The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsKevin Barrett Archive
Pearl Harbor Debate: Conspiracy? Cover-Up? Who Was Really to Blame?
Thomas Kimmel vs. Webster Tarpley
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


It has been roughly one human lifetime since the United States of America underwent a cataclysmic transformation. December 7, 2019 marks the 78th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—the event that turned the United States from a constitutional republic into a globe-straddling empire, which today deploys more than 900 military bases in 70 countries, afflicted by a permanent war economy overseen by an ever-more-draconian national security state. Considerable circumstantial evidence indicates that the false flag events of September 11, 2001 were modeled on Pearl Harbor—as suggested by the titles of the most notable book on 9/11, David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor, (read it free courtesy of the CIA’s Bin Laden Memorial Library) and the most notable documentary film, Massimo Mazzucco’s September 11: The New Pearl Harbor.

As I wrote in Questioning the War on Terror(2008)[1]I wrote Questioning the War on Terrorin 2008. Since then, some of my views have changed; for example, I would no longer put Zbigniew Brzezinksi on the list of 9/11 suspects. See note 15 below.:

Neocon Straussians not only advocate the (Platonic) Noble Lie, they support what might be called the Noble Big Lie. The Big Lie was famously described by Hitler: ‘They followed the very correct principle, that in the greatness of the lie there is always a certain potency of believability, because the broad masses of people are sooner corrupted in their inmost hearts than they are consciously or intentionally bad; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their nature, they more easily fall victims to the big lie than the small one, since they themselves sometimes tell little fibs, but would be too ashamed to tell great lies. Such falsehoods do not even occur to them, so they cannot believe others capable of the colossal impudence of these most scandalous distortions. Even when faced with the facts in such a case, they will still linger in doubt and waver and continue to suppose that there must be some truth to it.”[2]“Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, v. 1, ch. 10.”

For the neocons, the bigger the lie, the more noble. “After all, a great lie, one that is believed, gives form to the void, imposes order on chaos, and creates the world ex nihilo.” Shadia Drury writes that “an elite that identifies its own pursuit of power with the necessary means of preserving Western civilization and preempting catastrophe is bound to be an unprincipled elite, unfit for political power. The loftiness of their enterprise, coupled with their sense of crisis, may lead them to sweep aside moral limits as applicable only to other people.”

The Straussian neocon big-liars see themselves as “architects of the lores and legends of society.”[3]“Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American Right (NY: St. Martin’s, 1997, 1999).Are they the architects of the house (or cage) we now inhabit, the War on Terror—the collection of lores and legends around which our post-9/11 political life revolves?

A key War on Terror architect is Philip Zelikow, the main author of the 9/11 Commission Report. Zelikow describes himself as a specialist in “the construction and maintenance of public myths” which he describes as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common with the relevant political community.” Zelikow is especially interested in “’searing’ or ‘molding’ events that take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.”[4]“Bryan Sacks, “Making History: The Compromised 9/11 Commission.” In Zarembka, ed. The Hidden History of 9/11. NY: Seven Stories, 2008 (Elsevier, 2006).He co-authored a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs analyzing the likely political, psychological, and cultural reaction to a massive Pearl Harbor-style terrorist event such as the destruction of the World Trade Center.[5] did he foresee the near future so accurately? And why was a man with such a background, whose apparent foreknowledge made him a potential suspect, put in charge of the investigation?

Other key neocon War on Terror architects include Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, and Donald Rumsfeld—all members of Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which called for a “New Pearl Harbor” in a document issued in September, 2000. They insisted in that document that the U.S. needed to drastically increase its military budget, launch wars of aggression (euphemistically referred to as “pre-emptive” wars) in the Middle East, remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and adapt an aggressive new imperial strategy. “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one,” they wrote one year before 9/11, “absent some cataclysmic and catalyzing event—like a New Pearl Harbor.”[6]The Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century(, 51.

Was 9/11 a “New Pearl Harbor?

Many scholars believe that President Franklin D. Roosevelt lied about the alleged surprise attack on Pearl Harbor—and that the lie was a justifiable “noble lie.” Before Pearl Harbor, American public opinion was overwhelmingly against U.S. entry into the war. Pearl Harbor, some believe, made it possible for the U.S.A. to defeat Hitler. Did Roosevelt manipulate the Japanese with an eight-point plan to force Japan to strike first so as to enrage the American people and allow U.S. entry into the war? Did he know about the attack beforehand and intentionally fail to prevent it? Did he make it happen on purpose by way of the eight-point plan?[7]Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit(NY: Free Press, 1999).”

Paul Wolfowitz, a student of Strauss and leading neocon geopolitical strategist, has long been fascinated by the immense strategic value of Pearl Harbor, which mobilized America for total war. Wolfowitz has exhibited a lifelong obsession with a remark by Albert Speer to the effect that if Germany had been blessed with a Pearl Harbor it would have won World War II.[8]Brian Bogart, radio interview, “The Dynamic Duo,” December 27, 2006 (

If the official myth of the Pearl Harbor surprise attack is a lie, is it a noble lie? Wolfwitz, and the other cult followers of Leo Strauss, would undoubtedly say so.

The popular myth of the dastardly Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and the heroic American response, transformed Americans’ understanding of themselves and their role in the world. Before Pearl Harbor, Americans agreed that there should be no standing army, and that George Washington’s foreign policy of neutrality, non-alignment, and non-involvement in foreign quarrels was the American way.[9]George Washington, Farewell Address ( is why, on the eve of Pearl Harbor, 80% of Americans opposed entering World War II.

After Pearl Harbor, Americans accepted their new role as the world’s policeman (some would say the world’s biggest bully). A gigantic military-industrial complex mushroomed, and more noble lies were told to gain the people’s consent. The negligible military threat to the U.S. posed by the Soviet Union was wildly exaggerated in order to pump up the military budget, and the memory of the alleged sneak attack at Pearl Harbor fed Americans’ sense of vulnerability. In this way, an aggressive imperial strategy was made to appear defensive. While pretending to be a purely defensive power, the U.S. regularly threatened other nations with the use of nuclear weapons.[10]Joseph Gerson, Empire and the Bomb: How the U.S. Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World (London and Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2007).It launched illegal, unconstitutional attacks on dozens of nations that posed no threat whatsoever, killing millions of innocent people in the process in what one scholar of U.S. empire, William Blum, has called “the American holocaust.”[11]William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II(Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2004).

The Pearl Harbor myth changed history. It turned the U.S.A. from a peace-loving nation into the world’s biggest and most aggressive military empire. How did it exert such immense power?

To find out, the U.S. military hired anthropologist Bob Deutch, one of the world’s leading experts in using focus groups to understand and manipulate irrational popular beliefs. Deutch discovered that Pearl Harbor shattered Americans’ sense of invulnerability: “Because Japan disrupted America’s self-mythology of being invincible, the nation would never be forgiven in the irrational American sentiment.”[12]Douglas Rushkoff, Coercion(NY: Penguin, 1999), 140.Could those who hired Deutch have concluded that a new Pearl Harbor, blamed on Arab Muslims, could provide the kind of “searing or moulding event” that would convince the American public to mobilize for wars on behalf of oil and Israel?

Deutch discovered that at the deep psychological level, the American public, like members of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang, engages in aggression as a defense against a sense of vulnerability and loss: “They are protecting themselves. That’s what their core story is about. Images are created to defend loss, not maximize gain.”[13]Rushkoff, 141.

Another U.S. military psychological expert, S.L.A. Marshall, discovered just how fundamentally defensive and non-aggressive human nature really is, and how powerfully people must be psychologically manipulated if they are to go to war. After an exhaustive study of that vast majority of U.S. infantrymen and airmen who, during World War II, covertly refused to kill, Marshall wrote that “the average and healthy individual…has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility…At the vital point (the soldier) becomes a conscientious objector.”[14]Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (Boston, NY, Toronto, London: Little, Brown, 1995).Normal human beings only kill when under direct threat and extreme duress, as a fear-and-anger-inspired defensive response to an aggressor. To motivate a nation to engage in military aggression—mass killing abroad—the people must be brainwashed into believing that they are under attack.

Zbigniew Brezezinski, a leading U.S. foreign policy strategist, notes that the U.S. public’s attitude toward the “external projection of American power” is “ambivalent” and depends on the sort of fear and vulnerability awakened by Pearl Harbor: “The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”[15]Zbigniew Brzezinksi, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives(NY: Penguin, 1997), 25. Ron Unz has reminded me that Brzezinksi was a leading opponent of the neocon faction behind the Zionist-driven post-9/11 wars on Middle Eastern nations. Brzezinksi ‘s 2007 warning to the Senate of a potential “provocation” to lure the US into war on Iran made clear his opposition to the neocon pro-Israel agenda. Additionally, The Grand Chessboard is the manifesto of a pro-US-empire realist, not a pro-Israel neocon. Brzezinski may not only have been innocent of complicity in 9/11 (except public silence afterward), but even played a role in the insider pushback that put the “seven countries in five years” plan far behind schedule.Brezezinski’s use of the term “shock effect” recalls the thesis of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine. According to Klein, individuals and even whole societies can be forced to accept radical, unpleasant changes by way of sudden shocks engineered, or taken advantage of, by unscrupulous elites.

Brezezinski seemed to be calling for a shocking event like 9/11 and the War on Terror it spawned, when he wrote in 1997: “Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”[16]Brzezinski, 211.

Hollywood, like Brezezinski, seemed to be preparing the American public for 9/11. The run-up to 9/11 saw a rash of patriotic, militaristic, apocalyptic films including the 135 million dollar flop, Pearl Harbor.[17] American-made action films feature an American hero who is threatened by an evil foreigner, and whose self-defense unfolds into extreme aggression that the audience is taught to accept as legitimate. A grossly disproportionate number of Hollywood’s evil foreigners are Arab or Muslim, including in pre-9/11 films.[18]Jack Shaheen, Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People(Northhampton, MA: Interlink, 2001).Is this because Hollywood was founded as, and remains, a Jewish enclave with a strong pro-Israeli bias? Or is it because 80% of the world’s sweet, easily-extracted oil lies under Arab and Muslim sand, even as an age of energy scarcity looms?

Did 9/11 function as a “new Pearl Harbor” that mobilized Americans for a aggressive war, disguised as a defensive one, against Arab and Muslim countries? T.H. Meyer has called attention to Donald Rumsfeld’s bizarre Pearl Harbor propaganda campaign that had begun even before the Bush Administration took office.[19]T.H. Meyer, Reality, Truth, and Evil (Forest Row, UK: Temple Lodge Publishing, 2005), 7.Rumsfeld spent 2000 and 2001 carrying around extra copies of Roberta Wohlstetter’s Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision, praising the book to the skies, and offering free copies to journalists. (Wohlstetter’s hawkish Zionist husband Albert, named in his obituary “the world’s most influential unknown figure of the past half century,” was Wolfowitz’s mentor and Richard Perle’s father-in-law.)[20]Meyer, 68-69.

Roberta Wohlsetter’s Pearl Harbor book, while it ostensibly supports the official myth that Pearl Harbor was a perfidious surprise attack, includes enough information to the contrary to enlighten the discerning reader to the unspeakable but implicitly acknowledged truth: The Roosevelt Administration provoked the attacks, knew they were coming, and left thousands of sailors in harm’s way as an offering to the gods of war. Wohlstetter’s book is a perfect illustration of neocon doublespeak: Tell a vivid, simplistic, emotionally-charged lie to the masses (“Perfidious surprise attack! Heroic purple-fury response!”) yet include as a subtle subtext the unspeakable truth that only the elite is smart enough to discern and strong enough to handle: Roosevelt sacrificed thousands of American lives to the greater good of getting the U.S. into the war.

Rumsfeld’s pre-9/11 Pearl Harbor precognitions were echoed on 9/11 itself. On Air Force One, as Bush flew from Florida to Nebraska, the event was already being framed as a new Pearl Harbor.[21]Meyer, 39.Senator Chuck Hegel and Henry Kissinger quickly echoed the Pearl Harbor comparison. Brezezinski himself pronounced: “It (9/11) is more murderous even than Pearl Harbor, and the psychological impact is the same.”[22]Ibid.
(Meyer, 39.)

On the evening of September 11th, 2001, George W. Bush reportedly confided to his diary: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.”[23]“David Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, xi.”Before the nano-thermite-laden dust[24]Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 ( was all that was left of the World Trade Center had cleared, the corporate media were echoing the Pearl Harbor meme. Time Magazinewrote: “What’s needed is a unified, unifying, Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury—a ruthless indignation that doesn’t leak away in a week or two.”[25]Cited in Meyer, 38.After 9/11 family members shamed a reluctant administration into finally mounting an official investigation, the 9/11 Commission told us that 9/11 was just like Pearl Harbor “except it wasn’t the Japanese, but it was al-Qaeda.”[26]Cited in Meyer, 68.

Those of us who don’t know history may be condemned to repeat it. As for the neocons, they may have known their Pearl Harbor history well enough to try to trick it into repeating itself on September 11, 2001. But if World War II was tragedy, the War on Terror is grossest farce. To extricate ourselves, we need to meditate on the mistakes of the past 78 years. To that end I offer a rough transcription of my December 7, 2010 Pearl Harbor Day interview with Thomas Kimmel and Webster Tarpley.

-Kevin Barrett

Part 1: Thomas Kimmel Interview

Welcome to a special Pearl Harbor Day edition of Truth Jihad Radio. It’s December 7, 2010. My interest in Pearl Harbor was juiced by 9/11, when I learned what really happened on 9/11 a few years after the fact. David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor makes the case that 9/11 was orchestrated as a war trigger event, just like Pearl Harbor according to revisionist historians. I recently finished re-reading Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett, and, well, I’m teed off! Let’s hope it wasn’t as bad as Stinnett thinks it was. But I’m afraid it may well have been.

My very special guest in the first segment of this special two hour show is Thomas Kimmel. He is the grandson of Admiral Husband Edward Kimmel, commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Fleet at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Admiral Kimmel was scapegoated for that attack, even though it appears that he was largely out of the intelligence loop showing Japanese preparations for that attack. And according to Stinnett, various people in the US High Command, including Roosevelt himself, were tracking that attack the whole way, knew exactly when and where it was coming, and left those thousands of sailors exposed to die in what was a kind of burnt offering to the gods of war, to turn around the 85% of US public opinion that was against the war, and turn the American people into an angry band of anti-Japanese racists and warmongers. In other words, it was a public relations event, perhaps the most successful one of the century.

So let’s hear what Thomas Kimmel has to say about it. He has been working to clear the name of his grandfather for many years. I believe he appeared at the Toronto 9/11 conference in 2004. He’s an important figure on the Pearl Harbor historical debate circuit. He’s leaving for a lecture immediately after this show’s over. So let’s bring him on and give him a chance to tell his story. Welcome, Thomas Kimmel. How are you?

Thank you. Couldn’t be better. And I thank you very much for the opportunity to be on your show.

It’s great to have you. I appreciate the work you’ve done to elucidate what brought the US into World War II, and to clear the name of your grandfather, Admiral Kimmel. What led you to start working on this issue?

Kevin, what I’m really trying to do is further my father’s work. Perhaps I should start by emphasizing that the initiative to advance Admiral Kimmel and General Short on the retired list began with the Pearl Harbor Survivors’ Association. It’s important to understand that it did not begin with the Kimmel family. The Pearl Harbor Survivors’ Association then-president Alex Cobb in 1984 summoned my dad and my uncle to Grossinger’s Resort in the Catskills, and asked them if they, being the sole surviving sons of Admiral Kimmel, would assist the Pearl Harbor Survivors’ Association in rehabilitating the reputations of their commanders, Admiral Kimmel and General Short. My dad and my uncle looked at each other and said, “my goodness, if the men who suffered the most in the Pearl Harbor attack want our assistance in this initiative, who are we to do anything but give our all in that effort. From that day forward, my dad and my uncle, who are both deceased now, spent their retirement years working full time on the Pearl Harbor Survivors’ Association’s initiative. They have done some marvelous things. So I am trying to carry the torch for the Pearl Harbor Survivors’ Association, my dad, and my uncle. That’s why I’m on your show this morning.

Why does the Pearl Harbor Survivors’ Association feel so strongly about wanting to rehabilitate the reputations of your grandfather and General Short?

Admiral Kimmel had three sons. He had two sons who went to the naval academy, two submariners. The older boy, Manning Kimmel, who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1935, perished on the submarine Robalo, which was lost with all hands in the Balabac Straits on July 26, 1944. We don’t know what happened because no-one survived and nothing was ever recovered.

My dad was also a submarine skipper in World War II. He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1936. He miraculously escaped with his submarine in the battle of Lingayen Gulf, among other hairbreadth escapes.

They also had a much younger son who strayed badly and didn’t go to a service academy. He went to Princeton and Harvard Law School. He is largely responsible for obtaining legislation in 2000, in which the full Congress recommended, in perpetuity, that the president of the United States, whoever he was then or whoever he or she may be in the future, should posthumously advance Rear Admiral Kimmel and General Short to their highest-held temporary ranks in World War II of Admiral, which would be four stars, and Lt. General, which would be three stars, in accordance with the personnel act of 1947, which allowed all WWII flag and general officers to eventually retire at their highest-held temporary ranks in World War II. All were allowed to do so, with two exceptions, Kevin: Admiral Kimmel and General Short. They were denied that privilege. The Pearl Harbor Survivors’ Association thinks that is completely unwarranted. They think the appropriate remedy would be to posthumously advance Kimmel and Short to their highest-held temporary ranks.

There’s no money involved. It’s just a matter of personal and most importantly national honor.

General Short and Admiral Kimmel were blamed for negligence which allegedly allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to be so murderously destructive. A lot of the US fleet was destroyed. And well over 2000 people were killed. Is there substantial doubt about their alleged negligence that’s driving the Pearl Harbor Survivors’ Association to demand that they be rehabilitated?

Indeed. That’s a great question. Here’s the story: Nine days after the Pearl Harbor attack, the president of the United States assigned a sitting Supreme Court Associate Justice, Owen Roberts, to conduct and investigation of the army and the navy only, and then only in Hawaii. Ten days after the Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were fired and replaced. Eleven days after the Pearl Harbor attack, the sitting Supreme Court Associate Justice with his commission began their deliberations. Thirty-six days they deliberated. At the end of the thirty-six days they wrote a report in which they found Admiral Kimmel and General Short soley blamable for the success of the attack. And they found the two gentlemen derelict in their duty, which is the part that sticks in the craw. This was 47 days after the Pearl Harbor attack. The president of the United States read the report, signed it, and sent it around the world completely unchanged. That’s where the matter stood 47 days after the Pearl Harbor attack. Soup to nuts, end of the story. And that would have been the end of the story, except that on February 21st, 1944, years after the Roberts Commission Report, the head of Op20G as it was called, Naval Communications Intelligence, indeed the father of Naval Communications Intelligence, the revered leader of Naval Communications Intelligence, Captain Lawrene Safford, secretly and illegally came to my grandfather, who was then living in Bronxville New York, and said, “Admiral Kimmel, did you have available to you, prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the same information that we had in Washington DC in the Office of Naval Intelligence, from the secret decoding of Japanese diplomatic and spy communications, which gave us indications prior to the attack of the time, place, reason, and the secret plan to cover the attack? Admiral Kimmel, did you have that information available to you, in a program we called Magic?”

This was in 1944. Admiral Kimmel, a beaten, despondent man, capable of suicide, looked at Captain Safford and said, “Captain, what in the world are you talking about? What is Magic?” Captain Safford explained that my grandfather changed that very day from a beaten, despondent man, capable of suicide, into a fighting tiger. He got legal representation out of Boston. One of the junior attorneys, Ed Hanafy, wrote enabling legislation that he took to the Naval Affairs Committee. The chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee was so impressed by what he read that he got the Congress to pass a law ordering the Army and the Navy to conduct further investigations. Without that, there would have been no further investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack after the Roberts Commission’s report 47 days after the attack. There have been ten official investigations of the Pearl Harbor attack. Eight of them—the last eight—were all caused through the efforts of Admiral Kimmel. And the last one, through the efforts of Admiral Kimmel’s two surviving sons. Out of the ten official investigations, only one afforded Admiral Kimmel the opportunity to defend himself. And by defend himself, Kevin, I mean the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses in his own defense. And that investigation was the Naval Court of Inquiry in 1944. So we’re talking years after the Roberts Commision had declared Admiral Kimmel derelict in his duty. So the Naval Court of Inquiry, which was the only tribunal staffed with three qualified high-ranking naval officers, all of whom have held high command at sea—in other words, held the professional competence to judge the performance of Admiral Kimmel. So Admiral Kimmel was allowed to defend himself. He was allowed to hear the witnesses against him. He was allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. So you would think the findings of the Naval Court of Inquiry would be particularly important. Let’s review what those findings were. Number one: The Naval Court of Inquiry found that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support a charge of dereliction of duty against Admiral Kimmel. They found that Admiral Kimmel committed “no errors of judgment based on the information he was given.” The Naval Court of Inquiry approved of all of Admiral Kimmel’s forced dispositions, again, based on the information he was given. The president of the court, Admiral Murfin, did everything possible under the political circumstances. And they made one last finding: to severely criticize Admiral Kimmel’s only uniformed boss, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold Stark, for not keeping Admiral Kimmel appropriately and adequately informed as he had promised Admirial Kimmel he would do, in writing, on four separate occasions.

One would expect this (the Naval Court of Inquiry) would have caused the whole story to be changed, and that they would start investigating Stark.

Well, they did start investigating Stark. And recent developments have come up with some very interesting information about Admiral Stark’s role that never saw the light of day. It’s the kind of thing that Stinnett came up with when he found McCollum’s memo, and reported it in his book Day of Deceit. I’m not a particularly big fan of that book. On the other hand I think Robert Stinnett deserves great credit for finding McCollum’s memo.

Let’s go ahead and describe that memo, the eight-point plan to draw the Japanese to attack the US.

Arthur McCollum was the head of the Far East Section of the Office of Naval Intelligence, and had been since 1939. If there was one person in the United States government who had all the information, or certainly most of it, that would have been Arthur McCollum. Arthur McCollum was key in all of these investigations. He testified, but never mentioned a word about a memorandum he wrote on October 7th, 1940. This memorandum, styled an action memorandum by Robert Stinnett because that’s indeed exactly what it was, was McCollum’s recommendations on what the United States could do to get into the war. Quoting the memo: “It is not believed that the United States is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado.” Marvelous language! And then he proceeds to say, “therefore, the following course of action is suggested.” And he lists eight items. Seven of those eight items were implemented. And they’re very close to home. My dad was part of one of these, and so was my uncle, the one who is deceased, the two submariners.

Number one: McCollum is writing this memorandum to the Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence, then Admiral Anderson. In order to create “more ado,” he suggests that the United States arrange to use British bases in the Pacific. Obviously this was going to upset the Japanese. And that was done.

Number two: McCollum suggested that we arrange with the Dutch to use their facilities in the East Indies, to upset the Japanese. And that was indeed done.

Number three: To give all possible aid to Chiang Kai-shek. And indeed that was done. There’s a marvelous story that goes along with that. It has to do with the Flying Tigers, and how we were actually getting ready to conduct a pre-emptive strike against Japan under the guise of flying for these…there’s a book out called Pre-Emptive Strike, which describes this in spades. And the interesting thing about that is that the prime mover in that initiative was the Special Assistant to the President of the United States, who, as it turned out, was a Soviet spy. This would be Lauchlin Currie, the one who was revealed under the Venona Program. But back to McCollum’s memo.

Number four: To send cruisers to the Orient, Philippines or Singapore. This was a very curious, wild move, which was suggested to Admiral Kimmel, I might add. Kimmel was vehemently opposed to it, as was Kimmel’s predecessor, Admiral Richardson. They prevailed upon Admiral Stark, their uniformed boss, the Chief of Naval Operations, to tell the President of the United States what a cockamamie idea this was. And they relented on that. They didn’t do that one.

Number five: To send two divisions of submarines to the Orient. Not only did they do that, my dad and my uncle were in those two divisions of submarines! My dad was in Manila Bay at the bachelor officers’ quarters when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He was asleep in the bachelor officers’ quarters because he was in an old boat, and the habitability on the boat was so bad that you didn’t even think about staying on it when you were in port. So everybody was ashore. He was in the bachelor officers’ quarters, he woke up at 6 a.m., routinely, which was four hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He walked into the lobby of the bachelor officers’ quarters and there was a note pinned to the board saying that Pearl Harbor had been attacked, and that he was to conduct himself accordingly. So he walked back to his S-40 submarine and they got out of the port. The interesting thing about this is there were 26 submarines that the commander-in-chief of the Asiatic fleet, Admiral Hart had. This is the Asiatic Fleet, not the Pacific Fleet. Admiral Hart had 29 submarines overall. 26 of them were sitting in Manila Bay, at anchor, alongside a submarine tender or alongside the pier. There were no special instructions given. No special precautions were taken. All 26 of these submarines were allowed to get out of Manila Bay hours after the Pearl Harbor attack. The great irony in all of this is that if the Japanese had attacked those 26 submarines that were lying there defenseless, no special precautions, no special instructions—if they had decided to attack those submarines, as opposed to the eight battleships at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would have advanced their war effort by an order of magnitude, since no part of the armed forces contributed more to the successful prosecution of the war than did the American submarines.

That sounds like a major military mistake to leave the submarines exposed like that. Those who argue that there was considerable foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor note that the aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor were sent out to sea to make sure they didn’t get knocked out, and the battleships that were lost that day were old and mostly obsolete.

(midpoint break)

Before the break we were talking about the eight-point plan that McCollum in Naval Intelligence had devised to provoke the Japanese into attacking and striking the first blow to create a public relations event that would turn around the 88% antiwar public opinion and allow the American people to be dragged into World War II kicking and screaming—for Japanese blood. Before the break you were talking about point five of the eight-point plan, sending American submarines into Manila Bay. It’s lucky the Japanese didn’t take advantage of that.

Indeed, especially when you consider that the submarines that were there had torpedos that didn’t work. We didn’t straighten that out until two-and-a-half years into the war. That almost got my dad killed on a couple of occasions, and many other submariners as well. It’s one of the great scandals of World War II. But I don’t want to get too far afield here. We were on item number five. You mentioned that this memo from McCollum was designed to incite the Japanese to attack us. That is not your opinion. It’s not my opinion. It is the language in the memo from McCollom himself. He says, and I quote, “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an act of war, so much the better.” I don’t think the language could be much clearer. So let’s finish the list.

Action proposal number six, was the key to the whole plan. And that was to keep the United States fleet in Hawaii. In order to do that, President Roosevelt had to fire the then commander-in-chief of the United States fleet, Admiral Kimmel’s predecessor, Admiral J.O. Richardson. Admiral Richardson was strident in his views that the Pacific Fleet should not be stationed at Hawaii because it was “disadvantageously positioned to prepare for war.” That was his language.

He was also concerned that it was exposed to danger of the kind of surprise attack that happened, wasn’t he?

Well, I’m giving you the exact language. What “disadvantageously disposed to prepare for war” actually meant…I’m not going to put words in Admiral Richardson’s mouth. At any rate, he felt so strongly about this that he went back from Hawaii to Washington DC and had a sit-down with the President of the United States, and upset him, apparently, because he was a little too candid. And next thing you know, he’s fired. And my grandfather, who was the head of the battle force out there, now becomes the commander-in-chief of the United States fleet. My grandfather was shocked beyond words when he got that news. As it turned out, Kimmel went back and saw President Roosevelt as well, and made it abundantly clear that the only answer to the defense of the fleet was to make sure the fleet was not in Pearl Harbor should it ever be attacked. He made that abundantly clear to the President of the United States. But Admiral Kimmel did not force Roosevelt’s hand to the extent that Admiral Richardson did. What really got to Admiral Richardson was that not only was he stridently opposed to keeping the fleet in Hawaii, he was ordered by the President of the United States to issue a press release saying that keeping the fleet in Pearl Harbor was his idea! Well, that was too much for Admiral Richardson. He was willing to play along, but he wasn’t willing to lie about it to that extent. Now one of the curiosities in all of this is that Admiral Richardson, when he was ordered by the

Chief of Naval Operations to keep the fleet at Pearl Harbor, Richardson, in an official communication back to the Chief of Naval Operations, said “Well, if I’m going to do that, then I’m going to have to curtail training, if that’s the way it’s going to be.” And that was unacceptable. Because training was, at the time, the major mission of the fleet: to get the fleet prepared for war! That required training. When Admiral Kimmel took over the fleet at Pearl Harbor, there were units at Pearl Harbor that hadn’t fired a gun in over a year. This was completely unacceptable. That was what Admiral Kimmel was trying to do, prepare the fleet for war. That was his job. The defense of the fleet, of course, was the sole job of the Army, which is a rather remarkable story in all of this. The investigators were dumbfounded when they asked, who is responsible, in writing, for worrying the problem and defending the fleet when the fleet’s in Pearl Harbor? By longstanding written agreement going back to 1935, as the Chief of Naval Operations made clear in his testimony to the Naval Court of Inquiry, the army was soley responsible for the defense of the fleet when the fleet was in Pearl Harbor. They were dumbfounded by that. Which brought me to a very interesting 9/11 comparison, not to stray too far from the point, but I was dismayed that the 9/11 Commission did not ask who, in writing, was responsible for the defense of the Pentagon? Because in the Pearl Harbor investigations, that was a key question, and it was asked over and over again. Mind you, I didn’t ask who was blamable for that lack of activity, I didn’t ask who should be punished. I just asked who, in writing, was responsible for worrying the problem about the defense of the fleet when the fleet was in Pearl Harbor. Well, the answer was the Army! The Army was solely responsible. As a matter of fact, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the head of the Army, General Marshall, wrote an official correspondence to General Short, and told General Short when he took command, in February of 1941, the same time that Admiral Kimmel took command, he reminded General Short that the only reason that the Army was even in Hawaii was to defend the fleet when the fleet was in Pearl Harbor. It was not a reason. It was the reason why the Army was in Hawaii.

