Tag: WWII

Roots of the Empire Obsession Go Back How Far in US History?

Andrew Jackson @ New Orleans

Many will say that at the conclusion of WWII that the US emerged unscathed and became the sole superpower. Sure the USSR tried to stay in the contest until it dissolved in 1989 after 40 years of Cold War, but the US was definitely the replacement for the British Empire by then.

Others will point to the Spanish-American war in 1898 as the turning point when the fake news that the Spanish blew up the USS Maine in Havana harbor in Cuba resulted in the US expanding all the way to the Philippines in the Pacific and in Teddy Roosevelt’s day, expanded its Navy to match its ambitions.

Still others will point to the fateful day when states rights, the last thing keeping the republic from becoming a centralized democratic (not a good thing) nation, was not only beaten back with bayonets, gunfire and cannon, but continued to steamroll the section of the country (the South) through over a decade of military rule and economic plundering that had rallied around the founder’s idea of a federated republic. The post war correspondence quoted below from this post shows what was gained, and what was lost:

Lord Acton, the British historian and philosopher, and General Robert E. Lee, corresponding in 1866, both saw States’ Rights as an essential component of free government.

Lord Acton:

“saw in States’ Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will.” He mourned over the defeat of the Confederate States and what it meant for liberty.

General Lee,responding, feared:

“Whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

So yes, after steamrolling a defiant South from 1865-1877 the “Union” focused on the American Indian and proceeded on the breaking of all Indian treaties, genociding the defiant and bringing the rest of the population under a dependency on government to pacify it for generations.

So the seeds for empire actually go back even further. In this post, a former history teacher at West Point points out that the War of 1812 actually was out of a desire for added territory. What complicated things politically, was that the party (Republican) that was principled against standing armies actually turned into war-hawks!

The Republicans clamored for war even though their party supposedly hated standing armies and militarism. To wage this war, Madison and the Republicans would have to restrict trade, build a military establishment and coerce obedience—the very actions most abhorred in Republican ideology.

Seems that there was a lingering effort from the American Revolution that desired Canada to be part of the American Republic:

There were other motives for this war [of 1812] besides the affirmation of neutral rights and the reclamation of national honor. Many Westerners (who tended to be avid Republicans) had long coveted Canada, then a British colony. In fact, the Continental Army had previously attempted, unsuccessfully, to conquer Canada during the Revolutionary War. And, strikingly, the first American constitution, the Articles of Confederation, claimed the province of Canada as a future state within the expanding American union. In 1812, “Free Canada!” became a rallying cry, and the U.S. would spend most the war in this fruitless endeavor. We were the invaders!

So yes, the desire for empire had been there from the start.

What was the most interesting part of this post is a statement here:

Canada was primarily (though sparsely) populated by two types of people: French Canadians and former American loyalists—refugees from the late Revolutionary War. Some, the “true” loyalists, fled north just after the end of the war for independence. The majority, however, the “late” loyalists, had more recently settled in Upper Canada between 1790 and 1812. Most came because land was cheaper and taxes lower north of the border.

Yes, post American Revolution, cheaper taxes existed in the British Empire in Canada than in the United States. I thought we fought the War for Independence over high taxes?

Another myth that was busted was the “David and Goliath” slant most history books take on the War of 1812:

In point of fact, the British were busy and spread thin. They had been at war with the powerful French on a global scale for some 19 years. The only British force within striking distance of the U.S. was in Canada, and this—in a stunning reversal of the popular myth—represented a stunning mismatch. There were barely 500,000 citizens in Canada, compared with about 8 million in the United States. The British had only a few thousand regular troops to spare for the defense of this massive Canadian landmass. The Americans might be unprepared, and might prove “bad” at war, but by no means was the initial deck stacked against the large and expansive American republic.

The myth of American defensiveness is also belied by a number of other inconvenient facts. The United States declared this war, a war that Britain had no interest in fighting. Furthermore, despite the exaggerated claims of war hawks and patriots of all stripes, this was not a Second War of Independence. There is no evidence that the British sought to reconquer and colonize the mammoth American republic. Any land seizures were planned to be used only as bargaining chips at an eventual peace settlement. Tied down in an existential war of its own, Britain had neither the capacity nor intent to resubjugate their former colonists.

The bottom line is to question everything .. and to be willing to learn, unlearn and relearn.

-SF1

While Talking About Lies to Start Wars, What About Lies to End Them?

While I won’t even discuss the fact that the surrender Japan offered in May/June 1945 was identical to the surrender Japan was given AFTER the atomic bombs were dropped on civilian (not military) targets, it is what the public believed in August 1945 that ticks me off the most, that 85% approved the use of atomic weapons by Truman at that point in time. The wartime propaganda was most effective that is for sure, and truth had long been the first causality of that war from the outset.

While the support for these two atomic bombs has fallen to slightly less than the majority in recent years, a 2015 study showed:

… a clear majority of Americans would approve of using nuclear weapons first against the civilian population of a nonnuclear-armed adversary, even killing 2 million Iranian civilians, if they believed that such use would save the lives of 20,000 U.S. soldiers…

So human nature has changed very little indeed as once we are told another people group, defined by lines on a map, are bad .. we are quick to slaughter these people based on what the government/media has told us. Mark Twain said it best when he said:

Consider the thoughts that the military commanders of the day, who were either ready to retire or had retired had to say on the events 73 years ago this month:

Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

Dwight Eisenhower, “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.”

President Truman’s Chief of Staff, Adm. William Leahy, “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

So government lies to get us into wars, lies to get us out of the wars and then lies to keep their narrative intact for as long as they control the history books. We need a counter balance to this onslaught of fake news that has been around for hundreds of years, we need researchers to go to the source material to unpack the truth.

Along these lines, could Truman have been lied to as well? You might want to consider this quote:

“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..”(President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

In fact, Hiroshima in 1945 had 350,000 people and was a city that had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command’s list of the 33 primary targets!

So in effect, the US “stalled” Japan’s surrender for months demanding “unconditional surrender”. Was this so the atomic bomb testing could still be achieved? Unconditional surrender meant to the Japanese was that the emperor, regarded by them to be divine, the direct descendant of the goddess of the sun would certainly be dethroned and probably put on trial as a war criminal and hanged, perhaps in front of his palace.

In hindsight, it was not the United States’ intention to dethrone or punish the emperor but this implicit modification of unconditional surrender was never communicated to the Japanese. In the end after Nagasaki, Washington DC acceded to the Japanese desire to keep the dynasty and even to retain Hirohito as emperor.

Could “miscommunication” have cost 200,000 people and hundreds of thousands more radiation poisoning effects for life? The US has NEVER apologized for the dropping of these two lethal bombs.

Would Trump Back Iran into a Corner Like FDR Did Japan?

Presidents Trump’s strategy might be to talk tough and then “seal the deal” like he is working towards with North Korea. However, Iran has some more pull with many EU members liking Iranian oil to keep their economies afloat.

Should Trump or the next US president think about backing Iran into a corner runs the risk that FDR had with Japan. For those that never had read anything but US public school history books you might be surprise that FDR took a chapter out of Abe Lincoln’s playbook in causing Japan to “fire the first shot”.

Put yourself in Japan’s shoes by 1941 .. here are some clips from Lew Rockwell:

In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”

Do you see this? Economic war whether they be sanctions or targeted tariffs are usually, actually, the first act of war. Trade is the best way towards peace!

FDR desired Japan to act first so FDR could count on Germany also declaring war on the USA .. which is what FDR wanted all along. The commensurate politician in the likes of Abe Lincoln, sociopaths who care less about loss of life.

Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the Americans knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”

OK, so in July 1941, the US had already cracked the Japanese code .. so by December 1941:

.. leaders in Washington knew as well that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[4] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the war cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”[5] After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief … that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.

Sick .. unless you are a fellow sociopath. Think about this .. why were only our oldest US Navy assets at Pearl in December 1941? Again, from another Lew Rockwell article:

In 1940, Admiral J.O. Richardson, the fleet’s commander, flew to Washington to protest FDR’s decision to permanently base the fleet in Hawaii instead of its normal berthing on the U.S. West Coast. The admiral had sound reasons: Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack, being approachable from any direction; it could not be effectively rigged with nets and baffles to defend against torpedo planes; and in Hawaii it would be hard to supply and train crews for his undermanned vessels. Pearl Harbor also lacked adequate fuel supplies and dry docks, and keeping men far from their families would create morale problems. The argument became heated. Said Richardson: “I came away with the impression that, despite his spoken word, the President was fully determined to put the United States into the war if Great Britain could hold out until he was reelected.” Richardson was quickly relieved of command. Replacing him was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Kimmel also informed Roosevelt of Pearl Harbor’s deficiencies, but accepted placement there, trusting that Washington would notify him of any intelligence pointing to attack. This proved to be misplaced trust. As Washington watched Japan preparing to assault Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel, as well as his Army counterpart in Hawaii, General Walter C. Short, were completely sealed off from the information pipeline.

You see how that works?

So IF you got this far you have to be asking, “Swamp Fox, so what? What does this have to do with Trump?”

Well .. rattling a nation’s economy by telling the EU that they can’t buy oil from Iran after November 2, 2018 as the region enters winter is designed to make the Iranian government go on the defensive and the people to start talking regime change (which is at the heart of the neocon agenda, these sociopaths drool over this dream of theirs). However, the US has a history in Iran as in 1953, Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson was a key player in one of the first successful CIA coups .. from Lew Rockwell one more time:

The 1953 CIA coup in Iran was named “Operation Ajax” and was engineered by a CIA agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt.

Do you think the Iranians have forgotten their history LIKE the USA is doing with theirs these days? (SMH) No, they (Iranians) are not a stupid people.

My prayer is that Iran resist the urge to “do something” with a similar patience that Russia has had with US sanctions .. as war is not preferable as  some in high places (insulated from the effects and most times in aposition to benefit economically from the use of military power) might argue.

“War is the health of the state” – Randolph Bourne  So the state needs to be countered by those (a healthy society who can think critically) who can understand the unintended consequences of war. Do we have as many thinkers today as the thirteen colonies had back in 1776? From most statistics, 250,000 copies of Thomas Paine’s book “Common Sense” sold within six months to a population of 2.5 million. Ten percent of society were exposed to his words and philosophy. Do we even have 250 thousand people (out of 325 million, or less than 1%) today who would even read 49 pages of a book about liberty?

I leave you with this. Consider Thomas Jefferson’s quote below:

I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind. The insults & injuries committed on us by both the belligerent parties, from the beginning of 1793 to this day, & still continuing, cannot now be wiped off by engaging in war with one of them. I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another. One war, such as that of our Revolution, is enough for one life. The most successful war seldom pays for its losses. War is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer. War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. We have obtained by a peaceable appeal to justice, in four months, what we should not have obtained under seven years of war, the loss of one hundred thousand lives, an hundred millions of additional debt, many hundred millions worth of produce and property lost for want of market, or in seeking it, and that demoralization which war superinduces on the human mind. Great sacrifices of interest have certainly been made by our nation under the difficulties latterly forced upon us by transatlantic powers. But every candid and reflecting mind must agree with you, that while these were temporary and bloodless, they were calculated to avoid permanent subjection to foreign law and tribute, relinquishment of independent rights, and the burthens, the havoc, and desolations of war.