Dec 7: A day that will live in infamy

[Annie]

You've got a very good point. Perhaps we should have a trade war. But some might get mad since they're the most favored nation. Lol.

Which may speak volumes of what it takes to get on our shit list.

 

[eots]

Wow. It's ok to theorize that we allowed Pearl Harbor so we could justify going to war, but not 9/11? What's the difference? They both sure do SEEM to be equally as convenient for the powers that be.

Why should there be a double standard?

TAKE THE RED PILL !


A history of false flag terror

informationliberation - Terror StormTerrorStorm reveals how, in the last hundred years, Western leaders have repeatedly murdered their own citizens while posing as their saviors. ...
www.informationliberation.com/?id=12638 - 53k -

 

[Gunny]

Wow. It's ok to theorize that we allowed Pearl Harbor so we could justify going to war, but not 9/11? What's the difference? They both sure do SEEM to be equally as convenient for the powers that be.

Why should there be a double standard?

I would think the differences are obvious. Not everyone buys the argument that Roosevelt purposefully goaded Japan into war. The argument can be made however that US sanctions left Japan no choice. Of course, Japan DID have the option to back off.

In the case of 9/11, the cast of thousands that would have been required to pull off such a conspiracy makes it virtually impossible. This is the US. If two people know, one is going to sell out.

The difference being the 1930's - 40's were during the age of radio-based information and 9/11 occurring during the age of information.

 

[Gunny]

TAKE THE RED PILL !


A history of false flag terror

informationliberation - Terror StormTerrorStorm reveals how, in the last hundred years, Western leaders have repeatedly murdered their own citizens while posing as their saviors. ...
www.informationliberation.com/?id=12638 - 53k -

You need more than the red pill, dude. Too much tv for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would think the differences are obvious. Not everyone buys the argument that Roosevelt purposefully goaded Japan into war. The argument can be made however that US sanctions left Japan no choice. Of course, Japan DID have the option to back off.

And there is always that problem that prior to the breakdown in diplomacy between the USA and an increasingly imperialistic Japan, Japan was receiving approximately 80% of the oil it needed from the USA. Nevertheless, Japan was able to fight a quite credible war for four years from Pearl Harbor to surrender in 1945. And that seems to beg the question of our making Japan so desperate for oil that they were forced to attack.

 

[pegwinn]

Wow. It's ok to theorize that we allowed Pearl Harbor so we could justify going to war, but not 9/11? What's the difference? They both sure do SEEM to be equally as convenient for the powers that be.

Why should there be a double standard?

It's not that we allowed PH. The CTheory is that FDR deliberatly manipulated events to force Japan to act aggressivily. And there is a difference in the manner of it all.

Trying to say that we "provoked" 911 is certainly plausible. Trying to say we actually set it up as a specific event ....... well, disbelief stretches only so far.

 

[jillian]

It's not that we allowed PH. The CTheory is that FDR deliberatly manipulated events to force Japan to act aggressivily. And there is a difference in the manner of it all.

Trying to say that we "provoked" 911 is certainly plausible. Trying to say we actually set it up as a specific event ....... well, disbelief stretches only so far.

An interesting interview on the topic with historian, Larry Suid. He opines that Roosevelt didn't need the attack to get into WWII and all he'd have needed was to say that there was an attack coming.

http://www.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/2001/05/25/suid/

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

If we are to believe John Toland’s Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath, Robert Stinnett’s Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, Thomas J. Fleming’s The New Dealer’s War: FDR and the War Within World War II, and other such books, FDR, while promising to keep us out of the war, was doing everything he could to provoke either the Germans or the Japanese into attacking us so that he could get us in it, and he either knew that the Japanese were going to hit Pearl Harbor or that they would be hitting us somewhere about the time of that attack. But if we are to believe Duane Schultz’s The Maverick War, the moral clarity of our entry into WWII is undermined even more. In "October 1940, more than a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor," Claire Chennault, who would go on to organize and lead the famous mercenary fighter group, the Flying Tigers, in China, proposed a preemptive strike against Japan "to burn out the industrial centers of the Japanese empire using incendiaries and create terror and chaos among the populace." This would be

a covert operation against a country with which we had peaceful diplomatic relations. The bombing missions were to be carried out by American mercenaries, men released from the army and navy and paid by the United States government through a private corporation. They were to fly American planes painted with Chinese insignia. What made the plan all the more bizarre was that the highest officials in the government, including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, approved of it. On July 23, 1941, some five months before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt formally authorized the strikes. They were to begin the following November."

In December 1940, General George C. Marshall had managed to talk the administration out of this sneak attack on Japan on the grounds that the United States didn’t have the planes or crews to spare, and for fear that it "would provoke a Japanese counterattack on the United States at a time when we were woefully unprepared to go to war." But the plan was resurrected in the spring of 1941, and the raids would have been carried out in November of that year had not production and shipping bottlenecks delayed the arrival of Chennault’s bombers. On November 22, FDR’s special envoy to China informed him that he hoped that the bombers (twin-engine Lockheed Hudsons rather than the four-engine Boeing B-17s that Chennault had wanted) and their flight and ground crews would reach that country by the end of 1941, and 49 ground crewmen were at sea on their way there on December 7.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/tonso6.html

From Gary North, who has a PhD in history:

Consider the conservatives’ account of Roosevelt’s advance warning of the Japanese attack in late 1941. When George Morgenstern wrote Pearl Harbor: The Story of a Secret War, only right-wing Devin-Adair would publish it (1947). The book was ridiculed by academic historians as being a pack of unsubstantiated opinions written by a mere journalist – and a Chicago Tribune journalist at that. When the premier liberal historian, Charles A. Beard, said much the same thing the next year in President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (Yale University Press), he was dismissed by his colleagues as senile, and he permanently lost his reputation. When the premier American diplomatic historian, Charles C. Tansill, said it again in 1952 in his Back Door to War (Regnery), he, too, was shoved down the liberals’ memory hole.

...

What happened to Beard sent a warning to any aspiring young grad student who might have been tempted to follow in Beard’s revisionist path. Beard was at the end of a long and distinguished career. He was the only scholar ever to be elected as president of both the American Historical Association and the American Political Science Association. But his academic achievements gained him no mercy when he broke ranks on Pearl Harbor. James J. Martin, the premier revisionist historian after Harry Elmer Barnes died in 1968, in 1981 provided an account of what happened.

Beard not only infuriated the influential supporters of Roosevelt by his insistence that the continuous deception by the President in making his steady moves toward war while endlessly talking about his peacefulness (few were allowed to forget his pre-election promise in 1940 never to send Americans off to a war outside U.S. borders) was in essentials, as Leighton described it, "completely to undermine constitutional government and set the stage for a Caesar" (Beard’s famed peroration on pp. 582-584 of his Epilogue to President Roosevelt is required reading in this context.) He had opened up another sore while writing his book with a famed article in the Saturday Evening Post for October 4, 1947, "Who’s to Write the History of the War?," in which he revealed that the Rockefeller Foundation, working with its alter ego, the Council on Foreign Relations, had provided $139,000 for the latter to spend in underwriting an official-line history of how the war had come about, in an effort to defeat at the start the same kind of "debunking" historical campaign which had immediately followed the end of World War I. Beard complained of inaccessibility of various documents, which he was sure would be fully available to anyone doing an Establishment version of the wartime past, convinced that these would be sat on as ‘classified’ for a generation or more. . . .