That’s very interesting. Nobody tried to blame the Army for the unsuccessful defense of Pearl Harbor, did they?

Oh, sure they did. Short and Kimmel, they were solely blamed, solely dubbed derelict in their duties, solely blamable for the success of the attack. So said the Roberts Commission. General Short was the head of the Hawaiian Army contingent out there. And his job was the defense of the fleet. That was his only job! There are historians that say that Admiral Kimmel’s only job was to defend the fleet. And of course nothing could be further from the truth. Admiral Kimmel’s job was to prepare the fleet for offensive action. The counterpart of Gen. Short was actually the commandant of the 14th Naval District out there, Admiral Blach. He was responsible for the Navy’s end of defending the fleet when the fleet was in Pearl Harbor. But these nuances are too difficult for the general public to accept. Anyway, we proceed back to the McCollum memo. But first let me make one more point, though. I was going to make a comparison with 9/11. The comparison I wanted to make was, who was responsible, in writing, for worrying the problem of the defense of the Pentagon? It would seem like a perfectly logical question for the 9/11 Commission to ask. Have you got any ideas, Kevin?

Well, I don’t know about “in writing,” but I know that Andrews Air Force Base had on its website a statement that they had fighter planes on alert 24/7/365 to defend Washington, DC including the White House and the rest of Washington, DC. And they took that down shortly after 9/11. That’s one of the many anomalies about why these allegedly hijacked planes were flying around for an hour and a half with nobody going up to try to stop them, and hitting the Pentagon at supposedly 9:37, which was almost an hour and a half after the first plane veered off course, lost its transponder, and so on. That’s a pretty bizarre failure to defend the Pentagon. So who do you think was responsible for defending it?

I don’t want to put too fine a point on this, but you’d think it would have been a fair question for the 9/11 Commission to ask. And there are few people on the planet more interested in this subject than I am. And I have been researching this for years. I ask virtually every one of the audiences that I speak to, and by now I have spoken to hundreds of audiences, this question. I start by saying, who was responsible for the defense of the fleet when the fleet was in Pearl Harbor? And of course most people are shocked to find out it was the Army. So I say, well, who was responsible for the defense of the Pentagon? Forget New York City, who was responsible for the defense of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? And of course people look and me and say, I don’t know, the Army? And the answer is: nobody! Nobody was responsible. The best answer I got was, the Fairfax County Police Department. Which of course is where the Pentagon was located. I’ve spoken to former secretaries of the Navy about this. I’ve spoken to the former commanding officer of the USS Cole. And the real answer is, that just fell through the crack. There’s nobody who, in writing, was worrying the problem, specifically, of the defense of the Pentagon. Well, there you go. Why didn’t the Commission ask the question?

There are claims by French military sources who were given tours of the Pentagon that there were anti-aircraft capabilities there. That led to the argument that whatever hit the Pentagon must have had the transponder code so it could broadcast a “friendly” signal so that it was able to approach and hit without triggering the anti-aircraft defenses.

I’m concerned about the general proposition, who was worrying the problem? At Pearl Harbor, they were worrying the problem. They were worrying about air attack, they were worrying about submarine attack, they were worrying about sabotage. Who as a general proposition was worrying the problem? Who was working on defense of the Pentagon?

I think I’d better get back to my area of expertise, Pearl Harbor and the McCollum memo. Let’s go on to number seven of the eight.

Number seven, McCollum was suggesting that the United States insist that the Dutch embargo Japan, particularly oil. And of course this is the big one, this is the straw that broke the Japanese back. They couldn’t live with this. That was done. We got the Dutch to embargo Japan, particularly oil, and many other products as well.

And of course number eight, the big one: Insist that the United States and Britain do the same, embargo oil from Japan. And again, “if, by these means, Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.” I think that speaks for itself.

You cut off their oil, they don’t have much choice, do they?

It’s all about oil, as they say. So let me continue on what I think, as an investigator, is the telling point here. McCollum, as I said, if one person in the USG had all the information, all the secret information, it was McCollum. At the Joint Congressional Committee Investigation, McCollum was called as a witness, as he was in several others. Senator Lucas asked Admiral Arthur McCollum, do you, Admiral, know anyone in any branch of the service, or in your department of the Navy, who attempted to trick or maneuver the Japanese into attacking the United States on December 7th, 1941. Kevin, I can tell you, as a former FBI agent, if I had written the McCollum memo, and I was now placed on the witness stand, sworn in to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, knowing full well that if I didn’t do that I was committing a felony violation punishable federally by five years in prison, I would be sweating bullets by about now. But at any rate, it didn’t seem to bother McCollum. McCollum’s answer was, “no sir, Senator Lucas.” Senator Barkley, who was the chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee, comes in with the pervasive question that should be asked of all witnesses in these circumstances: “The Chair would like to ask you, Admiral Arthur McCollum, if there is any other information that you have that is pertinent to this inquiry, that has not been brought out by the questions asked.” And Mccollum, if he wasn’t sweating before, he certainly should have been sweating then. But he hung tough. He said “no sir, I don’t think so, Senator.” You can find all of this in volume eight of the official Joint Congressional Inquiry Pearl Harbor Attack Series.

That’s unbelievable. But of course the McCollum Memo wouldn’t be made public until Stinnett found it. When was that, the 1990s?

He found it in 1995. But it wasn’t made public until his book came out.

Day of Deceit came out in 2000. Just in time for the run-up to 9/11.

It’s pretty good stuff. Stinnett definitely deserved credit for finding that memo. As a matter of fact I’m the one that found the Joint Congressional Committee examination of McCollum.

That’s a classic vignette. If somebody were going to write a play about this, it would have to be one of the scenes. So…I’m wondering what’s your take on Stinnett’s evidence that the codes, not just the diplomatic Purple codes and spy codes, but the actual Japanese military codes, had been broken, leading us to believe that McCollum and Roosevelt had very detailed knowledge of the Japanese fleet movements. Meaning they know exactly when and where Pearl Harbor was coming and they didn’t tell your grandfather.

I think the case is not compelling, to my way of thinking right now. There is enough reasonable doubt there that I can’t subscribe to that. That’s not to say that they didn’t. It’s just that the case hasn’t been made to my satisfaction, as yet. Of course, I have to be much more careful, because of my position. I can’t afford to be wrong in anything that I say. And if your listeners find that I have misspoken on anything, let me know. I guess I can afford to be wrong once, but I can’t afford to repeat the error. And I try assiduously to avoid errors. So I’m not going to wade into the swamp that JN25 was readable prior to the attack. There’s too much evidence to the contrary. The jury is still out, in my opinion, on that issue. And obviously it’s a very important issue.

But even with the diplomatic codes…I assume you accept the evidence that they were reading the Purple code, the diplomatic code.

Well, there isn’t any doubt about that. We have the head of Op20G, the brains behind (decoding) Japanese naval communications, the famous Captain Safford, who made that abundantly clear. And I might emphasize that but for his effort, there is no way in the world we would have known about this.

There is such a cover-up going on, apparently. And Stinnett’s book shows convincingly that there has been a wide-reaching attempt to cover up the truth of what was known, when, by whom, about Pearl Harbor, to the extent that documents have been stolen, disappeared from archives, all over the country, right up through our time. Which is quite amazing, isn’t it?

Well, it is. I’m trying to remember John Kennedy’s Secretary of State. His name is escaping me right now. (Dean Rusk.) He was part of Army Intelligence in Washington DC. His son wrote a book in which Rusk talked about Colonel James Compton, who was his boss in Army Intelligence. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, he came to him with a memo that the Army Intelligence folks were collecting to destroy. Because they knew perfectly well they were going to be investigated.

In the couple of minutes we have left, I know you’ve brought up the topic of who was supposed to be defending the Pentagon on 9/11. I know you were also at the 2004 Toronto 9/11 Inquiry, which was the first of the many 9/11 revisionist events that have been held around the country. I’ve been to most of them, but not that one. What’s your overall take on the debate about 9/11 and the 9/11 truth movement?

Well, I was encouraged to listen to my former boss, the Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, weigh in with an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal right after Anthony Schaefer came out with his Able Danger information.

He was ordered to cover up the face of Mohamed Atta with a yellow sticky pad and forget he’d ever seen him when they were tracking Atta and the other (alleged hijackers) before 9/11.

Well, he was alleging that. And I was amazed that my boss, he came in for public consumption in the Wall Street Journal and said that this Able Danger thing, if confirmed—this is Louis Freeh’s language in the Wall Street Journal—would be the most relevant and material fact of the entire 9/11 Commission Proceedings, and would have been exactly the kind of information that the FBI had used many times to stop terrorist acts before they were perpetrated. And of course the FBI has done this on many occasions, which I can attest to.

My take on 9/11 so far, first of all, Louis Freeh weighing in on Able Danger…there was an investigation that pooh-poohed Able Danger. And now, with the latest development, I guess it’s what, two or three months old? Tony Schaeffer trying to write a book called Operation Dark Heart or something like that, and the Pentagon buying up ten thousand copies and burning them?! I’m not in favor of book-burning as an American principle. So I would withhold comment until I get a chance to take a look at Col. Schaeffer’s book. And of course I’m also distressed over the fact that the inspector general, John Helgerson, for CIA, conducted his own 9/11 investigation. And he pointed fingers, named names, cast blame, completely contrary to the 9/11 Commission, whose guiding principle was not to name names, not to cast blame. And they so said that jointly, the chairman and the co-chair, they say that right in the 9/11 Commission Report preface.

And since then they’ve come out and admitted that the whole investigation was deeply flawed at best.

Well, they said that. They accused all those who knew about the secret taping of the interrogations, who knew about it and didn’t reveal it to the 9/11 Commission. And obstructed their investigation. Both the chairman and the co-chair, Kean and Hamilton, did an op-ed piece in The New York Times in which they said hey, our investigation was obstructed. They were sold a bill of goods. It’s distressing.

And here again, like with Pearl Harbor, we have a historical event with so many questions swirling around it. It seems that most people are willing to live with the official myth, which in this case got us into not a four year war, but in this case a nearly ten year war that’s still going on even as we speak, and is destroying our economy. Well, Thomas Kimmel, it’s been great having you. It’s the top of the hour and you have to give a talk. I appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule to come on my show.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity. Thanks again, and yes indeed, I’m off.

That was Thomas Kimmel. He’s the grandson of Admiral Husband Edward Kimmel, who was blamed for the Pearl Harbor disaster. All sorts of information has since surfaced that this may have been unjust. My next hour guest, Webster Tarpley, is going to come on with a completely different point of view. Webster is a fervent supporter of President Roosevelt, largely because of his economic policies. And I see his point. I think those were relatively enlightened economic policies, especially compared to what we’re seeing today. Hitler also had pretty good economic policies. He took a complete basket case of a country, and within five years, he had the economy roaring. But there are things I don’t like about Hitler, too; just as I don’t like Roosevelt’s warmongering, I don’t like Hitler’s either. Webster, however, has a completely different viewpoint. So let’s bring him on and let him explain. Webster, are you on the line?

Webster Tarpley Interview

Hello Kevin, how are you?

Thank you for being willing to come on at the last minute and hold up the other side of the debate.

Time to stand up for the truth against the libertarian legions.

Okay! But I don’t know if this debate is about economics so much as just plain historical fact. I just finished rereading Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett, and he seems to me to have a pretty overwhelming empirical case that McCollum and FDR intentionally provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, knew it was coming, and left those guys out there, left the old mothballed battleships out there, got the aircraft carriers out to sea…they welcomed, invited, provoked, and essentially orchestrated the Pearl Harbor disaster in order to turn around 88% antiwar opinion and make it possible for the US to enter World War II. So you disagree with that interpretation?

Yes, absolutely. And I recommend, put away this book by Stinnett. Stinnett of course is a libertarian. These people are Roosevelt haters from the word go. He belongs to a libertarian think tank near San Francisco, and indeed comes from one of the leading oligarchical families of the region. He tries to hide his anti-Roosevelt animus behind a few formulations in that book, but it shines through. Now let me just point out a couple of the assumptions that are never mentioned by somebody like Stinnett. First of all, you have to be very, very soft on fascism to believe any of this stuff. You have to assume that the Japanese empire was fundamentally benign. And you never hear about what they’re doing in the meantime. For example—

Wait, wait a minute, Webster, I don’t think that’s true. What we’re arguing about is whether Pearl Harbor was provoked to get the US into the war. And you’re just arguing about fascism.

Kevin, you’re going to have to let me speak. The other side has been heard, more or less. You’re going to have to let me speak here before we come with the Stinnett libertarian stuff, which I’m surprised you fall for. Because this is essentially a defense of the invisible government, as I’ll try to show.

Concerning Japan: This is a brutal fascist aggressor at that time. They have rolled into China in the early 1930s. They’ve taken over Manchuria, set up a puppet state. Atrocities all over the place. They then invade China itself, the rest of it, in 1937. In the city of Nanjing, between 1937 and 1938, they carry out an open genocide of about 500,000 Chinese who are simply slaughtered, but not secretly in concentration camps, but openly in front of the world press, with news film and photographs going around the world. The Japanese are their way to killing about ten million people in China as part of what is called the other holocaust or the forgotten holocaust. Then in the summer of 1941, a couple of months before the events we’ve been talking about, they go into French Indochina and seize that. So they’ve essentially taken most of the Pacific coast of Asia. They are then preparing to attack the Dutch East Indies, which is a main source of oil, and the British possessions, and of course the Philippines, which is a forward salient of the United States. The US supply lines are cut by islands that the Japanese have been given at Versailles. Japan is an aggressor. You don’t provoke Japan. The question is rather, are you going to sit there and let a brutal fascist oligarchical enemy attack you according to their timetable, or are you going to do something to try to knock them off balance, to try to probe them, to try to counter them?

So you’re not arguing against the facts as outlined in Day of Deceit?

Yes I am, I’m arguing against all of it. I think his facts are bunk.

But what you just argued would support McCollum’s eight-point memo. It would support provoking the Japanese into striking the first blow.

You say “provoke.” They’re coming after you anyway, on their own timetable. And the main question with Japan—there’s only one question in the Japanese internal discussions: Will they strike north against the Soviets in Sibera? Will they try to get oil that way? And that is basically ruled out. Because they’ve been defeated by Marshall Zhukov at the battle of Khalkhyn Gol in Mongolia, where the Japanese conclude that the Soviets are too tough. So what remains then is the “strike south” faction, which becomes dominant when Prince Konoe falls as Prime Minister and Tojo, the fascist, comes in, during the course of 1941. Roosevelt’s policy is to seek war in the North Atlantic. He occupies Greenland, he occupies Iceland, he sends destroyers, he’s escorting convoys, he has a shoot on sight order. US destroyers are getting sunk in the North Atlantic. So Roosevelt’s approach to this thing is pretty much what you had later in the war. It’s Germany first. And follow what is know as Rainbow 5 or War Plan Orange or something like this, which says you can then turn and deal with Japan. But you’ve got to ask yourself, are you in fact arguing that Japan ought to be allowed to seize the entire Pacific, all of these places—Manchuria, Japan, Indochina, Dutch Indonesia, the Philippines. The British were prepared to give up most of Australia. If you let Japan take all of this, then you’re going to have to go in there, you’re going to have to have a frontal assault of the type that the Navy does on these places like Okinawa. And you’re going to have two to three million US casualties. So that’s the background.

Can I briefly interrupt? To me, the issue here is that 88% of the American people opposed US entry into the war. The US is supposed to be a democracy.

But this is a utopia. You’re going to be at war very soon, no matter what you do.


Because fascist dictators are on the attack and they’re making a bid for world domination. And this is real. The people who argued against this, people like Charles Lindbergh, the America First group, which then became the Americans for Peace group, they’re the ones who put out the line that Hitler is benign, Japan is benign, we need to appease them, of course. Essentially the argument you seem to be making is “appease Japan, ignore them, don’t do anything, and everything will be okay.” Well, experience shows that this doesn’t work. They are coming after you.

The British, of course, go beyond appeasement. They go to active support for Hitler. During the period we’re talking about, the British cut off road traffic into China across the Burma road as a measure of appeasement of Japan. In other words, they were willing to let Japan take more and more of China as a way to buy a few more months of peace. So this is a bankrupt strategy. And it essentially ignores the fact that there is fascism. And you don’t need to provoke them to make them into aggressors. They are aggressors. They’re coming after you. The question is, under what terms will this begin. The other point…

So you don’t buy the argument that the Germans basically wanted to grab some resources and influence to the east, and essentially incorporate the German-speaking parts of Poland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia into Germany, and that’s it. They didn’t want to take over the world.

And the Soviet Union and beyond. And North Africa. And beyond that. And once you get to Africa you can make the jump into Latin America. I think this is fantastic. We’ve forgotten the whole question of fascism and what it meant. And that Roosevelt is indeed at this point the world’s leading anti-fascist. Which is what these libertarians don’t like. Because the libertarian position is, essentially, that Roosevelt is a communist, Harry Hopkins is a communist, we heard some of it. This is the mentality of the FBI. The Roosevelt haters represent the social stratum that produces the admiral class of the Navy. We’ll show how this works.

The other question is, there is a secret government in the United States. I think you would concede this, right? And it’s been around for awhile. In my view, you can trace the secret government back to 1885. It’s the Morgan faction inside the US government. It is alive and well during World War II. Roosevelt does not control these people. We cannot fall into the naïve assumption that everything the US government does is personally ordered by Roosevelt. This is absolutely fantastic. Not when you’re dealing with, remember, a coalition government, the national unity government that Roosevelt has set up. He has brought in Col. Stimson, a guy who had been in the cabinets of the Republicans in the 1920s and is now the Secretary of War. He’s the boss of the Pentagon. Stimson is the invisible government. This is pro-British. And in his case you can find the stories…he writes in his diaries how he wants to get the US into war, and so forth. And you have to carefully examine what this means. The other people I think you can regard as conspirators against Roosevelt, in addition to Col. Stimson, are George Marshall, always Wall Street’s favorite general. And we see him later on consigning China to Mao, because this was the British policy. And Admiral Richmond K. Turner, who is the guy who blocked the intelligence to Admiral Kimmel. So you cannot assume that what is done in Washington is done because Roosevelt orders it, because there is a powerful anti-Roosevelt in the government. There is a group in the State Department around George Kennan who prefer Hitler to Stalin. There’s a faction fight that’s going on.

So what’s your response to Stinnett’s argument, quoting from his book, that “Roosevelt’s fingerprints can be found on each of McCollum’s propososals”—that is, the eight-point plan to draw the Japanese to attack?

As Stinnett himself concedes, there is no evidence that Roosevelt saw that document or ever approved it. You can consider it in some ways a factional document. It’s a guy who’s proposing things. A lot of these things were done. And they should have been done. What are you going to do? Are you going to say “here, Japan, you’ve just killed 500,000 Chinese at Nanjing, have some more oil, have some more scrap metal, let’s feed your machine of genocide.” Remember, American public opinion is pro-Chinese—antiwar, but pro-Chinese and not happy with Japan.

I agree that Kimmel is not responsible for these things. But on the other hand he’s also not a hero, in the sense that he’s about at the level of most officers at this time, which was maybe not as good as we needed. Here’s the general point: The intelligence from Washington, and this depends on reading codes, is suppressed not by Roosevelt, but by Admiral Richmond K. Turner, who is officially the Director of War Plans in the Navy Department, but extends his control through faction fighting over the Office of Naval Intelligence. And it is Richmond K. Turner who blocks the sending of a stream of these Purple intercepts—the Japanese diplomatic code, which can be read. He makes sure that the people in Pearl Harbor don’t have that. So we can’t blame Kimmel for not knowing these things. However, what we can do is say, Kimmel, you received on November 27th 1941, you received a dispatch that said “consider this a war warning.” Kimmel and Short were sent a quite detailed dispatch which talks about attacks in other parts of the Pacific, not Pearl Harbor. But it says to all of them, “consider this a war warning.” You can go back and see, as scholars have done, what did the Admiral for example commanding the Panama Canal Zone, what did he do? Well, he set up a screen. He set up picket boats and a way of trying to see if the Japanese were coming to attack the Panama Canal. He considered that possible, even though it was not mentioned in the dispatch. So what would you do, if you’re Kimmel?

He did, two weeks before Pearl Harbor, send out an exercise—

But then he brought it back.

He was ordered to bring it back.

He was not ordered.

It was a “clear the ocean” order.

He interprets an order. He’s obviously very timorous. Some guy writes an objection, and he says alright, I’m going to bring back my battleship and my carrier. Here’s what he should have done. He had a large number of destroyers. You can set up a destroyer screen 500 to 1000 miles out. He has a large number of light cruisers. Now light cruisers, or scout cruisers in those days, have scout planes on board. He has a large number of PBY Catalina planes that can fly out and do long range reconnaissance. There’s the B-18 Bolo bomber that can easily go a thousand miles out and come back. Or, suppose he doesn’t have this. He’s also got Admiral Block, who has 20 or 25 ships, and those should have been out as a screen. And we’re not talking battleships and carriers, we’re talking about early warning. We’re talking about essentially picket boats. Somewhat later, when Doolittle attacks Tokyo, he is discovered by what? By a Japanese fishing boat that telegraphed a warning to Tokyo. So you could also use trawlers, fishing boats, and so forth.

There was a “clear the ocean” order, Webster, that came from above Kimmel (in the chain of command).

This is ridiculous. This is completely made up. And look, if you’re the commander of a fleet…Prussian exercises were always based on the idea that in order to be effective you have to violate some orders. You can read in any military history that the great commanders are decided by the orders they choose to ignore. I think even Churchill says that. So this guy is very timorous. I think it’s a question of his mentality. The stuff about training, right? Mr. Kimmel that you just had on talked about the importance of training. Of course it’s true. But I think what he means is that Admiral Kimmel was a battleship admiral. He was not interested in the Billy Mitchell school of air power. I think he really underestimated the capabilities of aircraft carrier attacks, even though the Navy had been drilling these for quite a few years. So he did not understand that he was not going to go out and fight the Battle of Jutland. I think what’s in his head was the 1916 Battle of Jutland, where the British fleet goes up against the German battle fleet in the North Sea. He’s thinking forward to something like this. The other think that they had (was that) Short of the Army had radar. If I had been Kimmel, I would have gone to visit that radar, even though those were the Army guys, and I would have made sure there was a direct telephone line so that any warning coming in on that radar would go directly to my office. I’d have a liason officer posted there. Unfortunately Kimmel does none of this.

But isn’t this partly because of what he’s being fed from Naval Intelligence, which is actually plotting to set him up?

He’s been told “this is a war warning.” I’d have to say, Admiral Kimmel, what part of “this is a war warning” don’t you understand? And then you‘ve got to take the responsibility of a commander. This is not the schoolyard. There’s this kind of infantile quality that creeps in: “Oh, he was afraid that this other guy had better influence in the White House and therefore he called off these maneuvers at the Composer (?) Mountains, this area where the Japanese actually did launch their attack a little bit later. He doesn’t come across as a commander who’s aggressive and innovative.

You’re right, Webster. It seems to me that perhaps the reason he was selected was that he wasn’t the kind who would stand up to bad authority kind of guy, like his predecessor Richardson, who went up against Roosevelt and said, what you’re having me do here, Roosevelt, is you’re setting me up to have my guys slaughtered.

You’re wrong. You’re taking what might be called the appease Japan position. It gets very close to a soft-on-fascism position, I have to say.

Richardson wanted to keep the ships at the West Coast, where there were better facilities—

Yeah, and let the Japanese run wild across the Pacific—

instead of inviting a surprise attack that would slaughter thousands of American sailors.

The reason Admiral Richardson gets fired is that he goes into a meeting with Roosevelt and he says “Roosevelt, my officers don’t trust you and they don’t trust the people in your cabinet, because they’re communists.” That’s the line of the pro-fascist, pro-Hitler American Liberty League faction. He then gets fired some months later. I don’t see how any American president could sit still for an admiral coming in to his Oval Office—“

Let me just play devil’s advocate here and point out that at that time, Stalin had killed a lot more people than Hitler ever would. Communism did look like a threat. The Soviet Empire did look like as big a threat as the Germans or the Japanese. Why not say look, if there’s going to be mass slaughter going on all over the world, maybe our jumping into it and participating in it and killing millions more people, adding more millions of bodies on top of the pile that’s going to grow to sixty million by the end of this war, is not the right thing to do. Maybe we should just defend our own country and not participate in mass slaughter abroad when we don’t need to.

That would have been a suicidal recipe. Because without Lend Lease the Soviets and the British would have gone under, China would have gone under, and you would have faced an entire Eurasian-African land mass under the control of Hitler and Mussolini and Tojo. And this would have then been a terrible historical situation for the United States to be in. And I’m quite frankly glad that Roosevelt had the ability to see that this could not be allowed to go on.

But let’s talk about the codes. I was glad to hear that Mr. Kimmel is not on the bandwagon of saying that the United States could read the Japanese naval code. Because this gets us very close to the heart of the matter.

Stinnett offers all kinds of evidence that they could.

And it’s all fake. And again, Kevin, you seem to have fallen in love with this guy Stinnett. And I’m shocked, quite frankly. But you’ve got to give me at least the same courtesy you gave Kimmel to lay out an explanation, rather than constantly interrupting.

There were two codes. Magic simply means code intercepts. It can mean just about anything. Within the world of Magic there are two specific codes. One is the Purple code. We have to realize that the US was working with the British on a number of these things. There was a kind of implied division of labor, which is that the US was going to try to read the Purple code, and the British were going to try to focus on the Japanese naval code called JN-25. The US, accordingly, did focus on the Purple code, and was able to read the Japanese diplomatic intercepts. They knew the day before what the Japanese ambassador in Washington was going to say the following day. This was valuable. And it did give the idea that something big was about to happen. But it didn’t tell you where, and it didn’t tell you when. And at that point it could be the Philippines, it could be the Panama Canal, it could be Hawaii, it could be the Dutch East Indies, it could be the British in Singapore or Hong Kong or any number of other things. The other side of it is JN-25. And this is the one, if you could read it, would allow you to know the movements of the Japanese battle fleets in advance. This is what the British could read. Now the overwhelming body of evidence is that the British could read a great deal of JN-25. I say a great deal because codes are not something you crack and immediately read everything. It’s a matter of building a book. This is called the four number code, or four digit code—

Five number, wasn’t it?

Five number code. You have to build a dictionary of the terms that are involved. This JN-25 was the same one that was still being used at the time of the Battle of Midway, which was about six to seven months after the Pearl Harbor events. Now by the time of Midway, the US could read JN-25. Because you have this commander Rochefort, the US codebreaker, was given a wealth of personnel and resources, and was told “we’ve got to be able to read the Japanese naval code.” And you remember in the movie about Midway they wanted to find out what the code was for Midway, so the sent out a fake message that the water cooler or water tower was not working, and then read what the Japanese said. And they built the book so they knew, or thought they knew, that the island in question was Midway. But that was six months later. The problem was that in December of 1941 the US could read a small part of JN-25, but nowhere near as much as the British. And this is where the book that I strongly recommend as the antidote to Stinnett is the book Betrayal at Pearl Harbor by James Rusbridger and Eric Nave. And one of the two authors here is a former Royal Australian Navy codebreaker. And he tells the story that the British listening posts in places like Hong Kong or the Far East were constantly sending up-to-date reports on Japanese naval movements, not diplomatic ploys or demarches, but naval movements. These were being sent back to London with the idea that they were going to be forwarded to Washington so that the US commanders in the Pacific could have it. And this is what was not done. And the question is, who does this? Winston Churchill’s strategy after the fall of France, as he told his son Randolph who asked “how are you going to get out of this fix?” and his answer was “I shall drag the US in.” So he wanted to get the US into the war—on his own terms, which was to maximize US losses. He was looking forward to having the US save the British Empire in World War II, but then having the US come out of it mauled, with huge million man casualties in the Pacific, and a very bitter political division about it—something like what happened to France in World War I, when the French took the brunt of the land fighting and came out of it in this terrible, bitterly divided political situation. In other words, Churchill was looking forward to trying to maintain British domination, and indeed, British naval supremacy, if at all possible, into the postwar world.

I would like to point out that one of the problems somebody like Kimmel faced was that the US was much weaker than Japan in the Pacific. Why? Because of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, an infamous treaty.

What do you mean, weaker? As I understand it, the Japanese Navy was only two-thirds the size of the US Navy.

Yes, but the US was split between two oceans. It needs a two-ocean navy. You can see that the Japanese attacked with what, six aircraft carriers, and the US had three if they’re lucky, and one was being repaired. The cause of this was Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. After World War I, the Congress passed a naval bill which would have given the US world naval supremacy. And one of the people who spoke up against that was Sir Winston Churchill, saying “we will never, never, never allow this to happen. We’ve had it since the Battle of Trafalgar against Napoleon, we’re going to keep it, nobody will ever take this away from us, I’ll do everything I can to maintain British naval supremacy.” So they imposed this treaty that says 5 to 5 to 3 to 1.67 to 1.67. 5 and 5 were the US and the British. They got parity. The Japanese got 3. Italy and France came in at 1.67. So that’s 1922. After that you had the treaty navy, where a lot of projected battleships that the US would have had at the time of World War II were simply not there. And remember, the aircraft carriers the US did have were converted battle cruisers, the Lexington class. These were battle cruisers that had to be converted to the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. So this was one of the reasons the US was weaker. And the trick is, the US in theory got the level of five, and the Japanese got three, but the US underbuilt, in part because of Republican sabotage during the 1920s, and the Japanese overbuilt. So by the time of the war, the US was approaching four from above, and the Japanese were approaching four from below. The US was split between the Atlantic and Pacific and indeed Caribbean and Gulf situations. So the Japanese felt confident that there was a way to make this work.

So you therefore have to look into this group in Washington, DC. Let’s just give a couple of examples here. The famous East Wind Rain message came in in the Purple Code, the Japanese diplomatic code. Therefor the US could read it. They’d already issued the “consider this a war warning.” Which is enough for any commander, right, since that’s his main job in life, to follow those orders, to maintain that screen, and to keep up reconnaissance. As a matter of fact, the November 27th Army cable to General Short says “reconnaissance.” And indeed the one to the Navy says “organize a suitable reconnaissance.” And unfortunately Admiral Kimmel didn’t do this. He didn’t use these resources, the typical scouting forces of a fleet, destroyers, light cruisers, airplanes—no used. But anyway, the East Wind Rain message—

Actually, Webster, radar was used.

It’s just that Admiral Kimmel didn’t pay any attention to it. Neither did Short. If you’re in that position, you now have radar, you’re told to expect a surprise attack or something of the sort. A competent officer would say, “I want to go see this. I want to know these men. I want a liason officer. I want a direct telephone link. I want to make sure that I’m on top of this. I want them operating 24 hours a day.” They said, oh, an attack could only happen at dawn, so we’ll turn it off after that. This is sort of the lethargy and inertia of peacetime. The guy in the Panama Canal Zone was altogether more energetic in the use of the radar that he had. So he turned it on much more.

But the East Wind Rain. The East Wind Rain comes in. It was decrypted by the US this time, I believe by the On the Roof Gang here in Washington, DC. And it came in to the Navy Department. Now McCollum was the head of the Office of Naval Intelligence. And he said “we’ve already sent them a warning, but I want to send them a second warning, because the East Wind Rain means something is going to happen fairly soon.” Again they didn’t know where or when. But they knew the East Wind Rain was somehow going to be the signal for this. So he took it to Turner who said “I don’t want you to face the same fate as the Russians at Port Arthur.” The trick is that the Japanese traditionally began wars by surprise attacks.

They sank the whole Russian fleet.

Exactly. Admiral Togo launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, in China, and was able to sink the whole fleet. So he put in the cable, “You must not face a new Port Arthur debacle”or something like this. He took it to Admiral Richmond K. Turner. And Admiral Richland K. Turner said, no, no, no, this is wrong, we’ve already done it, we don’t need any more, we’re going to confuse them.” This is typical of the fact that they key man in actually suppressing the intelligence the US did have, the Purple intelligence, was Admiral Richmond K. Turner. And he of course was—there was a whole mass of Congressional hearings and other stuff. Turner lied, other people covered up for him, and the Navy Department carried out a kind of purge of documents, mainly from the point of view of saving the reputation of Admiral Richmond K. Turner. Now it’s interesting that he then went on to become the commander of the frontal assaults in the Pacific. It’s what the British wanted the US to do. You can compare Admiral Richmond K. Turner as an amphibious commander with Gen. MacArthur. General MacArthur, representing much more of an anti-British tendency in the US military, managed to go from Brisbane, Australia to Tokyo with far fewer casualties than the frontal assaults on these islands.

Plus I have to recall that in the World War I Navy, which is where these officers come from, there were two factions. There was the anti-British faction of Admiral Benson, who realized that once the Germans were eliminated in the North Atlantic it was going to be the US against the British who would always ally with number three against number two. Well, it’s Britain-US-Japan in naval terms. The British were going to ally with Japan against the US. And all during the 1920s that’s basically what you have. There was an under the table comradery between the British and the Japanese that was overwhelming.

The other faction, the one favored by the Wall Street establishment, was Admiral Sims. So you had the Sims faction and the Benson faction. And I haven’t been able to figure out where Kimmel falls in that. But he was definitely a battleship admiral, and not interested in the Gen. Billy Mitchell theory of air power, which was the big dividing line also in the Navy. So the overwhelming conclusion has to be that the British were decoding JN-25. Churchill knew everything. And he deliberately withheld the information to ensure disaster. He wanted those battleships sunk. The battleships were not exactly the most modern. Most were obsolete. But (Churchill wanted to) make sure the attack occurred and happened with the maximum US losses.

So you think it was just a coincidence that the carriers were sent out of Pearl Harbor ostensibly to go support Manila or something…

No, they were delivering airplanes to Midway. They were thinking, war is approaching, so we’d better beef up the number of airplanes that we have based on the island of Midway. Which was indeed going to be under direct attack.

If the carriers had been in Pearl Harbor the strategic loss would have been incalculable.

In that case Churchill would have really gotten his wish. Because then you would have had the Japanese expanding all the way to take Hawaii. And then it would have been up to the US alone to go back and attack those islands one by one, as the Navy insisted on doing. MacArthur said “no, we don’t want to do this, we want to do leapfrogging, we’re going to hit ‘em where they ain’t. We don’t want to do this series of island-hopping direct frontal assaults that the Navy and the Marines became famous for. We’re going to go around them, we’re going to get them where they’re not. We’re going to let them wither on the vine. You had the big fortress of Rabaul, and the staff officers said, “how are we ever going to attack this tremendous fortress? It’s like Verdun, half a million casualties.” And MacArthur simply says “We’ll ignore it, we’ll just go around it. We’ll let it wither on the vine. We’ll let it lapse because of lack of supply.”

Wouldn’t the British have been more interested in having fairly rapid American success in the Pacific, given that the Japanese were causing losses and great problems for the British at the time?

Well, the Japanese were going to take places like Hong Kong and Singapore. The British defense of Singapore is considered the most horrific disaster in British military history up to that time, and you have to wonder, could this have been simply spontaneous? Or was this not part of a strategy which says “It’s hopeless to hold on in the Far East, we don’t want to hold on in the Far East, we want to let the Japanese expand. And then we’ll let the US go and fight their way back in.” Again, with the two to three million casualties. The Second World War could easily have gone un until 1950 if it hadn’t been for MacArthur and his methods of hit ‘em where they ain’t. If it had been left up to the Navy with their frontal assault, this would have been a bloodletting without end.

One more question. In Stinnett’s book he does cite all kinds of sources that apparently should have alerted the US high command to the location of the Japanese fleet on its way to Pearl Harbor, and the timing of the attack, not just the East Winds thing, but also, all of the Japanese ambassadors were ordered to burn their code books, and likewise Stinnett cites dozens of intercepts, many people, and he has documents showing that there was knowledge of where the Japanese attack was coming.

It was something of an open secret that war was coming.

But I’m talking about the location of the specific Japanese fleet heading for Pearl Harbor.

No, what Stinnett does is he dredges up from the entire library of right-wing Roosevelt-hating pro-fascist authors, going back to the time.

No! These are people he interviews and documents he finds in the National Archives.

Take the case of this boat. There’s an ocean liner that’s coming across and they say the Japanese are burning up the frequencies with their telegraph traffic. The big idea being that the Japanese fleet does not observe radio silence. The problem with that is, he only has a single direction. In other words, if you want to know where somebody is using radio signals, it’s called triangulation. You’ve got to have two points. And then you see where they intersect. And then you know where the sender, the broadcaster, is. And instead, what Stinnett does very uncritically, and I think dishonestly, is he takes that line, which reaches all the way across the Pacific, and says the Japanese were broadcasting something.

But he says that US listening posts up and down the West Coast as well as out in the Pacific were hearing the same thing.

Fine. But they don’t know the content, they don’t do the triangulation. Here’s the thing with Stinnett. His basic argument is to say the US does know how to read JN-25. And again, I’m glad that Mr. Kimmel did not follow Stinnett in this particular distortion.

He (Kimmel) says it’s an open question.

I think it’s closed, but the other way. What happens is, once you have this tremendous build-up in 1942-1943, and indeed reaching into after the war, when Rochefort gets hundreds of analysts and computer resources and all the other things that he needed, they go back and they essentially decode the traffic that they had been intercepting but had been unable to read. In other words, you can say the US did intercept the Japanese messages in November-December 1941, but couldn’t read them, or could only read a tiny part of them, compared to the British who were reading much more. So you’d say, well, if you had them, why didn’t you read them? Well, of course, you don’t have the book. You don’t have the code. Later on, with the same material, which has been archived, they come back and decode it. And then Stinnett arrives with his research and he takes these things and says “Aha! You see! They could read it.” Except the reading part may be dated 1944 or 1945 or 1946, certainly not 1941.

Well, he does cite evidence that they were reading at least some of it in 1941. But more importantly, they were intercepting it. His evidence that the Japanese fleet did not maintain radio silence is very strong. And through triangulation from just intercepting all those messages it appears they knew exactly where that fleet was.

No, I disagree. If you look at that chapter, he’s basically taking that Lure Line story. He’s building everything on that.

No he’s not. He’s got all sorts of other evidence. He’s got interviews from cryptographers from several different stations who all support the story, as well as documentary chains. You should go back and re-read it and look at his sources.

Fine. Kevin, the argument that I am making here is that Admiral Richmond K. Turner sat in the middle of this entire machine. And it is Admiral Richmond K. Turner, backed up by Stimson and Marshall on the Army side, who systematically sabotage the ability to put the picture together. Because he was essentially—he was not officially the head of the Office of Naval Intelligence, but in his capacity as the head of the Division of Plans, he had taken it over, through a kind of a palace coup, a bureaucratic end run. And he was blocking the intelligence picture. Stinnett assumes that everything that everything that happens in Washington is by direct personal order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Let’s get to that for a second. Remember the movie Pearl Harbor, the one with Charleton Heston? Maybe not Charleton Heston…

I hate to admit it, but I haven’t seen any of the Pearl Harbor movies, including the \$150 million flop that came out right before 9/11, probably for propaganda purposes.

There’s one with E.G. Marshall, who plays Col. Rufus Bratton of Army Intelligence, Far Eastern Section. It’s actually a good movie. And then we have Commander Kramer, who also appears in this movie. And there’s a scene in the movie where they come in to the office—the Navy guy and the Army guy work together in the War Department—they come in and there’s a blackboard they’ve got secretly in a cupboard. A blackboard with a door on it, so they can close it and people can’t see. And it says, “Distribution List for MAGIC Intelligence.” And they open it up, and they have a list of names. I could give you the list. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s name has been taken off the list. And they actually discuss it. They say “wow! No more intelligence for the President? How is that going to work?” And they say, “High command feels that the people around Roosevelt are security risks and subversives.” So this is the usual pro-fascist argument, that they are communist agents. Roosevelt of course has back channels. He can’t go through the State Department, so he’s got to use back channels. So a lot of it is due to this. But based on the Rusbridger-Nave research, which I regard as authoritative, the Purple intelligence to Franklin D. Roosevelt was cut off from September 1940 to January 24 1941. That’s four months right there. And then again from May 1941 to the 12th of November 1941, for six months. So this is Purple, the Japanese diplomatic code. And instead the people that are on the list, half of them are from the secret government, the invisible government, starting with Col. Stimson, the Secretary of War; General Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff; Admiral Richmond K. Turner is on there. But not FDR. So the irony of Stinnett’s book is he accuses Roosevelt of denying the Navy intelligence. In reality, it’s the Navy that denies Roosevelt intelligence. And I believe it’s a pro-fascist extreme right wing faction who are drawn from precisely the social classes that hate Roosevelt—the monied elite, the money power, the economic royalists that Roosevelt had run against in 1936.

I’m still a little confused by the picture you’re painting. For instance we understand that immediately after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had conversations in which he displayed his uncertainty about whether this was going to be big enough to reverse the 88% antiwar public opinion and get the US in and allow a declaration of war. And that example, and many other examples, seem to make it clear that Roosevelt very much was interested in having the Japanese strike first.

If you look at what Roosevelt actually did, that can be documented: Roosevelt was looking for a clash with Hitler in the North Atlantic. And he wasn’t doing it gratuitously. He was doing it in with the idea that you don’t want to let the British go under. Whatever you think of the British, and certainly I’ve been very critical of them here, and will continue to be so, you don’t want to give up on the British Isles just because Sir Winston Churchill is the SOB we’ve been describing. So for that reason FDR had troops in Greenland, he had troops in Iceland, he had destroyers, he had shoot-on-sight, he was broadcasting the positions of German submarines. He was actively looking to have the war begin in the North Atlantic, because that was where he wanted the overwhelming majority of the effort done.

But he knew it would take a huge provocation to turn around American public opinion. Was he hoping for some Pearl Harbor type of event in the Atlantic?

He couldn’t exclude it. Now we’re getting into the area of pure psychology. But the idea that he wanted to begin in the Pacific with extravagant losses—those battleships, obsolete though the were, would all have been at the Normandy invasion, for example. They all would have been useful in a circumstance like that. And certainly Sir Winston Churchill knows it.

So there’s no recognition (in Stinnett) of the problem of fascism. And there’s no recognition of this problem of the invisible government. Once again, we know that the Morgan interests tried to organize an assassination of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 before he ever took office. This was the murder—it turned out to be the murder of the mayor of Chicago Chernak, in Florida. And then we have the Smedley Butler story of how the Morgan interests were trying to organize a coup, a Mussolini-style march on Rome march on Washington, with some man on horseback as a military leader. So he’s dealing with this.

Now you say public opinion. Who makes public opinion? Well, one of the most famous people was Charles Lindbergh. And what’s the story with him? He’s pro-Nazi. He got decorations from Hitler. Goering was his friend. It’s interesting, you know this guy Dr. Seuss who does The Cat in the Hat. He started out as a political cartoonist attacking Lindbergh for being essentially an apologist for Nazism and Nazi atrocities. So there’s a very large amount of America first, anti-intervention. And of course you can say World War I was a disaster. Of course it was. You can say you don’t want to go and die for the British again. And of course you don’t. That resonates with the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, and so forth. So you have to say, you can’t take public opinion as being some kind of cosmic or metaphysical thing. For example today, if I told you what US public opinion thinks about the Islamic world, would you think that was worth anything? I don’t think you would.

That’s because public opinion has been orchestrated through a Pearl Harbor style event. On September 11th 2001 a group of very wealthy people who control the American media staged the events of 9/11 in order to brainwash the American people into hating Muslims and embarking on a 100 years’ war against Islam. That’s why we need to understand how events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 work to brainwash people into going to war and into hating and into killing.

But if you go back to the 1930s you’ll see the Chicago Tribune’s line is what? “Hitler’s not that bad, Stalin’s really bad.” The Hearst newspapers, same story. Scripps-Howard, same story. A lot of the national newspaper stains, were soft on fascism. Because again, the Roosevelt-hating reactionary Republican opposition, the direct ancestors of the people who today call themselves libertarians, like the Stinnett line of analysis, they had been putting out throughout the 1920s and 1930s that Mussolini was a wonderful guy, Hitler was a fascinating experiment, and that the real problem was those Bolsheviks in Moscow. And that Roosevelt was secretly a communist, a Jew of course, and whatever else they were going to put out. So you can’t assume that US public opinion is well-educated. That’s why you need political leadership.

That’s very true. But there is a side of public opinion in which people are not willing to engage in killing other people unless it’s an absolute emergency, and typically unless they feel personally threatened, that their community is threatened, and they’re acting defensively against an aggressor. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are clear examples of propagandistic events designed to make people willing to go out and kill folks who do not personally threaten them.

No, they’re not. You’re mixing something real…it’s easy to make this comparison if you don’t know the historical context. But in the case of 9/11, you’re dealing with a group of psychotic patsies being maneuvered by intelligence agencies of the US government. They’re the dupes, the useful idiots. You can’t provoke the Japanese empire if it doesn’t want to be provoked. And there’s a debate in Japan…it’s interesting to see that Stinnett and these people don’t go into the Japanese diplomatic or political files. They don’t go into the memoirs of Hirohito or Prince Konoe or Tojo himself or admirals and say, oh, we were so angry when we saw the US fleet in Pearl Harbor, we had to attack. No! The debate going on in Japan was always, “we need to strike, are we going to strike north against the Soviets or south against the Anglo-Americans.” And again, a bunch of factors went into making that determination. And they’re not the ones that Stinnett says. It’s history done through a keyhole, ignoring all kinds of context. There’s nothing about the rape of Nanjing. There’s nothing about the obvious fact that, as we now see in history retrospectively, that Japan and Germany kept expanding until they ran up against a military barrier: the Red Army in one case, and the US forces in another. They pushed it as far as they could, given their logistics. And they didn’t stop until they were stopped. So the appeasement argument, which is the British argument and the libertarian argument, don’t hate the Japanese, don’t provoke them—provoke means, anything you do in self-defense. Anything you do for minimal preparedness. There was a debate about, were you allowed to fortify the islands you had in the Pacific? For example, were you allowed to fortify Wake Island and Midway? And the Republican position…Joe Martin, the Republican minority leader in the House of Representatives, said “no, we don’t to do that, because it might provoke the Japanese.” You get into a world where anything you do, even if it’s purely defensive, becomes a provocation to Japan. And I’m afraid that is a pro-fascist position.

Wait a minute, Webster. On that eight-point list that McCollum drew up to provoke the Japanese into striking first, one of them was, for instance, pop-up cruises right at the entrance to the Japanese inland sea! And they did that. Roosevelt ordered pop-up cruises with destroyers showing up right there—

As far as I can tell, the documentary evidence that this was done (shows) it was done about a week before Pearl Harbor. It was done in November…

I think it was done well before that.

No, it was done quite late in the day. Anyway…again, you can read General MacArthur’s memoirs. And this is authoritative. He’s a right-winger, but he’s in the anti-British faction, which is the determining thing. He says the Japanese empire is a powerful oligarchical force. If you let them attack you according to their timetable, you are going to be in very bad shape. You are likely to be destroyed. And this is what he does. The decision of MacArthur to attack Guadalcanal, he says it’s a military move that I really shouldn’t have done. But I had to knock them off-balance. I had to do something to interfere with this finely-tuned machine that they have, which is hierarchical and oligarchical and operates under strict orders. I had to knock them off-off-balance. I had to somehow do things that would be unpredictable, that would get them going. Again, the Doolittle Raid! The idea that the US could bomb Japan created a shock in the Japanese high command. And they said, okay, that’s it, we’ve got to do something. It’s time for the operation against Midway. You can get them to respond in that sense. But you can’t sit there and wait for them to attack you according to their plan.

So Webster, let me summarize your argument here. You’re saying that number one, they didn’t provoke Pearl Harbor and know it was coming. And number two, if they had, it would have been a good thing. That’s like the rape defendant who says, well, I didn’t do it, but she deserved it anyway.

That’s ridiculous, Kevin. I’m surprised at you, that you fall into this world. Because it is essentially a way of saying “we don’t know anything about history except sometimes there are conspiracies and there are false flags.” Whereas we know, there is a whole lot of history about this. And it’s a very grim picture for imperial Japan. As MacArthur writes, it’s closer to Sparta than anything in the modern world. And it’s dominated by ultra-reactionary Gumbatzu industrialists and Kempaitai secret police and so forth. This is a very, very ugly thing. And of course the atrocities are well known: ten million slaughtered in China. According to the Stinnett argument the US is supposed to say yes, you killed half a million people in Nanjing, take some more scrap. Take some more oil. Please let us not provoke you. We don’t want to disturb you. We’re not going to send any scout cruisers to see what you’re doing. We’re not going to occupy the British and Dutch bases in the Pacific, we’re going to let you have all of those, so that we’ll have to come back eventually and fight and have millions of dead. It absolutely makes no sense. It only makes sense if you first of all ignore what Japan was, and if you’ve got a huge anti-Roosevelt animus. Somehow projecting back the objections we generally share about the current state of US imperialism, what you’re doing is saying “right now the US is a force for significant evil in the world,” let’s put it that way. Yes it is, of course it is. But does that mean that it was always the worse thing it the world? In 1941 it was not.

If the Pearl Harbor deceit was as bad as Stinnett claims it was—

It was not.

But if it was, you could see Pearl Harbor as something that leads straight to 9/11: The 9/11-perp neocons say, “We’re worried about these enemies of Israel, basically. Let’s get the US into a fight against the enemies of Israel by making sure that they quote-unquote ‘attack’ us at a time that’s convenient to us, so why even wait for them to do the attacking? We’ll just do a sham attack and use that.” And all of this would be based on the Pearl Harbor precedent.

Kevin, you have to answer me: Is there an invisible government? And if so, what were they doing in 1940 and 1941? And what is the invisible government? The invisible government is a group of intelligence, military, and government officials who are loyal to this marriage of the City of London and Wall Street. It’s a Morgan-London influenced operation. Stimson is a raving anglophile. Stimson, of course, is the ego ideal of Bush the elder, and speaks at his graduation from Andover. General Marshall is the guy who cut off the arms to Chiang Kai-shek to ensure that Mao takes over China, because that was the British policy for China. And similarly for Admiral Richmond K. Turner. So I urge people to turn away from Stinnett, who is essentially a compendium of every threadbare discredited argument over fifty years, and instead read Betrayal at Pearl Harbor: How Churchill Lured Roosevelt into World War II by James Rusbridger and Eric Nave, and Days of Infamy by John Costello, who essentially comes to similar conclusions, and cites some pretty good literature.


[1] I wrote Questioning the War on Terrorin 2008. Since then, some of my views have changed; for example, I would no longer put Zbigniew Brzezinksi on the list of 9/11 suspects. See note 15 below.

[2] “Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, v. 1, ch. 10.”

[3] “Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American Right (NY: St. Martin’s, 1997, 1999).

[4] “Bryan Sacks, “Making History: The Compromised 9/11 Commission.” In Zarembka, ed. The Hidden History of 9/11. NY: Seven Stories, 2008 (Elsevier, 2006).


[6] The Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century(, 51.

[7] Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit(NY: Free Press, 1999).”

[8] Brian Bogart, radio interview, “The Dynamic Duo,” December 27, 2006 (

[9] George Washington, Farewell Address (

[10] Joseph Gerson, Empire and the Bomb: How the U.S. Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World (London and Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2007).

[11] William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II(Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2004).

[12] Douglas Rushkoff, Coercion(NY: Penguin, 1999), 140.

[13] Rushkoff, 141.

[14] Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (Boston, NY, Toronto, London: Little, Brown, 1995).

[15] Zbigniew Brzezinksi, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives(NY: Penguin, 1997), 25. Ron Unz has reminded me that Brzezinksi was a leading opponent of the neocon faction behind the Zionist-driven post-9/11 wars on Middle Eastern nations. Brzezinksi ‘s 2007 warning to the Senate of a potential “provocation” to lure the US into war on Iran made clear his opposition to the neocon pro-Israel agenda. Additionally, The Grand Chessboard is the manifesto of a pro-US-empire realist, not a pro-Israel neocon. Brzezinski may not only have been innocent of complicity in 9/11 (except public silence afterward), but even played a role in the insider pushback that put the “seven countries in five years” plan far behind schedule.

[16] Brzezinski, 211.


[18] Jack Shaheen, Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People(Northhampton, MA: Interlink, 2001).

[19] T.H. Meyer, Reality, Truth, and Evil (Forest Row, UK: Temple Lodge Publishing, 2005), 7.

[20] Meyer, 68-69.

[21] Meyer, 39.

[22] Ibid.

[23] “David Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor, xi.”

[24] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 (

[25] Cited in Meyer, 38.

[26] Cited in Meyer, 68.

Hide 200 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    You think 9-11 was a false flag, and that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy on the US side of things because somehow Roosevelt wanted to get into a war against the Japanese and that we would certainly win it by encouraging an attack against ourselves that would leave our entire Pacific fleet wiped out.

    Ok, got it. I don’t need to read anymore. Tl;dr. Why are conspiracy theorists always windbags? Could it be that they didn’t get enough attention as children, and this prattling on about conspiracies is just an attention-getting device used to make their boring selves more interesting to people who would never pay them any attention?

  2. Cui Bono. Look at who benefited from the war and who didn’t. A democracy requires a propaganda push to accept total war. I’d like to think that Pearl Harbor was more of an algorithm than a fix. Just like in sports, one doesn’t have to have a player take an obvious dive. One just needs to tilt the odds a bit. The Black Sox scandal was a prime example. Just make it easier for the opponent, particularly a well trained and experienced one, and the fix isn’t even apparent. Especially when anything suspicious can be classified and/or disappeared. One just has to look at the overall picture and not get bogged down in details. The experienced crews were with the carriers, the youngsters with the outdated and antiquated battleships. Great PR to get a country into a conflict; flowers of youth dastardly assassinated by the Yellow Peril. And all the good harbor property scooped up and given to big business and the military (Long Beach/LA Harbor). Billion dollar bonanza there. The Japs were good, and they did their jobs well. Too well in some ways, but their tactical thinking limited the gains. Not hitting the fuel depots and shops was a very questionable decision by Command. Makes one wonder. And the whole no quarter outlook was obviously a strategic failure. Played into FDR’s hands.

    The obvious observations of an impartial nature are that the useless battlewagons were left sitting ducks after being moved from the West Coast. The young crews were PR tools, and enough intelligence was ignored that the Japs were able to launch a limited attack on a poorly defended target. That the defense was substandard seemed convenient, as does the destruction of antiquated stock. The sacrifice of the Phillipines would seem the most callous of the decisions, but if the administration were following the Stalinist lead, as has been suggested, then sacrificing loyal troops is merely the case of cracking a few eggs in order to make an omelette. Realpolitick might suggest a ruthless to FDR that would privately rival Uncle Joe. Toss away the old, rebuild new and take over the postwar economy. The USSR was a paper tiger, but a boogey man was needed to keep up the wartime charade, and indeed we had another 43 years of expensive total war, albeit cold. Whether Pearl Harbor was a totally innocent screw up in the face of overwhelming Japanese inscrutability, or a baited trap to allow the US to gear up for post war dominance, the end result was the same. And with the way things fell into place, one would be inclined to believe that some degree of subterfuge, if not outright treason was part and parcel of the Roosevelt administration.

  3. Probably when resurrecting Hitler in the twenty-first century, it might be a good idea to do so accurately and in context. In fact, the first sentence of the paragraph in which the Big Lie theory appears (in Chapter Ten of Mein Kampf) starts “But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood…” and these lines begin the paragraph that follows: “These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited.”

    American intelligence was fully aware that Japan was planning a strike on US forces somewhere in the Pacific in late 1941, in retaliation for the provocations of the Stimson Doctrine and crippling economic sanctions – and to the transfer of a mighty assault fleet from its home bases in California to Pearl Harbor, two thousand miles closer to the Japanese home islands.

    Three days before the Japanese attack, the Chicago Tribune published, under the headline “FDR’s WAR PLANS!” a top secret document code-named “Rainbow Five”, which exposed a U.S. war game plan to create a five million man army to invade Germany in 1943. See the issue online at . This was the ultimate provocation of Germany, designed to draw the Reich into turning the U.S.’s de facto war against her into a shooting war. The leak was timed for the moment when the nation would feel itself most vulnerable, after a Japanese preemptive strike on its Pacific forces, and the people, in poll after poll overwhelmingly opposed to fighting another European war, least likely to protest effectively. It was a propaganda masterstroke on the part of FDR to give this bombshell to a newspaper vigorously opposed to his policies, so much so that the President had personally ordered the IRS to audit and relentlessly harass its owner, the flamboyant Col. McCormick.

  4. Another U.S. military psychological expert, S.L.A. Marshall, discovered just how fundamentally defensive and non-aggressive human nature really is, and how powerfully people must be psychologically manipulated if they are to go to war. After an exhaustive study of that vast majority of U.S. infantrymen and airmen who, during World War II, covertly refused to kill….

    It’s been known for over three decades that S.L.A. Marshal never did the “exhaustive study” he claimed, based on for example his schedule book. This, along with David Hackworth’s testimony about Marhsall’s character and methods by the time of the Vietnam is basic table stakes for WWII historiography, it’s even detailed with sources in his Wikipedia article.

  5. You guys aren’t willing to give the Japanese their due: They got us. They put some real work into it, taking – in winter when the Pacific can be rough – a Northern route no one with any common sense would take a fleet of ships, and got us. And they did a shitty job of bombing, too, sinking the ships on a shallow, soft bottom where they were easy, for the most part, to get afloat and operational again. If they’d bothered to bomb the fuel storage facilities they could have kept us out of action a lot longer, but they didn’t.

    The idea was to keep a (they thought) timid, isolationist, US out of the planned East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. One good sting and we’d stay away, they thought.

    • Agree: CharlieSeattle
    • Replies: @CharlieSeattle
  6. “So for that reason FDR had troops in Greenland, he had troops in Iceland, he had destroyers, he had shoot-on-sight, he was broadcasting the positions of German submarines.”

    American troops actually invaded Iceland in July 1941 they were not invited. And they USA began mobilizing for war in 1938, per US Army documents.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @J. Alfred Powell
  7. Anon222 says:

    The Pentagon is in Arlington County, not Fairfax County. Getting the little details right is important if you want someone to accept the larger theory.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  8. This is so dishonest:

    “The big idea being that the Japanese fleet does not observe radio silence. The problem with that is, he only has a single direction. In other words, if you want to know where somebody is using radio signals, it’s called triangulation. You’ve got to have two points. And then you see where they intersect. And then you know where the sender, the broadcaster, is. And instead, what Stinnett does very uncritically, and I think dishonestly, is he takes that line, which reaches all the way across the Pacific, and says the Japanese were broadcasting something.”

    Stinnett explains that the Japanese fleet encountered a typhoon in the North Pacific on the way to Pearl harbor and the fleet got dispersed. They had to break radio silence to reform. The USA had intercept stations in the Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, and the West Coast that noted lots of Japanese radio traffic north of Hawaii, where a Japanese fleet should not be. Also, Stinnett notes that codes are not completely broken, they are gradually broken, so at the time some segments could be understood, but in that case Hawaii should have been informed and patrols dispatched. At the same time, Kimmel was ordered to halt routine long-range aircraft patrols around Hawaii. And he was never told that our FBI in Hawaii had intercepted dispatches from the Japanese consulate in Hawaii that included diagrams of ship locations at Pearl Harbor.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  9. @Anon222

    These are spontaneous audio interviews. Nobody was speaking from notes or saw my questions beforehand. Both Kimmel and Tarpley got enough details right to demonstrate their mastery of the material, despite this and a few other “oral typos.”

    Whether one agrees with all their perspectives and conclusions is another matter.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @Cking
  10. Malla says:

    I have posted this before. JB355, secret plan by the scumbag FDR to use American pilots using planes with Chinese roundels sneakily bomb Japan months before the Pearl Harbour attack.

    FDR really wanted a war with the Axis. Or shall we say that the Wall Street bankers really wanted the Axis crushed. Just like they wanted Qaddafi crushed decades later.

    Lauchlin Currie (like Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White) from the above video, was a Communist and was found out as an agent operating for the Soviets. When one considers the entire lot of information available as regards WW2 in Europe as well as the Pacific theater, it becomes obvious that the US was actually working to help the Communists. They told huge packs of lies about both Japan and Germany and still keep telling them. Disgraceful.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  11. Dutch Boy says:

    I think it is now basically unchallenged that FDR wanted the USA to enter WWII pretty badly and used a series of provocations to accomplish that goal. He may have known of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor or not but since he provoked an attack, the moral onus was on him. In an case, he was overjoyed at the attack. His son James recalled that, on the evening of Dec. 7th, when the citizens of the USA were in shock, he himself was stunned to find his father jubilant at the prospect of the war he had worked so assiduously to provoke.

  12. The Happiest years of FDR’s life were during WW 2. He loved being Commander-in-Chief, making all the big decisions, travelling around on Battleships, and going on secret trips overseas. He once suggested to Harry Hopkins and his speechwriter Robert Sherrwood, that he be called “Commander-in-Chief” instead of “Mr President”. They eventually talked him out of it.

    Not once did FDR show any concern for the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed or regret that so many young men were dying. He had a GRAND TIME. Which is why he ran again in 1944.

  13. I thought it was established Fact that FDR ordered Admiral Hart – upon Japan going to war with the UK or attacking the Dutch east Indies, to take the Asiatic Fleet out into the China Seas and crowd any Japanese Convoy and warships so closely (Play Chicken) the Japanese would have to have to attack. And then FDR would have his war.

    He had already pledged to Churchill that we would go to war if Japan attacked Singapore or the Dutch east indies, so he didn’t really need an attack on Pearl Harbor. Once the disaster occurred, FDR needed a scapegoat, so Kimmel was destroyed.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  14. another aspect of the pre-Pearl Harbor Roosevelt/Churchill war conspiracy which continues to interest me is – aside from the plausible deniability-providing “air reinforcement” missions to Wake and Midway that got the two carrier battle groups (more or less) out of harm’s way through 7 December is

    the fact that all 8 of the (operational) Pacific Fleet battleships were in-harbour on 7 December and lined up like duckpins for the Japs to knock over. Another “coincidence”, like the carriers not being there?

    evidently not. According to first-hand accounts by battleship sailors who were there (Stephen Young, Escape From Battleship Oklahoma; Theodore Mason, Battleship Sailor; etc.):

    “Saturday, 6 December, 1941….Oklahoma has been at sea for maneuvers and only yesterday returned to port….FIRST TIME SINCE THE OKIE CAME OUT TO PEARL HARBOR EARLIER IN THE YEAR THAT ALL THE FLEET BATTLESHIPS OPERATING IN HAWAIIAN WATERS HAVE BEEN ORDERED INTO PORT AT THE SAME TIME. On this first weekend in December all eight are in port….”. (Young, p. 3).

    to his credit – having twice requested anti-torpedo netting from Navy in DC and been refused – Kimmel did what little he could to protect his battleships: that’s why the repair ship Vestal was moored outboard of the Arizona, and Oklahoma – the smallest, oldest, and slowest BB – moored on the outboard side as well. Didn’t help though: Jap torpedo planes nailed the outboard battleships, and Jap dive- and level-bombers sank those inboard.

    another emergent sidelight: as the attack began, the big (550′) fleet tanker Neosho was pumping a load of aviation gas into the Ford Island tank farm, just ahead of battleship row. If the useless Nagumo had gone ahead with the projected 3rd attack wave, she would almost certainly have attracted a few bombs and torpedoes. And exploded like a medium-size atom bomb, devastating the entire harbor for months thereafter. This is where FDR and his co-conspirators were lucky indeed.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  15. @Honesthughgrant

    FDR cancelled the “crowding” plan on 5 December (cf. Kemp Tolly, Cruise of the Lanikai). Evidently he was by then assured that something more dramatic was about to happen.

    Roosevelt’s so-called “pledge” to Churchill was irrelevant and WC knew it. Because

    1) as of 6 December 1941 80% of the (polled) public supported Lindbergh and the so-called “isolationists”. And

    2) Roosevelt’s own Congress would not have declared war on Japan/Germany in response to Axis aggression against anyone but America itself. In fact, even during FDR’s illegal Spring-Summer 1941 Atlantic naval provocations (escorting Brit convoys, etc.), when 2 US destroyers were torpedoed with heavy loss of life, Congress still refused to declare on Germany. No, Japan was indeed Roosevelt’s backdoor to war…and the manufactured “infamy” @ Pearl Harbor necessary to kick in the door.

  16. Malla says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    If the allies (incl the Soviets) invade a neutral country like Iceland or Iran for their war operations, that is acceptable and fair. But of the Germans or the Japanese have to invade territory to protect themselves or for their war operations, that is plain evul. History is truly written by the victors.

  17. @Kevin Barrett

    Great interviews, Kevin–lots of interesting perspectives.

    I always enjoy Tarpley even when I (one of those nasty “libertarian” types) disagree with him.

    His comments on Churchill wanting to maximize American losses was very interesting.

    I remain unconvinced that World War II was in America’s national interest.

    The problem is that the Deep State has cried “Wolf” so many times (often with its own false flags) that it is impossible to tell when the “Wolf” is real.

    I certainly would not want to risk my life or the life of family members based on their propaganda claims.

    • Agree: Kevin Barrett
  18. dimples says:

    There is a good summary of revisionist Pearl Harbor viewpoints by Stephen Sniegoski
    Sept 20 2004 at

  19. IvyMike says:

    There isn’t much doubt that FDR knew the sanctions against the Japanese economy would force them to respond the only way left to them, by attacking Western interests. The big mistake America made was our certainty that the Japanese military was a joke and couldn’t hurt us, the idiocy of thinking they were little subhuman people who couldn’t see well enough to shoot straight and that their naval aviation was not up to the task of attacking a modern Western power like ourselves. As W liked to say, “Oops.”

  20. @IvyMike

    The Tarpley discussion made it clear there was no “American” position on much of anything–there were factions with different views jockeying for position.

    The map is not the territory.

    • Agree: Kevin Barrett
  21. Bankotsu says:

    There is a simple way to tell that American government was caught completely by surprise regarding Japanese attack in December 1941.

    After the pearl harbor attack in 1941, the U.S. military in Philippines were alerted that U.S. was in a state of war with Japan and were ordered to retaliate against Japanese bases in Taiwan.

    And what happened? No U.S. attacks on Japan at all, instead the entire U.S. airforce in Philippines was completely destroyed hours later by a Japanese air attack.

    “…At 3 a.m. of Dec. 8, 1941, the Asiatic Fleet commander, Adm. Thomas Hart, was notified of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hart was not on good terms with Gen. Douglas MacArthur and did not bother to notify him. Maj. Gen. Richard Sutherland, chief of staff of MacArthur, learned about the raid from a commercial radio broadcast and immediately informed the general. A few minutes later, MacArthur got word from Washington of the Pearl Harbor attack.

    According to General Brereton, upon learning of the attack he immediately went to see MacArthur but was told that the general was too busy and could not see him. He proposed through Sutherland, to launch his B-17 bombers against Japanese bases in Formosa. He was told to stand by for orders and was never able to discuss his plans with MacArthur.

    Some accounts say that hours later, MacArthur called Brereton, saying that offensive air action would now be left to his discretion.

    Apparently, he hesitated for nearly EIGHT hours in reaching that decision.

    By then, it was too late. Eight hours after the news about Pearl Harbor was received, FEAF planes had no orders to attack the enemy.

    Shortly after noon on Dec. 8 , a formation of 54 Mitsubishi bombers and 50 Zero fighters, swooped down on Iba Field destroying the base and its 16 P-40 fighters. The formation then proceeded toward the primary objective: Clark Field. Stanley Karnow’s “In Our Image,” described the scene that followed: “The sky was crystal clear… 25,000 feet below lay America’s largest army of planes in the archipelago, its biggest armada anywhere overseas. Lined up, their wings tip to tip, sat 36 P-40 fighters and 17 B-17 bombers, the famous Flying Fortresses.”

    First came the bombers, hitting the oil dumps, base facilities, and gutting the runway to prevent aircraft from taking off. Then came the Zero fighters, machine-gunning the base for more than an hour. They destroyed all except three bombers and every P-40 aircraft, apart from four that had somehow scrambled. Also lost were some 30 older military aircraft of various types but not suited for combat.

    After the attack on Iba and Clark, the FEAF had been eliminated as an effective combat force on the very first day of the war.

    What remained were the 17 B-17s in Mindanao that were ordered to move to Australia. “MacArthur had lost his air power and the blow was to be calamitous both for the Philippines in the weeks ahead and for America’s long-term position in the Pacific.” …”

    So, here we have the U.S. military in Philippines with the order to attack Japan AFTER pearl harbor and yet the entire U.S. airforce in Philippines was still completely destroyed.

    Was this another conspiracy? And what for? U.S. was already at war with Japan after pearl harbor, no need to sacrifice more U.S. assets for a “false flag”.

    The simple truth was that U.S. was caught by total surprise by Japan’s attack. So stunned and shocked that these inferior yellow asiatics would dare and even succeed in mounting an attack on the racially superior white man’s military forces, that the U.S. military just froze and the end result was debacle.

    That is the truth as I see it.

  22. @Observator

    I claim no expertise or inside information. Anyone admitting that can only consider what seems likely based on known facts and common sense.

    After years of economic sanctions against Japan that threatened its sources of raw materials, was the Roosevelt administration so naive as not to consider Japanese retaliation and calculate what form it might take? Did no one surmise that Pearl Harbor would be a natural target? Even if the U.S. diplomatic and intelligence offices were dimwitted (and there’s no reason I know of to believe they were), could they have been ignorant of the nature of Japanese militarism?

    Regardless of whether the Japanese navy codes had been cracked enough to glean specific information, it’s hard to imagine that the “chatter” wasn’t a clue that something big was going on. How could the cream of the U.S. Pacific fleet be left to slumber in open invitation?

    • Replies: @Onebornfree
  23. Pheasant says:

    The second person interviewd is a Jew doing the usual pilpul but the first guest was amazing.

    Also SLA Marshall was a Jewish liar using pseudoscience to undermine morale in the armed forces. His work has been proven to be bunk.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  24. @IvyMike

    “The big mistake America made was our certainty that the Japanese military was a joke and couldn’t hurt us, ”

    Nonsense. If that isn’t the most ridiculous comment in the thread, then it will serve until the most ridiculous comment arrives.

  25. gotmituns says:

    Pearl Harbor Debate: Conspiracy? Cover-Up? Who Was Really to Blame?
    FDR and the Jew bankers knew/hoped it would bring Germany into the war on Japan’s side. When it did, the war against Japan was put on the back burners and Germany dealt with first.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  26. Just en passant…”the negligible military threat posed by the Soviet Union to the United States was wildly exaggerated” is tendentious rubbish. With rapid demobilisation of US forces and the Soviet Union blockading Berlin and taking over the governments in Eastern Europe which should have included non communists the danger to the US was that the Soviet forces could sweep through to the Atlantic coast and consolidate their hold on the whole of Eastern Europe. Who should have taken the risk that they wouldn’t try?

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  27. GMC says:

    Great article – Pravda – and the US populace is getting propagandized and brainwashed once again. The propaganda is so intense within the West, that there could be a really huge False Flag – coming your way. And there are plenty of ” Enemies ” to blame – take your pick. Maybe America will get lucky, and get hit only with another 2008 Wall Street/ Federal Reserve /USG Depression. How come only this man from Italia, has produced such an intense amount of real information? Why hasn’t Russia or China come out with similar info ? They both knew, plus they’re both sanctioned countries and would have plenty of reason to set things – straight.

  28. Onebornfree says: • Website
    @Loosely Speaking

    Loosely speaking says:”How could the cream of the U.S. Pacific fleet be left to slumber in open invitation?”

    Except “The cream” [i.e. the aircraft carriers] were not “left to slumber in open invitation”. My current understanding is that all aircraft carriers were sailed out of P.H. before the attack on the base.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  29. ;” Pearl Harbor +77 : Illuminati use false flags to start wars ” By James Perlow :

    “The Army Report [on the attack on Pearl Harbor] closed with these words :’…Up to the morning of December 7 , 1941 , everything the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States ‘”
    The attack propelled the US into the Second World War which “…accomplished several Illuminati objectives : world government via the United Nations with its World Bank/IMF subsidiaries , creation of Zionist Israel…”
    “President Franklin D.Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill were old hands at false flags .During World War 1 the contrived sinking of the Lusitania inflamed American public opinion to join that war.”

  30. @Anon

    Roosevelt did all he could to invoke an attack by Japan AND he knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor hours before it happened. He did this not because he wanted a war with Japan, but because he saw this as his means to eventually get America involved with the war in Europe against Germany.
    His reasons were mainly economic, to hide the miserable failure his “New Deal” was turning out to be. Just like WWI, it was all about huge profits to be made by Wall Street and Industry, and to try and bring America out of another deep recession.

    • Agree: gotmituns
    • Replies: @HallParvey
  31. @Observator

    Thanks for posting the info about the sentence in Mein Kampf, but you fail to make the most important point about it. Hitler in this passage recognizes the usefulness of the big lie and how the Jews have made use of it, but he rejects its usage for himself and his movement. He wants the “Truth to prevail.” That sentence is usually cited quite perversely as proof that he approved of the use of the big lie by the Nazis.
    ‘And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew “The Great Master of Lies”. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.’

    • Replies: @Mark Gobell
  32. @Onebornfree

    Yes, and it begs the question why was the Pacific Fleet moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in the first place?
    During the summer of 1940, the Battle Fleet was transferred to Pearl Harbor on Oahu, a part of the American Territory of Hawaii. The fleet’s commander at the time, Admiral James O. Richardson, opposed the long-term use of Pearl Harbor as its base. When he personally protested the idea, he was replaced by Admiral Husband E. Kimmel.
    Admiral Richardson knew this to be an insane move and would leave the Pacific Fleet in a very vulnerable position.

  33. anon[837] • Disclaimer says:

    Looking back at 20th century history, it seems like both Russia and Japan were either defeated and weakened considerably to pave the way for China being dominant in Asia. Just fucking great if you want to be dominated by greedy insect people with autistic personalities and no human soul to speak of….

  34. Pearl Harbor was a false flag just like the attack on the WTC on 911, read the book Day of Deceit by a naval officer Robert Sinnett , can be had on amazon.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @Kapyong
  35. @Haxo Angmark

    Roosevelt and his military advisers knew the era of the huge dreadnought was fast coming to an end and the future of oceanic warfare lay with aircraft carriers, submarines, and smaller, faster surface ships. Some say it was luck only the old and obsolete were present at Pearl at the time of the attack. Personally, I believe it had a lot more to do with planning than luck.

    Despite initial appearances, the attack on Pearl Harbor was an abject strategic failure. The Japanese attacked a fleet in port, where it is hard to cause permanent loss of a capital ship and where repair facilities are already nearby. They attacked obsolete ships and in so doing taught the U.S. Navy from the very beginning to rely on aircraft carriers rather than battleships. The Japanese attacked without any guarantee that the most valuable U.S. ships — the carriers — would be present, and all the U.S. carriers were safely elsewhere on December 7. At Midway six months later, those same American carriers sank two-thirds of the Japanese carrier fleet, inflicting a wound from which the Japanese navy never recovered. And the Japanese ignored the unglamorous target that truly would have crippled the U.S. Navy for perhaps a year or more: the oil tanks next to Pearl Harbor. Without the ability to refuel at Pearl, the U.S. Navy would have had to retreat to San Diego, San Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  36. @Malla

    Yes, the American government was loaded with communist pre and post WWII. That is why it is absolutely clear the only victors in that war was the Soviet communist. We never recovered from the traitorous actions of our government, reasons we are all communist now.

    • Agree: Malla
  37. @Johnny Walker Read

    The further back in time, the more the reasons for events fade. Just as we cannot know what conspiracies are being cooked up today in smoke filled rooms, and in foreign countries, so too the people of those long ago times were in the dark about the motives of those who were actually in charge.

    Remember the Maine!!!

  38. @Pheasant

    My main source on SLA Marshall is Col. Dave Grossman’s remarkable On Killing. What are your sources impugning Marshall?

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  39. @Wizard of Oz

    The Soviet conventional threat was real. But Soviet nuclear capabilities were wildly exaggerated. Throughout the 1950s into the early 1960s Russia had few nuclear-capable missiles, and lots of empty silos. The US figured that out with certainty in 1961. That’s why on July 20, 1961 the Joint Chiefs presented to JFK the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) for a “Pearl Harbor” type sneak attack on Russia using 3,000 nuclear weapons. The 1961 SIOP was designed to annihilate the Soviet Union before it reached nuclear parity with the U.S. In a scene right out of Dr. Strangelove, JFK angrily dismissed the Joint Chiefs who had basically told him “just do it, Mr. President! You’ll only lose 20 million Americans, tops!”

    Even after the Soviets caught up and established nuclear parity by the 1970s the US nuclear deterrent was such that the USSR would never have dreamed of invading Western Europe.

    Throughout the Cold War period the US was the aggressor and the Russians were playing defense. Plus ça change…

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  40. Paul says:

    Eleanor Roosevelt said they expected a Japanese attack — but not at Pearl Harbor. They thought an attack would be in the Philippines.

    The strange thing seems to me is this: What did the Japanese expect to gain from an attack?

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  41. @Desert Fox

    Please listen to Tarpley’s discussion on Sinnett’s book.

    While I am not normally a big fan of Tarpley, he makes some reasonable arguments in this interview.

    All roads lead to Winston Churchill. It was he who stabbed the US in the back on Pearl Harbor (even though FDR was quite content to play along rather than blow the whistle on our “ally”).

  42. Walter says:

    The Japanese decision to attack was decided by their acceptance of captured papers as valid (captured by German Raider Atlantis and possibly transferredat sea to I Class Japanese submarine (which remains mysterious)) about the defense of Singapore being assessed by the British as non-feasible. See “S.S. Automedon, The Ship That Doomed A Colony ” see also “The Campaign to Lie America Into World War II”.

    Many say their Lordships sent this supersecret report by mail and postal steamer as a ploy, and possibly that the Japanese and the Germans were told that Automedon carried vital intel. Something vaguely similar was RMS Lusitania sinking – as their Lordship caused the ship to change course and slow down right in the path of German submarine they knew was present…bait on the hook.

  43. @Bankotsu

    Keep in mind the time zone differences. The attack on Clark occurred before FDRs speech and the declaration of war. American airmen in the Philippines only had second hand info that Pearl was attacked, and had no idea how badly.

    But they did get all the Clark aircraft airborne to search for incoming Japanese ships and aircraft and found nothing, and assumed they would get an order to strike Japanese Formosa (now known as Taiwan) as the war plan called for. But the Japanese attack was delayed by bad weather over Formosa, and MacArthur hid and refuse to do anything. The aircraft returned to refuel at Clark and that’s when they were all caught on the ground.

    It was just bad luck, except for he MacArthur mystery. But recall FDRs order that Japan had to make the first overt attack, since most Americans knew FDR wanted war. I suspect MacArthur just sat and waited for the Japanese to strike first, and didn’t want to explain FDRs secret order to anyone. He was assigned this command in July 1941 via George Marshall, so he was briefed on FDRs plot.

  44. lysias says:

    The Hyde Park FDR library contains a draft version of the Day of Infamy speech that includes a call for Congress to declare war on Germany. This was not included in the speech as delivered, as FDR knew from signals intelligence that Hitler had assured the Japanese ambassador that Germany would declare war in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S.

  45. I still encounter new evidence of FDRs plan. For example there were over 800 Marines and sailors guarding American “interests” in China for years and remained there as the Japanese overran the area. Admiral Hart worried about incidents and war and had demanded their withdrawal for months.

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt Press Conference, 14 November 1941

    “The Government of the United States has decided to withdraw the American Marine detachments now maintained ashore in China, at Peiping, Tientsin, and Shanghai. It is reported that the withdrawal will begin shortly.”

    President Roosevelt’s announcement formally ended almost 15 years of duty by the 4th Marine Regiment in Shanghai. Clouds of war were quickly closing in on the China Marines as Japan and the United States edged ever closer to active hostilities. “One could sense the tenseness in the air,” Lieutenant Colonel Curtis T. Beecher remembered, “There was a general feeling of uneasiness and uncertainty in the air.”

    In September 1941, Colonel Samuel L. Howard, USMC, Commanding Officer, 4th Marines, recommended to Admiral Thomas Hart, USN, Commander-in-Chief, Asiatic Fleet, that Howard’s regiment be evacuated from its longtime duty station in Shanghai. The regiment comprised two small battalions, made up of approximately 800 Marines and attached naval personnel, and was dangerously exposed to Japanese attack should war come.


    The Marines and Navy gunboats departed China the last week of November 1941 and safely arrived at Cavite (near Manila) just before Dec 7th. What luck! FDR’s timing was perfect.

  46. Mark Gobell says: • Website
    @George F. Held

    Osama bin Laden Promises to bring Jihad to the U.S. : Press conference

    and Arthur Schopenhauer : “Jews, the Great Masters of Lies.”


  47. @Justvisiting

    Sinnett’s book is documented front to back, Roosevelt was complicit in allowing the attack and while Churchill wanted the US in the war, Roosevelt is the guilty party along with other traitors in the US government.

  48. Trinity says:

    Thinking back to days when I was just another brainwashed dupe and actually admired the people we were told were “our” heroes. War criminals like Eisenhower, Churchill, FDR were lionized to nth degree and of course Hitler and those “Nazis” were Satan himself in human form. My, my, my, how duped and stupid I was back then. Just last night I caught the tale end of Martha MacCallum on Fox. She had some WWII vet who was in Pearl Harbor at the time ( amazingly the guy is still alive, do the math) even if he were 18 years old at the time, he would be at least 96 years old. Of course the poor old guy was claiming his generation were “the greatest generation ever.” No matter how naive his generation might have been, I wouldn’t have the heart to tell the poor fella how duped and naive he was back then because he truly believed his boast.

  49. slorter says:

    It was no surprise attack!

  50. eah says:

    An interesting podcast with Douglas Horne about this:

    MWN Episode 007 – FDR and the Attack on Pearl Harbor

  51. slorter says:

    Well when we are presented with the next big lie make sure you are first on the boat to defend us !

  52. @Anon

    Roosevelt wanted to get into a war against the Japanese and that we would certainly win it by encouraging an attack against ourselves that would leave our entire Pacific fleet wiped out.

    Hmmm, “Pacific Fleet wiped out”.
    The carriers were not in port.
    We had total loss of 2 30 year old battle ships and 1 30 year old battleship that had already been turned into a training ship.
    All other ships that were damaged or sunk were returned to service by the end of the war.

    Maybe “wiped out” doesn’t mean what I think it means.

    FDR got his war at the cost of 3 near obsolete battleships. Four years later, the US Navy was operating 28 carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers and 71 cruisers with hundreds of subs and destroyers and thousands of support ships.

    • Replies: @eah
  53. @Justvisiting : “How the Banksters[and the British] forced the US into WW2” :

    “The British had a task force of 1000 in NYC who would stop at nothing , including murder , to inveigle the US into World War Two …Wars are orchestrated to eventually produce Illuminati world government . As the MASONIC leader Albert Pike wrote in 1871 , the third world war will be between the ‘political Zionists and Islam’ .Translated that means the US and Israel versus Iran and possibly Russia and China .”
    See also : ” Desperate deception – Britsh covert operations in the United States 1939-44″ By Thomas E. Mahl

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  54. SafeNow says:

    The “war warning” message was replied to with response saying that the defenses against sabotage have been upgraded. Any Washington intelligence officer, one would think, would have clipped this obvious non sequitur reply to the original message, and brought it to a superior. Who dropped the non sequitur ball, and why?

    I object to “surprise attack.” ALL attacks are surprises with respect to various important parameters, i.e., they not announced. This had previously been known as the “sneak” attack because the Japanese diplomats in Washington were still negotiating for peace at the time of the attack. Thus, attack was considered beyond the pale. If political correctness now requires dropping “sneak” then at least drop “surprise” and simply call it an “attack.”

  55. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I haven’t yet had a chance to listen to the podcast or read the very long transcript, but I’ll add one important datapoint. Here’s a paragraph from one of my articles last year, regarding an intriguing incident virtually excluded from all our histories of the period:

    There was also a very strange domestic incident that immediately followed the Pearl Harbor attack, one which seems to have attracted far too little interest. In that era, films were the most powerful popular media, and although Gentiles constituted 97% of the population, they controlled only one of the major studios; perhaps coincidentally, Walt Disney was also the only high-ranking Hollywood figure perched squarely within the anti-war camp. And the day after the surprise Japanese attack, hundreds of U.S. troops seized control of Disney Studios, allegedly in order to help defend California from Japanese forces located thousands of miles away, with the military occupation continuing for the next eight months. Consider what suspicious minds might have thought if on September 12, 2001, President Bush had immediately ordered his military to seize the CBS network offices, claiming that such a step was necessary to help protect New York City against further Islamicist attacks.

    As a shrewd commenter recently noted, the Pearl Harbor attack took place on a Sunday. Unless FDR and his top aides were fully aware of the pending Japanese attack at the time, it seems highly unlikely that the U.S. military would have been ready to seize control of Disney Studies first thing Monday morning. They surely would have been preoccupied with other more immediate concerns following an actual “surprise” attack.

    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    , @S
  56. eah says:
    @Chris Mallory

    FDR got his war at the cost of 3 near obsolete battleships.

    And how many men? — do their lives count?

  57. aandrews says:

    “He co-authored a 1998 article in Foreign Affairs analyzing the likely political, psychological, and cultural reaction to a massive Pearl Harbor-style terrorist event such as the destruction of the World Trade Center.[5]”

    Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger

    Ashton B. Carter, John M. Deutch, Philip D. Zelikow

    Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today’s terrorists, be they international cults like Aum Shinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety of motives than ever before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, germ dispensers, poison gas weapons, and even computer viruses. Also new is the world’s dependence on a nearly invisible and fragile network for distributing energy and information. Long part… CONTINUE READING

  58. @Ron Unz

    the Pearl Harbor attack took place on a Sunday. Unless FDR and his top aides were fully aware of the pending Japanese attack at the time, it seems highly unlikely that the U.S. military would have been ready to seize control of Disney Studies first thing Monday morning

    Or maybe Roosevelt had the U.S. military on standby to crack down on prominent America First supporters at a moment’s notice, for months before Pearl Harbor.

    Roosevelt had been trying to provoke a German or Japanese attack or declaration of war since late summer 1940.

    It stands to reason that he would have plans in place for when the hoped-for Axis aggression finally occurred.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  59. Ron Unz says:
    @John Gruskos

    Or maybe Roosevelt had the U.S. military on standby to crack down on prominent America First supporters at a moment’s notice, for months before Pearl Harbor.

    Possibly. But the official excuse given was the need to protect the West Coast from a Japanese attack.

