Honor 6-6-1944
- Thread starter sunsagleaming
- Start date
him even more .Uncle Cracker
Member
Uncle Cracker
Member
You thank them Krauts was use'n canons?
Famous picture from Iwo Jima
Famous picture from Iwo Jima
Uncle Cracker
Member
Says the guy wearing chuck taylors and dickies ha ha ha
Uncle Cracker
Member
Uncle Cracker
Member
U.S. reinforcements wade through the surf from a landing craft in the days following D-Day and the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France at Normandy in June 1944 during World War II. (AP Photo/Bert Brandt)
"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944
"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944
good one jag LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Photo# 26-G-2343 Army troops wade ashore on "Omaha" Beach, 6 June 1944
"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944
lulz.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!
Uncle Cracker
Member
anybody ever been to Pearl Harbor?
Uncle Cracker
Member
sunsagleaming
Legendary Poster
i know your question is this....
did roosevelt know of the attack on pearl harbor and did he allow it to happen on purpose to bring the united states into the second world war? strong evidence supports that he did know of the attack. kimmel and short were scapegoated and later exhonerated.
these are some hyperlinks with information about pearl harbor from that youtube site.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Category: News and Politics
Motives Behind the Betrayal
No explanation of Pearl Harbor is more consistent with the facts than to cast blame for the treachery on pro-Communist and globalist influences within FDR?s administration.
by James Perloff
The New American - June 4, 2001 issue
There are several interpretations of the facts surrounding Pearl Harbor. The first, as expressed by Jerry Bruckheimer, producer of the new film Pearl Harbor, is to simply deny the overwhelming evidence.
A second interpretation: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, General George C. Marshall, and Admiral Harold Stark received the warnings and intercepts, but somehow ?blundered? and forgot to warn Pearl Harbor. However, there is too much evidence of deliberate calculation. One does not become president of the United States or Army Chief of Staff through gross stupidity. It was FDR himself who said: ?In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.?
A third interpretation, now widely held, concedes that FDR, Marshall, and Stark knew of the attack but let it happen so the United States could enter World War II in order to oppose the spread of totalitarianism. This view was even expressed in the recent documentary Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor, produced by cable?s History Channel, which normally takes more orthodox positions on history.
i agree
According to this latter interpretation, FDR sacrificed the fleet because Hitler had to be stopped. Otherwise, once the Germans and Japanese finished subduing Europe and Asia, they would turn on America, and conquer the whole world, with Hitler?s troops eventually goose-stepping through New York City. Also, it is said, FDR cared deeply about those suffering in Hitler?s concentration camps. Only by inciting the Japanese to attack would America have the unity and resolve to support Roosevelt in these noble objectives.
i agree
This explanation, however, does not withstand scrutiny. The overextended Germans gave up any hope of invading Britain as feasible, and if the Germans were incapable of an amphibious assault across the English Channel, they certainly could not have launched one across the Atlantic. As Charles Lindbergh reasoned before Pearl Harbor: ?Let us not be confused by this talk of invasion.... Great armies must still cross oceans by ship.... No foreign navy will dare approach within bombing range of our coasts. Let us stop this hysterical chatter of calamity and invasion.?
^^^what about the threat from the entire axis of evil? war was being fought on many fronts. in the pacific, in europe, etc. if italy, germany, and japan were free to do as they pleased they most certainly would have been a real threat to america and to the world.
The claim that Roosevelt was motivated by opposition to totalitarianism and concern for concentration camp victims is sharply contradicted by his support for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. Like Hitler, Stalin was an international aggressor. Few remember that the 1939 invasion of Poland ? World War II?s immediate spark ? was actually a joint invasion by Germany and the Soviet Union. In 1939-40, Stalin also invaded Finland, occupied Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and annexed part of Romania. Furthermore, Stalin, like Hitler, slaughtered millions of his own people, including some six million during the Ukrainian genocide (1932-33) alone. Nevertheless, FDR, without bothering with congressional approval, began bestowing lend-lease aid on Stalin in 1941, assistance that would ultimately amount to $11 billion (more than $100 billion in today?s currency).
^^^maybe FDR saw hitler as the bigger threat to the world and by buying the soviets "loyalty" he could better ensure a victory for america.
As former President Herbert Hoover recalled: ?In June 1941, when Britain was safe from German invasion due to Hitler?s diversion to attack Stalin, I urged that the gargantuan jest of all history would be our giving aid to the Soviet government. I urged that we should allow those two dictators to exhaust each other. I stated that the result of our assistance would be to spread Communism over the whole world.... The consequences have proved that I was right.?
A Plausible Explanation
There is a fourth explanation for Pearl Harbor, one more consistent with the facts: The role of pro-Communist and globalist influences within the FDR administration. As former Navy Secretary Frank Knox wrote: ?Collectivists of every sort support Mr. Roosevelt. That is natural. For at the root of his philosophy lies the view, shared alike by Communists and Fascists, that individual liberty under democracy as hitherto practiced in this country is no longer desirable or feasible.?
The president?s closest advisor was Harry Hopkins, who, uniquely, lived inside the White House. The recently released Venona materials (Soviet messages decrypted by the U.S. during the 1940s) reveal that Hopkins was working for Soviet Intelligence. In his book KGB: The Inside Story, former KGB Colonel Oleg Gordievsky identified Hopkins as ?an agent of major influence.? This would not shock those familiar with From Major Jordan?s Diaries, a 1952 book published by George Racey Jordan. Jordan, a lend-lease expediter, along with numerous other witnesses, testified that Hopkins, who oversaw Russia?s lend-lease shipments, had given the Soviets nuclear materials as well as purloined blueprints for the atomic bomb.
The State Department?s Alger Hiss, long-since exposed as a Soviet spy, was FDR?s right-hand man at the Yalta Conference, where the president made a stream of concessions to Soviet dictator Stalin.
Harry Dexter White, the president?s assistant Treasury secretary, has been well-documented in FBI and congressional investigations as a Soviet spy. Besides giving classified information to the Soviets, White supplied them with paper, ink, and printing plates for the production of occupation currency in postwar Germany.
George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, was thoroughly documented as a Communist sympathizer in America?s Retreat from Victory (1951) by Joseph McCarthy, the U.S. senator whose accusations, though maligned for decades, have been historically vindicated. Marshall?s intervention on behalf of Mao Tse-tung, at the height of the Chinese civil war, is just one of many examples of his leftwing leanings. As for his infamous ?horseback ride? of December 7, 1941, which allegedly prevented him from warning Pearl Harbor in time, that cover story was inadvertently blown by Arthur Upham Pope, in his 1943 biography of Maxim Litvinoff, the Soviet ambassador to the United States. Litvinoff first arrived in Washington on the morning of December 7th, 1941 ? a highly convenient day to seek additional aid for the Soviets ? and, according to Pope, was met at the airport that morning by General Marshall.
Hopkins, Hiss, White, and Marshall represent just a handful of known Soviet agents and abettors within the Roosevelt administration. FDR?s most severe sanctions against Japan ? such as his all-out embargo and closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping ? came in July 1941. On June 22, 1941, the Germans had invaded the Soviet Union and were decimating the Soviet armies before them. Stalin?s worst fear was that Japan would join its Axis partner and invade from the East. Had this occurred, especially without FDR?s $11 billion in aid, it is virtually certain that the Soviet Union would have been destroyed and world Communism with it.
It is logical that the Soviet agents in the Roosevelt administration, like Stalin himself, panicked in July 1941 and urged the President to take extreme measures against Japan. Roosevelt?s embargo was joined by the British and (with U.S. pressure) the Dutch. The embargo forced Japan to divert attention from Russia, and to instead invade Southeast Asia in an attempt to obtain the raw materials ? especially oil and rubber ? which the embargo denied them.
Internationalism
Finally, we cannot underestimate the role of capitalist-veneer globalists who have often worked hand-in-hand with Communists. America?s main voice for globalism has always been the private Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), for decades the chief supplier of top State Department executives. The well-financed, influential Council was born in 1921 in New York, as a direct response to U.S. refusal to join the League of Nations after World War I. When World War II loomed, Council publications began clamoring for entry into the war ? not so much as a means to peace, but to world government. During World War II, the CFR succeeded in making itself an adjunct of the U.S. government through the secret War and Peace Studies Project. Unknown to the public, the Council, which coined the term ?United Nations,? formulated the original plans for the UN (which is a framework for world government), the IMF (the foundation for a world issuer of currency), and the Marshall Plan (a would-be cornerstone for a U.S.-European Union). Although these institutions were officially formalized or introduced at the UN Founding Conference in San Francisco, the Bretton Woods Conference, and George Marshall?s famous Harvard speech, all were secret brainchilds of Council study groups. To the liberal Establishment running the CFR, like the Communist agents in the Roosevelt administration, Pearl Harbor may have been viewed as a small price to pay in order to obtain such objectives.*
^^^i can see this happening this way.
This Communist-globalist interpretation will seem radical to many, but is most consistent with the facts. Leaders do not allow their own fleet to be sunk, and thousands of their countrymen to be murdered, out of ?nobility.?
i agree
If Roosevelt and Marshall were motivated by nobility, why did they not send a last-minute warning to Hawaii, so our men could have at least been at their guns when the Japanese arrived?
damn good question.
If noble, why did Washington continue using Kimmel and Short as scapegoats even after the war was long won? And if it was necessary to provoke the Axis powers to war to stop aggression and brutality, why was it never necessary to provoke Stalin ? an equally brutal and aggressive dictator?
* For a more complete discussion of the CFR, see the author?s book The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline.
blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=403975945&blogID=445421556
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Category: News and Politics
Scapegoating Kimmel and Short
Though these two U.S. commanders at Pearl Harbor have been blamed for the debacle, they have since been exonerated. The true guilt has yet to be laid at the feet of FDR.
by James Perloff
The New American - June 4, 2001 issue
Pearl Harbor?s secrets had been successfully preserved before the fact ? but what about after? People around the nation, including some vocal congressmen, asked why America had been caught off guard.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt said he would appoint an investigatory commission. Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts ? a pro-British internationalist friendly with FDR ? was selected to head it. Also appointed to the group: Major General Frank McCoy, General George Marshall?s close friend for 30 years; Brigadier General Joseph McNarney, who was on Marshall?s staff and chosen on his recommendation; retired Rear Admiral Joseph Reeves, whom FDR had given a job in lend-lease; and Admiral William Standley, a former fleet commander. Only the last seemed to have no obvious fraternity with the Washington set.
The commission conducted only two to three days of hearings in Washington. Admiral Standley, arriving late, was startled by the inquiry?s chummy atmosphere. Admiral Harold Stark and General Marshall were asked no difficult or embarrassing questions. Furthermore, all testimony was taken unsworn and unrecorded ? an irregularity that, at Standley?s urging, was corrected.