The final product of the Council on Foreign Relations’ investment of $139,000 in 1946 – a lot of money in 1946 – was the standard Establishment history of the coming of the war, written by William L. Langer and S. Everett Gleason, The Challenge to Isolation: The World Crisis of 1937-1940 and American Foreign Policy (1952). It was still the standard account two decades later. Its perspective remains dominant on campus today. Langer was a professor of history at Harvard. So was Gleason – medieval history – until he moved to Washington after Pearl Harbor, to join the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor of the CIA. He later became the official historian of the State Department. Establishment enough for you? (The other standard book was Herbert Feis’s Road to Pearl Harbor (1950). He had served as the State Department’s Advisor for International Economic Affairs.) Yes, the victors always write the history books, but when the historians are actually policy-setting participants in the war, the words "court history" take on new meaning.

I read Admiral Kimmel’s Story (Regnery, 1955) in 1958. That same year, I read anti-Roosevelt journalist John T. Flynn’s The Roosevelt Myth (Devin-Adair, 1948). At age 16, I became a World War II revisionist.

In 1963, I had a conversation with Thomas Thalken, who later became the librarian of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library. We were then both employed by a short-lived think tank, the Center for American Studies. He was its librarian. I was a summer intern, fresh out of college. He had earned a master’s degree in history under Tansill a decade earlier. He told me that Tansill had advised him not to earn a Ph.D. in history. Tansill had said that anyone who taught the truth about America’s entry into World War II would see his career end before it even began. Thalken took his advice.

This is why there are no tenured World War II revisionists who write in this still-taboo and well-policed field. The guild screened them out, beginning in the early 1950’s. Beard and Tansill by 1960 were remembered only for their non-WWII revisionist writings. Barnes was forgotten. Martin – in my view, the most accomplished American revisionist historian – never became known on campus. Anthony Kubek spent his career on the academic fringes. What the guild did to Barnes, Beard, Tansill at the end of their careers, and to Martin at the beginning of his, posted a warning sign: Dead End.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north26.html

 

[Annie]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/tonso6.html

From Gary North, who has a PhD in history:



http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north26.html

Who is Gary North? I see NO mention of him at the above site.

What I do see is an article published by written by William R. Tonso [send him mail] a retired sociology professor (University of Evansville) who has written a lot on the gun issue, both sociological and pro-Second Amendment. His recent book, Gun Control=People Control, is a collection of eleven of his essays previously published in Liberty, Reason, Chronicles, and Gun Week.

The first 5 paragraphs are 'memories and impressions' of the young sociologist in training. The next throws 4 revisionist titles up, with a graph excerpt from one:

But if we are to believe Duane Schultz’s The Maverick War, the moral clarity of our entry into WWII is undermined even more. In "October 1940, more than a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor," Claire Chennault, who would go on to organize and lead the famous mercenary fighter group, the Flying Tigers, in China, proposed a preemptive strike against Japan "to burn out the industrial centers of the Japanese empire using incendiaries and create terror and chaos among the populace." This would be

a covert operation against a country with which we had peaceful diplomatic relations. The bombing missions were to be carried out by American mercenaries, men released from the army and navy and paid by the United States government through a private corporation. They were to fly American planes painted with Chinese insignia. What made the plan all the more bizarre was that the highest officials in the government, including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, approved of it. On July 23, 1941, some five months before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt formally authorized the strikes. They were to begin the following November."

​

Now when reading something like the above and generalizing from such, it's highly recommended to get some idea of who it is telling you these stories, so in this case, go to Amazon and check out what background we can find, low and behold:

From Publishers Weekly
The Flying Tigers was a sort of airborne flying foreign legion, credited with saving China from Japanese conquest early in World War II. This highly readable book traces its creation by Claire Chennault, a fiercely independent retired soldier appointed air adviser by Chiang Kai-shek, and its awesome accomplishments with a handful of rowdily aggressive pilots. The air battles are memorably described, but the surprise is Schultz's revelation of Chennault's battles with superiors and his often tenuous authority over his pilots (who were all civilians). Although something of a national idol in America during the war, Chennault was considered a troublemaker and nuisance by such generals as Joseph Stilwell, commander of Chinese nationalist forces, Henry Arnold, army air corps chief, and George Marshall, army chief of staff. One's sympathy is directed inevitably toward Chennault, who performed wonders at the end of a long and miserly supply line, his pilots consistently outfighting an enemy force that was grossly superior in numbers. Schultz is the author of The Last Battle Station: The Story of the USS Houston. Photos. (July
Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

The next paragraph says Marshall managed to talk the administration out of the sneak attack, for Britain needed the planes. Uh huh, right. A mercenary pilot was holding sway over the administration, while fighting to keep the pilots under his command following orders while doing runs to China, while Japan was not yet at war with the US, thus not diverted from the land they were trying desperately to gain control of.

This is followed, (mercifully) by the conclusion:

When I was a kid, "Remember Pearl Harbor" was a righteous battle cry for me as well as, I suspect, most Americans. America the good and innocent, I and others believed, and most Americans who remember Pearl Harbor probably still believe, had been sneak attacked by the dastardly Japanese and forced to become involved in WWII. But there is good reason to believe that the sainted FDR and much of our leadership of the time were neither good nor innocent. I in no way want to come across as being sympathetic toward the brutal Japanese military of WWII, or as excusing their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. But not only did FDR and his bunch provoke the Japanese into attacking us, and not only is there good reason to believe that he allowed that sneak attack to occur in order to get us into the war, but he actually was preparing to launch his own sneak attack on Japan. And while the Japanese concentrated on military targets at Pearl Harbor, their objective being to cripple our Pacific fleet, our preemptive sneak attack on Japan was to be carried out under the flag of another nation, and was to be aimed at burning out cities in order to cripple that country’s industry and to terrorize its civilian populace. Day of infamy, indeed!

Wow, impressive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow. It's ok to theorize that we allowed Pearl Harbor so we could justify going to war, but not 9/11? What's the difference? They both sure do SEEM to be equally as convenient for the powers that be.

Why should there be a double standard?

Both are ludicrous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

FDR knew War was inevitable. He was limited in his options. But he steadily worked to prepare us for the coming conflict. And he did violate his campaign promise to never send Americans to war outside the US.

He authorized the Navy to protect British shipping across over half the Atlantic in 1941. He sent the Marines to Iceland to free British Troops for War duty. All these things though, I think were the CORRECT path to take. Further he was openly supplying Britian with arms munitions and other war supplies and he made a deal to transfer 50 old Destroyers to Britain for basing rights in the Carribean.

As to Japan. Claiming that because we would not provide them with oil and metal to continue a war we disagreed with provoked and justified a war against us is ludicrous. Claiming FDR only took said action to FORCE Japan to attack is is also ludicrous.

Japan did not want to fight us at all. But we held the Philippines and they assumed ( rightly I am sure) that their plans to take the Southern Resource area would provoke a military response from us. That would be all the Islands and Malaysia above Australia.

Their options were limited. To carry out the planned war against Britain and the Netherlands they had to worry what the US would do, our fleet was as big as theirs. ( well except in carriers)

Conventional thought was that Japan would strike at the Philippines and Marianas and we would sortie from our bases to relieve and protect our interests. ( war plan Orange I believe it was called, maybe RED).

To better respond to this potential threat the Navy moved the Battleships and the main Pacific fleet from the West Coast to Hawaii. No one honestly thought Japan could threaten the Hawaiian bases. Remember carrier wars were still controversial and had few supporters in the US. Further the eventual strike the Japanese did launch was a HUGE risk.

The preceived threat to Hawaii was submarines. The Navy believed that in event of war they would sortie , fight through a sub line and then engage the main Japanese fleet battleship on near the Philippines. We would break through and lift the threat to PI and then use PI as a base of operations against the Japanese in the Southern Resource Area.

We knew war was close against Japan, they were preparing for something and we knew it. But no one thought Pearl was in danger. As for provoking them, FDR made numerous offers to Japan before the attack on Pearl harbor. Japan had no intention of ending, scaling back or relaxing their war on China and every intention to seize the SRA. We had no intention of selling them the materials to continue a war we disagreed with in China and elsewhere.

 

[Gunny]

And there is always that problem that prior to the breakdown in diplomacy between the USA and an increasingly imperialistic Japan, Japan was receiving approximately 80% of the oil it needed from the USA. Nevertheless, Japan was able to fight a quite credible war for four years from Pearl Harbor to surrender in 1945. And that seems to beg the question of our making Japan so desperate for oil that they were forced to attack.

Sorry, but I don't see it. If Japan was so desperate for oil, how does attacking the US provide it with oil?

 

[Gunny]

An interesting interview on the topic with historian, Larry Suid. He opines that Roosevelt didn't need the attack to get into WWII and all he'd have needed was to say that there was an attack coming.

http://www.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/2001/05/25/suid/

How'd that work for Bush?

There was a very strong isolationist element in the US at the time. No way would Roosevelt have been able to galvanize this entire Nation as he did without the US being attacked first.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

An interesting interview on the topic with historian, Larry Suid. He opines that Roosevelt didn't need the attack to get into WWII and all he'd have needed was to say that there was an attack coming.

http://www.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/2001/05/25/suid/

How so? We were in isolation mode and coming out of the depression.

 

[Paulie]

Both are ludicrous.

Try and go with words that sound even stronger than ludicrous does. 'Ludicrous' isn't swaying enough beliefs these days. How about 'preposterous'? That seems stronger to me.

 

[Paulie]

How'd that work for Bush?

There was a very strong isolationist element in the US at the time. No way would Roosevelt have been able to galvanize this entire Nation as he did without the US being attacked first.

Why does isolationism have to be synonymous with non-interventionism? I mean, how could non-interventionism be bad? It was Bush's 2000 campaign foreign policy!

 

[Annie]

Why does isolationism have to be synonymous with non-interventionism? I mean, how could non-interventionism be bad? It was Bush's 2000 campaign foreign policy!

Agreed and he bought it seriously, just as much as you do today. The writing was on the wall where the US was going and it was nation building. 9/11 happened and that changed everything, but you are living proof that it escaped some. Now there are those that disagreed regarding Iraq from the beginning, that doesn't change the WOT, just a disagreement of where it should be fought.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Who is Gary North? I see NO mention of him at the above site.

It's the second link, not the first. He writes 1-2 columns a week for Lew Rockwell.

The next paragraph says Marshall managed to talk the administration out of the sneak attack, for Britain needed the planes. Uh huh, right. A mercenary pilot was holding sway over the administration, while fighting to keep the pilots under his command following orders while doing runs to China, while Japan was not yet at war with the US, thus not diverted from the land they were trying desperately to gain control of.

Claire Chennault was the mercenary pilot funded by the US.

Marshall was the general who talked FDR out of it, temporarily. Not Chennault.

 

[Annie]

It's the second link, not the first. He writes 1-2 columns a week for Lew Rockwell.



Claire Chennault was the mercenary pilot funded by the US.

Marshall was the general who talked FDR out of it, temporarily. Not Chennault.

I understand both points, US also pays Lockheed to build planes and Blackwater to service Iraq, neither company formulates policy in anyway. Now granted they make boatloads of $$, such is the nature of war, even back in WWII before it was declared. This is actually the first thing I've run against that puts a poor light on the Flying Tigers.

In the case of Chennault and Marshall the article implies Chennault's idea was being considered and Marshall talked him out of it. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Sorry, but I don't see it. If Japan was so desperate for oil, how does attacking the US provide it with oil?

Just going on memory here, but I think their plan was to grab the Phillipines and it's oil supplies, and then checkmate the US into a position where we were forced to sell them resources. IIRC, the hope was that a sneak attack could smash our navy quickly before we had time to rebuild. One of the Japanese admirals (Yamamoto?) said that it would have to be successful within 6-12 months, and if they did not succeed, the tide would turn and they would be doomed. He was right.