    The widespread claim by quasi-apologists for FDR is that he expected a possible Japanese attack in the Philippines, 7000 miles away from California rather than on Pearl Harbor. The distance was three times as great.

    Hawaii was also American soil, and a sudden Japanese attack there might (very slightly) raise concerns about defending the West Coast. A Japanese attack in the Philippines could not possibly have done so.

  60. @Paul

    by November 1941,

    Japan had a less than a one year stock of oil/gasoline.

    it was either attack, or surrender to Roosevelt’s demands. When

    one country corners another, war generally results. Now,

    ZOG-ruled ‘Murka is cornering Iran, and

    the outcome will be the same.

  61. @Kevin Barrett

    We seem to be referring to slightly different periods. The Military Industrial Complex may have been recognised as a greedy lobby by the late 50s but the combination of China and the USSR in Korea was reason enough to argue that the US was living in a dangerous world.

  62. @Johnny Walker Read

    and something else that FDR and his co-conspirators knew:

    10 new fast battleships (2 North Carolina class; 4 South Dakota class; 4 Iowa class)

    were already coming on line or well under construction. These, unlike the obsolete WWI-era

    battleships lined up at PH, were capable of keeping up with the carriers. And

    proceeded to do much useful work during the Pacific War. As

    one of less stupid American admirals put it shortly after the attack:

    “well, the stupid Japs just turned a 21-knot Navy into a 27-knot Navy”

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read

  64. @Kevin Barrett

    I would also wish to query your idea that the US before Pearl Harbor could properly be describedvad a peace loving nation. That hardly fits the record from the 18th century onward.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  65. This Webster guy sounds ike a hyoooge Summer’s Eve. If you want to get your point across, this is not the guy you want representing your view. I had to bail out because he’s so unpleasant. He makes me believe the opposite of everything he says.

  66. @eah

    on 25 December in DC, while Roosevelt and his clacque were enjoying Christmas dinner,

    dozens of American sailors trapped in air-pockets w/in the capsized battleship Oklahoma

    were still alive. But

    not for much longer.

  67. @Ron Unz

    It is a bit inconsistent to pay much attention to official reasons. John Gruskos is surely right in supposing that the simple FDR requirement was “when we get our war just find a reason for shutting those bastards down before they can begin contaminatimg opinion”.

    • Replies: @anon
  68. This is a perfect example of how conspiracy theories actually obscure the larger historical truth and thus strengthen the establishment.

    The larger historical truth is, the USA became unnecessarily embroiled in WWII because the Roosevelt administration was not neutral.

    Roosevelt deliberately antagonized Germany and Japan by giving Lend-Lease aid to Britain while imposing economic sanctions on Japan, hoping and expecting to provoke an attack or declaration of war.

    These facts are open, acknowledged and incontrovertible.

    But was Roosevelt expecting a Japanese attack, on December 7 1941, against Pearl Harbor?

    If he really had expected exactly that, it would stand to reason that he would do everything possible to be ready for that attack and ensure the war began with a major American victory, rather than a major American defeat. (And make no mistake, Pearl Harbor was a terrible defeat – the entire Pacific fleet battleship force sunk or damaged, plus the losses of land-based aircraft and smaller warships. Battleships were still very useful in WW2 – aside from shore bombardment, German battleships in the Norway campaign sank a British aircraft carrier, Japanese battleships in Leyte gulf sank some small American aircraft carriers, and the Japanese surface navy created major problems for the American military during the Guadalcanal campaign)

    A Midway-style American naval victory in December 1941 (easy to achieve with advanced notice of Japanese intentions since the US started the war with 6 large carriers against the Japanese 6 large carriers, compared to 3 vs. 4 at Midway, not to mention the larger numbers of land-based aircraft operating from Hawaii compared to Midway) would have ensured a quicker Allied victory in WWII. In particular, it would have enabled Roosevelt to commit more American forces against Germany, sooner, which is exactly what he wanted to do.

    The inherently improbable Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory functions as a red herring distracting attention from the bigger picture.

    Defenders of Roosevelt an act as if they’ve vindicated the entirety of his pre-war conduct, if they can just make the case that he didn’t know the Japanese would specifically attack Pearl Harbor exactly on December 7 1941.

    This is similar to Holocaust denial distracting attention from the Jewish role in Soviet and Ottoman crimes against humanity, or 9/11 truthers distracting attention from the Israel (and Saudi) lobby’s very real role in dragging the US into endless counter-productive wars in the Middle East.

  69. @Trinity

    “Of course the poor old guy was claiming his generation were “the greatest generation ever.”

    It shows that he’s a big TV watcher, I suppose. My dad and uncles never said any such thing as that, though they were in combat in Europe and the Pacific. That Greatest Generation bullshit was invented in 1998 by Tom Brokaw, TV talking head and all around pissant.

    • Replies: @Trinity
  70. @9/11 Inside job

    Agree, The ZUS is going to have a nuclear war with Russia as Russia is not going to let Iran fall, and this is what the zionist want, they want a nuclear war with Russia.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  71. voicum says:

    7:38 AM …hmmmm not fully awake .. and let’s leave it at that..

  72. @eah

    They do to me. But I am of not of such low character and suspect morals that I would take government employment.

    Those men lost at Pearl were just so much chaff in the wind to scum like FDR.

  73. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Gruskos

    Thank you. All very good points.

  74. Pheasant says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    It was a long time ago but basically his main work where where he states that out of an infantry platoon only two soldiers fired thier weapons because they were the psychopaths has been refuted. Most soldiers fired and those that did not were busy reloading weapons, fetching ammunition, dressing wounds e.t.c.

    Look it up it is well documented. His ideas lasted for a long time because he tied them to B.f Skinner’s work (make training more like rewarding incentives when firing weapons- behaviouralism) but like almost all Jewish pseudoscience it was based on faulty data. Marshall used to claim that he interviewed troops at the front line but actually did not etc.

    The U.S army experienced a decrease in the quality of the infantry in the five years between world war two and the Korean war as well as a crisis of discipline/leadership and S.L.A Marshall’s demotivational propaganda (our army despite just having won a war is fundamentally flawed etc) was a part cause of this in addition to the U.S dumping almost all of its war materials left over from the pacific theatre into the sea off Japan (look it up).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  75. Sparkon says:
    @John Gruskos

    No, I think you have missed the critical point.

    In order to rally American patriotism, and also to destroy any opposition to U.S. entry into WWII, it was vital to let Japan win the first round. The more American blood spilled in the first round, the better.

    Indeed, The 88% public opposition to U.S. entry into WWII vanished overnight by Dec. 8, 1941, proving that Roosevelt knew his business, and had played a very clever game indeed.

    The Navy has traditionally followed the rule that, when international relations are critical, the fleet puts to sea. That is exactly what Admiral Kimmel did. Aware that U.S.-Japanese relations were deteriorating, he sent 46 warships safely into the North Pacific in late November 1941 — without notifying Washington. He even ordered the fleet to conduct a mock air raid on Pearl Harbor, clairvoyantly selecting the same launch site Admiral Yamamoto chose two weeks later.

    When the White House learned of Kimmel’s move it countermanded his orders and ordered all ships returned to dock, using the dubious excuse that Kimmel’s action might provoke the Japanese. Washington knew that if the two fleets met at sea, and engaged each other, there might be questions about who fired the first shot.

    Stalin played much the same game.

    Could Stalin have counted on Russian patriotism if the USSR had attacked Germany à la “Viktor Suvorov”? That is highly doubtful in my view. It is equally doubtful that the Red Army could have conducted that kind of huge offensive operation in 1941.


    Recall that both Stalin and Roosevelt had received many warnings of the impending attacks. Both leaders chose to ignore or suppress those warnings, and both pretended to be surprised and shocked by the respective attacks on June 22, 1941, and on December 7, 1941.

    By letting their enemies strike the first blow, the Allies had the moral high ground by default from the outset, and that high ground was to pay dividends throughout the course of the war, and long after, as we have seen.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @Leo
    , @Wizard of Oz
  76. @Wizard of Oz

    It may not have been peace loving. Ask the Indians, Mexicans, and Filipinos about that. But it had lower military budgets, not much in the way of a standing army, a strong current of anti-imperialist ideology, few military bases outside its borders, and a consensus supporting George Washington’s warning to stay out of European and foreign quarrels. The massively-funded (Rothschild-driven) propaganda effort that dragged Americans into WWI couldn’t overcome this basic predisposition in the American people and a substantial segment of the elites—witness the 88% “isolationist” sentiment on December 6th, 1941. What finally overcame it was Pearl Harbor.

    Any real (antiwar) Republican could have destroyed Roosevelt in a landslide in the 1940 election, so strong was the American people’s antiwar sentiment. So the House of Morgan, the US agent of the Rothschilds, foisted a nobody, the deceptively pro-war Republican Wilkie (a stealth FDR ally) on the Republicans through massive bribery, slick PR, and murder. This mind-boggling coup d’etat is memorably described in Gore Vidal’s historical novel The Golden Age.

  77. Ron Unz says:
    @John Gruskos

    But was Roosevelt expecting a Japanese attack, on December 7 1941, against Pearl Harbor?

    If he really had expected exactly that, it would stand to reason that he would do everything possible to be ready for that attack and ensure the war began with a major American victory, rather than a major American defeat.

    That’s a perfectly plausible argument. In fact, until I started looking into the Pearl Harbor attack earlier this year, I’d always vaguely made it myself, which is why I’d never paid much attention to the “conspiracy theories” I’d heard floating around. But I think it’s seriously mistaken.

    Stinnett’s book emphasizes that the Japanese had spies on the ground at Pearl Harbor, and FDR’s circle were fully aware of their existence. If any sort of warning had been sent to the Pearl Harbor commanders even just a couple of hours before the attack, they would have immediately begun putting their forces on alert, which the spies would certainly have noticed and then passed along to the approaching Japanese fleet.

    The Japanese attack entirely relied upon the element of surprise and if they believed they had lost it, they certainly would have called off the strike. Without a Japanese attack, FDR would have lost the chance at war he had spent the last year or two urgently orchestrating.

    FDR couldn’t provide a warning without putting his entire war plan at huge risk. That’s the reason so much effort was made to keep the Pearl Harbor commanders in the dark, and not give them any access to the decrypted Japanese codes, which were given to various other bases.

    This helps explain why Prof. Joseph Bendersky’s exhaustive archival research into private letters and personal diaries revealed that so many senior figures in American wartime Military Intelligence regarded FDR and his circle as outright traitors.

  78. S says:
    @Ron Unz

    And the day after the surprise Japanese attack, hundreds of U.S. troops seized control of Disney Studios, allegedly in order to help defend California from Japanese forces located thousands of miles away, with the military occupation continuing for the next eight months.

    The linked excerpt says the army turned the Disney sound stage into a repair shop and the parking areas into ammo storage dumps.

    All in all it seems to have been an act of petty spite, something akin to the decision of the United States to use the grounds of Robert E Lee’s Arlington home as a Union cemetary and the Bolsheviks using Russian Orthodox churches as horse stalls.

    • Replies: @lysias
    , @Republic
  79. lysias says:

    I worked in the Pentagon in the 1990s. On Sundays, the place was practically deserted.

    I suspect the same was true of the Navy and War Departments on Sunday Dec. 7, 1941.

  80. Trinity says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Of course a shabbos goy like Brokaw would GO ALONG WITH THE PROGRAM and BOLDLY PROCLAIM that “the good guys” saved the world from those “evil Nazis” and preserved “our freedoms.”

    Meanwhile back in the REAL WORLD, the demographics of Europe have changed DRASTICALLY and it is roving gangs of Pakis, Arabs, and Africans who rob, rape and pillage the streets, not blonde, blue eyed, “Nazis.” Good ole jolly England even elected a Pakistani to become mayor of their largest city. And back in the good ole U.S. A. where hamburgers sizzle on the grill night and day, they are slowly taking away our freedom of speech and plan on taking away our Second Amendment rights as well.

    Yes sir, thanks to “the greatest generation ever,” we can all sit back and feel safe and sound. Our freedoms have been protected from those “evil Nazis” and Japanese.

  81. The Us made an unprovoked naval attack on Japan in 1853 in order to force a trade deal on them. Lots of countries subsequently employed those imposed conditions. After that humiliation the Japanese were vulnerable to Britains seduction, and eventually emerged as an aggressor.

    Fascism in Japan and Nazism in Germany were probably both of Britains making.

    One may wonder what Basil Chamberlain did in Japan appart from his official role in the universities, where he apparently taught japanese students their own native language.

    Meanwhile his younger brother Houston was making the germans ‘jew-wise’.

    Kevin Barret and his colleagues at VT are notoriously underattentive with respect to Britains role while Tarpley has contributed significantly.

    I agree with Kevin about the diffuse picture Tarpley paints of FDRs possible intentional role.
    My gutfeeling tells me Tarpley just doesnt want to agree with those other guys because they are playing such a dirty game.
    Tarpley doesnt want to give them a finger even when they occasionally have a point.

    I like to add to his critique of the libertarians by reminding the readers about the role by the angloamerican oligarchy’s support for ALL comunist revolutions, something some libertarians know but dont consider necessary to mention when fighting the reds.

    Another problem that Tarpley hints at is that FDR wasnt in full control. And there is a need to explain how the Us could go on collaborating within a cartel with Nazigermany’s weaponsindustry and also provide Hitler with oil for most of the war until august 1944 excepting a few months in 1944.

    FDRs vice Truman made a revealing giveaway in 1941 about the purpose of making germans and soviets kill as many as possible of each other by adjusting either sides strength, thereby admitting and perhaps inadvertently, that the Us collaborated with both sides.

    I suspect FDR wanted the Us to rise and Britain and the rest to bite the dust no matter what high ideals he referred to when he reproached Churchill about the backwardness colonialism meant to Britains imperial subjects.

    In my view FDRs scheme of things was what a study funded by the Carnegie Foundation revealed in 1909:
    That the Us benefits from war and therefore must seek it.
    Presumably with the added feature that Cecil Rhodes imperialist project would not be followed and instead the Us would rule though usury but without colonies.

    Sorry Tarpley to me FDR is no saint but just represents another branch of the oligarchy.
    But I would love to get a rational reason to alter my cynical views.

    • Replies: @S
  82. lysias says:

    The Disney studio went on to produce a lot of brilliant animated war propaganda.

  83. Leo says:

    It is equally doubtful that the Red Army could have conducted that kind of huge offensive operation in 1941.

    If German army – which was several times smaller than the Red Army – could conduct that kind of huge offensive operation in 1941, then the Red Army sure as hell could have conducted it, too. The success of it is a different question – but they could do it for sure.

    As to the elusive “moral high ground” then being attacked by Hitler first was a price way too high to pay even for Stalin. And it’s not like he gained much after the war save for the stinking Eastern Europe.

  84. Kapyong says:
    @Desert Fox

    Stinnett’s Day of Deceit can be read for free for 2 weeks from the Internet Archive :

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  85. @Kevin Barrett

    There must be masses of documentation on the Rothschild and other Jewish (or just banker and industrialist) funded “propaganda effort” to get America into WW1. Can you tell me wherr to find it in a reasonably convenient and totally reliable form? I am always a bit suspicious of the use of “Rothshild” symbolically. No doubt that some Rothschild(s) were Zionists when it was still possible for that to be innocently highminded (or maybe not by 1916) and that seems clearly connected to getting America into the war (although the Balfour Declaration was months later – why I wonder). Given the fact that there were still German and Austrian Rothschild businesses why, if you re right, were the English (and French I suppose) Rothschilds so keen to get America into the war?

  86. @Sparkon

    Following your diversion to Stalin and Suvarov (not high on the lost of Ron Unz’s commitments I note) I say, first, the warnings Syalin had about Barbarossa were fare more relevantly specific than Roosevelt had about Pearl Harbour (as far as we know, despite all the conspiracy theories).

    I note also that the Suvorov case is undermined, not only by David Irving, in passages I have previously cited, describing Hitler as getting back to his main Lebensraum in the East plan in December 1940 but my recent reading that Operation Barbarossa got its name in December 1940. Although Stalin would have taken a good opportunity to attack Germany thrre seem little doubt that Hitler was well ahead of him in deliberate plans to disregard the non aggression treaty.

    • Replies: @Wally
  87. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit

    Political and Military blundering by both sides resulted in Pearl Harbor.

    Political and Military blundering by both sides will start the next World War.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  88. @Trinity

    My mother was an army nurse who went ashore at Omaha beach on Devils-Day(6th hour, 6th day, 6th month) +4. She would never, ever talk about it although she totally bought into the “America saved the world from destruction” line. By the way she just turned 98 and has all her mental faculties. I have to hand it to them, they were one tough bunch: Mom was second from the left. Rosemary Gaylord.

  89. @Kevin Barrett

    I was intrigued by the alleged Albert Speer dictum repeated by Wolfawitz. What could he have meant by Germany having a Pearl Harbor with favourable results? Can it mean anything but that a real attack by Poland on Germany would have avoided war against the UK and France so the Nazis coyld have concentrated all their forces against the USSR? If so, it is an unimportant flight of fancy by Speer (whatever Wollfawitz chose to make of it). Can it have any other meaning?

  90. @Desert Fox

    Beware of misplaced faith in Vladimir Jewton!!!


    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  91. The Roosevelt Administration provoked the attacks

    The first peacetime draft in US history, enacted the year before, is mighty suspicious. You can imagine what the belligerents thought.

    Yes, some countries do use a peacetime draft to prevent war, but that rationale is irrelevant when you have ocean buffers.

    Did 9/11 function as a “new Pearl Harbor” that mobilized Americans for a aggressive war

    Well, Bush enabled it with his mad, indefensible crusade against racial profiling. Imagine had that agent at Logan been able to say, “Your name is Muhammad. Get off this plane. Get out of this country.”

    Afterward, he invited more Saudis to come here. We saw how that played out in Pensacola the other day.

  92. @Anon

    Why are conspiracy theorists always windbags?

    Charles A Lindbergh, Jr and Rep Jeannette Rankin weren’t conspiracy theorists. Or windbags.

    You think 9-11 was a false flag

    Not all of us do. But it was the result of bad policy. The old French was was, don’t ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

    One still has to explain Bush’s claim that Islam is a peaceful religion, and the silence it was greeted with by the opposition, after events supplied ample evidence to the contrary. In a debate, Thomas Jefferson or Theodore Roosevelt would have had him for an appetizer.

    But whether they’d have ruled him a fool or a fraud is anyone’s guess.

  93. @Kapyong

    Be sure you check out his footnotes and copy docs with an eagle eye.

  94. I am grateful for Kevin Barrett’s Introduction and for the transcript of Thomas Kimmel’s interview which makes interesting reading. I want to add three points to the discussion:

    1) It is mistaken to write, as Barrett does, that “scholars believe that Pres. Roosevelt lied” about Pearl Harbor. Reputable scholars acquainted with the documentary evidence presented in Stinnett’s book don’t merely “believe” this; they KNOW FOR A FACT that this is so, because Stinnett demonstrates it and publishes the documentary evidence that proves it.

    As my essay, Pearl Harbor Unmasked, available elsewhere on this website, discusses at length, the overwhelming value of Stinnett’s Day of Deceit is that it prints facsimile reproductions of documentary evidence obtained through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits which conclusively PROVE Stinnett’s description of the plot that eventuated in Pearl Harbor 12/7/41. The only way to disprove Stinnett’s basic case would be to establish that this evidence is forged. The idea is a nonsensical impossibility, as any discerning reader can see for him/her self.

    The other great value of Stinnett’s book is that it lays out clearly (and documents) the operational details of the plot, so that his readers can see with perfect clarity how the deed was done.

    Tarpley’s lengthy interview does not confront these basic facts. Instead, it resorts to cheap ad hominem slurs (“libertarian,” “Roosevelt hater,” etc.); it simply issues, like the Pope, ex cathedra, flat denials, unevidenced and unargued, of Stinnett’s ironclad case; and it blows a voluminous diversionary smokescreen to confuse, muddle, distract and derail reasonable discussion and argument. Tarpley is intent on talking about all manner of other things, precisely because he canot talk closely, reasonably, about the matter he ostensible addresses — for good reason: he has no case. It is a disgraceful performance. It is unworthy of Barrett and of the Unz Review to have reprinted it.

    2) Another extremely valuable — indeed, key — book on Pearl Harbor is John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (New York, Doubleday, 1982). Complimenting Stinnett’s revelations published 18 years later, it concentrates on the ten “investigations” that followed the event during and immediately after the war, culminating with the Joint Congressional Investigation of 1945-46 (mentioned above), from which it cites extensively. If Stinnett shows us the operations of the plot before the deed, Toland’s primary attention is to the coverups and to the partial but extensive revelations of the Joint Congressional investigation.

    One crucial matter that Toland clarifies is that it was a matter of the public record of this Congressional investigation that the Japanese codes were sufficiently cracked to serve the purposes Stinnett (and Toland, and the Investigation) say that they served. Tarpley and others who contend otherwise (including authors of the wikipedia article on Day of Infamy) are either ignorant of this basic public fact or complicit in its coverup.

    Toland also provides the clearest and most plainspoken and best informed account I have seen (far surpassing Costello’s or Hersh’s) of the Tyler Kent episode (Toland was able to read the court records of the British in camera proceedings that locked up Kent incommunicado for the duration).

    And very important, for the discussion of Pearl Harbor, Toland surveys at length the rough dozen different cases where the evidence establishes that there was pre-knowledge of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor that was relayed to the Navy before the attack, known by the Navy before the attack, and kept from Kimmel.

    People like Tarpley are self-condemned as either ignorant of these published established facts — many established by the Joint Congressional Investigation and written up in the Congressional Record — or they are acting in bad faith — in plain English, they are liars. Take your pick.

    3) It is notable that Philip Zelikow, a very busy person, it seems, also reviews Stinnett’s book in the March/April 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, where he dismisses it out of hand, very briefly, without evidence, argument or discussion. It is a disgraceful performance.

    Zelikow also co-authored the first publication of the White House tapes of the Cuban Missile Crisis — The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Harvard University, 1997). The transcripts of these tapes published by Zelikow and May are so defective that the job had to be done again, by Sheldon M. Stern, Averting The Final Failure (Stanford University, 2003). Stern includes a lengthy appendix cataloging the numerous omissions and distortions published by Zelikow and May.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
    , @Anon
  95. @Carlton Meyer

    Actually, according to Gen. Holland Smith (USMC)’s memoir, the Marines began developing tactics for amphibious landings and rehearsing them with attacks on Japanese islands in mind in … wait for it … 1924.

  96. @CharlieSeattle

    Political and Military blundering by both sides resulted in Pearl Harbor.

    Political and Military blundering by both sides will start the next World War.

    Error 1: The map is not the territory. There are factions that extend within and beyond national boundaries. We spend a lot of time here discussing them.

    Error 2: Some factions want war and use every method (fair or foul) to make it happen. War happens when they are successful.

    Error 3: “Blunders” is always the “opinion makers” first excuse when the plotters succeed.

    Don’t fall for it!

  97. @Carlton Meyer

    Two more points: Toland evidences at length the tracking of radio signals from the Japanese fleet as it progressed toward Pearl Harbor by the Matson liner SS Lurline and the attempt to suppress evidence of this, afterward.

    It is not necessary to have cracked a code in order to track radio signals from ships at sea so as to indicate their position. So in this case it is beside the point whether or not the Japanese naval codes had been cracked, and people who argue otherwise are either ignorant or liars.

  98. @Ron Unz

    John Toland (Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath, p. 269 ff. & 284 ff.) reports that on Nov. 26, 2 weeks before Pearl Harbor, the White House set in motion a process, completed on Dec. 3, whereby the Bureau of the Census compiled the addresses of all Japanese (over 124,000) then living in the Continental US., mostly on the West Coast. This minor fact adds its weight to the evidence that a West Coast attack was anticipated.

    By the time Japanese internment began, in August 1942, on the other hand, the US Navy at the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway had entirely eliminated the Japanese Navy’s ability to mount an attack on the US West Coast, and they knew it. But the internment proceeded, none the less.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  99. @Kevin Barrett

    Thank you, Kevin Barrett, for this valuable essay. I need to take issue with — or ask for evidence and argument supporting — the idea that JP Morgan & Co.’s well-evidenced and well-known driving of America into the First World War was “Rothschild-driven.” It appears to me that it participated in, and forwarded into an international phase, the consolidation, centralization, and oligarchic-domination of the American economy by the corporate-finance system at whose pinnacle JP Morgan & Co. ruled, a process commenced around 1890. JP Morgan and associated American financial interests made billions off selling munitions to Europe — and prolonged the war by 18 months and several million deaths (according to historian Harry Elmer Barnes). By the end of the war, as the result of these operations, the center of world finance began its shift to Wall Street, completed during the Second World War, and America (Wall Street) began the process of supplanting Great Britain as the dominant world power, ruler of the seas and captain of world empire, also completed then. So I don’t see how this particularly benefited the Rothschilds, except tangentially, or what their motive would have been. There is no doubt that JP Morgan and Rothschild interests worked together to their mutual profit — notably in the engineered “gold crisis around 1893, but it’s my impression the Rothschilds were associates, not bosses.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
    , @S
  100. Wally says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Zionist Wizard of Oz, you lie again.

    – “East plan”? You laughably mean the Generalplan Ost which never existed

    – Generalplan Ost is a laughable & fake Zionist creation. There was / is no such authentic Generalplan Ost German document. Simple as that. Show us if you can. You cannot.

    Myths about Generalplan Ost and Lebensraum:

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  101. @Ron Unz

    I’m not up to taking on Barrett’s lengthy article, but this brief comment is illuminating.

  102. @Wally

    Have your argument with David Irving. You should enjoy friendly jousting.

  103. @J. Alfred Powell

    Webster Tarply is a former member of the U.S. Labor Party and an “ex”- Communist. Mommy always told to never trust a commie. He is no Texe Marrs.

  104. @9/11 Inside job : “Developing – Operation Iran : The Pentagon is deploying troops to Saudi Arabia ” :

    “It is important to note that the Pentagon has Iran surrounded on all sides …Three malicious groups are presently pressuring Capitol Hill for regime change in Iran . These groups are the Zionist lobby, the US war industry and the fossil fuel industry …the Persian Gulf is likely to witness more dangerous incidents [false flag attacks?]in the coming months .’ Christian Sorenson
    Trump the” candidate of Chaos “may yet cause chaos in the Middle-East .

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  105. Republic says:

    Disney was a member of the American First committee,like Lindbergh,who opposed the US entry in the war in Europe

    • Replies: @S
  106. @John Gruskos

    Pearl Harbor was a terrible defeat – the entire Pacific fleet battleship force sunk or damaged, plus the losses of land-based aircraft and smaller warships. Battleships were still very useful in WW2

    Au contraire mon frère: What was sacrificed at Pearl was mostly old, outdated WWI era battle ships.

  107. @Johnny Walker Read

    I believe Putin is the only sane leader on the world stage and God bless him for saving Syria from Israel and the ZUS.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  108. Che Guava says:

    I like the (possibly too much) caution shown by Kimmel.

    Tarpley says some interesting things, but he seems to be one of those ‘UK monarchy is the big world conspiracy’ loons, and makes several wrong assertions.

    The rape of Nanking was real (don’t tell my ultranationalist friends I said thaくt) but the figure of 500,000 is excessive, AFAIR, the claim of Chinese historians is 300,000, which I think likely.

    Japan did not seize French Indochina until near the end of the war. Before that, our forces were there to secure the places on behalf of the Vichy regime.

    To place Tojo on the same level as Hitler and Mussolini as a fascist leader, is another error, just based on wartime propaganda.

    Tojo was the prime minister in a parliamentary system, much like that of the U.K. at the time, with a lower house and a house of the peerage.

    I always find the comparison of the polities of the three main anti-Comintern states of interest.

    In Germany, Hitler as Fuhrer, absolute leader.

    In Italy, Mussolini as il Duce, but pretending to rule on behalf of the house of Savoy.

    In Japan, the equivalent figure was the emperor, not Tojo. This was the apex of the emperor’s real power, since the original small state before it coollapsed and shogunates later began. The Meiji emperor also had similar direct power .

    In what we call the great East Asian war, as opposed to the Pacific war, one Imperial prince ordered Gen. Yamashita (there are two, the one in the Malaya and other campaigns is a different person) to the slaughter in Nanking, another organised the melting of golden idols and their import here near the end.

    Sure, Japan had many institutions characteristic of fascism, but don’t blame Tojo. He was just a wartime politician.

    Fourth (and final) point, Australia was a dominion, not a colony at the time, and the decision to possibly surrender the northern half of the place in case of an invasion was entirely from their cabinet.

    So, if Warbly doesn’t know any of that, I have much doubt about the rest

  109. S says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    By the end of the [first world] war, as the result of these operations, the center of world finance began its shift to Wall Street, completed during the Second World War, and America (Wall Street) began the process of supplanting Great Britain as the dominant world power, ruler of the seas and captain of world empire, also completed then.

    I’ve much enjoyed your recent series of very well informed posts here.

    You might find of some interest (if you don’t know of it already) a geo-political book linked below called The New Rome published in 1853. The book’s premise is that the 1776 North American Revolution was a planned strategic false split between the US and UK, and, that in the future (also as planned) the center of power of the British Empire will move from England to the United States.

    The book then outlines how a future practically unbeatable US/UK united front is to unleash a ‘world’s war’ so as to co-jointly conquer and then consolidate control of Germany, the center of power upon continental Europe.

    Lastly (and yes, this was published in 1853), the air in the future having been mastered and flying machines constructed which allow for inter-continental bombardment, Russia is to be smashed via the global projection of US air power.

    Thus, according to this mid 19th century book, a global ‘New Rome’, the ’empire of the world’ will be established, with an Anglo-Saxon US/UK as it’s hegemonic power.

    So I don’t see how this particularly benefited the Rothschilds, except tangentially, or what their motive would have been.

    The same New Rome book submits the claim (pg 103 – 105) that a prosperous and powerful United States is the only chance the Rothschild’s have of the European states ever paying back their loans.

    The New Rome (1853) – pg 103 – 105

    …every Jew will hasten to claim the protection of the American flag for his operations over the world, and Rothschild will not shut his eyes to the only prospect of enabling the European states to liquidate the debts they owe him.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  110. How war has always been decided on in America. Nothing “democratic” about it:
    Refusal to Submit any War Issue to the Public.
    While the declaration of war was impending, and during the weeks immediately succeeding it—when President Wilson’s war plans were being revealed—numerous proposals were made, usually taking the form of resolutions or amendments introduced in Congress, providing that the public be given some say in these momentous matters. Some of these proposals were : that the choice of war or peace be decided by referendum; that the question of sending an army overseas be submitted to referendum; that service overseas be limited to volunteers. That the Executive stood uncompromisingly against all such proposals furnishes a strong presumption of a conviction in his own mind that, if afforded an opportunity, the people would have repudiated his war program and his war.

    From Shall it be Again ? by John Kenneth Turner, circa 1922

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  111. TheBAG says:

    Thank you for putting the “big lie” comment in context. I had pulled out my copy of MK and was about to comment when I read your response. One never sees the full context, does one?

  112. Sparkon says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Yes, and November 26, 1941 is also the very day IJN’s Kido Butai weighed anchor in the Kuril Islands at Hitokappu Bay, as the Japanese carrier strike force set sail for its attack on Pearl Harbor.

    It was long presumed that as the Japanese fleet approached Pearl Harbor, it maintained complete radio silence. This is untrue. The fleet barely observed discretion, let alone silence. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated numerous dispatches, some clearly revealing that Pearl Harbor had been targeted. The most significant was the following, sent by Admiral Yamamoto to the Japanese First Air Fleet on November 26, 1941:

    The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.

    — James Perloff

    (my bold)

    Good points in your #99 also. However, I think there are ample indications that, even before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. was having significant success working JN25, which had a number of weaknesses, most significantly its vulnerability to frequency analysis.

    What this means is the most common words and terms were cracked first. As they were the most common, they were also the most useful.

  113. jsigur says:

    I am not sure including someone such as Tarpley who wrote a book saying George Bush was a NAZI infitrator really named Sheriff, who is Jewish and will never implicate Jews with any of the problems is a good idea but what do I know
    Selling the idea Bush was a NAZI sells the idea that the 3rd Reich has turned into the 4th Reich and the NAZIs didnt lose the war, Germany did. It’s a clear Jewish dis info campaign

  114. @Johnny Walker Read

    Wars are forced on America by satanic zionists and have been since 1913 when they took over America with their FED and IRS.

  115. @Leo

    Eastern Europe was not “stinking” before the Russians.

    Bohemia’s industrial output equalled Belgium’s before the war.

    • Replies: @Leo
  116. S says:
    @Peter Grafström

    I like to add to his critique of the libertarians by reminding the readers about the role by the angloamerican oligarchy’s support for ALL comunist revolutions, something some libertarians know but dont consider necessary to mention when fighting the reds.

    Thomas Jefferson collaborated with Lafayette and one other person in writing the French Revolution’s seminal The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). Thomas Paine wrote the book The Rights of Man (1791), served in the revolutionary French National Convention, and helped in writing France’s new constitution.

    Benjamin Franklin, too, is thought by some to have been heavily involved in laying the groundwork for the 1789 French Revolution.


    It will be recalled that it was the same Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Ben Franklin, who were arguably as important in ensuring the success of the embryonic 1776 Capitalist American Revolution as George Washington was.

    And, too, that it was the embryonic 1789 Communist French Revolution which introduced to the world the ‘commune’, the ‘political commisar’, ‘counter-revolution’, ‘whites’, the ‘great terror’ with it’s mass arrests and executions, and ‘red republicanism’, all of which ultimately would evolve into the Communist Soviet Union.

    Historically, behind both Capitalist and Communist global revolution, one finds London.

    The whole premise of the present Anglo-American establishment paradigm rest upon two puported ‘great splits’, either or both of which might not have been quite as real as we have all been taught. The first of these splits being between British and Continental based Freemasonry, the second historically between the US and UK due to 1776.

    Kevin Barret and his colleagues at VT are notoriously underattentive with respect to Britains role while Tarpley has contributed significantly.

    Many grossly under-estimate just how powerful the US/UK is.

    I say ‘US/UK’ as since about 1900 the United States and Britain have been in a relationship only just short of an outright political union called the ‘special relationship’. Ever since the US and UK have done just about everything together, particularly in the area of warfare.

    WT Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes, on pg 10, 11, and 12 of his 1901 book The Americanization of the World calculated that the US and UK between them had three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German Empires.

    Stead concludes that ‘the lion’s share of the world is ours’ in regards to the US and UK and deems that the two powers together are ‘world conquerers’.

    The US made an unprovoked naval attack on Japan in 1853 in order to force a trade deal on them…After that humiliation the Japanese were vulnerable to Britains seduction, and eventually emerged as an aggressor.

    Quite true.

    The original 1853 Perry expedition flagship flag (pictured below on the USS Missouri) was flown from the United States to Tokyo Harbor in 1945 specifically to symbolically ‘witness’ the unconditional surrender of the Japanese to the United States.

    And Japan is now known as ‘the Britain of the Far East’ in it’s relationship with the US.

  117. S says:

    Disney was a member of the American First committee,like Lindbergh,who opposed the US entry in the war in Europe.

    Thanks. That would help to explain what was going on with Disney Studios there.

  118. @John Gruskos

    wannabe Court Historian Gruskos is so full of nonsense

    one doesn’t know where to start. Haxo will make just this one point:

    “US started war with 6 large carriers”.

    nope. Enterprise (Halsey) and Lexington (Sherman) battle groups were out of Pearl Harbor on plausible-deniability-providing “air reinforcement missions” to Wake and Midway.

    Saratoga was at Dan Diego, training her Air Group.

    Yorktown (Fletcher) was in transit, Caribbean waters.

    Hornet (Mitscher) was off New Jersey, still training her crew and Air Group.

    Wasp, a Treaty-class jinx-ship, & ditto. Not ready until May, 1942, and then had to be loaned to the Brits to fly Spitfires into besieged Malta.

    Ranger: ditto, so slow and with bad engines it could not be sent to the Pacific.

    that makes it 6 Jap carriers vs. 3 U.S. AND, more important

    on 7 December the Jap carrier Air Groups – fighter, dive-bomber, and torpedo-plane pilots –

    were World Class, almost all combat-experienced in the ongoing China War. The American pilots were fairly well-trained…but entirely green. Any carrier vs. carrier combat around Pearl Harbor at the onset of the war would have been another Tsushima, a

    victory of annihilation for the Japanese. Something which FDR, Stark, and R.K. Turner – the principal conspirators – were well aware of; FDR, BTW, had been Woodrow Wilson’s Assistant Navy Sec. for 8 years.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  119. Agent76 says:

    Bankers Hate Peace: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

    In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.

    May 26, 2012 Federal Reserve Act – Remedy

    The 1913 Federal Reserve Act has remedy written into it; still in full force and effect today.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  120. Leo says:
    @but an humble craftsman

    what i meant is that Eastern Europe was “stinking” from Stalin’s point of view. not a fitting prize for the Father of Nations.

  121. @S

    Other notable members of America First include former president Herbert Hoover, former ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy and his young son, the future president, John F. Kennedy, CIO leader John L. Lewis, prominent historian Charles Beard, and Sen. Burton Wheeler (Robert La Follette’s running mate in his 1924 Progressive Party presidential campaign). A good book that treats America First honestly, candidly, factually, is Bill Kauffman, America First (Amhest, Prometheus, 1995).

    • Replies: @S
  122. anon[244] • Disclaimer says:

    I rather enjoyed Tarpley’s argument, which simply puts a ultra cynical spin on the controversy. Namely, that the details are all wrong, and Winston Churchill did it.

    If we back up a bit to the out of step Joe Kennedy, we get a view of the larger issue. Namely, how to deal with the totalitarian states – USSR and Nazi Germany. It was believed that the US and Britain would end up fighting both, so the pressing question was the order of engagement. It was a rather conventional perspective to tackle Stalin first, than Hitler. As it turned out, the opposite was done, but it was only the order that was in play.

    Tarpley also captures the cynical perspective of trying to use your competitors to do the heavy fighting and dying. I especially liked Tarpley’s assertions that Churchill wanted the US to suffer debilitating losses in its war on Japan. It’s utter speculation, but makes it all the more satisfying that the UK was consumed and totally exhausted by its 20th century military victories.

    Regardless, only the details are at issue. Roosevelt openly wanted to provoke Japan. I don’t think Roosevelt was imaginative or daring enough to have engineered Pearl Harbor, but was certainly pleased by its outcome.

    The key element of the conspiracy theorists is that it is particularly horrifying that cynical elites openly promote attacks like Pearl or 911. Since they are very open in their enthusiasm of the consequences of these attacks, the details of their complicity in the attacks themselves, although fascinating, is besides the point.

    The reality is that the politicians got their wars — Roosevelt got WW 2 and Bush got the GWOT.

    The public doesn’t seem to mind being lied to. I am shocked at the extent to which the mainstream media and public has accepted the absurd narrative regarding Syria.

  123. @Haxo Angmark

    Thank you, Haxo. This is to the point. Stinnett on p. 152-154 discusses the dispatch from Pearl Harbor, shortly before the attack there, of the fleet that included the Enterprise and the Lexington. I seem to remember there was another fleet in the Pacific, involving other modern ships (as contrasted with the antiquated decoys left at Pearl Harbor), dispatched to the South Pacific two weeks earlier, but I don’t have a reference handy.

    Six months after Pearl Harbor the US Navy permanently DESTROYED the Japanese Navy’s offensive capacity in Pacific (and knew it) at the battles of Coral Sea and Midway in May-June 1942. It would be extremely interesting, and telling, to see the ship rosters of the US fleets involved in these two battles (with source references, of course) along with indications where those ships were in December 1941.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  124. Incitatus says:
    @John Gruskos

    “the USA became unnecessarily embroiled in WWII because the Roosevelt administration was not neutral…Roosevelt deliberately antagonized Germany and Japan by giving Lend-Lease aid to Britain while imposing economic sanctions on Japan, hoping and expecting to provoke an attack or declaration of war.”

    • 13 Aug 1937 – Japan kills 250,000-300,000 Chinese in the Battle of Shanghai (-26 Nov 1937);
    • 10 Dec 1937 – Japanese troops commence the assault of Nanking, enter it after three days bombardment, and begin a six-week spree of rape, murder, theft, and arson that claims 50,000-300,000 Chinese civilians [Nanking Massacre 13 Dec 37 – Jan 38]; German businessman (Siemens AG) and NSDAP member John Rabe wrote:

    “I am totally puzzled by the conduct of the Japanese. On the one hand, they want to be recognized and treated as a great power on a par with European powers, on the other, they are currently displaying a crudity, brutality and bestiality that bears no comparison except with the hordes of Genghis Khan.”
    – Rabe Diary 22 Jan 1938 [Beevor ‘The Second World War’ p.61]

    “You can’t breathe for sheer revulsion when you keep finding the bodies of women with bamboo poles thrust up their vaginas. Even old women over 70 are constantly being raped.”
    – Rabe Diary 3 Feb 1938 [Beevor ‘The Second World War’ p.61]

    Ah, those poor innocent Japanese!

    • 12 Dec 1937 – Japan attacks and sinks the American gunboat USS Panay, at anchor on the Yangtze River off Nanking, with 12 aircraft. Three sailors and two civilians are killed; forty-three sailors and five civilians are wounded. Small craft transferring the wounded ashore are strafed. Japan also attacks and sinks three Standard Oil tankers. Panay officer Lt. J. W. Geist later testifies “the day before we told the Japanese army in the area who we were” and three American flags were plainly visible. Japan claims not to have seen American ensigns and flags painted on the deck and sides of the Panay, apologizes and pays an indemnity. US Navy cryptographers meanwhile intercept and decrypt Japanese attack orders that demonstrate it was deliberate (unreleased due to secrecy);
    • 30 Sep 1938 – Hitler signs the Müncher Abkommen and ‘Chamberlain’s ‘Peace in Our Time’, accepts the Sudetenland (his “last territorial demand”);
    • 15 Mar 1939 – Germany invades the remaining part of Czechoslovakia;
    • 23 Mar 1939 [1 am] – After an extortionary campaign Germany acquires Klaipėda (Memel);
    • 1 Sep 1939 – Despite English and French guarantees, Germany launches Fall Weiß, the invasion of Poland, without a declaration of war;
    • 3 Sep 1939 – The UK and France declare war on Germany; passenger liner SS Athenia is sunk without warning by U-30 [128 civilian passengers and crew killed, including 28 US citizens and 54 Canadians; Germany insists no U-boat is closer than 75 miles to the incident; U-30 returns to Wilhelmshaven 27 Sep ‘39, Captain Lemp reports he mistook the liner for a military target, Raeder and Dönitz decline to prosecute Lemp and order U-30’s log be altered to conceal the sinking [an international crime]; Oct 1939 Völkisher Beobacter accuses Winston Churchill of ordering the sinking to turn neutral opinion against Germany;
    • 3 Oct 1939 – the battleship Deutschland seizes an American freighter as a prize of war [Beevor ‘The Second World War’ p.40];
    • 15 Feb 1940 – Hitler orders unrestricted submarine warfare (a trigger for US involvement in WW1);
    • 11 Mar 1941 – Congress enacts ‘An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States’ aka ‘Lend-Lease’

    Gee-whiz! FDR “provoked” the Axis? Don’t think so.

    That aside, Japan and Germany declared war on the USA. Was that smart on their part?

    Newsflash: both lost Sorry.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  125. @S

    Walt Disney worked with the US government making propaganda films for WWII and was involved in the management of the Lookout Mountain Studios in Laurel Canyon.

  126. S says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Opposition to US entry into WWII was much more widespread than many today realise.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  127. @Incitatus

    Throughout the 20s and 30s, and throughout the entire period of the Japanese aggressions cataloged in #127, American interests sold Japan the materials of war, notably including scrap iron, weapons, and oil, without which these aggressions would have been impossible. Wall Street made its profit of blood money out of every corpse.

    In his memoirs, Marine Gen. Holland Smith reports watching scrap steel shipped out to Japan from San Francisco when stationed there in the mid 30s and realizing that eventually, it would be used against America as well as China. It’s not that everyone was ignorant; it’s that this information was not allowed to influence policy and is now suppressed in the Official Lies passed off as history by mainstream America’s Lie Factory.

    At the same time, throughout the 30s, Wall Street was also selling weapons and materiel to the Chinese — making blood money off both sides, as has always been its practice, when possible (it was dealing with both Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany throughout this same period).

    It is not amusing, or informative, or decent, that people like the writer of #127 omit these basic salient facts from their mass-murder celebratory comments and twisted pseudo-historical rants.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  128. @Bankotsu

    When are you MacArthur haters going to stop LYING about the attack on Clark Field on December 8th?

    The FEAF war NOT “Destroyed” on December 8, 1941. The Far Eastern Air Force lost 17 B-17’s on the ground and about 10 P-40 Fighters in Air Combat and 20 on the ground. MacArthur wasn’t to blame, and the Air Force had its fighters on full alert at 6 AM on December 8th. When Japanese aircraft were spotted at 7 AM, the B-17’s were sent up into the air. But the Japanese bombed other targets. Eventually, the B-17s had to land and refuel for an Afternoon strike at Formosa, but were still on the ground when the Japanese attacked at 12 Noon.

    That’s it. And you know the truth, but you’re just trying obfuscate the issue. Read the official Air Force history, if want the truth. Its online. I’ve been saying this for 15 years, and you MacArthur hates are still lying.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  129. denk says:

    Throwing own citizens under the bus……..

    Pearl harbor was the pretext to declare war on JP,
    somebody gotta be sacrificed for the ‘national interest’,

    Letting Unit 731 war criminals off the hook, inspite of hundreds of American victims, so uncle scam could get its grubby hands on the coveted biowar experiments data from the jps,. is another exemple when the greater ‘National interest ‘ prevails .

    In 2002,
    Two Americans were murdered in Indonesia.
    Local police indicted murkkan trained INdon shock troops for the crime, Washington intervened to flame the West Papuan separatists instead, thus exonerating the Indon death squads.
    Why ?
    Cuz tptb wanted the Indons onboard its anti China posse.

    iN El Salvador 1980,
    Five American nuns were gang raped then killed by troops of the US friendly regime.

    But see how Jean Kirkpatrick, a broad no less, rationalised the murder of US citizens by her friendly dictators….
    Those Americans aint just nuns , they’r activists‘ [sic]

    General Alexanda Haig added the helpful insight…
    They prolly have guns, or rush a govn roadblock’ !

    What a big fucking SIC !

    Stuff like these you simply couldnt make it up. !

    Again in Chile, 1973..
    CIA fingered an American for liquidation by the US puppet Pinochet regime, thats how it works when you cross uncle scam or his cohorts, murkkan citizens be damned.

    The chileans gladly obliged, with the knowledge that killing this American would’ve no dire consequences from Washington.

    Note to chest thumping rednecks….
    There’r only two types of people as far as tptb’s concern, Useful assets and useless eaters.
    Foreigners who’r useful assets trumps murkkans who’r useless eaters, every time.
    Hope this help !

    Then there was 911 !!!

    • Replies: @Golobki
  130. @S

    Yes, in 1940 — and right up until Pearl Harbor (which did the trick) — over 80% of Americans — including numerous “important” people in the worlds of politics, culture and science — opposed involvement in foreign wars — which is why FDR was forced to lie about his intentions in the 1940 election, even while (in October 1940) commencing the scheme Stinnett reveals, aimed at igniting war with Japan. From 1938 on, FDR’s White House and New York based Democratic Party machine and their allies in media etc. (Charles Beard dubbed them the “smearbund”) systematically slandered them as “Fascists” and “anti-Semites” and “Nazis,” and, since the end of the Second World War, all this history has been effectively erased (and the slanderous smear-job perpetuated) in the Official Lie pimped as history by the colleges and the media, their allies and dupes.

  131. Incitatus says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Wow. Related to Colin Powell? WMDs in Iraq 2003? One-armed John Wesley Powell (ala Colorado River 1860s)?

    As for your post, you don’t dispute chronology that eviscerates dispute. Indeed business was involved. When – tell us – wasn’t it (Nippon, American, German)? You have no response.

    “It is not amusing, or informative, or decent, that people like the writer of #127 [Incitatus] omit these basic salient facts from their mass-murder celebratory comments and twisted pseudo-historical rants.”

    LOL! So scared you (third person) dare not name me and rely on indirect posts? “The writer of #127”? Are you serious?

    How’s the weather in Moskow, Comrade?

    Douche bag

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  132. @Incitatus

    The content of this comment (#134) speaks for and characterizes its author too well to require further remarks. So be it.

    • Agree: L.K
    • Replies: @Incitatus
  133. @Johnny Walker Read

    The article you link to is based on a book by John Kenneth Turner, Shall It Be Again (1922). This is one of the earliest and most outspoken (the sting was still fresh) of an extensive literature devoted to American involvement in the First World War and how it was brought about, dozens of books and scores of articles written by numerous highly reputed historians and published by numerous highly reputable book publishers and magazines (Readers Digest! Saturday Evening Post!) between 1920 and 1939. Some of the most important include

    Sidney B. Fay, The Origins of the World War (New York, Macmillan, 1928)

    Harry Elmer Barnes, Genesis of the Great War (New York, Knopf, 1928)

    H.C. Englebrecht & F.C. Hanighen, Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry (New York, Dodd, Mead, 1935)

    H.C. Peterson, Propaganda For War: The Campaign Against American Neutrality, 1914-1917 (Norman, Oklahoma University Press, 1939)

    Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes To War (Boston, Little, Brown, 1938)

    Many many more works could be added to this list. Cumulatively their evidence and the case they make is absolutely ironclad conclusive. Sidney Fay, a Harvard historian (imagine that!) was the first writer in America to expose these facts at length, in a series of articles in the American Historical Review in 1920-21.

    In the mid-30s a Senate Subcommittee on Munitions, chaired by important Progressive Sen. Gerald Nye (ND) investigated this topic with special emphasis on Wall Street’s involvement, using the Senate’s subpoena power to command production of records and witnesses and published its evidence, testimony and findings in 12 large volumes (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934-1943). Tansill’s book had the advantage of being able to use its findings. Michael Ware Coulter, The Senate Munitions Inquiry of the 1930s (Westport, CN, Greenwood Press, 1997) gives an understated but truthful account of its results. For lies and coverup, see wikipedia.

    Since World War Two American mainstream academics, foundations, publishers and “others” have collaborated to suppress this literature and its evidence and to prevent the publication and review of similar examinations of the truth about American involvement in World War Two. This is discussed in Harry Elmer Barnes, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho, Caxton, 1953).

    The existence of this extensive historical literature, the work of many highly skilled, honest, candid, patriotic scholars, deeply committed to truth, democratic government, and peace, and the nearly total suppression of its results and evidence since 1945 by the mainstream Lie Factory, speaks sordid volumes about the true pathetic disgraceful dire state of democratic society and public discourse in America in our lifetimes.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  134. @S

    The publication of such a book in New York City in 1853 is no surprise at all if you are acquainted with the history and character of the fundamental culture of Manhattan. The City of New York began as New Amsterdam, a Dutch private corporate trading post devoted principally to trading liquor, guns and gunpowder to the Indians for furs (the “blankets and beads” story is a typical lie factory coverup). This primary business continued after Manhattan passed to British hands and became New York and continued with so much success — it formed the foundation of the Astor fortune, for example — that by 1800 the peltries of America were exhausted, trapped out, all the way to the Mississippi. The trade in liquor and in weaponry also contributed predominantly to the self-destruction of the indigenous peoples.

    Before 1800 Manhattan had transformed its primary business model to the finance of slavery. From before 1800 the entire import-export trade of the South was in the hands of Manhattan merchants, who bought and exported, principally for their own profit (in the best businesslike manner) the South’s cotton and tobacco and other cash crops, and shipped to and sold the South all its imported commercial goods (also at a hefty profit, to be sure). Wall Street also controlled the South’s credit and, crucially, it financed the slave trade. Manhattan, along with Charleston and New Orleans, was the most important slave market in America up until New York State abolished the slave trade in the state, over the vehement protests of Wall Street, in 1827, but Wall Street continued writing mortgages with slaves as collateral right up until the civil war — a financial service without which slavery could not have operated. Today people in the South are toppling statues of Confederate generals but no one is toppling statues of such agents of this operation as Alexander Hamilton or banker August Belmont, without whom slavery could not have operated as a viable financial proposition.

    Up until the Civil War Manhattan was also a major base for piracy (“privateers” was the polite term), with respectable Wall Street financiers buying shares in pirate expeditions. During the years immediately following the Civil War Wall Street interests began funding attempts to stage a coup in Cuba, fomenting, housing, and financing “Cuban revolutionaries.” This may represent Wall Street’s first real venture into imperial conquest.

    Between about 1885 and 1900 Wall Street finance, under the principal direction of J.P. Morgan, by legalized and illegal methods, consolidated control of the American economy in their hands, and by 1917 they were powerful enough to force the “American” government to enter a war nearly all Americans strongly opposed — to the enormous profit of Wall Street’s oligarchy. The Du Ponts alone, for instance, made a big enough killing out of selling gunpowder to Europeans to murder each other with, that they could buy General Motors with their spare change afterward.

    This is to say, the culture of Manhattan — of “Wall Street” — its values, its business-model, its typical practices, has always been, from the beginning, characterized by, and devoted to, predatory pillage, rapine, robbery, fraud, starting with fur bearing mammals and progressing to the rape of planet earth and all its inhabitants.

    So I am by no means surprised to learn of the contents of The New Rome (1853).

    • Replies: @S
    , @S
  135. @Kevin Barrett

    Both 1940 national presidential conventions were extremely fishy. British Intelligence collaborated with American operatives in arranging the Republican nomination of Wall Street insider Wilkie, registered a “Democrat” until a year earlier and a committed interventionist. The first source to look at on this is H. Montgomery Hyde, The Quiet Canadian: The Secret Service Story of Sir William Stephenson (London, Hamilton, 1962) — avoid the American edition of this book, titled “Room 3603,” which is expurgated. The second is Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception: British covert operations in the United States 1939-1944 (Washington, D.C., Brassey, 1998)

    The Democratic Convention in Chicago was disgracefully steamrollered to nominate FDR for a third term. This is attested in many eyewitness accounts, written by observers from all parts of the political spectrum. The place to start is John Flynn’s Roosevelt Myth (New York, Devin-Adair, 1948) p. 208-222. Two more are Burton K. Wheeler, in As We Saw The Thirties, ed. R.J. Simon (Urbana, 1967) p. 190-215 esp. 213, and James A. Farley, Jim Farley’s Story (New York, 1948) 259-288 esp. 280-282; Farley was FDR’s Postmaster General and a major power in the Democratic Party organization. Bernard F. Donahoe, Private Plans and Public Dangers (Notre Dame, 1965) details how starting in 1937 Roosevelt “insiders” began maneuvering to stage a “draft” by acclamation demanding a third term at the 1940 convention. British Intelligence also had a hand in this convention, as Mahl notes.

  136. As an addendum to #138: the demonstrated facts of the involvement of British Intelligence in the successful rigging of both parties’ presidential nominations in the crucial 1940 election casts a curious light over contemporary claims of Russian and Ukraine attempts to influence the 2016 election. British methods are so much more professional, assured, certain, and indubitable.

    • Replies: @9/11 Inside job
  137. Golobki says:

    In 1995 Clinton sacrificed hundreds in the Okla City bombing to derail the real revolution under Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America which was making steady progress in under 4 months.

    Political opposition and talk radio were branded as right wing extremists and permanently weakened.

  138. Golobki says:

    Add the Okla City bombing and the hundreds sacrificed to re elect Clinton.

    • Replies: @denk
  139. @J. Alfred Powell ” British Intelligence behind Russiagate …When President Trump said in March 2017 that GCHQ( Government Communications Headquarters) was monitoring Trump Tower ,he was right …The Cambridge Analytica scandal reinforces the likelihood that GCHQ not only was monitoring Trump, but attempting to swing the election in his favor . The purpose of the probe
    (Russiagate) was to pressure Trump to remain antagonistic towards Russia .This serves the Crown’s interests by keeping the US and Russia divided …British intelligence in service of the Rothschild City of London Bankers and the Crown will continue to sew mayhem and chaos around the World , as they have done for centuries …”

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  140. skeptic23 says:

    So I say, well, who was responsible for the defense of the Pentagon? Forget New York City, who was responsible for the defense of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? And of course people look and me and say, I don’t know, the Army? And the answer is: nobody! Nobody was responsible. The best answer I got was, the Fairfax County Police Department. Which of course is where the Pentagon was located.

    HELLO! The Pentagon is in Arlington County…

    and you claim to be an expert from a navy family? Do you know where Pearl Harbor “was located”?

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  141. @skeptic23

    The pentagon was a prewired demolition on 911, see April Gallops videos on youtube, she was working at the pentagon on 911 in the area of the explosion and walked out through the hole in the wall and never saw any plane or missile parts!

  142. @J. Alfred Powell

    One section in Shall It Be Again I found fascinating was the extent of which average Americans went to too avoid serving in the first draft call(WWI).

    Circumstances of the Draft.
    Of the total number called in the first draft, more than one-half (50.62 per cent.) put in formal claims for exemption. More than a quarter of a million (252,294), or eight per cent., failed to appear and succeeded in escaping arrest. The former figure, of course, does not represent all of the registrants who did not want to go to war, while the latter figure represents only a fraction of those willing to risk terms in the penitentiary rather than go, for the number evading registration is unknown.
    Many thousands who failed to register, and many thousands who registered but failed to respond to the call, were arrested. In the “slacker round-ups,” staged in New York City alone, in the last days of August, 1918, 16,000 men were held for offenses of this kind. So many men of draft age fled the country that it became expedient to promulgate an order forbidding the departure of such men, and to establish an elaborate system of espionage, patrol, and passports to enforce the order. In a statement issued September 3, 1918, the War Department said: “The Department of Justice has on file the names of 3000 slackers who fled to Mexico before June 5, 1917, to escape registration.” So many married to avoid the draft in the early months that it became expedient to serve notice on the country that eleventh-hour marriages would save no one from service. So many had their teeth extracted to render themselves physically ineligible that the War Department issued a warning to dentists that they were liable to prosecution for complicity in this form of draft evasion.
    In the ten months ending May 1, 1918, over 14,000 desertions were reported from the army. The numbers seeking dishonorable discharge were even greater. At the end of December, 1917, we were told that “for several weeks the army has been losing men at the rate of 100 to 150 a
    day. They chose to commit offenses which led to their dishonorable discharge.” The newspapers gave us instances of suicide and self-mutilations which were resorted to as a means to escape the draft, and of men turning to crime with the deliberate intention of getting into the penitentiary and so escaping the draft. There were a number of anti-draft riots, and so much anti-draft sentiment that it became expedient to prevent, with an iron hand, the public assembly of persons opposing the draft, and to prosecute and imprison hundreds of those most conspicuous in anti-draft agitation. There was also uncovered a thriving trade in exemption affidavits, involving the crime of perjury.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  143. Maybe relevant

    Pearl Harbor (film)

    Pearl Harbor is a 2001 American epic romantic war drama film directed by Michael Bay, produced by Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer and written by Randall Wallace.