The commission then flew to Hawaii, where it remained 19 days. When Admiral Kimmel was summoned, he brought a fellow officer to act as counsel. Justice Roberts disallowed this on grounds that the investigation was not a trial, and the admiral not a defendant. Because Kimmel and Short were not formally ?on trial,? they were also denied all traditional rights of defendants: to ask questions and cross-examine witnesses. Kimmel was also shocked that the proceeding?s stenographers ? one a teenager, the other with almost no court experience ? omitted much of his testimony and left other parts badly garbled. Permission to correct the errors ? other than adding footnotes to the end of the commission?s report ? was refused.
The Roberts Commission laid the blame for Pearl Harbor on the Hawaiian commanders. They had underestimated the import of the November 27th warning; they had not taken sufficient defensive or surveillance actions; they were guilty of ?dereliction of duty.? On the other hand, it said, Stark and Marshall had discharged their duties in exemplary fashion. Incredibly, the report?s section declaring this was first submitted to Stark and Marshall for revisions and approval. Admiral Standley dissented with the findings but did not write a minority opinion after being told that doing so might jeopardize the war effort by lowering the nation?s confidence in its leaders. Standley would later call Roberts? handling of the investigation ?as crooked as a snake.? Admiral J.O. Richardson, Kimmel?s predecessor as Pacific Fleet commander, said of the report: ?It is the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever printed by the Government Printing Office.? Admiral William ?Bull? Halsey, one of World War II?s foremost heroes, wrote, ?I have always considered Admiral Kimmel and General Short to be splendid officers who were thrown to the wolves as scapegoats for something over which they had no control.?
Roberts brought a final copy of the report to FDR. The president read it and delightedly tossed it to a secretary, saying, ?Give that in full to the papers for their Sunday editions.? America?s outrage now fell on Kimmel and Short. They were traitors, it was said; they should be shot! The two were inundated with hate mail and death threats. The press, with its ageless capacity to manufacture villains, stretched the commission?s slurs. Even the wives of the commanders were subject to vicious canards.
There was great outcry for court-martials. The Roosevelt administration, of course, did not desire that ? in an orthodox courtroom, a sharp defense attorney might start digging into Washington?s secrets. They contemplated simply retiring Kimmel and Short ? but to a gallows-hungry public, that, ironically, would look like they were covering for them. So the issue was sidestepped by again invoking security concerns due to the war effort. It was announced that court-martials would be held ? but postponed ?until such time as the public interest and safety would permit.?
Sufficient delay would also cause the three-year statute of limitations that applied in such cases to elapse. But that was the last thing Kimmel and Short wanted; court-martial was the only means of clearing themselves. Thus they voluntarily waived the statute of limitations.
Their Day in Court
By 1944, the Allies were clearly winning, and national security would no longer wash as a barrier to trials. A congressional act mandated the court-martials. At last, the former Hawaiian commanders would have their day in court.
In August, the Naval Court of Inquiry opened. A source inside the Navy Department had already tipped Kimmel and his attorneys about the scores of Magic intercepts kept from the admiral in 1941. One of the attorneys, a former Navy captain, managed to get at the Department?s files, and authenticated the existence of many. Obtaining their release was another matter. Obstruction after obstruction appeared ? until Kimmel tried a ploy. Walking out of the courtroom, he bellowed to his lawyer that they would have to tell the press that important evidence was being withheld.
By the next day, the requested intercepts had been delivered ? 43 in all. The admirals on the Court listened to them being read with looks of horror and disbelief. Two of the admirals flung their pencils down. More than 2,000 died at Pearl Harbor because those messages had been withheld. Navy Department officers gave additional testimony. After nearly three months, the inquiry finished. The verdict of the Roberts Commission was overturned. Admiral Kimmel was exonerated on all charges. Admiral Stark ? who had rejected pleas of juniors to notify Hawaii on the morning of the attack ? was severely censured.
News of the intercepts leaked to the Army Pearl Harbor Board, convening at the same time. The Board secured copies of Magic from War Department files. The Board?s conclusions still expressed modest criticism of General Short, but found overwhelming guilt in General Marshall and his Chief of War Plans, General Gerow. Its report ended with this statement: ?Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States except [Tokyo?s final diplomatic message] the very hour and minute when bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor.?
Criticism of the president, incidentally, was forbidden to the proceedings as beyond their jurisdiction. But FDR held ultimate responsibility for Pearl Harbor, and the warnings he had received ? some of which have only recently come to light ? far exceeded anything they might have dreamed.
Naturally, the inquiry findings wrought dismay in the administration and Pentagon. But a solution was swiftly concocted. It was announced that, in the interest of national security, the court-martial results would not become public until the war?s end. (This would give Washington time to conduct ?new? investigations.) Navy Secretary Knox told the press that the Naval Court of Inquiry had marked its conclusions ?secret,? and therefore nothing could be published. A stunned Admiral Orin Murfin, who had presided over the Court, protested to the Secretary. It was true that the breaking of Japan?s diplomatic code was not for public knowledge ? but, he pointed out, the Court had only marked part of its determinations secret. Charles Rugg, Kimmel?s attorney, telegrammed Knox demanding to know how the ?innocent? verdict granted the admiral could be deemed classified. Nevertheless, the reports were suppressed.
More Staged Shows
Washington now explained that it would conduct additional inquiries supplementing the court-martials. Henry Stimson picked Lieutenant Colonel Henry Clausen ? known to disagree with the Army Board findings ? to carry out the War Department?s investigation. The Navy Secretary appointed Admiral W. Kent Hewitt. Hewitt?s role, however, was largely titular; most of the operation was carried out by John Sonnett, a special assistant to the Navy Secretary.
The game rules were reminiscent of those of the Roberts Commission. Kimmel and his attorneys were refused permission to attend the Hewitt Inquiry, which operated under this directive:
Except that the testimony you take should be taken under oath so as to be on equal status in this respect with the testimony previously taken, you will conduct your examination in an informal manner and without regard to legal or formal requirements.
Not surprisingly, witnesses who testified against Washington during the court-martials now reversed themselves. Colonel Rufus Bratton had informed the Army Pearl Harbor Board that on December 6, 1941, he had delivered the first 13 parts of Japan?s terminative message to General Marshall via his secretary, and to General Gerow. Now in Germany, Bratton was flagged down on the Autobahn by Clausen, who handed him affidavits from Marshall, his secretary, and Gerow denying the deliveries were ever made. Confronted with denial by the Army Chief of Staff himself, Bratton recanted.
Other officers, their memories similarly ?*******ed,? retracted their statements about seeing the ?winds? message; now, it seemed, the message never existed! All of these individuals faced a dilemma. They were career military men. They knew telling the truth would pit them against the Army Chief of Staff and end all hope of promotion.
But one man wouldn?t bend ? Captain Laurance Safford, father of naval cryptography. Safford had overseen that branch of naval intelligence for many years. He personally invented some 20 cryptographic devices, including the most advanced used by our armed forces. For his work, he was ultimately awarded the Legion of Merit.
Safford, who had testified before the Naval Inquiry that he had seen the ?winds? message, was confronted by Sonnett. Safford wrote of this meeting: ?His purpose seemed to be to refute testimony (before earlier investigations) that was unfavorable to anyone in Washington, to beguile ?hostile? witnesses into changing their stories....? In a memorandum written immediately after the encounter, Safford recorded some of Sonnett?s verbal prods, such as: ?It is very doubtful that there ever was a Winds Execute [message]?; ?It is no reflection on your veracity to change your testimony?; and, ?It is no reflection on your mentality to have your memory play you tricks ? after such a long period.? Safford realized a colossal cover-up was underway, but was not surprised. He had already discovered that all copies of the ?winds? message in Navy files, along with other important Pearl Harbor memos, had been destroyed. Indeed, just four days after Pearl Harbor, Rear Admiral Leigh Noyes, director of naval communications, told his subordinates: ?Destroy all notes or anything in writing.? This was an illegal order ? naval memoranda belong to the American people and cannot be destroyed except by congressional authority. Stories circulated of a similar information purge in the War Department. Some files, however, escaped destruction.
The Clausen and Hewitt inquiries pleased Washington. Armed with fresh sophistries, the administration now publicized highly revamped versions of the court-martial findings. The dual Army/Navy announcement came on August 29, 1945 ? the very day American troops arrived in Japan, when a rejoicing public was unlikely to care about Pearl Harbor?s origins. The War Secretary?s report shifted the blame back to Short, while saying of General Marshall that ?throughout this matter he acted with his usual great skill, energy and efficiency.? It admitted the Army Board had criticized Marshall, but said this was completely unjustified. The Navy Secretary?s statement again imputed guilt to Kimmel, while asserting that Washington had not been negligent in keeping him informed. It did acknowledge that Admiral Stark had failed to exercise ?superior judgement.?
Consequently, Americans never really understood what the court-martials had determined. Of course, anyone wanting to learn for himself could do so when the government released the official record of the hearings connected with Pearl Harbor ? if he didn?t mind wading through 40 volumes!
Congress Enters the Act
Only one obstacle now remained to burying Pearl Harbor. Congress had long made noises about conducting its own investigation; with the war over, it was sure to do so.
To nip any threat in the bud, the administration sent a bill to both the House and Senate forbidding disclosure of coded materials. It was promptly passed by the Senate, whose members had never heard of Magic and had no idea that the bill would hamstring their forthcoming investigation.
Admiral Kimmel read about the bill in the papers. He and his attorneys notified the press and congressmen about the measure?s implications. As a result, the House voted it down and the Senate rescinded it.
Capitol Hill?s Pearl Harbor probe began in November 1945, when the Joint Congressional Committee assembled. It comprised six Democrats and four Republicans. A split along party lines quickly emerged. The Democrats knew that, even though Roosevelt had recently died, a Pearl Harbor scandal could devastate them at the ballot box. But so long as all six Democrats maintained unswerving party loyalty, a majority decision favoring the administration was inevitable.
The Democrats used their edge to jockey things their way. The counsel chosen for the committee was a Democrat who previously served with Henry Stimson; his assistant was a former New Dealer working for the law firm of Dean Acheson, the undersecretary of State. A majority vote determined what evidence the committee would review. Several witnesses Kimmel wanted introduced were never called.
Coercion prevented others from testifying. Major Warren J. Clear, who had warned the War Department in early 1941 that the Japanese were planning to attack a series of islands including Hawaii, was ordered not to appear before the committee. So was Chief Warrant Officer Ralph T. Briggs, the man who had originally intercepted the ?winds? message at a United States monitoring station. He was summoned before his commanding officer, who forbade him to testify. ?Perhaps someday you?ll understand the reason for this,? he was told. Briggs had a blind wife to support. He did not come forward as a witness.
The treatment of Lieutenant Commander Alwin Kramer was cruder. Kramer, who had been in charge of the Navy Department?s Translation Section at the time of Pearl Harbor, and had once testified to having seen the ?winds? message, was thrown into a psychiatric ward at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Representative Frank Keefe, a committee Republican, learned of this and vigorously protested. Kramer was told that his testimony had better change or he?d be in the ward for the rest of his life. The officer went before the committee, but gave a confusing narrative that essentially denied existence of the ?winds? message.
Captain Laurance Safford, however, remained fearless in his revelations. A campaign to ?nail? him was soon evidenced among committee Democrats. Congressman John Murphy, a former assistant DA, put him through a wringer of cross-examination. Safford?s personal mail was read aloud before the committee in an effort to humiliate him. Artful polemics made the captain ? naval cryptography?s most eminent man ? look forgetful on one hand, vindictive toward superiors on the other.
Safford was accused of being the only one to believe in the ?winds? message. In fact, no less than seven officers had acknowledged seeing it before having their memories ?helped.? Perhaps the browbeating of Safford helped inspire Colonel Otis Sadtler of the Signal Corps. During the Clausen investigation, Sadtler had recanted his testimony about the message. Now he came forward and corroborated Safford. (Any doubts about the ?winds? affair have since been dispelled. As historian John Toland reports, both Japanese assistant naval attach?s posted at the Washington embassy in 1941 have verified that the message was transmitted on December 4th, exactly as Safford said.)
The congressional investigation battled on for over six months. In the end, all six Democrats held to the party. A majority decision was handed down on Pearl Harbor assigning most of the blame to the Hawaiian commanders, some blame to the War and Navy departments, and none at all to Roosevelt and his civilian administration.
That was the last major official inquiry into Japan?s surprise attack. The lie of Kimmel and Short?s fault was perpetuated and Washington?s secrets sealed. Congress did conduct a ?mini-probe? in 1995, at the urging of the families of General Short (died 1949) and Admiral Kimmel (died 1968). The families hoped to restore the ranks of their libeled, demoted fathers. The 1995 probe requested that the Pentagon reinvestigate Pearl Harbor in light of the new information. However, on December 1, 1995, Undersecretary of Defense Edwin Dorn concluded his own investigation with these comments: ?I cannot conclude that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were victims of unfair official actions and thus cannot conclude that the remedy of advancement on the retired list is in order.?
However, on May 25, 1999, the U.S. Senate approved a resolution that Kimmel and Short had performed their duties ?competently and professionally? and that our losses at Pearl Harbor were ?not the result of dereliction of duty.? ?They were denied vital intelligence that was available in Washington,? said Senator William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.). Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) called Kimmel and Short ?the two final victims of Pearl Harbor.?
blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=403975945&blogID=445423079
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Category: News and Politics
Why We Fought
Despite popular misconceptions, America?s involvement in WWII was brought on not by isolationism but by globalism?a concerted, clandestine effort to build world government.
by William Norman Grigg
The New American - July 2, 2001 issue
Ben Affleck, Hollywood heartthrob and reputed actor, has it all figured out. ?Pearl Harbor showed that the United States, for better or worse, is permanently linked to the rest of the world,? declared Affleck in an interview with USA Weekend magazine. ?Until then, there was a belief we could be by ourselves in North America, that we didn?t have to have anything to do with anyone else.? Affleck was surprised to learn that most Americans at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack didn?t share his wisdom: ?I was interested in the degree to which people didn?t want to get involved in World War II ? the isolationists, the America First movement. In 1939, more than 80 percent were against getting into the war.?
To prepare for his role in the new Disney film Pearl Harbor, Affleck put himself through a vigorous research regimen ? he ?watched old war movies and newsreel footage and listened to old speeches and radio shows....? In the course of such expansive and detailed inquiry, it never occurred to him to ask questions that would challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the war. For instance, if it was ?impossible? for America to avoid the war, our geographical isolation notwithstanding, how did land-locked Switzerland ? a nation with no standing army, that was surrounded by Axis-dominated nations ? manage to stay out of the conflict? If America had thrust itself into the fray in 1939, wouldn?t we have been at war with the Soviet Union ? which at the time was Nazi Germany?s partner in the invasion of Poland? And why was it that after Pearl Harbor, the Roosevelt administration?s war strategy focused upon Europe, rather than the Pacific ? when it was Imperial Japan, and not Nazi Germany, who had attacked us?
Affleck laments that people of ?my generation ? get so much of their history and politics from pop culture. It?s not the most accurate way to learn. But since so many people do go to movies for history, the onus is on us [in the film industry] to get it right.? This explains, presumably, why Pearl Harbor begins with newsreel footage of Nazi-dominated Europe, circa 1940, augmented with a mock voice-over chastising ?isolationist? America for refusing to join the war. Even Affleck?s cursory study of the period would have been sufficient to document that no newsreel of that era would come equipped with pro-intervention commentary. So fervently did America want to remain aloof from Europe?s fratricide that FDR was forced to campaign for re-election on a specific, oft-reiterated pledge to keep our nation out of the war.
In the section of the film Pearl Harbor that precedes the depiction of the Japanese attack, there is general unanimity among the characters that America would soon join the war. Affleck?s character, Army Air Corps fighter pilot Rafe McCawley, volunteers to fight alongside the British, and quickly wins the Brits? respect by downing several Luftwaffe planes over the English Channel. During a break in the action, Rafe?s British RAF commander remarks that the English are peeved with the ?Yanks? for their determination to remain aloof from the war ? but that ?if there are many more at home like you, God help anyone who goes to war with America.? It?s a sure-fire applause line for U.S. audiences ? the cinematic equivalent of the lounge singer?s invitation to the audience to ?give yourselves a hand.? The line is particularly clever in that it invites American audiences to feel a rush of self-approval for the fact that they are much wiser than the selfish, short-sighted ?isolationists? of the pre-war era.
'Isolationism' and War
In its dimwitted way, Pearl Harbor offers a cinematic riff on a familiar Establishment propaganda theme ? namely, that isolationists cause wars. A much more cogent version of that canard was presented by former President George Bush during the observance of the 50th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. Speaking in Honolulu, Bush unleashed a remarkable slander against the America First movement:
Ironically, isolationists gathered together at what was known in those days as an ?American [sic] First? rally in Pittsburgh at precisely the moment the first Americans met early, violent deaths right here at Pearl Harbor. The isolationists failed to see that the seeds of Pearl Harbor were sown back in 1919, when a victorious America decided that in the absence of a threatening enemy abroad, we should turn all of our energies inward. That notion of isolationism flew escort for the very bombers that attacked our men 50 years ago.
Bush?s defamation of the America First movement as co-conspirators in the Pearl Harbor attack is even more contemptible today, when abundant and irrefutable evidence proves that FDR and his cohorts carefully enticed the Japanese into the attack.*
In early June, Justice Department official Daryl S. Borgquist, who has devoted great time and energy to independent research into Pearl Harbor, added to the already overwhelming body of evidence against FDR by releasing the findings of his latest inquiry into recently released documents. As reported in the June 1st Washington Times, Borgquist points out that a major portion of the first draft of FDR?s ?Day of Infamy? speech, prepared by a team headed by Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle, was composed on December 6th ? several hours before the Japanese attack.
In a 1999 article in Naval History magazine, Borgquist described the recollections of Helen E. Hamman, the daughter of Don C. Smith, who directed the War Service for the Red Cross before WWII. ?Shortly before the attack in 1941,? recalled Hamman, ?President Roosevelt called [my father] to the White House for a meeting concerning a top-secret matter. At this meeting, the president advised my father that his intelligence staff had informed him of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor. He anticipated many casualties and much loss; he instructed my father to send workers and supplies to a holding area. When he protested to the president ? Roosevelt told him that the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attack[ed] within their own borders....?
Tragically, Roosevelt was right. The Japanese attack came, and independent, peaceful America quickly morphed into a war-making machine. Americans were told to ?remember Pearl Harbor,? and they went on to avenge it. Japan was not the only enemy, however, and Nazi Germany soon felt the wrath of American interventionism as well. For post-War Americans, stopping the spread of Nazi evil was the most important justification of U.S. involvement in World War II, but the extent of that evil would not fully be known until after war?s end. But like the attack on Pearl Harbor, the rise of Nazism was assisted by the Western Power Elite.
Spontaneous Nazism?
According to orthodox treatments of history, Germany?s National Socialist (Nazi) regime spontaneously coalesced around Adolf Hitler ? perhaps willed into existence through an act of Hitler?s depraved will. But this notion of Nazism-through-spontaneous-generation doesn?t answer one of the key questions about that era: How did a defeated, prostrate, bankrupt Germany acquire the means to create a war machine capable of threatening Europe? Where did the money come from? Although corporate investment in foreign nations does not necessarily mean that those individuals involved are responsible for the aggressive actions of another nation, it is important to acknowledge the globalist aspirations of those who provided the financial backing for Germany?s rearmament.
i agreei agreei agree
In his carefully researched study Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Dr. Antony Sutton presents a convincing case that the rise of National Socialism was underwritten and materially supported ? both before and during World War II ? by U.S.-based multinationals, as well as Morgan, Chase, Rockefeller, and Warburg banking interests. As the late Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley documented in his study Tragedy and Hope, those same interests constitute the financial spine of the international Power Elite, the most visible manifestation of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
In a 1947 accounting of its activities during its first quarter-century, the CFR described its role following the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. (That invasion, it should be recalled, was immediately followed by an assault upon Poland by the Soviet Union ? which, as Dr. Sutton documented in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, was also created in collaboration with the Western financial elite.) According to the CFR account, within a week of the invasion of Poland, a contingent from the Council ?paid a visit to the Department of State to offer such aid on the part of the Council as might be useful and appropriate in view of the war.?
The State Department approved of the suggestion, and with a special grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, the CFR created, on December 8, 1939, a ?Committee on Post-War Problems.? Within that CFR-organized cabal ? which was an incubator for FDR?s war plans ? gestated the charter for a world government body, the United Nations. The committee?s Russian-born research director, Leo Pasvolsky, was later recognized by Time magazine as the ?architect of the United Nations charter.?
Thus two full years before America would declare war upon Japan, the CFR was planning for a post-war American foreign policy that would be built around a permanent entanglement in a world government body. Indeed, the term ?United Nations? began to be used as a description of the anti-Axis powers following the August 14, 1941 Atlantic Charter conference between Roosevelt and Churchill ? and was formally applied to the Allied nations by the January 1, 1942 United Nations Pact.
There is a narrow and ironic sense in which George Bush had a point: The seeds of Pearl Harbor were sown when the Senate rejected the League of Nations covenant in 1919-1920. They were planted and cultivated by the same Power Elite that had connived to involve America in World War I, and which sought to enmesh our nation in a world government body following the war.
During a September 1919 speech in Omaha, Nebraska, Woodrow Wilson ? whose alter-ego and ?second self,? Edward Mandell House, was a key link to the Power Elite ? declared that if the Senate rejected the League of Nations covenant, ?I can predict with absolute certainty that within another generation there will be another war.? Wilson was not acting as a seer foretelling the future, but rather as an emissary reading a blackmail note to the American public: Surrender your sovereignty, or face the horrendous consequences.
UNdoing 'Isolationism'
It is doubtful that one American in a thousand knows that the U.S. participated in World War II as a member of the ?United Nations? even before the United Nations organization was created in 1945. And it is doubtful that even one American in ten thousand knows that it was the unambiguous intention of the FDR administration ? and the Power Elite behind it ? to use the war as a means of permanently defeating ?isolationism? by imprisoning our nation within a world government body.
^^that makes sense.
The clearest statement of this under-appreciated reality comes from Arthur Schlesinger Jr., writing in the Power Elite?s chief publication, Foreign Affairs. ?For Roosevelt, the critical task in 1943-45, beyond winning the war, was to commit the United States to postwar international structures before peace could return the nation to its old habits,? observes Schlesinger. ?So he moved methodically to prepare the American people for a continuing world role? by putting in place key elements of the United Nations system. This process began with the financial infrastructure, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which were created in 1944 ? before the founding conference of the UN organization itself.
?Above all,? continues Schlesinger, ?FDR saw the United Nations, in the words of [presidential advisor] Charles E. Bohlen, as ?the only device that could keep the United States from slipping back into isolationism.? He was determined to put the United Nations in business while the war was still on so that the American people were still in an internationalist mood; hence the founding conference in San Francisco, which took place after his death but before victory. And, as Winston Churchill emphasized, the new international organization ?will not shrink from establishing its will against the evil-doer or evil-planner in good time and by force of arms.??
One of the FDR administration?s most outspoken propagandists on behalf of the United Nations ? both as a wartime alliance and as a permanent ?peace enforcement? body ? was Wendell Willkie, the globalist Republican who lost (some commentators say ?threw?) the 1940 presidential race. (Willkie had been a Democrat until 1938, and actually flanked Roosevelt to the left in both foreign and domestic policy.) In his 1943 book One World ? a travelogue of Willkie?s grand tour of the Soviet Union, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America as an emissary of the FDR administration ? the vision of a UN-administered world is laid out with compelling bluntness:
More than a year has passed since the signing of the [United Nations] pact. Today the United Nations is a great symbol and a treaty of alliance. But we must face the fact that if hopeful billions of human beings are not to be disappointed, if the world of which we dream is to be achieved, even in part, then today, not tomorrow, the United Nations must become a common council, not only for the winning of the war, but for the future welfare of mankind. While we fight, we must develop a mechanism of working together that will survive after the fighting is over.
Aiding Stalin
Another of the United Nations? priorities was to build, strengthen, and sustain the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin ? and it bears repeating that the Soviet Union began World War II as an ally of, and co-aggressor with, Nazi Germany. Through the Roosevelt administration?s Lend-Lease program, nearly $10 billion in aid ? both military and non-military ? was channeled into the Soviet Union. Lend-Lease is primarily remembered as a wartime expedient. But the program began prior to U.S. entry into the war, and continued for at least one year after the war.
wow wtf?
Furthermore, the military element of Lend-Lease was not used to fight the Axis. Father Leopold Braun, an American Catholic priest who was in Moscow during World War II, testified that ?Lend-Lease aid to Russia was diverted to a second, secret Red Army which was used exclusively for the purpose of suppressing revolts against the Kremlin regime.?
But the supreme betrayal embodied in Lend-Lease was described by George Racey Jordan in his book From Major Jordan?s Diaries. Major Jordan, in his capacity as ?United Nations Representative? in charge of expediting Lend-Lease aid to Moscow, was the only U.S. official to defy both Soviet and U.S. officials by inspecting mysterious shipments headed for the USSR. Cloaked in diplomatic immunity, the Russian suitcases contained uranium, cobalt, thorium, cadmium, and detailed scientific data from the U.S. Manhattan Project, as well as reams of military and industrial secrets obtained through espionage.
Addressing a huge Aid to Russia rally at Madison Square Garden in May 1942, Lend-Lease commissar Harry Hopkins offered some remarks that place American involvement in World War II ? and the United Nations concept ? in a very interesting light. ?The American people are bound to the people of the Soviet Union in the great alliance of the United Nations,? cried Hopkins. ?We are determined that nothing shall stop us from sharing with you all that we have and are in this conflict, and we look forward to sharing with you the fruits of victory and peace.?
In sharing ?all that we have? with the Soviet Union, Hopkins and his comrades were careful to include the means whereby the Soviets could become a nuclear-armed aggressor. Moscow first tested its atom bomb in 1949; a year later, its surrogates in North Korea overran the South. In The Venona Secrets, a book he co-wrote with the late Eric Breindel, intelligence analyst Herbert Romerstein notes: ?Documents recently released in the former USSR ? demonstrate that, absent an atomic bomb, Stalin would not have unleashed Pyongyang?s army to conquer the entire Korean peninsula,? an action that resulted in America?s involvement in the Korean War.
Thus the Power Elite ? working through the FDR administration ? made the proper provisions to create a suitable foreign threat as a way of keeping American ?isolationism? in abeyance. Or, as Schlesinger puts it, ?it is to Joseph Stalin that Americans owe the 40-year suppression of the isolationist impulse.? Dean Acheson, a founder of the CFR who was Truman?s secretary of state at the time of the Korean War, went so far as to describe Stalin as the American Establishment?s savior. Writing in the June 1996 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Benjamin Schwarz of the World Policy Institute mentions a speech in which Acheson, ?describing how Washington overcame domestic opposition to its internationalist policies in 1950 ? recalled in 1954 that at that critical moment the crisis in Korea ?came along and saved us.??
This is to say that the same globalist Establishment whose designs were ?saved? by Pearl Harbor found similar ?salvation? through the Communist assault upon South Korea.
Totalitarian Democracy
Those designs cost tens of thousands of American lives. World War II was America?s introduction into the despicable practice of totalitarian war ? not only from studying the demonic accomplishments of the Nazis, Soviets, and Imperial Japanese, but also under the guidance of our own totalitarian ruling class. Many critics of the detestable New Deal ?Brain Trust? might flinch from using the term ?totalitarian? to describe FDR?s administration. Once again, it is useful to refer to the words of Lend-Lease chief Harry Hopkins, who was hailed by Churchill as FDR?s ?Lord Root of the Matter? for his ability to reduce complex issues to their essence.
In April 1941 ? eight months before Pearl Harbor ? Hopkins composed a memorandum entitled ?The New Deal of Roosevelt is the Designate and Invincible Adversary of the New Order of Hitler.? ?As Hopkins saw it,? relates historian Thomas Fleming in his new book The New Dealers? War, ?the new order of Hitler ?can never be defeated by the old order of democracy, which is the status quo.? There was only one way to beat Hitler: ?By the new order of democracy, which is the New Deal universally extended and applied.??
?Almost as daunting was Hopkins?s view of how to achieve this new world order,? continues Fleming. ?Democracy ?must wage total war against totalitarian war. It must exceed the Nazi in fury, ruthlessness, and efficiency.??
i agree
One measure of the ?ruthlessness? of the New Dealers? war was FDR?s perverse refusal to assist Germans who sought to overthrow Hitler ? and his utterly demonic insistence upon Germany?s ?unconditional surrender.?
what is wrong with an unconditional surrender?
Fleming describes a November 1941 meeting in Berlin between liberal American journalist Louis Lochner and 15 members of the Front der anstandiger Leute (?Front of Decent People?). Drawn from the Reichstag, the German military, the secret police, and the clergy, the Front ?hoped to overthrow Hitler, renounce his conquests and his war on the Jews, and restore Germany as a peaceful member of the family of nations.?
Hitler?s German enemies were even willing to listen to American advice as to a suitable post-Hitler German government. However, before Lochner ? who knew FDR well ? could convey the Front?s message to Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor was attacked, with FDR?s connivance. Four days later, Hitler declared war on America, prompted by the December 6th leak of ?Rainbow Five,? a classified American plan for war against Germany. (Fleming makes a persuasive case that FDR arranged for the leak for the specific purpose of provoking Hitler to declare war.)
Throughout the war, the Front ? often acting through Wilhelm Canaris, head of the German Secret Service ? sought to make contact with the American government, but was repeatedly rebuffed. A group of German anti-Nazi scholars, many of them Jewish refugees, employed by the Office of Strategic Studies (the forerunner to the CIA) ?urged the Allied governments to make contact with the resisters to ?give some substance to the hope,?? recalls Fleming. ?Their advice was totally ignored.? When Lochner tried to file an AP report from Europe about the Front in 1944, the story was killed by Army censors. ?He was told a special regulation was in force ?From the President of the United States in his capacity as commander in chief, forbidding all mention of any German resistance.??
Public recognition of the Front of Decent People was incompatible with FDR?s dogmatic insistence upon ?unconditional surrender? ? and that insistence made it impossible for Hitler?s domestic enemies to gain any traction. Accordingly, the war ground on for years, devouring millions upon millions of lives, drawing the Soviets into Europe, and paving the way for the Communist conquest of China.
FDR?s continued demand for unconditional surrender after D-Day cost as many as two million casualties, according to Fleming. ?If we add to this toll the number of Jews who were killed in the last year of the war, the figure can easily be doubled,? he continues. (If the Front had been successful, Hitler?s regime might have been toppled before the 1942 Wannsee Conference which organized the ?Final Solution.?) ?If we add all the dead and wounded since 1943, when unconditional surrender was promulgated, destroying the German resistance?s hope of overthrowing Hitler, that figure too could be doubled ? to 8 million. Unquestionably, this ultimatum was written in blood.?
^^^because we learned the lesson from the first world war that there is no such thing as a partial surrender after war.
More recently it has been argued (for instance by historian Gerhard Weinberg in his book "A World At Arms"[33]) that the treaty was in fact quite advantageous to Germany. The Bismarckian Reich was maintained as a political unit instead of being broken up, and Germany largely escaped post-war military occupation (in contrast to the situation following World War II.).
?We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money,? concludes Arthur Schlesinger Jr. In those words can be heard an uncanny echo of Harry Hopkins? admonition that the architects of the new world order display ?fury? and ?ruthlessness? that would eclipse Hitler. And without a doubt, in the UN?s first war ? for such indeed was World War II ? those despicable traits were on full display.
By any reckoning, the courage and selfless service rendered by our WWII vets is worthy of celebration. But why is this cohort constantly congratulated by popular media for fighting what is ritually referred to as ?The Good War?? One answer irresistibly suggests itself: Through the amoral machinations of our rulers, the WWII generation was forced to fight the ?good fight? to save Marshall Stalin and to give birth to the United Nations.
^^^this could be a possiblity. i will have to look into it more before i change my mind.
TRICKY D1CK
Experienced Poster
How about a picture of the Enola Gay?
