The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Stephen J. Sniegoski Archive
The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_517814863

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search TextOpen All Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The prevalent view of World War II is that of the “good war”—a Manichaean conflict between good and evil. And a fundamental part of the “good war” thesis has to do with the entrance of the United States into the war as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. According to this view, the cause of the war stemmed from the malign effort by Japan, run by aggressive militarists, to conquer the Far East and the Western Pacific, which was part of the overall Axis goal of global conquest. Japan’s imperialistic quest was clearly immoral and severely threatened vital American interests, requiring American opposition. Since American territory stood in the way of Japanese territorial designs, the Japanese launched their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Although the Roosevelt administration had been aware of Japanese aggressive goals, the attack on Pearl Harbor caught it completely by surprise. To the extent that any Americans were responsible for the debacle at Pearl Harbor, establishment historians, echoing the Roosevelt administration, blamed the military commanders in Hawaii for being unprepared. A basic assumption of the mainstream position is that given the Japanese bent to conquest, war with the United States was inevitable. As mainstream historians Gordon W. Prange, Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon put it: “nothing in the available evidence… indicates that they [the Japanese] ever planned to move one inch out of their appointed path, whatever the United States did about it.”[1]Gordon Prange with Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986), p. 40. There was nothing the United States could do to avert war short of sacrificing vital security interests and the essence of international morality.

A small group of revisionist investigators have disputed this orthodox interpretation at almost every turn. Revisionists argue that, instead of following an aggressive plan of conquest, Japanese moves were fundamentally defensive efforts to protect vital Japanese interests. And instead of seeing the United States simply reacting to Japanese aggression, as the orthodox version would have it, the revisionists see the United States goading the Japanese—by aiding China (with whom Japan was at war), military expansion, quasi-secret alliances, and economic warfare—to take belligerent actions. Finally, some revisionists go so far as to claim that Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor but refused to alert the military commanders in order to have a casus belli to galvanize the American people for war. These revisionists see the effort as part of Roosevelt’s effort to bring the United States into war with Germany—the so-called “back-door-to-war” thesis.

Revisionism began before the end of World War II and reflected the views of the non-interventionists who had opposed American entry into the war. Prominent figures in the revisionist camp include: Charles Beard, Harry Elmer Barnes, George Morgenstern and Charles C. Tansill in the 1940s and 1950s; James J. Martin and Percy Greaves in the 1960s and 1970s; and more recently John Toland and Robert B. Stinnett. And some writers have accepted parts of the revisionist position but rejected others. The idea that American foreign policy provoked the Japanese into more belligerent actions, for example, has gained more adherents than the view that President Roosevelt intentionally allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. This essay, however, will not present a historiographical discussion of the revisionist literature bringing out the similarities and differences of the various revisionist authors’ writings. This has been done elsewhere, most notably by Frank Paul Mintz in his Revisionism and the Origins of Pearl Harbor. This essay will try to elucidate the major revisionist themes and to show their validity. In short, this essay hopes to provide what its title proclaims: “The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism.”

The Causes of Japanese Expansionism • 600 Words

Revisionists have focused on the underlying causes of Japanese expansionism in an effort to counter the mainstream view of the nefarious nature of Japanese policy. As Frank Paul Mintz writes:

The revisionists demonstrated—and quite compellingly in some cases–that it makes for a poor historical interpretation to condemn Japan without coming to grips with the strategic, demographic, and economic problems which were at the root of Japan’s—not to mention any nation’s—imperialism.[3]Ibid., p. 81.
(Frank P. Mintz, Revisionism and the Origins of Pearl Harbor (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985).)

Revisionists emphasize that the Japanese had vital economic and security interests in China. Lacking in natural resources, Japan had especially depended upon foreign markets. Thus, access to China became absolutely essential to Japan’s economic well-being when, with the onset of the Great Depression, most industrialized countries established nearly insurmountable trade barriers.[4]For example, British historian Antony Best writes: “In particular, it is important to see how the restrictive trading practices which the British Empire introduced to buttress British industries during the Depression, such as imperial
preference and quotas on Japanese exports, pushed Japan towards the desire for autarky and the establishment of a yen bloc, and thus expansionism in East Asia.” Britain, Japan and Pearl Harbor: Avoiding War in East Asia, 1936-41
(London: LSE/Routledge, 1995), p. 3.
Instead of being an aggressor, Japan had been essentially satisfied with the status quo in China at the start of the 1930s, but as the decade progressed, the forces of Chinese communism and nationalism threatened Japanese interests in China. “It seemed to Tokyo,” Charles C. Tansill wrote, “that Japanese interests in North China were about to be crushed between the millstones of Chinese nationalism and Russian Bolshevism.”[5]Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1952), p. 96.

The revisionists portray the Japanese interests in China as similar to American interests in Latin America. As Anthony Kubek writes:

The United States had its danger zone in the Caribbean and since the era of Thomas Jefferson, every effort had been to strengthen the American position and to keep foreign nations from establishing naval and military bases which would threaten American security. So Japan regarded Manchuria. Japan followed this natural policy and attempted to practice it with reference to the lands that bordered upon the China Sea. Korea, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia were essential pillars of her defense structure.[6]Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1963), p. 3.

While the establishment interpretation emphasizes that the Japanese incursion into China was a violation of Chinese territorial integrity, the revisionists point out that the United States was highly selective in applying this standard. During the inter-war period, the Soviet Union had converted Outer Mongolia into a satellite and secured de facto control over Sinkiang, yet the State Department never protested Moscow’s violations of Chinese sovereignty. And Japanese actions in China were, in part, taken as defensive measures against the growing threat of Soviet Communism. Looking beyond the moral and legal aspects, revisionists maintain that Japanese interests in China did not portend further aggression into Southeast Asia or threaten vital American interests. Rather, American actions—aid to China, military expansion, and economic sanctions—purportedly intended to deter Japanese aggression actually served to induce such aggression into Southeast Asia and ultimately led to the Japanese attack on American territory. This is not to say that there were not extremist, militarist elements in Japan who sought military conquest. But in the immediate pre-Pearl Harbor period, the Japanese government was run by more moderate elements who sought to maintain peace with the United States and who were undermined by American intransigence. As Bruce Russett writes:

ORDER IT NOW

This analysis is meant to establish an important proposition: that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and for that matter on Southeast Asia, is not evidence of any unlimited expansionist policy or capability by the Japanese government. It was the consequence only of a much less ambitious goal, centering on an unwillingness to surrender the position that the Japanese had fought for years to establish in China. When that refusal met an equal American determination that Japan should give up many of her gains in China, the result was war. Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia originated less in strength than in weakness; it was predominantly instrumental to the China campaign, not a reach for another slice of global salami. Of course, there were Japanese political and military leaders with wider ambitions, but they were not predominant in policy-making.[7]Bruce M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972), p. 57.

Anti-Japanese Provocations • 200 Words

In the two years prior to Pearl Harbor, the United States took a number of hostile actions against the Japanese. While the orthodox version portrays this as an effort to deter Japanese aggression, revisionists see this as a deliberate means of provoking war. Robert B. Stinnett, a recent revisionist, goes so far as to claim that the ways to goad the Japanese into war were explicitly spelled out in an “eight action memo” by Lt. Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East Section at the Office of Naval Intelligence, which was dated October 7, 1940. President Roosevelt adopted McCollum’s proposals. “Throughout 1941…,” Stinnett writes, “provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided FDR’s actions toward Japan.”[8]Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: The Free Press, 2000), pp. 8-9. These anti-Japanese provocative actions would fall into three categories: aid to China; military aggressiveness that included military agreements with the British and Dutch; and economic sanctions against the Japan.

Aid to China • 300 Words

It should be pointed out that the United States had, since the turn of the century, provided vocal support for the territorial integrity of China, with emphasis on the “Open Door” that rejected economic spheres of interest by foreign countries. And American military strategists had long envisioned a future war with Japan. However, it was not until the Roosevelt administration that vocal support turned into action. By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since 1937. During that year, the U.S. loaned China $125 million.[9]Wayne S. Cole, An Interpretive History of American Foreign Relations. Revised edition. (Homewood, Il.: Dorsey Press, 1974), p. 377. In 1941, the U.S. extended LendLease to China, which enabled China to receive American war materials without involving payment. The U.S. government covertly sponsored an American-manned air force for China—General Claire Chennault’s American Volunteer Group or the “Flying Tigers.” Although officially “volunteers,” they were actually closely connected to the American military.[10]Robert Smith Thompson, A Time for War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Path to Pearl Harbor (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991), pp. 322-23. Under the law of neutrality as traditionally understood, a neutral state is obliged to treat the belligerents with strict impartiality, which means abstaining from providing any of them military support. Obviously, the U.S. was not acting as a “neutral” in the JapaneseChinese conflict and, by the current “harboring terrorists” standard invoked by the U.S. in Afghanistan, provided justification for the Japanese to make war on it.

The effect of American aid to China was to stiffen Chinese resistance, thus precluding any type of peaceful settlement favorable to the Japanese. The Japanese actually looked to the U.S. to mediate the war in China and thus help to extricate them from an exhausting stalemate. As non- revisionist historian Jonathan G. Utley observes:

They [U.S. government officials] could have ended the fighting by fashioning a compromise settlement, but they saw no future in that. It was better to let the fighting continue to its inevitable conclusion, a military debacle that would drag down the Japanese militarists.[11]Jonathan G. Utley, Going to War with Japan, 1933-1941 (Knoxville, Tn.: University of Tennessee Press, 1985), pp. 34-35.

It was Japan’s inability to terminate the war with China successfully that motivated its military expansion elsewhere.

Secret Commitments • 600 Words

In the first part of 1941, joint military staff conferences took place between the Americans, British, Canadians, and the Dutch to develop plans for global war against the Axis, although the United States was not yet a belligerent. Of greatest importance for the Pacific theater was a meeting in Singapore in April 1941 between the Americans, British, and Dutch. Out of this meeting came the ADB (sometimes called ABCD because of the Canadian involvement in the other meetings) agreement, which committed the conferees to joint action to fight Japan if Japanese forces crossed a geographic line that approximated the northerly extremity of the Dutch East Indies. War would result if Japan invaded British or Dutch territories in Southern Asia or moved into neutral Thailand. In essence, Roosevelt had committed the U.S. to war even if American territory were not attacked. And he had committed the U.S. to war even if the Japanese did not fire the first shot. Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon try to argue that the ADB agreement did not actually commit the United States to make war but only “outlined the military strategy to be followed if the U.S. joined the conflict.”[12]Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, pp. 70-71. This interpretation, however, ignores the fact that central to the ADB agreement was the criterion for joining the conflict—the Japanese crossing of a particular geographical line. Even one of the early defenders of the Roosevelt administration, Herbert Feis, acknowledged this significance in his history: “Had not the Japanese struck at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, this line would have become the boundary between war and peace.”[13]Herbert Feis, The Road to Pearl Harbor: The Coming of the War Between the United States and Japan (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 170.

Though America’s commitment to the ADB agreement was only verbal, the British and Dutch took it as a solid commitment, and the U.S. armed forces drew up a war plan in harmony with it, which became known as WPL forty-six. When the Japanese actually crossed the critical geographic line in December 1941, the Dutch invoked the ADB and were expecting help from the U.S. Navy in repelling the Japanese. Obviously, the Dutch believed the U.S. would back them up, since they would hardly dare to face the mighty Japanese military by themselves.[14]James J. Martin, “Pearl Harbor: Antecedents, Background and Consequences,” [http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/pearl.html].

That the U.S. was preparing military opposition to an armed Japanese advance southward is illustrated by actions as well as words. For this was the whole purpose of American buildup of air power in the Philippines, discussed in the next section. Certainly, the message conveyed to the British and Dutch as well as the Japanese was that the United States would go to war even if its territory were not attacked.

According to the United States Constitution, of course, the U.S. could not just make war because of the President’s military commitment. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Roosevelt needed an armed incident with Japan so as to have the public support to comply with his commitment to war. (Roosevelt did promise “armed support” to the British prior to a declaration of war.[15]John Costello, Days of Infamy: MacArthur, Roosevelt, Churchill–The Shocking Truth Revealed (New York: Pocket Books, 1994), p. 146.) Without such an incident, a declaration of war to counter a Japanese armed advance southward would have been politically difficult, if not impossible. That is why Pearl Harbor was a godsend from Roosevelt’s standpoint. Historian Robert Smith Thompson shows that the military action planned by the Americans, British, and Dutch went beyond simply a defensive effort to stop a Japanese aggressive move southward. They actually planned to go on the offensive. Thompson writes:

First, the ABD powers intended to confine Japan ‘as nearly as possible to the defense of her main islands. Second, they proposed to ‘cut Japan off from all sea communications with China and the outside world by intensive action in the air and waters around Japan, and to destroy by air attack her war industries. Two months before the Pearl Harbor attack, that is, the United States of America was party to a secret international agreement to firebomb Japan.[16]Thompson, p. 366.

Military Build-Up and Provocations • 300 Words

In order to carry out its anti-Japanese policy, the United States was building up its military strength in the Far East. In 1940, President Roosevelt had ordered the move of the Pacific Fleet from its permanent base in San Diego, California to Pearl Harbor. By the fall of 1941, however, the development of a B-17 bomber force in the Philippines had been given precedence over the fleet as the key means of combating Japan. Its purpose could be construed as offensive as well as a deterrent since the United States was planning to bomb Japanese cities. A secret memo General MacArthur received in September 1941 underscored the offensive purposes that American forces would undertake. It read:

[C]ommence operation as soon as possible, concentrating on propaganda, terrorism, and sabotage of Japanese communications and military installations.. Assassination of individual Japanese should also be considered. Prepare to defeat Japan without suffering grievous loss ourselves… We must base mobile forces as near to Japan as is practicable… To the west there is China where air bases are already being prepared and stocked… To the south there is Luzon in the Philippine Islands, within easy air range of Hainan, Formosa, and Canton, and extreme range of southern Japan… Development of further air bases is proceeding.[17]Ibid., pp. 365-366.
(Thompson, p. 366.)
Earlier, Roosevelt had gone so far as to deploy American warships within or adjacent to Japanese territorial waters. Roosevelt called these “pop-up” cruises, saying, “I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing. I don’t mind losing one or two cruisers, but do not take a chance on losing five or six.” Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander of the Pacific Fleet, opposed this provocation, saying: “It is ill-advised and will result in war if we make this move.” Between March and July 1941, Roosevelt sent naval task groups into Japanese waters on three different occasions. Japan protested but fired no shots.[18]Stinnett, pp. 9-10.

Economic Sanctions • 700 Words

America took a number of measures to punish Japan economically. In July 1939, the United States announced that it would end its trade treaty with Japan in January 1940. In October 1940, the U.S. banned the export of scrap iron thus impeding the Japanese production of weapons-grade steel. In July 1941, when Japanese forces moved into southern French Indo-China (having already occupied the northern part in 1940), Roosevelt announced his most drastic measure: the freezing of all Japanese assets in the U.S. This deprived the Japanese of the means to purchase American goods, the most critical of which was oil.[19]This argument has been made that Roosevelt did not intend the freeze on assets to be a complete embargo but that the latter was brought about by anti-Japanese officials in the State Department led by Assistant Secretary of State
Dean Acheson. See Utley, pp. 153-54. This argument is difficult to accept. That Roosevelt made some early statements implying that the embargo would not be total can be seen as an effort to counter those who complained that such an
embargo would inevitably lead to war. If the full embargo were a mistake, Roosevelt could have easily rectified it. Certainly, Roosevelt was aware of the effects on Japanese and their belligerent reaction to the embargo.
The British and Dutch governments followed suit. Japan had to import all of its oil from foreign countries–most coming from the U.S.–because neither Japan nor Japanese-controlled territory in China produced oil. Without oil, the life-blood of the mechanized Japanese army, Japan would be unable to continue its war in China. The U.S. (and the British and Dutch) made it clear to the Japanese that the oil embargo would be relaxed only in exchange for an end to Japanese involvement in China. The New York Times referred to Roosevelt’s action in its July 27 issue as “the most drastic blow short of war.”[20]Quoted in Costello, p. 59.

Mainstream historians have interpreted American cooperation with the British and Dutch as well as the military build-up in the Far East as simply deterrents against further Japanese expansion. Nonetheless, it is easy to understand how the Japanese perceived these developments as a threat to their own security. Such a view seemed to be confirmed by the assets freeze, which implied a move beyond a simple defensive containment of Japan, indicating rather an effort to roll back Japan’s existing gains in China.

ORDER IT NOW

All factions of the Japanese government—moderates as well as extremists—saw the complete abandonment of China as unacceptable. Japan had expended too much blood and treasure simply to pull out. Abandoning China would destroy Japan’s status as a great power and would cause dire economic harm. But without oil, Japan would ultimately be militarily threatened in its own backyard by the AngloAmerican alliance. Moreover, it was not the Japanese war machine alone that was affected. For in addition to freezing assets, the United States government had closed the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. As a result of these economic sanctions, along with the decline in trade stemming from the Russo-German war, Japanese imports fell by 75 percent, and the civilian economy spiraled downward, with serious food shortages.[21]George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War (New York: Devin-Adair Company, 1947), p. 147 The Japanese Foreign Minister, Shigenori Togo, vigorously protested to American Ambassador Joseph Grew that “Economic pressure of this character is capable of menacing national existence to a greater degree than the direct use of force.”[22]Quoted in Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 148.

To save the domestic economy and to be able to continue prosecuting the war in China, Japan required oil and other natural resources—tin, rubber, quinine, rice—that could only be obtained by seizing Thailand, British Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies. These areas would have to be attacked soon before the Japanese Navy’s fuel supplies ran low and before the Anglo-American alliance had developed a powerful military force in the Far East. Of course, Japanese armed movement into these areas would automatically lead to conflict with the ADB powers. “In the last estimate,” revisionist George Morgenstern averred, “Japan was confronted with the option of striking out for a rich new empire or abandoning its conquests and resigning itself to the future of a third-rate nation.”[23]Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 11.

Significantly, the United States government had enacted the economic sanctions with a clear realization that this could lead to war. Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner, Navy chief of war plans, had prepared a report for President Roosevelt on the probable consequences of imposing an oil embargo on Japan, which read:

It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of petroleum will lead promptly to an invasion of the Netherlands East Indies… An embargo on exports will have an immediate severe psychological reaction in Japan against the United States. It is almost certain to intensify the determination of those now in power to continue their present course. Furthermore, it seems certain that, if Japan should then take military measures against the British and Dutch, she would also include military action against the Philippines, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war.[24]Quoted in Bruce R. Bartlett, Cover-Up: The Politics of Pearl Harbor, 1941-1946 (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1978), p. 38.

Provoking Japan into Attacking the United States • 500 Words

To think that American forces in the Far East, with their small number of American B-17 bombers and weak British and Dutch allies, could actually stand up to the powerful Japanese war machine in late 1941 was to engage in wishful thinking in the extreme. But when such military developments reached the ears of the security conscious Japanese, they could easily serve as an inducement to launch a preemptive strike on American forces in the Pacific. Japanese leaders had for some time thought that the United States would make war on Japan if it made an armed advance southward toward British and Dutch territory, even if such territories were not actually attacked. For example, on December 3, 1941, the Japanese embassy in Washington cabled Tokyo: “Judging from indications, we feel that some joint military action between Great Britain and the United States, with or without a declaration of war, is a definite certainty in the event of an occupation of Thailand.”[25]Bruce M. Russet, No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the United States Entry into World War II (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1972), p. 53.

Considerable information on the buildup of American air power in the Far East and its threat to Japan could be easily gleaned from the public media. For example, the U.S. News of October 31, 1941 carried a two-page relief map of the globe with Japan at the center. Arrows were drawn from American bases to Japan with flying times of American bombers. Time magazine of November 21, 1941 carried a story about the builder of the new B-24 bomber, Reuben Harris, and said that these new bombers were already being transported to the Dutch East Indies. The headline of an article by noted columnist Arthur Krock in the November 19, 1941 New York Times read: “New Air Power Gives [Philippine] Islands Offensive Strength Changing Strategy in Pacific.”[26]Thompson, pp. 366, 375.

On November 15, 1941, General George Marshall held a secret press briefing for representatives from the major media—the New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Time, Newsweek, the Associated Press, United Press, and International News Service. Pledging the group to secrecy, Marshall asserted that “We are preparing an offensive war against Japan.” Marshall said that war would probably begin during the first ten days of December and then he went on to delineate a bombing scenario of the Japanese home islands. If this military information were intended to be secret, it is odd that Marshall would mention it to the press at all. Robert Smith Thompson infers that this reflected President Roosevelt’s aim to pass this information on to the Japanese indirectly. “Acting as Roosevelt’s representative,” Thompson opines, “General Marshall spoke to the press, quite likely in the full knowledge that somebody would leak his remarks.”[27]Ibid., pp. 375-77.
(Thompson, pp. 366, 375.)
This exaggerated depiction of American air power that could hit Japanese cities certainly would have the effect of inducing the Japanese to gamble on striking the first blow against the United States while there was still time.

Japan’s Decision for War • 400 Words

The Japanese viewed the American arms to China, the military build-up, and the apparent military alliance between the ABD powers as constituting the Anglo-American “encirclement” of Japan. As Bruce Russett writes: “The freezing of assets on July 26, 1941, was seen as the final link in their bondage.”28 Japan’s aim was to become a powerful, industrial nation that would not be dominated by outside powers as the Far East had been treated by the European colonial powers. But the Japanese saw this goal as being frustrated by the United States, which, in conjunction with European colonial powers, seemed bent on making Japan a weak, third-rate country, like other Asian nations. To the Japanese this was unbearable. There was nothing abnormal about this response. It should be emphasized that since the time of the Monroe Doctrine the United States has sought to have its way in the Western hemisphere, unhindered by the interference of European powers. It would seem to be an empirical fact of world affairs that only weak countries allow themselves to be dictated to by outside powers within their own geographical region.

According to Japanese calculations, the United States would go to war against them if they made a military advance toward British or Dutch territory. In November 1941, the Japanese envoys in the United States were even reporting to Tokyo that the United States might soon militarily occupy the Dutch East Indies as it had earlier occupied Iceland and Dutch Guiana.[29]Kemp Tolley, Cruise of the Lanikai: Incitement to War (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1973), p. 40; Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 115. All of this meant that if Japan wanted to acquire the necessary resources of Southeast Asia and break out of the evertightening Anglo-American “encirclement,” it would have to strike a blow against American power quickly. As Robert Smith Thompson asserts: “With American economic sanctions in place and with American B-17s en route to the Pacific, Japan had only one choice. Japan had to strike—and strike first.”30 The Japanese saw America’s Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor as a significant threat to their military designs in Southeast Asia. “The implication was clear,” Thompson concludes, “Japan’s only salvation lay in taking out the United States Pacific fleet, wherever it lay.”[31]Ibid., p. 379.
(Thompson, p. 352.)

The Japanese military leadership recognized the much greater military potential of the United States and opted for war only because there seemed to be no other alternative. Its aims against the United States were limited: to destroy existing United States offensive capabilities in the Pacific by tactical surprise. The Japanese military leadership hoped only to give its forces time to occupy the islands of the Southwest Pacific, to extract the raw materials of those islands, and to turn the region into a virtually impregnable line of defense, which could frustrate an American counteroffensive.[32]Russett, p. 54.

Japan’s Willingness to Negotiate • 200 Words

Japanese war planners emphasized that the attack would have to take place soon because oil supplies were running out. Although Japan was preparing for war, however, it still sought a last minute peace with the United States. In short, war would be the instrument of last resort if Japan were unable to restore trade with the United States by diplomatic means. It sent its major diplomats to Washington in an effort to achieve peace. In August 1941, Prime Minister Prince Konoye even offered to come to meet President Roosevelt in Washington for negotiations. As Morgenstern writes: “The American diplomatic representatives in Tokyo noted that, almost until the very end, Konoye and the moderate elements were willing to go to almost any lengths to bring off the meeting and avert war.”[33]Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 140. Roosevelt rejected Konoye’s offer. As a result of its failure to achieve a diplomatic solution, Konoye’s moderate government fell from power in October and was replaced by a more militant group headed by General Hideki Tojo. Although this indicated a step toward war, Japan still sought to negotiate with the United States. Among its offers, Japan was willing to promise the United States that it would pull out of southern Indo-China and not join Germany in an offensive war. In return, Japan expected the United States to restore trade, to encourage the Chinese government to negotiate with Japan, and to stop backing China militarily once the negotiations had begun. The United States refused to accept the Japanese offer.[34]Ibid., Pearl Harbor, pp. 150-52.
(Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 140.)

Modus Vivendi • 500 Words

Japan was still seeking a diplomatic solution in November while it prepared to attack. American intelligence had broken the Japanese diplomatic code, and thus the American leadership was aware that if no diplomatic solution were reached, Japan would then go to war. However, the only conciliatory move the Roosevelt administration ever considered making was a modus vivendi, which would have been a temporary truce, sought by American military leaders, to avoid war until America had built up its military strength in the Far East. The modus vivendi would have entailed mutual American and Japanese pledges against aggressive moves in the Pacific. Japan would withdraw from southern Indo-China and limit its troops in the north. In return the U.S. would supply Japan with limited supplies of oil and other materials.

The U.S. government ultimately rejected the modus vivendi on November 26 and instead offered Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s “10 point proposal.” This virtual ultimatum told Japan to withdraw all military and police forces from China and Indo-China and that it must not support any government in China other than the Nationalist government under Chiang. Japan regarded the message as an insult and completely unacceptable. Japan regarded a sphere of influence in China as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much blood and wealth to attain this objective. To accede to the American proposal would be tantamount to surrender. The American proposal essentially cemented Japan’s decision to initiate war and strike Pearl Harbor.

A brief aside here regarding the rejection of the “modus vivendi.” Revisionists, such as Anthony Kubek in How the Far East Was Lost, have pointed out that pro-Communists in the United States government, most importantly Harry Dexter White, pushed for the elimination of the “modus vivendi” in order to enhance the security interests of the Soviet Union. The Soviet aim was to guarantee war between Japan and the West in order to prevent a Japanese attack on the Soviet Far East. This Communist role has been confirmed by recent revelations from the Venona files by Herb Romerstein and John Earl Haynes.[35]John Berlau, “‘Red’ Alert at Pearl Harbor,” Insight Magazine, [http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200106185.shtml]. Most revisionists, however, would maintain that Roosevelt did not require the push from Soviet spies to induce his movement toward war. As Harry Elmer Barnes noted,

Despite all this volume of evidence of communist pressure in the Far East for war between the United States and Japan, I remain unconvinced that it exerted any decisive influence upon Roosevelt, who, after all, determined American policy toward Japan. Roosevelt had made up his mind with regard to war with Japan on the basis of his own attitudes and wishes, aided and abetted by Stimson, and he did not need any persuasion or support from the Communists, however much he may have welcomed their aggressive propaganda.[36]Harry Elmer Barnes, Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century (New York: Arno Press, 1972), p. 76.

American Motives • 300 Words

On the surface, it would seem that the United States pursued a policy that led to war in order to preserve the territorial integrity of China over which it was unwilling to make any compromise with Japan that could preserve the peace. As historian Basil Rauch wrote in defense of the Roosevelt administration’s uncompromising policy:

No one but an absolute pacifist would argue that the danger of war is a greater evil than violation of principle… The isolationist believes that appeasement of Japan without China’s consent violated no principle worth a risk of war. The internationalist must believe that the principle did justify a risk of war.[37]Basil Rauch, Roosevelt, from Munich to Pearl Harbor: A Study in the Creation of a Foreign Policy (New York: Creative Age Press, 1950), p. 472.

However, the preservation of Chinese territorial integrity, which did not seem to involve American security, appears an odd reason for which to go to war. Moreover, it should be pointed out that the professed American concern for Chinese territorial integrity was highly selective. After entering the war, the United States did very little to help China, focusing instead on fighting Germany. Also, the United States government had never criticized the Soviet Union for its violations of Chinese territorial integrity—detaching Outer Mongolia in the 1920s (making it a satellite) and gaining control of Sinkiang province in the 1930s. And in 1945, Roosevelt explicitly violated Chinese territory in the Far East protocol of the Yalta Accord by giving the Soviet Union rights to the ports of Darien and Port Arthur and control of the railways in Manchuria. As historian Anthony Kubek incisively points out:

The Soviet Union had no more right to hold these ports and railways in Manchuria than did Japan… Roosevelt gave to Stalin at Yalta effective control of the same territory over which the United States had gone to war with Japan.[38]Kubek, pp. 108, 111.

It should be emphasized that in contrast to Japan, which actually controlled Chinese territory, the Soviet Union did not already occupy these territories. Rather, Roosevelt seemingly held Chinese sovereignty in such low regard that he thought he had the right to dispose of this Chinese territory in order to bribe Stalin into making war on Japan.[39]Paul W. Schroeder writes: “For those who believe that a vital moral difference existed between the two cases, the problem would seem to be how to show that it is morally unjustifiable to violate principle in order to keep a potential enemy out of a war, yet morally justifiable to sacrifice principle in order to get a potential ally into it. The dilemma appears insoluble.” The Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Relations: 1941 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1958), p. 210.

Back Door to War • 900 Words

But if China was not the real issue, what was America’s motive for war? Roosevelt, like all interventionists, believed Japan was part of an Axis plot to dominate the world, which would threaten American security and values. But once the war began the Roosevelt administration put most of its effort into fighting Germany, which it had planned to do before Pearl Harbor. Because of this emphasis on Germany, revisionists see Roosevelt’s effort to provoke war with Japan as an indirect way of getting the country into war with Germany—the back-door-to-war thesis.

Roosevelt had to take such an indirect approach to war with Germany because a direct approach was not politically feasible. Throughout 1941, Roosevelt believed it was essential for the United States to enter the war against Germany, but he recognized that the majority of the American people opposed such a war even as late as the fall of 1941. Thus, Roosevelt had to rely on deceptive means to edge the country into war. To placate public sentiment, Roosevelt, in his 1940 reelection campaign, had pledged that he would keep the country out of war. Roosevelt publicly preached that his aid-short-of-war policies—such as Lend-Lease, the destroyers-for-bases deal, de facto naval convoys of British ships—were intended to keep the U.S. out of war. However, such clearly unneutral acts would inevitably lead to incidents with Germany.

ORDER IT NOW

Despite America’s unneutral provocations, Hitler sought peace with the United States because he wanted to concentrate on the war with the Soviet Union. Thus, he ordered German submarine commanders to avoid incidents with American ships. Incidents, however, were inevitable. In an apparent effort to generate war fever, Roosevelt deliberately distorted two naval incidents in fall of 1941—involving the USS Greer and the USS Kearney—claiming that the Germans had fired on innocent American vessels.[40]Wayne S. Cole, Roosevelt and the Interventionists (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), p. 444. In reality, the German submarines were responding to American provocations. Roosevelt also promoted other falsehoods in the hopes of stoking the fires of war, which included the claim that the United States government had come into the possession of a “secret Nazi map” of South and Central America showing how that continent would be organized under Nazi rule. Also, Roosevelt said he had a Nazi German document that detailed a plan to abolish all religions and liquidate all clergy and create an “International Nazi Church.” Needless to say, the alleged map and document were not made public then or since.[41]Cole, Roosevelt and the Interventionists, p. 447.

By the end of November 1941, an undeclared naval war existed in the Atlantic as American ships were following a “shoot-on-sight” policy. Roosevelt had the power to do almost everything to aid Great Britain and the Soviet Union—including transporting arms and, for the British, convoying troops—except to send in American land and air forces to fight Germany directly. But despite the impact of events and the pro-war propaganda, fully eighty percent of the American public still opposed a declaration of war. And Congress was still staunchly opposed to war. And America’s belligerent actions could not provoke Germany into a serious incident that could generate American support for full-scale war. Thus, Roosevelt would have to enter war through the back door. That Roosevelt made use of falsehoods and deception regarding the European War made it understandable that he would rely on the same deceptive tactics to become involved in war with Japan.

Revisionists contend that entrance into war with Japan would facilitate American war with Germany. Although many revisionist critics fail to see the connection because the Axis alliance did not require German entrance into an offensive war initiated by Japan, people at the time saw an inextricable link between war with Japan and war with Germany. As Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes, one of the more strident and committed interventionists in the Administration, confided to his diary:

For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan… And, of course, if we go to war against Japan, it will inevitably lead to war against Germany.[42]Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The Lowering Clouds, 1939-1941 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), p. 630 quoted in Bartlett, Cover-up, p. 20.

In his December 9, 1941 radio address, President Roosevelt accused Germany of being closely involved in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. According to Roosevelt, “We know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military and naval operations with a joint plan.” Roosevelt alleged that “Germany has been telling Japan that if Japan would attack the United States Japan would share the spoils when peace came.”43 With the American public outraged about the underhanded “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor, it would not have been difficult to direct that anger at Germany, especially with the inevitability of additional incidents in the Atlantic. And given the likelihood of all-out war with the United States, Hitler quite reasonably declared war on the United States on December 11, in order to gain the good will of the Japanese government, who, he hoped, might reciprocate by making war on the Soviet Union. As Thomas Fleming writes in his The New Dealers’ War, Roosevelt was “trying to bait Hitler into declaring war, or, failing that, persuade the American people to support an American declaration of war on the two European fascist powers.”[44]Fleming, pp. 34-35. Historians have added that America’s secret war plan for attacking German-occupied Europe, which was leaked to the press in early December 1941, helped to motivate his Hitler’s decision for war. Fleming thinks that Roosevelt intentionally leaked the secret war plan in order to bring about this desired result.

Move Toward War • 600 Words

It should be emphasized that the United States took a hard-line approach to Japan even though it was aware that such an approach would cause Japan to make war. United States military intelligence had broken the Japanese top diplomatic code and was reading Japanese diplomatic communications. Besides the actual code-breakers, only a few top-level people in the Roosevelt administration had access to this information. Through Japan’s diplomatic messages, it was apparent that Japan would take military action to grab the necessary resources, if a favorable diplomatic solution were not achieved. How much more the United States knew about Japanese war plans is debated among historians. Even among revisionists, some would hold that at least as late as the first days of December 1941, Roosevelt was not certain that the Japanese would directly attack American territory.

All of this put Roosevelt in a bind because it of his secret commitment to the British and Dutch that the United States would make war against Japan if it moved southward. The problem was whether the American people would be willing to support a war against the Japanese to preserve British and Dutch colonial possessions or (even less likely) to help the British prevent the Japanese occupation of Thailand, which was part of the ADB military plan.

Harry Elmer Barnes wrote that the secret military arrangements with the British and the Dutch “hung like a sword of Damocles over Roosevelt’s head” as the Japanese moved toward a war.

It exposed him to the most dangerous dilemma of his political career: to start a war without an attack on American forces or territory, or refusing to follow up the implementation of ABCD and Rainbow 5 [the military plan based on the agreement] by Britain or the Dutch. The latter [decision] would lead to serious controversy and quarrels among the prospective powers, with the disgruntled powers leaking Roosevelt’s complicity in the plan and exposing his mendacity.[45]Barnes, Pearl Harbor after a Quarter of a Century, p. 108.

In the early days of December, Roosevelt assured the nervous British that the United States would honor its commitment to fight the Japanese if they moved southward. As the British historian John Costello writes, British documents

can leave no doubt that Roosevelt by the eve of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor had given a number of clear, carefully worded assurances of United States ‘armed support’ of Britain in advance of delivering his intended appeal to Congress.[46]Costello, p. 146.

Roosevelt’s monumental problem was how to get Japan to attack the United States in some way in order to solidify the American public behind war. As Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary of November 25, 1941: “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[47]Quoted in Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: A Study in Appearances and Realities (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1948), p. 517. The wording here is critical and is usually glossed over by defenders of orthodoxy. Stimson’s writing definitely implies that the United States would not simply passively await a possible attack by Japanese but would actively “manuever” Japanese into attacking United States. Roosevelt thus sought to create an incident in which the U.S. would
be attacked by the Japanese. It is here that certain apparent differences among revisionists appear. If, as many revisionists have claimed, Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, why would he see any reason to create an incident, rather than simply await the attack? It would thus seem that as of the beginning of December, Roosevelt either was not certain that the Japanese war plan included an attack on American territory, or else he sought a less destructive incident in order to save the Pacific Fleet.

Three Small Ships • 500 Words

Roosevelt’s planned incident consisted of sending “three small vessels” on an alleged reconnaissance mission. He personally authorized this mission in a December 1 message to Admiral Thomas Hart, head of the Asiatic Fleet at Manila. Roosevelt specified that each ship was to be manned by Filipino sailors and commanded by an American naval officer. Furthermore, each vessel was to be armed with cannon so as to give it the minimum requirements of an American “man of war.” The three little ships were directed to sail into the path of a Japanese naval task force that Washington knew was then steaming southward for an invasion of Southeast Asia.[48]Bartlett, pp. 57-59; John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1982), pp. 291-92.

It was highly unusual for a President to be giving such a detailed order for a lower level military function. Moreover, as Thomas Fleming writes, “such a voyage might have made sense in the eighteenth or nineteenth century,” but was rather absurd in an age when airplanes had infinitely greater reconnaissance capability.[49]Fleming, p. 24. And the only radio available for one of the ships could only receive messages, not transmit them. Moreover, Admiral Hart was already carrying out the necessary reconnaissance by air and was reporting the results to Washington. From the outset Hart seemed to recognize the real sacrificial “fishbait” purpose of the alleged reconnaissance mission.[50]Fleming, p. 47; Costello, pp. 146-47; A first hand account of this episode is provided by Tolley, pp. 268-80.

Roosevelt’s apparent intention of sending the little ships was to have them blown out of the water, thus providing an incident for war.[51]An alternative explanation in Gordon Prange’s At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor (New York: Penguin Books, 1981) is that Roosevelt’s order simply reflected his “indestructible faith in small crafts.” (p. 848). This explanation, which presents Roosevelt as a somewhat irrational busybody, is far from convincing. Equipped with cannon, the ships could be presented as far more significant than they actually were. The incident could be reported as American warships destroyed by the Japanese. And the killing of a Filipino crew would engender war fever in the Philippines, where there was strong resistance to getting involved in war with Japan.[52]Edward T. Layton with Roger Pineau and John Costello, And I Was There: Pearl Harbor and Midway—Breaking the Secrets, p. 247.

However, the attack on the little ships never took place. Only one ship, the Isabel could be equipped in short order. Admiral Hart, apparently wanting to preserve the ship, gave it instructions that were far less provocative than Roosevelt had ordered. As a result, the Isabel was able to avoid Japanese fire. A second ship, the Lanakai, was just about to leave Manila Harbor on December 7 when the attack on Pearl Harbor was announced, and a third ship had not yet been selected. In short, the Pearl Harbor attack precluded the need for Roosevelt to create an incident. However, had the American ships been attacked by the Japanese, Harry Elmer Barnes believed that Pearl Harbor could have been saved.

There can be little doubt that the Cockleship plan of December 1st was designed to get the indispensable attack by a method which would precede the Pearl Harbor attack, avert the latter, and save the Pacific Fleet and American lives.[53]Barnes, Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century, p. 90.

This, of course, reflects the revisionist belief that Roosevelt knew in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor Conspiracy • 100 Words

That Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and had deliberately withheld information is the most controversial, and perhaps best known, of the revisionist arguments. The argument runs that Washington intentionally kept the military commanders in Hawaii in the dark about the impending Japanese attack. This would ensure that no countermeasures were undertaken that might cause the Japanese to call it off. It would also preclude the possibility of the American military commanders launching a preemptive attack on the Japanese fleet, which could have muddied the Japanese culpability needed to forge a united American public in favor of war.

“Purple” Code • 200 Words

There is ample evidence of warnings of an impending Japanese attack being sent to American government authorities. For many years, this argument centered around the American breaking of the top Japanese diplomatic code. It was discussed at the Army and Navy Pearl Harbor hearings in 1944 and the 1945-46 congressional hearings. The United States military had broken the top Japanese diplomatic code, which was called “Purple,” with a specially-constructed code-breaking machine, also called “Purple.” The deciphered texts were referred to as “Magic.” Only a few top-level people in the Roosevelt administration had access to this information. The military commanders at Pearl Harbor were not provided with a “Purple” code-breaking machine. And although they were given some intelligence information based on “Purple,” they were denied the most crucial information that pointed to war. By late November 1941, code intercepts read in Washington indicated that Japan was about to make war and break relations with the United States. The deciphered diplomatic messages did not specify Pearl Harbor as the target, but, given that top Washington officials recognized the imminence of war, it is odd why they did not order a full military alert for Hawaii in order to play it safe. The actual codebreakers such as Captain Laurance F. Safford, head of the Communications Security Section of Naval Communications, assumed that such a warning had been given.

“War Warning” • 800 Words

Defenders of the administration would claim that Washington had provided adequate warning to the Pearl Harbor commanders of a possible attack and that the latter had failed to take sufficient defensive preparations. This view was embodied in the 1942 Roberts Commission investigation on Pearl Harbor and, in a milder form, in the 1946 Majority Report of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack. Pearl Harbor investigator Henry Clausen, who in 1944-1945 had investigated the background of the attack at the behest of Secretary of War Stimson, goes to great lengths in his Pearl Harbor: Final Judgment (published in 1992) to try to show that even if the military leaders in Hawaii had simply read the newspapers they should have prepared for a possible Japanese attack.[54]Henry C. Clausen and Bruce Lee, Pearl Harbor: Final Judgment (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1992), pp. 154-56. In Henry Stimson’s final statement to the Joint Congressional Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, which was drafted by Clausen, he asserted that even without a warning from Washington, General Walter C. Short, who was responsible for the defense of Hawaii,

[S]hould have been on the alert. If he did not know that the relations between Japan and the United States were strained and broken at any time, he must have been the only man in Hawaii who did not know it, for the radio and newspapers were blazoning these facts daily … And if he did not know that the Japanese were likely to strike without warning, he could have read his history of Japan or known the lessons taught in the Army schools in respect to such matters.[55]Quoted in Clausen, p. 156.

This defense of the Roosevelt administration is filled with obvious contradictions. If the commanders in Hawaii are to be blamed for failing to anticipate an attack on Pearl Harbor, how can the defenders of the Roosevelt administration likewise claim that there was no reason for Washington to realize that the Japanese would target Pearl Harbor? And if the likelihood of a Japanese attack should have been realized by simply keeping abreast of public news reports, how could Roosevelt make so much of the idea of a “surprise attack”—the major theme of his famous “Day of Infamy” speech?

ORDER IT NOW

It is hard to see how the Hawaii commanders were culpable. The most crucial alleged warnings from Washington were those of November 27, in which the phrase “war warning” was actually used. However, these warnings were totally lacking in clarity. The message to General Short was characterized by the Army Pearl Harbor Board (which investigated the Pearl Harbor attack in 1944) as a “Do-or-don’t” message because of its ambiguities and contradictions.[56]George Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1953), pp. 352. The message referred to possible Japanese hostile actions with the breaking of diplomatic relations and authorized Short to take any measures he thought necessary as long as those actions did not “alarm” the general populace or “disclose intent.” Moreover, Short was required to allow the Japanese to commit the first “overt act.” These restrictions essentially ruled out any effective defensive preparations. General Short interpreted this message as a call to counter sabotage, which required doing such things as bunching airplanes wing tip to wing tip, thus making them sitting ducks for a bombing attack. Short informed Washington of the steps he was taking, and no corrections were forthcoming. In fact, subsequent warnings from Washington regarding subversion and sabotage convinced Short of the appropriateness of his actions.[57]Barnes, Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century, pp. 48-57; Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” pp. 352-54.

Admiral Stark’s message to Kimmel referred to possible Japanese advances in the Far East but said nothing about any possible attack on Hawaii. As the 1944 Naval Court of Inquiry asserted, the so-called “war warning” message sent to Kimmel “directed attention away from Pearl Harbor rather than toward it.”[58]Quoted in Barnes, Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century, p. 60. Furthermore, in November, Navy officials declared the north Pacific Ocean a “vacant sea” and ordered all United States and allied shipping out of this area. This, of course, was the region over which the Japanese task force would travel. Two weeks before the Pearl Harbor attack, Kimmel actually dispatched a portion of the fleet to the sea north of Hawaii for surveillance purposes but he received an order from Washington to bring his ships back to Oahu. In essence, it would seem that information from Washington served to hinder if not prevent the commanders in Hawaii from taking the proper steps to protect their forces.[59]Stinnett, pp. 144-45.

To reemphasize, the defenders of the Roosevelt administration want to have it both ways: that Washington had no reason to believe that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and that the commanders in Hawaii were derelict for not realizing that Hawaii might be attacked. But having access to the decoded intercepts obviously meant that Washington possessed more information on Japanese intentions than did Hawaii. And if the preparations by the military commanders in Hawaii were deficient, there would seem to be no justifiable reason why Washington did not put Hawaii on a full alert. Washington ordered such a full alert in June 1940 when the likelihood of war had been infinitely less.[60]Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, pp. 246, 255.

Winds Signals • 400 Words

Another controversial issue regarding the diplomatic code involved the so-called “winds signals.” On November 19, the Japanese announced in their J-19 diplomatic code (a lower level code than “Purple,” which United States was able to decode) the setting up of a so-called “Winds System,” by which Japanese diplomatic officials and consulates could learn of Tokyo’s war intentions in non-coded form (that is, after their code books had been destroyed) in a regular weather forecast broadcast from Tokyo. The key phrase “East Wind Rain” would mean the breaking of diplomatic relations (and probable war) with the United States. The code destruction orders went out on the first and second of December. On December 4, American intelligence picked up the “East Wind Rain” message. This was the so-called “winds execute” message. That American monitors received this message was accepted in the Army and Navy hearings on Pearl Harbor in 1944. However, at the time of the Congressional hearings of 1945-46 a major cover-up took place. Authorities claimed that no “winds execute” message had ever been received. And it was true that no messages were around—they had been apparently destroyed. And a number of witnesses who had previously claimed to have seen the message were pressured into recanting. Captain Laurance F. Safford, however, despite intense pressure to change his story, continued to maintain that the “winds execute” message had been intercepted, decoded, and widely distributed.[61]Toland, Infamy, pp. 208-217, 244-45.

Crucial confirming evidence for the receipt of “Winds” message was a 1977 interview with Ralph T. Briggs, conducted by the Naval Security Group and declassified by the National Security Agency in March 1980. Briggs said in this interview that he was the one who had intercepted the crucial message, while on duty as chief watch supervisor at the Naval Communication Station at Cheltenham, Maryland. Briggs further stated that he was ordered by his superior officer in 1946 not to testify about the matter to the joint Congressional Committee and to cease any contact with Captain Laurance Safford.[62]Ibid, pp. 195-98; 322-23.
(Toland, Infamy, pp. 208-217, 244-45.)
In addition, both of the Japanese assistant naval attachés posted at the Washington embassy in 1941 have verified that the message was transmitted on December 4, exactly as Safford said.[63]John Toland, “Postscript,” Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath [Paperback] (New York: Berkley Books, 1983), pp. 346-47. Defenders of the administration claim that even if this message had been intercepted, it did not really tell anything not already known–that diplomatic relations were to be broken.[64]Prange, At Dawn We Slept, p. 361. But if the government would go to such great lengths to cover-up this allegedly harmless evidence, one would expect cover-ups and lies about much more important matters.

The Last 24 Hours • 700 Words

Finally, there is the question as to what leading officials in Washington were doing in the last 24 hours before the Pearl Harbor attack. Early in the morning of December 6 (Washington time), American intelligence intercepted the so-called “pilot” message, which announced that Japan’s response to America’s November 26 ultimatum was forthcoming. It would come in 14 parts. The first 13 parts were intercepted and decoded by the early hours of the evening of December 6th, and copies were passed on to the President and to the military and naval chiefs. The harsh language recounting the alleged wrongs done by the United States to Japan clearly pointed to a break in relations. As soon as Franklin D. Roosevelt read the 13 parts, he reportedly told Harry Hopkins that “This means war.”[65]Toland, Infamy, p. 5.

On Sunday morning, the final 14th part of the message was picked up and decoded. It stated that diplomatic relations with the United States were terminated. Ominously, the time of 1:00 P.M. at which the Japanese ambassador was instructed to deliver the entire message to Secretary Hull was recognized by the cryptographers as corresponding with a sunrise attack on Pearl Harbor. A number of intelligence officers urged that a warning to be sent to Pearl Harbor. But General George Marshall, who had to authorize the warning, could not be found. Allegedly he was out horseback riding. No warning was sent to Pearl Harbor until it was too late.[66]Barnes, Pearl Harbor: After a Quarter of a Century, pp. 37-40.

The various investigations of the Pearl Harbor attack—by the Army, the Navy, and the Congress—brought out numerous discrepancies in the testimony regarding these last hours, which revisionists have focused upon. Leading figures could not recall where they were at the time. Lesser military figures altered their testimonies to make them fit in with what their superiors wanted. Revisionists see this as part of a conspiracy purposely to withhold critical information from the Pearl Harbor commanders and later to cover-up this operation. As John Toland writes:

What novelist could persuade a reader to accept the incredible activity during those two days by America’s military and civilian leaders? Was it to be believed that the heads of the Army and Navy could not be located on the night before Pearl Harbor? Or that they would later testify over and over that they couldn’t remember where they were? Was it plausible that the Chief of Naval Operations, after finally being reminded that he talked to Roosevelt on the telephone that night, could not recall if they had discussed the thirteen-part message. Was it possible to imagine a President who remarked, ‘This means war,’ after reading the message, not instantly summoning to the White House his Army and Navy commanders as well as his Secretaries of War and Navy? One of Knox’s close friends, James G. Stahlman, wrote Admiral Kemp Tolley in 1973 that Knox told him that he, Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President: All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor.[67]Toland, Infamy, p. 320.

While establishment historians admit that the Purple intercepts provided the evidence that Japan would make war, they make much of the fact that nothing in the deciphered Japanese diplomatic messages explicitly pinpointed Pearl Harbor as the target. But at that time lower echelon people did perceive that possibility. And the Naval Court of Inquiry, which investigated Pearl Harbor in 1944, maintained:

In the early forenoon of December 7, Washington time, the War and Navy Departments had information which appeared to indicate that a break in diplomatic relations was imminent and, by inference and deduction, that an attack in the Hawaiian area could be expected soon.[68]Naval Court of Inquiry, p. 69 quoted in Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 244.

And what was the rationale for not warning Pearl Harbor even if it were not assumed to be a definite target? Washington had put Hawaii on a full alert in June 1940 with much less justification. It would seem that if Japan were on the verge of war with the United States, a clear warning to Pearl Harbor would have been expected. And the fact of the matter is that there was a considerable amount of additional information beyond the diplomatic messages that pointed to an attack on Pearl Harbor. A convergence of evidence should have been noted.

Bomb Plot Message • 500 Words

One very important piece of intelligent information pointing to an attack on Pearl Harbor was the so-called “bomb plot message.” This consisted of requests from the Japanese government in Tokyo to the Japanese consul-general in Honolulu, Nagoa Kita. One group of messages, beginning in September 1941, divided Pearl Harbor into a grid and directed the Japanese consul in Hawaii to report to Tokyo the locations and number of ships. The Japanese consul’s reports were made throughout the fall of 1941 and decoded in Washington. (Washington was also keeping close surveillance on the leading Japanese spy, cover name Tadashi Morimura, who was engaging in this espionage.) This information was popularly referred to as the “bomb plot” messages since a grid is the classic method of planning a bombing attack. There was no need to know exact ship positions unless the purpose was to attack them. None of this information was passed on to the commanders in Hawaii.[69]Stinnett, pp. 83-107.

Those who have sought to minimize the significance of these “bomb plot” messages have contended that Japanese spies made inquiries at other leading American naval bases, but no such detailed or comprehensive reports, containing as they did grids and coordinates, were demanded of Japanese officials and spies at any other American base in the world. That alone indicated that Hawaii was a special target.

Military intelligence officials realized the significance of the “bomb plot” messages. They were specially marked so their significance could not be missed. The FBI also was following these espionage activities at Pearl Harbor and sending the information to the White House. Roosevelt would have been aware of these activities both through information from naval intelligence and from the FBI.[70]Ibid., p. 101.
(Stinnett, pp. 83-107.)
President Roosevelt’s personal involvement in this issue was especially demonstrated in his October 1941 meeting with David Sarnoff, president of RCA. Roosevelt arranged to have Sarnoff provide copies of the cables between Tokyo and the Honolulu consulate, which were sent through RCA’s Honolulu office, to the Office to Naval Intelligence.[71]Ibid., pp. 106-107.
(Stinnett, pp. 83-107.)

The most crucial message from the Honolulu consulate was sent to Tokyo on December 3rd. It informed Tokyo that the Japanese spies had set up a system of codes confirming the movement of various American warships through the use of signals in windows at Lanikai Beach, which could be spotted by off-shore Japanese “fishing” boats and submarines. This vital information could then be passed on to the Japanese carrier task force. The signal system would operate through December 6th. Thus, the messages revealed the time of the planned attack.[72]Charles Lutton, “Pearl Harbor: Fifty Years of Controversy,” Journal of Historical Review. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/4/ Lutton 431-467.html.

None of the information of the bomb plot messages was provided to the Hawaii military commanders. The Director of Naval Intelligence, Captain Alan Kirk, was replaced in October 1941, because he insisted on warning Hawaii.[73]Toland, Infamy, p. 63. It is also noteworthy that the Roosevelt administration allowed such flagrant spying at Pearl Harbor, going against the requests of J. Edgar Hoover to arrest or deport the spies.[74]Stinnett, p. 97.

Tracking the Fleet • 800 Words

But even if American intelligence had been unable to read the Japanese naval code, Stinnett provides additional information that American monitors had actually tracked the Japanese Pearl Harbor task force by means of radio direction finding techniques. American stations could intercept radio transmissions that enabled trained operators to pinpoint the location of the sender even if the message were indecipherable. The mainstream position has long been that no radio transmissions from the Japanese task force were intercepted after it had begun its movement toward Hawaii. And Japanese naval officials have testified that the fleet was under orders to maintain radio silence.[83]Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, pp. 54-55. Stinnett, however, points out that the order for radio silence from Admiral Yamamoto allowed radio communication in an extreme emergency.

Radio intercepts obtained by US Navy monitoring stations disclosed that the broadcasts continued after the order was issued. Instead of radio silence there was substantial, continuous radio traffic from the Japanese naval ministry, foreign ministry, and warships.[84]Stinnett, p. 124.

John Toland had earlier made the claim that the Pearl Harbor task force had been tracked, though with less hard evidence. He wrote that a Dutch naval attaché in Washington, Johan Ranneft, received information at the Office of Naval Intelligence indicating that the Americans knew a Japanese task force was heading toward Hawaii. Ranneft revealed this information in his diary.[85]Toland, Infamy, pp. 298-99. Also, an American steamship, the Lurline, had picked up the Japanese task force’s radio traffic and reported it to the FBI. Finally, Toland cited a seaman in the intelligence office of the 12th Naval District headquarters in San Francisco who had intercepted the Japanese radio traffic and used it to plot the location of the task force as it headed eastward toward Hawaii. This information was supposedly sent on to the White House. Toland initially referred to this individual as “Seaman Z,” who was later identified as Robert D. Ogg.[86]Ibid., pp. 278-80, 285-86; Roy Davis, BBC, Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor, 1989
(Television documentary).
(Toland, Infamy, pp. 298-99.)
What Stinnett provides is documentary evidence to complement and give credence to these eyewitness accounts.

How do these findings mesh with the Japanese claims of radio silence? In essence, Stinnett maintains that ships in the Japanese fleet only engaged in limited radio communication. Radio communication was necessary in order to regroup the task force after a storm had scattered ships beyond visual signaling range. The Japanese were under the impression that low-power frequencies would travel only a few miles and thus be secure from enemy interception. However, a solar storm caused the radio transmissions to travel vast distances, allowing for interception by American listening posts.[87]Stinnett, p. 205; Furthermore, Stinnett maintains that American monitors were able to determine the location of the Japanese fleet from transmissions to it from shore-based stations in Japan. This involved analysis of the changing radio frequencies. As the distances increased between the ships and the shore transmitters, the radio frequencies, by necessity, changed. Stinnett asserts: “A first day communications intelligence student, aware that Radio Tokyo and Radio Ominato were transmitting to warships could approximate—if not pinpointthe position of the vessels.”[88]Ibid., Footnote 37, p. 367.
(Stinnett, p. 205;)

If, as Stinnett claims, the United States had actually tracked the Japanese task force while knowing that Japan was on the verge of war, it would provide conclusive proof that high American officials were aware of the impending attack. And one might add, why would the United States government make the onerous effort to keep tabs on the movement of the Japanese fleet and then not make use of this crucial information? The only counter argument is that Stinnett is completely wrong about the documentary evidence—that no tracking had taken place. And it would seem that Stinnett would be so radically wrong on this issue that it could only be the result of fraud on his part, not simply error.

It should be added that unlike other revisionists Stinnett’s argument posits a very large conspiracy that stretched beyond Washington. (In contrast, Barnes, by the 1960s, had limited to conspiracy to Roosevelt and Marshall.)[89]Mintz, pp. 96-97. Stinnett goes so far as to maintain that Joseph J. Rochefort, the commander of the cryptographic center at Pearl Harbor, and Edwin Layton, the Pacific Fleet’s chief security officer, were aware of the approaching Japanese fleet and refrained from warning Kimmel. This tends to stretch credulity. However, Stinnett does cite documentary evidence, which, though ridiculed by proponents of the mainstream position, has not been directly refuted.[90]Especially see, Robert B. Stinnett, “Afterward to the Paperback Edition,” Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Touchstone, 2001), pp. 261-70.

Revisionist Mark Willey puts forth an argument that would keep Hawaii intelligence out of the conspiracy loop. Willey points out that it requires two bearings to determine the location of radio transmissions, while Hawaii had only one. He claims that Hawaii was deliberately sent false cross-bearings that precluded accurate tracking.[91]Mark Emerson Willey, Pearl Harbor: Mother of All Conspiracies (NP: NP, 200), p. 196.

Popov’s Warning • 400 Words

In addition to the American code-breaking, revisionists have cited a number of other warnings of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor that were provided to the United States government. One of the most intriguing came from Dusko Popov, a Serb who worked as a double agent for both Germany and Britain. Popov’s true sympathies, however, were with the Allies. Popov was also a notorious playboy, who was code-named “Tricycle” because of his proclivity for bedding two women simultaneously. It is reputed that Popov was Ian Fleming’s model for James Bond.[92]Dusko Popov, Spy/Counterspy: The Autobiography of Dusko Popov (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1974).

In the summer of 1941, Germany sent Popov to the United States to establish an espionage cadre. Popov’s instructions were contained in an questionnaire miniaturized to microdots, which could only be read by a microscope. The instructions asked Popov and his subordinates to obtain information about American war material production and, more ominously, called for a detailed study of Pearl Harbor and its nearby airfields. Popov learned from a German spy that the Japanese needed this information for their planned attack on Pearl Harbor before the end of 1941. Popov made this information known to his British handlers, and the British had him provide this information to the FBI when he came to America in August 1941.[93]Toland, Infamy, pp. 258-60; Mintz, pp. 97-98.

It has been argued that the FBI did not trust Popov’s information and the microdots, and did not fully transmit it to the White House. One explanation is that the prudish J. Edgar Hoover gave little credibility to Popov’s information because of his distaste for his playboy lifestyle.[94]John F. Bratzel and Leslie B. Rout, Jr., “Pearl Harbor, Microdots, and J. Edgar Hoover,” American Historical Review 87 (Dec. 1982): 1342-1351. However, documents the FBI released in 1983 show that it assigned considerable importance to Popov’s information and that this information was passed on to high ranking officers in Army and Naval intelligence. In Frank Paul Mintz’s analysis of the FBI material on Popov, he found that much of the information had been blackened out, so it would be impossible to know that the important parts were not transmitted to the military intelligence and the White House.[95]Telephone interview with Frank P. Mintz on July 31, 2001. Mintz reviewed the Popov documents at the FBI building. As Mintz concludes:

It passes credibility to assume that the microdot questionnaire remained effectively dead to the world in 1941. English intelligence knew about it; the FBI knew; and so did the intelligence services of U.S. armed forces. Most likely both Churchill and Roosevelt became familiar with the full contents of Popov’s microdots during the last quarter of the year.[96]Mintz, p. 100. In a telephone conversation with the author on July 29, 2001, Mintz said that most of the FBI documents dealing with Popov that are available to the public have large segments blacked out.

Other Warnings • 600 Words

On January 27, 1941, Dr. Ricardo Shreiber, the Peruvian envoy in Tokyo, told Max Bishop, third secretary of the United States embassy, that he had just learned from his intelligence sources that there was a Japanese war plan involving a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. After being presented to Ambassador Joseph Grew, this information was sent to the State Department, where it was read by Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Naval Intelligence. Arthur McCollum of Naval Intelligence, Roosevelt’s close confidante according to Stinnett, sent a cable on this issue to Kimmel, with the analysis that “The Division of Naval Intelligence places no credence in these rumors” and that “no move against Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for the foreseeable future.”[97]Stinnett, pp. 31-32. In contrast to the reaction of Naval Intelligence, Ambassador Grew was much impressed by the information. As he 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. I rather guess that the boys in Hawaii are not precisely asleep.[98]Toland, Infamy, p. 253.

The American ambassador was not the only source from Japan providing warnings of the impending attack. Early in the fall of 1941, Kilsoo Haan, a Korean agent-lobbyist in Washington, told Eric Severeid of CBS that the Korean sources in Korea and Japan had proof that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor before Christmas. In late October, Haan finally convinced Senator Guy Gillette of Iowa that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor. Gillette alerted the State Department, Army and Navy Intelligence, and President Roosevelt personally. Stanley K. Hornbeck, then the number three-man at the State Department and an intimate of Henry Stimson, wrote a memorandum to Secretary of State Hull stating that Haan’s Pearl Harbor warning should be taken seriously.[99]Ibid., Infamy, pp. 260-61, 289-90, 311; Toland, “Postscript,” pp. 349-50; Thompson, pp. 370-71.
(Toland, Infamy, p. 253.)

In early December 1941, the Dutch Army in Java succeeded in decoding a dispatch from Tokyo to its Bangkok embassy, referring to planned Japanese attacks on the Philippines and Hawaii. The Dutch passed the information on to Brigadier General Elliot Thorpe, the U.S. military observer. Thorpe found this information so disturbing that he sent Washington a total of four warnings, the last one going to General Marshall’s intelligence chief. Thorpe’s message was acknowledged and he was ordered to send no further messages concerning the matter. The Dutch also had their Washington military attaché, Colonel F. G. L. Weijerman, personally warn General Marshall.[100]Toland, Infamy, pp. 281-82, 291.

Dr. Hans Thomsen, the German charge d’affaires in Washington, who was anti-Nazi, told Colonel William J. Donovan, American intelligence chief (and later head of the OSS), that the Germans intended to attack Pearl Harbor. This information was put into a memorandum. It is hard to believe that Donovan would not have brought this to Roosevelt’s attention since he conferred with him several times in November and early December 1941.[101]Thompson, p. 383.

ORDER IT NOW

According to Congressman Martin Dies, his House Un-American Activities Committee’s investigation into Japanese intelligence activities in 1941 had uncovered a map and other documents providing “precise information of the proposed attack” on Pearl Harbor. When Dies informed Secretary of State Hull, he was told to keep quiet on the matter because of “extremely delicate” relations between Japan and the United States. Dies claimed that representatives from the State Department and the Army and Navy inspected the map.[102]Martin Dies, Martin Dies Story (New York: Bookmailer, 1963), p. 165.

Revelations of Knowledge About the Attack • 300 Words

Revisionists also cite a number of revelations that officials of the United States government, including Roosevelt, had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. In his November 15, 1941, secret press briefing, Marshall told his audience that the United States had information derived from encrypted Japanese messages that war between the United States and Japan would break out during the first ten days of December. Although Marshall apparently did not specifically mention Pearl Harbor, his reference to the cracked codes implied that American intelligence would have been aware of the location of the impending attack.[103]Stinnett, pp. 157-58.

Colonel Carleton Ketchum substantiates J. Edgar Hoover’s claim that Roosevelt knew of the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor. According to Ketchum, at the behest of Congressmen George Bender of Ohio, he attended a private meeting of a select group of congressmen and government officials in Washington in early 1942 at which J. Edgar Hoover referred to various warnings of the attack on Pearl Harbor that he had passed on to FDR. Hoover also said that Roosevelt had received information on the impending attack from other sources. Hoover was allegedly told by Roosevelt to keep quiet on that matter. Ketchum said that before Hoover spoke, the group was reminded of their usual pledge of secrecy (confidential matters were supposedly often discussed before the group), but that Ketchum believed that since the release of Toland’s Infamy in 1982, which discussed similar matters, he was freed of his pledge of secrecy. Ketchum had referred to this meeting and the talk on Pearl Harbor in general terms in his 1976 autobiography, in which he stated that he still observed his pledge of silence on the specifics of what was discussed. It was this earlier reference that helps to give Ketchum’s later statement regarding Hoover’s actual message some credibility.[104]Toland, “Postscript,” p. 342-44. Ketchum had referred to this meeting and the talk on Pearl Harbor in general terms in his 1976 autobiography, in which he stated that he still observed his pledge of silence on the specifics.

In an oral history, John A. Burns, a governor of Hawaii, said that while he was a police officer on the Honolulu force, an FBI agent informed him in early December 1941 of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Other witnesses identified the agent as Robert Shivers.[105]Toland, “Postscript,” p. 345.

Joseph Leib’s Account • 200 Words

One of the most fascinating revelations comes from Joe Leib, a newspaper reporter who had formerly held posts in the Roosevelt administration. Leib claimed that his friend, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, confided to him on November 29, 1941 that President Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor within a few days, and that the President was going to let this happen as a way to get the country into war. Hull was strongly opposed to this scheme. He turned over to Leib a document containing a transcript of Japanese radio intercepts which allegedly concerned the Pearl Harbor plan. While making Leib promise never to reveal his source, Hull urged him to take the story to the press. Leib took the story to the United Press bureau, which it refused to run it. Although Leib did manage to get a version of it placed onto United Press’s foreign cable, only one newspaper took it, the Honolulu Advertiser, which created a front-page banner headline in its Sunday, November 30 issue: “Japanese May Strike Over Weekend.”[106]Davis, BBC, Sacrifice.

Roosevelt and the Red Cross • 200 Words

A recent Pearl Harbor investigator, Daryl S. Borgquist, contends that Don C. Smith, who directed War Services for the Red Cross before WWII, was told by Roosevelt in November 1941 to prepare secretly for an impending Japanese attack on Hawaii. This story came to light in a 1995 letter from Smith’s daughter, Helen C. Hamman, to President Clinton dealing with the issue of the culpability of Admiral Kimmel and General Short, which was then being reconsidered by the United States government. Roosevelt, Ms. Hamman wrote, told her father that he was to keep this effort secret from the military personnel on Hawaii. Roosevelt said that “the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attack [sic] within their own borders.” Borquist was able to confirm the basics of Hamman’s story–the Red Cross did quietly send large quantities of medical supplies and experienced medical personnel to Hawaii shortly before December 7, 1941.[107]Daryl S. Borgquist, “Advance Warning? The Red Cross Connection,” Naval History, 13:3 (May/June, 1999), [http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/NHborgq...st.htm].

Conclusion • 2,500 Words

How is one to evaluate the various parts of the revisionist position? The evidence would seem to be clear that Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack the United States. It is apparent that the U.S. could have taken alternative policies aimed at the preservation of peace. And given the threat the United States posed to Japan in its very own geographical region, it was quite understandable that Japan would strike at the United States. Moreover, American government officials clearly recognized that the American policies would push Japan into belligerency. Furthermore, it seems clear that Roosevelt desired a Japanese attack on an American territory or ship in order to galvanize public support behind a declaration of war that would enable him to honor his commitments in the ADB agreement.

Nevertheless, some qualifications are necessary. It is not as apparent, or necessary for the revisionist thesis, that Roosevelt was following some rigid plan to achieve war with Japan going back to the first part of 1940, as some hard revisionists such as Stinnett maintain. It is quite conceivable that at times Roosevelt considered maintaining peace with the Japanese so as to focus on the European war. Moreover, it does not seem to have been in Roosevelt’s character to have a perfectly consistent policy—certainly this was the case in his domestic policy. As revisionist Frederic Sanborn opines:

Therefore it may be true that there was a complex ambivalence, not thoroughly thought out, in Mr. Roosevelt’s attitude toward the expedience of peace or war with Japan. It is quite possible that he did not fully commit himself to the latter choice until late in November 1941. By his own express declarations we know that he deliberately temporized. Temporizing is sometimes merely a way to postpone making a decision, but it may also be a method of awaiting a favorable opportunity to put into effect a decision already made.[108]Frederic R. Sanborn, “Roosevelt is Frustrated in Europe,” in Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, p. 221.

That Roosevelt had foreknowledge of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor requires some qualification. It is likely that not all failures to see the impending attack on Pearl Harbor were the result of conspiracy. As Harry Elmer Barnes realized, part of the reason for the failure of official Washington to alert Hawaii was its fixation on Japanese troop movements in the Southeast East Asia because of the implications this had on the ADB agreement.[109]Mintz, p. 38.

Also as late as the first days of December, there seems to have been extreme nervousness among Roosevelt and his inner circle that the Japanese might avoid attacking American territory. Certainly, the British government seemed to be of this opinion in its effort to get assurances from the United States that it would honor its commitment to fight the Japanese when they moved southward.[110]Costello, pp. 326-27. And, of course, why would Roosevelt try to arrange an incident with the three little ships if he knew the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor? Perhaps, Roosevelt was aware of the possibility of the attack on Pearl Harbor but lacked certitude. Then again, as Harry Elmer Barnes implied, perhaps Roosevelt sought to save the fleet by getting the United States into the war earlier through an incident involving the little ships.

But while Roosevelt might not have been certain of the Pearl Harbor attack, it would seem that he was at least aware of its likelihood. There is just too much converging evidence to conclude otherwise—that the attack on Pearl Harbor took Roosevelt completely by surprise. Perhaps, some of this evidence can be questioned, but it is hard to question all of it. Even before the new information provided by Stinnett became known, Frank Paul Mintz concluded that “the ‘argument from saturation’ is the most persuasive one in behalf of the contention that Washington was forewarned.”[111]Mintz, p. 101. If the information provided by Stinnett is accurate—that the United States actually was reading the Japanese naval codes and was tracking the task force as it moved toward Hawaii— it would by itself be sufficient to prove the revisionist case.

Of course, a number of arguments (some mutually exclusive) have been used to criticize the overall revisionist position. (Earlier in this essay, criticisms of specific revisionist points have been noted and countered.) One of the mildest deals with the idea that while the agencies of the United States collected information that would show that Pearl Harbor was a target, such information was not in Roosevelt’s hands. However, Roosevelt was actively involved in American foreign policy decision-making, so it would seem hard to believe that he would be uninformed regarding intelligence issues. And as discussed earlier in this essay, Stinnett points out that Roosevelt was given access to, and was interested in, specific intelligence information regarding Pearl Harbor.

A more fundamental criticism of the revisionist position relies on an argument made by Roberta Wohlstetter in Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decisions[112]Roberta Wohlstetter, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1962). that claims that American intelligence was so overwhelmed with information, which she refers to as “noise,” that it could not make an accurate evaluation. Wohlstetter acknowledges that in hindsight one could see that information pointed to a Japanese attack, but that before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor it was impossible to select out the valid information, which was “imbedded in an atmosphere of ‘noise.’”[113]Ibid., p. 387.
(Roberta Wohlstetter, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1962).)
However, it is hard to see how this could be an insurmountable problem for intelligence gatherers. Being able to select the wheat from the chaff is their fundamental function. “Noise” would exist in any intelligence situation. It is not apparent that the situation American intelligence faced in 1941 was vastly more complicated than what is normally the case.

Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon write that in a “thorough search of more than thirty years, including all publications released up to May 1, 1981 we have not discovered one document or one word of sworn testimony that substantiates the revisionist position on Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor.”[114]Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, p. 850. One wonders what the authors mean here. Certainly, there is evidence for the revisionist case.. If Goldstein and Dillon[115]Prange was deceased when this part was written. use the term “substantiate” to mean something like absolute proof, it must be admitted that no one document, to date, absolutely proves the revisionist case. But then again a single document rarely “proves” any historical argument. It is numerous pieces of evidence that point to one conclusion. Michael Shermer makes use of this “convergence of evidence” argument to prove that the Holocaust happened and for historical proof in general.[116]Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Didn’t Happen and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). It would certainly seem to be applicable to Pearl Harbor. And this argument meshes with Mintz’s “argument from saturation.”

Another criticism of the revisionist position is the rejection of the possibility of a successful conspiracy. Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon assume that such a conspiracy would have had to have encompassed a large number of individuals.

To accept the revisionist position, one must assume that almost every one of those individuals, from the President on down, was a traitor. Somewhere along the line someone would have recalled his solemn oath to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and have blown the whistle.[117]Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, p. 64.

But there is no need to assume a massive conspiracy because its actions were extremely limited—the conspirators simply refrained from sending necessary information to Hawaii. And there is no reason to assume that the members of Roosevelt’s inner circle would ever publicly confess to this operation because instead of regarding their action as traitorous, they undoubtedly believed that they were acting for the good of the country.

ORDER IT NOW

Other arguments against the revisionist thesis make assumptions about Roosevelt’s character—that he was too humanitarian to sacrifice American lives. Dillon and Goldstein, for example, write that “nothing in his history suggests that this man could plot to sink American ships and kill thousands of American soldiers and sailors.”[118]Ibid., p. 64.
(Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, p. 64.)

But, as demonstrated by his efforts to get into the war, Roosevelt, like many other leaders considered great, was not squeamish about the loss of lives to achieve a higher good. And contrary to the Goldstein and Dillon scenario, revisionists do not accuse Roosevelt of actively plotting to kill Americans. He simply allowed the attack to take place. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, Roosevelt could have reasonably expected the damage to have been much less than it was. According to the conventional wisdom of the day, the battleships in Pearl Harbor were virtually invulnerable to air attack and the harbor was too shallow for torpedoes to be effective.[119]Toland, “Postscript”, p. 348.

A related argument assumes that allowing the fleet to be destroyed was just too much of a risk for Roosevelt to have taken. But leaders considered “great” have been known for taking risks–think of Napoleon, or Alexander the Great. And the American risk was actually not that great considering what Roosevelt thought to be the alternative if the United States did not enter the war—Axis domination of the world that would imperil the United States. Moreover, because of the anti-war stance of the American public, Roosevelt realistically believed that only an overt attack on the United States could generate the necessary public support for war. Thus, from Roosevelt’s point of view, only an attack on the United States would enable to United States to take the necessary step—i.e., war—for its survival. Any risk would be worth it—somewhat like the risk a terminal cancer patient takes in having a serious, even experimental operation, in order to stave off an otherwise unavoidable death. But again there was no reason for Roosevelt to regard the risk to be of any great magnitude—certainly the security of continental United States was not endangered. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, Roosevelt could have reasonably expected the damage to have been much less than it was. And Japan was not perceived as an all-powerful foe. Once the Allies, which included the Soviet Union, had taken care of the greatest danger—Germany—it could reasonably be assumed that they could easily defeat Japan.

Henry Stimson revealed in his diary that the White House proponents of war could see the positive results of the Pearl Harbor attack from the very outset:

When the news first came that Japan had attacked us my first feeling was of relief that the indecision was over and that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people. This continued to be my dominant feeling in spite of the news of catastrophes, which quickly developed. For I feel that this country united has practically nothing to fear; while the apathy and divisions stirred up by unpatriotic men had been hitherto very discouraging.[120]Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 309.

Finally, many mainstream historians, instead of writing with any type of detachment, have closely identified with World War II as the “good war,” and are automatically hostile to any ideas that might tarnish this image. This is quite apparent in Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon, who refer to the Allies as the “free world” even when Stalinist Russia is included. Ultimately, Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon view the revisionists as not simply producing erroneous history but as posing a deliberate threat to human freedom. Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon write:

We would not devote so much space to it [the revisionist interpretation] except for two frightening aspects. First, such disregard for the laws of evidence undermines the structure of Occidental justice, so laboriously erected over the centuries. If contemporary documents and sworn testimony can be disregarded in favor of unsupported charges and personal venom, no citizen is safe… It also recalls uncomfortably the notion so widespread among the Germans after World War I, and such a favorite thesis with Hitler, that Germany did not really suffer military defeat, but had been stabbed in the back by politicians on the home front.[121]Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, p. 39.

Thus, Prange, Goldstein, and Dillon connect Pearl Harbor revisionism with Nazism. The emotionalism evident in such thinking can easily distort their writing. In short, they judge the revisionist account by much higher standards of proof than are conventionally applied to historical events.

It can be wondered what could possibly constitute proof of the revisionist argument that could satisfy adherents of the establishment position. It should be noted that in rejecting the revisionist thesis mainstream historians are quite willing to abandon establishment arguments fervently held in the past. For example, John Prados, a proponent of the mainstream position, actually accepts Stinnett’s contention that the Japanese fleet approaching Hawaii did not maintain radio silence and that American intelligence monitored its radio transmissions. Now the radio silence argument had been a bulwark of the mainstream position to explain why the Japanese task force could reach Pearl Harbor undetected. The fact that the mainstream historians might have been completely wrong on this crucial point, however, does not cause Prados to consider the idea that the revisionists might be right in their overall view. Rather, Prados goes on to chastise Stinnett for,

attributing every failure to a nefarious ‘plan,’ giving no attention to the ambitions of certain Navy officers who wanted to dominate all intelligence, operations and communications services to the fleet… and their plan was not a conspiracy to get the United States into World War II.[122]John Prados, “Rumors of War,” Review of Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett in “Book World,” Washington Post, March 5, 2000, p. X-7.

But what evidence would be necessary to prove the revisionist thesis? It appears that for some establishment thinkers no type of evidence would provide sufficient proof. Certainly, Prados’ argument allows for a pre-emptive rejection of revisionism even if the revisionist contention that American intelligence could read the Japanese naval codes would be accepted as true.

As revisionist James J. Martin aptly points out:

There are never enough data to enable one to prove an unpopular historical thesis. An establishment, having anchored its lines, predictably vilifies a rival and subjects those involved to ridicule and ultimately to personal detraction and traducement which goes far beyond that. This ad hominem denigration is expected to transfer to their intellectual product. And no matter what the latter put on the record, the former insist that it is not enough ‘proof,’ regardless of how flimsy or unconvincing was the ‘proof’ used to create the establishment position.[123]Martin, “Pearl Harbor.”

Pre-conceived ideas generally control historical observations. Historians, especially those who make their living in academic circles, must necessarily work within the paradigmatic confines of the prevailing orthodoxy, especially where taboo topics are involved. The heretic must labor on the scholarly fringes, with little or no financial backing and no major avenues for dissemination. Perhaps this would be considered a tautology, but it is likely that the revisionist account of Pearl Harbor and the origins of the war with Japan can never receive a fair hearing in mainstream circles until the presentation of World War II as the “good war” is no longer of great instrumental value to the reigning establishment.[124]This could be interpreted as a “paradigm” shift, a term made famous by Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). Obviously, the “good war” scenario still serves a vital purpose as America, victorious over the mighty Taliban, marches forward to make the world safe from “terrorism.”

Stephen J. Sniegoski holds a Ph.D. in American diplomatic history and is the author of several historical articles.

References • 1,700 Words

[1] Gordon Prange with Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986), p. 40.

[2] Frank P. Mintz, Revisionism and the Origins of Pearl Harbor (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985).

[3] Ibid., p. 81.

[4] For example, British historian Antony Best writes: “In particular, it is important to see how the restrictive trading practices which the British Empire introduced to buttress British industries during the Depression, such as imperial
preference and quotas on Japanese exports, pushed Japan towards the desire for autarky and the establishment of a yen bloc, and thus expansionism in East Asia.” Britain, Japan and Pearl Harbor: Avoiding War in East Asia, 1936-41
(London: LSE/Routledge, 1995), p. 3.

[5] Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1952), p. 96.

[6] Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949 (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1963), p. 3.

[7] Bruce M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1972), p. 57.

[8] Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: The Free Press, 2000), pp. 8-9.

[9] Wayne S. Cole, An Interpretive History of American Foreign Relations. Revised edition. (Homewood, Il.: Dorsey Press, 1974), p. 377.

[10] Robert Smith Thompson, A Time for War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Path to Pearl Harbor (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991), pp. 322-23.

[11] Jonathan G. Utley, Going to War with Japan, 1933-1941 (Knoxville, Tn.: University of Tennessee Press, 1985), pp. 34-35.

[12] Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, pp. 70-71.

[13] Herbert Feis, The Road to Pearl Harbor: The Coming of the War Between the United States and Japan (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 170.

[14] James J. Martin, “Pearl Harbor: Antecedents, Background and Consequences,” [http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/pearl.html].

[15] John Costello, Days of Infamy: MacArthur, Roosevelt, Churchill–The Shocking Truth Revealed (New York: Pocket Books, 1994), p. 146.

[16] Thompson, p. 366.

[17] Ibid., pp. 365-366.

[18] Stinnett, pp. 9-10.

[19] This argument has been made that Roosevelt did not intend the freeze on assets to be a complete embargo but that the latter was brought about by anti-Japanese officials in the State Department led by Assistant Secretary of State
Dean Acheson. See Utley, pp. 153-54. This argument is difficult to accept. That Roosevelt made some early statements implying that the embargo would not be total can be seen as an effort to counter those who complained that such an
embargo would inevitably lead to war. If the full embargo were a mistake, Roosevelt could have easily rectified it. Certainly, Roosevelt was aware of the effects on Japanese and their belligerent reaction to the embargo.

[20] Quoted in Costello, p. 59.

[21] George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War (New York: Devin-Adair Company, 1947), p. 147

[22] Quoted in Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 148.

[23] Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 11.

[24] Quoted in Bruce R. Bartlett, Cover-Up: The Politics of Pearl Harbor, 1941-1946 (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1978), p. 38.

[25] Bruce M. Russet, No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the United States Entry into World War II (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1972), p. 53.

[26] Thompson, pp. 366, 375.

[27] Ibid., pp. 375-77.

[28] Russett, p. 53.

[29] Kemp Tolley, Cruise of the Lanikai: Incitement to War (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1973), p. 40; Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 115.

[30] Thompson, p. 352.

[31] Ibid., p. 379.

[32] Russett, p. 54.

[33] Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 140.

[34] Ibid., Pearl Harbor, pp. 150-52.

[35] John Berlau, “‘Red’ Alert at Pearl Harbor,” Insight Magazine, [http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200106185.shtml].

[36] Harry Elmer Barnes, Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century (New York: Arno Press, 1972), p. 76.

[37] Basil Rauch, Roosevelt, from Munich to Pearl Harbor: A Study in the Creation of a Foreign Policy (New York: Creative Age Press, 1950), p. 472.

[38] Kubek, pp. 108, 111.

[39] Paul W. Schroeder writes: “For those who believe that a vital moral difference existed between the two cases, the problem would seem to be how to show that it is morally unjustifiable to violate principle in order to keep a potential enemy out of a war, yet morally justifiable to sacrifice principle in order to get a potential ally into it. The dilemma appears insoluble.” The Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Relations: 1941 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1958), p. 210.

[40] Wayne S. Cole, Roosevelt and the Interventionists (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), p. 444.

[41] Cole, Roosevelt and the Interventionists, p. 447.

[42] Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The Lowering Clouds, 1939-1941 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), p. 630 quoted in Bartlett, Cover-up, p. 20.

[43] Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers’ War: F. D. R. and the War Within World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2001), pp. 34-35.

ORDER IT NOW

[44] Fleming, pp. 34-35. Historians have added that America’s secret war plan for attacking German-occupied Europe, which was leaked to the press in early December 1941, helped to motivate his Hitler’s decision for war. Fleming thinks that Roosevelt intentionally leaked the secret war plan in order to bring about this desired result.

[45] Barnes, Pearl Harbor after a Quarter of a Century, p. 108.

[46] Costello, p. 146.

[47] Quoted in Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: A Study in Appearances and Realities (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1948), p. 517.

[48] Bartlett, pp. 57-59; John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1982), pp. 291-92.

[49] Fleming, p. 24.

[50] Fleming, p. 47; Costello, pp. 146-47; A first hand account of this episode is provided by Tolley, pp. 268-80.

[51] An alternative explanation in Gordon Prange’s At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor (New York: Penguin Books, 1981) is that Roosevelt’s order simply reflected his “indestructible faith in small crafts.” (p. 848). This explanation, which presents Roosevelt as a somewhat irrational busybody, is far from convincing.

[52] Edward T. Layton with Roger Pineau and John Costello, And I Was There: Pearl Harbor and Midway—Breaking the Secrets, p. 247.

[53] Barnes, Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century, p. 90.

[54] Henry C. Clausen and Bruce Lee, Pearl Harbor: Final Judgment (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1992), pp. 154-56.

[55] Quoted in Clausen, p. 156.

[56] George Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1953), pp. 352.

[57] Barnes, Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century, pp. 48-57; Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” pp. 352-54.

[58] Quoted in Barnes, Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century, p. 60.

[59] Stinnett, pp. 144-45.

[60] Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, pp. 246, 255.

[61] Toland, Infamy, pp. 208-217, 244-45.

[62] Ibid, pp. 195-98; 322-23.

[63] John Toland, “Postscript,” Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath [Paperback] (New York: Berkley Books, 1983), pp. 346-47.

[64] Prange, At Dawn We Slept, p. 361.

[65] Toland, Infamy, p. 5.

[66] Barnes, Pearl Harbor: After a Quarter of a Century, pp. 37-40.

[67] Toland, Infamy, p. 320.

[68] Naval Court of Inquiry, p. 69 quoted in Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 244.

[69] Stinnett, pp. 83-107.

[70] Ibid., p. 101.

[71] Ibid., pp. 106-107.

[72] Charles Lutton, “Pearl Harbor: Fifty Years of Controversy,” Journal of Historical Review. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/4/ Lutton 431-467.html.

[73] Toland, Infamy, p. 63.

[74] Stinnett, p. 97.

[75] Frederick D. Parker, “The Unsolved Messages of Pearl Harbor,” Cryptologia 15 (October 1991), pp. 295-313.

[76] See for example: James Rusbridger and Eric Nave, Betrayal at Pearl Harbor: How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into WWII (New York: Summit Books, 1991).

[77] Author’s telephone conversation with Robert B. Stinnett on July 30, 2001.

[78] Stinnett, p. 22.

[79] Ibid., p. 71.

[80] Ibid., p. 82.

[81] In the author’s telephone conversation with Robert B. Stinnett on July 27, 2001, he emphatically stated that documents explicitly noting the reading of the Japanese naval codes in late 1941 exist in the National Archives in College Park, Maryland.

[82] Stephen Budiansky, “Too Late for Pearl Harbor,” U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings, December 1999, pp. 47-51 [http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles99/PRObdiansky.htm].

[83] Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, pp. 54-55.

[84] Stinnett, p. 124.

[85] Toland, Infamy, pp. 298-99.

[86] Ibid., pp. 278-80, 285-86; Roy Davis, BBC, Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor, 1989
(Television documentary).

[87] Stinnett, p. 205;

[88] Ibid., Footnote 37, p. 367.

[89] Mintz, pp. 96-97.

[90] Especially see, Robert B. Stinnett, “Afterward to the Paperback Edition,” Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Touchstone, 2001), pp. 261-70.

[91] Mark Emerson Willey, Pearl Harbor: Mother of All Conspiracies (NP: NP, 200), p. 196.

[92] Dusko Popov, Spy/Counterspy: The Autobiography of Dusko Popov (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1974).

[93] Toland, Infamy, pp. 258-60; Mintz, pp. 97-98.

[94] John F. Bratzel and Leslie B. Rout, Jr., “Pearl Harbor, Microdots, and J. Edgar Hoover,” American Historical Review 87 (Dec. 1982): 1342-1351.

[95] Telephone interview with Frank P. Mintz on July 31, 2001. Mintz reviewed the Popov documents at the FBI building.

[96] Mintz, p. 100. In a telephone conversation with the author on July 29, 2001, Mintz said that most of the FBI documents dealing with Popov that are available to the public have large segments blacked out.

[97] Stinnett, pp. 31-32.

[98] Toland, Infamy, p. 253.

[99] Ibid., Infamy, pp. 260-61, 289-90, 311; Toland, “Postscript,” pp. 349-50; Thompson, pp. 370-71.

[100] Toland, Infamy, pp. 281-82, 291.

[101] Thompson, p. 383.

[102] Martin Dies, Martin Dies Story (New York: Bookmailer, 1963), p. 165.

[103] Stinnett, pp. 157-58.

[104] Toland, “Postscript,” p. 342-44. Ketchum had referred to this meeting and the talk on Pearl Harbor in general terms in his 1976 autobiography, in which he stated that he still observed his pledge of silence on the specifics.

[105] Toland, “Postscript,” p. 345.

[106] Davis, BBC, Sacrifice.

[107] Daryl S. Borgquist, “Advance Warning? The Red Cross Connection,” Naval History, 13:3 (May/June, 1999), [http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/NHborgquist.htm].

[108] Frederic R. Sanborn, “Roosevelt is Frustrated in Europe,” in Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, p. 221.

[109] Mintz, p. 38.

[110] Costello, pp. 326-27.

[111] Mintz, p. 101.

[112] Roberta Wohlstetter, Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1962).

[113] Ibid., p. 387.

[114] Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, p. 850.

[115] Prange was deceased when this part was written.

[116] Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Didn’t Happen and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).

[117] Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, p. 64.

[118] Ibid., p. 64.

[119] Toland, “Postscript”, p. 348.

[120] Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, p. 309.

[121] Prange, Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History, p. 39.

[122] John Prados, “Rumors of War,” Review of Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett in “Book World,” Washington Post, March 5, 2000, p. X-7.

[123] Martin, “Pearl Harbor.”

[124] This could be interpreted as a “paradigm” shift, a term made famous by Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

(Republished from The Occidental Quarterly by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Revisionism is necessary in history, but please hold the ‘white guilt’ crap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    instead of white guilt, wish we wouldn't spout crap like "exceptional" "indispensable"

    we are just another war mongering empire :) out for our interests only.

    how many unz readers buys into the bad guys and good guys crap?
    , @Randal

    please hold the ‘white guilt’ crap
     
    White guilt stuff is as silly as the British/US empire-worshipping nonsense.

    But the above is not "white guilt" stuff but rather simple realism. It's what you get when you strip away the silly self-serving childishness that pretends the US regime is somehow special, in that it only ever does things out of noble motivations. It's a state, and it does what is in the perceived interests of those with the power to influence its behaviour, just like all states.
    , @jacques sheete
    Where does the author make the charge or even the implication of white guilt? This is one helluvan objective piece and the author does a heroic job, in fact, of making his case. Seems to me that there are plenty of white heroes in the account and they were/are the ones trying to get the truth out.

    I'd like to point out that anyone who doesn't blame those responsible is himself partly to blame for keeping the lies alive and allowing the crimes to continue. Anyone who has a clue as to how, why and when the American empire acquired "possessions" in the Pacific, yet whines about "white guilt" is guilty of acting like a sniveling ignoramus who doesn't have the cajones to admit the truth.

    Lenin, Stalin, and Stalin's buddies FDR and Churchill and the bankers and bureaucrats who profited from the war were what shade of pale, anyway? Do you think those hideous fools shouldn't bear a heavy burden of guilt? Explain or forever hold your peace. Better yet, take the effort to discover the truth. You can start by reading this article until you understand what the man is saying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    My history professor told me that FDR assured that Japan could keep Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan. If Japan withdrew from rest of China, US would resume business with Japan.

    That seemed like a good deal.

    Given recent US foreign policy in the Middle East and toward Russia, I don’t know what to trust anymore.
    One thing for sure, US government and Western media since the end of the Cold War have been filled with sociopaths and power-crazed nuts. Very much like the pathological snakes in CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER and NO WAY OUT.

    I would like to believe FDR was fundamentally a decent man who was alarmed by the threat of Nazism and Japanese militarism. And indeed, those were real major threats to parts of the world back then.
    In contrast, so many of the ‘new hitlers’ and ‘new stalins’ since the end of the Cold War have been hyped-up jokes.

    But I don’t know. Even if FDR was mostly decent, he was very devious. But that is politics.

    Anyway, Japan made the fatal mistake when it shifted from national resurgence to imperialism. Thus joining the European imperialist club, it came to regard other Asian nations as prey than partner. And it foolishly thought that white nations would treat it equally if it played the same game.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    USA wanted the Japanese to leave China outside of Manchuria before the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because China belonged to the "United State Court for China" of the "District of China" which was subordinated to the Ninth Judical Circuit in San Francisco; Japanese incursion of China outside of Manchuria was an intrusion of the US turf. USA was simply protecting its turf and it has nothing to do with USA being resonable and making a deal with the Japanese.

    Japanese invasion of China was fueled by the Amercan war materials and technologies, USA was the biggest war materials and technology supplier to the Japanese invasion against China prior to the sneak attack of the Pearl Harbour, the American made huge profits from the Japanese invasion of China.

    Before the Pearl Harbor farce China was fighting the barbaric Japanese alone, no help from the USA, UK, France, and Russia except the Nazi Germany which wanted to revenge the Japanese stabbing their back in WWI.

    After the Pearl Harbor farce the majority aids from the USA was weapons which were mostly used in the Chinese civil war to kill Chinese.

    The USA and Japan were the same gang of the rest of barbaric Western colonial imperalists, they had no empathy for their preys, the WWII was a squabbling of prey's bone and flesh went bad among the greedy barbaric colonial imperialists.

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or the other old days colonial imperialists, they are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground.
    , @Historian

    My history professor told me that FDR assured that Japan could keep Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan. If Japan withdrew from rest of China, US would resume business with Japan.
     
    Your professor is right. The revisionists base their case on a highly-selective reading of history. For example:

    Also, the United States government had never criticized the Soviet Union for its violations of Chinese territorial integrity—detaching Outer Mongolia in the 1920s (making it a satellite) and gaining control of Sinkiang province in the 1930s.

     

    The British and Japanese were also involved in stripping away China's outer provinces. The British got Tibet to declare independence in 1912, and the Japanese took Manchuria in 1931. We let all of them get away with it -- British, Soviet, and Japanese.

    But it is one thing to strip away China's outer provinces. It is quite another to invade China proper, as Japan did in 1937.

    China is divided into five parts: China proper, Tibet, Sinkiang, Mongolia, and Manchuria. China proper makes up only 50% of the land area, but 90% of the population and 90% of the economic activity.

    We didn't slap an embargo on Japan when they took Manchuria. We only imposed an embargo after the Japanese took over half of China proper. It's the difference between letting Germany have the Sudetenland, and not letting them have Poland.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @Anon
    Revisionism is necessary in history, but please hold the 'white guilt' crap.

    instead of white guilt, wish we wouldn’t spout crap like “exceptional” “indispensable”

    we are just another war mongering empire :) out for our interests only.

    how many unz readers buys into the bad guys and good guys crap?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Fair point. But I'd note that the us government and empire hasn't been killing, torturing, threatening, bullying, lying, stealing, etc., in the interests of the American people, on balance. They've served the interests of a very small subset of Americans, and many non-Americans, even enemies of Americans: military contractors and lobbyists, big donors from here and abroad, Israel and its tiny but powerful and obnoxious domestic lobby, oil magnate murderers and rapists like the Saudis, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Leibniz says:

    Here is Dr. Webster Tarpley’s lecture that “attacks the official and revisionist” approach to Pearl Harbor.

    Tarpley states that this was an attack orchestrated by Churchill to attack FDR. Tarpley goes into the historical background of the British Empire being a morphing of the Venice, to which it is upon Venetian methods that are the fingerprints upon this operation. This understanding identifies how the power, of the British Empire works, where world historical acts of terrorism is the true operating principle of pure power.

    An engaging slide lecture, relevant to understanding 9/11 and Isis.

    Well worth a look.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon Halpenny
    British spies did help the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. Churchill danced for joy when he heard about the bombing.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/10/richardnortontaylor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Forbes-Sempill,_19th_Lord_Sempill#Espionage_1939-41
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Sam J. says:

    Oh the evil White Man. Why he wouldn’t prop up the Japanese Empire. Bastards. Refused to sell them scrap iron and oil. Surely not doing so is a sign that the White Man is truly evil and wicked. Why he even went so far as to help a nation attacked and occupied by the loving, gentle, Japanese. How could the White Man be so cruel?

    Four legs good, two legs bad (chant three time).

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Oh the evil White Man. Why he wouldn’t prop up the Japanese Empire. Bastards.
     
    Yeah, why wouldn't he, especially since they propped up Uncle Joey Stalin. BTW, was Stalin an evil white guy or was he just a sweet little choir boy? How 'bout Vlad Lenin? Nice cuddly white guy, right?

    You may wanna brush up on your history of Marxism ( another fine "white" guy who advocated world revolution, Leninism, Stalinism, and the Bolsheviks. Ya may wanna toss in a review of Zionism while yer at it too.

    Once you've done that you may start to be qualified to make sensible comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. The first casualty of war is the truth. Here it still suffers many subsequent casualties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Wally says: • Website

    Now that the truth about Pearl Harbor is being exposed we need to look a bit further at all the lies conjured up about WWII.

    That something is the absurd ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’. They simply did not happen.

    If something can’t happen as alleged, then it didn’t.

    Dare to examine the absurd & laughable ‘holocaust’ storyline rationally, logically, scientifically and it falls apart like the house-of-cards that it is.

    [MORE]

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    - Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the ’6,000,000′ lie since at least 1869?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The article is about Japan, it's murderous conquests of China and other Asian nations, not the war in Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Sam J.
    Oh the evil White Man. Why he wouldn't prop up the Japanese Empire. Bastards. Refused to sell them scrap iron and oil. Surely not doing so is a sign that the White Man is truly evil and wicked. Why he even went so far as to help a nation attacked and occupied by the loving, gentle, Japanese. How could the White Man be so cruel?

    Four legs good, two legs bad (chant three time).

    Oh the evil White Man. Why he wouldn’t prop up the Japanese Empire. Bastards.

    Yeah, why wouldn’t he, especially since they propped up Uncle Joey Stalin. BTW, was Stalin an evil white guy or was he just a sweet little choir boy? How ’bout Vlad Lenin? Nice cuddly white guy, right?

    You may wanna brush up on your history of Marxism ( another fine “white” guy who advocated world revolution, Leninism, Stalinism, and the Bolsheviks. Ya may wanna toss in a review of Zionism while yer at it too.

    Once you’ve done that you may start to be qualified to make sensible comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. This is a fine article with an astoundingly comprehensive covering of almost every consideration possible in a venue like this.

    Another consideration that seems to have been short changed by historians is the issue of opium. Some folks condemn the Japanese militarists for attempting to grow poppies and produce opium in their colony, Manchukuo, but somehow never get around to condemning the Allied trade in the stuff.

    My view is that their attempt to bust into the world narcotics market, even on a ridiculously low scale, must have been viewed as an unacceptable competitive threat to the big and long established drug lords of the world, and was thus another motive for the Allies to go to war with them.

    Also, it’s clear to me that the main value of conquering Japan was to gain slave labor and remove competition since they obviously were not a source for much by way of resources.

    On the other hand, certain big money boys no doubt had their greedy eyes on the USSR with it’s vast resources.

    On another note, I may have missed it, but I didn’t read of any reference to Murray Rothbard’s excellent writing regarding WW2 revisionism. Below are some interesting quotes from him regarding WW1 and WW2.

    [MORE]

    “Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned ( ed: by a select few): that Germany and Japan are not uniquely “aggressor nations,” doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.”

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs.

    In a notable series of articles in 1894, Bankers’ Magazine set the agenda for the remainder of the decade. Its conclusion: if “we could wrest the South American markets from Germany and England and permanently hold them, this would be indeed a conquest worth perhaps a heavy sacrifice.

    Olney declared, when “it behooves us to accept the commanding position… among the Power of the earth.

    Wars are inevitable, Dickinson declared, for they arise out of commercial competition between nations.

    World War II might therefore be considered, from one point of view, as a coalition war: the Morgans got their war in Europe, the Rockefellers theirs in Asia.

    -Murray N. Rothbard,Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @JoeFour
    "My view is that their attempt to bust into the world narcotics market, even on a ridiculously low scale, must have been viewed as an unacceptable competitive threat to the big and long established drug lords of the world..."

    Fascinating comment ... do you have books to recommend on this?

    Brought to mind: (1) the Opium Wars waged by Great Britain against China in the 19th century and (2) Fletcher Prouty's contention that control of the Golden Triangle was one cause of the Vietnam War and the contention (made by several observers who names I remember not) that resuming the opium trade from Afghanistan (the Taliban having halted poppy farming) was one cause of that (still continuing) war...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Here’s why the truth rarely gets traction.

    So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand.

    Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.21-[3], 431 BC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Miro23 says:

    I’m all in favour of evidence based revisionism (for example, revising the government account of 9/11) but with regard to WW2 in the Pacific, the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level while disproving it on the specific of Pearl Harbour. This essay does a good job of revealing foreknowledge of the attack.

    On the strategic level:

    “Revisionists argue that, instead of following an aggressive plan of conquest, Japanese moves were fundamentally defensive efforts to protect vital Japanese interests. And instead of seeing the United States simply reacting to Japanese aggression, as the orthodox version would have it, the revisionists see the United States goading the Japanese—by aiding China (with whom Japan was at war), military expansion, quasi-secret alliances, and economic warfare—to take belligerent actions.”

    China was at war with Imperial Japan in the same way that Russia was at war with Imperial Germany (Third Reich). Both China and Russia were invaded as part of Imperial Projects based on economic dominance and racial superiority. This in no way legitimizes the awful Russian Bolsheviks (with their own ideas of Jewish racial superiority), but the US was quite justified in aiding China – (although pro-Bolsheviks in the state department conspired to delay and halt US aid to Chiang Kai-shek to favour the Communist insurgency).

    “The United States had its danger zone in the Caribbean and since the era of Thomas Jefferson, every effort had been to strengthen the American position and to keep foreign nations from establishing naval and military bases which would threaten American security. So Japan regarded Manchuria. Japan followed this natural policy and attempted to practice it with reference to the lands that bordered upon the China Sea. Korea, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia were essential pillars of her defense structure.”

    The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea, and Germany invaded Russia, but the US didn’t invade South America to “safeguard its security”. There is a difference, although policy may now have changed since the US used the same weasel words to justify invading and destroying Iraq.

    “Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia originated less in strength than in weakness.”

    Hitler also used the argument of the essential pre-emptive strike; ” “If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest state in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! …..They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed – and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Göring Works.”

    “By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since 1937.”

    This should read, ” By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since the Japanese invasion and occupation of its territory (Manchuria) in 1931.”

    European and American colonial projects had largely terminated with WW1 while the late starters, Germany and Japan, were inevitably running up against existing imperial possessions.

    “The Japanese saw America’s Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor as a significant threat to their military designs in Southeast Asia.”

    It was a deterrent to Japanese imperial aggressions. Yes.

    “The U.S. government ultimately rejected the modus vivendi on November 26 and instead offered Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s “10 point proposal.” This virtual ultimatum told Japan to withdraw all military and police forces from China and Indo-China and that it must not support any government in China other than the Nationalist government under Chiang. Japan regarded the message as an insult and completely unacceptable. Japan regarded a sphere of influence in China as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much blood and wealth to attain this objective.”

    Rather like telling the Israelis to get out of the West Bank (reworded as, “Israel regarded a sphere of influence in the Middle East as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much (American) blood and wealth to attain this objective”.)

    “Because of this emphasis on Germany, revisionists see Roosevelt’s effort to provoke war with Japan as an indirect way of getting the country into war with Germany—the back-door-to-war thesis.”

    The evidence disproves this. Probably the best top level account of the WW2 Allied military at work is Alanbrooke War Diaries 1939 1945: Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Alanbrooke-War-Diaries-1939-1945-Marshall/dp/1842125265/ref=cm_cr-mr-title and it shows the Americans much more interested in the Pacific (exclusively in the case of Admiral King) and having to be pushed into European operations.

    On the specific Pearl Harbour level:

    “As Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary of November 25, 1941: “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.””

    This could be interpreted as a looking for an excuse for a war to invade and destroy Japan (US imperial project), or looking for an excuse for a war to push back the Japanese Imperial project (the same as the re-conquest of German occupied Europe to push back the German imperial project).

    They’re different concepts – one is US Imperialistic and the other is anti-Imperialistic.

    It was probably anti-Imperialistic, but the evidence certainly points to foreknowledge of a Japanese attack and a willingness to “set up” Pearl Harbour. As the essay says, “One of Knox’s close friends, James G. Stahlman, wrote Admiral Kemp Tolley in 1973 that Knox told him that he, Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President: All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor”, while officially they couldn’t be found.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    with regard to WW2 in the Pacific, the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level while disproving it on the specific of Pearl Harbour. This essay does a good job of revealing foreknowledge of the attack.
     
    Your subsequent points concerning the strategic level appear to be mostly based around justification. I don't see you making a substantive case to support your assertion that "the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level".

    The US was "justified" in taking China's side against Japan to the exact same extent that Japan (if it had had the power) would have been justified in taking the native Philippinos' side against the US occupation 40 years earlier - as a similar pretext to claim to be defending the weak against oppression whilst actually doing so merely in order to prevent the rise of a rival power.

    The official narrative was (as always with the US) intervening reluctantly for the greater good and the relief of the weak against oppression. The reality (again, as always with the US) was that it was intervening to serve the purposes of those who influenced US policy - in this case the prevention of the rise of a potential rival power in the Pacific.
    , @jacques sheete

    The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea, and Germany invaded Russia, but the US didn’t invade South America to “safeguard its security”.
     
    Depends on what you call South America and besides, what does the Monroe Doctrine mean to you? Why was the US entitled to enforce the MD in Central America while Japan was not entitled to form or enforce the East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere?

    Do repeated invasions of Central American countries such as Mexico and Nicaragua count? Why or why not?

    Are you aware of the history of Panama and how it was ripped from Colombia with the help of the US military? Why was that not considered an invasion?


    Even more obvious, why did the Americans double cross then invade and occupy the Philippines, which is right in Japan's back door?

    Have you ever asked yourself how Hawaii itself came under American domination? It ain't a pretty picture.

    Have you ever questioned what the US was doing in Midway and Guam, and when they did it?

    Do you understand American involvement in China?

    Fun fact: one of FDR's grandparents, Warren Delano II, made a bundle of money running clipper ships between India and China in the opium trade, then made a bundle more peddling opiates to the Union Army during the war on the South. You may find it useful to brush up on that history.

    Can you explain anything about Standard Oil's dealings in China and the rest of Asia, and how SO would have reacted to any perceived threat to its market?

    I don't wanna hear the foolishness that it was dem Nips what started da war.

    , @alexander
    Wow, Miro23,

    What a superb and thoughtful post.

    Your thinking and reasoning is spot on.

    If one concedes, as all the evidence would indicate, the American People were indeed "defrauded" into the catastrophic Iraq war, then the issue of demanding accountability remains the most potent weapon we have to insure it never happens again.

    May I say, for the record, I believed completely, when we were told it was Saddam's Anthrax spores found in our capitol and in our news offices...

    I believed it in the exact same way one believed that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor.

    I believed too, when we were told that Saddam was a lead sponsor of Al Qaeda, and that he had amassed weapons of mass destruction to attack our country.

    Most Americans were persuaded, quite forcefully, that if we did not attack Iraq ASAP, there would be "mushroom clouds" over the US.

    All these Casus Belli(s) which we accepted to be 100% true at the time , turned out to be erroneous ...wholly fraudulent.

    Total lies.

    Whereas nobody to this day can deny that Japan did, in fact, attack Pearl Harbor.

    There is a BIG distinction between the two which needs to be fleshed out.

    Taking a nation to war on "fraudulent" claims is a very serious crime, against not only the Iraqi people whose lives were snuffed out, but against the American people whose trillions in tax dollars were pilfered, to kill them.

    [ May I add that only one individual, since 2003, has ever acknowledged this(or been ALLOWED to acknowledge this) on "mainstream" news...and this was Donald Trump during the GOP debates last year.He was the first person, EVER, in prime time, to say we were "lied" into the Iraq war.]

    It took twelve years for the scaly truth(of the Iraq war deceptions) to find its way onto an open, and much watched, public platform.

    Twelve years !

    May I point out, in the case of the Iraq War, one could argue, in retrospect, that its chief proponents functioned as though they were a bizarre synthesis of Bernie Madoff and Son of Sam.

    Defrauding Americans out of trillions of their tax dollars to prosecute a war..in the exact same way Bernie Madoff defrauded his investors out of millions to pad his nest.

    Only in the case of the Iraq war proponents, these tax dollars were extracted to murder (perhaps)millions of Iraqis (who never attacked us) on a scale that would make Son of Sam, blush.

    The double heinousness of this criminal mendacity has yet to be addressed.

    The biggest Buffer toward any accountability for the Iraq War fiasco has been the M.S.M itself, for no other reason than they shared equally is the deceptions that precipitated it.


    I do agree with you, Miro23, that revisionism of settled history based on "hard evidence", should occur and should always be recognized.

    But we have to be aware of the manipulations that can be employed to AVOID accountability for recent authentic criminal behavior .....by reconstituting the past as having been "equally" guilty of such duplicity.

    The criminal proponents of the Iraq War, fully aware of their crimes, would seek to "dirty up" the past with the very same deceits, to absolve them of account.

    This , revising or re-critiquing of THE PAST , to provide an underlying "continuity" toward their criminality, in THE PRESENT , is just more fraud on top of fraud. It becomes a technique of obfuscation...... not illumination.

    They would want you to believe that Japans attack on Pearl Harbor was as equally fraudulent, and "ginned up", as the Saddam Anthrax attacks on our capitol.

    Which it wasn't.

    We need to be on guard toward an honest revisionism (which is worthwhile) and AGAINST a "contorting" of the past to dissolve the potency of the demand for accountability, today.

    Wouldn't you agree ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Randal says:
    @Anon
    Revisionism is necessary in history, but please hold the 'white guilt' crap.

    please hold the ‘white guilt’ crap

    White guilt stuff is as silly as the British/US empire-worshipping nonsense.

    But the above is not “white guilt” stuff but rather simple realism. It’s what you get when you strip away the silly self-serving childishness that pretends the US regime is somehow special, in that it only ever does things out of noble motivations. It’s a state, and it does what is in the perceived interests of those with the power to influence its behaviour, just like all states.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Randal says:
    @Miro23
    I'm all in favour of evidence based revisionism (for example, revising the government account of 9/11) but with regard to WW2 in the Pacific, the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level while disproving it on the specific of Pearl Harbour. This essay does a good job of revealing foreknowledge of the attack.

    On the strategic level:


    "Revisionists argue that, instead of following an aggressive plan of conquest, Japanese moves were fundamentally defensive efforts to protect vital Japanese interests. And instead of seeing the United States simply reacting to Japanese aggression, as the orthodox version would have it, the revisionists see the United States goading the Japanese—by aiding China (with whom Japan was at war), military expansion, quasi-secret alliances, and economic warfare—to take belligerent actions."
     
    China was at war with Imperial Japan in the same way that Russia was at war with Imperial Germany (Third Reich). Both China and Russia were invaded as part of Imperial Projects based on economic dominance and racial superiority. This in no way legitimizes the awful Russian Bolsheviks (with their own ideas of Jewish racial superiority), but the US was quite justified in aiding China - (although pro-Bolsheviks in the state department conspired to delay and halt US aid to Chiang Kai-shek to favour the Communist insurgency).

    "The United States had its danger zone in the Caribbean and since the era of Thomas Jefferson, every effort had been to strengthen the American position and to keep foreign nations from establishing naval and military bases which would threaten American security. So Japan regarded Manchuria. Japan followed this natural policy and attempted to practice it with reference to the lands that bordered upon the China Sea. Korea, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia were essential pillars of her defense structure."
     
    The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea, and Germany invaded Russia, but the US didn't invade South America to "safeguard its security". There is a difference, although policy may now have changed since the US used the same weasel words to justify invading and destroying Iraq.

    "Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia originated less in strength than in weakness."
     
    Hitler also used the argument of the essential pre-emptive strike; " "If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest state in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! .....They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed - and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Göring Works."

    "By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since 1937."
     
    This should read, " By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since the Japanese invasion and occupation of its territory (Manchuria) in 1931."

    European and American colonial projects had largely terminated with WW1 while the late starters, Germany and Japan, were inevitably running up against existing imperial possessions.


    "The Japanese saw America’s Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor as a significant threat to their military designs in Southeast Asia."
     
    It was a deterrent to Japanese imperial aggressions. Yes.

    "The U.S. government ultimately rejected the modus vivendi on November 26 and instead offered Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s “10 point proposal.” This virtual ultimatum told Japan to withdraw all military and police forces from China and Indo-China and that it must not support any government in China other than the Nationalist government under Chiang. Japan regarded the message as an insult and completely unacceptable. Japan regarded a sphere of influence in China as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much blood and wealth to attain this objective."
     
    Rather like telling the Israelis to get out of the West Bank (reworded as, "Israel regarded a sphere of influence in the Middle East as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much (American) blood and wealth to attain this objective".)

    "Because of this emphasis on Germany, revisionists see Roosevelt’s effort to provoke war with Japan as an indirect way of getting the country into war with Germany—the back-door-to-war thesis."
     
    The evidence disproves this. Probably the best top level account of the WW2 Allied military at work is Alanbrooke War Diaries 1939 1945: Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Alanbrooke-War-Diaries-1939-1945-Marshall/dp/1842125265/ref=cm_cr-mr-title and it shows the Americans much more interested in the Pacific (exclusively in the case of Admiral King) and having to be pushed into European operations.

    On the specific Pearl Harbour level:


    "As Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary of November 25, 1941: “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”"
     
    This could be interpreted as a looking for an excuse for a war to invade and destroy Japan (US imperial project), or looking for an excuse for a war to push back the Japanese Imperial project (the same as the re-conquest of German occupied Europe to push back the German imperial project).

    They're different concepts - one is US Imperialistic and the other is anti-Imperialistic.

    It was probably anti-Imperialistic, but the evidence certainly points to foreknowledge of a Japanese attack and a willingness to "set up" Pearl Harbour. As the essay says, "One of Knox’s close friends, James G. Stahlman, wrote Admiral Kemp Tolley in 1973 that Knox told him that he, Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President: All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor", while officially they couldn't be found.

    with regard to WW2 in the Pacific, the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level while disproving it on the specific of Pearl Harbour. This essay does a good job of revealing foreknowledge of the attack.

    Your subsequent points concerning the strategic level appear to be mostly based around justification. I don’t see you making a substantive case to support your assertion that “the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level”.

    The US was “justified” in taking China’s side against Japan to the exact same extent that Japan (if it had had the power) would have been justified in taking the native Philippinos’ side against the US occupation 40 years earlier – as a similar pretext to claim to be defending the weak against oppression whilst actually doing so merely in order to prevent the rise of a rival power.

    The official narrative was (as always with the US) intervening reluctantly for the greater good and the relief of the weak against oppression. The reality (again, as always with the US) was that it was intervening to serve the purposes of those who influenced US policy – in this case the prevention of the rise of a potential rival power in the Pacific.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    You could look at it that way. Expansionist Japanese imperialism was bumping into the more established imperialism of the US, Britain and Holland in SE Asia, so they were all imperialists.

    I think that the difference is in the Imperial fashion having pretty much died out after WW1 with the whole system losing support. New socialist ideas had an anti-imperialist flavour and an influential American view in WW2 was that it was not the job of the US to defend Imperial Great Britain. The trend after WW2 was "exit from Empire" and towards national self determination.

    Viewed in this light. WW2 German and Japanese imperialism were historical throwbacks, along the lines of "now we're powerful so we deserve an Empire", with a good deal of racism thrown in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Miro23 says:
    @Randal

    with regard to WW2 in the Pacific, the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level while disproving it on the specific of Pearl Harbour. This essay does a good job of revealing foreknowledge of the attack.
     
    Your subsequent points concerning the strategic level appear to be mostly based around justification. I don't see you making a substantive case to support your assertion that "the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level".

    The US was "justified" in taking China's side against Japan to the exact same extent that Japan (if it had had the power) would have been justified in taking the native Philippinos' side against the US occupation 40 years earlier - as a similar pretext to claim to be defending the weak against oppression whilst actually doing so merely in order to prevent the rise of a rival power.

    The official narrative was (as always with the US) intervening reluctantly for the greater good and the relief of the weak against oppression. The reality (again, as always with the US) was that it was intervening to serve the purposes of those who influenced US policy - in this case the prevention of the rise of a potential rival power in the Pacific.

    You could look at it that way. Expansionist Japanese imperialism was bumping into the more established imperialism of the US, Britain and Holland in SE Asia, so they were all imperialists.

    I think that the difference is in the Imperial fashion having pretty much died out after WW1 with the whole system losing support. New socialist ideas had an anti-imperialist flavour and an influential American view in WW2 was that it was not the job of the US to defend Imperial Great Britain. The trend after WW2 was “exit from Empire” and towards national self determination.

    Viewed in this light. WW2 German and Japanese imperialism were historical throwbacks, along the lines of “now we’re powerful so we deserve an Empire”, with a good deal of racism thrown in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    To some extent I agree that you can see it the way you put it here. But I think it was more a case (with hindsight) of changing from an older militarily mediated imperialism to a new finance-mediated exercise of power. Less overtly oppressive, perhaps, but just as bloodily violent when challenged (see, for instance, the history of attempts to overthrow US collaborationist governments in south and central America). But WW2 German and Japanese imperialism were only "historical throwbacks" because they failed. If they'd won their wars they would have been just the newest examples of imperialism.

    Morally, the Germans and Japanese had no less right to build empires in 1940 than the British, Europeans and Americans had had in the C16th-C19th. Might made right, if anything did, in all the cases (which is to say, none had any right, but they did it anyway if they could).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Anon
    Revisionism is necessary in history, but please hold the 'white guilt' crap.

    Where does the author make the charge or even the implication of white guilt? This is one helluvan objective piece and the author does a heroic job, in fact, of making his case. Seems to me that there are plenty of white heroes in the account and they were/are the ones trying to get the truth out.

    I’d like to point out that anyone who doesn’t blame those responsible is himself partly to blame for keeping the lies alive and allowing the crimes to continue. Anyone who has a clue as to how, why and when the American empire acquired “possessions” in the Pacific, yet whines about “white guilt” is guilty of acting like a sniveling ignoramus who doesn’t have the cajones to admit the truth.

    Lenin, Stalin, and Stalin’s buddies FDR and Churchill and the bankers and bureaucrats who profited from the war were what shade of pale, anyway? Do you think those hideous fools shouldn’t bear a heavy burden of guilt? Explain or forever hold your peace. Better yet, take the effort to discover the truth. You can start by reading this article until you understand what the man is saying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Admiral James O. Richardson was commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1940. President Roosevelt ordered the fleet to sail from its homeport of San Diego to Pearl Harbor as a show of force. After several months, Admiral Richardson began to demand a return to San Diego because his fleet suffered from supply problems, the sailors missed their families, and the fleet was vulnerable to a surprise attack in Hawaii. His strong words about these issues caused President Roosevelt to relieve him of command in February 1941.

    https://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-Countdown-Admiral-Richardson/dp/1589805925/antiwarbookstore

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was “surprised” at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and “thrust” into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/WWII/ww2mob.htm

    Here are some highlights of our “peacetime” Army that in 1938 had just 167,000 active enlisted and 190,000 in the National Guard.

    “These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups.”

    And just prior to our being “forced” into World War II, lots of construction began:

    “Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers.”

    “During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites.”

    Note that World War II didn’t officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!

    Read More
    • Replies: @allgoodstuff
    This is all good, but highlighting a few items make for a shorter, clearer and even more believable history. The essay is too full of details which are barely related to proving Pearl Harbor was a false flag.

    This comment should have highlighted the firing of Admiral Richardson. Stinnett's book says that when Roosevelt met with Richardson, the yelling could be heard through closed doors, down the hallway. It's a well-known fact that when the job of commanding the US Navy in the Pacific was offered to other admirals, the top 40 officers all refused the offer. Kimmel was # 41 on the list. Clearly, the top 40 knew Roosevelt was looking for a patsy.

    The essay should have been highlighted the McCollum Memo. Its 8 points are a pithy explanation of how American forced Japan to attack, and the 8 points should have been stated. The context of Lt. Commander McCollum's Memo, written right after Germany, Italy and Japan signed a treaty that an attack on one was an attack on all, makes it clear that a false flag at Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt's magic key to getting the US into WW2, and McCollum said exactly that. All the essay's ink about China is interesting but not relevant. Roosevelt needed to get the US into WW2, and no other motive was needed. While the China info is useful to historians, here on Unz Review it tends to dilute the message and makes things less clear.

    I'll have to look into the other books. Robert Stinnett wrote a heavily document and well argued book with info that is about as shocking as it gets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Between Tolland and Stinnett, the case is pretty much against the DC coterie. Stimson hated the Japanese and wanted war with them. Hull went along with Stimson and the deal that FDR wanted was never sent to the Japanese. Tojo, later shown what the deal would have been said that had that been offered, there would have been no attack.

    I’ve seen some sporadic, half hearted attempts to refute both Tolland and Stinnett, but nothing has gained any traction. Stinnett had more of the radio traffic available to him than Tolland did and the case simply became more damning. Both Stimson and FDR wanted the war and were willing to what they had to do to get it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Are you sure it wasn't the fault of Vladimir Putin's parents or something, nickelmaster?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Miro23
    I'm all in favour of evidence based revisionism (for example, revising the government account of 9/11) but with regard to WW2 in the Pacific, the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level while disproving it on the specific of Pearl Harbour. This essay does a good job of revealing foreknowledge of the attack.

    On the strategic level:


    "Revisionists argue that, instead of following an aggressive plan of conquest, Japanese moves were fundamentally defensive efforts to protect vital Japanese interests. And instead of seeing the United States simply reacting to Japanese aggression, as the orthodox version would have it, the revisionists see the United States goading the Japanese—by aiding China (with whom Japan was at war), military expansion, quasi-secret alliances, and economic warfare—to take belligerent actions."
     
    China was at war with Imperial Japan in the same way that Russia was at war with Imperial Germany (Third Reich). Both China and Russia were invaded as part of Imperial Projects based on economic dominance and racial superiority. This in no way legitimizes the awful Russian Bolsheviks (with their own ideas of Jewish racial superiority), but the US was quite justified in aiding China - (although pro-Bolsheviks in the state department conspired to delay and halt US aid to Chiang Kai-shek to favour the Communist insurgency).

    "The United States had its danger zone in the Caribbean and since the era of Thomas Jefferson, every effort had been to strengthen the American position and to keep foreign nations from establishing naval and military bases which would threaten American security. So Japan regarded Manchuria. Japan followed this natural policy and attempted to practice it with reference to the lands that bordered upon the China Sea. Korea, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia were essential pillars of her defense structure."
     
    The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea, and Germany invaded Russia, but the US didn't invade South America to "safeguard its security". There is a difference, although policy may now have changed since the US used the same weasel words to justify invading and destroying Iraq.

    "Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia originated less in strength than in weakness."
     
    Hitler also used the argument of the essential pre-emptive strike; " "If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest state in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! .....They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed - and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Göring Works."

    "By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since 1937."
     
    This should read, " By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since the Japanese invasion and occupation of its territory (Manchuria) in 1931."

    European and American colonial projects had largely terminated with WW1 while the late starters, Germany and Japan, were inevitably running up against existing imperial possessions.


    "The Japanese saw America’s Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor as a significant threat to their military designs in Southeast Asia."
     
    It was a deterrent to Japanese imperial aggressions. Yes.

    "The U.S. government ultimately rejected the modus vivendi on November 26 and instead offered Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s “10 point proposal.” This virtual ultimatum told Japan to withdraw all military and police forces from China and Indo-China and that it must not support any government in China other than the Nationalist government under Chiang. Japan regarded the message as an insult and completely unacceptable. Japan regarded a sphere of influence in China as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much blood and wealth to attain this objective."
     
    Rather like telling the Israelis to get out of the West Bank (reworded as, "Israel regarded a sphere of influence in the Middle East as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much (American) blood and wealth to attain this objective".)

    "Because of this emphasis on Germany, revisionists see Roosevelt’s effort to provoke war with Japan as an indirect way of getting the country into war with Germany—the back-door-to-war thesis."
     
    The evidence disproves this. Probably the best top level account of the WW2 Allied military at work is Alanbrooke War Diaries 1939 1945: Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Alanbrooke-War-Diaries-1939-1945-Marshall/dp/1842125265/ref=cm_cr-mr-title and it shows the Americans much more interested in the Pacific (exclusively in the case of Admiral King) and having to be pushed into European operations.

    On the specific Pearl Harbour level:


    "As Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary of November 25, 1941: “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”"
     
    This could be interpreted as a looking for an excuse for a war to invade and destroy Japan (US imperial project), or looking for an excuse for a war to push back the Japanese Imperial project (the same as the re-conquest of German occupied Europe to push back the German imperial project).

    They're different concepts - one is US Imperialistic and the other is anti-Imperialistic.

    It was probably anti-Imperialistic, but the evidence certainly points to foreknowledge of a Japanese attack and a willingness to "set up" Pearl Harbour. As the essay says, "One of Knox’s close friends, James G. Stahlman, wrote Admiral Kemp Tolley in 1973 that Knox told him that he, Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President: All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor", while officially they couldn't be found.

    The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea, and Germany invaded Russia, but the US didn’t invade South America to “safeguard its security”.

    Depends on what you call South America and besides, what does the Monroe Doctrine mean to you? Why was the US entitled to enforce the MD in Central America while Japan was not entitled to form or enforce the East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere?

    Do repeated invasions of Central American countries such as Mexico and Nicaragua count? Why or why not?

    Are you aware of the history of Panama and how it was ripped from Colombia with the help of the US military? Why was that not considered an invasion?

    Even more obvious, why did the Americans double cross then invade and occupy the Philippines, which is right in Japan’s back door?

    Have you ever asked yourself how Hawaii itself came under American domination? It ain’t a pretty picture.

    Have you ever questioned what the US was doing in Midway and Guam, and when they did it?

    Do you understand American involvement in China?

    Fun fact: one of FDR’s grandparents, Warren Delano II, made a bundle of money running clipper ships between India and China in the opium trade, then made a bundle more peddling opiates to the Union Army during the war on the South. You may find it useful to brush up on that history.

    Can you explain anything about Standard Oil’s dealings in China and the rest of Asia, and how SO would have reacted to any perceived threat to its market?

    I don’t wanna hear the foolishness that it was dem Nips what started da war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    The US was involved in colonial activity in South America and parts of Asia but to get equivalence with what Hitler was planning for Russia/Ukraine, or the Japanese for Asia, would require the US, for example, to occupy the whole of South America, put in permanent US governors with US citizen administrations in each country, treat the local populations as racially inferior slave labour and possibly demolish major cities (Hitler's plan for Moscow and St. Petersburg).

    The US certainly tried/tries to manipulate South American politics and influence it economically but they never planned to incorporate South America into an American Empire along German or Japanese WW2 lines.
    , @RadicalCenter
    I'm glad that the US took Hawaii. Our mistake was not eliminating the Hawaiians.

    But in the end, Hawaii is gradually becoming Filipino anyway, and the Hawaiians dwindling to an inconsequential portion of the population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Randal says:
    @Miro23
    You could look at it that way. Expansionist Japanese imperialism was bumping into the more established imperialism of the US, Britain and Holland in SE Asia, so they were all imperialists.

    I think that the difference is in the Imperial fashion having pretty much died out after WW1 with the whole system losing support. New socialist ideas had an anti-imperialist flavour and an influential American view in WW2 was that it was not the job of the US to defend Imperial Great Britain. The trend after WW2 was "exit from Empire" and towards national self determination.

    Viewed in this light. WW2 German and Japanese imperialism were historical throwbacks, along the lines of "now we're powerful so we deserve an Empire", with a good deal of racism thrown in.

    To some extent I agree that you can see it the way you put it here. But I think it was more a case (with hindsight) of changing from an older militarily mediated imperialism to a new finance-mediated exercise of power. Less overtly oppressive, perhaps, but just as bloodily violent when challenged (see, for instance, the history of attempts to overthrow US collaborationist governments in south and central America). But WW2 German and Japanese imperialism were only “historical throwbacks” because they failed. If they’d won their wars they would have been just the newest examples of imperialism.

    Morally, the Germans and Japanese had no less right to build empires in 1940 than the British, Europeans and Americans had had in the C16th-C19th. Might made right, if anything did, in all the cases (which is to say, none had any right, but they did it anyway if they could).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Part of the rationale for not having our defenses up at a highest level was that our “experts” assured us that Pearl Harbor was not vulnerable to torpedoes dropped from aircraft as it was too shallow. The Japanese torpedoes that did most of the damage were an innovation.

    I don’t doubt that FDR wanted the Japanese to attack, he just grossly underestimated the degree of damage they could do. Somebody had to take one for the “team.” Kimmel and Short were handiest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Che Guava says:

    I will probably be reading this before sleeping. So that it is read by a few before the flood tomorrow, will comment on one point, although there were others before it in the essay that I would also be disagreeing with.

    territorial integrity of China, with emphasis on the “Open Door” that rejected economic spheres of interest by foreign countries.

    ‘Open door’ would have been better phrased as ‘anyone’s doormat.’

    The USA had no interest in the ‘territorial integrity of China’, the US polity was *only* interested in opening the doors to their own military and rapacious commerce.

    Sure, they were jealous of those other states that had ‘spheres of influence’, China was to be the next (post-Philippines) place to be subjected to the trans-Pacific version of the Monroe doctrine.

    That is what ‘open door’ meant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    That is what ‘open door’ meant.
     
    Without a doubt.

    Today, "free trade" is a similar euphemism for freedom for the usual suspects to do what they please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. To some extent I agree that you can see it the way you put it here. But I think it was more a case (with hindsight) of changing from an older militarily mediated imperialism to a new finance-mediated exercise of power. Less overtly oppressive, perhaps, but just as bloodily violent when challenged (see, for instance, the history of attempts to overthrow US collaborationist governments in south and central America).

    Well put.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    This is good article but breaks no new ground.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @Che Guava
    I will probably be reading this before sleeping. So that it is read by a few before the flood tomorrow, will comment on one point, although there were others before it in the essay that I would also be disagreeing with.

    territorial integrity of China, with emphasis on the “Open Door” that rejected economic spheres of interest by foreign countries.
     
    'Open door' would have been better phrased as 'anyone's doormat.'

    The USA had no interest in the 'territorial integrity of China', the US polity was *only* interested in opening the doors to their own military and rapacious commerce.

    Sure, they were jealous of those other states that had 'spheres of influence', China was to be the next (post-Philippines) place to be subjected to the trans-Pacific version of the Monroe doctrine.

    That is what 'open door' meant.

    That is what ‘open door’ meant.

    Without a doubt.

    Today, “free trade” is a similar euphemism for freedom for the usual suspects to do what they please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. alexander says:
    @Miro23
    I'm all in favour of evidence based revisionism (for example, revising the government account of 9/11) but with regard to WW2 in the Pacific, the evidence rather supports the official narrative at the strategic level while disproving it on the specific of Pearl Harbour. This essay does a good job of revealing foreknowledge of the attack.

    On the strategic level:


    "Revisionists argue that, instead of following an aggressive plan of conquest, Japanese moves were fundamentally defensive efforts to protect vital Japanese interests. And instead of seeing the United States simply reacting to Japanese aggression, as the orthodox version would have it, the revisionists see the United States goading the Japanese—by aiding China (with whom Japan was at war), military expansion, quasi-secret alliances, and economic warfare—to take belligerent actions."
     
    China was at war with Imperial Japan in the same way that Russia was at war with Imperial Germany (Third Reich). Both China and Russia were invaded as part of Imperial Projects based on economic dominance and racial superiority. This in no way legitimizes the awful Russian Bolsheviks (with their own ideas of Jewish racial superiority), but the US was quite justified in aiding China - (although pro-Bolsheviks in the state department conspired to delay and halt US aid to Chiang Kai-shek to favour the Communist insurgency).

    "The United States had its danger zone in the Caribbean and since the era of Thomas Jefferson, every effort had been to strengthen the American position and to keep foreign nations from establishing naval and military bases which would threaten American security. So Japan regarded Manchuria. Japan followed this natural policy and attempted to practice it with reference to the lands that bordered upon the China Sea. Korea, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia were essential pillars of her defense structure."
     
    The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea, and Germany invaded Russia, but the US didn't invade South America to "safeguard its security". There is a difference, although policy may now have changed since the US used the same weasel words to justify invading and destroying Iraq.

    "Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia originated less in strength than in weakness."
     
    Hitler also used the argument of the essential pre-emptive strike; " "If Stalin had been given another ten or fifteen years, Russia would have become the mightiest state in the world, and two or three centuries would have been required to bring about a change. It is a unique phenomenon! .....They have built factories where a couple of years ago only unknown villages existed - and factories, mark you, as big as the Hermann Göring Works."

    "By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since 1937."
     
    This should read, " By 1940, the U.S. was providing substantial support for China, which had been at war with Japan since the Japanese invasion and occupation of its territory (Manchuria) in 1931."

    European and American colonial projects had largely terminated with WW1 while the late starters, Germany and Japan, were inevitably running up against existing imperial possessions.


    "The Japanese saw America’s Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor as a significant threat to their military designs in Southeast Asia."
     
    It was a deterrent to Japanese imperial aggressions. Yes.

    "The U.S. government ultimately rejected the modus vivendi on November 26 and instead offered Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s “10 point proposal.” This virtual ultimatum told Japan to withdraw all military and police forces from China and Indo-China and that it must not support any government in China other than the Nationalist government under Chiang. Japan regarded the message as an insult and completely unacceptable. Japan regarded a sphere of influence in China as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much blood and wealth to attain this objective."
     
    Rather like telling the Israelis to get out of the West Bank (reworded as, "Israel regarded a sphere of influence in the Middle East as absolutely essential to its national security, and it had expended much (American) blood and wealth to attain this objective".)

    "Because of this emphasis on Germany, revisionists see Roosevelt’s effort to provoke war with Japan as an indirect way of getting the country into war with Germany—the back-door-to-war thesis."
     
    The evidence disproves this. Probably the best top level account of the WW2 Allied military at work is Alanbrooke War Diaries 1939 1945: Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Alanbrooke-War-Diaries-1939-1945-Marshall/dp/1842125265/ref=cm_cr-mr-title and it shows the Americans much more interested in the Pacific (exclusively in the case of Admiral King) and having to be pushed into European operations.

    On the specific Pearl Harbour level:


    "As Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary of November 25, 1941: “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”"
     
    This could be interpreted as a looking for an excuse for a war to invade and destroy Japan (US imperial project), or looking for an excuse for a war to push back the Japanese Imperial project (the same as the re-conquest of German occupied Europe to push back the German imperial project).

    They're different concepts - one is US Imperialistic and the other is anti-Imperialistic.

    It was probably anti-Imperialistic, but the evidence certainly points to foreknowledge of a Japanese attack and a willingness to "set up" Pearl Harbour. As the essay says, "One of Knox’s close friends, James G. Stahlman, wrote Admiral Kemp Tolley in 1973 that Knox told him that he, Stimson, Marshall, Stark and Harry Hopkins had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President: All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor", while officially they couldn't be found.

    Wow, Miro23,

    What a superb and thoughtful post.

    Your thinking and reasoning is spot on.

    If one concedes, as all the evidence would indicate, the American People were indeed “defrauded” into the catastrophic Iraq war, then the issue of demanding accountability remains the most potent weapon we have to insure it never happens again.

    May I say, for the record, I believed completely, when we were told it was Saddam’s Anthrax spores found in our capitol and in our news offices…

    I believed it in the exact same way one believed that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor.

    I believed too, when we were told that Saddam was a lead sponsor of Al Qaeda, and that he had amassed weapons of mass destruction to attack our country.

    Most Americans were persuaded, quite forcefully, that if we did not attack Iraq ASAP, there would be “mushroom clouds” over the US.

    All these Casus Belli(s) which we accepted to be 100% true at the time , turned out to be erroneous …wholly fraudulent.

    Total lies.

    Whereas nobody to this day can deny that Japan did, in fact, attack Pearl Harbor.

    There is a BIG distinction between the two which needs to be fleshed out.

    Taking a nation to war on “fraudulent” claims is a very serious crime, against not only the Iraqi people whose lives were snuffed out, but against the American people whose trillions in tax dollars were pilfered, to kill them.

    [ May I add that only one individual, since 2003, has ever acknowledged this(or been ALLOWED to acknowledge this) on "mainstream" news...and this was Donald Trump during the GOP debates last year.He was the first person, EVER, in prime time, to say we were "lied" into the Iraq war.]

    It took twelve years for the scaly truth(of the Iraq war deceptions) to find its way onto an open, and much watched, public platform.

    Twelve years !

    May I point out, in the case of the Iraq War, one could argue, in retrospect, that its chief proponents functioned as though they were a bizarre synthesis of Bernie Madoff and Son of Sam.

    Defrauding Americans out of trillions of their tax dollars to prosecute a war..in the exact same way Bernie Madoff defrauded his investors out of millions to pad his nest.

    Only in the case of the Iraq war proponents, these tax dollars were extracted to murder (perhaps)millions of Iraqis (who never attacked us) on a scale that would make Son of Sam, blush.

    The double heinousness of this criminal mendacity has yet to be addressed.

    The biggest Buffer toward any accountability for the Iraq War fiasco has been the M.S.M itself, for no other reason than they shared equally is the deceptions that precipitated it.

    I do agree with you, Miro23, that revisionism of settled history based on “hard evidence”, should occur and should always be recognized.

    But we have to be aware of the manipulations that can be employed to AVOID accountability for recent authentic criminal behavior …..by reconstituting the past as having been “equally” guilty of such duplicity.

    The criminal proponents of the Iraq War, fully aware of their crimes, would seek to “dirty up” the past with the very same deceits, to absolve them of account.

    This , revising or re-critiquing of THE PAST , to provide an underlying “continuity” toward their criminality, in THE PRESENT , is just more fraud on top of fraud. It becomes a technique of obfuscation…… not illumination.

    They would want you to believe that Japans attack on Pearl Harbor was as equally fraudulent, and “ginned up”, as the Saddam Anthrax attacks on our capitol.

    Which it wasn’t.

    We need to be on guard toward an honest revisionism (which is worthwhile) and AGAINST a “contorting” of the past to dissolve the potency of the demand for accountability, today.

    Wouldn’t you agree ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Whereas nobody to this day can deny that Japan did, in fact, attack Pearl Harbor.

     

    Neither can one deny that the US had been waging economic war on Japan for years prior to the attack.

    In fact, the US had a long history of meddling with Japan and throwing its weight around in Japan’s back yard even before sending the Mexican-American war vet, Commodore Perry, on an extortion expedition to Japan.

    In the 1830s, the Far Eastern squadron of the U.S. Navy sent several missions from its regional base in Guangzhou (Canton), China to Japan, which was closed to the US at the time.

    Also, if Japan’s attack on Pearl was so dastardly then why was the Allied surprise attack, invasion, and occupation of neutral Persia (Iran) three months prior to the attack on Pearl OK?
    , @Miro23
    Yes I agree. Americas founders were very concerned to diffuse power and stop it being captured at the Federal level - but that is in fact what has happened. And power has been doubly captured because special interests have control of it to such an extent that they are the de facto government (AKA The Establishment) and their megaphone is the MSM or whatever you want to call it.

    The 9/11 show didn't work out for them as planned (the US side) and Trump is another setback but they're no doubt working on it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @alexander
    Wow, Miro23,

    What a superb and thoughtful post.

    Your thinking and reasoning is spot on.

    If one concedes, as all the evidence would indicate, the American People were indeed "defrauded" into the catastrophic Iraq war, then the issue of demanding accountability remains the most potent weapon we have to insure it never happens again.

    May I say, for the record, I believed completely, when we were told it was Saddam's Anthrax spores found in our capitol and in our news offices...

    I believed it in the exact same way one believed that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor.

    I believed too, when we were told that Saddam was a lead sponsor of Al Qaeda, and that he had amassed weapons of mass destruction to attack our country.

    Most Americans were persuaded, quite forcefully, that if we did not attack Iraq ASAP, there would be "mushroom clouds" over the US.

    All these Casus Belli(s) which we accepted to be 100% true at the time , turned out to be erroneous ...wholly fraudulent.

    Total lies.

    Whereas nobody to this day can deny that Japan did, in fact, attack Pearl Harbor.

    There is a BIG distinction between the two which needs to be fleshed out.

    Taking a nation to war on "fraudulent" claims is a very serious crime, against not only the Iraqi people whose lives were snuffed out, but against the American people whose trillions in tax dollars were pilfered, to kill them.

    [ May I add that only one individual, since 2003, has ever acknowledged this(or been ALLOWED to acknowledge this) on "mainstream" news...and this was Donald Trump during the GOP debates last year.He was the first person, EVER, in prime time, to say we were "lied" into the Iraq war.]

    It took twelve years for the scaly truth(of the Iraq war deceptions) to find its way onto an open, and much watched, public platform.

    Twelve years !

    May I point out, in the case of the Iraq War, one could argue, in retrospect, that its chief proponents functioned as though they were a bizarre synthesis of Bernie Madoff and Son of Sam.

    Defrauding Americans out of trillions of their tax dollars to prosecute a war..in the exact same way Bernie Madoff defrauded his investors out of millions to pad his nest.

    Only in the case of the Iraq war proponents, these tax dollars were extracted to murder (perhaps)millions of Iraqis (who never attacked us) on a scale that would make Son of Sam, blush.

    The double heinousness of this criminal mendacity has yet to be addressed.

    The biggest Buffer toward any accountability for the Iraq War fiasco has been the M.S.M itself, for no other reason than they shared equally is the deceptions that precipitated it.


    I do agree with you, Miro23, that revisionism of settled history based on "hard evidence", should occur and should always be recognized.

    But we have to be aware of the manipulations that can be employed to AVOID accountability for recent authentic criminal behavior .....by reconstituting the past as having been "equally" guilty of such duplicity.

    The criminal proponents of the Iraq War, fully aware of their crimes, would seek to "dirty up" the past with the very same deceits, to absolve them of account.

    This , revising or re-critiquing of THE PAST , to provide an underlying "continuity" toward their criminality, in THE PRESENT , is just more fraud on top of fraud. It becomes a technique of obfuscation...... not illumination.

    They would want you to believe that Japans attack on Pearl Harbor was as equally fraudulent, and "ginned up", as the Saddam Anthrax attacks on our capitol.

    Which it wasn't.

    We need to be on guard toward an honest revisionism (which is worthwhile) and AGAINST a "contorting" of the past to dissolve the potency of the demand for accountability, today.

    Wouldn't you agree ?

    Whereas nobody to this day can deny that Japan did, in fact, attack Pearl Harbor.

    Neither can one deny that the US had been waging economic war on Japan for years prior to the attack.

    In fact, the US had a long history of meddling with Japan and throwing its weight around in Japan’s back yard even before sending the Mexican-American war vet, Commodore Perry, on an extortion expedition to Japan.

    In the 1830s, the Far Eastern squadron of the U.S. Navy sent several missions from its regional base in Guangzhou (Canton), China to Japan, which was closed to the US at the time.

    Also, if Japan’s attack on Pearl was so dastardly then why was the Allied surprise attack, invasion, and occupation of neutral Persia (Iran) three months prior to the attack on Pearl OK?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    I suppose we all learn new things every day, Jacques.

    Like, for example, until you mentioned it in your post, I had absolutely no idea our Navy possessed a full squadron of (fighter planes) in the 1830's, let alone deployed it against the Japanese .....a hundred and eighty six years ago.


    But I will look into it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Che Guava says:

    Thx. Jaques. Sniegovski’s writing is incredibly dull, even though it is on a topic of interest to me, won’t be reading any more this nochy.

    Likely will dislike the whole work after reading, if I bother.

    (-.-)Zzz・・・・

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    I have no doubt that you are already familiar with the bulk of it.

    It is, however, a very worthwhile summary for those who don't already know, have eyes to read, and a few neurons that have survived 24/7 hagiographic, self-congratulatory, brainwashing from the usual $ource$.

    Sweet dreams.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Che Guava
    Thx. Jaques. Sniegovski's writing is incredibly dull, even though it is on a topic of interest to me, won't be reading any more this nochy.

    Likely will dislike the whole work after reading, if I bother.

    (-.-)Zzz・・・・

    I have no doubt that you are already familiar with the bulk of it.

    It is, however, a very worthwhile summary for those who don’t already know, have eyes to read, and a few neurons that have survived 24/7 hagiographic, self-congratulatory, brainwashing from the usual $ource$.

    Sweet dreams.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Astuteobservor II
    instead of white guilt, wish we wouldn't spout crap like "exceptional" "indispensable"

    we are just another war mongering empire :) out for our interests only.

    how many unz readers buys into the bad guys and good guys crap?

    Fair point. But I’d note that the us government and empire hasn’t been killing, torturing, threatening, bullying, lying, stealing, etc., in the interests of the American people, on balance. They’ve served the interests of a very small subset of Americans, and many non-Americans, even enemies of Americans: military contractors and lobbyists, big donors from here and abroad, Israel and its tiny but powerful and obnoxious domestic lobby, oil magnate murderers and rapists like the Saudis, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Miro23 says:
    @jacques sheete

    The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea, and Germany invaded Russia, but the US didn’t invade South America to “safeguard its security”.
     
    Depends on what you call South America and besides, what does the Monroe Doctrine mean to you? Why was the US entitled to enforce the MD in Central America while Japan was not entitled to form or enforce the East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere?

    Do repeated invasions of Central American countries such as Mexico and Nicaragua count? Why or why not?

    Are you aware of the history of Panama and how it was ripped from Colombia with the help of the US military? Why was that not considered an invasion?


    Even more obvious, why did the Americans double cross then invade and occupy the Philippines, which is right in Japan's back door?

    Have you ever asked yourself how Hawaii itself came under American domination? It ain't a pretty picture.

    Have you ever questioned what the US was doing in Midway and Guam, and when they did it?

    Do you understand American involvement in China?

    Fun fact: one of FDR's grandparents, Warren Delano II, made a bundle of money running clipper ships between India and China in the opium trade, then made a bundle more peddling opiates to the Union Army during the war on the South. You may find it useful to brush up on that history.

    Can you explain anything about Standard Oil's dealings in China and the rest of Asia, and how SO would have reacted to any perceived threat to its market?

    I don't wanna hear the foolishness that it was dem Nips what started da war.

    The US was involved in colonial activity in South America and parts of Asia but to get equivalence with what Hitler was planning for Russia/Ukraine, or the Japanese for Asia, would require the US, for example, to occupy the whole of South America, put in permanent US governors with US citizen administrations in each country, treat the local populations as racially inferior slave labour and possibly demolish major cities (Hitler’s plan for Moscow and St. Petersburg).

    The US certainly tried/tries to manipulate South American politics and influence it economically but they never planned to incorporate South America into an American Empire along German or Japanese WW2 lines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Please, where can I read more authoritatively about Hitler's plans for the Soviet Union?

    I seem to recall that the German attack on the Soviets (Barbarossa) was a pre-emptive strike that predated the Soviet's plan to overrun all of Europe by barely one month.

    Thanks, HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Joe Wong says:
    @Anon
    My history professor told me that FDR assured that Japan could keep Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan. If Japan withdrew from rest of China, US would resume business with Japan.

    That seemed like a good deal.

    Given recent US foreign policy in the Middle East and toward Russia, I don't know what to trust anymore.
    One thing for sure, US government and Western media since the end of the Cold War have been filled with sociopaths and power-crazed nuts. Very much like the pathological snakes in CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER and NO WAY OUT.

    I would like to believe FDR was fundamentally a decent man who was alarmed by the threat of Nazism and Japanese militarism. And indeed, those were real major threats to parts of the world back then.
    In contrast, so many of the 'new hitlers' and 'new stalins' since the end of the Cold War have been hyped-up jokes.

    But I don't know. Even if FDR was mostly decent, he was very devious. But that is politics.

    Anyway, Japan made the fatal mistake when it shifted from national resurgence to imperialism. Thus joining the European imperialist club, it came to regard other Asian nations as prey than partner. And it foolishly thought that white nations would treat it equally if it played the same game.

    USA wanted the Japanese to leave China outside of Manchuria before the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because China belonged to the “United State Court for China” of the “District of China” which was subordinated to the Ninth Judical Circuit in San Francisco; Japanese incursion of China outside of Manchuria was an intrusion of the US turf. USA was simply protecting its turf and it has nothing to do with USA being resonable and making a deal with the Japanese.

    Japanese invasion of China was fueled by the Amercan war materials and technologies, USA was the biggest war materials and technology supplier to the Japanese invasion against China prior to the sneak attack of the Pearl Harbour, the American made huge profits from the Japanese invasion of China.

    Before the Pearl Harbor farce China was fighting the barbaric Japanese alone, no help from the USA, UK, France, and Russia except the Nazi Germany which wanted to revenge the Japanese stabbing their back in WWI.

    After the Pearl Harbor farce the majority aids from the USA was weapons which were mostly used in the Chinese civil war to kill Chinese.

    The USA and Japan were the same gang of the rest of barbaric Western colonial imperalists, they had no empathy for their preys, the WWII was a squabbling of prey’s bone and flesh went bad among the greedy barbaric colonial imperialists.

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or the other old days colonial imperialists, they are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Two wongs don't make a white.

    "USA wanted the Japanese to leave China outside of Manchuria before the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because China belonged to the “United State Court for China” of the “District of China” which was subordinated to the Ninth Judical Circuit in San Francisco"

    LOL. Where did you get that? From a Woody Allen movie?

    "Japanese invasion of China was fueled by the Amercan war materials and technologies, USA was the biggest war materials and technology supplier to the Japanese invasion against China prior to the sneak attack of the Pearl Harbour..."

    In this, US was culpable. Political amnesia makes us forget that Japan's rise and imperialism once had the tacit approval of US and UK.
    But even before Pearl Harbor, US STOPPED selling war materials to Japan. Indeed, Pearl Harbor happened precisely because the US finally said NO. It was too little too late perhaps, but the US was no longer willing to arm the Japanese War Machine.
    Was it out of idealism? There were US missionaries in China who were condemning US economic ties with Japan that was invading China. Was it realpolitik? Japan was becoming too powerful and, besides, US needed some reason to enter WWII: 'backdoor policy'?

    "Before the Pearl Harbor farce China was fighting the barbaric Japanese alone, no help from the USA, UK, France, and Russia except the Nazi Germany which wanted to revenge the Japanese stabbing their back in WWI."

    While there were Nazi Germans who were favorable to the Chinese, Hitler's policy was pro-Japanese after the Axis was formed. You are nuts.

    And keep in mind, it was Chinese under Mao who killed most Chinese and destroyed most of Chinese culture. This doesn't excuse bad US or Japanese behavior toward China, but Chinese can be plenty awful to themselves.
    , @jacques sheete

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or the other old days colonial imperialists, they are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground.

     

    Interesting that you should include revisionists in your indictments since it is both untrue and serves to cast a shadow on your otherwise informative comments.

    One of the reasons that revisionists strive to make their case is that they are disgusted at the war crimes and crimes against humanity done under the pretense of high moral values and accomplished with our blood, treasure and peace of mind. We are sick and tired of being lied to and used as juments for our (murderous, thieving, filthy rich) masters.

    We are all about removing the gloss you mention in order that we may begin to correct the corruption despite the Sisyphean task it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Quartermaster
    Between Tolland and Stinnett, the case is pretty much against the DC coterie. Stimson hated the Japanese and wanted war with them. Hull went along with Stimson and the deal that FDR wanted was never sent to the Japanese. Tojo, later shown what the deal would have been said that had that been offered, there would have been no attack.

    I've seen some sporadic, half hearted attempts to refute both Tolland and Stinnett, but nothing has gained any traction. Stinnett had more of the radio traffic available to him than Tolland did and the case simply became more damning. Both Stimson and FDR wanted the war and were willing to what they had to do to get it.

    Are you sure it wasn’t the fault of Vladimir Putin’s parents or something, nickelmaster?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    Actually, Vladimir Putin's malevolent influence has reverberated throughout history and pre-history.

    I am pretty sure he caused the Cretaceous Extinction event!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @jacques sheete

    The Japanese invaded Manchuria and Korea, and Germany invaded Russia, but the US didn’t invade South America to “safeguard its security”.
     
    Depends on what you call South America and besides, what does the Monroe Doctrine mean to you? Why was the US entitled to enforce the MD in Central America while Japan was not entitled to form or enforce the East Asian Co Prosperity Sphere?

    Do repeated invasions of Central American countries such as Mexico and Nicaragua count? Why or why not?

    Are you aware of the history of Panama and how it was ripped from Colombia with the help of the US military? Why was that not considered an invasion?


    Even more obvious, why did the Americans double cross then invade and occupy the Philippines, which is right in Japan's back door?

    Have you ever asked yourself how Hawaii itself came under American domination? It ain't a pretty picture.

    Have you ever questioned what the US was doing in Midway and Guam, and when they did it?

    Do you understand American involvement in China?

    Fun fact: one of FDR's grandparents, Warren Delano II, made a bundle of money running clipper ships between India and China in the opium trade, then made a bundle more peddling opiates to the Union Army during the war on the South. You may find it useful to brush up on that history.

    Can you explain anything about Standard Oil's dealings in China and the rest of Asia, and how SO would have reacted to any perceived threat to its market?

    I don't wanna hear the foolishness that it was dem Nips what started da war.

    I’m glad that the US took Hawaii. Our mistake was not eliminating the Hawaiians.

    But in the end, Hawaii is gradually becoming Filipino anyway, and the Hawaiians dwindling to an inconsequential portion of the population.

    Read More
    • Troll: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’m glad that the US took Hawaii. Our mistake was not eliminating the Hawaiians.
     
    A final solution to the Hawaiian problem?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Heymrguda says:

    I think there is a strong case that FDR was aware of the Pearl Harbor attack. More folks seem to be aware now of the fact that the attack was a failure — all that was lost were a few old battleships and obsolescent aircraft. and of course the unfortunate men killed.

    It seems to me more than a coincidence that so little in the way of first line equip. was based at Pearl.
    I am puzzled by one thing though — how could the administration be sure that Nagumo would not strike the oil tank storage or dry dock facilities. The US could not quickly recover from the loss of these. I’d be curious to know how much oil was stored in the tanks? Would not think the US could afford to take that chance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. alexander says:
    @jacques sheete

    Whereas nobody to this day can deny that Japan did, in fact, attack Pearl Harbor.

     

    Neither can one deny that the US had been waging economic war on Japan for years prior to the attack.

    In fact, the US had a long history of meddling with Japan and throwing its weight around in Japan’s back yard even before sending the Mexican-American war vet, Commodore Perry, on an extortion expedition to Japan.

    In the 1830s, the Far Eastern squadron of the U.S. Navy sent several missions from its regional base in Guangzhou (Canton), China to Japan, which was closed to the US at the time.

    Also, if Japan’s attack on Pearl was so dastardly then why was the Allied surprise attack, invasion, and occupation of neutral Persia (Iran) three months prior to the attack on Pearl OK?

    I suppose we all learn new things every day, Jacques.

    Like, for example, until you mentioned it in your post, I had absolutely no idea our Navy possessed a full squadron of (fighter planes) in the 1830′s, let alone deployed it against the Japanese …..a hundred and eighty six years ago.

    But I will look into it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Like, for example, until you mentioned it in your post, I had absolutely no idea our Navy possessed a full squadron of (fighter planes) in the 1830′s,
     
    Like, for example, who mentioned fighter planes? Have you never heard of a naval squadron????

    People who stoop to employing the straw man fallacy are only worth laughing at.

    FYI, the word, "squadron," was used in an article about the subject posted on the U.S. Department of States' website of the U.S. Office of the Historian. So if you have a gripe take it up with them. here's the link.

    https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/opening-to-japan

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Miro23 says:
    @alexander
    Wow, Miro23,

    What a superb and thoughtful post.

    Your thinking and reasoning is spot on.

    If one concedes, as all the evidence would indicate, the American People were indeed "defrauded" into the catastrophic Iraq war, then the issue of demanding accountability remains the most potent weapon we have to insure it never happens again.

    May I say, for the record, I believed completely, when we were told it was Saddam's Anthrax spores found in our capitol and in our news offices...

    I believed it in the exact same way one believed that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor.

    I believed too, when we were told that Saddam was a lead sponsor of Al Qaeda, and that he had amassed weapons of mass destruction to attack our country.

    Most Americans were persuaded, quite forcefully, that if we did not attack Iraq ASAP, there would be "mushroom clouds" over the US.

    All these Casus Belli(s) which we accepted to be 100% true at the time , turned out to be erroneous ...wholly fraudulent.

    Total lies.

    Whereas nobody to this day can deny that Japan did, in fact, attack Pearl Harbor.

    There is a BIG distinction between the two which needs to be fleshed out.

    Taking a nation to war on "fraudulent" claims is a very serious crime, against not only the Iraqi people whose lives were snuffed out, but against the American people whose trillions in tax dollars were pilfered, to kill them.

    [ May I add that only one individual, since 2003, has ever acknowledged this(or been ALLOWED to acknowledge this) on "mainstream" news...and this was Donald Trump during the GOP debates last year.He was the first person, EVER, in prime time, to say we were "lied" into the Iraq war.]

    It took twelve years for the scaly truth(of the Iraq war deceptions) to find its way onto an open, and much watched, public platform.

    Twelve years !

    May I point out, in the case of the Iraq War, one could argue, in retrospect, that its chief proponents functioned as though they were a bizarre synthesis of Bernie Madoff and Son of Sam.

    Defrauding Americans out of trillions of their tax dollars to prosecute a war..in the exact same way Bernie Madoff defrauded his investors out of millions to pad his nest.

    Only in the case of the Iraq war proponents, these tax dollars were extracted to murder (perhaps)millions of Iraqis (who never attacked us) on a scale that would make Son of Sam, blush.

    The double heinousness of this criminal mendacity has yet to be addressed.

    The biggest Buffer toward any accountability for the Iraq War fiasco has been the M.S.M itself, for no other reason than they shared equally is the deceptions that precipitated it.


    I do agree with you, Miro23, that revisionism of settled history based on "hard evidence", should occur and should always be recognized.

    But we have to be aware of the manipulations that can be employed to AVOID accountability for recent authentic criminal behavior .....by reconstituting the past as having been "equally" guilty of such duplicity.

    The criminal proponents of the Iraq War, fully aware of their crimes, would seek to "dirty up" the past with the very same deceits, to absolve them of account.

    This , revising or re-critiquing of THE PAST , to provide an underlying "continuity" toward their criminality, in THE PRESENT , is just more fraud on top of fraud. It becomes a technique of obfuscation...... not illumination.

    They would want you to believe that Japans attack on Pearl Harbor was as equally fraudulent, and "ginned up", as the Saddam Anthrax attacks on our capitol.

    Which it wasn't.

    We need to be on guard toward an honest revisionism (which is worthwhile) and AGAINST a "contorting" of the past to dissolve the potency of the demand for accountability, today.

    Wouldn't you agree ?

    Yes I agree. Americas founders were very concerned to diffuse power and stop it being captured at the Federal level – but that is in fact what has happened. And power has been doubly captured because special interests have control of it to such an extent that they are the de facto government (AKA The Establishment) and their megaphone is the MSM or whatever you want to call it.

    The 9/11 show didn’t work out for them as planned (the US side) and Trump is another setback but they’re no doubt working on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. dearieme says:

    To adapt Arthur C Clarke: policy and action that is sufficiently inept is indistinguishable from conspiracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. fnn says:

    Historical revisionism: Crazy leftists say Francoists still rule Spain:

    As many people says in Spain: “it seems that nothing has changed in these country from Francisco Franco dictator times”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. I began reading this article 3 days ago and still haven’t finished. Once you put it down, you can’t pick it up!
    Japanese atrocities on civilians (not just in China, but the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam and Bengal) boggle the imagination. Not excusable. Nanjing occured 4 years before Pearl Harbor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    They probably got the idea that all that was OK because the much bigger colonial entities such as Brit, Russian, Soviet, French etc., had been at the game with near total impunity for centuries in some cases.

    Not only did the Americans exterminate millions of Indians and murder and torture upwards of 200,000 Philippinos, but the Brits were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Indians and several million Irish, to name only a couple of instances of their nastiness, but Lenin and Stalin killed tens of millions of their own people and their neighbors decades before the Germans and Japanese decided to join the free-for-all.

    BTW, have you ever asked yourself why we so rarely hear about the first rape of Nanking, yet the second one's been drilled into our heads since "forever?"? I suspect it's because the Brits dunnit so it was OK...

    The Brits first raped Nanking economically and extorted a treaty (c. 1840)from the Qing emperor under threat of attack of the city by the Brit navy. The Treaty of Nanking was the first of the unequal treaties since Britain had no obligations in return.

    While this is about Germany, a similar claim could be made about Japan.


    You protest, and with justice, each time Hitler jails an opponent; but you forget that Stalin and company have jailed and murdered a thousand times as many. It seems to me, and indeed the evidence is plain, that compared to the Moscow brigands and assassins, Hitler is hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer and Mussolini almost a philanthropist.

    - H. L. Mencken, in an open letter to Upton Sinclair, printed in The American Mercury, June 1936

     

    , @L.K
    @frayedthread

    What 'boggles the imagination' is the nerve that some bloody zamericans( or brits for that matter) have to talk about - always - other peoples' alleged massacres and war crimes, real or manufactured, while conveniently ignoring their own terrible record.

    Why don't ya bastards take a long & hard look in the mirror first?

    Then, there is the matter of propaganda.
    The Japanese did commit war crimes, but a lot of what we are told is war propaganda cooked up by the victors.
    The so called Nanking massarcre, as alleged, is a HOAX.

    Since you seem concerned with atrocities and war crimes, a good place to start is Zamerica... or, again, for that matter, the English pests..

    Zamerica is a depraved country which has been at war for over 90% of its historical existence as a sovereign State.

    It is hard to think of any modern State that can match that record.

    Here is what journalist and author, Dahr Jamail, witnessed in Fallujah, Iraq;

    "While reporting from inside Fallujah during that siege, I personally witnessed women, children, elderly people and ambulances being targeted by US snipers under Mattis' command.[..]Mosques were deliberately targeted by the US military, hospitals bombed, medical workers detained, ambulances shot at, cease-fires violated, media repressed, and the use of depleted uranium was widespread. All of these are, again, war crimes.
    At that time I broke the story of the US military's use of white phosphorous, an incendiary weapon similar to napalm in its ability to burn all the way down to the bone."
     
    Full story with a lot of gory details @
    James Mattis Is a War Criminal: I Experienced His Attack on Fallujah Firsthand
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45992.htm
    , @Jim Christian
    All that was out there to be found in World History aisles and history classes 30 years back. Knowledge is there if you want it. No offense to the article here, but like ya said before, Frayed, it's a textbook.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @alexander
    I suppose we all learn new things every day, Jacques.

    Like, for example, until you mentioned it in your post, I had absolutely no idea our Navy possessed a full squadron of (fighter planes) in the 1830's, let alone deployed it against the Japanese .....a hundred and eighty six years ago.


    But I will look into it.

    Like, for example, until you mentioned it in your post, I had absolutely no idea our Navy possessed a full squadron of (fighter planes) in the 1830′s,

    Like, for example, who mentioned fighter planes? Have you never heard of a naval squadron????

    People who stoop to employing the straw man fallacy are only worth laughing at.

    FYI, the word, “squadron,” was used in an article about the subject posted on the U.S. Department of States’ website of the U.S. Office of the Historian. So if you have a gripe take it up with them. here’s the link.

    https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/opening-to-japan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Wong
    USA wanted the Japanese to leave China outside of Manchuria before the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because China belonged to the "United State Court for China" of the "District of China" which was subordinated to the Ninth Judical Circuit in San Francisco; Japanese incursion of China outside of Manchuria was an intrusion of the US turf. USA was simply protecting its turf and it has nothing to do with USA being resonable and making a deal with the Japanese.

    Japanese invasion of China was fueled by the Amercan war materials and technologies, USA was the biggest war materials and technology supplier to the Japanese invasion against China prior to the sneak attack of the Pearl Harbour, the American made huge profits from the Japanese invasion of China.

    Before the Pearl Harbor farce China was fighting the barbaric Japanese alone, no help from the USA, UK, France, and Russia except the Nazi Germany which wanted to revenge the Japanese stabbing their back in WWI.

    After the Pearl Harbor farce the majority aids from the USA was weapons which were mostly used in the Chinese civil war to kill Chinese.

    The USA and Japan were the same gang of the rest of barbaric Western colonial imperalists, they had no empathy for their preys, the WWII was a squabbling of prey's bone and flesh went bad among the greedy barbaric colonial imperialists.

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or the other old days colonial imperialists, they are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground.

    Two wongs don’t make a white.

    “USA wanted the Japanese to leave China outside of Manchuria before the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because China belonged to the “United State Court for China” of the “District of China” which was subordinated to the Ninth Judical Circuit in San Francisco”

    LOL. Where did you get that? From a Woody Allen movie?

    “Japanese invasion of China was fueled by the Amercan war materials and technologies, USA was the biggest war materials and technology supplier to the Japanese invasion against China prior to the sneak attack of the Pearl Harbour…”

    In this, US was culpable. Political amnesia makes us forget that Japan’s rise and imperialism once had the tacit approval of US and UK.
    But even before Pearl Harbor, US STOPPED selling war materials to Japan. Indeed, Pearl Harbor happened precisely because the US finally said NO. It was too little too late perhaps, but the US was no longer willing to arm the Japanese War Machine.
    Was it out of idealism? There were US missionaries in China who were condemning US economic ties with Japan that was invading China. Was it realpolitik? Japan was becoming too powerful and, besides, US needed some reason to enter WWII: ‘backdoor policy’?

    “Before the Pearl Harbor farce China was fighting the barbaric Japanese alone, no help from the USA, UK, France, and Russia except the Nazi Germany which wanted to revenge the Japanese stabbing their back in WWI.”

    While there were Nazi Germans who were favorable to the Chinese, Hitler’s policy was pro-Japanese after the Axis was formed. You are nuts.

    And keep in mind, it was Chinese under Mao who killed most Chinese and destroyed most of Chinese culture. This doesn’t excuse bad US or Japanese behavior toward China, but Chinese can be plenty awful to themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    1906 the U.S. Congress passed a law entitled “An Act Creating a United States Court for China and prescribing the jurisdiction thereof.”

    You can see in the documentaries, the best equipped Chinese troops fighting against the beastly Japanese were all armed with German equipment, trained by the German and advised by the German; the first German officer died in the WWII was killed by the Japanese in Shanghai battlefield; none of our anti-fascist wartime allies was there to be seen at that time, they were all busy appeasing the Japanese.

    If the American wants to explain away their ugly past and crimes against humanity with realpolitik, then stop claiming it is American birthright to lead the world in human rights, freedom and democracy, and it is their birthright to impose their value on the rest of the world with whatever means they see fit on the moral high ground, even it means bombing, killing and torturing indiscriminately, such double think and double talk reflect Americans are uneducated.

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or in the other old days colonial imperialists, their narrative of WWII are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground. The only exceptional of the American is its ability to claim credit where credit is not due.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Che Guava says:

    This is a good article. Still not agreeing on many points, but a few things or comments I had not heard of before.

    My favourite US account is from Bukowski, who did not give a damn.

    The Starship Troopers ‘goin’ to waaah’ scene is much like Bukowski’s description. The script writers may well have read it.

    Could be making more serious comments, but won’t.

    It is just such a shame that the carriers were mysteriously not in port, seeing them sunk would have been so picturesque.

    Back to sleeping.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Historian says:
    @Anon
    My history professor told me that FDR assured that Japan could keep Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan. If Japan withdrew from rest of China, US would resume business with Japan.

    That seemed like a good deal.

    Given recent US foreign policy in the Middle East and toward Russia, I don't know what to trust anymore.
    One thing for sure, US government and Western media since the end of the Cold War have been filled with sociopaths and power-crazed nuts. Very much like the pathological snakes in CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER and NO WAY OUT.

    I would like to believe FDR was fundamentally a decent man who was alarmed by the threat of Nazism and Japanese militarism. And indeed, those were real major threats to parts of the world back then.
    In contrast, so many of the 'new hitlers' and 'new stalins' since the end of the Cold War have been hyped-up jokes.

    But I don't know. Even if FDR was mostly decent, he was very devious. But that is politics.

    Anyway, Japan made the fatal mistake when it shifted from national resurgence to imperialism. Thus joining the European imperialist club, it came to regard other Asian nations as prey than partner. And it foolishly thought that white nations would treat it equally if it played the same game.

    My history professor told me that FDR assured that Japan could keep Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan. If Japan withdrew from rest of China, US would resume business with Japan.

    Your professor is right. The revisionists base their case on a highly-selective reading of history. For example:

    Also, the United States government had never criticized the Soviet Union for its violations of Chinese territorial integrity—detaching Outer Mongolia in the 1920s (making it a satellite) and gaining control of Sinkiang province in the 1930s.

    The British and Japanese were also involved in stripping away China’s outer provinces. The British got Tibet to declare independence in 1912, and the Japanese took Manchuria in 1931. We let all of them get away with it — British, Soviet, and Japanese.

    But it is one thing to strip away China’s outer provinces. It is quite another to invade China proper, as Japan did in 1937.

    China is divided into five parts: China proper, Tibet, Sinkiang, Mongolia, and Manchuria. China proper makes up only 50% of the land area, but 90% of the population and 90% of the economic activity.

    We didn’t slap an embargo on Japan when they took Manchuria. We only imposed an embargo after the Japanese took over half of China proper. It’s the difference between letting Germany have the Sudetenland, and not letting them have Poland.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Historian says:

    Anthony Kubek incisively points out:

    The Soviet Union had no more right to hold these ports and railways in Manchuria than did Japan… Roosevelt gave to Stalin at Yalta effective control of the same territory over which the United States had gone to war with Japan.

    The Russian Empire had a 25-year lease on Port Arthur, and the Trans-Siberian Railway originally ran through Manchuria to reach Vladivostok.

    We also allowed the British to keep their lease on Hong Kong. It’s the same principle. Roll back the expansion of the Japanese Empire and return to the state of affairs before the Japanese got involved.

    Besides, Anthony Kubek’s argument is very overstated. Is he really comparing Soviet railway rights in Manchuria to the Japanese invasion of China proper?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Depressing to see an apologia for Japanese Imperial aggression on this site. Seriously, just because someone is opposed to the US government doesn’t automatically make them the good guys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    But there’s a valid domestic concern about being railroaded by FDR into a war the American people didn’t want. If they’d had their war without us, how’s that a bad alternative? Perhaps there’s a lesson relative to our present adventurism.
    , @jacques sheete

    Depressing to see an apologia for Japanese Imperial aggression on this site.
     
    It's even more depressing that someone would think that stating truths and exposing lies and time worn myths amounts to an apology for Japanese Imperial aggression.

    I doubt that anyone here ever intended to apologize for the atrocities of the Japanese militarists.

    What's really depressing is that people are still parroting 80 year old propaganda and apologizing for the atrocities of the Big Three empires. Big Three, get it?

    Anyway here's an "apology" to sink yer teeth into.

    The Japanese Empress Meishō (1624–96) also was troubled when she heard about how the Spanish and Portuguese were settling in the New World, and thought that Japan would soon become one of the many countries in their possession. How would you react if the sword of Democles was hanging over your head for 400 years?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. OutWest says:
    @C H Ingoldby
    Depressing to see an apologia for Japanese Imperial aggression on this site. Seriously, just because someone is opposed to the US government doesn't automatically make them the good guys.

    But there’s a valid domestic concern about being railroaded by FDR into a war the American people didn’t want. If they’d had their war without us, how’s that a bad alternative? Perhaps there’s a lesson relative to our present adventurism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @frayedthread
    I began reading this article 3 days ago and still haven't finished. Once you put it down, you can't pick it up!
    Japanese atrocities on civilians (not just in China, but the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam and Bengal) boggle the imagination. Not excusable. Nanjing occured 4 years before Pearl Harbor.

    They probably got the idea that all that was OK because the much bigger colonial entities such as Brit, Russian, Soviet, French etc., had been at the game with near total impunity for centuries in some cases.

    Not only did the Americans exterminate millions of Indians and murder and torture upwards of 200,000 Philippinos, but the Brits were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Indians and several million Irish, to name only a couple of instances of their nastiness, but Lenin and Stalin killed tens of millions of their own people and their neighbors decades before the Germans and Japanese decided to join the free-for-all.

    BTW, have you ever asked yourself why we so rarely hear about the first rape of Nanking, yet the second one’s been drilled into our heads since “forever?”? I suspect it’s because the Brits dunnit so it was OK…

    The Brits first raped Nanking economically and extorted a treaty (c. 1840)from the Qing emperor under threat of attack of the city by the Brit navy. The Treaty of Nanking was the first of the unequal treaties since Britain had no obligations in return.

    While this is about Germany, a similar claim could be made about Japan.

    You protest, and with justice, each time Hitler jails an opponent; but you forget that Stalin and company have jailed and murdered a thousand times as many. It seems to me, and indeed the evidence is plain, that compared to the Moscow brigands and assassins, Hitler is hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer and Mussolini almost a philanthropist.

    - H. L. Mencken, in an open letter to Upton Sinclair, printed in The American Mercury, June 1936

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Hey, ya wanna make mayonaise, ya gotta break some eggs. You can't take over in those countries without you break a lot of eggs. Otherwise, you may as well go be isolationist. But that was a long time ago, we're all civilized allies now.

    Oh, wait..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. polistra says:

    tl;dr

    You can probably argue that our surprise at Pearl Harbor was shocked! shocked! shocked! We had 20 years of advance warning that SOMETHING was ready to happen there, and we shouldn’t have left our entire Pacific fleet in Hawaii as a tripwire.

    But you CAN’T argue that our foreign policy inspired Jap aggression. Japan started taking over its neighbors in 1876 and continued without pause until August 1945. We didn’t start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898. Japan started those wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    We didn’t start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898. Japan started those wars.
     
    Your math seems to be a bit faulty.


    From the US Department of State’s Office of the Historian website..:

    Commodore Perry’s mission was not the first American overture to the Japanese. In the 1830s, the Far Eastern squadron of the U.S. Navy sent several missions from its regional base in Guangzhou (Canton), China…

    https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/opening-to-japan
     
    You may also want to educate yourself regarding US commercial and missionary activity in China which, incidentally has often been considered to be in "that part of the world" since like a very substantial amount of time.
    , @Sparkon
    Beware false knowledge:

    But you CAN’T argue that our foreign policy inspired Jap aggression. Japan started taking over its neighbors in 1876 and continued without pause until August 1945. We didn’t start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898.
     
    False.

    In fact, you could argue exactly that.

    In 1854, U.S. gunboat diplomacy enforced by Commodore Perry's infamous "Black Ships" imposed on Japan the onerous Treaty of Kanagawa, which forced the island nation to open its doors to the West, and ended 300 years of isolation--and relative peace--for the Japanese.

    It is my understanding that the Westerners had been expelled from Japan primarily because of the activities of Christian missionaries there.

    While there was an eventual rush to Westernize, even infatuation with all things Western during the Meiji Restoration, not all segments of Japanese society were able or willing to overlook and/or forget U.S. and Western colonial imperialism in Asia during the 19th century. For some of these elements, what better foreign policy template could they find than that established by the colonial activities of the Western powers to exploit China and her resources?

    As Japan rapidly modernized, many of the disenfranchised Samurai found an outlet for their martial energy in the newly formed military forces, which were victorious against China in 1895, and again against Russia by 1905.

    The stunning Japanese defeat of Tsarist Russia was enabled by a $200 million loan from Kuhn, Loeb & Assoc. arranged by Jewish financier Jacob Schifff, who was awarded The Second Order of the Treasure of Japan for his efforts by the Mikado in 1905.

    --sp--

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @C H Ingoldby
    Depressing to see an apologia for Japanese Imperial aggression on this site. Seriously, just because someone is opposed to the US government doesn't automatically make them the good guys.

    Depressing to see an apologia for Japanese Imperial aggression on this site.

    It’s even more depressing that someone would think that stating truths and exposing lies and time worn myths amounts to an apology for Japanese Imperial aggression.

    I doubt that anyone here ever intended to apologize for the atrocities of the Japanese militarists.

    What’s really depressing is that people are still parroting 80 year old propaganda and apologizing for the atrocities of the Big Three empires. Big Three, get it?

    Anyway here’s an “apology” to sink yer teeth into.

    The Japanese Empress Meishō (1624–96) also was troubled when she heard about how the Spanish and Portuguese were settling in the New World, and thought that Japan would soon become one of the many countries in their possession. How would you react if the sword of Democles was hanging over your head for 400 years?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The weak version …. that the US goaded Japan into the war? Sure. I thought that was more or less the standard view. Outside the Military Channel on Cable TV.

    The Strong Version ….. that Roosevelt knew Japan would kick the shit out of the the US Pacific Fleet? Nah.

    It’s the difference between wanting someone to throw the first punch to wanting someone to smash your nose in.

    Jesus …. the so called Tonkin incident was enough in Vietnam. Damn near anything would have been enough. Also … civilians are better than military assets.

    In fact, a failed attack on Pearl Harbor with heavy Japanese losses would have been perfect. No?

    Also …. we are talking timing only. The US did a pretty good job getting into WW 2 later rather than sooner. We also stalled as long as possible to invade Normandy. Let the other guys do as much fighting and dying as possible.

    These things can’t be planned with absolute precision.

    Meanwhile, its good to have a quasi holiday to hate Japan. I mean remember our greatest generation, etc. Plus, we did firebomb them. Then nuke them. So, lets be clear about who is the bad guy here. Which is, of course, no one — but I’m sick to death about all the hand wringing over nuking them. We saved them from being spit into two like Germany or even letting Stalin take the entire country. We did them a huge favor by keeping Russia out. Where is the monument to that in Japan?

    I’m nostalgic for the days when we were clear headed enough to pick an enemy and destroy them. We have the military and the CIA backing different teams in the middle east. Once we decided to become Iran’s bitch and give them a do over on their failed Iran/Iraq war, we were doomed. Thank God for fracking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    In fact, a failed attack on Pearl Harbor with heavy Japanese losses would have been perfect. No?
     
    It was a failed attack. The US lost absolutely nothing of military significance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Leibniz
    Here is Dr. Webster Tarpley's lecture that "attacks the official and revisionist" approach to Pearl Harbor.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc1OPOeGvlQ

    Tarpley states that this was an attack orchestrated by Churchill to attack FDR. Tarpley goes into the historical background of the British Empire being a morphing of the Venice, to which it is upon Venetian methods that are the fingerprints upon this operation. This understanding identifies how the power, of the British Empire works, where world historical acts of terrorism is the true operating principle of pure power.

    An engaging slide lecture, relevant to understanding 9/11 and Isis.

    Well worth a look.

    British spies did help the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor. Churchill danced for joy when he heard about the bombing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/10/richardnortontaylor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Forbes-Sempill,_19th_Lord_Sempill#Espionage_1939-41

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @polistra
    tl;dr

    You can probably argue that our surprise at Pearl Harbor was shocked! shocked! shocked! We had 20 years of advance warning that SOMETHING was ready to happen there, and we shouldn't have left our entire Pacific fleet in Hawaii as a tripwire.

    But you CAN'T argue that our foreign policy inspired Jap aggression. Japan started taking over its neighbors in 1876 and continued without pause until August 1945. We didn't start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898. Japan started those wars.

    We didn’t start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898. Japan started those wars.

    Your math seems to be a bit faulty.

    From the US Department of State’s Office of the Historian website..:

    Commodore Perry’s mission was not the first American overture to the Japanese. In the 1830s, the Far Eastern squadron of the U.S. Navy sent several missions from its regional base in Guangzhou (Canton), China…

    https://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/opening-to-japan

    You may also want to educate yourself regarding US commercial and missionary activity in China which, incidentally has often been considered to be in “that part of the world” since like a very substantial amount of time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. We didn’t start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898. Japan started those wars.

    I guess it depends on what’s meant by screwing around. I’d say this qualifies both as “screwing around” as well as serious business. I have been known to be in error though.

    Baltimore ship, Entan, carries opium to Canton

    http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_us.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Sparkon says:
    @polistra
    tl;dr

    You can probably argue that our surprise at Pearl Harbor was shocked! shocked! shocked! We had 20 years of advance warning that SOMETHING was ready to happen there, and we shouldn't have left our entire Pacific fleet in Hawaii as a tripwire.

    But you CAN'T argue that our foreign policy inspired Jap aggression. Japan started taking over its neighbors in 1876 and continued without pause until August 1945. We didn't start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898. Japan started those wars.

    Beware false knowledge:

    But you CAN’T argue that our foreign policy inspired Jap aggression. Japan started taking over its neighbors in 1876 and continued without pause until August 1945. We didn’t start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898.

    False.

    In fact, you could argue exactly that.

    In 1854, U.S. gunboat diplomacy enforced by Commodore Perry’s infamous “Black Ships” imposed on Japan the onerous Treaty of Kanagawa, which forced the island nation to open its doors to the West, and ended 300 years of isolation–and relative peace–for the Japanese.

    It is my understanding that the Westerners had been expelled from Japan primarily because of the activities of Christian missionaries there.

    While there was an eventual rush to Westernize, even infatuation with all things Western during the Meiji Restoration, not all segments of Japanese society were able or willing to overlook and/or forget U.S. and Western colonial imperialism in Asia during the 19th century. For some of these elements, what better foreign policy template could they find than that established by the colonial activities of the Western powers to exploit China and her resources?

    As Japan rapidly modernized, many of the disenfranchised Samurai found an outlet for their martial energy in the newly formed military forces, which were victorious against China in 1895, and again against Russia by 1905.

    The stunning Japanese defeat of Tsarist Russia was enabled by a $200 million loan from Kuhn, Loeb & Assoc. arranged by Jewish financier Jacob Schifff, who was awarded The Second Order of the Treasure of Japan for his efforts by the Mikado in 1905.

    –sp–

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    False knowledge indeed: s/b about 200 years of isolation, not 300.

    Persistent attempts by the Europeans to convert the Japanese to Catholicism and their tendency to engage in unfair trading practices led Japan to expel most foreigners in 1639.
     
    ~from jacques sheete's link #52
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. 6I haven’t had time to do more than glance through this and await a comment from someone I normally take notice of to tell me that I should read it all and take it seriously. Why? My starting quibble is with the idea that General Short was precluded from taking effective defensive measures by instructions to await an overt Japanese act. Not just a quibble. It sounds like crap.

    I’ve just watched a couple of relevant docos and I take it that the inexperienced and evidently undertrained officer in charge of those watching the radar did indeed lose the defence 40 critical minutes after radar in fact detected the attacking first wave. Maybe Short and Kimmel were so technologically out of date that they couldn’t think of the obvious value of radar and how it could reduce the surprise Japan could achieve. Still they were surely to blame.

    Also it seems incredibly naive to read anything into Roosevelt’s use of the word “surprise” in his 8th December speech to Congress. So naive as to be beyond comment intended for a mature reader.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    I’ve just watched a couple of relevant docos...
     
    That may not be mistake numero uno, but it's muy grande nevertheless.

    So you watched a "couple of relevant docos" and you therefore feel well enough qualified to make a comment of value. I see. Uh huh.

    Ya gotta luv them primary source docos for sure!

    Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your last paragraph?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Sparkon says:
    @Sparkon
    Beware false knowledge:

    But you CAN’T argue that our foreign policy inspired Jap aggression. Japan started taking over its neighbors in 1876 and continued without pause until August 1945. We didn’t start screwing around in that part of the world until 1898.
     
    False.

    In fact, you could argue exactly that.

    In 1854, U.S. gunboat diplomacy enforced by Commodore Perry's infamous "Black Ships" imposed on Japan the onerous Treaty of Kanagawa, which forced the island nation to open its doors to the West, and ended 300 years of isolation--and relative peace--for the Japanese.

    It is my understanding that the Westerners had been expelled from Japan primarily because of the activities of Christian missionaries there.

    While there was an eventual rush to Westernize, even infatuation with all things Western during the Meiji Restoration, not all segments of Japanese society were able or willing to overlook and/or forget U.S. and Western colonial imperialism in Asia during the 19th century. For some of these elements, what better foreign policy template could they find than that established by the colonial activities of the Western powers to exploit China and her resources?

    As Japan rapidly modernized, many of the disenfranchised Samurai found an outlet for their martial energy in the newly formed military forces, which were victorious against China in 1895, and again against Russia by 1905.

    The stunning Japanese defeat of Tsarist Russia was enabled by a $200 million loan from Kuhn, Loeb & Assoc. arranged by Jewish financier Jacob Schifff, who was awarded The Second Order of the Treasure of Japan for his efforts by the Mikado in 1905.

    --sp--

    False knowledge indeed: s/b about 200 years of isolation, not 300.

    Persistent attempts by the Europeans to convert the Japanese to Catholicism and their tendency to engage in unfair trading practices led Japan to expel most foreigners in 1639.

    ~from jacques sheete’s link #52

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Wizard of Oz
    6I haven't had time to do more than glance through this and await a comment from someone I normally take notice of to tell me that I should read it all and take it seriously. Why? My starting quibble is with the idea that General Short was precluded from taking effective defensive measures by instructions to await an overt Japanese act. Not just a quibble. It sounds like crap.

    I've just watched a couple of relevant docos and I take it that the inexperienced and evidently undertrained officer in charge of those watching the radar did indeed lose the defence 40 critical minutes after radar in fact detected the attacking first wave. Maybe Short and Kimmel were so technologically out of date that they couldn't think of the obvious value of radar and how it could reduce the surprise Japan could achieve. Still they were surely to blame.

    Also it seems incredibly naive to read anything into Roosevelt's use of the word "surprise" in his 8th December speech to Congress. So naive as to be beyond comment intended for a mature reader.

    I’ve just watched a couple of relevant docos…

    That may not be mistake numero uno, but it’s muy grande nevertheless.

    So you watched a “couple of relevant docos” and you therefore feel well enough qualified to make a comment of value. I see. Uh huh.

    Ya gotta luv them primary source docos for sure!

    Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your last paragraph?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    No doubt I should be flattered, after your dismissive opening, that you should ask me to elaborate.

    My point about FDR's use of "surprise attack" was that it was perfectly attuned to his purpose of uniting Congress and the country in angry determination to defeat Japan and, no doubt, be willing to associate Hitler with the attack to allow him to move closer to war against Germany.

    The doco didn't go into elaborate examination of the versions of history that have Roosevelt knowing the Japanese attack plans and their timing in detail but showed Churchill leaping into action to declare war on Japan even before the US could and before he could know that Malaya had been attacked before Pearl Harbour. There are lots of reminders of how different news and communications were in those days.

    The case against Kimmel and Short seems pretty clear isn't it, even if they were so ignorant of what radar could do for them that they behaved as if nothing could be done? They were warned of a possible attack on Pearl Harbour and did b*****all to preparefor it. Macarthur in the Phillipines was worse but survived.

    Another - "Evolution of Evil" doco was about General Tojo as every bit as mad, dictayorial and evil as Hitler and, despite being a general, no more competent militarily.

    BTW I don't know why you thought I was seeking to offer authoritative opinions at all, especially from recent viewing of docos. But I do insist that I am logically entitled to raise serious questions about the skimmed article based on such reasons for doubt about his judgment that I have raised. You are welcome to give me reason to read his whole long article and take its judgments seriously.

    PS One doco was interesting on Stimson's and other Cabinet members objection to the intended short speech, and also how "will live in history" became "will live in infamy".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Joe Wong says:
    @Anon
    Two wongs don't make a white.

    "USA wanted the Japanese to leave China outside of Manchuria before the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because China belonged to the “United State Court for China” of the “District of China” which was subordinated to the Ninth Judical Circuit in San Francisco"

    LOL. Where did you get that? From a Woody Allen movie?

    "Japanese invasion of China was fueled by the Amercan war materials and technologies, USA was the biggest war materials and technology supplier to the Japanese invasion against China prior to the sneak attack of the Pearl Harbour..."

    In this, US was culpable. Political amnesia makes us forget that Japan's rise and imperialism once had the tacit approval of US and UK.
    But even before Pearl Harbor, US STOPPED selling war materials to Japan. Indeed, Pearl Harbor happened precisely because the US finally said NO. It was too little too late perhaps, but the US was no longer willing to arm the Japanese War Machine.
    Was it out of idealism? There were US missionaries in China who were condemning US economic ties with Japan that was invading China. Was it realpolitik? Japan was becoming too powerful and, besides, US needed some reason to enter WWII: 'backdoor policy'?

    "Before the Pearl Harbor farce China was fighting the barbaric Japanese alone, no help from the USA, UK, France, and Russia except the Nazi Germany which wanted to revenge the Japanese stabbing their back in WWI."

    While there were Nazi Germans who were favorable to the Chinese, Hitler's policy was pro-Japanese after the Axis was formed. You are nuts.

    And keep in mind, it was Chinese under Mao who killed most Chinese and destroyed most of Chinese culture. This doesn't excuse bad US or Japanese behavior toward China, but Chinese can be plenty awful to themselves.

    1906 the U.S. Congress passed a law entitled “An Act Creating a United States Court for China and prescribing the jurisdiction thereof.”

    You can see in the documentaries, the best equipped Chinese troops fighting against the beastly Japanese were all armed with German equipment, trained by the German and advised by the German; the first German officer died in the WWII was killed by the Japanese in Shanghai battlefield; none of our anti-fascist wartime allies was there to be seen at that time, they were all busy appeasing the Japanese.

    If the American wants to explain away their ugly past and crimes against humanity with realpolitik, then stop claiming it is American birthright to lead the world in human rights, freedom and democracy, and it is their birthright to impose their value on the rest of the world with whatever means they see fit on the moral high ground, even it means bombing, killing and torturing indiscriminately, such double think and double talk reflect Americans are uneducated.

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or in the other old days colonial imperialists, their narrative of WWII are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground. The only exceptional of the American is its ability to claim credit where credit is not due.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. JoeFour says:
    @jacques sheete
    This is a fine article with an astoundingly comprehensive covering of almost every consideration possible in a venue like this.

    Another consideration that seems to have been short changed by historians is the issue of opium. Some folks condemn the Japanese militarists for attempting to grow poppies and produce opium in their colony, Manchukuo, but somehow never get around to condemning the Allied trade in the stuff.

    My view is that their attempt to bust into the world narcotics market, even on a ridiculously low scale, must have been viewed as an unacceptable competitive threat to the big and long established drug lords of the world, and was thus another motive for the Allies to go to war with them.

    Also, it's clear to me that the main value of conquering Japan was to gain slave labor and remove competition since they obviously were not a source for much by way of resources.

    On the other hand, certain big money boys no doubt had their greedy eyes on the USSR with it's vast resources.

    On another note, I may have missed it, but I didn't read of any reference to Murray Rothbard's excellent writing regarding WW2 revisionism. Below are some interesting quotes from him regarding WW1 and WW2.

    “Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned ( ed: by a select few): that Germany and Japan are not uniquely "aggressor nations," doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.”

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.
    http://mises.org/daily/2592

     


    Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs.

    In a notable series of articles in 1894, Bankers’ Magazine set the agenda for the remainder of the decade. Its conclusion: if “we could wrest the South American markets from Germany and England and permanently hold them, this would be indeed a conquest worth perhaps a heavy sacrifice.

    Olney declared, when “it behooves us to accept the commanding position… among the Power of the earth.

    Wars are inevitable, Dickinson declared, for they arise out of commercial competition between nations.

    World War II might therefore be considered, from one point of view, as a coalition war: the Morgans got their war in Europe, the Rockefellers theirs in Asia.

    -Murray N. Rothbard,Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy
    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
     

    “My view is that their attempt to bust into the world narcotics market, even on a ridiculously low scale, must have been viewed as an unacceptable competitive threat to the big and long established drug lords of the world…”

    Fascinating comment … do you have books to recommend on this?

    Brought to mind: (1) the Opium Wars waged by Great Britain against China in the 19th century and (2) Fletcher Prouty’s contention that control of the Golden Triangle was one cause of the Vietnam War and the contention (made by several observers who names I remember not) that resuming the opium trade from Afghanistan (the Taliban having halted poppy farming) was one cause of that (still continuing) war…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Alden says:
    @Wally
    Now that the truth about Pearl Harbor is being exposed we need to look a bit further at all the lies conjured up about WWII.

    That something is the absurd '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'. They simply did not happen.

    If something can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

    Dare to examine the absurd & laughable 'holocaust' storyline rationally, logically, scientifically and it falls apart like the house-of-cards that it is.

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    "Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

    - Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
     
    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    The article is about Japan, it’s murderous conquests of China and other Asian nations, not the war in Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. dfordoom says: • Website
    @RadicalCenter
    I'm glad that the US took Hawaii. Our mistake was not eliminating the Hawaiians.

    But in the end, Hawaii is gradually becoming Filipino anyway, and the Hawaiians dwindling to an inconsequential portion of the population.

    I’m glad that the US took Hawaii. Our mistake was not eliminating the Hawaiians.

    A final solution to the Hawaiian problem?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon
    The weak version .... that the US goaded Japan into the war? Sure. I thought that was more or less the standard view. Outside the Military Channel on Cable TV.

    The Strong Version ..... that Roosevelt knew Japan would kick the shit out of the the US Pacific Fleet? Nah.

    It's the difference between wanting someone to throw the first punch to wanting someone to smash your nose in.

    Jesus .... the so called Tonkin incident was enough in Vietnam. Damn near anything would have been enough. Also ... civilians are better than military assets.

    In fact, a failed attack on Pearl Harbor with heavy Japanese losses would have been perfect. No?

    Also .... we are talking timing only. The US did a pretty good job getting into WW 2 later rather than sooner. We also stalled as long as possible to invade Normandy. Let the other guys do as much fighting and dying as possible.

    These things can't be planned with absolute precision.

    Meanwhile, its good to have a quasi holiday to hate Japan. I mean remember our greatest generation, etc. Plus, we did firebomb them. Then nuke them. So, lets be clear about who is the bad guy here. Which is, of course, no one -- but I'm sick to death about all the hand wringing over nuking them. We saved them from being spit into two like Germany or even letting Stalin take the entire country. We did them a huge favor by keeping Russia out. Where is the monument to that in Japan?

    I'm nostalgic for the days when we were clear headed enough to pick an enemy and destroy them. We have the military and the CIA backing different teams in the middle east. Once we decided to become Iran's bitch and give them a do over on their failed Iran/Iraq war, we were doomed. Thank God for fracking.

    In fact, a failed attack on Pearl Harbor with heavy Japanese losses would have been perfect. No?

    It was a failed attack. The US lost absolutely nothing of military significance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Maybe, but you miss anon's point that the US would have been just as reliably at war if the radar warnings had been acted on as could easily have happened given the warnings of surprise attack that Kimmel and Short could be and were given in general terms. Three ships sunk and 1000 people killed while Japan loses one third of the aircraft it uses in the attack..... Just as good for beginning a war. Just as 9/11. would have led to the invasion of Afghanistan even if only the top 15 to 20 floors of the Twin Towers had been destroyed.
    , @Hibernian
    "The US lost absolutely nothing of military significance."

    Only 2000 men. Also there were the human and other resources needed for salvage operations which could have been better deployed elsewhere. And a sneak attack where your battleships, obsolescent though they may be, are sitting ducks, is not exactly good for morale, at least in the short run.

    Your attitude is more than a little cold blooded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @jacques sheete

    I’ve just watched a couple of relevant docos...
     
    That may not be mistake numero uno, but it's muy grande nevertheless.

    So you watched a "couple of relevant docos" and you therefore feel well enough qualified to make a comment of value. I see. Uh huh.

    Ya gotta luv them primary source docos for sure!

    Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your last paragraph?

    No doubt I should be flattered, after your dismissive opening, that you should ask me to elaborate.

    My point about FDR’s use of “surprise attack” was that it was perfectly attuned to his purpose of uniting Congress and the country in angry determination to defeat Japan and, no doubt, be willing to associate Hitler with the attack to allow him to move closer to war against Germany.

    The doco didn’t go into elaborate examination of the versions of history that have Roosevelt knowing the Japanese attack plans and their timing in detail but showed Churchill leaping into action to declare war on Japan even before the US could and before he could know that Malaya had been attacked before Pearl Harbour. There are lots of reminders of how different news and communications were in those days.

    The case against Kimmel and Short seems pretty clear isn’t it, even if they were so ignorant of what radar could do for them that they behaved as if nothing could be done? They were warned of a possible attack on Pearl Harbour and did b*****all to preparefor it. Macarthur in the Phillipines was worse but survived.

    Another – “Evolution of Evil” doco was about General Tojo as every bit as mad, dictayorial and evil as Hitler and, despite being a general, no more competent militarily.

    BTW I don’t know why you thought I was seeking to offer authoritative opinions at all, especially from recent viewing of docos. But I do insist that I am logically entitled to raise serious questions about the skimmed article based on such reasons for doubt about his judgment that I have raised. You are welcome to give me reason to read his whole long article and take its judgments seriously.

    PS One doco was interesting on Stimson’s and other Cabinet members objection to the intended short speech, and also how “will live in history” became “will live in infamy”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    You are welcome to give me reason to read his whole long article and take its judgments seriously.
     
    Thanks for the invite, but something tells me it would be a waste of time. Both yours and mine.

    Why?

    It's been my experience that people who hold ideas like this are pretty impervious to pretty much anything that doesn't stroke their ego.

    The case against Kimmel and Short seems pretty clear isn’t it…
     
    No, it isn't.

    Another – “Evolution of Evil” doco was about General Tojo as every bit as mad, dictayorial and evil as Hitler and, despite being a general, no more competent militarily.
     
    There was plenty of evil to go around, and I'd say that Stalin and his imperialist pals Churchill and FDR and their bankers were worse than Tojo and Hitler, but I'd never hope to convince you or anyone else of that.

    Something else hints at the futility of suggesting canning the boob tube and reading something worthwhile like this...

    Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned ( ed: by a select few): that Germany and Japan are not uniquely "aggressor nations," doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”



    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.
    http://mises.org/daily/2592

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @dfordoom

    In fact, a failed attack on Pearl Harbor with heavy Japanese losses would have been perfect. No?
     
    It was a failed attack. The US lost absolutely nothing of military significance.

    Maybe, but you miss anon’s point that the US would have been just as reliably at war if the radar warnings had been acted on as could easily have happened given the warnings of surprise attack that Kimmel and Short could be and were given in general terms. Three ships sunk and 1000 people killed while Japan loses one third of the aircraft it uses in the attack….. Just as good for beginning a war. Just as 9/11. would have led to the invasion of Afghanistan even if only the top 15 to 20 floors of the Twin Towers had been destroyed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Chris T. says: • Website

    Regarding Japanese intelligence on US diplomatic strategy:

    http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2009-12/how-japanese-did-it

    ‘Japan’s own code-breaking effort was another story. While Japanese naval cryptanalysts could make no headway into the primary U.S. naval systems, Tokyo could read American diplomatic systems, including old codes such as the Brown and Grey series. Unknown to the Americans, however, Tokyo also could read the high-level system M-138 strip cipher. Considered secure by the Americans, the system had been compromised in 1940, and the Japanese Foreign Ministry was able to read many significant American diplomatic dispatches prior to hostilities. 23 It is still unclear what advantage the Japanese gained from this ability.’

    More information on the Japanese codebreakers:

    http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/japanese-codebreakers-of-wwii.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @Wizard of Oz
    No doubt I should be flattered, after your dismissive opening, that you should ask me to elaborate.

    My point about FDR's use of "surprise attack" was that it was perfectly attuned to his purpose of uniting Congress and the country in angry determination to defeat Japan and, no doubt, be willing to associate Hitler with the attack to allow him to move closer to war against Germany.

    The doco didn't go into elaborate examination of the versions of history that have Roosevelt knowing the Japanese attack plans and their timing in detail but showed Churchill leaping into action to declare war on Japan even before the US could and before he could know that Malaya had been attacked before Pearl Harbour. There are lots of reminders of how different news and communications were in those days.

    The case against Kimmel and Short seems pretty clear isn't it, even if they were so ignorant of what radar could do for them that they behaved as if nothing could be done? They were warned of a possible attack on Pearl Harbour and did b*****all to preparefor it. Macarthur in the Phillipines was worse but survived.

    Another - "Evolution of Evil" doco was about General Tojo as every bit as mad, dictayorial and evil as Hitler and, despite being a general, no more competent militarily.

    BTW I don't know why you thought I was seeking to offer authoritative opinions at all, especially from recent viewing of docos. But I do insist that I am logically entitled to raise serious questions about the skimmed article based on such reasons for doubt about his judgment that I have raised. You are welcome to give me reason to read his whole long article and take its judgments seriously.

    PS One doco was interesting on Stimson's and other Cabinet members objection to the intended short speech, and also how "will live in history" became "will live in infamy".

    You are welcome to give me reason to read his whole long article and take its judgments seriously.

    Thanks for the invite, but something tells me it would be a waste of time. Both yours and mine.

    Why?

    It’s been my experience that people who hold ideas like this are pretty impervious to pretty much anything that doesn’t stroke their ego.

    The case against Kimmel and Short seems pretty clear isn’t it…

    No, it isn’t.

    Another – “Evolution of Evil” doco was about General Tojo as every bit as mad, dictayorial and evil as Hitler and, despite being a general, no more competent militarily.

    There was plenty of evil to go around, and I’d say that Stalin and his imperialist pals Churchill and FDR and their bankers were worse than Tojo and Hitler, but I’d never hope to convince you or anyone else of that.

    Something else hints at the futility of suggesting canning the boob tube and reading something worthwhile like this…

    Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned ( ed: by a select few): that Germany and Japan are not uniquely “aggressor nations,” doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Joe Wong
    USA wanted the Japanese to leave China outside of Manchuria before the Pearl Harbor sneak attack because China belonged to the "United State Court for China" of the "District of China" which was subordinated to the Ninth Judical Circuit in San Francisco; Japanese incursion of China outside of Manchuria was an intrusion of the US turf. USA was simply protecting its turf and it has nothing to do with USA being resonable and making a deal with the Japanese.

    Japanese invasion of China was fueled by the Amercan war materials and technologies, USA was the biggest war materials and technology supplier to the Japanese invasion against China prior to the sneak attack of the Pearl Harbour, the American made huge profits from the Japanese invasion of China.

    Before the Pearl Harbor farce China was fighting the barbaric Japanese alone, no help from the USA, UK, France, and Russia except the Nazi Germany which wanted to revenge the Japanese stabbing their back in WWI.

    After the Pearl Harbor farce the majority aids from the USA was weapons which were mostly used in the Chinese civil war to kill Chinese.

    The USA and Japan were the same gang of the rest of barbaric Western colonial imperalists, they had no empathy for their preys, the WWII was a squabbling of prey's bone and flesh went bad among the greedy barbaric colonial imperialists.

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or the other old days colonial imperialists, they are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground.

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or the other old days colonial imperialists, they are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground.

    Interesting that you should include revisionists in your indictments since it is both untrue and serves to cast a shadow on your otherwise informative comments.

    One of the reasons that revisionists strive to make their case is that they are disgusted at the war crimes and crimes against humanity done under the pretense of high moral values and accomplished with our blood, treasure and peace of mind. We are sick and tired of being lied to and used as juments for our (murderous, thieving, filthy rich) masters.

    We are all about removing the gloss you mention in order that we may begin to correct the corruption despite the Sisyphean task it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Hey jacques,

    Well, Wong is a Chinese, so what do u expect? He is, like so many Chinese, biased against the Japanese.

    Anyway, you are a great voice of reason and sanity in this wilderness! I've been reading your posts for a while.

    Keep up the good work!
    Cheers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It always seemed rather obvious in retrospect that FDR wanted to get into the war and that an attack was wanted to provide the reason and to charge up the deluded masses into becoming willing cannon-fodder. Pearl Harbor was out there as bait. People denying that are just in denial; they’ve closed their minds to that horrible idea. Most denial is of the ‘Oh no, they wouldn’t do a thing like that’ variety. It’s hard to get people to see what they don’t want to see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. HdC says:
    @Miro23
    The US was involved in colonial activity in South America and parts of Asia but to get equivalence with what Hitler was planning for Russia/Ukraine, or the Japanese for Asia, would require the US, for example, to occupy the whole of South America, put in permanent US governors with US citizen administrations in each country, treat the local populations as racially inferior slave labour and possibly demolish major cities (Hitler's plan for Moscow and St. Petersburg).

    The US certainly tried/tries to manipulate South American politics and influence it economically but they never planned to incorporate South America into an American Empire along German or Japanese WW2 lines.

    Please, where can I read more authoritatively about Hitler’s plans for the Soviet Union?

    I seem to recall that the German attack on the Soviets (Barbarossa) was a pre-emptive strike that predated the Soviet’s plan to overrun all of Europe by barely one month.

    Thanks, HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Yes, the Soviets were planning an attack and this has been confirmed by many Russian historians.
    But what led to the German strike was basically the fact that Stalin kept pressuring Germany into making many territorial concessions which put increasing pressure on Germany's vital and fragile locs and raw material sources, taking advantage of the fact that Germany was locked in conflict with the Brit Empire( and the looming threat, of which German intel was very aware, of a US intervention).
    All this would would, eventually, perhaps even without a war, mean a Germany reduced to a satellite of the USSR( remember the SU was not at war, despite having also invaded Poland and taken half the country).
    Barbarossa had NOTHING to do with any search of Lebensraum or some ideological determinism.
    It was the constant Soviet provocations that evetually led the Germans into attack.

    Re Soviet plans, Russian historian M. Nikitin, who researched the goals of the Soviet leadership in Soviet archives, particularly during the May-June 1941 period, summarized his findings as such:


    “We once again repeat that the fundamental goal of the USSR consisted of expanding the ‘front of Socialism’ to the greatest possible territorial extent, ideally to include all of Europe. In Moscow’s opinion, circumstances favored the realization of this scheme. The occupation of large parts of the continent by Germany, the futile war, the increasing dissatisfaction of the population of the occupied territories, the dispersion of Wehrmacht forces on various fronts, the prospects of a conflict between Japan & the USA – all these factors were thought to give the Soviet leadership a unique chance to smash Germany by surprise attack, and to ‘liberate Europe’ from “rotting Capitalism”. [p.88]
    Nikitin added that the data from the archives plus the huge military offensive preparations of the Red Army “unequivocally proves the intention of the Soviet leadership to attack Germany in the summer of 1941.”
     
    , @Miro23
    The source is "Hitlers Table Talk" introduced by Hugh Trevor Roper, Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1953. https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Talk-1941-1944/dp/1929631669/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

    Hitler was ideologically opposed to Bolshevism and aimed to defeat Russian Bolshevism while he judged that Germany still had the advantage. The conversations took place in the evenings at his Eastern headquarters while the invasion was in progress, and the major part of them concerned his plans for Russia/Ukraine after the anticipated German victory.

    The plans for the settlement and administration of Russia/Ukraine are quite detailed, and are very much concerned with Lebensraum for German settler "Herrenvolk" and the way in which his Eastern Empire can be exploited to make Germany a World Power.

    The topics are surprisingly varied and have to be the best way to truly get into Hitler's psychology. He was thoughtfully nationalistic and heavily racist, and also had a sense of humour:

    (Conversation Nº 90) "How could I have been successful without that dose of optimism which has never left me, and without that faith that moves mountains?" .... "A sense of humour and a propensity for laughter are qualities that are indispensable to a unit. On the eve of our setting out for the battle of the Somme, we laughed and made jokes all night." (Conversation Nº 159) "I know three people who, when they're together, never stop laughing. They're Hoffmann, Amann and Göbbels. When Epp joins them, the whole thing becomes a madhouse. As a matter of fact Epp is not particularly quick. When the others are laughing at the third joke, Epp is beginning to catch on to the first, and starts to let out a huge laugh, which goes on and on."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. L.K says:
    @frayedthread
    I began reading this article 3 days ago and still haven't finished. Once you put it down, you can't pick it up!
    Japanese atrocities on civilians (not just in China, but the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam and Bengal) boggle the imagination. Not excusable. Nanjing occured 4 years before Pearl Harbor.

    What ‘boggles the imagination’ is the nerve that some bloody zamericans( or brits for that matter) have to talk about – always – other peoples’ alleged massacres and war crimes, real or manufactured, while conveniently ignoring their own terrible record.

    Why don’t ya bastards take a long & hard look in the mirror first?

    Then, there is the matter of propaganda.
    The Japanese did commit war crimes, but a lot of what we are told is war propaganda cooked up by the victors.
    The so called Nanking massarcre, as alleged, is a HOAX.

    Since you seem concerned with atrocities and war crimes, a good place to start is Zamerica… or, again, for that matter, the English pests..

    Zamerica is a depraved country which has been at war for over 90% of its historical existence as a sovereign State.

    It is hard to think of any modern State that can match that record.

    Here is what journalist and author, Dahr Jamail, witnessed in Fallujah, Iraq;

    “While reporting from inside Fallujah during that siege, I personally witnessed women, children, elderly people and ambulances being targeted by US snipers under Mattis’ command.[..]Mosques were deliberately targeted by the US military, hospitals bombed, medical workers detained, ambulances shot at, cease-fires violated, media repressed, and the use of depleted uranium was widespread. All of these are, again, war crimes.
    At that time I broke the story of the US military’s use of white phosphorous, an incendiary weapon similar to napalm in its ability to burn all the way down to the bone.”

    Full story with a lot of gory details @
    James Mattis Is a War Criminal: I Experienced His Attack on Fallujah Firsthand

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45992.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Some people may feel awful when looking at those images of suffering victims of the A-bomb and they are right. But for each such photo, there are thousands of unsung untold images of suffering victims of atrocities and beastly acts at the hands of Japanese imperialism.

    I think most Chinese don’t hold grudges of the past, but we are all sure that these two American A-bombs saved lives and cut short of suffering of many, many millions of people, including millions of Japanese people. And for that we remain all thankful for the wisdom and courage of dropping these two A-bombs on the barbaric war criminal Japanese.

    I really think General McArthur made a dire strategic error on the part of the US for not abolishing the Japanese emperor system that still represents this evil thing Japanese imperialism that may come back to haunt America in some sneaky way a la Pearl Harbor, once they are about able to.

    It's my understanding that it's the deep rooted built-in characteristics of Japanese imperialism to play being pitifully submissive and bide their time for the chance of "revenge". That’s why I am all for the US to keep a tight leash on Japan these days and be on the constant lookout of such behind the back stabs.

    The Japanese are naturally a cruel and barbaric people. You don't have to look very far back in history to see examples of Japanese making slaves of innocent Koreans, the Filipinos, Viets, Taiwanese, etc., conducting beastly and cruelty beyond the imagination of human beings massacre and atrocities in Nanjing, and their disgusting human experimentation at Unit 731 in Harbin. This cruelty lives on today in the form of needlessly hunting endangered whales in the absence of any market demand and importing the horns of nearly-extinct white rhinoceroses.

    In addition the Japanese are different, they continuously deny about their inhuman atrocities, wrongful acts and invasion during the world wars. The Japanese PM Abe and many political figures there publicly regularly deny what the country had done in WWII. More importantly, his cabinet received overwhelming support from Japanese. This nation and many of its people were not only evil but has lost their conscience to enable them to be a normal person. Such nation and people are a real danger to other countries and the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. L.K says:
    @HdC
    Please, where can I read more authoritatively about Hitler's plans for the Soviet Union?

    I seem to recall that the German attack on the Soviets (Barbarossa) was a pre-emptive strike that predated the Soviet's plan to overrun all of Europe by barely one month.

    Thanks, HdC

    Yes, the Soviets were planning an attack and this has been confirmed by many Russian historians.
    But what led to the German strike was basically the fact that Stalin kept pressuring Germany into making many territorial concessions which put increasing pressure on Germany’s vital and fragile locs and raw material sources, taking advantage of the fact that Germany was locked in conflict with the Brit Empire( and the looming threat, of which German intel was very aware, of a US intervention).
    All this would would, eventually, perhaps even without a war, mean a Germany reduced to a satellite of the USSR( remember the SU was not at war, despite having also invaded Poland and taken half the country).
    Barbarossa had NOTHING to do with any search of Lebensraum or some ideological determinism.
    It was the constant Soviet provocations that evetually led the Germans into attack.

    Re Soviet plans, Russian historian M. Nikitin, who researched the goals of the Soviet leadership in Soviet archives, particularly during the May-June 1941 period, summarized his findings as such:

    “We once again repeat that the fundamental goal of the USSR consisted of expanding the ‘front of Socialism’ to the greatest possible territorial extent, ideally to include all of Europe. In Moscow’s opinion, circumstances favored the realization of this scheme. The occupation of large parts of the continent by Germany, the futile war, the increasing dissatisfaction of the population of the occupied territories, the dispersion of Wehrmacht forces on various fronts, the prospects of a conflict between Japan & the USA – all these factors were thought to give the Soviet leadership a unique chance to smash Germany by surprise attack, and to ‘liberate Europe’ from “rotting Capitalism”. [p.88]
    Nikitin added that the data from the archives plus the huge military offensive preparations of the Red Army “unequivocally proves the intention of the Soviet leadership to attack Germany in the summer of 1941.”

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @HdC
    You sum it up very well.

    Unfortunately old propaganda, propagated by those with an axe to grind, dies a very slow death.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. L.K says:
    @jacques sheete

    Whether it is the prevalent view from the establishment historians or the revisionists in the US or the other old days colonial imperialists, they are all manufactured consent to white wash their war crimes and crimes against humanity and to gloss over their ugly past on moral high ground.

     

    Interesting that you should include revisionists in your indictments since it is both untrue and serves to cast a shadow on your otherwise informative comments.

    One of the reasons that revisionists strive to make their case is that they are disgusted at the war crimes and crimes against humanity done under the pretense of high moral values and accomplished with our blood, treasure and peace of mind. We are sick and tired of being lied to and used as juments for our (murderous, thieving, filthy rich) masters.

    We are all about removing the gloss you mention in order that we may begin to correct the corruption despite the Sisyphean task it is.

    Hey jacques,

    Well, Wong is a Chinese, so what do u expect? He is, like so many Chinese, biased against the Japanese.

    Anyway, you are a great voice of reason and sanity in this wilderness! I’ve been reading your posts for a while.

    Keep up the good work!
    Cheers

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    The reason why Japanese is identified as unrepentant war criminal is when compared to Germany, they suck (for lack of better words). Germany’s chancellor put his knees on the ground to a memorial, they changed their flag, made it a prosecutable crime to deny WW2 war crimes, and consistently make it a point to apologize every single time. For instance during Olympics or international sporting events, they make it a point to visit a WW2 memorial.

    Besides Japanese never apologize their war crimes in their original official Japanese communicates and documents, but Japanese journalists gloss over the unrepentant edition with “apology” or “remorse” in English reporting.

    German has shown remorse about the wrongs it committed in WWII sincerely, it is the benchmark that Japanese must meet in order to show its remorse about its war crimes; making it a prosecutable crime to deny WW2 war crimes and letting RyuKyu Kingdom independent is the beginning for the Japanese to show their remorse and the starting point of “let bygone be bygone” with their war crimes victims.

    Denying only makes Japanese sink deeper into the morally defunct evil beastly unrepentant war criminal mud hole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Joe Wong says:
    @L.K
    @frayedthread

    What 'boggles the imagination' is the nerve that some bloody zamericans( or brits for that matter) have to talk about - always - other peoples' alleged massacres and war crimes, real or manufactured, while conveniently ignoring their own terrible record.

    Why don't ya bastards take a long & hard look in the mirror first?

    Then, there is the matter of propaganda.
    The Japanese did commit war crimes, but a lot of what we are told is war propaganda cooked up by the victors.
    The so called Nanking massarcre, as alleged, is a HOAX.

    Since you seem concerned with atrocities and war crimes, a good place to start is Zamerica... or, again, for that matter, the English pests..

    Zamerica is a depraved country which has been at war for over 90% of its historical existence as a sovereign State.

    It is hard to think of any modern State that can match that record.

    Here is what journalist and author, Dahr Jamail, witnessed in Fallujah, Iraq;

    "While reporting from inside Fallujah during that siege, I personally witnessed women, children, elderly people and ambulances being targeted by US snipers under Mattis' command.[..]Mosques were deliberately targeted by the US military, hospitals bombed, medical workers detained, ambulances shot at, cease-fires violated, media repressed, and the use of depleted uranium was widespread. All of these are, again, war crimes.
    At that time I broke the story of the US military's use of white phosphorous, an incendiary weapon similar to napalm in its ability to burn all the way down to the bone."
     
    Full story with a lot of gory details @
    James Mattis Is a War Criminal: I Experienced His Attack on Fallujah Firsthand
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45992.htm

    Some people may feel awful when looking at those images of suffering victims of the A-bomb and they are right. But for each such photo, there are thousands of unsung untold images of suffering victims of atrocities and beastly acts at the hands of Japanese imperialism.

    I think most Chinese don’t hold grudges of the past, but we are all sure that these two American A-bombs saved lives and cut short of suffering of many, many millions of people, including millions of Japanese people. And for that we remain all thankful for the wisdom and courage of dropping these two A-bombs on the barbaric war criminal Japanese.

    I really think General McArthur made a dire strategic error on the part of the US for not abolishing the Japanese emperor system that still represents this evil thing Japanese imperialism that may come back to haunt America in some sneaky way a la Pearl Harbor, once they are about able to.

    It’s my understanding that it’s the deep rooted built-in characteristics of Japanese imperialism to play being pitifully submissive and bide their time for the chance of “revenge”. That’s why I am all for the US to keep a tight leash on Japan these days and be on the constant lookout of such behind the back stabs.

    The Japanese are naturally a cruel and barbaric people. You don’t have to look very far back in history to see examples of Japanese making slaves of innocent Koreans, the Filipinos, Viets, Taiwanese, etc., conducting beastly and cruelty beyond the imagination of human beings massacre and atrocities in Nanjing, and their disgusting human experimentation at Unit 731 in Harbin. This cruelty lives on today in the form of needlessly hunting endangered whales in the absence of any market demand and importing the horns of nearly-extinct white rhinoceroses.

    In addition the Japanese are different, they continuously deny about their inhuman atrocities, wrongful acts and invasion during the world wars. The Japanese PM Abe and many political figures there publicly regularly deny what the country had done in WWII. More importantly, his cabinet received overwhelming support from Japanese. This nation and many of its people were not only evil but has lost their conscience to enable them to be a normal person. Such nation and people are a real danger to other countries and the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Miro23 says:
    @HdC
    Please, where can I read more authoritatively about Hitler's plans for the Soviet Union?

    I seem to recall that the German attack on the Soviets (Barbarossa) was a pre-emptive strike that predated the Soviet's plan to overrun all of Europe by barely one month.

    Thanks, HdC

    The source is “Hitlers Table Talk” introduced by Hugh Trevor Roper, Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1953. https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Talk-1941-1944/dp/1929631669/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

    Hitler was ideologically opposed to Bolshevism and aimed to defeat Russian Bolshevism while he judged that Germany still had the advantage. The conversations took place in the evenings at his Eastern headquarters while the invasion was in progress, and the major part of them concerned his plans for Russia/Ukraine after the anticipated German victory.

    The plans for the settlement and administration of Russia/Ukraine are quite detailed, and are very much concerned with Lebensraum for German settler “Herrenvolk” and the way in which his Eastern Empire can be exploited to make Germany a World Power.

    The topics are surprisingly varied and have to be the best way to truly get into Hitler’s psychology. He was thoughtfully nationalistic and heavily racist, and also had a sense of humour:

    (Conversation Nº 90) “How could I have been successful without that dose of optimism which has never left me, and without that faith that moves mountains?” …. “A sense of humour and a propensity for laughter are qualities that are indispensable to a unit. On the eve of our setting out for the battle of the Somme, we laughed and made jokes all night.” (Conversation Nº 159) “I know three people who, when they’re together, never stop laughing. They’re Hoffmann, Amann and Göbbels. When Epp joins them, the whole thing becomes a madhouse. As a matter of fact Epp is not particularly quick. When the others are laughing at the third joke, Epp is beginning to catch on to the first, and starts to let out a huge laugh, which goes on and on.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    To the best of my knowledge, and I have read a considerable amount on this topic, Hitler and the top echelon of the Reichs administration never used the terms 'Herrenvolk' nor 'Untermenschen'.

    Introduction of such terms was therfore due to the court historians who did their damnedest to demonize everything that the Germans had tried to achieve.

    I go as far as stating that for practically all anglophone assertions made against the Germans, the opposite is much closer to the facts. HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Navy Jack says:

    I continue to be intrigued by the propensity of many calling themselves “Alt-Right” to engage in anti-American bloviating. It seems that no theory is too thin as long as it casts the “American Empire” in the worst light possible. This appears to be a common and growing theme amongst the young Alt-Righters – – and while I sympathize with much of the movement’s goals and even applaud their recent success, I am saddened by this not so “under” under-current of vitriol against our country, that’s yours and mine, our Country. I am beginning to understand that much of what passes for the Alt-Right “movement” is made up of young, untried and inexperienced bomb-throwers for whom the “hugeness” of their insult du jour is little more than a metaphor for their under utilized manhood. Gentlemen, grow up – – get out and live – – and learn that grandiose theories, shock-jock banter and eloquent screeds will achieve nothing, lead no one worth leading and end in the dust-bin of history.

    I was blessed to grow up around the men of my family who served in WWII. Without a doubt, the two who served in the Pacific (one of whom was a Marine Raider), held a lifelong, unquenchable hatred for the Japanese against whom they fought. The Marine Raider spoke fondly of the Chinese whom he knew from his post-war service – – so, don’t make the mistake of labeling them “racist.” These were not naïve men – – they were the grandsons of men who fought under Stonewall and died at Chickamauga – – they were “good ole Rebels” – – they were hard-eyed realists who understood in their bones that life was unfair, that poor men died while rich men lied, that America was far from perfect. But they also experienced, first hand, in blood and guts, in screaming, hi-definition immediacy the evil of the Empire of Japan – – they met evil face-to-face and cut its throat. As an aside, they also heartily approved of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of the most thorough, intricate and studied revisionism in the world would fail to convince these men that their cause was not right, that “their” war was wrong, that their enemies didn’t need killing.

    Nor will it convince their grandsons, my generation. If the Alt-Right leaders and the younger readers of blogs like this one are ever going to translate the best of their goals and desires into a true political movement and an historical fact, they must understand that the average American man does not hate his Country. Nor will he long endure a culture that hates his country and demeans the sacrifices of his ancestors. This is the fatal mistake made by the Left. The Alt-Righters are fools to make this same mistake.

    Boys, drop your posturing about “Zionist Conspiracies” and your proto-fascist antics and your pseudo-intellectual meanderings into revisionist history – – put away the games and go out and get yourself among men – – build something – – go broke a few times – – rebuild something again – – grow up – – court a woman – – make babies. Men, look up from what you are doing (raising boys, courting women, working hard, building things, etc….) and realize that change is afoot in your Country – – a war of ideas is on the cusp of becoming a war of blood and steel – – make yourselves ready – – get your minds right – – make peace with your God. For the sake of all that is good and worthy in this world, be men worthy of your grandfathers. LEAD!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I am a veteran and the son and grandson of veterans. I make a distinction between the land, people, flag, and Constitution of the US, along with the honorable officials who do exist (rare in the most senior ranks), on one hand, and (often outrageously) corrupt officials on the other. If we look to the American founding as our template, the inspiration for all too many politicians in the present age seems to be Aaron Burr. And I think this goes back further than the Vietnam era. Quite a bit further.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Speaking of false flags, commercial carriers are now considering to allow cel phone calls on flights. That is over a fifteen year hiatus from being able to since 9/11.

    I don’t fly, so am I missing something?

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred

    now considering to allow cel phone calls on flights

     

    There has long been a ban on the use of such devices because of fear that they might interfere with essential onboard systems such as navigation. This was considered by some to be an excess of caution and is slowly being relaxed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. To: God-Emperor Ascendant Donald J. Trump

    From: Your Imperial Divine Majesty’s most humble, obedient Servant

    Subject: Changing U.S. currency for politically-correct reasons (such as the $20 Bill)

    If Your Imperial Divine Majesty is reading this, please render unto the Democratic Cultural Warriors the following “tit-for-tat” response: take Roosevelt off the Dime and replace him with something of propaganda value for a future “Great Again” America. This move would probably prove popular with Japanese-Americans, thus adding another mosaic chip to Your Majesty’s future winning coalition of 2020. Maybe we can put George Takei on the Dime. Now that would be a masterstroke, although he mus die first.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Joe Wong says:
    @L.K
    Hey jacques,

    Well, Wong is a Chinese, so what do u expect? He is, like so many Chinese, biased against the Japanese.

    Anyway, you are a great voice of reason and sanity in this wilderness! I've been reading your posts for a while.

    Keep up the good work!
    Cheers

    The reason why Japanese is identified as unrepentant war criminal is when compared to Germany, they suck (for lack of better words). Germany’s chancellor put his knees on the ground to a memorial, they changed their flag, made it a prosecutable crime to deny WW2 war crimes, and consistently make it a point to apologize every single time. For instance during Olympics or international sporting events, they make it a point to visit a WW2 memorial.

    Besides Japanese never apologize their war crimes in their original official Japanese communicates and documents, but Japanese journalists gloss over the unrepentant edition with “apology” or “remorse” in English reporting.

    German has shown remorse about the wrongs it committed in WWII sincerely, it is the benchmark that Japanese must meet in order to show its remorse about its war crimes; making it a prosecutable crime to deny WW2 war crimes and letting RyuKyu Kingdom independent is the beginning for the Japanese to show their remorse and the starting point of “let bygone be bygone” with their war crimes victims.

    Denying only makes Japanese sink deeper into the morally defunct evil beastly unrepentant war criminal mud hole.

    Read More
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. How long would it have taken for the United States to escape from the depression without entering WW2?

    Ironically, Yamamoto’s “stimulus package” did more for the U.S. ecomomy in a few hours than 9 years of New Deal programs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. L.K says:

    Excellent piece by Dr.Sniegoski.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. HdC says:
    @Miro23
    The source is "Hitlers Table Talk" introduced by Hugh Trevor Roper, Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1953. https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Table-Talk-1941-1944/dp/1929631669/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

    Hitler was ideologically opposed to Bolshevism and aimed to defeat Russian Bolshevism while he judged that Germany still had the advantage. The conversations took place in the evenings at his Eastern headquarters while the invasion was in progress, and the major part of them concerned his plans for Russia/Ukraine after the anticipated German victory.

    The plans for the settlement and administration of Russia/Ukraine are quite detailed, and are very much concerned with Lebensraum for German settler "Herrenvolk" and the way in which his Eastern Empire can be exploited to make Germany a World Power.

    The topics are surprisingly varied and have to be the best way to truly get into Hitler's psychology. He was thoughtfully nationalistic and heavily racist, and also had a sense of humour:

    (Conversation Nº 90) "How could I have been successful without that dose of optimism which has never left me, and without that faith that moves mountains?" .... "A sense of humour and a propensity for laughter are qualities that are indispensable to a unit. On the eve of our setting out for the battle of the Somme, we laughed and made jokes all night." (Conversation Nº 159) "I know three people who, when they're together, never stop laughing. They're Hoffmann, Amann and Göbbels. When Epp joins them, the whole thing becomes a madhouse. As a matter of fact Epp is not particularly quick. When the others are laughing at the third joke, Epp is beginning to catch on to the first, and starts to let out a huge laugh, which goes on and on."

    To the best of my knowledge, and I have read a considerable amount on this topic, Hitler and the top echelon of the Reichs administration never used the terms ‘Herrenvolk’ nor ‘Untermenschen’.

    Introduction of such terms was therfore due to the court historians who did their damnedest to demonize everything that the Germans had tried to achieve.

    I go as far as stating that for practically all anglophone assertions made against the Germans, the opposite is much closer to the facts. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    [Sorry, long reply]

    Hitler certainly isn't the cartoon character presented by the Western media. I'm reading in English not German, but "Herrenvolk" and "Untermenschen" seem like accurate words to summarize his plans for his Eastern Empire (the subject of most of "Hitler's Table Talk").

    For example:

    General plan for his Eastern Empire:


    (25) "I see there (Russia) the greatest possibilities for the creation of an empire of worldwide importance." - "The country we are engaged in conquering will be a source of raw materials for us, and a market for our products, but we shall take good care not to industrialize it." (53) "To exploit the Ukraine properly - that new Indian Empire - I need only peace in the West."
     
    Germans vs. Ukrainians:

    (20) "We'll supply the Ukrainians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like. The Germans - this is essential - will have to constitute among themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native." (11) "We'll take the Southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There'll be no harm in pushing out the population that's there now. The German colonist must be the soldier-peasant and for that I'll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously."
     
    Germans vs. Slavs in general:

    (281) "As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pigsties; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilizing him, goes straight off into a concentration camp!"
     
    Germans vs. Jews in Germany and the Anglo-Saxon world:

    (145) "Just like the throne and the altar in former times so now the Jews and the political profiteers form a silent association for the common exploitation of the democratic milch cow." (180) "Although the Jew has seized the levers of control in the Anglo-Saxon world (the press, the cinema, the radio, economic life), and although in the United States he is the entire inspiration of the populace, especially of the negroes, the bourgeois of the two countries with the rope already around their necks, tremble at the idea of rebelling against him, even timidly. What is happening now in the Anglo-Saxon world is absolutely identical with what we experienced here in 1918.
     

    (293) "A people taken en masse, is neither wholly good nor wholly bad. It possesses neither the courage to be wholly admirable nor he wickedness to be wholly evil. It is the extremes at each end of the scale that decide the level of the average. If the good are decimated while the evil are preserved, then it is quite possible, as happened in Germany in 1918, for a handful of a few hundred evil vagabonds to do violence to a whole nation."
     

    (99) "I don't see much future for the Americans. In my view it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities. Those were what caused the downfall of Rome, and yet Rome was a solid edifice that stood for something. Moreover the Romans were inspired by great ideas. Nothing of the sort in England today. As for the Americans, that kind of thing is non-existent.
     
    On the other hand he was a thoughtful National-Socialist (Na-Zi) with regard to building a German community with equality of opportunity:

    (160) "A revolution has three main objectives. First of all it's a matter of breaking down the partitions between classes, to allow every man to rise. Secondly, it's a matter of creating a standard of living such that the poor will be assured of a decent existence. Finally, it's a matter of acting in such a way that the benefits of civilization will become common property."
     

    (42) "To bring decency into civil life, the first condition is to have an integral State: an incorruptible army, a police and administration reduced to a minimum." (39) From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the state."
     

    (60) "I never stopped telling my supporters that our victory was a mathematical certainty, for, unlike Social Democracy, we rejected nobody from the national community." (127) "Every reasonably conducted organization is bound to favour the development of beings of worth. It has been my wish that educative organizations of the Party should enable the poorest child to lay claim to the highest functions if he has enough talent. The Party must see to it on the other hand, that society is not compartmentalized, .... It's essential that a balance should be struck, in such a way that dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives may be abolished as well as Jewish and Bolshevik anarchists."
     
    So the Imperial system, looks good if you are one of the "Herrenvolk" but not so good if you are one of the "Untermenschen". It all seems to be an argument for races with "Herrenvolk" ideas to stay in their own countries where they can privately enjoy their superiority.

    Also, Multiculturalism ( Empire or country) is a difficult idea, since it has to handle built in ethnic divisions/rights/conflicts. E Pluribus Unum is just the opposite, doing everything possible to erase racial differences, and seeming to be essential for a united, productive society.

    The real problem is that Multiculturalism is the lazy default option - immigration with no commitment - but over time it's guaranteed to destroy a society through Brazilian style Ghettoization and internal conflict.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Miro23 says:
    @HdC
    To the best of my knowledge, and I have read a considerable amount on this topic, Hitler and the top echelon of the Reichs administration never used the terms 'Herrenvolk' nor 'Untermenschen'.

    Introduction of such terms was therfore due to the court historians who did their damnedest to demonize everything that the Germans had tried to achieve.

    I go as far as stating that for practically all anglophone assertions made against the Germans, the opposite is much closer to the facts. HdC

    [Sorry, long reply]

    Hitler certainly isn’t the cartoon character presented by the Western media. I’m reading in English not German, but “Herrenvolk” and “Untermenschen” seem like accurate words to summarize his plans for his Eastern Empire (the subject of most of “Hitler’s Table Talk”).

    For example:

    General plan for his Eastern Empire:

    (25) “I see there (Russia) the greatest possibilities for the creation of an empire of worldwide importance.” – “The country we are engaged in conquering will be a source of raw materials for us, and a market for our products, but we shall take good care not to industrialize it.” (53) “To exploit the Ukraine properly – that new Indian Empire – I need only peace in the West.”

    Germans vs. Ukrainians:

    (20) “We’ll supply the Ukrainians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like. The Germans – this is essential – will have to constitute among themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native.” (11) “We’ll take the Southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There’ll be no harm in pushing out the population that’s there now. The German colonist must be the soldier-peasant and for that I’ll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously.”

    Germans vs. Slavs in general:

    (281) “As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pigsties; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilizing him, goes straight off into a concentration camp!”

    Germans vs. Jews in Germany and the Anglo-Saxon world:

    (145) “Just like the throne and the altar in former times so now the Jews and the political profiteers form a silent association for the common exploitation of the democratic milch cow.” (180) “Although the Jew has seized the levers of control in the Anglo-Saxon world (the press, the cinema, the radio, economic life), and although in the United States he is the entire inspiration of the populace, especially of the negroes, the bourgeois of the two countries with the rope already around their necks, tremble at the idea of rebelling against him, even timidly. What is happening now in the Anglo-Saxon world is absolutely identical with what we experienced here in 1918.

    (293) “A people taken en masse, is neither wholly good nor wholly bad. It possesses neither the courage to be wholly admirable nor he wickedness to be wholly evil. It is the extremes at each end of the scale that decide the level of the average. If the good are decimated while the evil are preserved, then it is quite possible, as happened in Germany in 1918, for a handful of a few hundred evil vagabonds to do violence to a whole nation.”

    (99) “I don’t see much future for the Americans. In my view it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities. Those were what caused the downfall of Rome, and yet Rome was a solid edifice that stood for something. Moreover the Romans were inspired by great ideas. Nothing of the sort in England today. As for the Americans, that kind of thing is non-existent.

    On the other hand he was a thoughtful National-Socialist (Na-Zi) with regard to building a German community with equality of opportunity:

    (160) “A revolution has three main objectives. First of all it’s a matter of breaking down the partitions between classes, to allow every man to rise. Secondly, it’s a matter of creating a standard of living such that the poor will be assured of a decent existence. Finally, it’s a matter of acting in such a way that the benefits of civilization will become common property.”

    (42) “To bring decency into civil life, the first condition is to have an integral State: an incorruptible army, a police and administration reduced to a minimum.” (39) From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the state.”

    (60) “I never stopped telling my supporters that our victory was a mathematical certainty, for, unlike Social Democracy, we rejected nobody from the national community.” (127) “Every reasonably conducted organization is bound to favour the development of beings of worth. It has been my wish that educative organizations of the Party should enable the poorest child to lay claim to the highest functions if he has enough talent. The Party must see to it on the other hand, that society is not compartmentalized, …. It’s essential that a balance should be struck, in such a way that dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives may be abolished as well as Jewish and Bolshevik anarchists.”

    So the Imperial system, looks good if you are one of the “Herrenvolk” but not so good if you are one of the “Untermenschen”. It all seems to be an argument for races with “Herrenvolk” ideas to stay in their own countries where they can privately enjoy their superiority.

    Also, Multiculturalism ( Empire or country) is a difficult idea, since it has to handle built in ethnic divisions/rights/conflicts. E Pluribus Unum is just the opposite, doing everything possible to erase racial differences, and seeming to be essential for a united, productive society.

    The real problem is that Multiculturalism is the lazy default option – immigration with no commitment – but over time it’s guaranteed to destroy a society through Brazilian style Ghettoization and internal conflict.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. HdC says:

    As I stated above, Hitler and the upper echelons of his government never used the terms ‘Herrenvolk’ or ‘Untermenschen’.

    Here is an essay on this topic: http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/hitler-vs-the-untermenschen-myth-reality/. Enjoy.

    It appears to me that the idea of ‘Herrenvolk’ or ‘Untermenschen’ actually stems from Britain and the USA. Who went forth and colonized most of the third world? Who claims to be the “Indispensable Nation”? With such thinking the belief in one’s superiority is not far behind.

    And to make the horrors brought about by the Allies palatable to the home front, court historians had to invent the Greuelpropaganda, including terms such as ‘Herrenvolk’ or ‘Untermenschen’, to paint themselves as “being not as bad as the Nazis”. Fact is the Germans were pussycats compared to the Allies. HdC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. @bike-anarkist
    Speaking of false flags, commercial carriers are now considering to allow cel phone calls on flights. That is over a fifteen year hiatus from being able to since 9/11.

    I don't fly, so am I missing something?

    now considering to allow cel phone calls on flights

    There has long been a ban on the use of such devices because of fear that they might interfere with essential onboard systems such as navigation. This was considered by some to be an excess of caution and is slowly being relaxed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bike-anarkist
    Thank you. I was tired when I wrote my reply, then a day later researched the issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Carlton Meyer
    Admiral James O. Richardson was commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1940. President Roosevelt ordered the fleet to sail from its homeport of San Diego to Pearl Harbor as a show of force. After several months, Admiral Richardson began to demand a return to San Diego because his fleet suffered from supply problems, the sailors missed their families, and the fleet was vulnerable to a surprise attack in Hawaii. His strong words about these issues caused President Roosevelt to relieve him of command in February 1941.

    https://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-Countdown-Admiral-Richardson/dp/1589805925/antiwarbookstore

    For anyone who still thinks the USA was "surprised" at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and "thrust" into World War II, read this official U.S. Army document: Highlights of Mobilization, World War II, 1938-1942.

    http://www.history.army.mil/documents/WWII/ww2mob.htm

    Here are some highlights of our "peacetime" Army that in 1938 had just 167,000 active enlisted and 190,000 in the National Guard.

    "These actions of June-September 1940 were designed to produce a 1,000,000-man Army by 1 January 1941 and 1,400,000-man Army by 1 July 1941 (consist, 500,000 RA, 270,000 NG, and 630,000 selectees). In units: 27 Infantry, 4 Armored, 2 Cavalry Divisions, necessary supporting corps, army, and GHQ troops, and 54 combat air groups."

    And just prior to our being "forced" into World War II, lots of construction began:

    "Between summer 1940 and December 1941, provision of 29 reception centers (for receiving and classifying inductees) and 21 replacement training centers."

    "During fiscal 1940-41, about 45 new communities constructed for Army populations of from 10,000 to 63,000; more than half of them on new sites."

    Note that World War II didn't officially begin until Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, yet we started mobilizing for war in 1938!

    This is all good, but highlighting a few items make for a shorter, clearer and even more believable history. The essay is too full of details which are barely related to proving Pearl Harbor was a false flag.

    This comment should have highlighted the firing of Admiral Richardson. Stinnett’s book says that when Roosevelt met with Richardson, the yelling could be heard through closed doors, down the hallway. It’s a well-known fact that when the job of commanding the US Navy in the Pacific was offered to other admirals, the top 40 officers all refused the offer. Kimmel was # 41 on the list. Clearly, the top 40 knew Roosevelt was looking for a patsy.

    The essay should have been highlighted the McCollum Memo. Its 8 points are a pithy explanation of how American forced Japan to attack, and the 8 points should have been stated. The context of Lt. Commander McCollum’s Memo, written right after Germany, Italy and Japan signed a treaty that an attack on one was an attack on all, makes it clear that a false flag at Pearl Harbor was Roosevelt’s magic key to getting the US into WW2, and McCollum said exactly that. All the essay’s ink about China is interesting but not relevant. Roosevelt needed to get the US into WW2, and no other motive was needed. While the China info is useful to historians, here on Unz Review it tends to dilute the message and makes things less clear.

    I’ll have to look into the other books. Robert Stinnett wrote a heavily document and well argued book with info that is about as shocking as it gets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. I thank those who read my piece and made comments. The relevant criticism could be helpful for any revision of my article. The following are my responses to some of the criticism.

    “Anon” claimed that the US assured Japan that it could keep Manchuria, Korea, and Taiwan. All of these acquisitions took place before the Japanese attack on China in 1937. The US recognized Japan’s control of Korea and Taiwan. And Secretary of State Hull, in his 10 point proposal (the last proposal offered the Japanese) was very unclear as to whether his reference that Japan had to leave China included Manchuria. China certainly saw Manchuria as part of China.

    In short, the Japanese which already had concessions on the mainland saw its vital interests being threatened by China and the Soviet Union (whose army had defeated the Japanese in a couple battles in 1939 on the Manchuria-Mongolian border). It is not rare for countries (including the US) to put their own interests above international law—Japan was accused of violating the Kellogg-Briand Treaty that outlawed (aggressive) war. As I quoted Mintz: “poor historical interpretation to condemn Japan without coming to grips with the strategic, demographic, and economic problems which were at the root of Japan’s—not to mention any nation’s—imperialism.”

    “Historian” seems to misinterpret what I was referring to when he writes: .”Is he really comparing Soviet railway rights in Manchuria to the Japanese invasion of China proper?” Actually, the Soviet Union was being given these concessions by Roosevelt not by the Chinese. It would seem clear to me that it is quite different to refrain from defending another country than telling a another country that it can help itself to another country’s territory.

    The fact of the matter is that it is unlikely that the US was concerned about preserving the territorial integrity of China when it was quite willing to abandon the independence of the eastern European countries in order to avoid war with Russia. While I think it was wise to avoid a war with Russia, it was just as reasonable to try to avoid war with Japan.

    Of course, I don’t really think that protecting China’s territorial integrity was really what drove the US to war with Japan. FDR’s goal was to achieve war with Germany by way of Japan—the backdoor-to-war thesis—which I would describe in greater detail should I ever revise this article.

    . “C H Ingoldby” writes: “Depressing to see an apologia for Japanese Imperial aggression on this site. Seriously, just because someone is opposed to the US government doesn’t automatically make them the good guys.” I did not argue that the Japanese were “good guys” only that their actions did not differ substantially from the way other imperial powers have acted—for example, America’s WWII ally Stalinist Russia. Moreover, I did not think the Japanese were a threat to the US. I am also not “opposed to the US government,” but I often disagree with its policies.

    “Polista” writes: “But you CAN’T argue that our foreign policy inspired Jap[anese] aggression.” I never claimed that American foreign policy caused most of Japan’s aggressive actions. What I do argue is that the freezing of assets caused Japan to attack British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in order to obtain oil and rubber that were needed for its war effort in China. I also point out that the freezing of assets along with the US closing of the Panama Canal and the war in Europe had also seriously harmed the Japanese civilian economy.

    “Wizard of Oz” writes: “My starting quibble is with the idea that General Short was precluded from taking effective defensive measures by instructions to await an overt Japanese act. Not just a quibble. It sounds like crap.”

    I go over this issue in considerable detail. The following is only a part of my refutation of the claim that Short and Kimmel were at fault, not Washington: The alleged war warning from Washington “referred to possible Japanese hostile actions with the breaking of diplomatic relations and authorized Short to take any measures he thought necessary as long as those actions did not ‘alarm’ the general populace or ‘disclose intent.’ Moreover, Short was required to allow the Japanese to commit the first ‘overt act.’ These restrictions essentially ruled out any effective defensive preparations. General Short interpreted this message as a call to counter sabotage, which required doing such things as bunching airplanes wing tip to wing tip, thus making them sitting ducks for a bombing attack. Short informed Washington of the steps he was taking, and no corrections were forthcoming. In fact, subsequent warnings from Washington regarding subversion and sabotage convinced Short of the appropriateness of his actions.”

    I further add: “And if the preparations by the military commanders in Hawaii were deficient, there would seem to be no justifiable reason why Washington did not put Hawaii on a full alert. Washington ordered such a full alert in June 1940 when the likelihood of war had been infinitely less.”

    “Wizard of Oz” further adds: “Also it seems incredibly naive to read anything into Roosevelt’s use of the word ‘surprise’ in his 8th December speech to Congress. So naive as to be beyond comment intended for a mature reader.”

    The claim made by Washington officials is that they were surprised by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This is the orthodox view of the Pearl Harbor attack. Yet Washington had information based on the top Japanese diplomatic code—and likely other types of information that my article presents– which was not available to the commanders at Pearl Harbor. This being the case it is irrational to pin the blame for a lack of preparedness on the military commanders in Hawaii.

    In Comments 63 and 64, “Wizard of Oz” holds that Roosevelt was not surprised by the Pearl Harbor attack but Washington did warn the Hawaii commanders of the attack, which I point out was not the case. Of course, his position here does reject the establishment position on Pearl Harbor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Hibernian says:
    @dfordoom

    In fact, a failed attack on Pearl Harbor with heavy Japanese losses would have been perfect. No?
     
    It was a failed attack. The US lost absolutely nothing of military significance.

    “The US lost absolutely nothing of military significance.”

    Only 2000 men. Also there were the human and other resources needed for salvage operations which could have been better deployed elsewhere. And a sneak attack where your battleships, obsolescent though they may be, are sitting ducks, is not exactly good for morale, at least in the short run.

    Your attitude is more than a little cold blooded.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Your attitude is more than a little cold blooded.
     
    It certainly wasn't meant to be. That the loss of life was tragic goes without saying.

    But in strictly military terms the Japanese failed to do what they desperately needed to do - cripple the US fleet in the Pacific. In strictly military terms those old battleships were irrelevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Hibernian says:
    @Navy Jack
    I continue to be intrigued by the propensity of many calling themselves "Alt-Right" to engage in anti-American bloviating. It seems that no theory is too thin as long as it casts the "American Empire" in the worst light possible. This appears to be a common and growing theme amongst the young Alt-Righters - - and while I sympathize with much of the movement's goals and even applaud their recent success, I am saddened by this not so "under" under-current of vitriol against our country, that's yours and mine, our Country. I am beginning to understand that much of what passes for the Alt-Right "movement" is made up of young, untried and inexperienced bomb-throwers for whom the "hugeness" of their insult du jour is little more than a metaphor for their under utilized manhood. Gentlemen, grow up - - get out and live - - and learn that grandiose theories, shock-jock banter and eloquent screeds will achieve nothing, lead no one worth leading and end in the dust-bin of history.

    I was blessed to grow up around the men of my family who served in WWII. Without a doubt, the two who served in the Pacific (one of whom was a Marine Raider), held a lifelong, unquenchable hatred for the Japanese against whom they fought. The Marine Raider spoke fondly of the Chinese whom he knew from his post-war service - - so, don't make the mistake of labeling them "racist." These were not naïve men - - they were the grandsons of men who fought under Stonewall and died at Chickamauga - - they were "good ole Rebels" - - they were hard-eyed realists who understood in their bones that life was unfair, that poor men died while rich men lied, that America was far from perfect. But they also experienced, first hand, in blood and guts, in screaming, hi-definition immediacy the evil of the Empire of Japan - - they met evil face-to-face and cut its throat. As an aside, they also heartily approved of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of the most thorough, intricate and studied revisionism in the world would fail to convince these men that their cause was not right, that "their" war was wrong, that their enemies didn't need killing.

    Nor will it convince their grandsons, my generation. If the Alt-Right leaders and the younger readers of blogs like this one are ever going to translate the best of their goals and desires into a true political movement and an historical fact, they must understand that the average American man does not hate his Country. Nor will he long endure a culture that hates his country and demeans the sacrifices of his ancestors. This is the fatal mistake made by the Left. The Alt-Righters are fools to make this same mistake.

    Boys, drop your posturing about "Zionist Conspiracies" and your proto-fascist antics and your pseudo-intellectual meanderings into revisionist history - - put away the games and go out and get yourself among men - - build something - - go broke a few times - - rebuild something again - - grow up - - court a woman - - make babies. Men, look up from what you are doing (raising boys, courting women, working hard, building things, etc....) and realize that change is afoot in your Country - - a war of ideas is on the cusp of becoming a war of blood and steel - - make yourselves ready - - get your minds right - - make peace with your God. For the sake of all that is good and worthy in this world, be men worthy of your grandfathers. LEAD!

    I am a veteran and the son and grandson of veterans. I make a distinction between the land, people, flag, and Constitution of the US, along with the honorable officials who do exist (rare in the most senior ranks), on one hand, and (often outrageously) corrupt officials on the other. If we look to the American founding as our template, the inspiration for all too many politicians in the present age seems to be Aaron Burr. And I think this goes back further than the Vietnam era. Quite a bit further.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @another fred

    now considering to allow cel phone calls on flights

     

    There has long been a ban on the use of such devices because of fear that they might interfere with essential onboard systems such as navigation. This was considered by some to be an excess of caution and is slowly being relaxed.

    Thank you. I was tired when I wrote my reply, then a day later researched the issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Hibernian
    "The US lost absolutely nothing of military significance."

    Only 2000 men. Also there were the human and other resources needed for salvage operations which could have been better deployed elsewhere. And a sneak attack where your battleships, obsolescent though they may be, are sitting ducks, is not exactly good for morale, at least in the short run.

    Your attitude is more than a little cold blooded.

    Your attitude is more than a little cold blooded.

    It certainly wasn’t meant to be. That the loss of life was tragic goes without saying.

    But in strictly military terms the Japanese failed to do what they desperately needed to do – cripple the US fleet in the Pacific. In strictly military terms those old battleships were irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "In strictly military terms those old battleships were irrelevant." In hindsight, certainly. But in foresight? Of course if the USN had paid intelligent attention to the war so far, the penny might have dropped about the power of aircraft carriers carrying torpedo-bombers. But clearly they hadn't or they would have equipped themselves with a decent torpedo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. dearieme says:
    @dfordoom

    Your attitude is more than a little cold blooded.
     
    It certainly wasn't meant to be. That the loss of life was tragic goes without saying.

    But in strictly military terms the Japanese failed to do what they desperately needed to do - cripple the US fleet in the Pacific. In strictly military terms those old battleships were irrelevant.

    “In strictly military terms those old battleships were irrelevant.” In hindsight, certainly. But in foresight? Of course if the USN had paid intelligent attention to the war so far, the penny might have dropped about the power of aircraft carriers carrying torpedo-bombers. But clearly they hadn’t or they would have equipped themselves with a decent torpedo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Of course if the USN had paid intelligent attention to the war so far, the penny might have dropped about the power of aircraft carriers carrying torpedo-bombers.
     
    It's certainly obvious they weren't paying much attention. Apart from Taranto, it was Swordfish torpedo-bombers (from the Victorious and the Ark Royal) that doomed the Bismarck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. dearieme says:

    This theory turns on being confident that a Japanese attack could have been exploited to yield a Declaration of War against Germany. That seems far-fetched. The US found herself fighting Germany only because Hitler quixotically declared war on her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen Sniegoski
    In my essay, I give evidence that the war with Japan would lead to war with Germany, which includes President Roosevelt’s Dec. 9 speech, in which he said “We know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military and naval operations with a joint plan.” There is much more evidence in a book that I was not aware of when I wrote this essay--Richard F. Hill, “Hitler Attacks Pearl Harbor: Why the United States Declared War on Germany.” This work provides considerable evidence that most Americans believed that Japan was closely tied to Germany . This belief that Germany and Japan closely cooperated with each other stemmed from the Axis Tripartite Pact which most Americans assumed was a tight alliance. Considerable propaganda contended that Germany was the mastermind behind the Pearl Harbor attack. Polls showed that 64-68.5 percent of the American people agreed with President Roosevelt that Germany was involved in the attack.

    Hill points out that a declaration of war on Germany would have passed in Congress by a solid majority. Roosevelt, however, was concerned about possible deleterious opposition from an anti-war minority, which had caused considerable trouble in World War I. He sought not simply a solid majority but unanimity for war on Germany, and having received intelligence reports that Hitler intended to declare war, he was willing to wait the few days for Hitler to act.
    , @HdC
    The USA was in FACT at war with Germany, an undeclared war but war nonetheless because, while "officially" neutral, the US government sided with Britain from the day Britain and France declared war on Germany.

    The US supplied war material and food stuffs to Britain, and harassed German shipping and military patrols while declaring "neutrality".

    This got so bad that Hitler and his staff concluded that they might as well declare war since the US actions were war in all but name only.

    Fact is until things got so bad on the Atlantic due to US actions Hitler tried his damnedest to avoid war with the USA. But the war mongers Churchill and Roosevelt wanted war for economic reasons. HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. dfordoom says: • Website
    @dearieme
    "In strictly military terms those old battleships were irrelevant." In hindsight, certainly. But in foresight? Of course if the USN had paid intelligent attention to the war so far, the penny might have dropped about the power of aircraft carriers carrying torpedo-bombers. But clearly they hadn't or they would have equipped themselves with a decent torpedo.

    Of course if the USN had paid intelligent attention to the war so far, the penny might have dropped about the power of aircraft carriers carrying torpedo-bombers.

    It’s certainly obvious they weren’t paying much attention. Apart from Taranto, it was Swordfish torpedo-bombers (from the Victorious and the Ark Royal) that doomed the Bismarck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @jacques sheete
    They probably got the idea that all that was OK because the much bigger colonial entities such as Brit, Russian, Soviet, French etc., had been at the game with near total impunity for centuries in some cases.

    Not only did the Americans exterminate millions of Indians and murder and torture upwards of 200,000 Philippinos, but the Brits were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Indians and several million Irish, to name only a couple of instances of their nastiness, but Lenin and Stalin killed tens of millions of their own people and their neighbors decades before the Germans and Japanese decided to join the free-for-all.

    BTW, have you ever asked yourself why we so rarely hear about the first rape of Nanking, yet the second one's been drilled into our heads since "forever?"? I suspect it's because the Brits dunnit so it was OK...

    The Brits first raped Nanking economically and extorted a treaty (c. 1840)from the Qing emperor under threat of attack of the city by the Brit navy. The Treaty of Nanking was the first of the unequal treaties since Britain had no obligations in return.

    While this is about Germany, a similar claim could be made about Japan.


    You protest, and with justice, each time Hitler jails an opponent; but you forget that Stalin and company have jailed and murdered a thousand times as many. It seems to me, and indeed the evidence is plain, that compared to the Moscow brigands and assassins, Hitler is hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer and Mussolini almost a philanthropist.

    - H. L. Mencken, in an open letter to Upton Sinclair, printed in The American Mercury, June 1936

     

    Hey, ya wanna make mayonaise, ya gotta break some eggs. You can’t take over in those countries without you break a lot of eggs. Otherwise, you may as well go be isolationist. But that was a long time ago, we’re all civilized allies now.

    Oh, wait..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @frayedthread
    I began reading this article 3 days ago and still haven't finished. Once you put it down, you can't pick it up!
    Japanese atrocities on civilians (not just in China, but the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam and Bengal) boggle the imagination. Not excusable. Nanjing occured 4 years before Pearl Harbor.

    All that was out there to be found in World History aisles and history classes 30 years back. Knowledge is there if you want it. No offense to the article here, but like ya said before, Frayed, it’s a textbook.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @dearieme
    This theory turns on being confident that a Japanese attack could have been exploited to yield a Declaration of War against Germany. That seems far-fetched. The US found herself fighting Germany only because Hitler quixotically declared war on her.

    In my essay, I give evidence that the war with Japan would lead to war with Germany, which includes President Roosevelt’s Dec. 9 speech, in which he said “We know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military and naval operations with a joint plan.” There is much more evidence in a book that I was not aware of when I wrote this essay–Richard F. Hill, “Hitler Attacks Pearl Harbor: Why the United States Declared War on Germany.” This work provides considerable evidence that most Americans believed that Japan was closely tied to Germany . This belief that Germany and Japan closely cooperated with each other stemmed from the Axis Tripartite Pact which most Americans assumed was a tight alliance. Considerable propaganda contended that Germany was the mastermind behind the Pearl Harbor attack. Polls showed that 64-68.5 percent of the American people agreed with President Roosevelt that Germany was involved in the attack.

    Hill points out that a declaration of war on Germany would have passed in Congress by a solid majority. Roosevelt, however, was concerned about possible deleterious opposition from an anti-war minority, which had caused considerable trouble in World War I. He sought not simply a solid majority but unanimity for war on Germany, and having received intelligence reports that Hitler intended to declare war, he was willing to wait the few days for Hitler to act.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @RadicalCenter
    Are you sure it wasn't the fault of Vladimir Putin's parents or something, nickelmaster?

    Actually, Vladimir Putin’s malevolent influence has reverberated throughout history and pre-history.

    I am pretty sure he caused the Cretaceous Extinction event!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. HdC says:
    @L.K
    Yes, the Soviets were planning an attack and this has been confirmed by many Russian historians.
    But what led to the German strike was basically the fact that Stalin kept pressuring Germany into making many territorial concessions which put increasing pressure on Germany's vital and fragile locs and raw material sources, taking advantage of the fact that Germany was locked in conflict with the Brit Empire( and the looming threat, of which German intel was very aware, of a US intervention).
    All this would would, eventually, perhaps even without a war, mean a Germany reduced to a satellite of the USSR( remember the SU was not at war, despite having also invaded Poland and taken half the country).
    Barbarossa had NOTHING to do with any search of Lebensraum or some ideological determinism.
    It was the constant Soviet provocations that evetually led the Germans into attack.

    Re Soviet plans, Russian historian M. Nikitin, who researched the goals of the Soviet leadership in Soviet archives, particularly during the May-June 1941 period, summarized his findings as such:


    “We once again repeat that the fundamental goal of the USSR consisted of expanding the ‘front of Socialism’ to the greatest possible territorial extent, ideally to include all of Europe. In Moscow’s opinion, circumstances favored the realization of this scheme. The occupation of large parts of the continent by Germany, the futile war, the increasing dissatisfaction of the population of the occupied territories, the dispersion of Wehrmacht forces on various fronts, the prospects of a conflict between Japan & the USA – all these factors were thought to give the Soviet leadership a unique chance to smash Germany by surprise attack, and to ‘liberate Europe’ from “rotting Capitalism”. [p.88]
    Nikitin added that the data from the archives plus the huge military offensive preparations of the Red Army “unequivocally proves the intention of the Soviet leadership to attack Germany in the summer of 1941.”
     

    You sum it up very well.

    Unfortunately old propaganda, propagated by those with an axe to grind, dies a very slow death.

    HdC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. HdC says:
    @dearieme
    This theory turns on being confident that a Japanese attack could have been exploited to yield a Declaration of War against Germany. That seems far-fetched. The US found herself fighting Germany only because Hitler quixotically declared war on her.

    The USA was in FACT at war with Germany, an undeclared war but war nonetheless because, while “officially” neutral, the US government sided with Britain from the day Britain and France declared war on Germany.

    The US supplied war material and food stuffs to Britain, and harassed German shipping and military patrols while declaring “neutrality”.

    This got so bad that Hitler and his staff concluded that they might as well declare war since the US actions were war in all but name only.

    Fact is until things got so bad on the Atlantic due to US actions Hitler tried his damnedest to avoid war with the USA. But the war mongers Churchill and Roosevelt wanted war for economic reasons. HdC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS