HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
> December 7, 1941: Whose Day of Infamy? > > by Alan Turin > > Ask Not For Whom The Bell Tolls, It Tolls For Thee. > > ~ > John Donne > > Sixty years ago today units of the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked U.S. > installations in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. > > Most Americans wanted to keep out of the Second World > War...and then Japan attacked. Anti-war sentiment was silenced. Four days > later Hitler�s Germany declared war on the United States and "we" were in it > for better and for worse. > > FDR and his defenders painted the attack as a surprise, sneak > act that justified what followed [participation in the war itself, > regimentation of Americans for total war, total war > itself, area bombing, unconditional surrender, concentration camps for > Americans of Japanese descent, alliance with "Uncle Joe" Stalin, Operation > Keelhaul, censorship, high taxes, rationing, propaganda, Bretton Woods, et > cetera ad nauseum]. > > Those opposed to the war before Pearl Harbor had dark > suspicions of "...what did the President know and when did he know it..." a > useful term for a later president. > > During the sixty years since FDR�s defenders have gone through > two versions. > > The first, which lasted about 15 years, was that a combination > of Japanese perfidy, Army and Navy incompetence, some bureaucratic > inefficiency was to blame for being taken by > surprise at Pearl Harbor. Even today (see the link to lewrockwell.com Dec. > 6, 2001) the Pentagon still is maintaining perfidy by Kimmel and Short. > > This first version maintains that FDR was, as were most > Americans, taken by surprise by the attack. > > Reputations were smeared or worse by FDR loyalists who claimed > White House perfidy in hoodwinking the Army and Navy regarding prior > warnings of an attack at Pearl Harbor (see Gary North�s review of this > topic). > > Around 1960 the first version was becoming untenable. Too much > contrary evidence was leaking to make it believable. So a second version > began to take hold. > > This second version could be properly called a "New Deal > revisionism." > > New Deal revisionism admits some accusations by the > isolationists, but states the importance of beating both a Nazi Germany and > Imperial Japan, justified both the provocations and concealment of FDR�s > prior knowledge of a Japanese attack. It affects > that FDR was genuinely surprised by the time, place and severity of the > attack. > > David Ogilvy, founder of the advertising firm of Ogilvy > Matheson, served in the British Embassy during the Second World War. In his > 1978 memoirs [Blood, Brains and Beer, pp. 89-90] he states (William > Stephenson)...was...laconic...A few days before Pearl Harbor, he telegraphed > to London that a Japanese attack was expected. No such report had come from > the Embassy, so Stephenson was asked to identify his source. His reply, > laconic as usual: �The President of the United States.�" > > The problem with the New Deal revisionism is that it moves the > debate from the older one of whether President Franklin Roosevelt was > guilty of treason ["giving aid and comfort to an > enemy in time of war"] to a debate of whether FDR was perfectly innocent or > justifiably devious. > > Pierre Salinger�s defense of John Kennedy�s lying during the > Cuban Missle Crisis is typical of the New Deal Revisionism ["...the > President has a right to lie..."]. > > Now a book by a mainstream historian, Thomas Fleming The New > Dealers' War (buy it here) is making hash of FDR�s defenders. > > This work concedes the entirety of Pearl Harbor revisionism by > the Old Right. Even the title conjurs up an Old Right flavor, "The New > Dealers' War." > > During the past summer, the New York Times (see our link to > this story) broke the story that the White House was preparing FDR�s speech > to Congress in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack. The speech where he so > solemnly intoned, "...December 7th, 1941 a day that will live in infamy." > > In the 60 years since the U.S. Government retains > classifications of details of Pearl Harbor. > > In the 60 times this tired planet has circled the sun those > whose blood gets spilt, whose loved one�s get buried from war, who foot the > bills of war have not yet been trusted with what the > federales have about Pearl Harbor. > > That is wrong. It is time to open the record the government > retains. > > At 60 years the Japanese nor the Germans will gain advantage > over us. > > What advantage can Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Ladin, Khadaffi, > Castro or even Laurant Kabila gain by knowing 60 year old diplomatic > secrets? > > Freeing the Pearl Harbor documents would only harm the > reputations of those who lied to Americans. > > Who would rant today to keep secret the documents of Pearl > Harbor? Perhaps todays war party and, in my opinion, their theoretical or > actual opposition, holds no sway with me. > > Let it all come out now. Then we will know which side of the > Pacific that dates infamy lies. > > December > 7, 2001 > > Alan Turin [send him mail] works in the computer field in Florida. > > Copyright 2001 LewRockwell.com > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