    Release date May 25, 2001 (United States)

  144. Sparkon says:

    The B-17s and P-40s of Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s FEAAF would not have been caught on the ground had MacArthur acted rationally after word of the Pearl Harbor attack came in, when Major General Lewis H. Brereton had requested permission to launch immediate air strikes against known concentrations of Japanese aircraft on Formosa.

    Brereton, however, did not give up. According to Morris, at approximately 7:15 a.m., after two hours of waiting for MacArthur to order the attack, Brerenton again went to General Sutherland’s office with a prepared strike mission. “After a few minutes, the Chief of Staff came out of the general’s office [MacArthur’s], shut the door quietly behind him, and turned toward Brereton. ‘The general says “No,”‘ he said. ‘We must not make the first overt act.’” Apparently, MacArthur’s state of shock and cataleptic condition hampered him from realizing that the Japanese had already made the first overt act when they attacked Pearl Harbor.

    MacArthur’s foot-dragging at this critical moment was far from his only mistake in defending the Phillipines. He also commanded “the largest submarine force ever assembled by the United States,” which nevertheless failed almost entirely in stopping the Japanese landings on Luzon. Instead of following War Plan Orange, MacArthur tried to defend the beaches with ill-prepared Filipino units, and held back his best forces.

    Even with the failure of the submarines and the loss of his air forces, MacArthur still refused to initiate the Orange Plan. Instead, he sent his troops towards the beaches to repel the Japanese. However, his crack troops, the Philippine Scouts, the 4th Marines, and the 31st Infantry, the troops that had the training and élan to have effectively met the Japanese, he kept waiting “passively in the South,” sending, instead, his ill-trained Filipino Army to the beaches, many of who soon fell back in disorder.

    The 4th Marine Regiment, now with the 1st Separate Marine Battalion merged as the 3rd Battalion, and after several arguments between Admiral Hart and General Sutherland against such a move, was sent to the island of Corregidor as a “Praetorian Guard.”

    On April Fool’s Day 1942, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt awarded Gen. Douglas MacArthur the Congressional Medal of Honor for his defense of Bataan.

  145. S says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Wall Street also controlled the South’s credit and, crucially, it financed the slave trade.

    Yes, it was the North-east which financed and directed the North American slave trade.

    Chattel slavery and it’s trade was simply and quite literally monetized, ie streamlined financially, via the 19th century global introduction by the British Empire and the United States of the so called ‘cheap labor’/’mass immigration’ system.

    ‘Wage slavery’, rather than ‘cheap labor’, is the much more accurate term, for it too (like chattel slavery) is driven by the desire to do anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor typically to one’s own people. [In California in the 1870’s the Chinese then being imported by diktat into the state were often being paid upwards of 70 percent (ie two thirds) below the prevailing real time local costs of labor.]


    The Lawrence family of Massachusetts textile magnates financed both the construction of Lawrence ‘Immigrant City’, Mass and it’s infamous sister city Lawrence, Kansas.

    The struggle in ‘bleeding Kansas’ between Northern promoters of wage slavery (ie so called ‘cheap labor’) and Southern planters promoting chattel slavery would be a micro-cosm of the coming US Civil War.

    It was the costly and inefficient chattel slaves which picked the cotton which fed their Mass textile mills, thus driving up the costs and making less competitive their finished cotton goods. They wanted to force a recalcitrant South to replace it’s chattel slave system with the North’s wage slavery system, ie so called ‘cheap labor’/mass immigration.

    In that arrangement, from a financial point of view, the ‘immigrant’ is the slave for whatever period of time (days, weeks, months, years) he or she is paid significantly below what was, or what would of been, the prevailing real time local costs of labor without the ‘immigrant’ being present and the immigration taking place.

    True, the cheap laborer can quit. That’s no biggie in this arrangement, however, as the employer can just simply hire another one, it not being called mass immigration for nothing.

    In this manner the employer of such has a continuous flow of unpaid (ie stolen) labor without the muss and fuss involved with chattel slave ownership, all the former negatives and hassles having been largely outsourced to the general public to now deal with.

    This is all incredibly destructive. How could they do that to their own and to others?

    Massachusetts had been the very epicenter of the chattel slave trade in British North America and it had been those very same amoral slave dealers whose families were often now the early 19th century New England industrialists.

    In that horrid business they had become used to displacing their own, particularly in the South and to a much lesser extent in the North. [Of course, Southern planters shouldn’t have been purchasing the slaves.]

    My personal belief is that when violence became unavoidable in 1861 that the guns, rather than being turned upon each other, should of cold turkey like been turned upon the slave owners and their hangers on in the South and their same ilk in the North, ie the people who hired the ‘cheap laborer’s’, ie ‘immigrants’ and, or, promoted the cheap labor/mass immigration system.

    Most of them, I’m convinced, would of readily surrendered, and even without compensation for their financial losses (only right imo), like the now addiction freed former heroin addict after a succesful ‘intervention’, they would have felt…relieved.

  146. S says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    So I am by no means surprised to learn of the contents of The New Rome (1853).

    What I find interesting is how unknown the book is as it’s contents seem rather pertinent. I only came across it when reading old scanned in mid 19th century journals and they were talking about it then.

    The New Rome (1853) – pg 109

    ‘Thus the lines are drawn. The choirs are marshalled on each wing of the world’s stage, Russia leading the one, the United States the other. Yet the world is too small for both, and the contest must end in the downfall of the one and the victory of the other.’

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  147. @S

    Thanks for the link, good stuff.
    Many are not aware that a great many of Lincoln’s generals who led the Union Army were themselves 48ers from the failed communist revolutions in Europe circa 1848.

    • Replies: @S
  148. denk says:

    tip of an iceberg…..

    It boggles the mind.

    Even Mafia has its code of conduct, anyone who betrays the family gets dealt with extreme prejudice.

    In Washington, a traitor got off scot free, often even re-elected into second term. !

  149. S says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    That’s true, quite a few 48’ers poured into the states after the failed revolutions.

    Theodore Poesche (who co-wrote the The New Rome in 1853) was one.

  150. @Johnny Walker Read

    It’s also notable that a large proportion of draftees died in “training,” before they ever left America for Wall Street’s foreign war — a number comparable to battlefield deaths. There were horrific epidemics of “Spanish” flu in many induction camps, in which inoculations may have been implicated, and many more died as a result of faulty food and munitions sold by corporate huxters to the Army (as happened in the Spanish-American War, when thousands died from bad canned meats).

  151. @J. Alfred Powell

    I can tell you exactly where these ships were:

    carrier Enterprise (Halsey) Battle Group: left Pearl Harbor on AM of 28 November ( on orders from DC) transporting a squadron of Marine F4F-3 Wildcat fighters to Wake Island. Wake is c. 2,000 miles west of PH. Evidently under a go-slow order because the planes were not flown off, c. 200 miles from Wake, until the AM of 4 December. Speed out: c. 12 knots. Halsey then – correctly – smelled a rat because he came back @ more than 2X that speed, c. 27 knots, but – delayed by heavy weather and re-fueling of destroyers – was still c. 240 miles SW of PH @ 8 AM December 7th. The Court Historians invariably point to the fact that, had Halsey not been thus delayed, the Enterprise with her escorts might have been back @ PH in time to get sunk. Which is true but profoundly irrelevant: what could DC do, tell Halsey “don’t came back until December 8th”? He would have smelled a rat immediately. Fact is, in a desperate time, FDR and Co. had to improvise a quick salvation of the carriers in such a way as to provide plausible denialability as re prior knowledge of the attack. And, just barely, they pulled it off. The bogus nature of these “plane reinforcement missions” is even more clear in the case of

    carrier Lexington (Sherman) Battle Group: left Pearl Harbor on AM of 4 December (on orders from DC) transporting a squadron of Marine Vindicator dive-bombers to Midway Island. Midway is c. 1,100 miles west of PH. Evidently under another go-slow order because by 8 AM of 7 December the Lexington and her escorting cruisers/destroyers were ONLY HALF-WAY to Midway. After news of the attack came in, Lex et al. – WITHOUT EVEN FLYING OFF THE DIVE-BOMBERS TO MIDWAY – spent the next several days wandering about south of the Hawaiian chain, and finally came in to PH to refuel on 11 December. There the planes were off-loaded. On 17 December ALL 18 OF THESE DIVE-BOMBERS WERE TOPPED OFF WITH AVGAS AND FLEW ALL THE WAY FROM PEARL TO MIDWAY NON-STOP, no carrier needed.

    carrier Yorktown (Fletcher): on 7 December, approaching Carribbean entrance to Panama Canal, heading for San Diego. There Fletcher switched his flag to carrier Saratoga and brought her with a cruiser/destroyer escort to PH. Shortly thereafter (c. 14 December ff.)

    Saratoga (Fletcher), Enterprise (Halsey), and Lexington (Wilson Brown) Battle Groups departed Pearl on the abortive “Wake Island Relief” expedition, a chaotic, botched misadventure with all 3 carriers so far apart they could not support one another if attacked…and this with Jap CarDiv 5 (Hiryu, Soryu) lying in wait near Wake Island. Fletcher, furthest out and sensing another catastrophe, dug in his heels and forced Admiral Pye (Kimmel’s temp replacement at Pearl; Nimitz was still in-transit and, to put it bluntly, taking his own sweet time to get there) to call the whole thing off…thus enraging entire future generations of Court Historians and other armchair admirals. Including the Fletcher-hating incoming Navy C-in-C Ernie King and his pet CH Samuel Eliot Morison.

    best single source on all of this, as well as subsequent US fast carrier raids then Coral Sea/Midway/etc.:

    John Lundstrom: Black Shoe Carrier Admiral – Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal (Annapolis, 2006).

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  152. @Haxo Angmark

    Thanks. It would still be useful, and potentially telling, it seems to me, to have complete rosters of all ships involved at the Battles of Coral Sea and of Midway, and in the carrier groups you mention. Are all the Coral Sea & Midway ships accounted for in the three (or four?) carrier groups you mention? I’m not trying to bust your chops, and I do thank you for this, but, I think you’ll understand my interest in nailing down all the relevant facts.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Haxo Angmark
  153. Never heard any of this. Un-fcking believable. Thanks for sharing.

  154. Incitatus says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    “The content of this comment (#134) speaks for and characterizes its author too well to require further remarks. So be it.”

    You’re absolutely right. I was intemperate and fully apologize. Make no mistake: you are not a douche bag. Again, you are NOT a douche bag.

    That aside, explain your “It is not amusing, or informative, or decent, that people like the writer of #127 [Incitatus] omit these basic salient facts from their mass-murder celebratory comments and twisted pseudo-historical rants.” Salient facts being “Throughout the 20s and 30s, and throughout the entire period of the Japanese aggressions cataloged in #127.

    Kindly quote my “mass-murder celebratory comments and twisted pseudo-historical rants”. Be specific.

    “American interests sold Japan the materials of war, notably including scrap iron, weapons, and oil, without which these aggressions would have been impossible…”

    So what? And when America embargoed said supplies the stage was set for Japanese attack. A major cause for Japanese aggression. Did you forget that?

    “It’s also notable that a large proportion of draftees died in “training,” before they ever left America for Wall Street’s foreign war — a number comparable to battlefield deaths.”

    Really? 400,000+ American draftees died in “training”? Citations please.

    No? Didn’t think so.

  155. L.K says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    InZitatus is a well known Zionist troll, liar and spammer infecting the comment sections of Unz webzine, particularly active in its desperate attempts to maintain WWI and WWII propaganda.

    Just ignore it.

  156. @J. Alfred Powell

    yes they are. The only up-to-date naval units left in PH by AM 7 December were the light cruiser Helena – which stopped a couple torpedoes and took several months to repair – the fast fleet Tanker Neosho, a floating bomb which, fortunately, was not hit – plus a half-dozen destroyers and a few submarines. Japs hit a couple of the destroyers, missed the subs altogether.

    ALL the rest of the ships that mattered – carriers, cruisers, destroyers – were at sea with Enterprise and Lexington on the “air reinforcement missions”, at the US west coast naval bases (battleship Colorado refitting @ Mare Island, San Francisco; carrier Saratoga @ San Diego); carrier Yorktown just entering the Panama Canal, etc. Here’s the combat roster for Coral Sea:

    Task Force 17 (Fletcher)

    carrier: Yorktown
    cruisers (US): Minneapolis, New Orleans, Astoria, Chester, Portland, Chicago; + 2 Australian: HMAS Australia, HMAS Hobart
    destroyers: Phelps, Dewey, Farragut, Aylwin, Monaghan, Perkins, Walke

    TF 17.5

    carrier: Lexington (Fitch)
    destroyers: Morris, Anderson, Hammann, Russell

    TG 17.6: Fueling Group: 2 tankers (Neosho, Tippecanoe) + 2 destroyers (Sims, Worden)

    combat roster for Midway:

    Carrier Strike Force (Fletcher in overall command)

    TF 17:

    carrier: Yorktown (Fletcher)
    cruisers: Astoria, Portland
    destroyers: Hammann, Hughes, Morris, Anderson, Russell, Gwin

    TF 16 (Spruance)

    carriers: Enterprise, Hornet
    cruisers: New Orleans, Minneapolis, Vincennes, Northampton, Pensacola, Atlanta
    destroyers: Phelps, Worden, Monaghan, Aylwin, Balch, Conyngham, Benham, Ellet, Maury

    Oiler Group. 2 tankers (Cimarron, Platte) + 2 destroyers (Dewey, Monssen)

    Submarines: 19 sent out.

    all this is via Samuel Eliot Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Vol. IV: Coral Sea, Midway, and Submarine Actions, May 1942 – August 1942. Morison is good for this sort of thing and not bad overall, but his Ernie King-inspired vendetta against Fletcher is all stuff-and-nonsense. He also misses and/or covers-up certain non-PC events, e.g. the mutiny and disintegration of the entire Hornet Air Group during the Midway battle.

  157. L.K says:

    Sad little LIAR and disinformation agent W. Tarpley states

    They then invade China itself, the rest of it, in 1937. In the city of Nanjing, between 1937 and 1938, they carry out an open genocide of about 500,000 Chinese who are simply slaughtered, but not secretly in concentration camps, but openly in front of the world press, with news film and photographs going around the world, etc, etc

    This guy is so pathetic that he inflates the already hugely inflated body counts for the alleged Nanking massacre from the usual 200.000-300.000 to 500.000!
    And all this in front of the “world press”, no less! Except it is all BS.
    In the ‘Documents of the Nanking Safety Zone’ references to the population of Nanking in late 1937, when the gigantic atrocity is supposed to have occurred, put the entire civilian population of Nanking at a maximum of 200.000.
    Some Chinese officers who fought there reported lower figures .
    After the fighting ended and peace returned so did many refugees and by the end of March 1938, L. Smythe carried out a census using Chinese students and estimated there were already 250-270.000 people living in the city.

    One has only to look at Iris Chang’s atrocity propaganda book to see for themselves the “quality” of those photos mentioned by crook Tarpley, even going to the point as showing photos of people executed by the Chinese Nationalists or by Chinese warlords as victims of the Japanese.

    Bottom line, the ‘Nanking massacre’, as alleged, is so far removed from the facts that it can only be described as atrocity propaganda.

    As for Webster Tarpleys disinfo re 9-11, those interested should read Bollyn’s following article:
    Webster Tarpley’s Disinfo, January 20, 2010

    …I happen to know something about Webster Tarpley, having been part of the same four-man panel during Jimmy Walter’s 9-11 Truth Tour in Europe in the summer of 2005. During the tour Tarpley put the blame for 9-11 on a nebulous group that he never actually identified but one would infer was tied to NATO and the CIA. Tarpley, like all the other panelists on the tour, never mentioned any Israeli or Zionist role in 9-11. My speech, on the other hand, focused on the real evidence that 9-11 was an Israeli false-flag terror atrocity designed to start the “War on Terror” and change the face of America. Finally, in Rome, in the presence of journalist Maurizio Blondet and others, I asked Mr. Tarpley why he insisted on blaming nebulous U.S. entities, without providing any evidence, while avoiding the real evidence of Israeli/Mossad involvement in the terror attacks of 9-11? …

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  158. Anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    On April Fool’s Day 1942, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt awarded Gen. Douglas MacArthur the Congressional Medal of Honor for his defense of Bataan.

    Reading between the lines, it seems fair to conclude that FDR had privately ordered MacArthur to take a dive. MacArthur was duly rewarded by FDR just a few months later, when FDR’s war was going gangbusters.

    The April Fool’s Day date sounds like a typical example of FDR’s sadistic humor at the expense of underlings. (Check out the story about JOSEPH KENNEDY being interviewed for appointment as ambassador to the Court of St. James.)

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  159. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    I’m not convinced that you really checked Stinnet’s documentation that you are so impressed by to see whether, carefully examined, it really proved Stinnet’s case as he claimed.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  160. @Haxo Angmark

    Thanks, great info, that proves without a shadow of a doubt FDR and his “insiders” knew exactly what was coming.

  161. @L.K

    There is no doubt Tarpley has many serious flaws–and hiding the “Mossad” easter egg is certainly one of them.

    However, his book on 911 collects a lot of raw data not available elsewhere–and establishes beyond any doubt that the “official” version is total garbage:

    Tarpley’s book also has a lot of great info on other “false flags”.

    In some ways he reminds me of David Icke and his reptilians–brilliant folks, potentially dangerous to the elites, but playing the “crazy card” to stay out of harms way.

    Those who rule us by deception want us to fall for the ad homonym fallacy (as well as their usual argument from authority fallacy)–we have to do better than that.

  162. @Desert Fox

    We have got to stop being fooled!
    “Once you understand the massive Soviet Rothschild penetration and ongoing occupation of the US body politik by the sons and daughters of alleged Jews from Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania and Russia, then ALL becomes clear.”

    Who owns China? People have it the wrong way around. Thats the question to ask.
    China is backward. They, like Russia, could not design a toilet seat. Everything they have they got handed to them by Soviet/Rothschild agents.

    Their factories are “dumped”, almost fully built, by technology from the US, Germany, UK and places like Denmark and Sweden. Now, it’s mostly Israel – thanks to Trumps tariffs and embargoes.

    The current China technology build up is a gift from Israel – the Soviet era backdoor into the United States. Rothschild’s personal bunker where the new world order program tactical aspects are planned away from MI5 and MI6, CIA and FBI counter intelligence.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  163. Good article, but 9-11 was ultimately a weapons test, so is more akin to a new Hiroshima as opposed to Pearl Harbor.

  164. @L.K

    Thanks. Yes, this is obvious. And I plan to.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  165. @Haxo Angmark

    Thanks, Haxo. This is primo. I’m like wow.

  166. @Anon

    It’s easy to check Stinnett’s primary documentation since he prints the documents reproduced in an appendix of 47 pages (p. 261-308) as well as many more in the body of the text. Comments like this reveal that the author is either grossly ignorant or an agent of disinformation.

  167. Incitatus says:

    “InZitatus is a well known Zionist troll, liar and spammer infecting the comment sections of Unz webzine”

    Quote anything I’ve authored even faintly “Zionist”, “Bella Italia”. How’s Piedmont MaMaMia?

    “…active in its desperate attempts to maintain WWI and WWII propaganda”.

    Sorry. No need. It’s accepted history. Forget your role (insecure nut-case fringe person) to overturn it? You fail every time.

    You excrete bogus crap on WW1-WW2 like an ugly cheerleader before the Axis homecoming game. The irony is Hitler was a ‘struggle for life makes right’ freak, remember? Losers unworthy of life, Germany unworthy of life, yada-yada. Thus your bizarre unrequited necrophilia.

    Bonus treat L.K. As you doubtless know, Italy claimed sloppy-seconds stabbing France in the back 10-25 Jun 1940 (after Germany did the heavy lifting). 300,000 Italians invaded southern France (they faced 180,000 French, 85,000 at the front). Didn’t go well. 640 killed, 2631 wounded, 2151 frostbite victims, 616 missing. Who would have thought?

    The German public was fully cognizant of Italy’s late jackal-like opportunism, not in a positive way. Clubfoot Joe instructed reporters in his Ministerial Conference 23 Jun 1940:

    “There is a danger that anti-Italian feeling in Germany may reach an undesirable degree and that, as a result of the Italian’s touchy reaction to this, a regular German-Italian estrangement may come about. Much as our leading circles must on the one hand object to the tactlessness of the Italians – such as recently, in their premature announcement in the ‘Giornale d’Italia’ and ‘Tribuna’ that the French have accepted armistice conditions – it is vitally necessary that the press should, in a tactful manner, check the incipient anger and hatred against Italy and guide it to sensible channels. For that reason it must explain to the German people how useful Italy has been to us by holding back throughout the winter and what opportunities the Italians were offered by the Allies provided they broke with us. It will be best to pass over the military aspect altogether.”

    Trouble in paradise?

    No need to thank me, L.K.

    • Replies: @L.K
  168. Incitatus says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Thanks. Yes, this is obvious. And I plan to.”

    That makes two of us.

    In future kindly omit patronizing responses (ala your #130 to my #127) if you can’t answer basic questions.

    L.K’s your best bet. The cretin Neo-Axis Support Network. Good luck!

  169. @Haxo Angmark

    Thanks again, Haxo. This fits what I’ve come to understand about Morison (whom I haven’t read) — an Official Historian, good for what fits the Official Story. Can you tell us about the Hornet Air Group mutiny and disintegration? And what’s your source (I’m not disputing, I’m interested in sources).

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @L.K
  170. Sparkon says:

    Reading between the lines, it seems fair to conclude that FDR had privately ordered MacArthur to take a dive. MacArthur was duly rewarded by FDR just a few months later, when FDR’s war was going gangbusters.

    Just so.

    And I omitted mention of the most ignominious chapter of MacArthur’s “defense” of the Philippines, when the commanding general fled before the enemy and abandoned the troops in his command to their fate, including the notorious Bataan death march.

    As allegory, MacArthur’s defense of the Philippines was akin to Bush’s defense of his chair on 9/11.

    Dugout Doug MacArthur lies ashaking on the Rock
    Safe from all the bombers and from any sudden shock
    Dugout Doug is eating of the best food on Bataan
    And his troops go starving on.

    Dugout Doug’s not timid, he’s just cautious, not afraid
    He’s protecting carefully the stars that Franklin made
    Four-star generals are rare as good food on Bataan
    And his troops go starving on.

    Dugout Doug is ready in his Kris Craft for the flee
    Over bounding billows and the wildly raging sea
    For the Japs are pounding on the gates of Old Bataan
    And his troops go starving on…


    After making good his escape aboard a PT boat, and making his way to Australia, MacArthur gave his famous speech in which he declared, “I came through and I shall return”.

    On Bataan, the reaction to MacArthur’s escape was mixed, with many American and Filipino troops feeling bitter and betrayed. When Wainwright broke the news to his generals “they were all at first depressed by the news … But I soon saw that they understood just as I understood.” Some people with family members in the Philippines were dismayed. One wrote to Roosevelt that “Nothing you could have done would have broken their morale and that of their parents at home so thoroughly”. Wainwright held out on Corregidor until 6 May. To Joseph Goebbels, MacArthur was a “fleeing general”, while Benito Mussolini labeled him a coward. Marshall decided that the best way to counter this was to award MacArthur the Medal of Honor.

    Later, “Dugout Doug” would be put in charge of one of the two prongs of the so-called “island hopping campaign,” which resulted in a series of bloody and in many cases unnecessary battles on various Japanese-held islands, ostensibly needed to get within bomber range of Japan, and including MacArthur’s vainglorious return to the PI, with famous photos showing the brave general wading ashore at Leyte and Luzon

  171. L.K says:

    Yawnn…Like the good Zionist POS you are, you are fond of divide and conquer little games…

    That’s fine, but you seem to forget I’m half Italian and half German… and I’m proud of both.

    But at the end of the day, the quest for factual truth should be separated from one’s ethnicity or race.
    For example, one of the very first pioneers revising the holocau\$t narrative, one of the first important holocaust revisionists, was the far Left Frenchman Paul Rassinier, who during the war was a member of the French resistance, got arrested by the SD and went on to survive Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau concentration camps.
    Despite nearly perishing at Dora towards the end of the war, Rassinier had something that filth like you will never even comprehend; integrity.
    As he noticed the victorious powers were making wild claims re the actual tragedy that took place in the NS concentration camp system, Rassinier began investigating and speaking out.
    This is just for the record really, not trying to convince trolls such as yourself of anything… that’d be a waste of time.

    Oh, BTW, two great articles written by Ron Unz which I’m sure you just loooved…

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Incitatus
  172. @Sparkon

    Again more lies about MacArthur. You quote some BS from some nobody online. Quote from the official US Army history! You know it, you’re just lying. We don’t need “Per Morris”, we have the official history which anyone can read.

    Nothing you’ve written contradicts what I’ve said. 17 Bombers were destroyed at Clark Field because the Japanese Bombers, while picked up on radar at NOON, somehow got through without Clark Field being warned. This has ZERO To do, with MacArthur not wanting to launch an air strike at 8 AM on a Formosa Harbor.

    And of course, its irrelevant whether MacArthur “Invoked Plan Orange” and withdrew all his forces to Bataan on December 8th, or tried to stop the Japanese when they landed – the end result would’ve been the same. FDR had decided on “Germany First” and had ZERO desire to aid the Philippines. So MacArthur’s army was doomed the day the Japanese attacked.

    BTW, whenever you read someone insulting and lying about a General who’s been dead for 55 years, you know you’re dealing with a Kook.

  173. L.K says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    The quack Tarpley makes use of ridiculous sophistry such as claiming that historians who have exposed Roosevelt’s war mongering towards the Axis do so because they are Libertarians who hate Roosevelt and what not.

    In a lecture called ‘How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor’, Robert Higgs goes into Dr. George Victor’s book ‘The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable’, 2008. Following is part of the transcript where he quotes from Victor’s book, and George Victor admires and agrees with Roosevelt’s stratagems to bring the US into the war.

    “Many people are misled by formalities. They assume, for example, that the United States went to war against Germany and Japan only after its declarations of war against these nations in December 1941. In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before making these declarations. Its war making took a variety of forms. For example, the U.S. navy conducted “shoot [Germans] on sight” convoys – convoys that might include British ships – in the North Atlantic along the greater part the shipping route from the United States to Great Britain, even though German U-boats had orders to refrain (and did refrain) from initiating attacks on U.S. shipping. The United States and Great Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. The U.S. military actively cooperated with the British military in combat operations against the Germans, for example, by alerting the British navy of aerial or marine sightings of German submarines, which the British then attacked. The U.S. government undertook in countless ways to provide military and other supplies and assistance to the British, the French, and the Soviets, who were fighting the Germans. The U.S. government also provided military and other supplies and assistance, including warplanes and pilots, to the Chinese, who were at war with Japan.[1] The U.S. military actively engaged in planning with the British, the British Commonwealth countries, and the Dutch East Indies for future combined combat operations against Japan. Most important, the U.S. government engaged in a series of increasingly stringent economic warfare measures that pushed the Japanese into a predicament that U.S. authorities well understood would probably provoke them to attack U.S. territories and forces in the Pacific region in a quest to secure essential raw materials that the Americans, British, and Dutch (government in exile) had embargoed. [2]

    Consider these summary statements by George Victor, by no means a Roosevelt basher, it’s the other way around, he greatly admires Roosevelt and entirely approves of the actions R took to bring the US into the war – in his well documented book The Pearl Harbor Myth.

    Roosevelt had already led the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941 – into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan’s attack on December 7 enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration. Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell. . . . In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisers, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States – a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment. . . .

    Roosevelt told his ambassador to France, William Bullitt, that U.S. entry into war against Germany was certain but must wait for an “incident,” which he was “confident that the Germans would give us.” . . . Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt’s tactics. . . . He seems [eventually] to have concluded – correctly as it turned out – that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the Unites States than Germany would be. [3]

    The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was . . . typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. . . . Expecting to lose a war with the United States – and lose it disastrously – Japan’s leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians have long agreed. Meanwhile, evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. . . . Japan . . . offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. . . . It was after learning of Japan’s decision to go to war with the United States if the talks “break down” that Roosevelt decided to break them off. . . . According to Attorney General Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an “incident” in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war.[4]

    These facts and numerous others that point in the same direction are for the most part anything but new; many of them have been available to the public since the 1940s. …”

  174. L.K says:

    How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor | Robert Higgs
    At around 2:35 Higgs goes into Dr. George Victor’s book ‘The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable, 2008, who admires Roosevelt and approves of his actions.

