Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

70 Years of Lying About Pearl Harbor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:01 AM
Original message
70 Years of Lying About Pearl Harbor

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's fervent hope for years was that Japan would attack the United States. This would permit the United States (not legally, but politically) to fully enter World War II in Europe, as its president wanted to do, as opposed to merely providing weaponry and assisting in targeting of submarines as it had been doing. Of course, Germany's declaration of war, which followed Pearl Harbor and the immediate U.S. declaration of war on Japan, helped as well, but it was Pearl Harbor that radically converted the American people from opposition to support for war.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had tried lying to the American people about U.S. ships including the Greer and the Kerny, which had been helping British planes track German submarines, but which Roosevelt pretended had been innocently attacked. Roosevelt also lied that he had in his possession a secret Nazi map planning the conquest of South America, as well as a secret Nazi plan for replacing all religions with Nazism. And yet, the people of the United States didn't buy the idea of going into another war until Pearl Harbor, by which point Roosevelt had already instituted the draft, activated the National Guard, created a huge Navy in two oceans, traded old destroyers to England in exchange for the lease of its bases in the Caribbean and Bermuda, and just 11 days before the "unexpected" attack he had secretly ordered the creation of a list of every Japanese and Japanese-American person in the United States.





On April 28, 1941, Churchill wrote a secret directive to his war cabinet:

"It may be taken as almost certain that the entry of Japan into the war would be followed by the immediate entry of the United States on our side."

On May 11, 1941, Robert Menzies, the prime minister of Australia, met with Roosevelt and found him "a little jealous" of Churchill's place in the center of the war. While Roosevelt's cabinet all wanted the United States to enter the war, Menzies found that Roosevelt,

" . . . trained under Woodrow Wilson in the last war, waits for an incident, which would in one blow get the USA into war and get R. out of his foolish election pledges that 'I will keep you out of war.'"

On August 18, 1941, Churchill met with his cabinet at 10 Downing Street. The meeting had some similarity to the July 23, 2002, meeting at the same address, the minutes of which became known as the Downing Street Minutes. Both meetings revealed secret U.S. intentions to go to war. In the 1941 meeting, Churchill told his cabinet, according to the minutes: "The President had said he would wage war but not declare it." In addition, "Everything was to be done to force an incident."

Japan was certainly not averse to attacking others and had been busy creating an Asian empire. And the United States and Japan were certainly not living in harmonious friendship. But what could bring the Japanese to attack?

When President Franklin Roosevelt visited Pearl Harbor on July 28, 1934, seven years before the Japanese attack, the Japanese military expressed apprehension. General Kunishiga Tanaka wrote in the Japan Advertiser, objecting to the build-up of the American fleet and the creation of additional bases in Alaska and the Aleutian Islands:

"Such insolent behavior makes us most suspicious. It makes us think a major disturbance is purposely being encouraged in the Pacific. This is greatly regretted."

Whether it was actually regretted or not is a separate question from whether this was a typical and predictable response to military expansionism, even when done in the name of "defense." The great unembedded (as we would today call him) journalist George Seldes was suspicious as well. In October 1934 he wrote in Harper's Magazine: "It is an axiom that nations do not arm for war but for a war." Seldes asked an official at the Navy League:

"Do you accept the naval axiom that you prepare to fight a specific navy?"
The man replied "Yes."
"Do you contemplate a fight with the British navy?"
"Absolutely, no."
"Do you contemplate war with Japan?"
"Yes."

In 1935 the most decorated U.S. Marine in history at the time, Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, published to enormous success a short book called War Is a Racket. He saw perfectly well what was coming and warned the nation:

"At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals don't shout that 'We need lots of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.' Oh, no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate our 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only. Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

"The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline in the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern, through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

In March 1935, Roosevelt bestowed Wake Island on the U.S. Navy and gave Pan Am Airways a permit to build runways on Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam. Japanese military commanders announced that they were disturbed and viewed these runways as a threat. So did peace activists in the United States. By the next month, Roosevelt had planned war games and maneuvers near the Aleutian Islands and Midway Island. By the following month, peace activists were marching in New York advocating friendship with Japan. Norman Thomas wrote in 1935:

"The Man from Mars who saw how men suffered in the last war and how frantically they are preparing for the next war, which they know will be worse, would come to the conclusion that he was looking at the denizens of a lunatic asylum."





The U.S. Navy spent the next few years working up plans for war with Japan, the March 8, 1939, version of which described "an offensive war of long duration" that would destroy the military and disrupt the economic life of Japan. In January 1941, eleven months before the attack, the Japan Advertiser expressed its outrage over Pearl Harbor in an editorial, and the U.S. ambassador to Japan wrote in his diary:

"There is a lot of talk around town to the effect that the Japanese, in case of a break with the United States, are planning to go all out in a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor. Of course I informed my government."

On February 5, 1941, Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner wrote to Secretary of War Henry Stimson to warn of the possibility of a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor.

As early as 1932 the United States had been talking with China about providing airplanes, pilots, and training for its war with Japan. In November 1940, Roosevelt loaned China one hundred million dollars for war with Japan, and after consulting with the British, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau made plans to send the Chinese bombers with U.S. crews to use in bombing Tokyo and other Japanese cities. On December 21, 1940, two weeks shy of a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, China's Minister of Finance T.V. Soong and Colonel Claire Chennault, a retired U.S. Army flier who was working for the Chinese and had been urging them to use American pilots to bomb Tokyo since at least 1937, met in Henry Morgenthau's dining room to plan the firebombing of Japan. Morgenthau said he could get men released from duty in the U.S. Army Air Corps if the Chinese could pay them $1,000 per month. Soong agreed.

On May 24, 1941, the New York Times reported on U.S. training of the Chinese air force, and the provision of "numerous fighting and bombing planes" to China by the United States. "Bombing of Japanese Cities is Expected" read the subheadline. By July, the Joint Army-Navy Board had approved a plan called JB 355 to firebomb Japan. A front corporation would buy American planes to be flown by American volunteers trained by Chennault and paid by another front group. Roosevelt approved, and his China expert Lauchlin Currie, in the words of Nicholson Baker, "wired Madame Chaing Kai-Shek and Claire Chennault a letter that fairly begged for interception by Japanese spies." Whether or not that was the entire point, this was the letter:

"I am very happy to be able to report today the President directed that sixty-six bombers be made available to China this year with twenty-four to be delivered immediately. He also approved a Chinese pilot training program here. Details through normal channels. Warm regards."

Our ambassador had said "in case of a break with the United States" the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor. I wonder if this qualified!

The 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force, also known as the Flying Tigers, moved ahead with recruitment and training immediately, were provided to China prior to Pearl Harbor, and first saw combat on December 20, 1941, twelve days (local time) after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

On May 31, 1941, at the Keep America Out of War Congress, William Henry Chamberlin gave a dire warning: "A total economic boycott of Japan, the stoppage of oil shipments for instance, would push Japan into the arms of the Axis. Economic war would be a prelude to naval and military war." The worst thing about peace advocates is how many times they turn out to be right.

On July 24, 1941, President Roosevelt remarked, "If we cut the oil off , probably would have gone down to the Dutch East Indies a year ago, and you would have had a war. It was very essential from our own selfish point of view of defense to prevent a war from starting in the South Pacific. So our foreign policy was trying to stop a war from breaking out there."

Reporters noticed that Roosevelt said "was" rather than "is." The next day, Roosevelt issued an executive order freezing Japanese assets. The United States and Britain cut off oil and scrap metal to Japan. Radhabinod Pal, an Indian jurist who served on the war crimes tribunal after the war, called the embargoes a "clear and potent threat to Japan's very existence," and concluded the United States had provoked Japan.

On August 7th four months before the attack the Japan Times Advertiser wrote: "First there was the creation of a superbase at Singapore, heavily reinforced by British and Empire troops. From this hub a great wheel was built up and linked with American bases to form a great ring sweeping in a great area southwards and westwards from the Philippines through Malaya and Burma, with the link broken only in the Thailand peninsula. Now it is proposed to include the narrows in the encirclement, which proceeds to Rangoon."

By September the Japanese press was outraged that the United States had begun shipping oil right past Japan to reach Russia. Japan, its newspapers said, was dying a slow death from "economic war."

What might the United States have been hoping to gain by shipping oil past a nation in desperate need of it?

In late October, U.S. spy Edgar Mower was doing work for Colonel William Donovan who spied for Roosevelt. Mower spoke with a man in Manila named Ernest Johnson, a member of the Maritime Commission, who said he expected "The Japs will take Manila before I can get out." When Mower expressed surprise, Johnson replied "Didn't you know the Jap fleet has moved eastward, presumably to attack our fleet at Pearl Harbor?"

On November 3, 1941, our ambassador tried again to get something through his government's thick skull, sending a lengthy telegram to the State Department warning that the economic sanctions might force Japan to commit "national hara-kiri." He wrote: "An armed conflict with the United States may come with dangerous and dramatic suddenness."

Why do I keep recalling the headline of the memo given to President George W. Bush prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks? "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

Apparently nobody in Washington wanted to hear it in 1941 either. On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as "the Marshall Plan." In fact we don't remember it at all. "We are preparing an offensive war against Japan," Marshall said, asking the journalists to keep it a secret, which as far as I know they dutifully did.

Ten days later Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary that he'd met in the Oval Office with Marshall, President Roosevelt, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Admiral Harold Stark, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Roosevelt had told them the Japanese were likely to attack soon, possibly next Monday. It has been well documented that the United States had broken the Japanese' codes and that Roosevelt had access to them. It was through intercept of a so-called Purple code message that Roosevelt had discovered Germany's plans to invade Russia. It was Hull who leaked a Japanese intercept to the press, resulting in the November 30, 1941, headline "Japanese May Strike Over Weekend."

That next Monday would have been December 1st, six days before the attack actually came. "The question," Stimson wrote, "was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition." Was it? One obvious answer was to keep the fleet in Pearl Harbor and keep the sailors stationed there in the dark while fretting about them from comfortable offices in Washington, D.C. In fact, that was the solution our suit-and-tied heroes went with.

The day after the attack, Congress voted for war. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin (R., Mont.), the first woman ever elected to Congress, and who had voted against World War I, stood alone in opposing World War II (just as Congresswoman Barbara Lee would stand alone against attacking Afghanistan 60 years later). One year after the vote, on December 8, 1942, Rankin put extended remarks into the Congressional Record explaining her opposition. She cited the work of a British propagandist who had argued in 1938 for using Japan to bring the United States into the war. She cited Henry Luce's reference in Life magazine on July 20, 1942, to "the Chinese for whom the U.S. had delivered the ultimatum that brought on Pearl Harbor." She introduced evidence that at the Atlantic Conference on August 12, 1941, Roosevelt had assured Churchill that the United States would bring economic pressure to bear on Japan. "I cited," Rankin later wrote, " the State Department Bulletin of December 20, 1941, which revealed that on September 3 a communication had been sent to Japan demanding that it accept the principle of 'nondisturbance of the status quo in the Pacific,' which amounted to demanding guarantees of the inviolateness of the white empires in the Orient."

Rankin found that the Economic Defense Board had gotten economic sanctions under way less than a week after the Atlantic Conference. On December 2, 1941, the New York Times had reported, in fact, that Japan had been "cut off from about 75 percent of her normal trade by the Allied blockade." Rankin also cited the statement of Lieutenant Clarence E. Dickinson, U.S.N., in the Saturday Evening Post of October 10, 1942, that on November 28, 1941, nine days before the attack, Vice Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., (he of the catchy slogan "Kill Japs! Kill Japs!" ) had given instructions to him and others to "shoot down anything we saw in the sky and to bomb anything we saw on the sea."

General George Marshall admitted as much to Congress in 1945: that the codes had been broken, that the United States had initiated Anglo-Dutch-American agreements for unified action against Japan and put them into effect before Pearl Harbor, and that the United States had provided officers of its military to China for combat duty before Pearl Harbor. It is hardly a secret that it takes two war powers to wage a war (unlike when one war power attacks an unarmed state) or that this case was no exception to that rule. An October 1940 memorandum by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum was acted on by President Roosevelt and his chief subordinates. It called for eight actions that McCollum predicted would lead the Japanese to attack, including arranging for the use of British bases in Singapore and for the use of Dutch bases in what is now Indonesia, aiding the Chinese government, sending a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Philippines or Singapore, sending two divisions of submarines to "the Orient," keeping the main strength of the fleet in Hawaii, insisting that the Dutch refuse the Japanese oil, and embargoing all trade with Japan in collaboration with the British Empire.

The day after McCollum's memo, the State Department told Americans to evacuate far eastern nations, and Roosevelt ordered the fleet kept in Hawaii over the strenuous objection of Admiral James O. Richardson who quoted the President as saying "Sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against the United States and the nation would be willing to enter the war." The message that Admiral Harold Stark sent to Admiral Husband Kimmel on November 28, 1941, read, "IF HOSTILITIES CANNOT REPEAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED THE UNITED STATES DESIRES THAT JAPAN COMMIT THE FIRST OVERT ACT." Joseph Rochefort, cofounder of the Navy's communication intelligence section, who was instrumental in failing to communicate to Pearl Harbor what was coming, would later comment: "It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the country."

The night after the attack, President Roosevelt had CBS News's Edward R. Murrow and Roosevelt's Coordinator of Information William Donovan over for dinner at the White House, and all the President wanted to know was whether the American people would now accept war. Donovan and Murrow assured him the people would indeed accept war now. Donovan later told his assistant that Roosevelt's surprise was not that of others around him, and that he, Roosevelt, welcomed the attack. Murrow was unable to sleep that night and was plagued for the rest of his life by what he called "the biggest story of my life" which he never told, but which he did not need to. The next day, the President spoke of a day of infamy, the United States Congress declared the last Constitutional war in the history of the republic, and the President of the Federal Council of Churches, Dr. George A. Buttrick, became a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation committing to resist the war.

Why does it matter? Because the legend of Pearl Harbor, re-used on 9-11, is responsible not for the destructive pro-war policies of the 1920s and the 1930s that brought World War II into being, but responsible for the permanent war mentality of the past 70 years, as well as for how World War II was escalated, prolonged, and completed.

"Disturbed in 1942," wrote Lawrence S. Wittner, "by rumors of Nazi extermination plans, Jessie Wallace Hughan worried that such a policy, which appeared 'natural, from their pathological point of view,' might be carried out if World War II continued. 'It seems that the only way to save thousands and perhaps millions of European Jews from destruction,' she wrote, 'would be for our government to broadcast the promise' of an 'armistice on condition that the European minorities are not molested any further. . . . It would be very terrible if six months from now we should find that this threat has literally come to pass without our making even a gesture to prevent it.' When her predictions were fulfilled only too well by 1943, she wrote to the State Department and the New York Times, decrying the fact that 'two million have already died' and that 'two million more will be killed by the end of the war.' Once again she pleaded for the cessation of hostilities, arguing that German military defeats would in turn exact reprisals upon the Jewish scapegoat. 'Victory will not save them,' she insisted, 'for dead men cannot be liberated.'"

Hitler killed millions of Germans, but the allies killed as many or more, Germans ordered into battle by Hitler or Germans in the wrong place when allied bombs fell. And, as Hughan pointed out at the time, the war drove the genocide, just as the vengeful settlement of the previous war a quarter century before had fueled the hostility, the scapegoating, and the rise of Hitlerism. Out of the resistance to war by U.S. conscientious objectors would come, finally, the development of civil resistance to racial segregation in U.S. prisons that later spread to the nation outside the prisons as activists sought to duplicate their victories on a larger scale. But also out of that very worst thing our species has ever done to itself, World War II, would come the permanent military industrial complex. We would extend the power to vote to more and more Americans while, in the cruelest of jokes, transforming voting into an ever more meaningless enterprise. We would paint a fresh coat of glossy pretense on our democracy while hollowing it out from the inside, replacing it with a war machine the likes of which the planet had never seen and may not be able to survive.


Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. I am aghast. Thank you.
The last good war, indeed.

Recommended.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. That is the biggest stinking pile of pig shit I've seen in years.
And any decent person would be ashamed to put their name on something that goes to such insane lengths to do what amounts to excusing the Nazis and blame World War II on the Allies for having "escalated and prolonged" it. And it requires an astonishing amount of historical revisionism to blame the Nazi plans for mass murder on necessities of wartime, imposed by the Allies, when Germany not only started said war but was exterminating people long before it ever turned against them.

This is absolutely disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. +100
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Yes!
Edited on Mon Dec-05-11 12:35 AM by MarianJack
As a son and nephew of WWII vets and "Rosie the Riveters" (in my mom's case a "Marie the Meat Packer"), I find this to be absolutely nauseating. It fits very well with billo's claim from a few years ago that American GIs murdered surrendering SS rather than the other way around.

As Ron White said, "when you have a thought, let it go". This thread is despicable and I am NOT a "silent unreccer".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
29. Well there were certaintly...
Edited on Mon Dec-05-11 01:29 AM by ellisonz
...instances in World War II when advancing GIs did not take prisoners. This was generally only when they were either to isolated to guard them or when they were enraged at German resistance inflicting casualties followed by a plaintive beg for mercy on a bloody battlefield. Germans who were taken prisoner were treated fantastically and I've read many an account of a G.I. being jealous that the surrendering Germans were going to America. It's also important to note that the Allied armies were quite enraged at German treatment of the civilian populations in France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, and North Africa and certainly fought with a chip on their shoulder sometimes. They treated the civilian populations with discipline and respect, even the Germans, and generally did their best to act in accordance with the laws of war unlike the Germans.

This is a very good overview on the average American soldier in WWII Northern Europe: http://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Soldiers-Stephen-Ambrose/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. Yes, most Germans WANTED to surrender to Americans...
...when the war was over. they sure as hell didn't want to surrender to the Russians! If I had to surrender I'd want to surrender to the guys that would feed me too.

My Uncle Joe was the top Sergeant of his unit. When his men saw the treatment of the Jewish concentration camp prisoners they were asking him if they could just shoot the German prisoners they'd taken. He said an emphatic NO because you don't win a war by becoming what you're fighting. What he told us was that he never told his men that it was all he could do to keep himself from putting his Thompson on single fire and shooting all those bastards himself.

I was referring to bill orally's assertion a few years ago that the Malmedy massacre was perpetrated by American GIs on those poor innocent SS while he was justifying Abu Greheb and American torture.

Thanks for your feedback.

PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #29
38. Yes, most Germans WANTED to surrender to Americans...
...when the war was over. they sure as hell didn't want to surrender to the Russians! If I had to surrender I'd want to surrender to the guys that would feed me too.

My Uncle Joe was the top Sergeant of his unit. When his men saw the treatment of the Jewish concentration camp prisoners they were asking him if they could just shoot the German prisoners they'd taken. He said an emphatic NO because you don't win a war by becoming what you're fighting. What he told us was that he never told his men that it was all he could do to keep himself from putting his Thompson on single fire and shooting all those bastards himself.

I was referring to bill orally's assertion a few years ago that the Malmedy massacre was perpetrated by American GIs on those poor innocent SS while he was justifying Abu Greheb and American torture.

Thanks for your feedback.

PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. +1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ohio Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. +1 - Well said - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
21. +100000
But that is the hallmark of the author - exaggeration and dishonest spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. BTW,...
...let's not forget THIS little gem...

Why do I keep recalling the headline of the memo given to President George W. Bush prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks? "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

By all means, why don't we repeat the RW horse manure equating george w moron to FDR as a way of being a bush apologist.

OOOPS, I forgot. People unrecc this poster's threads without reading them! He certainly has a First Amendment right to post this crap. I have a First Amendment right to be really and severely pumped off by the indirect dishonoring of the sacrifices that my family made in that war.

Pardon me while I gag on the bile!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well the post is certainly keeping the silent unreccers busy!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. The unreccing crew automatically unrec David's posts without
reading them.

They often make some people uncomfortable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
46. One one has ever accused the unreccing crew of actually reading things, or reflecting on them!
Those twitchy unrec fingers are quite reflexive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. silence or accusations of excusing nazis
it's a tough choice, but i've gotta go with silence :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. Deaths in WW2 military and civilian Axis and Allied for perspective
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. Bulk of deaths were Japan, China, and USSR. That graphic doesn't show that perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. China and USSR were Allied. They lost millions of civilians in the
war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Yes, China and USSR lost many lives mostly due to U.S. isolationism.
We waited awhile to intervene because we wanted to weaken both countries. The United States took another 3-4 years before it actually put boots on the ground in a significant way (which, btw, ended that war; it would've ended, we just ended it a little bit sooner).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. Roosevelt was not eager to go to war.
However, he did not want to risk being dragged into war entirely unprepared like the U.S. had been in 1917. The United States was still quite weakened by the Great Depression, bitter from the loss of so many young Americans in WWI and not eager to pursue additional foreign entanglements. If the United States had been eager for war it would have intervened in 1939 with Britain and France when Hitler invaded Poland. The United States by no means was eager to go to war and did so only after it had been directly attacked in an unmistakable act of aggression. Roosevelt chafed at the 1935 Neutrality Act and only succeeded in 1941 in pushing through Lend Lease. There was no calculation to weaken Nationalist China nor the USSR, just American intransigence and foolishness. Russia and China certainly took in the jaw, but France and England, both nominal U.S. Allies suffered major defeat and decimation before American intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Act_of_1935
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_Brigade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_tigers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease_act
Valley of Jarama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORP5-017gKM

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
T S Justly Donating Member (133 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. You certainly are obsessive...
... about the truth, Swanson. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I suppose, if you define Nazi apologia as "the truth." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
12. For the hell of it.
Questioner: Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has expressly supported this policy? Why are you supporting it?
Frank: When you ask me that question I am gonna revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time? <...> As you stand there with a picture of the President defaced to look like Hitler, and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis, my answer to you is, as I said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table: I have no interest in doing it.

Fuck the Nazis, Fuck the Empire of Japan, and Fuck Stalin too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
13. Almost as bad as "Osama bin Lynched"...
Revisionist history at its finest.
:thumbsdown:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
15. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
16. It's true we expected an attack, but I doubt things were that thought through.
My dad was there at Pearl Harbor, as his dad was the chief of the USS Minneapolis, and he was six when the Japanese planes flew over his house and started dropping black things out of the sky. The harbor was on the other side of the hill, and Dad and his sisters listened to the bombs and screams. His uncle, serving on one of the battleships in the harbor, only survived by jumping into the burning ocean and somehow ended up back at Dad's house, covered in soot and oil but alive. My grandfather survived because the Minneapolis was with the rest of the fleet looking for the Japanese to the south (where they expected a naval attack to come from, not an aerial attack from the north).

For our family Pearl Harbor is a personal story, a family story. There were 8 sons and 2 daughters in that generation of the Hilberts, and all but the daughters were in the war. My great-uncle was the gunner on the airplane that Midway airport is named after (they named it that after the battle and a son of Chicago, the pilot, died on the second day after helping sink the Akagi on the first day), and my great-grandmother was a gold star mom.

While the official story of us being entirely surprised isn't true, much of this has the spin of accusing us of starting WWII, and that's not true. We didn't even pay the highest cost, even if you take my family into account. The war machine that you so despise kept us safe, provided badly needed jobs, and helped us get out of a terrible depression with the most important job being that it kept us safe.

For those of us from military families (my dad served in the Army in the 50s), you come darn close in this to dishonoring the sacrifices of those who have served honorably. Don't forget that many of those Germans forced into serving lived and worked near concentration camps, smelling the smoke and calling it something else, and voted for Hitler--they're not innocent, especially not if you're going to blame hard-working Americans for taking up arms to defend our country and keep us safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. The admirals at pearl harbor
were not told, much less your grandfather. That's the point. I'm not going to argue that you-plural, whoever this big you is, knew, because I'm arguing against that. In fact, nobody can be found to dispute it and the evidence is overwhelming. The scapegoats were not informed. I also don't think your family started WWII. I think pro-war policies from 1918 forward created WWII and that FDR was hell-bent on getting into it for years. Military jobs are jobs, but you get many more jobs for the same dollars with nonmilitary industires, and you avoid killing people. Yes, I very much want to dishonor military "service." I want to stigmatize it. I want to turn thoughtful people away from it. I don't think we have any other choice if we are to survive as a species terribly much longer. Why the hell would Germans guilty of complicity in mass-murder be innocent??
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
33. Pro-war policies like the Neutrality Act?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
23. Okay, why is this in the 9/11 forum too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Because it repeats the RW theme...
...equating FDR to bush clearing brush and ignoring the bin laden memo.

Example...

...Why do I keep recalling the headline of the memo given to President George W. Bush prior to the September 11, 2001, attacks? "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

After all, the bush apologists have to get in as many BS points in as possible to make him look like less of a moron.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. What does that have to do with 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. The 9/11 forum is the catch-all dungeon for crazy bullshit conspiracy theories.
Alien abduction, chemtrails, invisible prison camps, this is where it all goes once the toilet gets flushed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #31
39. Nothing, However...
...the right is now promulgating lines of crap like this trying to imply that FDR was as negligent before Pearl Harbor as george w moron was in his clearing brush while ignoring the "bin laden determined to attack" memo given to him by a person who'd just "covered his ass".

This thread is nothing but a pile of steaming manure. If there were a "totally offensive nonsense that belongs in a putrid and neglected outhouse" forum, it would belong there.

I need to take a shower after reading it.

PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. I think it alleges LIHOP, not just negligence
"The question," Stimson wrote, "was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition." Was it? One obvious answer was to keep the fleet in Pearl Harbor and keep the sailors stationed there in the dark while fretting about them from comfortable offices in Washington, D.C. In fact, that was the solution our suit-and-tied heroes went with.


That doesn't sound like mere "negligence" to me.

On the other hand, in the preceding paragraph, the OP says that Cordell Hull "leaked a Japanese intercept to the press, resulting in the November 30, 1941, headline 'Japanese May Strike Over Weekend.'" If I can trust the graphics, that headline ran in the Hilo Tribune Herald. I confess I don't see how that played into a nefarious plan to keep the sailors of Pearl Harbor in the dark.

For that matter, I am far from convinced that the attack on Pearl Harbor would have failed to start a war if Americans there had received advance warning -- so this answer doesn't seem "obvious" at all.

As for 9/11, Swanson seems to have stopped short of suggesting that the Bush administration Let It Happen On Purpose, but he also seems to be strategically vague on the entire matter.

I think the whole historical analogy between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is seriously messed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. You make some points I can agree with, You also say...
..."I think the whole historical analogy between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is seriously messed up."

I have a hard time thinking of when messed up logic or facts ever stopped the right from spreading one of their BS talking points.

PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
26. I cooked pigshit and garlic for dinner, I made it taste like sirloin.
In the end, though, it was still pigshit and garlic.

Did you REALLY mean to say that the US killed more Germans than the NAZIS killed in the extermination camps????

I'm not talking about the poles or the italians or the other folks killed there, I'm just talking about the fucking german citizens.

(Ya know, German jews, gays, political prisoners, commies, gypsies, redheaded stepchildren......)


This whole OP is garbage, even for a garbage monger like you.

Fuck me, you really used to be better than this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #26
40. The Allies
Far more
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. The deaths from WW2 show that the Allied nations lost millions more
than the Germans or the Japanese. This goes for both civilian and military dead.

http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
27. Moved where fantasy belongs...
:thumbsup:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. And even though it's been moved...
It's still the most putrid pile of shit in this forum.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Well, I just kicked his Pearl Harbor post from Dec 2010...
which, remarkably, is almost exactly the same as his Pearl Harbor post from Dec 2011.

:hi:

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. I'll be the first to admit the United States...
...actively entered into a race for imperial power and that it has been a long-running impulsive force in our politics leading to tragic mistakes, but the foreign policy preceding World War II only served to demonstrate the necessity of a liberal realist foreign policy.

http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s111699.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_school_of_internat...

But this is extremist claptrap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MarianJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. AS I said in my response to the 12/10 kick,...
...year old crar still stinks!

PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
36. Often wonder if the Mitchell Report and Court martial were
Edited on Mon Dec-05-11 02:39 AM by Downwinder
designed to implant the idea of the vulnerability of Hawaii.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. seems early
no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RZM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
45. This is really stupid stuff
Kudos to the mods for putting it where it belongs. And kudos to the DU community for calling bullshit when they see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. +1...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC