Tag: WWII

Why Has the “Official” U.S. History Overshadowed the Real Heroes? [Part 2 of 2]

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!

-SF1

Why Has the “Official” U.S. History Overshadowed the Real Heroes? [Part 1 of 2]

Not a surprise to FDR, Pearl Harbor was a surprise to thousands of sailors that died that day! FDR’s economic policies in 1940 and into 1941 maneuvered the Japanese to strike out at Pearl Harbor while the US Navy had broken the Japanese code which Washington DC deciphered and did not pass on to sailors at Pearl Harbor.

Time and again lately, I run into a bit of history, real history, of real heroes in the United State’s past, I have NEVER heard about them, in a substantial way, in United States academia’s “official” history!

I think I am getting a bit ticked that the “great”, “free” and “exceptional” United States of American would have to twist its own history apparently to paint our government itself as exceptional, all day everyday, apparently.

A few months ago I ran across this article, promptly bookmarked, from ‘New American’ by John J. Dywer that outlines what has happened all along in this country (and other countries as well):

But the actual histories of the men suggest that “history” is often little more than propaganda that has been oft repeated. An accounting of the quality of the men’s judgments, their standards of behavior in interpersonal conflicts, and their personal accomplishments makes it logical that American history should, instead, laud Lindbergh while recoiling from Roosevelt.

There you have it. History as told by the intellectual class in academic books and in academia in a democracy ends up being a distorted version of what really happened. History is written by the victors, not just of wars, but of political struggles as well.

Enter two heroes of the early 20th century in the United States, one you will remember, the other, you may know a few passing facts.

FDR is well known as a four-term president, stories of his “fireside” chats, as well as the myth that he guided the United States out of the Great Depression with his New Deal, and that FDR, having promised peace, reluctantly guided the United States to fight Japan across the Pacific and Germany/Italy across the Atlantic to win WWII.

Lindbergh, flew solo across the Atlantic and had his son kidnapped and murdered, and later, as myth would have it, was an isolationist.

Does this fit what your high school history book or teacher taught you? My guess is that you may agree with me.

So let us tackle in “Part 1 of 2”, the hero that everyone is familiar with, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who in the beginning of his political career …:

… capitalized on the fact that his distant cousin Theodore Roosevelt was one of the most admired U.S. presidents and managed to become governor of New York. After winning two gubernatorial terms, “FDR” parlayed his own handsome visage, galvanizing charisma, and message of hope for Great Depression-ravaged America into the presidency in 1933

So far so good right? Well, it about to come off the rails if you are a fan of FDR:

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. Instead, Roosevelt determined, the U.S. military would provide the air transportation for delivering air mail.

It is one thing to transition the USPS from horses to delivery vehicles, even though they STILL can’t run the monopoly with a profit, but to take on mail delivery with army pilots? Only government can come up with a decision like this, no free-market business would have been that stupid. John shares more along this line:

Brave army pilots, ill trained for their new mail-carrying mission and flying planes far inferior to the airlines’ (one commercial liner, for instance, could carry the load of six army planes) and inadequate for either the pitch black of night or the freezing, snow-blown winter, began immediately to perish.

As the body count rose to 12 and accidents to 66, masses of air mail were delayed or never delivered, and public fury mounted at the administration.

90 days later, FDR reversed his stupid decision, and one of his own shared the quick lesson learned:

Roosevelt ally Henry “Hap” Arnold, later five-star commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces during WWII, summarized the fiasco: “Within two weeks we were forced to realize that although the ‘will to do’ might get the job done, the price of our doing it was equal to the sacrifice of a wartime combat operation. Courage alone could not substitute for years of cross-country experience; for properly equipped airplanes; and for suitable blind flying instruments, such as the regular air-line mail pilots were using.”

A business leader making decisions like that would be sidelined to some area of the company where they might do the least damage, but not in government. Stupid is promoted and made exponential:

His famed “first hundred days,” contrary to many of his campaign promises about avoiding the centralization of government power, unleashed an unparalleled blizzard of legislation in which the federal government sought to correct the supposed failures of the capitalistic system — through the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and many other new laws. “It is common sense to take a method and try it,” he explained. “If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

Letting economic lightweights take charge of the whole American economy, what can go wrong? The myth that capitalism got the country in a position where unemployment was almost 25% was enough for the masses to think that FDR could do this, just with his charisma!

So we not only have stupid government, but we have stupid people.

About government, Albert J. Nock, an avid writer in FDR’s days, wrote:

“I wonder how many such men in America would know that Communism, the New Deal, Fascism, Nazism, are merely so-many trade-names for collectivist Statism, like the trade-names for tooth-pastes which are all exactly alike except for the flavouring.”
― Albert Jay Nock

About stupid people, Albert J. Nock offered a counter-balance:

The Remnant has always existed, since the beginning of man and it survives today.  It is not possessed with extraordinary intelligence, wealth or power.  Those that comprise it are just ordinary human beings, average by—and—large and you will never recognize them for what they are when you meet them, see them or hear them. They are the builders, re—builders and redeemers of humanity.  They are the ones who sustain and regenerate society — and above all else — they persevere.  You can guess who they are or might have been but you will never know with any certainty.  They are friends of liberty though, that much I know.

It was in Nock’s writings that actually gave me hope a few years ago. Discouraged by both personal and social media attempts to help people see the truth, to research for themselves the truth, I wondered if this was just a recent phenomenon. Then I found that in Albert J. Nock’s writings that in the 1930s the masses actually believe that government could not only help, but be the savior for the USA. The wisdom he offered can be found in the following:

it is Nock’s contention that when one has something of value to say, a strong and workable principle if you will, speaking to the masses and expecting wholesale results is the incorrect approach, rather, speaking through mass—man to the ‘reachable’ few is the accurate and rewarding path to take.  In that way your message is not prostituted or diluted in any way and remains true and whole.  It reaches those ‘with ears to hear,’ who are able to understand and make use of its intelligence.

This gives me hope in the few ears that can hear in 2019! I don’t need to hear rave reviews of the articles I share, I just can rest knowing that the seeds are planted, for later comes the harvest.

To quickly summarize the balance of FDR’s “wisdom”, (as we in the US Navy would call a CF, Cluster F**k, Mr. Dwyer shares:

Though the realization gradually dawned on Roosevelt and his minions that no amount of constitutionally questionable New Deal programs and Machiavellian presidential scheming could end the Depression, Roosevelt kept his programs going full steam ahead. Near the end of Roosevelt’s second term, Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, a key New Deal architect, penned this startling confession regarding the administration’s failure: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.”

As nations on nearly every continent emerged from the economic cataclysm, U.S. unemployment skyrocketed back up to nine million workers in 1939 — 12 million if counting Americans employed at taxpayer-funded “make-work” jobs — a total nearly that of when Roosevelt first won the presidency, and after oceans of New Deal spending.

All that debt for nothing, nada, zero benefit. About this time the government started the habit of “cooking the books” to make it look like things were on the up and up. There are economists that have gone back to the “books” and found blatant lying on the economic stats produced in that day, that I believe persists to the present!

So what does the state do when it feels itself back in the corner economically with no good place to go inside an election cycle? It seeks war!

In September 1939 when Germany and Russia invaded Poland, precipitating WWII, Roosevelt saw his chance to eliminate U.S. unemployment. Amity Schlaes opined in her Depression chronicle The Forgotten Man: “A war … would hand to Roosevelt the thing he had always lacked — a chance, quite literally, to provide jobs to the remaining unemployed ..  Roosevelt hadn’t known what to do with the extra people in 1938, but now (1940) he did: he could make them soldiers.” Never mind that the private-sector unemployment problem was exacerbated by the economic drag caused by his costly Big Government programs — or that going to war would make government even more expensive.

So if the New Deal fiasco was not enough, why not create more debt and involve the US in a war it didn’t need to participate in? Beside trying to entice Germany to do something, anything as an excuse to mobilize for war (like what the US did with the Lusitania to get the US in WWI), Hitler refused to take the bait. So FDR turned to Japan:

The president [FDR] implemented all eight planks of the infamous McCollum memorandum. Authored by Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, these planks advocated actions about which McCollum stated, “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war [against the United States], so much the better.” They included a new and dramatic U.S. military presence in the Far East; the gradual choking off of all crucial manufacturing elements to Japan by America and its allies; and placement of the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii, an isolated outpost thousands of miles toward Japan from the American mainland.

Admiral James O. Richardson, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, immediately recognized the jeopardy in which this move placed the fleet and protested so strongly to Roosevelt that the president fired him.

After meeting with the president on October 16, 1941, Republican Secretary of War Henry Stimson, a staunch internationalist and member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in his diary: “We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move — overt move.” A diary entry six weeks later following a meeting of the War Cabinet — less than two weeks before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor — clarifies what Stimson meant by “overt move”: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief … that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.” After the war, he added that, “We needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act.”

So FDR got his war, costing thousands of sailors at Pearl Harbor their lives as well as a large chunk of the Pacific Fleet. But the propaganda worked once more, the “surprise” attack was bought by 99% of Americans and suddenly, everyone was for war. Truth is indeed the first causality of war!

So enough of FDR, who I consider to be one of the five WORST presidents of the United States of American, and on to Charles Lindbergh, a true hero as you will soon see in “Part 2 of 2” to be posted soon!

Stay tuned

-SF1

“By Their Fruit You Will Recognize Them”: The 1919 Treaty of Versailles

I have a (bad?) habit. When I hear of some historical event, I look for the context and the history that preceded that event. Do I have a CSI in my DNA? I guess I just want to know the event in a holistic way so that I do not judge it by it’s appearance only. (My family knows this reference, but it works really well here)

As I pointed out in a previous post a couple of weeks ago:

My point today is that any book on any subject that has you reflecting on what you thought you knew, can launch you into doing research in and around the book reading to attempt to get at the nugget of truth that is typically obscured by an overriding narrative that the masses like to believe.

Reading a “wrong” book or a book from a different perspective from your own should never be seen as a waste of time. In fact, it is usually this kind of ‘entertaining a thought without accepting it’ is essential towards being a true CSI’er of our history.

One of the books I am reading is “Appeasement”, by Tim Bouverie. Primarily about the steps Britain took, or failed to take, with Hitler that led to a disastrous start to WWII. It is assumed in this book, written from a primarily Oxford viewpoint, that the treaty signed at the end of WWI should have kept Germany from rearming causing the British to once again cross that channel and save the day for the continent of Europe.

Well today I want to shed a little light on that treaty, which as of this past week turned 100 years old. Just today, at Lew Rockwell, a post appeared that helped me to mine this time period even more for the wisdom that can come out of understanding history, which is basically just “relationships” at a macro level.

The work by the author, Edward W. Fuller, is fascinating in that it really tells the story of the “tree” that was planted in 1919 which makes the fruit that we see in the 1930s, with Hitler’s rise to power, give us no real surprise.

I contend, that if we all really knew history well, even events that happen today might have us all asking the right questions in the search for truth. We want to be like The Who in their song “We won’t get fooled again”:

Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t want to get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

So let me assist in getting some major points down on the situation 100 years ago when many nations attempted to draw up a treaty to ensure that “The Great War” would not be repeated:

June 28, 2019 is the centenary of the Treaty of Versailles. The notorious treaty, signed by Germany on June 28, 1919, was the most important of the peace treaties that ended the First World War. Although each defeated nation signed its own treaty, the entire settlement is often called the Treaty of Versailles.

Yes Germany signed this treaty, however, doesn’t it really take two (or more) to actively work on hammering out a real treaty? I do think that the author of the book “Appeasement” and 95% of US citizens think and have been taught that this treaty was indeed honorable, not only in its terms but also in its inception. Mr. Fuller points out something interesting:

In early January, 1919, delegates from Britain, France, Italy, and the United States congregated in Paris. Initially, the Allies’ plan was to have a preliminary conference amongst themselves to decide on the peace terms to offer Germany. After the brief preliminary conference, the plan was to invite Germany to a full-scale peace conference to negotiate the terms.

As the Allies squabbled amongst themselves, the preliminary conference gradually developed into the full-scale conference. The Germans were not summoned to Paris until early May. And when they finally arrived, they were never allowed to negotiate the terms of the treaty. Thus, the Treaty of Versailles was a dictated treaty, not a negotiated treaty.

Whoa! While I knew that Germany got really ripped off in this treaty, I mean, it had not even entered this conflict on its own, as Eric Margolis shares:

.. Germany’s role in the conflict was no greater than the other belligerents, and perhaps less than commonly believed.  Starved into submission by Britain’s naval blockade, Germany was unfairly and foolishly saddled with total war guilt, and saw 10% of its territory and 7 million of its people torn away at Versailles by the war’s rapacious victors.

One thing that stood out to me in my read of “Appeasement” is how inadequate was my own high school and post high school history “official” education. I am so glad that at this date I can re/un-learn enough to really know what was going on and why.

Just yesterday I read that Serbia, Bosnia, Iraq, Jordan and Palestine all were relinquished by the German’s with this treaty and France and Britain would be the new overseers. Don’t tell me that this has nothing to do with the Middle East as it stands today. Something tells be there is a lot more to this story.

Eric Margolis hints at why the French and the British did not include Germany at the negotiation table when he says:

Both of these imperial powers feared Germany’s growing commercial and military power (just as the US today fears China’s rise). Germany’s vibrant social democracy with its worker’s rights and concern for the poor posed a threat to the capitalists of Britain and France. Britain’s imperialists were deeply worried by the creation of a feeble little German Empire based in Africa. At the time they controlled a quarter of the globe and all of its oceans.

One has to wonder how the world might have been if England would have acted honorably for once and put the brakes on the rush to war fever that initially was primarily a French emotion:

A total conflagration could still have been averted if Great Britain, which had been playing neutral, had boldly demanded the rush to war cease. France would have been unlikely to go to war without Britain’s supporting its left flank in Flanders.

… a coterie of anti-German officials in Britain, led by the duplicitous foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey and the ambitious, war-yearning imperialist, Winston Churchill, pushed the British Empire to war against Germany. They were joined by a cabal of German-haters in the French government. British and French industrialists, fearful of German competition, and seeing huge profits to be made, backed the war party.

Does this sound familiar or what. How much DNA was transferred to the USA when the British Empire help the American colonies get established in the 1600s?

Beyond not being an equal partner in the “negotiation” of this treaty, the obedience to the treaty’s terms were also an issue:

The military clauses of the treaty disarmed Germany. But the German disarmament was supposed to be part of general European disarmament sponsored by the League of Nations. While the Germans were disarmed by the treaty, the Allies did not fulfill their promise to disarm. This was unfair, and the Allies’ broken promise infuriated German public opinion.

Psychologically, there was more damage from this treaty to those German citizens who knew better. Consider this “feature”:

The reparations section of the treaty included Article 231 – the infamous war-guilt clause. Article 231 required Germany to accept responsibility for starting the war. This clause was unfair, because Germany was not solely responsible for the war. All the major European powers share the blame.

Anger, resentment, punishment all lead to a sense of GROSS INJUSTICE!

I, myself, am wired in a way that is incensed by injustice. Beyond injustice, is my own drive to give individuals on a micro level, and people groups on a macro level the ability to give their consent to those who would govern them, otherwise this becomes slavery even if it comes under the guise of “government” for the greater good.

.. the Allied leaders assured the world that the peace would be based on the principle of national self-determination. Their actions proved otherwise. At the conference, the Allies imperialistically carved up the world and created new but unsustainable nation states with government coercion.

Is this believable? In 2019, after a century of war with 200 million killed by governments, you just have to agree that they do lie, they all do!

So for Germany, what did this mean?

… how could a lunatic like Hitler rise to power in Germany? The answer is the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles. The German population thought the treaty was unfair, and they wanted someone to oppose it. The treaty created the platform for Hitler’s rise to power. For this reason, the Treaty of Versailles must be considered a major cause of the Second World War.

The fruit of this non-negotiated treaty was more war. Such is the wisdom of men (including woMEN) in committees … stupid is multiplied!

For the rest of the world the author concludes:

The First World War and the Paris Peace Conference led to Nazism in Germany, fascism in Italy, militarism in Japan, extremism in the Middle East, and communism in Russia, China, Korea, and Vietnam. What must be learned from the war and peace settlement? Here is the most important lesson: the free market economy is the only way to lasting world peace.

The war was caused by Europe’s imperialistic intervention in foreign trade. In the decades before the war, there was a massive drive by the European powers to expand their empires. This put the European powers on a collision course. Why the imperial expansion? The European powers did not allow other powers to trade freely in their empires. For this reason, the European powers viewed imperial expansion as the only way to gain new markets for their goods. Europe’s rejection of the principle of free trade was the fundamental cause of the First World War.

Free trade brings peace, but states love war.

Are we getting the message now?

-SF1

High School History: Appeasement and Chamberlain, What Word Do You Think of Next?

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)

My word is “weak”.

From my own experiences in classrooms from 1960s to 1970s, the appeasement of Germany was an error that resulted in Germany almost taking over the world. The problem with this thinking is that since WWII there has been a revisionist effort that finally started in the 1960s using documents from all sources, from British, American and French to Russian, German and Austrian as well that challenges this common thinking.

In fact, until the early 1960s, the myth that appeasement was in error was solidly supported by all official books of that day until the magnificent work by A.J .P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961 — now New York: Athenaeum, 1962) was released. The beauty of this book was that Taylor had formally supported the myth in full with his previous writings. This about face in the early 1960s helped to unpack what really happened in 1938-1939 regarding appeasement.

Furthermore, Murray Rothbard summarizes what really happened in the pre-WWI, WWI, pre-WWII and WWII period:

World War I was essentially a clash between Germany and Austria vs. Russia over who would dominate Eastern Europe, with Britain, France, and U.S. meddling into the fray.

The peculiar defeat of both Germany and Russia in World War I, opened up, artificially, the path for national self-determination in Eastern Europe, a task which was terribly botched at Versailles. New injustices were created there, especially for the defeated countries.

By 1939, Germany and Russia were at peace over Eastern Europe, and yet Britain precipitated war by leaping to war over a Poland which could not exist in defiance of both its great neighbors.

Finally, as a result of Britain, and the U.S. meddling into a war over Eastern Europe which did not properly concern them and Germany’s tragic blunder in attacking Russia, the conquest of Germany naturally left Russia in virtual charge over Eastern Europe, again its sphere of influence.

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. I knew I was in trouble when I read the following early on in his book:

.. while today the concept of appeasement is gaining new currency as the West struggles to respond to Russian revanchism and aggression ..

Can we take a look at who is doing the aggression?

But I digress.

Today’s post is not a review of this book that I just opened, that will occur at a later date when I have read all 512 pages. ETA = TBD

My point today is that any book on any subject that has you reflecting on what you thought you knew, can launch you into doing research in and around the book reading to attempt to get at the nugget of truth that is typically obscured by an overriding narrative that the masses like to believe.

Reading a “wrong” book or a book from a different perspective from your own should never be seen as a waste of time. In fact, it is usually this kind of ‘entertaining a thought without accepting it’ is essential towards being a true CSI’er of our history. Part of understanding the future is knowing how to sift the “news” and “events” of today and tomorrow towards understanding what is really happening, and then being prepared to adjust your own sails as a result so you do not end up like this (unless you are prepared to do so):

So get out there and read as your heart guides you. Soak up the challenge that comes from considering competing narratives, philosophies and beliefs. Be willing to go against the flow and always seek to be prepared to make the most out of difficult situations that happens in the storms of life.

Sometimes, reading what you sense to be your adversary’s view may be the best way to understand them in a way that they themselves might not understand. Savvy? True dialog can only occur when you understand what others base their thinking on and why they might think that way.

Also, happy Father’s Day to all fathers. Please understand your role in helping the next generation to question everything, even if that means you will have to admit from time to time that even you do not understand everything and that mystery in this world is a given. The dialog itself is essential for fathers and their sons and daughters, for friends and for communities to unpack life in this broken place we currently call home.

Enjoy your day!

-SF!

From Clan to State to Empire: Why Constant War? -and- What is the Antidote?

Reflecting on the “progress” of man towards ordering things in this world, it is of no surprise to me the thought of “bigger is better”. Even reflecting on the rise of the Hebrew people from nomads to being slaves in Egypt, and from there to the “Promised Land” west of the Jordan River and then being ruled by judges and eventually a king, you can see this is a very human trait.

The transition toward wanting a king is not something that the Hebrew’s God wanted for them, but it was allowed, with a warning. You see, earthly kings have kingdoms, which inherently need resources, taxes and young men to supply military might for both defense and offense operations. The list goes on and on as to the drain on society, communities and families to support a kingdom let alone an empire.

I think too of the struggle in the late 1700s when American colonists, while appreciating what the British Empire had done to facilitate their ability to immigrate to such a place as America, and supplied protection from those native to this land, they had however, grown resentful at the way their “parents” were treating them, almost like there was an expectation of independence not unlike what happens to humans when the are in their mid to late teens! In this case, many if not most did not want a king after kicking out the British, but some painted the road ahead with fear so as to make many desire the safety that a king, a central state, can supply.

In both of these situations, you have a taxing authority promising protection. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out:

A tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms and will lead to ever more taxes and less protection.

One only has to look around today to see the end result of the belief that the state could be counted on to provide safety while taxing its citizens for that safety. Not only do we see the US Empire drone bombing “terrorists” (their claim is that every death is indeed a terrorist death), but also promoting regime change in countries around the globe that have nothing to do with keeping Americans safe. From the lies that launched the invasion of Iraq to the lies that led to epic cultural destruction in Libya, attempted destruction in Syria and desired destruction in Venezuela and Iran, the empire seems determined to start a war with someone. Trade wars and sanctions with Russia and China also indicate that the US Empire is itching for a fight.

But why?

Unknown to most Americans is the fact that a series of macro-economic shifts have happened over the course of this nation’s life that seem to be at the core of the angst this country’s leaders and elites feel at this time.

Remember the phrase “follow the money”? Well, it is pretty prophetic that not only did the Bible both in the Old and New Testament state that the love of money is the root of all evil, but that an inherent distrust of our provision and safety in our Creator fuels this. If there is any entity that is the furthest from God is that of the state. The state is actually the antithesis of a loving father, it is force at its core and “war is the health of the state” – ( Randolph Bourne) is its motto.

Today’s Lew Rockwell site provides a writer by the name of L. Reichard White who is willing to identify the “whys” of this latest round of desired wars. I hope to follow up with a series of  posts that go back through history and link America’s coups and wars to show how each one was premised on a lie and historically have been altered to show that these were moral victories for the state when in fact:

The sheer number of people killed by states in the twentieth century—up to 100 million, with more killed in peacetime “social reconstruction” than in wars—makes one suspect that state-provided security is extremely expensive in all respects and that meaningful alternatives have been overlooked.

So on to today’s revelation about the ways of the state and the root issue we are facing here in the 21st century, the constant wars and then some thoughts towards future alternatives.

After walking through some of the most recent “crazy” the the US Empire’s foreign policy seems to have taken since 9/11 and even before, the author states:

With all these U.S. Government interventions, at least 198 of them remember — and sanctions — it’s tempting to conclude there is no rational reason and “we” screw with other folks purely on whim, whimsey, and maybe as a hobby.

But sometimes, maybe there’s a method to this madness. And if so, it often does involve oil, just not quite the way most left-coasters think.

Oil, seems to be a common denominator. But if so, why didn’t the US occupy Libya and keep the oil? Why didn’t the US occupy Iraq and keep the oil? It just doesn’t add up. The author continues:

… because of a 1974 agreement cobbled together by the Nixon administration between the U.S. and Saudis, nearly all oil trade in the world ended up requiring U.S. dollars…

Understand that pre-1974, the US primarily used a central bank to fund its wars across the globe, and unlike your history book says, WWI (joined by the US only a few years after establishing a central bank) and WWII were not actually started by Germany, it has been only covered up that way by “Fake History” (a cousin to “Fake News”)

With a national debt of over $22T these days and over $200T of unfunded liabilities, the US government wants to stabilize and control the future, but the railroad tracks are leading to a gorge that has no bridge yet.

Not coincidentally, this [1974 action] was just three years after Nixon, attempting to finish replacing the gold standard with the U.S. paper-dollar standard, closed the gold window and thus threatened to throw the world economy into chaos. This explains a lot more than most folks realize.

Remember the “petro dollar?” Well, thanks to the Saudi/U.S. established oil-for-dollars tradition, the Brits, Germans, Japanese — in fact just about everyone — had to keep dollars on hand to pay for their oil imports.

And the oil sellers also ended up with a lot of dollars. And so did the countries they bought stuff from. And the dollar tradition spread to trade in other commodities as well. That meant that a large aggregate of U.S. dollars stayed overseas and didn’t return to the U.S.

Econ 301 is needed to understand what this means. Mr White does a good job:

Experts estimate that “majority of cash … outside the United States” is as much as 80% of the U.S. dollars in circulation. All that money overseas has a lot to do with the fact that everyone has to pay for oil, etc., with dollars.

As Case Sprenkle of the University of Illinois puts it, “Insofar as the money remains abroad and is not used to purchase goods or services from the country that printed it, it serves as an interest-free loan from poor countries to the rich.”

That’s mostly how Uncle Sam is able to run-up such huge budget deficits without causing inflation.

At this point, it will become clear to any student of history, that the actions of the US Empire since the 1953 assassination of the democratically elected president of Iran after he threatened to nationalize his nation’s oil to the most recent effort by Venezuela, sanctions, intervention, regime change and if necessary, outright war itself are the only tools the US Empire has at this point of time to get out of the hole it dug itself.

… what happens if people overseas stop using the dollar — and discover the only place they can spend it now is back here in the good ole’ U.S. of A.?

What would happen if the Saudi Arabians said they didn’t want to be paid [for oil] in dollars anymore, but wanted instead, to be paid, say in yen. There would be inflation that would make the 15 to 20 percent inflation in the early 80’s look good. —Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NEW MEXICO, C-SPAN II, 18 May 1995 ~12:33:55 PM

Unfortunately, selling oil for something other than U.S. dollars isn’t the only thing threatening the paper-standard. It’s also become the norm for governments and central banks to stockpile U.S. Treasuries to support their own currencies.

So, if a country reduces its stock-pile of U.S. Treasuries, either by selling them off or no longer rolling them over when they reach maturity — and replaces them with something else, as in the past, gold perhaps — this also threatens the U.S. dollar paper-standard.

The problem is, the paper-standard is mostly psychological. It’s literally a con — that is, confidence — game and when the confidence evaporates, game over.

And it’s very difficult to enforce confidence, no matter how many aircraft carriers, etc. you deploy. Or to predict when the confidence will implode.

Confidence is already waning on the USD Petro Dollar’s use, we know that North Korea does not participate, neither does Cuba, but lately, Venezuela, Iran, Russia and even Saudi Arabia favor de-dollarization in the oil markets, and this is huge:

I agree with Mr. White when he says:

Could that threat [Saudi Arabia’s look at USD de-dollarization] be why Mr. Trump vetoed Congress’ first attempt in 70 years to control unconstitutional U.S. war involvement by ending support for the Saudi-led murder of the men, women and children in Yemen?

What a tangled web an empire weaves. In desperation, the empire struggles to stay relevant and keep the bubble economic facade intact. Gold-based currency was a more honest way to run a nation, but quick money seems to be the way empires go.

.. killing more men, women and children is a classic result of the the paper-standard. As Ferdinand Lips explains so well, compared to the gold standard, the paper-standard makes financing wars easy and so they happen more often, are longer, stronger, and kill more innocent men, women and children.

As some folks like to put it, “The U.S. dollar used to be supported by gold, now it’s supported by aircraft carriers, B-52s and killer drones.”

I think we can safely add that it’s also supported by election meddling, coup, regime change, assassination, sanctions, invasion, and fake undeclared war. Perhaps, then, a more accurate title for this piece would be “Intervention and the Paper Standard.”

Okay then, enough depressing talk, and for those who have stayed along for this journey, what, if any, antidote is there for such a huge situation?

there’s a subtle but insidious problem with the way Trump and the U.S. Deep State are chronically implementing “All options are on the table” Games Theory. Originally a U.S. invention, Games Theory is based on poker.

The problem with poker — and BTW mercantilism as well — is that, unlike voluntary exchange in unhampered markets, it’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in a game with someone who thinks they’re playing poker, someone wins and someone loses — and they intend to make sure you’re the loser.

Unhampered markets on the other hand — and other forms of normal co-operation — are, in the long run, nearly always win-win propositions. As long as they stay unhampered — and normal.

Markets, UNHAMPERED is the key.  How can markets be “unhampered”? (Remember the Hebrews when their leadership was judges, wise men who provided justice in a society or community, or the American colonists that homesteaded on acres of trees and developed ways so that they could bring value to their communities out of sight of any British flag or British noble?)

The state is a cancer for so many things in our world. I believe the only saving grace might be for the average human (not just in America, but globally) to understand the state for what is actually is. The average human needs to know “the gun in the room”.

Anarchy, the absence of rulers (not natural rules), is probably the only healthy path forward. One of the best things I have see so far this year is this 52 minute interview on Jeff Berwick’s Anarchast page that supplies a double dose of reality into the reality of 2019, the consideration of both anarchy and Jesus as a possible path forward. I am not talking chaos and religion here, so it might be good to view this YouTube so you can understand both of these options without accepting them:

Anarchast About:

Anarchast is your home for Anarchy Podcasts on the internet

To us, Anarchy means freedom. The desire to live without a violent, coercive State. Anarchy is peace, love and prosperity. Free markets. And, power to the people.

Anarchist.  Libertarian.  Freedom fighter against mankinds two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks.

Jeff is the Chief Editor of The Dollar Vigilante, a newsletter focused on investments and expatriation information to survive the coming collapse of the US dollar based financial system.

Jeff is also a contributing editor at many of the world’s largest libertarian, financial and precious metals related websites including LewRockwell.com, The Daily Reckoning, Whiskey and Gunpowder, Kitco, Gold-Eagle, Safehaven.com, Market Oracle and is a speaker at many of the world’s most important hard-money investment and freedom conferences including Libertopia, the San Francisco & New York Hard Assets Show, the PDAC held in Toronto, the Silver Summit and all the Cambridge Houseconferences in Vancouver, Calgary,

So remember, money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is. If your faith is in money and/or government, you are going to have a bad day.

I hope to post more on what the future might hold as far as alternatives to the state, especially the “in your face” state that we are seeing in the USA that used to be restricted to the USSR, Communist China and East Germany for a few decades.

Enjoy your weekend y’all!

-SF1