Misallocated Infamy
For the past 67 years America has commemorated over 2,400 sailors, soldiers and airmen who were killed in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Every such anniversary reminds us that all history is to some extent contemporary history: Almost seven decades after the event, the myth of FDR’s goodness and greatness—revived for current political purposes during and after this year’s election campaign—makes it less “appropriate” than ever to ask if he knew about the attack; and, more importantly, whether he willed it. This date “will live in infamy,” for a few more decades at least, until it succumbs to this country’s collective amnesia. We may be running out of time for its infamy to be allocated more equitably.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was eager to enter the war in Europe. He wanted this strongly following the fall of France (June 1940)—when he came to believe that without American intervention the Nazis would conquer the Old Continent—and desperately after Germany attacked the Soviet Union a year later. In this desire he was supported by the old East Coast elite which was traditionally Anglophile, by the increasingly influential Jewish lobby, and—after June 22, 1941—by Moscow’s sympathizers within his entourage and in the country at large.
After meeting the President at the Atlantic Conference (August 14, 1941) Churchill noted the “astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war.” But there was a problem: FDR could not overcome the isolationist resistance to “Europe’s war” felt by most Americans and their elected representatives. The mood of the country was anti-war and, according to the revisionists’ key claim, Roosevelt therefore provoked the Japanese into attacking the United States – while his real target was Hitler. It is further claimed that, even though Roosevelt was aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, he let it happen, and was relieved when it did happen.
The evidence on FDR maneuvering Japan into war, available for decades, was semi-definitively presented in Robert Stinnett’s “Day of Deceit” (1999). The evidence of his foreknowledge of the attack itself appears equally convincing in three respects: denial of intelligence to the Navy; misleading its commanders, in the final two weeks before the attack, into thinking negotiations with Japan were continuing; and keeping them misinformed about the location of the Japanese carrier fleet.
Chronologically the important elements of the scenario proceeded as follows:
On September 27, 1940, the Tripartite Pact – the mutual assistance treaty between Germany, Italy, and Japan—was signed in Berlin. It implied the possibility that Germany would declare war on America if America were to get into war with Japan, which greatly impacted FDR’s policy towards Japan from that moment on.
On October 7, 1940, only a week after the signing of the Tripartite Pact, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, a U.S. Naval officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), suggested a strategy for provoking Japan into attacking the U.S., triggering the mutual assistance provisions of the Tripartite Pact, and bringing America into World War II. Summarized in McCollum’s memo the ONI proposal called for height specific steps aimed at provoking Japan. Its centerpiece was keeping the might of the U.S. Fleet based in Hawaii as a lure for a Japanese attack, and imposing an American oil embargo against Japan. “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better,” the memo concluded.
Also in October 1940, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, Admiral J.O. Richardson, protested President Roosevelt’s decision to move the fleet from the protected waters of the West Coast to the vulnerable base at Hawaii. Richardson was relieved of his command four months after his meeting with FDR and was replaced by Rear Admiral Kimmel.
On 23 June 1941—one day after Hitler’s attack on Russia—Secretary of the Interior and FDR’s advisor Harold Ickes wrote a memo for the President in which he pointed out that
there might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into this war in an effective way. And if we should thus indirectly be brought in, we would avoid the criticism that we had gone in as an ally of communistic Russia.
On July 22, Admiral Richmond Turner stated in a report,
It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of petroleum will lead promptly to the invasion of Netherland East Indies… [I]t seems certain [Japan] would also include military action against the Philippine Islands, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war.
On July 24 Roosevelt told the Volunteer Participation Committee, “If we had cut off the oil, they probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had war.”
On July 25 Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the United States and imposed an oil embargo. From that moment on Japan faced an existential threat from the United States, a threat that could not be averted by peaceful means short of abdicating its status as a great power and visibly losing face – an utter impossibility.
On 24 September 1941 Washington deciphered a message from the Naval Intelligence Headquarters in Tokyo to Japan’s consul-general in Honolulu, requesting grid of exact locations of U.S. Navy ships in the harbor. Commanders in Hawaii were not warned. U.S. naval intelligence had cracked the Japanese naval codes one year earlier, enabling FDR to receive translations of all key messages.
On 18 October Harold Ickes noted in his diary: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.” Yet Japan had to be made to fire first: on October 22 opinion polls revealed that 74 percent of Americans opposed war with Japan, and only 13 percent supported it.
On November 25, 1941, Secretary of War Stimson wrote in his diary that FDR said an attack was likely within days, and wondered “how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves”:
In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who were the aggressors.
On November 26 Secretary of State Hull issued a provocatively worded note – an ultimatum, really – demanding the complete withdrawal of all Japanese troops not only from French Indochina but also from China. According to the Army Investigating Board’s Pearl Harbor report (1945), U.S. Ambassador to Japan Grew called this “The document that touched the button that started the war.” The Japanese reacted on cue: On December 1, final authorization was given by the emperor, after a majority of Japanese leaders advised him the Hull Note would “destroy the fruits of the China incident, endanger Manchukuo and undermine Japanese control of Korea.”
Also on November 26 Washington ordered both US aircraft carriers, the Enterprise and the Lexington, out of Pearl Harbor "as soon as possible." This order entailed stripping Pearl Harbo of 50 planes, or 40 percent of its already inadequate fighter protection. On the same day Cordell Hull issued his ultimatum demanding full Japanese withdrawal from Indochina and all China.
On December 1, Office of Naval Intelligence, ONI, 12th Naval District in San Francisco found the Japanese fleet by correlating reports from the four wireless news services and several shipping companies that they were getting signals west of Hawaii. As we now know, the ships of the Japanese carrier fleet engaged in daily radio communication with the high command in Japan, military commands in the Central Pacific, and with each other—as Robert Stinnett conclusively established by reading U.S. naval intelligence radio intercepts of the Japanese transmissions. U.S. Navy did not “lose” the carriers.
On 5 December FDR wrote to the Australian Prime Minister that “the next four or five days will decide the matters” with Japan. Later that same day, at a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox said, “Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?” “Yes, I know … Well, you tell them what it is Frank,” replied Roosevelt. Just as Knox was about to speak Roosevelt appeared to have second thoughts and interrupted him, saying: “We haven’t got anything like perfect information as to their apparent destination.” (Toland, p. 294).”
On 6 December 1941 at a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, “This means war!” he said to Harry Hopkins, but did not interrupt the soiree.
No less revealing is Roosevelt’s behavior on the day of the attack itself and in its aftermath.
Harry Hopkins, who was alone with FDR when he received the news, wrote that the President was unsurprised and expressed “great relief.” Later in the afternoon Hopkins wrote that the war cabinet conference “met in not too tense an atmosphere because I think that all of us believed that in the last analysis the enemy was Hitler... and that Japan had given us an opportunity.”
That same evening FDR said to his cabinet, “We have reason to believe that the Germans have told the Japanese that if Japan declares war, they will too. In other words, a declaration of war by Japan automatically brings...”—at which point he was interrupted, but his expectations were perfectly clear.
CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow met Roosevelt at midnight and was surprised at FDR's calm reaction. The following morning Roosevelt stressed to his speechwriter Rosenman that "Hitler was still the first target, but he feared that a great many Americans would insist that we make the war in the Pacific at least equally important with the war against Hitler.” Jonathan Daniels, administrative assistant and press secretary to FDR, later said “the blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily be... But the risks paid off; even the loss was worth the price.”
Roosevelt confirmed this to Stalin at Tehran on November 30, 1943, by saying that "if the Japanese had not attacked the US he doubted very much if it would have been possible to send any American forces to Europe."
Historian John Toland concluded in his book Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath,
Was it possible to imagine a President who remarked, ‘This means war,’ after reading the [thirteen-part 6 December] message, not instantly summoning to the White House his Army and Navy commanders as well as his Secretaries of War and Navy? ... Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President. All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor. The comedy of errors on the sixth and seventh appears incredible. It only makes sense if it was a charade, and Roosevelt and the inner circle had known about the attack.
Churchill later wrote that FDR and his top advisors “knew the full and immediate purpose of their enemy”:
A Japanese attack upon the U.S. was a vast simplification of their problems and their duty. How can we wonder that they regarded the actual form of the attack, or even its scale, as incomparably less important than the fact that the whole American nation would be united?
The real target, Adolf Hitler, declared war on the United States on December 10, 1941, thus ensuring Germany's defeat. The rest, as they say, is history.
The late Murray Rothbard is said to have often argued that, far from being evidence of a “paranoid” strain in the American mind, belief in conspiracies as a factor in American history was usually not taken far enough. The truth behind most conspiracies, he alleged, was far more heinous and diabolical than even the most diehard conspiracy theorist suspected. The events leading up to the Day of Infamy in 1941 prove him right, no less than those preceding U.S. wars against Mexico, the Confederacy, Spain (1898), Serbia (1999), or Iraq (2003). In all of those cases diplomacy did not “fail” because it was not used to avert war, but to make certain its coming.
Entries(RSS)
Thank you, Dr. Trifkovic, for a much needed retelling of the story behind the story. We need this reminder every year.
Thought provoking as usual.
The real kicker was when Bulgaria declared war on the US.
It still takes courage to take this stand and I congratulate you for same. I think it appropriate to mention the extraordinary integrity of the late Charles Beard,the founding historian of a simple honest critical study of Roosevelt's foreign policy (I can't bring myself to call the truth revisionism). Beard's "President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War,1941" and "American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932-1940" are Rosetta stones created contemporaneous to the deeds. Prior to writing those books, Beard(with some collaboration from Mary Beard) was a popular, respected, admired by both academia and the public. He bravely tossed all that acclaim aside to expose Roosevelt and he suffered grave damage to his reputation, livelihood and friendships until his death in 1948. Beard's economic histories,e.g. his interpretation of the Constitution have had a deserved revival since his death. Even an opponent of his theories like Forrest McDonald has acknowledged Beard's profound importance as an American historian. But look for his work on Roosevelt? Not part of most curriculums and often "unavailable".
The Jewish lobby back then was about as exaggerated and impotent as it is now. If it was truly powerful, then the US would have bombed the railroad tracks, instead of exploiting concentration camp slave labor:
http://www.amazon.com/Splendid-Blond-Beast-Genocide-Twentieth/dp/1567510620/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228660820&sr=1-1
It is also well documented that the Jewish lackeys of FDR, like Weiss and Goldmann, were obedient lapdogs of the US State Dept and helped to sabotage the movement of Bergson and Jabotinsky. It is also well documented that the US State Dept dragged their feet when it came to granting visas, facilitating the deaths of many thousands.
If the wealthiest and most powerful Americans are getting rich off of Jewish slave labor, is it more likely that a) there exists a really powerful Jewish lobby or b) they are likely to divert attention from their graft by claiming that there is a very powerful Jewish lobby.
I'd say 'b'. If Jews played any role in the US involvement in WWII, then great -- at least the US made some attempt at supporting what is right, as opposed to today, where the US creates ethnically clean Islamist states.
There are groups that work on behalf of Jews -- but the US government has always done about 100x as many 'anti Jewish' things that don't make page A1 on the NYT. Not unlike if the US had a decent sized Serb lobby, supported by the American people. The NYT would whine and moan non-stop about the all mighty Serb lobby -- while ignoring the government's anti-Serb policy. Why? Because the NYT is the same government controlled agitprop it has always been.
@Srdja
You forgot to mention 9/11 the ultimate inside job as well as the latest Georgian assault 2008 (almost) and probably Mumbai.
Interesting note that Orson Welles the War of the Worlds broadcast was commissioned by the Rockefeller foundation as an experiment in mass panic and fear before WW2 coincidence?
I invite everyone to analyze the current economic revolution and ask cui bono? Certainly, not the average American citizen.
However, who benefits from the impoverishment and marginalization of the middle class Americans? Who benefits from the muzzling of the mid-western and southern men and women of gumption?
Virtually every American war and crisis was for the benefit of an elite class. This one is no different other than the fact that our current elites are true transnationals.
Our government is a lying deceiving machine. We need to try our best to find out the truth and then to live our lives based on truth. Nothing else is going to work. Thank you for reminding us about the truth of Dec. 7th Dr. Trifkovic, and thank you Chronicles.
An excellent summary of the immediate events that brought the U.S. into World War II.
Regarding Hull's delivery of the Nov 26 "ultimatum", it is interesting to note that the feeling within the White House and at State prior to the 26th was to grant a "modus vivendi" with the Japanese for ninety days. This was not for the purpose of establishing grounds for a restoration of peaceful relationships, but to acquiesce to General Marshall's and Admiral Stark's insistence that more time was needed to beef up the forces in the Philippines. On November 25, Hull presented the draft of his "modus vivendi" to Stimson and Knox and they approved it. However, Chiang Kai-shek complained against any truce with Japan, because it would leave China in the lurch. George Morgenstern, an editor at the Chicago Tribune, assigns responsibility for China's outburst to Winston Churchill. Later, in the evening of the 25th, Churchill had sent a telegram to Roosevelt in which he wrote, "There is only one point that disquiets us. What about Chiang Kai-shek? Is he not having a very thin diet?" This, plus a report from U.S. Military Intelligence, that a Japanese convoy was heading south from Shanghai, caused Roosevelt to change his mind. Hull, who was tired of carrying on negotiations with the Japanese; then he presented on the 26th a 10 point ultimatum instead of the "modus vivendi". So, again, the Brits had great influence on our foreign policy at this time. The pressure they were putting on Roosevelt was because their own chestnuts were in the fire. They wanted immediate American involvement to rescue them.
By the way, the Minority Report of the Joint Congressional Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack asserted that the "defense of Hawaii rested upon two sets of interdependent responsibilities; (1) The responsibility in Washington in respect of its ultimate knowledge of diplomatic negotiations, widespread intelligence information, direction of affairs and constitutional duty to plan a defense of the United States; (2) the responsibility cast upon the commanders in the field in charge of a major naval baswe and dthe fleet essential to the defense of the territory of the United States to do those things appropriate to the defense of the fleet and outpost. Washington authorities failed in (1) and the commanding officers at Hawaii failed in (2)." However, the failure of (2) was dependent upon intelligence (which was withheld) from Washington. Hawaii was no longer in the loop. The few pertinent communications received from Washington were either ambiguous or tended to focus America's immediate defense in the western Pacific. The Minority Report also charged that "the President of the United States failed to take that quick and instant executive action which was required by the occasion and by the responsibility for watchfulness and guardianship rightly associated in law and practice with his high office from the establishment ofthe Republic to our own times."
Dr. Trifkovic,
You have given to us, from my experience, the most succinct summary of the events which took us into a World War II. Thank you.
I think Slim makes some good points.I don't know,however, how we would quantify how much money,if any,Americans were knowingly making off (mostly non-Jewish)"slave labor" and how to assess moral responsibility to "wealthy" Americans for same.Moral divestment arguments go on today about China,Israel,etc. and answers are seldom obvious.I'd hope you'd agree that the Jews have had on balance no better friends than the Americans.But I will second you on this---Roosevelt,his wife and many of his associates were anti-Semites.
Leo,
I believe Simpson's book documents that 26 of the largest 100 companies used slave labor, often knowingly. The most powerful US elites, the Dulles brothers, were entirely treasonous, corrupt, and in bed with both the Germans and Saudis.
I don't know a lot about China, but Israel has done nothing to warrant divestment.
The bottom line is that the pirates and pillagers of WWII, which include the US ruling elites, various other ruling elites and the Vatican have spent the past 65 years trying to cover up their sins by demonizing the victims of WWII.
Just as I know that Serbs are not the new nazis, neither are the Jews. The old nazis control the mass media--and lie and say that Serbs and Jews are the new nazis.
The average American is a great friend of the Jews. The US ruling elites are rabid big-lie antisemites, who steal land given to Israel in the 1920s, cleanse it of Jews, and then tell everyone that this is 'pro Israel' policy.
I'd say that the ruling elites of many other countries are better friends of the Jews, for they are not maniacally obsessed with creating cleansed Islamist states. This is a US-Saudi obsession.
It can't be argued that FDR wanted us in a shooting war and thought a war with Japan was the effective way to do it.
I have a hard time believing he supported a surprise attack. It would have made no difference in our getting into the war. Had the PH commanders been aware of the attack they could have been prepared and defeated it.
@13, pablo H, you said, "It can’t be argued that FDR wanted us in a shooting war and thought a war with Japan was the effective way to do it."
Roosevelt had us in a shooting war several months before Pearl Harbor. He was trying desperately to provoke Hitler into declaring war against the U.S. In the Atlantic, Roosevelt had been supervising various actions to assist the British convoys. It began in October 1939, with the Panama Conference which announced the establishment of a neutrality zone around the America's south of Canada (the idea being to nullify the German blockade zones). It varied in width from 300 to 1000 miles. One of the sections of the secret ABC-1 Staff Agreements (Mar. 27, 1941) was aimed at creating an incident that would "force the United Staates into the war." The practical result of this aim was that the U.S. Navy's principal task in the Atlantic was to be the protection of shipping of the Associated Powers. What that spelled was escorting British convoys. In other words, putting American warships in harms way. So, it is no surprise that several naval incidents occurred between the U.S. Navy and the German U-Boats. The first was in April 1941, between the U.S.S. Niblack and an unidentified German sub. It was during this period that Greenland was occupied by U.S. Also, Hitler had given orders to all U-Boat commanders not to fire on U.S. Navy warships or merchant vessels, unless fired on first. The next incident at sea was in May 1941 with the sinking of the American merchantman Robin Moor by a German sub. It occurred outside the German blockade zone. It is evident that the German captain had ignored Hitler's orders. The next occurred in Sept. 1941 between the destroyer Greer and an unidentified U-Boat in which torpedoes and depth charges were exchanged with no damage to either. However, the initiative had been taken by the Greer. On October 16, 1941 the destroyer Kearney, one of five rushed from Reykjavik, Iceland, to help a convoy being attacked by submarines, was struck by a torpedo and made its way back to Iceland. It had moved deliberately in the center of the combat between
British/Canadian warships and German submarines when it suffered the consequences. Of course, to arouse the American people, who were near totally against any involvement in the war in Europe, Roosevelt twisted the facts by saying that he had wished to avoid shooting, but that America had been attacked (in reference to the Kearney). But, don't forget, whose policy was it to put the Navy in harms way? The last incident was the sinking of the U.S. destroyer Reuben James on the last day of October 1941, while escorting a convoy to Iceland. It was struck by a torpedo and rapidly sank.
So you see, we were already shooting, but Hitler didn't bite. Inducing Japan to make a major attack first (without seeming provocation), was the only other alternative to arouse the American people in order for a Constitutional declaration of war.
Don't forget the nomination of Wendell Willkie, "internationalist," by the GOP in 1940. This meant there was no anti-interventionisr candidate. In his fictionalized account, Gore Vidal describes this as a carefully orchestrated political coup.
@14, Grumpy Old Man, Excellent point. So, no matter who won the 1940 election, the British and their American sympathizers at least had a man who would cooperate with their interventionist program. What is more ironic, is that the political history of Willkie lies more with the Democratic Party than with the Republicans.
Dr. Trifkovic:
I congratulate you to this article. This is how history should be written and taught!
It seems that major powers have always looked for some excuse to enter the war. In fact they would set the stage and wait for the most convenient moment to strike and then blame some small country for the carnage that occurs.
Big wars took place when economies of those big powers were in bad shape.
The US economy couldn’t be in any worse shape than it is today. Where does it lead us?
Although I am no admirer of Franklin Roosevelt, I recognize the dilemma even an honest statesman would have had in dealing with the aggressive Japanese imperialists of 1941. Japan had attacked its neighbors and subjected their populations to hideous atrocities using resources supplied by the USA and others. An attempt to restrict such supply was considered a casus belli by the Japanese. Ought one to continue to fuel an aggressive war machine or practice a cynical Realpolitik and look the other way? I do not believe there is an easy answer to that question. Perhaps an honest, peace-loving diplomacy could have found a third way.
#16 Boba: "The US economy couldn’t be in any worse shape than it is today." -- Please don't say that! Far worse is yet to come...
#17 Theodore Van Oosbree: Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe did try to negotiate, by all accounts in good faith, and he was prepared to grant significant concessions (inc. timetable for exiting China) at considerable risk to himself. In this endeavor he was quietly supported by the Emperor, initially at least. Roosevelt and Hull never intended to negotiate, however -- certainly not after Barbarossa got rolling. Humiliated, Konoe was replaced by Tojo in October. Even then he remained unaware that Japan was but a stepping stone: necessary collateral damage on FDR's road to Berlin.
Theodore van OOsbree
No. 17
Excellent point. Years ago, in a graduate seminar on U.S. diplomacy, our teacher (who has since become a good friend) used to charge us to think about "what is the task of statesmanship" in any situation. I had argued at the time that regardless of what that task was, it could not justify an essentially constitutionally usurpative action to get this country into the war. As you suggest, given the anti war sentiment in the US, the restrictive, storm cellar neutrality legislation passed in the thirties, what would a "statesman" do, believing full well that the US would be dragged into the war?
FDR was an attractive scoundrel, but in this case, one has to ask, constitutional questions aside, what he should he have done.
Srdja,
Great piece. I was hoping, on this the very day of the attack sixty seven years ago, that you would revisit the subject. I recall with great admiration the exchanges on the topic a few years ago on another anniversary of the event.
By the way the film Tora, Tora, Tora, was a remarkably accurate depiction of the events in Washington as we now know. Even the neat little detail that the intelligence people had deleted presidential access to secret material because of FDR's apparent carelessness.
Some deny, incidentally, that the Tripartite Pact mandated Germany to join Japan in any war against the US. You had indicated a detail in your earlier article that, was it Kurusu, had gotten assurances from Ribbentrop in a visit in late November, '41 that Germany would join with Japan against the US. One supposes Kurusu would have relayed that information immediately to Japan, even before his return. And one also expects US signal intelligence would have intercepted that message and passed it to FDR. So FDR would have assurance a Japanese attack on the US would get us into the "main event."
(Stinnett provides superb detail on US signal intelligence---we knew nearly everything the Japanese were doing!)
Finally, one can conclude that FDR most certainly knew of the attack well in advance of December 7. Perhaps more important, we may conclude that he did everything possible to provoke the Japanese. McCAllum's eight points cannot have come about on his own initiative. Bet someday, when I am long in eternity, the archives will reveal that FDR directed McCAllum to draw up the eight points. Also, recall FDR's program of provocation: cruisers and other combat vessels"popping up" in Japanese territorial waters."
This says nothing of the provocations against Germany from about 1940 on. It's amazing Hitler did not in a rage, considering lend lease, the destroyers/bases deal, combat escort ships of lend lease material, etc. FDR was conducting a neat little cabinet war, a la a divine right king.
Leo, No. 3:
Henry Regnery has three wonderful chapters in his book, A few Reasonable Words, on the revisionists: Beard, C.C. Tansill, George Crocker, and others. Worth reading as it gives some indication of what these scholars were up against in calling FDR's actions in connection with our getting into the war in question. FDR was still then the great war leader, the solver the Depression, etc. I agree that "revisionist" is a malapropism for people who write the truth.
I tell this basic story to my high school students every year. In a strange turn of events, they are so lacking in exposure to history that I often find I don't even have to combat the iconic status of FDR that permeates my own generation. My students basically think he was weird, anyway. My teaching colleagues, however, repeatedly get their feelings hurt (usually more related to my follow up commentary on JFK).
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
@19Srdja Trifkovic
#16 Boba: “The US economy couldn’t be in any worse shape than it is today.” — Please don’t say that! Far worse is yet to come…
I think Bush is trying to screw up the country so much for Obama so when he screws up the country worse than Bush he won't look so bad.
I guess we can look forward to the NAU and the Amero during Obama's term and at least 1 war that seems to be a standard during presidencial terms.
The best book on the subject is "The Roosevelt Myth" by John T. Flynn. It was re-published a couple of years ago, but I'm hanging on to my autographed galley proof. December 7 is the anniversary of my discharge from the armed forces, the navy specifically, and the destroyer fleet in particular.
The Japs would not have bombed Pearl Harbor had the US not put an embargo on Japan for occupying Manchuria. If only they had waited, they could have bought Hawaii, oh that's right they did anyway.
FDR wanted us in the war, to be sure. But the folks who wanted it even more were the damned Brits, who worked unceasingly behind the scenes to grease the skids for our entry, just as they had done in the first world war.
For an in depth description of British Intelligence operations in the United States to neutralize "isolationism" in Congress and in the hearts and minds of Americans, and to persuade Americans of the "justice" of the British cause against Germany and to come to their aid, see Thomas E Mahl's, Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44. It was all despicable and irresponsible, but you would be surprised at the persons, institutions, and businesses that joined in the British crusade, especially, in their efforts to destroy the reputation of the America First Committe, the anti-interventionist organization whom FDR hated.
A great piece from Mr. Trifkovic, as usual.
It is said everything about life you need to to know is in "The Godfather." To wit, the exchange in the flashback at the end of No. 2:
Sonny: What do ya think of the nerve of them Japs ... droppin' bombs on our own backyard on Pop's birthday here?
Fredo: They didn't know it was Pop's birthday...
Tom: We should have expected it after the oil embargo.
The U.S.' freezing of Japanese assets and oil embargo were acts of war.
There was also a debate, as I recall, over sinking some of our ships and blaming it on the Germans.
Once upon a time I rejected all talk of conspiracies out of hand. That was naive of me, I now believe. I think FDR did conspire to get us into World War II. For some reason, though, I'm more appalled by the conspiracies of corporations (the movie "Michael Clayton" rings completely true to me) than by that of foreign policy elites. I'm not sure why I think so. Possibly more naivete on my part.
J. Meng @ 26
It should also be noted that there was a "racial loyalty" aspect to the cooperation between many Americans and British Intelligence. Citizens of Anglo-Saxon descent felt more loyalty to Anglo-Saxondom than they did to the political interests of the United States.
It didn't help that two of the most prominent public opponents of American intervention were the aviator Charles Lindbergh and the poet George Viereck, of Scandinavian and German heritage, respectively. After Pearl Harbor, the canaille Roosevelt couldn't do anything against Lindbergh, whose fame and prestige were too great. But he did go after Viereck, sending him to jail on totally trumped-up charges. Viereck was brutalized in prison, his son was killed at Anzio, and his wife went insane with grief.
On this "racial loyalty" thing: The America First isolationist movement was weakest in the one part of the country where whites were most conscious of being Anglo-Saxon: The South. It seems that white southerners (next to British diplomats) were the ones most anxious to get us into the war.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
@29, Joseph Salemi, yes, what you say is true, there was the racial loyalty thing. Concerning Lindbergh: after PH, he volunteered for service, but Roosevelt rejected him, because he hated him for his work agaisnt intervention, and he went to work for Ford. I forgot what fighter plane they manufactured, but Lindbergh was sent out to the Pacific in 1944 to inspect their performance and as a result saw combat. I think he is credited with downing one Japanese Zero. I found this info in a bio of Lindbergh by Wayne S. Cole.
"On this “racial loyalty” thing: The America First isolationist movement was weakest in the one part of the country where whites were most conscious of being Anglo-Saxon: The South. It seems that white southerners (next to British diplomats) were the ones most anxious to get us into the war."
I am going to have to dispute this and ask for a source. While Southerners have been hoodwinked into supporting wars, they are rarely the driving force behind them.
I would also argue that the most 'conscious' area of Anglo-Saxonism was then New England. Perfect example - HP Lovecraft. Terrific horror writer, but his writings are littered with some rather juvenile racism. Although he died several years before the war, he also wrote upon how wonderful 'mother' England is (and yes he used the mother term). He is just one example, but there are many more. I am unaware of a Southern counterpart. Perhaps our own Dr. Clyde Wilson could chime in on this topic?
Yes, Lindbergh did serve briefly as a fighter pilot. If you read his diaries, you will see that he was appalled at the slaughter of World War II in both the European and Pacific theaters. He asked what kind of a country we had become when we could bulldoze hundreds of dead Japanese soldiers into mass graves, and think nothing of it. And he agonized over the genetic hemorrhage of Western identity that the war had made possible.
I remember when these diaries came out in the early 1960s. The scum at the New York Times had an apoplectic fit, and devoted an editorial to attacking Lindbergh all over again. Imagine -- an editorial attacking a book that had already been reviewed in the literary section! The left never forgets.
Daniel Maxwell @ 31
I did a study of the America First movement over twenty-five years ago, purely for my own information. In the course of my research I came across a table indicating the level of support (in terms of actual membership and donations) that AF received from around the country. The lowest level of this support was recorded in the South (i.e. the former Confederacy). The text of the article went on to say that there was real hostility to AF and AF organizers in the South, of the sort that existed against abolitionists in the antebellum period.
After a quarter of a century I no longer recall the book or article in which this table appeared. But I assure you that I am telling the truth. I remember it well, because it struck me as strange and jarring. I said to myself "If the South is so racist, why would the South want a war against Nazi Germany, a nation that explicitly defends white supremacy?"
I still can't answer that question.
@31, Daniel Maxwell; and @33 Joseph Salemi,
Yes, Thomas Mahl (above) cites the work of sociologist C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, wherein he identifies the American Anglophiles. He wrote that America was controlled by wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestant elites, who were primarily concentrated in the Northeast, but that enough of them were scattered across the country, including the South, to show a broad front. This East Coast establishment not only shared England's political ideals but literally loved England and English culture. However, according to historian, Dr. David Gordon, during the period of America First Committee's activities to keep the U.S. out of war, "Interventionist sentiment was strongest in the traditionally conservative South and Soutwest." One source mentions that some Southerners remembered that England had honored Confederate ship-building contracts. Southern antipathy was so great for the AFC and so completely in favor of support for Britain, that AFC's first Southern sympathizers were intimidated into silence. The only Southern state where the AFC had some success was in Florida. By the way, the strength of the AFC was primarily in the Midwest, where farmers remembered Britain's role in financing the railroads that bled them dry. I culled out a few sources if either of you want to check it out on your own: America First by Wayne S. Cole; Should America Go to War? by James C. Schneider; and Isolationism in America by Manfred Jonas, besides The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills.
So, it would seem that in 1940 white southerners were more loyal to being Anglo-Saxon than they were to being white.
Slim: You are one hundred percent correct.
1389,
Thanks. I've seen your blog and I'm a big supporter of Serb/Jewish unity.
Unfortunately, for every Gil-White/Quigley/Jared Israel that stands up for what is right, there are a thousand times as many Raimondos, Hermans, PCRs, little green footballs that take the "I hate the jihadists when they attack the Jews--but love them when they are attacking Serbs!" (and vice versa).
We must keep up the good fight, and spread the unfortunate truth, that US leaders are in bed with the Saudis just as they've always been.
The Anglo Saxon elites have been replaced by Jewish elites.
@37slim
Raimando and his website antiwar.com supported the Serbs during the 90's when the left was supporting the poor oppressed Muslims and calling for humanitarian intervention (there’s also another place they have been calling for that as well even using Kosovo as a model in the EU and the US).
John Pilger is a good example although now he has changed his tune with regards to Kosovo.
I have a book of his were he makes the typical leftists claim that Muslims have branded terrorists but in reality they are the victims of terror in Bosnia, Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, etc. Blah, Blah, Blah.
The phoney fake right are not much better like Little John here in the UK who wrights for Murdoch’s The Sun and in the US Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
@39 George,
I admire Raimondo's (and Herman's) stance regarding Serbia.
Neither can fully explain why they reject Bosnian nazis in Yugoslavia--but then support them in full after they've moved to 'palestine'. I actually exchanged emails with Herman on it, and he could not explain his stance.
And make no mistake, it is documented fact that the ME jihad of 1948 consisted not only of Arab and German nazis (both assisted by the British), but also of relocated Bosnian nazis, some of whom remained there and now count themselves as part of the 'poor oppressed indigenous' people.
Basically, there is NO western media which tells the truth regarding kosovo, nor any western media which describes the nazi origins and nazi ideology of al fatah, hamas, or the kla.
Rush, Oreilly, etc are no help. There are few to no news sources that will tell people that the biggest problem is that the US government is sponsoring these WWII loser movements.
Joseph Salemi @33
White Supremacy was assumed in the pre-WW2 South. When FDR refused to even support an anti-lynching bill what would possibly cause the South to seek a friend in NS Germany. Southerners probably saw Nazis as trouble-making radicals similar to Communists.
Also, Hitler was primarily a German nationalist and an anti-Semite. He didn't have the same set of enemies(whether real or imagined) as white Southerners. I even doubt whether whatever contempt he had for non-whites was much different from the average Western leader of the time. Such propaganda stories as his alleged snubbing of Jesse Owens have been thoroughly debunked. And his main wartime allies were the non-white Japanese, with the Japanese Ambassador, Baron Oshima,arguably his closest wartime confidant. Allied cryptographic people were very pleased that Hitler seemed to discuss almost everything of consequence with Oshima and Oshima sent the details to Japan using the compromised Purple code.
icr @ 41
What you say in your first paragraph is very interesting. In the South (any everywhere else in the world of 1940) white supremacy was so total and established and taken for granted that it never even occurred to anyone that the situation might change.
And no one dreamt that the mere fact of World War II would pull the plug on that condition forever.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024316.html
The LRC Blog
December 08, 2008
Infamy Indeed
Posted by Mike Tennant at December 8, 2008 01:00 PM
As a companion piece to Bob Higgs's blog on Pearl Harbor Day, you can't do much better than this one by Srdja Trifkovic, who goes into the detail that Higgs did not have room to describe in his blog. It's pretty devastating when laid out in a timeline this way. Oh, yes. He also cites Rothbard approvingly, linking to Scott Trask's review of Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit here at LRC.
icr
Numerous accounts show that the Germans of 1936 were favorible towards Owens.
What developed against the Jews was related in part to their small but noticeable enough numbers in Europe - combined with the perception of a comparatively higher Jewish standard of living - among people of a non-Christian religious denomination.
In relation to all this, I understand that per capita wise, the Roma suffered a greater fate during WW II.
IMO, a good number of present day WASP Southerners impress as having a strong regional pride, blended in with a good sense of American patriotism.
George & Joseph
In the post-Cold War world, the left/right divide has become even more complex. A faction of the left and right can agree on some issues against another faction of the left and right.
Alexander Cockburn recently had a piece in the American Conservative. Paul Craig Roberts frequently appears in Counterpunch, as well as in Chronicles and Antiwar.com.
These points relate to my eclectic preference of seeing things in a way that often overrides left versus right perceptions.
I'm sometimes facinated with the inner differences among the left. The same holds true with the right.
@44 Michael
... combined with the perception of a comparatively higher Jewish standard of living ...
That standard of living in Romania, and probably other Central European nations, came at the expense of massive stock swindles in which families lost everything. Couple that with the hosts being called "cattle" by the crooks caused a lot of bad blood. The concentration camps did not happen in a vacuum, there was a root cause, which seemed to be justice.
Etienne
I'm also aware of the Anna Paulkers after WW II.
Likewise, with how some started to be perceived as they migrated to (what's now clearly known as) Ukraine during an earlier period of Polish rule.
The murder of the Tsar and his family was gruesome. Ditto what happened to some others deemed as coming from a certain class.
The point being that things shouldn't be taken to a level along the lines of the concentration camps.
All this is said by someone who isn't a big fan of collective guilt syndrome. What Serbs face in some circles is BS.
I'd a discussion with someone on why Russians don't hate Germans as much as this person thought and vice versa. I told him that I think many of them have a self historicated understanding, which seems comparatively lacking among others.
One must choose their words carefully when discussing this and other matters. The hacks are lurking to defame what they don't like.
@46Michael Averko
Europeans and Americans hate Russians.
They seem to have a superiority complex especially here in Britain like a colonel power over an African colony.
I have also notice what psychoanalysis Carl Jung calls projection where Europeans and Americans projecting there own negative thoughts on Russians and attributing to what Russians think about Europeans and Americans.
After this latest Georgia stunt I hope they begin to realise this.
@46 Michael
The hacks can go and stuff themselves.
From what I understand, the bitter fruit of communism resulted in a lowered birth rate. Some local mayors in small-town Russia are faced with empty houses in their localities. They are offering free housing to couples who promise to bear three children, AND NOT CONSUME ALCOHOL! I have not done any follow-upon these projects, but they show that Russia might just be a happening place to live in the next few years.
I once saw a photo of a Russian WWII graveyard and saw several graves bearing german names. It was odd seeing a Schultz killed by the invading Hun. I don't believe the modern German has any grievance against Medvedev's Russia, they need the fuel supplies. Poland's location between them probably doesn't matter either. The problem lies in the bowels of Foggy Bottom.
Is the Anna Paulker you're referring to the fluoridated water website?
Etienne
Upon a quick web search, I see her name mentioned with the referenced water issue. It must be the same Anna ("Red Anna"), as per the note at the search results, that she's a Romanian Communist.
Over the course of time, ethnic Germans found their way to Russia. A number of them were recruited for the skills they offered.
George
Russians are "Europeans." If one wants to say "Eurasian," keep in mind the ethnic and linguistic background of some others (include Hungarians and Finns).
In international sports competitions, Russia competes in European tournaments.
At times, a number of folks seem to display pious attitude towards Russians.
@49Michael Averko
They only consider the western hemisphere of Russia Moscow and St Petersburg European.
As a whole they consider Russians a half breed half Mongolian and half white.
The recent Georgia conflict is a good example everyone knows Georgia started it yet when you read comments on YouTube even Peter Lavelles comment section on Russia Today its “KGB propaganda” or “F Russia” or they change the subject on go on to something else on the attack mode.
The majority of online and mainstream commentators and pundits took the pro-Georgian line bar a handful of exceptions like Srdja Trifkovic here at Chronicles.
Brussels Journal slandered Russia Today and other Russia media outlets for having a different take on the conflict.
Like the pro-Georgian perspective was the only viewpoint.
And also after Litvenchko Plutonium smuggling/poison fiasco Universities in London and the US voted in a campus debate if Russia is an enemy and the majority voted yes so it is official Europe and the US see Russia as an enemy.