WikiLeaks, 1941
Over two thousand four hundred American sailors, soldiers and airmen were killed in Pearl Harbor 69 years ago today. Had we had an equivalent of WikiLeaks back in 1941, however, the course of history could have been very different. FDR would have found it much more difficult to maneuvre the country into being attacked in the Pacific in order to enable him to fight the war in Europe, which had been his ardent desire all along.
One leak—just one!—almost torpedoed Roosevelt’s grand design. In mid-1941 he incorporated the Army’s, Navy’s and Air Staff’s war-making plans into an executive policy he called “Victory Program,” effectively preparing America for war against Germany and Japan regardless of Congressional opposition and the will of the people. His intention was to lure public opinion into supporting the Program because the increase in weapons production promised meant more jobs and a healthier economy. A supporter of the America First Committee, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, obtained a copy of the Victory Program, classified Secret, from a source within the Air Corps, and leaked it to two newspapers on December 4, 1941, the Chicago Tribune (a serious newspaper back then) and the Washington Times-Herald (long defunct). Vocal public opposition to the plan erupted immediately, but ceased three days later, on December 7, 1941. Congress soon passed the Victory Program with few changes. The Japanese performed on cue.
Imagine the consequences had the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald published a series of other leaks over the preceding few months, including the following:
Berlin, 27 September 1940. U.S. Embassy reports the signing of the Tripartite Pact, the mutual assistance treaty between Germany, Italy, and Japan: “It offers the possibility that Germany would declare war on America if America were to get into war with Japan, which may have significant implications for U.S. policy towards Japan.”
Washington, 7 October 1940. Having considered the implications of the Tripartite Pact, Lt. Cdr. Arthur McCollum, USN, of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), suggests a strategy for provoking Japan into attacking the U.S., thus triggering the mutual assistance provisions of the Tripartite Pact and finally bringing America into war in Europe. The proposal called for eight specific steps aimed at provoking Japan. Its centerpiece was keeping the U.S. Fleet in Hawaii as a lure for a Japanese attack, and imposing an 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.
Washington, 23 June 1941. One day after Hitler’s attack on Soviet Russia, Secretary of the Interior and FDR’s advisor Harold Ickes wrote a memo for the President, saying 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.”
Washington, 22 July 1941. Admiral Richmond Turner’s report states that “shutting off the American supply of petroleum to Japad 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.”
Washington, 24 July 1941. President Roosevelt says, “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.” The following day he freezes Japanese assets in the U.S. and imposes an oil embargo against Japan.
London, 14 August 1941. After meeting the President at the Atlantic Conference, Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the “astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war.” PM is aware that FDR needs to overcome the isolationist resistance to “Europe’s war” felt by most Americans and their elected representatives.
Washington, 24 September 1941. Having cracked the Japanese naval codes one year earlier, U.S. naval intelligence deciphers 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 are not warned.
Washington, 18 October 1941. FDR’s friend and advisor Harold Ickes notes in his diary: “For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.” Yet four days later opinion polls reveal that 74 percent of Americans opposed war with Japan, and only 13 percent supported it.
Washington, 25 November 1941. Secretary of War Stimson writes that FDR said an attack was likely within days, and wonders “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.”
Washington, 26 November 1941. Both US aircraft carriers, the Enterprise and the Lexington, are ordered out of Pearl Harbor "as soon as possible". The same order included stripping Pearl of 50 planes, 40 percent of its already inadequate fighter protection.
Washington, 26 November 1941. Secretary of State Hull demands the complete withdrawal of all Japanese troops from French Indochina and from China.
Tokyo, 27 November 1941. U.S. Ambassador to Japan Grew says this is “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.”
San Francisco, 1 December 1941. 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. There are numerous U.S. naval intelligence radio intercepts of the Japanese transmissions.
Washington, 5 December 1941, 10 a.m. President Roosevelt writes to the Australian Prime Minister that “the next four or five days will decide the matters” with Japan.
Washington, 5 December 1941, 5 p.m. At Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox says, “Well, you know Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?” FDR replied, “Yes, I know … Well, you tell them what it is Frank.” 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.”
Washington, 6 December 1941, 9 p.m. 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 and did not issue any orders to the military to prepare for an attack.
As per that old cliché, the rest is history…
Entries(RSS)
I know many people who would still defend FDR and the United States' entrance into the war to the last even after reading all these facts. The United States ALWAYS on the side of justice and good. 70 years later its the same old story and the American people still fall for it all.
perpetual war for perpetual peace...
Srdja,
Do we know yet who ordered the carriers out of Pearl Harbor? My recollection of reading about the event was that it was suggested to Kimmel to move the carriers if he thought it appropriate. And were the planes stripped from Hickam and other bases in Hawaii among those the carriers were to deliver to Wake and Midway? Is that known? Then there was the interesting information that von Ribbentrop is said to have informed (was it Kurusu?) who visited Germany some weeks before the attack fleet left Hittokapu Bay for Pearl Harbor that in the event Japan attacked the U.S., Germany would declare war on the United States. One supposes such a carte blanche would have been immediately transmitted to the Japanese foreign office before K even left Germany and would, possibly, considering U.S. signal intelligence capability be picked up by U.S. monitoring and thus would have assured FDR that we would finally get into the war. Stinnett reports that there were still (ca. 2000) 140 thousand intercepts still classified from the period ca. November 15/December 7, 1941.
Listen...Is this the silence of the lambs. One of our most cherished mythologies is laid bare. We know it is true. Yet, like finding out your Saturday afternoon reel cowboy was really a bit queer, it is still uncomfortable. We are probably more comfortable talking of UFO abductions. Shhh.
Adolph Hitler's speech about Franklin Delano Roosevelt:
"The American president increasingly used his influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic policies.
His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches, including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President Roosevelt made another insulting statement and then called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only by charges d'affaires.
Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals, calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a shocking insight.
This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a message to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.
He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself with central European affairs than the German head of state has to take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United States.
Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like, would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments. He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories.
On April 15, 1939, Roosevelt made his famous appeal to me and the Duce, which was a mixture of geographical and political ignorance combined with the arrogance of a member of the millionaire class. We were called upon to make declarations and to conclude non-aggression pacts with a number of countries, many of which were not even independent because they had either been annexed or turned into subordinate protectorates by countries allied with Mr. Roosevelt. You will recall, my Deputies, that then I gave a polite but straightforward answer to this obtrusive gentleman, which succeeded in stopping, at least for a few months, the storm of chatter from this unsophisticated warmonger.
But now the honorable wife took his place. She and her sons refused to live in a world such as ours. That is at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply to Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had taken from Warsaw.
On April 9 he froze all Norwegian and Danish assets on the lying pretext of wanting to keep them from falling into German hands, even though he knew full well, for example, that Germany has not interfered with, much less taken control of, the Danish government's administration of its financial affairs. Along with the other governments in exile, Roosevelt now recognized one for Norway. On May 15, 1940, Dutch and Belgian governments in exile were also recognized, and at the same time Dutch and Belgian assets were frozen.
This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 to French premier Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American government would double its aid to France, on the condition that France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about peace while at the same time he incites to war.
And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940, the President of the United States froze French assets in order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca on an American cruiser.
In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war, such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air force and the training of British air force personnel in the United States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers, who really deserve pity.
He moved still closer to war in September 1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the British empire in its hour of disintegration may have also played a role.
After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people. As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.
As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa] that was inside the security zone maneuvered the passenger liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27, 1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.
On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle East.
In the meantime, in March all German ships were confiscated by the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to the United States] were shackled and returned to the Canadian authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.
On March 27 the same president who is against all aggression announced support for Simovic and his clique of usurpers , who had come to power in Belgrade after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier, President Roosevelt had sent Colonel Donovan, a very inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia and Belgrade. In April he promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets.
Starting in mid-April US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time, British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May 12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in the USA], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9 came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland with depth charges.
On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the shutting down of the German “Transocean” press agency, the German Library of Information and the German Reichsbahn office.
On July 6 and 7, American armed forces acting on orders from Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally force Germany into war and, second, also neutralize the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July 10 Navy Secretary Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later, a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a British convoy.
In a speech delivered on September 11, Roosevelt at last personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in violation of international law, took it to an American port, and imprisoned its crew.
I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr. Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson, as an asylum lunatic."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is a fundamental difference between the 1940s American and German establishment.
The German establishment was deeply evil, but brutally honest.
The American establishment was not entirely evil, but brutally dishonest.
What was amazing about the propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels was his unusual obsession with precise details...for a propagandist. A series of interesting articles on WWII in Der Spiegel reveal that the radio broadcasts by Goebbels had a strong note of admiration for the British, a precise description of how the British were militarily and industrially superior to the Germans, and how high the losses were everytime the Germans engaged the British.
That's what amazes me about Germans - their strange love for the truth. We all remember the "big lie, small lie" statement by Hitler, and I think it shows that Nazi tactics were about being completely honest 99% of the time, so that they could get away with a huge lie in that lone 1%. On the other hand, the Americans are clumsy with secrecy and lying. The Nazis didn't have to lie about their positions on Jews; they were open about it. The Americans...well, they did not allow Jewish refugees of war into the US during wartime.
And thus, Hitler could easily reveal the shameless tactics of Roosevelt, simply by highlighting what Roosevelt actually and openly did, and not giving any speculation. As deeply despicable as Hitler was, I have a hard time disagreeing with his assessment of Roosevelt - an insane millionaire with a spoilt wife whose "confused domestic economic policies" during the New Deal were clear enough for even foreigners to see as a failure.
Glad to see this topic. Perfect timing for poignant facts. Aside from Chronicles readers, most people are clueless as to the *real* story.
During my youth, a grandfather who despised FDR for these exact reasons made sure I understood FDR was nothing but war-mongering socialist who purposely propelled us into WWII.
All the lives lost . . . mental anguish suffered . . . families torn apart (in some cases, all sons were lost, such as the Sullivans). How this man and his accomplices could live with themselves (FDR ... not for long), escapes me. I would not want these sins on my soul.
Thanks for writing this doc.
@ 4 Prateek
Who wrote this article anyway? LOL;-)
Our history is replete with such incidents. In my lifetime, particularly the Gulf of Tonkin, and lately the Iraqui weapons of mass destruction. I am now interested in our Afghanistanian adventure, which right now has all the elements of utter disaster. There is a fundamental truism in all military operations: the initial invasion is relatively simple. To occupy and subdue, quite otherwise. I believe that the only military chieftain who successfully conquered Afghanistan was Genghis Khan. Therefore I am amused by the hubris of our current bunch of clowns.
I served in WW11 as a Captain in the AUS. My pride of country did not blind me to the egregious acts of our leaders in the concept of "the end justifies the means." To keep my children aware of duplicity and abuse of power, I have cited the Mexican War, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Tompkin Gulf as examples. Patriotism requires a degree of sceptism and analysis to protect ue from abuse of power and manipulation. Our participation in WW11 was essential and provident. Too bad it was precipitated by illegitimate and costly methods.
Here it is:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,712259,00.html
What the author forgets, along with Pat Buchanon and with Mr. Sanjay, is that Hitler wrote a second book, after Mein Kampf, with was never published. In this book, he stated that Hitler regarded as his ultimate enemy America, and that his ultimate goal was the conquest of America. Does the author, Mr. Trifkovic think Roosevelt was wrong to assist Yugoslavia and Greece against the Axis? The funniest cartoon I ever saw in Mad Magazine was an American football game between the Russian and Americans refereed by the Russians. The Russians called a penalty on the American player for hitting a Russian player in the knee with his groin. This is the new version of history that is being panned off on the public regarding America's entry into the Second World War. Further, FDR and subsequent Presidents of the United States were the driving force behind European de-colonization, for which people like Sanjay give little or no credit to America. FDR was not an insane millionaire, he was a man who saw what was coming down the tracks way before most Americans wanted to take their heads out of the sand and face reality. FDR had lived in Germany as a boy and was familiar with the militarism rampant in the Kaiser's Germany. He also read Mein Kampf in the unexpurgated German and knew exactly what Hitler, insane from syphilis that he contracted from earning his living as a male prostitute before World War I really said and his true goals. It appears also that its OK with the author and the other people making comments that the Japanese were committing horrible atrocities at the time in China such as Nanking. How dare America withhold oil from Imperial Japan who responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese!
I'm only twelve so easily ignored.
My American and British great-grandfathers met their wives while in the US Navy and Scots Guards. Without WW2 I would not be me so I really care about what happened.
My Chicago Gran says that if people hated war like they say they do, computer games would be different from what they are.
Mr Neville, my History teacher says you have to look at both sides of an argument to understand how the shooting started and why people thought the chance of getting shot at was worth it.
I found this article doing my homework and was realy surprised. I already have all this in my notes from school so why do you seem to think it is all revolutionary stuff. My gran said she only learned history that was really important to how America grew. My Gran is 65 and you are still not being taught what really happens? (shock horror!)
If your government had not decided to fight, I would be speaking German. I wonder what you would be speaking.
What happened after Pearl harbour is the history we have now. What history would have replaced it if the wars in Asia and Europe had ended with your country with a German Facist Europe and Japaneese Facist Asia and their neighbour, Stalin facing you when you were still trying to get out of the last depression? I don't think your website would be allowed, in any language.
I'm including your URL in my essay.
Jodie, England
PS I remember Gran saying her dad was beat up by some blokes from his school in the bronx because he wouldn't join the Bund, some German group. He was so mad he joined the US Navy, months before Pearl harbour. So all Americans were not against the idea.
PPS I never left a comment before and did not mean this to sound rude, but don't have time to change it. sorry
JR from my Mum's E mail. please dont write back to complain.
I've heard people say how wondwerful war is for the economy. Yeah, right as long as the one saying this isn't one of the poor saps on the front lines getting maimed or killed!! Maybe Roosevelt should have parked his butt on the deck of the Arizona the morning of December 7, 1941 to watch the fire works!!
#1 and #10
"The United States ALWAYS on the side of justice and good. 70 years later its the same old story and the American people still fall for it all."
"It appears also that its OK with the author and the other people making comments that the Japanese were committing horrible atrocities at the time in China such as Nanking. How dare America withhold oil from Imperial Japan who responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese!"
Perhaps I am too cynical but goodness and evil are terms used these days mainly by politicians to get what they want, which usually has nothing to do with either category. Mao And Stalin have become nicer folks over the years. In fact according to some modern historians these two were alot like like FDR and Churchill, just trying to do good for their own people under tough times etc.. Victims are mere statistics and ideology is still the vogue!!
>Does the author, Mr. Trifkovic think Roosevelt was wrong to assist Yugoslavia and Greece against the Axis?
FDR did nothing of the kind. In early 1941 he aided and abetted Churchill in his ploy to drag Yugoslavia into WWII, which they finally succeeded in doing with the Intelligence Service-financed coup in Belgrade on March 27 -- an act of suicidal irresponsibility by its perpetrators that cost the Serbs a million lives.
>It appears also that its OK with the author and the other people making comments that the Japanese were committing horrible atrocities at the time in China
Oh, I get it now -- FDR's gambit was prompted by his desire to carry out a Humanitarian Intervention to Stop the Atrocities! Selbsverstaendlich...
I have wondered about the authenticity of that second book. Anyone here know for sure whether it is legitimate?
Even after all my years of travel, I am still amazed at the fools that 'fool themselves' in the belief that if only we can get rid of the 'evil americans' and their evil empire the world would be a perfect place. Everyone could then go about their lives hugging one another and peace and goodwill reign forever. Of course as always there are the plotters out there, and of course as always the jealous haters of those more talented than themselves, but also I am always amazed at the wide eyed believer of all this tripe!!.....imagine going thru life singing 'Imagine' and believing it....Which ever catagory you may fall into here, don't ever believe for one moment the 'enemy of your enemy' is for one minute your friend........what a shame that history is filled with the world forever stuck in a revolving door....
Roosevelt was a soul-less bastard.
#12 Dr. Trifkovic,
"Oh, I get it now — FDR’s gambit was prompted by his desire to carry out a Humanitarian Intervention to Stop the Atrocities! Selbsverstaendlich…"
Well of course it was!! Just like the invasion of Iraq that was purchasing Yellow Cake Uranium from Nigerians, hob-nobbing in Germany with Osama Bin Laden's Lieutenants, preparing a mushroom cloud just off the coast of Maryland, and the need to bomb those blood thirsty Serbs for 77 days to protect the peace loving Moslems from all the mass graves the Serbs had prepared for them.
My most recent favorite is after all the lying, then a rhetorical flourish at the end: "Now if this be not evil, then evil hath no name!!!!"
If Hitler had had his way the entire Slav population of Eastern Europe would have been enslaved or exterminated; do Dr Trifkovic and others here regard such an outcome as so much more preferable to the antics of the monstrous, millionaire, liberal-socialist, aristocratic,(etc, etc) Roosevelt in getting the US involved, militarily and as a source of materiel to its allies, in WWII? Bizarre! so much implicit regard for Hitler, a bona fide authoritarian, socialist dictator, so much apparent rage towards an elected American President (on the basis that he was 'really' an authoritarian dictator).
The possible strategic consequences of American non-intervention in WWII were surely not difficult to surmise, and were too dangerous to risk: total Nazi victory in Europe; Japanese triumph in the East; and after a few generations the US left facing across the Atlantic a Greater Germany of several hundred million exceptionally disciplined and capable enemies, able to call on the resources of all of Europe as well as those of the former British and French Empires, and perfectly placed to control the oil resources of the Middle East (saying nothing of the natural friendship between Nazism and Islam which was evident during WWII); and across the Pacific a Japanese empire of matchless and merciless efficiency, with 1 billion Chinese drones at their disposal. And how many fascist republics might there have been to the south in Latin America, wise to the way the world was going, seeing liberal democracy as a played-out affair in its last bastion, the US, and providing a third front of potential aggression against the US? And given the Nazi habit of regarding the US as being under the sway of a Jewish money-power why wouldn't they have had a reason, or excuse, to extend their territorial and racial ambitions across the Atlantic?
A responsible leader is duty-bound to prevent from materialising such potentially fatal threats to his country's welfare and existence. Churchill did it for the UK; Roosevelt, from a longer perspective, did it for the US.
Mr. Gilmartin, you will discover it is a difficult leap from Mad Magazine to Chronicles, but do persist.
Mr. Gilmartin,
Hitler's alleged "second book" was a fraud. It was originally authenticated by the late H.R. Trevor Roper who staked his reputation on its authenticity. As to who perpetrated the fraud I don't recall. Roper's reputation took a grand hit after his dogmatic assertions about the book. (Someone has remarked that the good Oxford Don was sometimes referred to as H.R. Clever Groper---the significance of this I leave to others to explain!)
Regarding Churchill's action in Yugoslavia, one recalls that he dispatched Fitzroy McClean to assess the situation. McClean, as I recall, opted to support Tito and the Communists. McClean's book Eastern Approaches has the details.
Mr. Sanjay
It is quite amazing that anyone considering the actions by FDR from about 1940 till Pearl Harbor could imagine that his intentions were other than deliberate provocations to both the Japanese and Germans. Indeed, including actual economic and soft (well, not so soft) military actions that in most circumstances could only be interpreted as those of a belligerent.
While FDR seemingly saw that we would be drawn into the war in any case, he took clearly extra constitutional actions to get us into the conflict, without a doubt.
David;
I believe you might be referring to the Diaries. There is an alleged 'second book' which was an unpublished manuscript. In my college days, we were to look at in light of German politics and it was noted for its moderation--South Tyrol policy being of bitter dispute in those circles. The notion of North America as an existential enemy to Europe exists to this day in various forms of the European New Right.
Dr. Trifkovic;
Thank you for a timely article--it is indeed a gem. In light of the Chronicles position on l'affaire wiki, if it had been a military man (it certainly wasn't a Roosevelt man, right?) who leaked the document to Wheeler who passed it on to a former military man at the Tribune, we might be distracted by suggestions that everyone knew that Roosevelt wanted to start a war making the whole exercise pointless and dishonorable.
"we might be distracted by suggestions that everyone knew that Roosevelt wanted to start a war making the whole exercise pointless and dishonorable."
Except for the declaration of war by Germany, and the attack on Pearl Harbor. Minor points I am sure to those who might be distracted to compare Iraq and Afghanistan with WWII!! For heavens sake!
robert;
Only problem there is the Wheeler leak came months before those events. So if your point is Iraq/Afghanistan et al are too small to justify much thought about, I guess I can only call it a curious position.
Mr. Bowen,
No, not at all. I quite agree with your position. There are many aspects to war -- The folks who start them, the soldiers who fight them, the proposed reasons given by politicians, the actual reasons underlying the events, and the costs and cultural consequences that often get all lumped together in one big pile under the rubric of ridding the world of evil.
Iraq 1, 2 and Afghanistan 2 are good examples of this one lump fits all sizes. As a former Marine, I could understand and support the Afghanistan 1 bombing raid, overthrowing their government and rearranging the pet rocks of Taliban operatives who thumbed their noses at our citzens, rather than turning over the plotters, planners and sympathizers of the World Trade Center killings. After that, however, the lying got loose and .... Well, you know the rest of the story.
I wish the Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul would enter the early GOP debates in 2012 just to stir the pot a little so the stalwarts would not assume they have such a free hand in ruining our country by these needless and costly wars that rquire such a sacrifice by so many, for the benefit of so few.
@10. The complete story of the infamous 27th of March is long overdue, and so is the rehabilitation of Prince Paul. It would be interesting to find out more about gen. Simovic from the still closed British archives.
Dear Dr. Trifkovic - Please refer to Pavel Sudoplatov's book "Special Tasks" pp. 118-119. I quote:
"Meanwhile Stalin and Molotove, Beria told me, had decided to at least postpone the military conflict and better our [that is the Soviet Union's] situation by resorting to a scheme they abandoned in 1938. This was the plan to oerthrow the Yugoslav government. In March 1941 GRU and NKVD rezidenturas actively supported a couip d'etat against the pro-German government in Belgrade. Molotov and Stalin hoped to strenghten the USSR's strategic position in the Balkans. A new anti-German government in Belgrade, they reasoned, could impede and prolong the Italian and German operation against Greece."
A week after the coup, the Soviet Union signed a nonagression pact with the new Yugoslav government. The extra weeks the Nazi attack on Yugoslavia took up delayed the attack on your Russian buddies and may have saved Russia.
Sudaplatov was Beria's and Stalin's agent who supervised the assassination of Troksky and the spy operatons against the Manhattan project. My mother, a New Yorker told me that in the late 1930's, the Manhattan elevated train from Broadway to Wall Street was torn down and sold for scrap to Japan. She said that there were demonstrations in New York City against the sale because people in New York knew that Japan was going to turn the metal into bombs and airplanes to use against us. If Americans had no human sympathy towards the Chinese, despite sending missionaries and aid to them, why should we feel any sympathy for Serbia? After all, now that we live in a world where everyone's outlook and conduct is governed by purely cynical materialism and not by principle and human dignity, what does the world owe anyone else?
People with similiar attitudes like yours during the Vietnam War, Dr. Trifkovic, bear moral responsibility for the fall of Vietnam and Cambodia in 1975 and the subsequent genocide and mass murders and expulsion of the Christain Boat people.
As for Robert, Iraq had 500 tons of unenriched uranium in its possession prior to Bush the Younger's invasion and 1 1/2 tons of enriched uranium. It obtained 229 tons from Brazil after America forced that beknighted nation to shut down its nuclear weapons program. The rest did come from Africa. Now that cynics and character assassins like you have contributed to demoralizing the forces that took down Saddam's Baathist (Nazi) government, every country and it brother is now pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. If you don't believe me, check the Swedish Institute of World Peace, [or a name to that effect]. People like you slavishly follow the line of the Castro Brothers' rent boy, Michael Moore are in for a rough ride.
#24. Come now, Soviet Union was in no position to overthrow any government anywhere by covert means in 1941. The quotation you are supplying is perhaps of some value in understanding the communist mindset, but it's all talk and little action. As for why British/Americans succeeded in overthrouwing prince Paul, we will never know until they themselves tell us or if one of Simovic's progeny comes forward with the story.
@ David, #17: Hugh Trevor-Roper (aka Lord Dacre) authenticated the supposed Hitler diaries, rather than a 'second book'. He did so partly on the strength of assurances from Stern magazine that they were genuine, including tests that dated the paper the diaries were written on to the right period, and several independent reports from hand-writing experts that the script was indeed in the Fuhrer's hand. He did not 'stake his reputation' on the diaries' being genuine, though his professional standing was certainly damaged by the affair. But it was his naivety in dealing with Rupert Murdoch that really proved to be his undoing. He began to have doubts about the genuineness of the diaries and confided his new opinion to the journalists at the Sunday Times. They in turn asked Murdoch whether it would be wise to publish given Trevor-Roper's reversal of opinion. Murdoch's response was true to character in its crassness and irresponsibility: 'F*ck Dacre. Publish.' Adam Sisman's recent biography of Trevor-Roper sets out the matter in detail.
The fraud was perpetrated by one Konrad Kujau.
Trevor-Roper did much to recover his reputation as an historian with several characteristically brilliant collections of essays after the Hitler diaries debacle, a reputation that has been further restored by several posthumous works.
'Someone has remarked that the good Oxford Don was sometimes referred to as H.R. Clever Groper—the significance of this I leave to others to explain!)' If the remark was ever made at all by 'someone' it would not have been in Trevor-Roper's lifetime. It's as pure an instance of unwarranted slander as I've come across. There is no significance at all to this: it's untrue, no allegations of sexual impropriety were ever made against Trevor-Roper when he was alive; and your allegation, from an anonymous source, is the first time I've heard such a preposterous claim since his death. Even his enemy, Christopher Hitchens, when attacking Trevor-Roper sought only to damage him with claims of anti-semitism (also utterly false - Trevor-Roper was merely frank and fearless, qualities that few of his critics could either recognise or match) and did not think to compound the damage with nonsense about groping of students.
Trevor-Roper was a conservative (if not a Tory), an anti-communist, a defender of the Western tradition (enlightenment wing), and was ennobled by Margaret Thatcher. I'm curious as to why anyone on a conservative website would regard him as an enemy, and why Chronicles should think think there is either credit or honour in peddling baseless slanders against a dead man.
In the late 1930's, the Soviet Union almost took over Spain. In 1940, it had just finished the occupation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It had just completed a war against Finland, and it had just occupied eastern Poland and Bessarabia. It had the largest army in the world and 15 times the tanks that the Germans had at the time. It had just wiped out the Ukraine and had murdered millions of its own citizens and had just purged its own officer corp, and you won't accept a confession from the second in command of the NKVD?
I realize that in your mind and before the court of world opinion, America and England are always guilty beyond any doubt at all, and Russia and the Arab are not only innocent until proven guilty, but never guilty of anything. Well wake up and smell the caviar! You people on this website who post comments dare place FDR or Churchill in the same category as Hirohito, Hitler, Mao & Stalin. I can only believe many persons who appear on this website as posting comments are Russian, anarchist & Communist plants.
'Saddam’s Baathist (Nazi) government'
Oh boy, here we go again. The reductio ad Nazium. It's getting really nauseating. Not to mention tiresome. How, and in what particulars, were Hussein and the Baathists 'Nazis'?
If you want to be taken seriously, dont use such shameless nonsensical word play, and dont insult the other posters here.
Justine,
You might want to run your "Soviet Union was too weak in 1941" argument by some Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, or Poles, all of whose countries had been invaded and occupied by the USSR before 1941 and hundreds of thousands of whom had been sent into the Gulag. Of course, in 1941, the Soviets also had numerous agents in place throughout the West.
Matt Gilamartin writes: "Now that cynics and character assassins like you have contributed to demoralizing the forces that took down Saddam’s Baathist (Nazi) government, every country and it brother is now pursuing the development of nuclear weapons."
Not at all, Matt. Most of my military friends think we should have taken down Saudi Arabia instead of Iraqis in Gulf War 1, but that is another issue. I have never carried a brief for the Baathist who were leverage in the region against the Shias and Iran. Nor have I ever denigrated our Soldiers and Marines in the performance of their mission. There is,however, a differnce betwen tactics and strategy. As a former Marine I have the utmost confidence in our miltary tactics and the men in uniform who perform them. It is the rotten strategy of our civilian leaders, willing to risk so many good men for so little, (even faithful idiots) that I dislike. Now run along and play over at Free Republic or Fox News and come back here when you have something to say or want something to eat besides Burger King - here everything is served "your way."
I'm no apologist for the Soviet monsters, far from it. But regardless of any Soviet intentions, espionage, or actual coup in Belgrade circa 1941, it was Churchill and FDR that handed the country over to the communists. Let us be very clear on the facts: on the ground was the legitimate Royal Yugoslav army led by Serbian general Draza Mihailovich who had run a difficult multi-front war against German and Croat fascists as well as communist insurgents (all the while rescuing 500 American airmen) but still held the upper hand in military terms until the British and Americans underminded him in favor of Croatian Communist terrorist-in-chief, Josip Broz Tito.
I just found many remarks in moderation from first-time commenters. I just approved them and apologize to one and all for our dilatory habits. I recommend that some of the posters have a look back at comments by Patrick and Jodie Rodgers among others.
A very good summary of the case against Trevor-Roper may be found in the first few paragraphs of R. J. Stove's otherwise favorable rewview of Trevor-Roper's "Europe's Physician:" http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/europe-physician-2510
These discussions always make me uneasy because before long somebody starts to bloviate about the wisdom and benevolent intentions of Hitler that were ruined by the "evil British." Whether the U.S. should have entered the war, whether the U.S. was tricked into it, and what mistakes were made in the war that tipped benefits toward the Soviets is one group of questions. But anyone who thinks Britain had any other honourable and civilised response than to oppose Nazism is either foolish or morally insane.
Matt Gilmartin: "Iraq had 500 tons of unenriched uranium in its possession prior to Bush the Younger’s invasion and 1 1/2 tons of enriched uranium."
Where did you get that and what exactly do you mean by 'enriched'? I've read interviews and comments by physicist Gregory Cochran, and went through Volume 2 of the Duelfer Report (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html). From what I read there and other places, I got the impression Iraq didn't have the capability to develop what it had into nuclear weapons.
Prof Wilson, I'd argue to resist nazism was the honourable response but the mistakes and meddling in the eastern countries was not made honorable by virtue of their resistence to Hitler. Britain's mistakes and meddling were significant to many European peoples that to this day live with the consequences of them. That Britain was rife with communist sympathy and that it led to the undermining of anti-communist activities in the east is a huge tragedy and a blot on British history. To this day the British government continues to heap onto its past dishonors by favoring left-leaning, socialist, and "reformed" communists over the non-fascist right and Christian elements in those same eastern countries it betrayed during WWII. Calling them out on this is not intended to curry favor with neo-fascists in the least.
Eagle @ 41:
You are exactly right.
This is the same point I was making in another post: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/11/29/the-forgotten/
@ Patrick 19 and @11 Jodie Roger
In my humble opinion, it seems as if a few posters may have misunderstood the intent of article and other comments.
Although I cannot speak for author or the majority of the posters here, I will say that I do not believe Americans would have been able to avoid WWII (nor would they have wanted to). The point of the article was the deceit adopted by a politicians and various military officials that led to the *deliberate* loss of 2000+ lives at Peal Harbor. The exact same deception is still going on today . . . human nature does *not* change.
Even without the deliberate sacrifice of Pearl Harbor, there is no doubt that our WWII involvement was inevitable (and rightly so). Just look at that wonderful generation - - - an era filled with Americans that literally came off the boat themselves *or* were first generation Americans. Many came from countries of suppression and still had relatives in Europe living those horrors. Of course they knew Hitler was a maniac that had to be stopped, but they also recognized dirty political deception when they saw it - - - Roosevelt.
Americans are very caring people - - - **especially** that era. If Roosevelt had come to the American public in a plea for support, he would have gotten it. Maybe not right away, but he *would* have gotten it eventually. He knew - - - no different from politicians today - - - that although Americans are kind, you really need to *tick* them off, and they will fight as you have never seen. Just look at the Philippines - - - after the war, the Japs said that the Marine’s were like nothing they had ever seen - - - no matter what was thrown at them, they kept on coming. That *is* American.
Yes, Jody, my dear . . . your grand was correct. Because of American involvement, many were liberated and spared a dire fate.
Our WWII vets are far from ignorant of the facts surrounding our entry into WWII, as well as the atrocities that occurred in the former Yugoslavia. Many of our politician’s turned a “blind eye” - - - but our soldiers did not. I work with them all the time, and not one I have ever met, regretted their involvement. In fact, they would do it all over again if necessary. Why? Because liberty, freedom, and the *sanctity* of life meant more to them than anything in the world, and they wanted to ensure their kids and grandchildren were spared an existence of suppression. It was “how” Roosevelt did it that concerned them. My grandfather - - - a WII purple heart - - - used to reiterate: “Don’t believe for two seconds that this world isn’t run by a few select groups of elitists.”
Now, our country comes to the crossroad of this generation . . . a generation that easily forgets because they have been spoiled with all the conveniences, safety, technology, and freedom garnered from previous generations. Political artifice and war by deception is even easier today and the game has been revolutionized in the form of technology. The fight for good against evil has literally been take to a new level. What does it take for the average American to engage and win the *right* fight?
(wait a minute . . . more Chronicles reading, right? - - - LOL!)
Mr. Allen Wilson - the Arab Baathist Party was founded by an arab christian as the Arab branch of Nazism. Look in Wikipaedia.
Robert - You may have something about Saudi Arabia being a deadly enemy to us as well. Why don't you publish your last name? I guess you are a McDonald's man.
CM Collins - See CNN - 500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says IRAQI GOVERNMENT July 07, 2008|From Brianna Keilar and Larry Shaughnessy. This was also mentioned on the O'Reilly Factor. Also read the McKay report. Also, there is evidence that the Iraqi's had detontated nuclear devise underground. Why did the Bush administration defend itself after the invasion on this issue. I'll let you guess. The Saudi's funded the Iraqi bomb and much of the equipment and stores went back to the Saudi's. Please note that two countries in the Middle-east are without original sin in the eyes of the US Government. The first is Isreal. The second is Saudi Arabia.
C. Bowen & Tom Piatak - I am not referring to the forgeries of Hitler's Diaries. I am referring to the show I saw on BOOKTV - "Hitler's Second Book" by Gerhard Weinberg first aired on Jan 25, 2004. The manuscript was typed on Hitler's oversized typewriter while he dictated. Type in Hitler's second book" on the BookTv Website and watch it. It is very interesting.
Sorry - I meant to write "why didn't the Bush Administation defend itself on this issue."
1)Hitler's so-called "Secret" or "second" book is well-
authenticated. See the preface to the 1961 (Telford Taylor)
edition or the more recent treatment by Gerhard Weinberg. And it
contains nothing remarkable, same old DRANG NOCH OSTEN, nothing
substantial about "invading America". Hitler wanted peace with
the Anglo-Americans, and Empire in the East. When he went East,
after being elbowed in that direction by the European Plutocrats,
aka "appeasers"...he got backstabbed. Probably the best analysis
of all this is in Guido Preparata's little-known but fascinating
essay CONJURING HITLER. Being thus forced into the multi-front
war that he did not want and could not win, Adolf became very
angry and went after the Jews...apparently he thought Zionists
had something to do with British foreign policy.
2)Pearl Harbor. There are a lot of problems with Stinnet's
extremely interesting book, which Trifkovic doesn't explore in
his brief article. Here's something more concrete. On 26
November, 1941, 9:30 AM (Washington time), a German
radiotelephone intercept station on the Dutch coast picked up and
descrambled a lengthy conversation between Churchill and
Roosevelt; Brits (probably not U.S.) had broken large chunks of
the IJN code. FDR and WC discussed the upcoming Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor in considerable detail. For documents and
analysis, see Gregory Douglas, GESTAPO CHIEF: THE 1948 OSS
INTERROGATION OF HEINRICH MUELLER, Vol. I, pp. 42-55, 246-252.
Eleven hours later, c. 8:30 PM, US Navy Dept. sent an extremely
lucibricious message to Adm. Kimmel at Pearl, along these
lines: "We think it might be a good idea if you got some fighter
planes out to Wake and Midway. Do you think so? If you do, you
MUST use the carriers...". Normally, the planes would have been
put in crates and shipped out using one of the two specialized
aircraft transports which were then in harbor: USS Kitty Hawk or
USS Tangiers. I suppose we could give the war-conspirators a few
brownie points for attempting to protect the most important
strategic assets. Or maybe not.
I cite the Duelfer Report and Cochran and you come back with CNN and O'Reilly? Surely you're joking, Mr. Gilmartin.
To be frank I barely know the difference between uranium and enriched uranium but I know enough to know it is significant.
Also, please provide a link to the "McKay report" and whatever you've got on Iraq detonating a nuclear device --aboveground, underground, in space, or where-ever.
Yes, Mr. Gilmartin refers to something called the Zweites Buch.
I did a quick, crude, and rudimentary search for information on the internet and found some interesting summary. Hitler believed that 40 years into the future, the world would be divided into tripolar blocs of The American Empire, the British Empire, and the German Empire, and as an admirer of the British Empire, Hitler believed that there should be an Anglo-German alliance to defeat American hegemony.
Hitler should have adopted a career as a science fiction writer, and should have partnered with Tom Clancy. Of course, looking at the over-the-top nature of it, and how it relates to a purely futuristic speculation, there is no suggestion that he intended to attack United States in the near future, but only that he intended to do so in 1985 after he became best friends with Britain.
...
Yeah, I don't think we need to discuss this Zweites Buch any further.
#41. Let us not forget that the war would hardly have begun as it did if not for the alliance between Hitler and Stalin. And in one of the not infrequent unintended tragedies of history, the Allies had to keep company with Russia to win the war. True, Britain behaved less than gloriously in regard to the Balkans and was littered with Communist influence. But remember that the U.S. was corrupt from the top down: Roosevelt had to disregard Churchill and make nice-nice with Stalin in order to carry out the betrayal of the captive nations.
#46 MR. Collins,
Matt is making it up as he goes along. Yes there was unranium in Iraq, it was reported long before the invasion and the IAEC and the Iraqis had already stored it, accounted for it and disclosed it. This type of reporting about Uranium in Iraq is like accusing farmers with Ammonium Nitrate bottles on their place, as co-conspirators with Tim McVeigh. It is like saying that all of North Africa is going nuclear because they are mining uranium as we speak. The fact our intelligence about WMD's in Iraq was wrong is not debatable --whether it was innocently wrong or mere propoganda for the pre-emptive invasion and destruction of another country who did not attack us and did not want war with us, is another matter.
Matt has tried the Kool Aid and likes it, OK. But where is Justin when you need him?