It must be tempting for the puppet in the White House to opt for war in eastern Europe rather than admit that his war on Covid and his Build Back Better plans are rubbish. All politicians look to “save face” when big mistakes are made. Any attempt to support Ukraine’s stupid-ness (something the US democrats were highly involved with when Obama was leading things in 2014) would easily shift to an all out war involving Russia.
For the geographically challenged, NATO’s promise in the early 1990s has be repeatedly broken to the point where NATO is not on Russia’s doorstep.
Moon of Alabama has an article out that outlines the latest lie around Russian build-up on Ukraine’s borders.
There is fear in Russia that the U.S. is egging the Ukraine into a renewed active conflict with its renegade eastern Donbass region and thereby into a war with Russia.
…
The Biden administrations war mongering towards Russia may be seen to be free of cost. But it takes only one miscalculation in Kiev or some unforeseen incident in the Black Sea region and the situation could seriously escalate.
Moscow’s narrative is that the Western powers are deliberately fueling Ukraine’s revanchist instincts by arming it and encouraging President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is fighting for political survival, to believe that with Western support, a window of opportunity is opening to recapture the lost territories in Donbas and Crimea and thereby redeem his pledge to be his country’s savior.And second, as Moscow sees it, the rising tensions with Russia have become a convenient alibi to involve NATO directly in Ukraine’s security and make it a template of the West’s containment strategy against Russia.
It does seem similar to Bush II wanting to complete what Bush I did in Iraq, is being repeated now with Obama II (Biden) wanting to complete what Obama I did in the Ukraine in 2014.
Russia has stated that it would intervene in the Ukraine should Kiev decided to invade Donbass. It would be the end of the Ukraine Moscow has said. (Russia would likely end up with taking the majority Russian east and south of the Ukraine. The rest would end up as a landlocked agricultural Nazi infested enclave.)
The Kremlin has also multiple times complained about the ever increasing amount of NATO activities near its border. A U.S. study confirms those activities:
There were some 2,900 incidents between NATO and Russian forces between 2013 and 2020. The three-year moving average increased by more than 60 percent over this eight-year timespan.
Of course, NATO will accuse Russia of doing what they are in fact doing, that is what politicians do, time and again, which is why they always fail and war is always one stupid mistake away from reality.
Moon of Alabama outlines the lie below:
The U.S. for its part has claimed that Russia is assembling more troops at its borders with the Ukraine. The claim is false. The Ukrainian defense intelligence chief recently provided a map with a table which shows that Russia has current only 40 Battalion Tactical Groups (ATG) at the ready while during the last ‘Russia invades’ scare in April it had 53 BTGs ready to go. How 25% less troops at the ready are supposed to a new danger is not clear to me.
There is hope that Biden (Obama) will come to his senses and save face by choosing this off-ramp …
The Saker detects signs of secret negotiations between Washington and Moscow that may be at the core of the announced Putin-Biden summit:
Since a Presidential summit is only organized once both sides have already come to a general agreement, at least in principle, on at least some issues, if Putin and Biden do meet, that means that both sides have worked out at least the outlines of some kind important deal (not just empty statements, as was the case the first time around, at least officially).
In his recent speech Putin said “it is imperative to push for serious long-term guarantees that ensure Russia’s security in this area, because Russia cannot constantly be thinking about what could happen there tomorrow“. If Biden is willing to not only give guarantees (the Russians, understandably, have *zero* trust in western promises, written or oral) but also to actually take actions, probably mutual, coordinated and verifiable actions by both sides, then a war in Europe could be avoided, rather easily in fact.
Will Biden undo the total mess created by Obama and Trump and their Neocon handlers?
Maybe.
This is all blow-back of typical US intervention in places where it puts the American Empire’s nose .. seems that you can’t fix stupid.
The journey of thirteen British colonies pushing out the British Empire towards becoming the American Empire is an interesting one. No one wants to be a target .. especially when the shooter is a global empire whether Roman, British or American.
The shift from federated republic to a centralized state with dreams of empire started early on even as the American Revolution drew to a close. Powerful people with their own version of empire on their mind would eventually get there way with the US Constitution coup d’etat in 1787 to Lincoln’s War on Southern Independence as well as the total war on Southerners and Indians to the blame placed on Spain for the USS Maine in Havana, Cuba harbor through Woodrow Wilson and beyond. As they say, the rest is history.
As with all trends that impact nations and people groups, this all gets real messy real fast and stays that way. This is seen in the Bible as well as throughout most of history that evil forces seem to get the upper hand time and again as there is no real long term peace from this world’s experiences.
Specific to the US’s trajectory toward becoming a brutal empire was the bent for power and control, first of the land to the west of the thirteen colonies and eventually around the world especially after WWII.
Tracking the heart of American thought starting in the early 1800s it is apparent that a movement of Christian religious thought left the foundation that Jesus Himself emphasized during His lifetime. Bionic Mosquito rightly pinpoints several influencers that distorted what it meant to be a Jesus-Follower towards becoming a self-centered global terrorist, carrying a Bible.
[Regarding] the evangelical timeline and splintering… What I view as, perhaps, the most corrupting: John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield. A focus on end-times theology, a focus on a state for Israel (resulting in a worship of the modern state with that name). Scofield, a scoundrel in his personal life, would somehow have his reference Bible printed by the prestigious Oxford Press! Many denominations would read from his Bible.
There would be a further splintering in the form of “Bible-believing Christians” vs. liberal modernists – they would push for all having to conform (leftists never change). There would also be a mushy middle in every denomination, eventually leading to a growth in the liberal side – after all, if you don’t feel strongly about something, you won’t really fight for it.
Distractions like this attract the masses and are passed on throughout the generations and what you end up with is a political Christianity, one that Jesus would say “you still don’t get it do you?”.
In the US this culminated about the time of Woodrow Wilson:
There was revivalism: western New York, Tennessee, the Cumberland Valley. Charles Grandison Finney – emotionalism for the sake of emotionalism. People have the free will to choose salvation (see Luther and Calvin spinning in their graves). You don’t have to wait for God to do His work; you decide – just come forward (a prototype for Billy Graham, it seems).
L. Moody – the YMCA, hymnals, the Moody Press. Billy Sunday – went from professional baseball player to evangelist. He attracted the largest crowds of any in the late eighteenth-century – and he played a significant role in the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment (no booze).
Biblicism was weakened – just get a confession of faith; the door was opened to liberalism and the leftist version of the social justice movement. The Enlightenment contributed here: reason, divorced from God, could not accept many of the claims of the Bible. Let’s just try to hold onto the moral stuff, without the grounding in the Bible or in worship.
Also animating both groups of progressives was a postmillennial pietist Protestantism that had conquered “Yankee” areas of northern Protestantism by the 1830s and had impelled the pietists to use local, state, and finally federal governments to stamp out “sin,” to make America and eventually the world holy, and thereby to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth.
The high-bar (or low-bar, more accurately) of this merger can be summed up in two words: Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson with his dream, post WWI, of the League of Nations was a primer for the US entrance as the baton receiver when the British Empire lost its possessions during WWII. The US decided to do “empire” differently and more covertly. The US would target various countries for regime change to “manage” the world, and Christians themselves would be targeted just like during the Roman Empire.
This is where the article by Brad Hoff takes over showing how Christians are blindsided when they become the target. I wonder how many US Christian still think that this policy can’t come “home” to domestic soil .. even Robert E. Lee saw this in 1866:
Below is the Syrian doctor Shaza’s story, excerpted from the book…
As Shaza mused on the catastrophic shift from an idyllic life to one of upheaval, she recounted being given a forewarning of the Syrian Christian tragedy. As a physician Shaza ministered to those displaced due to the Iraq War: “I worked with the Iraqi refugees from 2003 to 2010 in a charity center. It’s a program done by the Church, but they are accepting all the people – Christians and Muslims.” Little did Shaza foresee that less than a decade into the future it would be Syrian Christians themselves caught in dire straits.
Shaza related how a number of Iraq refugees tried to warn her:
They talk about horrible stories. They’re kidnapping, killing, raping. When they trust me after a couple of years, they keep saying, “Have a plan B. They are going to do this with Syrian Christians.” I keep saying, “No, it will not happen.” They keep saying, “No, it’s going to happen, so think about what is your next step if it’s happened.” And we didn’t think about that. We never thought that this will happen in Syria. Most of the Syrians – they keep saying that it’s protected because it’s a strong region. I have been to Iraq and to Jordan, to Egypt, in the past as a tourist – I saw poor people. We never see them in Syria. We have no homeless people in Syria. It’s a prosperous country. It was a good country, but after, I think, 2006 or ’07 till 2010, we began to notice something. Maybe politics, maybe economic, I don’t know what’s the problem, but something happened, you know. Makes the people more poor so more suffer. They have these thoughts of revolution. I think that made them easily accepted this.
I think the last part of this snippet is key. The empire targets people groups and impoverishes them so they become revolutionaries so the state can use that excuse to crush the rebellion. The state/empire always claims it is bringing “democracy”, however in fact it brings terror and poverty to destabilize the region to ensure regime changed nations remain 3rd world status. This is the American Empire’s MO (modus operandi )
At the end of the day, Christians became the target in the Middle East when the American Empire was playing “find the terrorists” especially since the 1990s. I am pretty certain the American Empire is as secular as it can get as any “Christian Principles” were thrown out decades if not centuries ago. You can count on the American Empire to have its eyes on Christians domestically in the years and decades to come. Are you ready for this?
I hate lies. I love truth. Friends don’t let friends believe in lies .. but they also allow someone that process .. towards truth .. it is a different timeline for everyone .. everyone is unique and ultimately have to own their own beliefs, values, mission, etc.
By the way, I detest the way the Lincoln administration chose to bury their dead on an honorable man’s private property .. a man who had 100x the character of Lincoln himself when it came to principles. Lincoln’s words in 1848 about a very Jefferson idea about the consent of the governed would have been something that Robert E. Lee would have agreed with .. and when Lee acted on this belief, Lincoln made sure Lee could never return to his home.
The quote Lee and Lincoln would agree to:
“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.” ~ Lincoln January 12 1848, expressing the near-universally held Jeffersonian principle
Anyway. “back in the day” it seems like, only 3 years ago, Jacob Hornberger at FFF shared this 2018 Memorial Day article:
Today, Memorial Day, Americans across the land will hear the same message: that U.S. soldiers who have died in America’s foreign wars and foreign interventions have done so in the defense of our rights and freedoms. It is a message that will be heard in sporting events, memorial services, airports, churches, and everywhere else that Memorial Day is being commemorated.
There is one big thing wrong, however. It’s a lie. None of those soldiers died protecting our rights and freedoms. That’s because our rights and freedoms were never being threatened by the enemy forces that killed those soldiers.
Let’s work our way backwards…
Pure propoganda on the part of the government that “we” finance. Not cool!
Yes, lets look at how the US military defended our rights and freedoms … it should not take long and you will see that it has been a LONG time since they actually did that:
Syria. The Syrian government has never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who has died in Syria was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.
Niger. The Niger government has never invaded the United States and tried to take away our freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who has died in Niger was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.
Iraq. The Iraq government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who has died in Iraq was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.
Afghanistan. The Afghan government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who has died in Afghanistan was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms. Even al-Qaeda never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Its terrorist attacks, including the one on 9/11, were retaliation for U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.
Panama. The Panama government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in Panama was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.
Grenada. The Grenada government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in Grenada was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.
Vietnam. The North Vietnam government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in Vietnam was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.
Korea. The North Korean government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in Korea was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.
World War II.
The Japanese government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in the Pacific theater in World War II was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms. The Japanese attack on U.S. Naval forces on Hawaii was intended solely to prevent the U.S. Navy from interfering with Japanese attempts to acquire oil in the Dutch East Indies in response to President Roosevelt’s oil embargo, whose aim was to provoke the Japanese into attacking the United States so that the U.S. could get into the European part of war.
The German government never invaded the United States and try to take away our rights and freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in the European theater in World War II was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms. Germany wasn’t even able to cross the English Channel to invade England, much less the Atlantic Ocean to invade the United States. In fact, the last thing that Germany wanted was war with the United States, as reflected by Germany’s refusal to react to President Roosevelt’s repeated provocations to get Germany to attack the United States. Germany only declared war on the United States after FDR successfully provoked the Japanese into attacking the U.S. Navy fleet at Pearl Harbor, in the hope that this would provide a back door to entry into the war in Europe.
World War I. The German government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any U.S. soldier who died in World War I was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms, especially given the ridiculous aims of U.S. intervention into the war: to “end all wars” and to “make the world safe for democracy,” a word that isn’t even in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it is perversely ironic that it was U.S. interventionism into the conflict that contributed to the rise of Nazi Germany and World War II.
The Spanish-American War. The Spanish government never invaded the United States and tried to take away our rights freedoms. Therefore, any soldier who died in the Spanish-American War was not killed protecting our rights and freedoms.
I will add the following:
The War Against Southern Independence (of seven states originally, wrongly called a civil war, wrong because the southern states did not want any other territory, PERIOD).
The South Carolina militia in Dec 1860 to April 1861 never invaded the United States and try to take away the rights of those in other states. As a sovereign entity (reclaiming what it had before the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation) it said LEAVE US ALONE.
The Confederate States of America from Feb to April 1861 never invaded the United States and try to take away the rights of those in other states. While after the US Army detachment in Fort Moultrie violated the agreement in place since Dec 1860 when it agreed NOT to take any action in Charleston Harbor and remained at peace in what was now South Carolina territory (seceded from USA), Gen. Anderson, in the cover of night moved his troops to Fort Sumter. When Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort with provisions AND troops was when the forces around Charleston Harbor chose to fire on Fort Sumter .. KILLING NO ONE.
The Confederate States of America, after the bombardment of Fort Sumter (now 11 states) from April – July 1861 never invaded the United States and try to take away the rights of those in other states.
President Abraham Lincoln waited until 04JUL1861 to call Congress to session to officially declare “an insurrection” in parts of the United States. This was followed by a major campaign by Union forces to invade Virginia resulting in the first major battle of the war at the Battle of First Manassas (Battle of First Bull Run is the Union forces name) on 21JUL1861. The northern states was the aggressor but through propaganda during and after the war, most people see the southern states as traitors and the aggressors for a domestic war.
CASE CLOSED!
Why celebrate Memorial Day when the reason for its existence is based on lies .. it is yet another government piece of propaganda that when repeated enough get into the heads of the sheep!
Bottom line is that while the defense of the United States in the War of 1812 was honorable, even that war was entered into under questionable circumstances and outright lies. Know that by 1814 the NORTH was ready to secede from the United States (peacefully) .. you might want to Google the “Hartford Convention of 1814”
“… the Hartford Convention began a three-week debate about the relationship between the then 18 states and the federal government. The meeting was held in secret by New England members of the Federalist Party and there were nationwide fears that the Hartford Convention would call for New England’s secession from the Union.
New Englanders were unhappy over political concerns that they were being badly treated by the Union. Since Thomas Jefferson’s election in 1800, the president had been a Southerner chosen by an electoral system that allowed the slave-holding Southern states to count each slave as 60 percent of a free person for their allocation of congressional seats and the number of presidential electors…”
Did the southern states invade the north to keep this from happening? No! As early as 1804, sensing that New England was not happy with things (this time it was the Louisiana Purchase, another time when secession was discussed in the north.):
“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”
–Letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Jan. 29, 1804
So maybe the American Revolutionary War was really the last time the government’s troops fought for our freedom and for our rights. Think about that!
-SF1
PS Also, if you think George Washington was really the tactical hero of Yorktown, just know that when the French general Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau told Washington to move his troops to Yorktown as the French fleet was coming to contain the British troops under Cornwallis there, Washington had a melt-down and at first refused the thought thinking as he had the last few years that the decisive battle HAD to take place against the British in New York harbor. [Do your own research!]
Hands clasped in friendship, Adolf Hitler and England’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, are shown in this historic pose at Munich on Sept. 30, 1938. This was the day when the premier of France and England signed the Munich agreement, sealing the fate of Czechoslovakia. Next to Chamberlain is Sir Neville Henderson, British Ambassador to Germany. Paul Schmidt, an Interpreter, stands next to Hitler. (AP Photo)
Back a few months I wrote how my oldest son gave me a birthday present:
What prompted me to better understand what I call the “inter-war” period from the end of WWI in 1918 to the beginning of WWII in 1939 was a book my oldest son gave me for my birthday/Father’s Day called “Appeasement” by Tim Bouverie. Written from a British perspective, Tim paints the 1938 efforts as a lost cause for keeping the world safe from Nazi expansionism.
Well, after intermittent reads, I finally wrapped that book up today. My initial view was that the author was a Churchill worshiper, however, by page 400 I did see the author admit that many of Churchill’s mistakes were lumped on Neville Chamberlain as England needed a scapegoat after being outmaneuvered by Hitler off the coast of Norway in Germany’s attempt to keep the supplies from Sweden undeterred in Germany’s effort to maintain and ramp up industrial war production activities in their homeland.
I was pleasantly surprised that the author shared some truth as to Neville’s own transformation from what appeared to be a pacifist (was really just a non-interventionists) to a realist by 1939 in he dealings with Hitler. All in all the tilt was toward appeasement being a “lost cause”, but he did admit that IF the British would have ramped up war efforts in the mid-30s, their planes would have been outdated by the time they would have needed them in the 1940s to defend their own homeland.
If nothing else, the learning from this book taught be the risks that empires have once more. (I think all one has to do is read about King Solomon in the Bible to see how even the wisest man in the world could not keep all the alliances with various nations intact for a peaceful coexistence of Israel back when both Egypt and Babylon’s empires contracted) Multiple “entangling” alliances, which triggered WWI were resorted to again in the run up to WWII as well as the fact that empires can’t just think of protecting their homeland, but also colonies scattered across the globe that are only thought of from time to time as political bargaining chips.
However, no honest discussion of WWII can be had without knowing how the Treaty of Versailles at the conclusion of WWI set the stage for a humiliated Germany to roar back to life in only 20 years. It also involves decisions made back to 1906 that involved NOT Neville Chamberlain, but Winston Churchill, as the primary villain that created the climate for Hitler to gain success in Germany with his Nazi party.
.. it was colossal blunders of British statesmen, Winston Churchill foremost among them, that turned two European wars into world wars that may yet prove the mortal wounds of the West.
Wow, quite the accusation. But Pat does give us plenty of data to support these findings decades later:
The first blunder was a secret decision of the inner Cabinet in 1906 to send a British army across the Channel to fight in any Franco-German War. Had the Kaiser known the British Empire would fight for France, he would have moved more decisively than he did to halt the plunge to war in July 1914. Had Britain not declared war on Aug. 4 (1914) and brought in Japan, Italy and the United States, the war would have ended far sooner. Leninism and Stalinism would never have triumphed in Russia, and Hitler would never have come to power in Germany.
The second blunder was the vengeful Treaty of Versailles that added a million square miles to the British Empire while putting millions of Germans under Czech and Polish rule in violation of the terms of the armistice and Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points.
A third was the British decision to capitulate to U.S. demands in 1921 and throw over a faithful Japanese ally of 20 years. Tokyo took its revenge, 20 years later, by inflicting the greatest defeat in British history, the surrender of Singapore and an army of 80,000 to a Japanese army half that size.
A fourth British blunder, which Neville Chamberlain called the “very midsummer of madness,” was the 1935 decision to sanction Italy for a colonial war in Ethiopia. London destroyed the Stresa Front of Britain, France and Italy that Mussolini had forged to contain Germany, and drove Mussolini straight into the arms of a Nazi dictator he loathed.
This is the world stage that Neville Chamberlain entered as Winston Churchill was sidelined for a few years in. Neville’s 1938 Munich Treaty effort was a direct, if not inevitable, consequence of a Versailles treaty that had consigned 3.5 million Sudeten Germans to Czech rule against their will and in violation of the principle of self-determination.
The seeds of the crisis were planted at the Paris peace conference of 1919. There, the victorious Allies carved the new nation of Czechoslovakia out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
But instead of following their principle of self-determination, the Allies placed under the rule of 7 million Czechs 3 million Germans, 3 million Slovaks, 800,000 Hungarians, 150,000 Poles and 500,000 Ruthenians. These foolish decisions spat upon Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, under the terms of which the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians had laid down their arms.
By 1938, Germany had arisen, re-armed and brought Austria into the Reich, and was demanding the right of self-determination now be granted to the 3 million Germans in Czechoslovakia, who were clamoring to be free of Prague to rejoin their kinsmen.
But the fatal blunder was not Munich. Appeasement #1 is usually blamed as a failed policy because of what happened in the next 18 months. The truth is more on what is unseen than seen (just like in economics).
Chamberlain went to Munich because he did not believe that keeping 3 million Germans inside a nation to which they had been consigned against their will was worth a world war.
Moreover, Britain was unprepared for war. She had no draft, no Spitfires, no divisions ready to be sent to France. Why should the British Empire commit suicide by declaring war on Germany, to support a Paris peace agreement that he, Chamberlain, believed had been unjustly and dishonorably imposed on a defeated Germany?
It was common knowledge in the higher positions of England and France’s political elite that Germany was done wrong with the mandated “demilitarization” of its armed forces, but to leave native people across borders does tug on the hearts of a culture. Even by 1939 the average German was not pro-war but was for the return of German people groups under Germany’s protection.
England was ecstatic as to what Neville accomplished in Munich, war was averted, German people groups would be allowed “self-determination”. However, Hitler had more people groups outside the borders of Germany:
Hitler had already turned to the next item on his menu, Danzig, a city of 350,000 Germans, detached from the Reich at Versailles and made a Free City to give the new Poland an outlet to the sea. Hitler did not want war with Poland. Indeed, he wanted the kind of alliance with Poland he had with Italy. But, first, Danzig must be resolved.
Here, too, the British Government agreed: Danzig should be returned. For of all the amputations of German lands and peoples at Versailles, European statesmen, even Winston Churchill, regarded Danzig and the Polish Corridor that sliced Germany in two as the most outrageous. The problem was the Poles, who refused to discuss Danzig.
The Polish, who disliked communist Russia, desired to stay intact. At the same time in March 1939, Czechoslovakia suddenly began to fall apart. The Sudetenland had been annexed by Germany the previous fall and Hungary had taken back its lost lands. It looked as though the wheels were coming off this peace effort, but in fact, the pre-WWI version of Europe was re-emerging as all of the political re-drawing of lines started to be erased by reality.
Chamberlain, now humiliated, mocked by Tory back-benchers, panicking over wild false rumors of German attacks on Romania and Poland, made the greatest blunder in British history. Unasked, he issued a war guarantee to Poland, empowering a Polish dictatorship of colonels that had joined Hitler in dismembering Czechoslovakia to drag the British Empire into war with Germany over a city, Danzig, the British thought should be returned to Germany.
The war guarantee with Poland actually led to a half-hearted war against Germany after Poland fell in under one month. This was a war that was declared by both France and England, and was, in fact, a “pre-emptive” war that in the end was unnecessary, which in turn led to a world war that was also unnecessary.
Result: a Hitler-Stalin Pact and a six-year war that left scores of millions dead, Europe in ruins, the British empire bankrupt and breaking, 10 European nations under the barbaric rule of Joseph Stalin and half a century of Cold War. Had there been no war guarantee to Poland, there might have been no war, no Nazi invasion of Western Europe and no Holocaust.
Sick, right?
So Neville is not as bad as he is portrayed today but made some huge mistakes. So too Churchill is not as good as he is portrayed today but he too made some huge mistakes.
He [Churchill] was behind the greatest British military blunders in two wars: the Dardanelles disaster of 1915 and the Norwegian fiasco of 1940 that brought down Chamberlain and vaulted Churchill to power.
While excoriating Chamberlain for appeasing Hitler, Churchill’s own appeasement of Stalin lasted longer and was even more egregious and costly, ensuring that the causes for which Britain sacrificed the empire — the freedom of Poland and preventing a hostile power from dominating Europe — were lost.
Politicians, no matter how wise, are in fact horrible at directing human action and human events. All collectives, whether they be monarchies, democracies, fascist or communist peril the innocent subjects in their midst with the fallout and blow-back from their leader’s decisions. From the first act of war, usually economic sanctions, to the desperate actions in war, the wanton killing of innocents, there is always a worse “unseen” aspect to war and the unintentional consequences of those decisions than there is in the honorable striving for peace.
No wonder Thomas Jefferson declared:
Churchill was, however, surely right when he told FDR in their first meeting after Pearl Harbor that they should call the war they were now in “The Unnecessary War.”
Lindbergh with Marine pilots, a F4U Corsair in the South Pacific.
As promised, I will now offer the bright side of the two heroes who emerged in the United States in the early 20th century. I had hoped to include Charles Lindbergh in my last post, but there was way to much hubris to deal with in writing about FDR, and the sad fact was, there was actually way more material, but I do hope y’all get the point. Much less principled men and politicians get the attention of the masses than do the true heroes who stand by their principles.
I think perhaps of all the things a police state can do to its citizens, distorting history is possibly the most pernicious”
-Robert A. Heinlein
Once again I will heavily reference the 5 year old article by John J. Dwyer from ‘New American’ called “FDR vs. Lindbergh: Setting the Record Straight”. John’s article weaves his article more of the angst that FDR had with the popular Lindbergh over the truth-telling Charles shared over the years. The example of the executive order FDR flubbed in replacing a private industry with army pilots was the first issue that Lindbergh brought to light in 1934:
Lindbergh had never pursued political causes and had retreated with Anne from public view — and the vulture-like pursuit of the media — following the staggering loss of their son, but then Roosevelt, riding a historic wave of success and popularity, issued an executive order in early 1934 that outlawed an entire industry, private airline mail carrying.
There is a lot to be said of those who prefer to stay out of the limelight and shine their own light via more humble arenas. Lindbergh at his core was a humble man, but sometimes even the humble has to stand up for what is right:
The “Lone Eagle” [Lindbergh’s nickname] burst back into the limelight with a brief letter to the president protesting his actions. Lindbergh declared them “unwarranted and contrary to American principles” in their wielding of federal government power over the private sector whose production funded that government.
FDR, on the other hand, was an arrogant SOB that came across as a more gentle soul in public. What a facade:
FDR attempted to portray Lindbergh as a tool of the airlines. “Don’t worry about Lindbergh,” he scowled to an aide. “We will get that fair-haired boy.”
About five years later, prompted once more to come out of the shadows, Lindbergh caught on to the war-fever that came out of the FDR camp and Charles could not let this one go either:
Lindbergh presciently discerned the gathering dangers to the nation, and began a series of radio broadcasts and public speeches in September 1939 against America’s involvement in yet another European war. In one speech, he issued “a plea for American independence,” asking, “Why in this second century of our national existence must we be confronted with the quarrels of the old world that our forefathers left behind when they settled in this country?”
This is straight up US founder’s non-intervention foreign policy. Reluctantly, Charles became political one more time:
Though he personally disdained public involvement in controversial political issues, he eventually joined America First, the 800,000-strong noninterventionist (but not pacifist) organization, and he crafted a platform comprised of four main elements: 1) an embargo on offensive weapons and munitions to warring nations, 2) the unrestricted sale of purely defensive armaments to anyone who wanted them to protect themselves from attack, 3) the prohibition of American shipping from the belligerent countries of Europe and their danger zones, 4) the refusal of credit to belligerent nations or their agents.
Lindbergh’s tenets were intended to ward off another experience like World War I wherein U.S. banks loaned the Allies the funds to buy American munitions and, hence, pushed strongly for American involvement in the war and for Allied victory in order to ensure repayment of their loans.
It sounds like a boat-load of common sense to me, but to a government trying to mask its failure of addressing the Great Depression Rx call the New Deal, it desperately needed some distraction. In response to this, FDR goes all out to get that “fair-haired boy”:
In response to Lindbergh’s opposition to the president’s aggressive policies, Roosevelt loosed all but the hounds of hell on him, and the media — a media that Lindbergh biographer Scott Berg stated “had grown to resent Lindbergh’s uncooperative attitude, [and] instantly revised history.” FDR’s political allies excoriated the aviator with an armada of untrue accusations. They called him an “isolationist,” though he advocated vigorous American commercial trading around the world and urged the United States not to “build a wall around our country and isolate ourselves from contact with the rest of the world.” .. Roosevelt’s allies also called Lindbergh a defeatist and appeaser of Germany, though at the same time Lindbergh managed to gain unprecedented access to the German Luftwaffe (the German air force) and became the first non-German to fly the legendary Messerschmitt 109 fighter plane, and he provided intelligence to the U.S. military about Nazi capabilities. Hap Arnold declared, “Lindbergh gave me the most accurate picture of the Luftwaffe, its equipment, leaders, apparent plans, training methods, and present defects that I had so far received,” and Arnold invited him to serve on an elite U.S. military aircraft development board.
Lindbergh was called a Nazi “fellow-traveler,” and Roosevelt and others privately said he was a Nazi. Yet Lindbergh spoke and wrote in many venues of his disgust with Nazi excesses and wrongdoing.
He was called an anti-Semite, primarily due, as historian Duffy wrote, “to a single claim he made,” in one Des Moines speech, “that Jews were among the influential groups [including the British and the Roosevelt administration] that shaped America’s war policies…. Lindbergh never blamed American Jews for their attitude toward the war. To the contrary, even as he criticized Jewish support for war, he expressed sympathy and understanding for the Jewish position.”
All this sounds too familiar, being called a Russian-bot today comes to mind. Some things never change either, like the “anti-Semite” accusation. But the propaganda smear was not enough for FDR, as he wanted to bury Lindbergh:
Roosevelt’s forces went after Lindbergh, other non-interventionists, and even critical letter-writers to the White House in additional ways, as Duffy chronicled. These included telephone wiretaps, room listening devices, public smear campaigns, and in general trying “to find some dirt” on them. The president himself initiated a cooperative venture with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI in which the White House supplied the bureau the names and addresses of the letter senders so that the FBI could provide information on them.
Y’all thought that these tactics against whistle-blowers was a recent thing, think again. Politics operates primarily on having dirt on other people as leverage. Government in particular thrives on this, which is why the NSA does what it does every single day with your tax money, spy on everything you say and do and track wherever you go, the ultimate police state.
But I digress .. back to some more principled Lindbergh moments:
The enduring vindictiveness of Roosevelt evidenced itself in his determination to keep Lindbergh from any military role in the U.S. war effort, despite the aviator’s wholehearted support of the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and his stature as one of the world’s foremost aviation experts. Wiser heads eventually prevailed, and Lindbergh’s wartime resumé was extraordinary.
He corrected problems in the Army’s B-24 Liberator bomber, flew high-altitude test flights in the P-47 Thunderbolt fighter, and conducted dangerous research on combating airborne oxygen blackouts, using himself as guinea pig. At 42 years old — virtually invalid age for a fighter pilot — he flew 50 combat missions in the Pacific. Colonel Charles MacDonald, commander of the famed “Satan’s Angels” fighter group, said, “Lindbergh was indefatigable. He flew more missions than was normally expected of a regular combat pilot. He dive-bombed enemy positions, sank barges, and patrolled our landing forces on Noemfoor Island. He was shot at by almost every anti-aircraft gun the Nips [Japanese] had in western New Guinea.”
He also increased the bomb load of the Navy’s F4U Corsair fighter plane to 4,000 pounds, the heaviest ever carried by the fighter, then personally dropped it on Wotje Island, demolishing a Japanese anti-aircraft gun battery. After he devised how to extend the P-38 Lightning fighter’s flight distance by hundreds of miles, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in the Pacific Douglas MacArthur engaged him as a consultant and offered him whatever plane he wished to fly. Lindbergh’s discovery of how to improve the P-38’s flying distance enabled the fighter plane to escort bombers to the Japanese-held island of Palau, aiding in the capture of the island and leading to its use as a launching pad for MacArthur’s triumphant return to the Philippines.
In a head-to-head aerial dogfight with a Japanese group commander, Lindbergh missed crashing head-on with the enemy’s plane by five feet and shot it down. Aiding a fellow pilot in another dogfight, he got jumped by a Mitsubishi Zero that fired from directly behind him as he “commended [his] soul to God,” but another American fighter shot down the Zero in the nick of time.
I never hear of all this. My last recollection from my history teachers was that Charles melted into obscurity after challenging the thought that the US must enter WWII.
Charles experience in the South Pacific left him reflective on what he saw. Once again he would not keep quiet:
Having personally confronted the true horrors of war in the Pacific, though, Lindbergh bitterly denounced it in his private journal: “As the awful truth of the German crimes against the Jewish people came out, here we were, doing the same thing to the Japs.” He wrote about the attitudes he encountered: “‘They really are lower than beasts. Every one of ’em ought to be exterminated.’ How many times I heard American officers in the Pacific say those very words!… And ‘Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?’”
He chronicled the shooting of Japanese soldiers attempting to surrender so that other Japanese soldiers would remain in the jungle and slowly starve; Marines firing on unarmed Japanese swimming ashore at Midway; troops machine-gunning prisoners on a Hollandia airstrip; Australians shoving captured Japanese out of transport planes over the New Guinea mountains; Japanese shinbones carved off for letter openers and pen trays; Japanese heads buried in ant hills “to get them clean for souvenirs”; and “the infantry’s favorite occupation” of poking through the mouths of Japanese corpses for gold-filled teeth. He added, “What is barbaric on one side of the earth is still barbaric on the other.”
“Judge not that ye be not judged,” he continued. “It is not the Germans alone, or the Japs, but the men of all nations to whom this war has brought shame and degradation.” He also wrote of the legacy of using violence to solve mankind’s ills: lynchings, witch-burnings, “burnings at the stake for the benefit of Christ and God.”
Epic stuff that history books failed to capture. This is all by design as the US Empire has to hide heroes like this to keep the narrative intact that the US Empire, the state, is worthy of worship. As a result, the masses say the pledge, worship that flag, do your duty and vote, but don’t you dare be critical of the US government, that would be unpatriotic, or would it? What did our founders do with the British Empire?
So now what? In summary:
Franklin Roosevelt graduated onto the front of textbooks, currency, and best presidents’ lists. Charles Lindbergh, meanwhile, won the laurels of hatred and slander reserved for the truest patriot, he who loves his country enough to criticize her for her own good — a lesson that patriots of today know only too well is repeated almost daily in America through the cooperation of likeminded media and politicians.
Charles would lead a quite life after WWII retiring to Hawaii and dying there in 1974. I never even knew he was still living when I was reading about him in my history books and World Book Encyclopedias.
It is time to unearth these real heroes from having been buried by our government. We can’t afford to return to the days like John Adams’ administration when the Alien and Sedition Act made it a crime to be critical of the US government:
Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government ”through writing or any other shape, form, or fashion.” Specifically, criticizing the president, Congress, the military, or the flag was made illegal.
Just over 20 years after divorcing the British Empire, the federation, now under the Constitution did this? Fast forward another 100 years and then you had this:
U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 … made it a crime to ”willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States.”
Our true history ain’t pretty, can’t we just be honest about this?
A true test of freedom is when you find out who you can’t criticize, am I right?
Enough for now, get out there and enjoy your weekend all!