  175. the (mostly) no-longer accepted Official Version of the Hornet Airgroup’s trajectory @ Midway (via Morison, and the authors of many subsequent conventional narratives) had them, @ launch, following approximately the same vector as the Enterprise airgroup – c. 235 degrees (i.e., SW) down toward Midway….which is where Spruance (punching blind, because after the last early AM PBY recon reports came in, American tac recon collapsed: unlike the Japs, the US Navy had no doctrine for using battleship or cruiser floatplanes for recon) was betting the Jap carriers still were at around 8 AM; Morison, BTW, based his Version entirely on the “official” track-chart and other documents produced post-battle by Hornet‘s c/0, newly-minted Adm. Marc Mitscher. Somewhere along the way, Waldron & the Hornet Air Group c/0 – Lt. Cdr. Stanhope Ring – had a little disagreement. Waldron then broke away to the right and flew NW where, after a while, he and his torpedo-plane pilots found the Jap carriers and launched their famous death run…all 15 planes shot into the sea by the Japanese combat air patrol, with one survivor, Ens. George Gay….who in later years self-published a book about it. Meanwhile, so the rest of the Mitscher/Ring story went, the 2 Hornet dive-bomber squadrons + 10 fighters arrived c. 9 AM @ a point just north of Midway where they found nothing…so they flew around for awhile (just as the Enterprise dive-bombers did) and then, finding nothing to attack (and somehow neglecting to cross the path of that Jap destroyer that led the Enterprise planes up northeastward to find the Jap carriers) they all flew back to the Hornet and landed….except for the 10 Wildcats who had run out of fuel and “ditched in the vicinity of Midway Island”. Eventually, in the days following the battle, 7 of these 10 pilots were plucked from the ocean by rescue PBY’s but 3 were never found. Among them Ensign C. Markland Kelly.

    years ago, though, problems began emerging with the Mitscher/Ring/Morison Court Historian narrative re the Hornet airgroup. The main break involved an ex-WWII Marine-turned lawyer named Bowen Weisheit who c. 1981 got hold of a \$10 bill – a.k.a. “short snorter” – once belonging to one the PBY officers involved in the rescues. It had been signed by 4 of the 7 rescued Hornet Wildcat pilots and noted the latitude/longitude of the pick-up points:

    “By midnight in the library, I had broken out some of the old mid-Pacific charts, reviewed the pertinent parts of Morison’s and Lord’s accounts of the battle, and plotted the latitude and longitude of the rescues reported on the short-snorter….the site was more than 150 miles (NB: north and east) away from the site of the ditchings recorded in the conventional histories.”

    Weisheit followed up with more primary research and interviews with Hornet vets – discovering, for instance, that Hornet‘s own radar had tracked Ring’s entire Air Group up to 70 or so miles out and on a vector of c. 268 degrees, i.e., almost due west, NOT SW down toward Midway as claimed by Mitscher and Ring post-battle. You can read about all his findings in:

    Bowen Weisheit, The Last Flight of Ensign C. Markland Kelly (privately published, Baltimore, 1992, 2nd ed. 1996)

    before encountering this book c. 2010, I also noticed a few oddities. For instance, one of the more active Court Historians (Clarke Reynolds, Saga of Smokey Stover, Charleston, 1978) published the diary of one of Hornet’s fighter pilots who flew combat air patrol over the carrier during the Midway battle….but all the entries from 4 June (date of the battle) thru 9 June have been scrubbed. One thinks they would have been of great interest, but they are missing.

    For another instance, Tom Moore, one of the few Midway-based Marine dive-bomber pilots who survived the battle, wrote in his book (The Sky is My Witness, NY, 1943, p. 71),

    “about 11 AM there’s another alert….few minutes later the all-clear sounds, and we emerge from our shelter to see a Navy dive-bomber squadron coming in to gas up.”

    WTF?? These can’t have been Enterprise planes, because those that survived the c. 10:30 attack on Akagi and Kaga flew directly back to their carrier. Ditto with Fletcher’s Yorktown pilots who, after trashing Soryu, flew right back to their carrier. So, either one of the Hornet dive-bomber squadrons was in 2 places at once…or the Official Version is a constructed Lie. Essentially – and I’m leaving out a lot of other confirming data points here – what happened was this:

    during the (pre-8 AM launch) officers’ conference on the bridge of Hornet, there was a violent argument between Mitscher, who insisted on the due west search and strike vector, and Ring + his squadron commanders – Waldron in particular – who felt it was too far north. Ring finally broke in Mitscher’s favor and that was that. About 16 minutes after launch, Waldron broke radio silence and the argument resumed, this time between Waldron and Ring. After a few choice words on both sides, Waldron broke off to the SE with the torpedo squadron while an enraged Ring with the escort fighters and 2 dive-bomber sqaudrons continued droning ever westward…in what is now called by most authors the “Flight to Nowhere”. Around 9 AM the shorter-legged fighters reached their Point of No Return; Ring refused to release them…and they too mutinied, turning back toward the carrier on a SE vector. Eventually, missing the rendezvous point just a few miles too far south, all ran out of fuel and fell into the sea. Ring and the dive-bombers then flew another 60 miles westward. Still no Jap carriers. At this point both dive-bomber squadron commanding officers, fearing Ring might fly all the way to Tokyo looking for Japs to attack (Alvin Kernan, Enterprise deck-hand and Midway vet, said in one of his 4 books on the battle that Ring was “yellow”, but this was not the problem) now completed the debacle. One squadron did a 180 and turned back toward the carrier rendezvous point. The other did a shallower turn and headed SSE down toward Midway, still looking for the Jap carriers….but were yet too far west to make contact. THIS was the squadron that Moore saw come into Midway running on fumes @ 11 AM. Ring? He flew on alone for awhile and then did his own 180 and headed back to Hornet. Along the way – suddenly discovering a need for speed – he put pedal to metal and managed to get back to the carrier several minutes before the first of his dive-bombers. Jumping out of his plane, he clambered up to the bridge and he and Mitscher went at it again, in an argument so loud it was heard down on the flight deck. Eventually they retired to Mitscher’s cabin and worked out a cover-up for both men, which then became the Official Version.

    for more, I’ve got a fragmentary essay on Midway on one of my sites which tracks the battle up through 10:30 AM…. @

    scroll down past the the Table of Contents to get to it.

  176. @Honesthughgrant

    Well, Team Russia still gets upset about some petty comment Patton made about a Soviet general 75 years ago, so…

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
  177. Mike P says:

    Thanks for your principled defence of historical truth, and also for reminding us of Rassinier. As you say, he barely survived those two camps and had his health ruined, but Rassinier still stood up for the truth – even taking public vilification at home in France into the bargain. He was a truly extraordinary human being.

    Several of his works can be found on – absolutely worth reading.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  178. @Haxo Angmark

    Great info that I or a great many here have never heard. Thanks for all your input into this thread. I have book marked the link and will spend a great deal of time there. Thanks again for your very knowledgeable contributions.

  179. Sparkon says:

    Again more lies about MacArthur.

    The narrative about “Dugout Doug” MacArthur — much as I gave it — appears in John Toland’s critically acclaimed WWII histories “But Not in Shame,” and “Infamy.”

    The issue is not so much about how most of his air force got caught on the ground, but rather how he lost the Philippines at all, abandoned his troops, fled to Australia, and then was rewarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his ineptitude and cowardice, but in your mind it’s all lies.

    FDR had decided on “Germany First” and had ZERO desire to aid the Philippines.


    If FDR had “ZERO desire to aid the Philippines,” please explain how MacArthur came to possess the largest contingent of B-17s of any army air force at the time, the largest fleet of USN submarines ever assembled, along with 107 P-40s, and that Marine regiment transferred from China

    That concentration of force in the Philippines is a long way from “ZERO.”

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  180. @Sparkon

    Just casual thinking. Maybe FDR & company wanted to keep these assets safe for further use and knew MacArthur, being the good order follower he was, would make sure that happened, no questions asked.

  181. @Haxo Angmark

    Wow, this really brings it home. Anyone who was not there can’t even imagine this…

    …at noon, raining, a thick gray rain. Boots and saddles for launching our float planes. Then un-boots and saddles. About 2 PM an alarm: planes sighted to starboard. So our planes go out to look at them…Midway-based PBY’s. The aviators come in, red-faced from the wind and wet, their yellow rubber jackets dripping and shiny. “I was always a delicate kid,”, says pilot Tom O’Connell. “they used to wonder if I’d ever grow up. Now I wonder if I’ll live to see my 22nd birthday.”…”when is it?” someone says….”Thursday”.

  182. @Haxo Angmark

    Thanks for this too, Haxo. You really are up on this material. However, I quibble with describing this as a “mutiny”, insofar as that tends to suggest a rejection of higher authority — as with the British Navy in, was it 1932? — thereabouts, anyways. Whereas this looks like a dispute between tactical commanders, not the same thing, at least as far as my sense of the word “mutiny” goes. In any case, thanks.

    I just had a look at Adm. Theobald’s Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, with introductions by Admirals Kimmel and Halsey (1954) which coincides closely with the account of Pearl Harbor presented with far more evidence and detail by Toland (1982) and Stinnett (2000). What’s perhaps most disturbing in all this is the elements in American society which persistently ignore and suppress these conclusive accounts of historical events and repeatedly — ever December 7th, in fact — trot out the same stale ludicrous lies. It wouldn’t be too much to say that these people represent the very worst in America and that their actions amount to poisoning of our country’s heritage.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  183. @J. Alfred Powell

    I see Ring as a sort of flying Captain Bligh….just not nearly as competent. He was a Wall Street blueblood who could have had himself a nice safe deskjob in DC, but chose instead to lead rough-cut naval aviators in desperate battle against the Japanese but was not up to it. And, like Bligh, a martinet…only one member of the Hornet dive-bomber squadrons got along with him: Clay Fisher who, to his dying day, supported Ring’s claim that they “really were” down by Midway instead of far to the north and west. As per the deal Ring and Mitscher cut, well, Mitscher recovered quickly from his embarrasment (Nimitz and Spruance knew exactly what happened with Hornet’s air-group, but kept a lid on it) and rose to high command by 1944; @ the Phillipine Sea battle he handled Spruance’s 15-carrier force quite capably…while Ring too was kicked upstairs and eventually received comand of a carrier. Postwar he made Admiral. Fletcher? After his 3rd victory over the Japs, @ the Eastern Solomons carrier battle in September ’42, King finally persuaded Nimitz to scupper him; Fletcher was rusticated off to command the Alaskan backwater theatre for the rest of the war. Then, post-war, smeared by King and Morison and endlessly dumped on by Morison’s followers. Incidentally, the 4th great carrier battle occured off Santa Cruz Island in late October and in this, the first one that Fletcher did not command, the Americans were thrashed by the Japanese: Hornet sunk, Enterprise severely damaged, no Jap losses at all. Probably not a coincidence.

  184. Mossad ran 9/11 Arab “hijacker” terrorist operation

    By Wayne Madsen

    British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad ran the Arab hijacker cells that were later blamed by the U.S. government’s 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. WMR has received details of the British intelligence report which was suppressed by the government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.


    A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian- and Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated “Al Qaeda” cells in Hamburg (the Atta-Mamoun Darkanzali cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the months before 9/11. The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to run them and give them specific orders that would eventually culminate in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston, Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.

    The Mossad infiltration team comprised six Israelis, comprising two cells of three agents, who all received special training at a Mossad base in the Negev Desert in their future control and handling of the “Al Qaeda” cells. One Mossad cell traveled to Amsterdam where they submitted to the operational control of the Mossad’s Europe Station, which operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport. The three-man Mossad unit then traveled to Hamburg where it made contact with Mohammed Atta, who believed they were sent by Osama Bin Laden. In fact, they were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of Mossad.

    The second three-man Mossad team flew to New York and then to southern Florida where they began to direct the “Al Qaeda” cells operating from Hollywood, Miami, Vero Beach, Delray Beach, and West Palm Beach. Israeli “art students,” already under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration for casing the offices and homes of federal law enforcement officers, had been living among and conducting surveillance of the activities, including flight school training, of the future Arab “hijacker” cells, particularly in Hollywood and Vero Beach.

    In August 2001, the first Mossad team flew with Atta and other Hamburg “Al Qaeda” members to Boston. Logan International Airport’s security was contracted to Huntleigh USA, a firm owned by an Israeli airport security firm closely connected to Mossad — International Consultants on Targeted Security – ICTS. ICTS’s owners were politically connected to the Likud Party, particularly the Netanyahu faction and then-Jerusalem mayor and future Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was Olmert who personally interceded with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to have released from prison five Urban Moving Systems employees, identified by the CIA and FBI agents as Mossad agents. The Israelis were the only suspects arrested anywhere in the United States on 9/11 who were thought to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

    The two Mossad teams sent regular coded reports on the progress of the 9/11 operation to Tel Aviv via the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. WMR has learned from a Pentagon source that leading Americans tied to the media effort to pin 9/11 on Arab hijackers, Osama Bin Laden, and the Taliban were present in the Israeli embassy on September 10, 2001, to coordinate their media blitz for the subsequent days and weeks following the attacks. It is more than likely that FBI counter-intelligence agents who conduct surveillance of the Israeli embassy have proof on the presence of the Americans present at the embassy on September 10. Some of the Americans are well-known to U.S. cable news television audiences.

    In mid-August, the Mossad team running the Hamburg cell in Boston reported to Tel Aviv that the final plans for 9/11 were set. The Florida-based Mossad cell reported that the documented “presence” of the Arab cell members at Florida flight schools had been established.

    The two Mossad cells studiously avoided any mention of the World Trade Center or targets in Washington, DC in their coded messages to Tel Aviv. Halevy covered his tracks by reporting to the CIA of a “general threat” by an attack by Arab terrorists on a nuclear plant somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. CIA director George Tenet dismissed the Halevy warning as “too non-specific.” The FBI, under soon-to-be-departed director Louis Freeh, received the “non-specific” warning about an attack on a nuclear power plant and sent out the information in its routine bulletins to field agents but no high alert was ordered.

    The lack of a paper trail pointing to “Al Qaeda” as the masterminds on 9/11, which could then be linked to Al Qaeda’s Mossad handlers, threw off the FBI. On April 19, 2002, FBI director Robert Mueller, in a speech to San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club, stated: “In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper — either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere — that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot.”

    The two Mossad “Al Qaeda” infiltration and control teams had also helped set up safe houses for the quick exfiltration of Mossad agents from the United States. Last March, WMR reported: “WMR has learned from two El Al sources who worked for the Israeli airline at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport that on 9/11, hours after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded all civilian domestic and international incoming and outgoing flights to and from the United States, a full El Al Boeing 747 took off from JFK bound for Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport. The two El Al employee sources are not Israeli nationals but legal immigrants from Ecuador who were working in the United States for the airline. The flight departed JFK at 4:11 pm and its departure was, according to the El Al sources, authorized by the direct intervention of the U.S. Department of Defense. U.S. military officials were on the scene at JFK and were personally involved with the airport and air traffic control authorities to clear the flight for take-off. According to the 9/11 Commission report, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta ordered all civilian flights to be grounded at 9:45 am on September 11.” WMR has learned from British intelligence sources that the six-man Mossad team was listed on the El Al flight manifest as El Al employees.

    WMR previously reported that the Mossad cell operating in the Jersey City-Weehawken area of New Jersey through Urban Moving Systems was suspected by some in the FBI and CIA of being involved in moving explosives into the World Trade Center as well as staging “false flag” demonstrations at least two locations in north Jersey: Liberty State Park and an apartment complex in Jersey City as the first plane hit the World Trade Center’s North Tower. One team of Urban Moving Systems Mossad agents was arrested later on September 11 and jailed for five months at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Some of their names turned up in a joint CIA-FBI database as known Mossad agents, along with the owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominik Suter, whose name also appeared on a “Law Enforcement Sensitive” FBI 9/11 suspects list, along with the names of key “hijackers,” including Mohammed Atta and Hani Hanjour, as well as the so-called “20th hijacker,” Zacarias Moussaoui.

    Suter was allowed to escape the United States after the FBI made initial contact with him at the Urban Moving Systems warehouse in Weehawken, New Jersey, following the 9/11 attacks. Suter was later permitted to return to the United States where he was involved in the aircraft parts supply business in southern Florida, according to an informe3d source who contacted WMR. Suter later filed for bankruptcy in Florida for Urban Moving Systems and other businesses he operated: Suburban Moving & Storage Inc.; Max Movers, Inc.; Invsupport; Woodflooring Warehouse Corp.; One Stop Cleaning LLC; and City Carpet Upholstery, Inc. At the time of the bankruptcy filing in Florida, Suter listed his address as 1867 Fox Court, Wellington, FL 33414, with a phone number of 561 204-2359.

    From the list of creditors it can be determined that Suter had been operating in the United States since 1993, the year of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In 1993, Suter began racking up American Express credit card charges totaling \$21,913.97. Suter also maintained credit card accounts with HSBC Bank and Orchard Bank c/o HSBC Card Services of Salinas, California, among other banks. Suter also did business with the Jewish Community Center of Greater Palm Beach in Florida and Ryder Trucks in Miami. Miami and southern Florida were major operating areas for cells of Israeli Mossad agents masquerading as “art students,” who were living and working near some of the identified future Arab “hijackers” in the months preceding 9/11.

    ABC’s 20/20 correspondent John Miller ensured that the Israeli connection to “Al Qaeda’s” Arab hijackers was buried in an “investigation” of the movers’ activities on 9/11. Anchor Barbara Walters helped Miller in putting a lid on the story about the movers and Suter aired on June 21, 2002. Miller then went on to become the FBI public affairs spokesman to ensure that Mueller and other FBI officials kept to the “Al Qaeda” script as determined by the Bush administration and the future 9/11 Commission. But former CIA chief of counter-terrorism Vince Cannistraro let slip to ABC an important clue to the operations of the Mossad movers in New Jersey when he stated that the Mossad agents “set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area, particularly in the New Jersey-New York area.” The “intelligence operation” turned out to have been the actual 9/11 attacks. And it was no coincidence that it was ABC’s John Miller who conducted a May 1998 rare interview of Osama Bin Laden at his camp in Afghanistan. Bin Laden played his part well for future scenes in the fictional “made-for-TV” drama known as 9/11.

    WMR has also learned from Italian intelligence sources that Mossad’s running of “Al Qaeda” operatives did not end with running the “hijacking” teams in the United States and Hamburg. Other Arab “Al Qaeda” operatives, run by Mossad, were infiltrated into Syria but arrested by Syrian intelligence. Syria was unsuccessful in turning them to participate in intelligence operations in Lebanon. Detailed information on Bin Laden’s support team was offered to the Bush administration, up to days prior to 9/11, by Gutbi al-Mahdi, the head of the Sudanese Mukhabarat intelligence service. The intelligence was rejected by the Biush White House. It was later reported that Sudanese members of “Al Qaeda’s” support network were double agents for Mossad who had also established close contacts with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and operated in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Eritrea, as well as Sudan. The Mossad connection to Al Qaeda in Sudan was likely known by the Sudanese Mukhabarat, a reason for the rejection of its intelligence on “Al Qaeda” by the thoroughly-Mossad penetrated Bush White House. Yemen had also identified “Al Qaeda” members who were also Mossad agents. A former chief of Mossad revealed to this editor in 2002 that Yemeni-born Mossad “deep insertion” commandos spotted Bin Laden in the Hadhramaut region of eastern Yemen after his escape from Tora Bora in Afghanistan, following the U.S. invasion.

    French intelligence determined that other Egyptian- and Yemeni-born Jewish Mossad agents were infiltrated into Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates as radical members of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the “Muslim Brotherhood” agents actually were involved in providing covert Israeli funding for “Al Qaeda” activities. On February 21, 2006, WMR reported on the U.S. Treasury Secretary’s firing by President Bush over information discovered on the shady “Al Qaeda” accounts in the United Arab Emirates: “Banking insiders in Dubai report that in March 2002, U.S. Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill visited Dubai and asked for documents on a \$109,500 money transfer from Dubai to a joint account held by hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi at Sun Trust Bank in Florida. O’Neill also asked UAE authorities to close down accounts used by Al Qaeda . . . . The UAE complained about O’Neill’s demands to the Bush administration. O’Neill’s pressure on the UAE and Saudis contributed to Bush firing him as Treasury Secretary in December 2002 ” O’Neill may have also stumbled on the “Muslim Brotherhood” Mossad operatives operating in the emirates who were directing funds to “Al Qaeda.”

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Sharjah’s ruler, Sultan bin Mohammed al-Qasimi, who survived a palace coup attempt in 1987, opened his potentate to Russian businessmen like Viktor Bout, as well as to financiers of radical Muslim groups, including the Taliban and “Al Qaeda.”

    Moreover, this Israeli support for “Al Qaeda” was fully known to Saudi intelligence, which approved of it in order to avoid compromising Riyadh. The joint Israeli-Saudi support for “Al Qaeda” was well-known to the Sharjah and Ras al Khaimah-based aviation network of the now-imprisoned Russian, Viktor Bout, jailed in New York on terrorism charges. The presence of Bout in New York, a hotbed of Israeli intelligence control of U.S. federal prosecutors, judges, as well as the news media, is no accident: Bout knows enough about the Mossad activities in Sharjah in support of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where Bout also had aviation and logistics contracts, to expose Mossad as the actual mastermind behind 9/11. Bout’s aviation empire also extended to Miami and Dallas, two areas that were nexuses for the Mossad control operations for the “Al Qaeda” flight training operations of the Arab cell members in the months prior to 9/11.

    Bout’s path also crossed with “Al Qaeda’s” support network at the same bank in Sharjah, HSBC. Mossad’s phony Muslim Brotherhood members from Egypt and Yemen controlled financing for “Al Qaeda” through the HSBC accounts in Sharjah. Mossad’s Dominik Suter also dealt with HSBC in the United States. The FBI’s chief counter-terrorism agent investigating Al Qaeda, John O’Neill, became aware of the “unique” funding mechanisms for Al Qaeda. It was no mistake that O’Neill was given the job as director of security for the World Trade Center on the eve of the attack. O’Neill perished in the collapse of the complex.Mossad uses a number of Jews born in Arab countries to masquerade as Arabs. They often carry forged or stolen passports from Arab countries or nations in Europe that have large Arab immigrant populations, particularly Germany, France, Britain, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

    For Mossad, the successful 9/11 terrorist “false flag” operation was a success beyond expectations. The Bush administration, backed by the Blair government, attacked and occupied Iraq, deposing Saddam Hussein, and turned up pressure on Israel’s other adversaries, including Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Hamas, and Lebanese Hezbollah. The Israelis also saw the U.S., Britain, and the UN begin to crack down on the Lebanese Shi’a diamond business in Democratic Republic of Congo and West Africa, and with it, the logistics support provided by Bout’s aviation companies, which resulted in a free hand for Tel Aviv to move in on Lebanese diamond deals in central and west Africa.

    Then-Israeli Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu commented on the 9/11 attacks on U.S. television shortly after they occurred. Netanyahu said: “It is very good!” It now appears that Netanyahu, in his zeal, blew Mossad’s cover as the masterminds of 9/11.

    Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for several renowned papers and blogs.

    Madsen is a regular contributor on Russia Today. He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and MS-NBC. Madsen has taken on Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity on their television shows. He has been invited to testifty as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government.

    As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation.

    Madsen is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO), and the National Press Club. He is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
  185. @TruthJihad

    The Mossad ran the attack on 911 jointly with the CIA and traitors in the ZUS gov.

    • Replies: @lysias
  186. lysias says:
    @Desert Fox

    The late former President of Italy Francesco Cossiga said in 2007 that all of the democratic circles of America and Europe were well aware that 9/11 was planned and carried out by the CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world.

    • Agree: Desert Fox
  187. @Bankotsu

    So stunned and shocked that these inferior yellow asiatics would dare and even succeed in mounting an attack on the racially superior white man’s military forces,

    Let me see if I understand. In your mind, the reason the Japanese had a military success wasn’t due to their worthiness as foes, it was because the Americans were racist? Typical of your ilk.

  188. TJM says:

    Mr. Tarpley makes the usual war argument, “We must fight them over there, before we have to fight them over here.” Well I call bullshit on that argument. Tarpley even brings up General Smedley Butler, who was a hero. Read his book “War is a Racket”. Gen. Butler felt that Hawaii could not be defended and all US Naval assets should be used to protect the coastline of North America. Use the oceans as our defense. As MacArthur said, Don’t fight land wars in Asia. Hell, the USA stole Hawaii from Hawaiians in the first place.
    And another thing, Tarpley states that without Lend Lease the Soviets would have been defeated. Bullshit! The Nazis never had a chance against the USSR. Truman said, “Let the Nazis and Soviets kill each other. Who gives a damn?” I agree with Truman.
    Tarpley obfuscates who he really is; a warmonger. I doubt if Tarpley or his kin fought and died in WWII. Mine did. I had a great uncle who was in the Bataan Death March and spent the war in a POW camp. My great uncle was FDR war bait for Japan.
    Screw FDR and screw Tarpley.

  189. Incitatus says:


    Bodily emissions. Like mighty BM. Glad you didn’t post ‘fart’ L.K.

    Not that it would make a difference.

    “Like the good Zionist POS you are, you are fond of divide and conquer little games…”

    Really? Lay it on. Your default response labels “Zionist POS” to any who disagree. No matter evidence of Jews or Israel. It’s all you’ve got. You obviously hate both. That’s fine (not either). Hint: you’re either misguided, a troll or a moron. Take your pick.

    Doesn’t matter to me. Not Jewish or a ‘Zionist’. Sorry.

    “That’s fine, but you seem to forget I’m half Italian and half German… and I’m proud of both.”

    Didn’t forget. I’m proud of both (52 generations). Doesn’t mean I’m blind to 20C leadership criminality and your teenage blindness.

    700,000+ Italians were interned as forced (slave) labor denied Geneva Conventions in Germany after 8 Sep 1943. Tens of thousands didn’t return. Think about it L.K.

    Meanwhile, spread your legs for ant-farmer Ron Unz? Good luck!

  190. CBTerry says:

    Webster Tarpley says: “In my view, you can trace the secret government back to 1885. It’s the Morgan faction inside the US government. It is alive and well during World War II. Roosevelt does not control these people . . . . The other people I think you can regard as conspirators against Roosevelt, in addition to Col. Stimson, are George Marshall, always Wall Street’s favorite general.”

    Tarpley implies that Wall Street was opposed to Roosevelt. But as Antony Sutton shows in Wall Street and FDR, Roosevelt was a Wall Streeter “par excellence. Most who work on “The Street” never achieve, and probably never even dream about achieving, a record of 11 corporate directorships, two law partnerships, and the presidency of a major trade association.” (2013 Edition, p 18).

  191. Anonymous[196] • Disclaimer says:

    This theory, published just before the Korean War, became popular because it provided a simple explanation for the inability of U.S. forces to win that war.

  192. Anonymous[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    The most interesting part of this story is how it was all successfully covered up for decades even though every senior officer in the Navy must have known about it.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
    , @dimples
  193. @Anonymous

    yes, Nimitz and Spruance certainly did, and kept the lid on pretty well; while Mitscher and Ring were both put on ice for awhile…then kicked upstairs. And few, then or since, have been willing to put any tarnish on “the glorious victory of the 4th of June”.

    ditto re Pearl Harbor; when I exchanged some e-mails with John Lundstrom concerning the timing of Stark’s first message to Kimmel ordering use of the 2 carriers to transport planes to Wake and Midway – turned out to be early evening 26 November DC time, about 12 hours after the AM 26 November RT conversation between FDR/Churchill about the coming attack – he advised me to “stay away from Pearl Harbor as a thesis topic…it’s not healthy.”

  194. dimples says:

    Try reading Admiral Robert A. Theobald’s The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor: The Washington Contribution to the Japanese Attack (1954). Even if every Navy senior officer believed that the Pearl Harbor attack was the result of a conspiracy, and many surely did, there was not a lot they could do about it without endangering careers, pensions etc. Better to shut up than suffer the same fate as Kimmel and Short.

  195. Anonymous[142] • Disclaimer says:

    Mitscher made a judgement call which turned out to be wrong. It happens even to the best commander. Halsey made a similar blunder a couple of years later, but whereas he had to endure a humiliating public reprimand for his mistake, Mitscher escaped without censure for his.

  196. Cking says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    There are many layers as to the righteous causes, motivations and final operations for war, but the most strategic is International Finance’ imperative for gain and profit through providing industrial capital, manufactures, war materiel, and financing war, cannot be ignored. Professor Tarpley gives us details, good facts, and reasoning justifying what would become ‘The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine’ yet there are a few suspicious items and issues not covered. Who benefited? In both Wars, the United States benefited. First off, the Federal Reserve Bank made both WWI and WWII possible. In Europe, How could 1939 Poland not see the Red Army massing on its’ border? And all the West’s ‘do-gooder’ nations only saw the German menace? And that the Communist nations of Russia and China, secretly collaborating with Supremos of the City of London and Wall St., as investment/profit centers, were allowed to prevail creating the Cold War. China paid off her war debt through the Opium Trade, a distinctly Sino-British firm, that eventually took in the Americans. The Communist Russian and Chinese government policies for murdering their own in war and ‘peace time’ are not mentioned here. So who and what did we protect? Again, the Fed’s organization of America’s economy, wealth, money, and credit to wage war is in oblivion in all this discussion.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism