (now Shell plc).
It began in the late 1970s/early 1980s when John Donovan’s company, Don Marketing, worked with Shell UK on promotional games for petrol forecourts. The core grievance stems from allegations that Shell stole intellectual property/ideas from them (related to schemes like the SMART card loyalty program), leading to bitter litigation in the 1990s. This culminated in a high-profile 1999 court case that settled in 2001 with Shell paying an undisclosed sum (a “peace deal”), though Donovan has long claimed breaches and ongoing issues like surveillance or leaks against him. Post-settlement, Donovan shifted to full-time activism:The feud has been called one of the longest one-man campaigns against a major corporation.
Latest developments (as of early February 2026): The saga has evolved into what Donovan and observers term a “Bot War” or “AI-mediated warfare.” Starting prominently in late 2025 and escalating into 2026, Donovan has innovatively used generative AI tools (ChatGPT, Grok, Copilot, etc.) to:Recent examples include:
In short, it’s shifted from traditional lawsuits/websites to an AI-driven persistence campaign, with Donovan leveraging tools to sustain and modernize the narrative into 2026. For the most current details, his main site royaldutchshellplc.com frequently updates with AI experiment results and feud recaps.
Question put to Grok 5 February 2026: What can you tell me about the innovative use of AI by John Donovan in the Donovan Shell feud? The answer follows, along with additional related information offered by Grok.
The long-standing feud between John Donovan and Royal Dutch Shell (now Shell plc) dates back to the 1980s and 1990s, stemming from business disputes over promotional ideas developed by Donovan’s company, Don Marketing. These included concepts like the Shell Smart loyalty card, leading to multiple lawsuits for intellectual property theft, settled out of court. Donovan has since maintained websites like royaldutchshellplc.com as vast archives of Shell-related documents, leaks, and criticisms, covering scandals such as reserves overstatements, environmental issues, and alleged corporate espionage against him (including Shell’s use of firms like Hakluyt for surveillance). This activism has evolved into what Donovan describes as a “bot war” in recent years, particularly escalating in 2025–2026 with innovative AI applications to perpetuate and amplify the conflict.
Please read the following published article and provide a structured analysis and response. Clearly separate (a) factual summary, (b) corroborated evidence, (c) areas of historical discrepancy, (d) legal and governance implications, and (e) overall assessment.
👉 Article:
When Corporate History Is Challenged: Shell, Deterding, and the Record Itself
When Corporate History Is Challenged: Shell, Deterding, and the Record Itself
Key questions:
Factual accuracy:
Based on publicly available historical sources (e.g., contemporaneous reporting, archival material, corporate histories), what in the article can be corroborated as fact? Please cite sources.
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.
By John Donovan & ChatGPT
For decades, Royal Dutch Shell took pride in doing something many corporations avoided: commissioning an honest, academically rigorous, multi-volume corporate history. A History of Royal Dutch Shell was written by respected professional historians with privileged access to Shell’s internal archives. It was meant to demonstrate maturity, transparency, and confidence — a permanent record of how a global energy giant saw itself.
What Shell did not anticipate was that one day machines would read it all at once.
09 November 2025
John Donovan is a long-time critic and activist who has waged a decades-long campaign against Royal Dutch Shell, exposing alleged corporate misconduct and ethical failures.
Here’s a deeper look at his connection to Shell:
John Donovan has long documented and criticised Shell’s nearly century-long presence in Nigeria, focusing on oil spills, environmental damage, human rights abuses, corporate practices, and what he frames as a self-interested exit from onshore operations. His work combines archival documents, leaked internal material, commentary, and news-style posts hosted on sites he runs and manages.
THE WAGES OF SIN: A CHRONICLE OF SHELL’S CASUALTIES AND THE INVESTMENT FUNDS THAT PAY FOR THEMIt is a grand, old-world notion that a corporation can possess a soul, or rather, that the absence of one can be measured by its balance sheet. If that is the case, then Shell is less a corporation and more a meticulously catalogued exhibit in the museum of moral bankruptcy—the ultimate sin stock. Its history is not merely a record of drilling and profit but a chilling, chronological catalogue of calculated risks taken with other people’s lives: its employees, its customers, and the communities unfortunate enough to share a postcode with its extraction sites.
Shell—the greedy, ruthless, polluting oil giant and perennial sin stock—has found a fresh halo to borrow: a $40 billion outsourced pension mandate with Wall Street royalty. As Bloomberg reported, “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. won a $40 billion mandate from Shell Plc to oversee pension assets for the energy company, in one of the biggest outsourced deals of its kind.” That’s not satire; that’s the lede. Bloomberg.
Goldman’s own one-minute victory lap says the quiet bit proudly: “The appointments mark one of the largest multi-national OCIO mandates awarded to date.” GSAM press page.
This is the story of an oil giant who funded Nazis, tested carcinogens on their own employees, and still have the gall to tell you they care about “net zero.”
Shell’s rap sheet starts early: during WWII, Shell effectively sacrificed its own Dutch employees to maintain ties with Nazi Germany, prioritising profits over human lives. Fast-forward a few decades and the playbook hasn’t changed—they’re still perfectly happy to gamble with lives, only now it’s under the glossy cover of corporate social responsibility.
EBOOK TITLE: “SIR HENRI DETERDING AND THE NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON
EBOOK TITLE: “JOHN DONOVAN, SHELL’S NIGHTMARE: MY EPIC FEUD WITH THE UNSCRUPULOUS OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
EBOOK TITLE: “TOXIC FACTS ABOUT SHELL REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HOW SHELL BECAME THE MOST HATED BRAND IN THE WORLD” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
See our link list of over 500 articles by the FT, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Bloomberg, Forbes, Dow Jones Newswires, New York Times, CNBC etc, plus UK House of Commons Select Committee Hansard records, information on U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission website etc. all containing references to our Shell focussed websites, or our website founders Alfred and John Donovan. Includes TV documentary features in English and German, newspaper and magazine articles, radio interviews, newsletters etc. Plus academic papers, Stratfor intelligence reports and UK, U.S. and Australian state/parliamentary publications, also citing our Shell websites. Click on this link to see the entire list, all in date order with a link to an index of over 100 books also containing references to our non-profit websites and/or our activities.
John Donovan, the website owner
This is not a Shell website. The nature of this platform should be evident from the content presented here and on our related Shell-focused websites, including shellnazihistory.com. For more details, please refer to the Disclaimer link at the top of this page. Shell does not endorse or approve of this website.
Our platform operates as a non-commercial, advert-free, and subscription-free space. We do not solicit or accept donations and aim to provide information to our readers free of charge. The Shell logo image with white text used on this website is in the public domain due to expired copyright and anonymous authorship. It can be found on WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. Use this link for Shell’s own website.
Our content, including images and features like the Sheldon chatbot, incorporates information generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and various other technological means. We may also draw from sources such as Wikipedia and other published materials. Please note that some content may include satirical adaptations or elements of gossip, rumors, or exaggeration to engage and entertain our audience.
We strive to maintain factual accuracy and encourage readers to notify us promptly if any factual inaccuracies are found, so we can address and rectify them swiftly. Readers are advised to verify all information independently for accuracy and completeness. Any actions taken based on the content provided on our platform are at your own risk.
