Showing posts with label Pearl Harbour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pearl Harbour. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 04, 2012

The Wars Of Corporate America



By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels
Courtesy Of "Global Research"


Myth: The US was forced to declare war on Japan after a totally unexpected Japanese attack on the American naval base in Hawaii on December 7, 1941. On account of Japan’s alliance with Nazi Germany, this aggression automatically brought the US into the war against Germany.
Reality: The Roosevelt administration had been eager for some time to wage war against Japan and sought to unleash such a war by means of the institution of an oil embargo and other provocations. Having deciphered Japanese codes, Washington knew a Japanese fleet was on its way to Pearl Harbor, but welcomed the attack since a Japanese aggression would make it possible to “sell” the war to the overwhelmingly anti-war American public.
An attack by Japan, as opposed to an American attack on Japan, was also supposed to avoid a declaration of war by Japan’s ally, Germany, which was treaty-bound to help only if Japan was attacked. However, for reasons which have nothing to do with Japan or the US but everything with the failure of Germany’s “lightning war” against the Soviet Union, Hitler himself declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, on December 11, 1941.
Fall 1941. The US, then as now, was ruled by a “Power Elite” of industrialists, owners and managers of the country’s leading corporations and banks, constituting only a tiny fraction of its population. Then as now, these industrialists and financiers – “Corporate America” – had close connections with the highest ranks of the army, “the warlords,” as Columbia University sociologist C. Wright Mills, who coined the term “power elite,”[1] has called them, and for whom a few years later a big HQ, known as the Pentagon, would be erected on the banks of the Potomac River.
Indeed, the “military-industrial complex” had already existed for many decades when, at the end of his career as President, and having served it most assiduously, Eisenhower gave it that name. Talking about presidents: in the 1930s and 1940s, again then as now, the Power Elite kindly allowed the American people every four years to choose between two of the elite’s own members – one labelled “Republican,” the other “Democrat,” but few people know the difference – to reside in the White House in order to formulate and administer national and international policies. These policies invariably served – and still serve – the Power Elite’s interests, in other words, they consistently aimed to promote “business” – a code word for the maximization of profits by the big corporations and banks that are members of the Power Elite.
As President Calvin Coolidge candidly put it on one occasion during the 1920s, “the business of America [meaning of the American government] is business.” In 1941, then, the tenant of the White House was a bona fide member of the Power Elite, a scion of a rich, privileged, and powerful family: Franklin D. Roosevelt, often referred to as “FDR”. (Incidentally, the Roosevelt family’s wealth had been built at least partly in the opium trade with China; as Balzac once wrote, “behind every great fortune there lurks a crime.”)
Roosevelt appears to have served the Power Elite rather well, for he already managed to be nominated (difficult!) and elected (relatively easy!) in 1932, 1936, and again in 1940. That was a remarkable achievement, since the “dirty thirties” were hard times, marked by the “Great Depression” as well as great international tensions, leading to the eruption of war in Europe in 1939. Roosevelt’s job – serving the interests of the Power Elite – was far from easy, because within the ranks of that elite opinions differed about how corporate interests could best be served by the President. With respect to the economic crisis, some industrialists and bankers were pretty happy with the President’s Keynesian approach, known as the “New Deal” and involving much state intervention in the economy, while others were vehemently opposed to it and loudly demanded a return to laissez-faire orthodoxy. The Power Elite was also divided with respect to the handling of foreign affairs.
The owners and top managers of many American corporations – including Ford, General Motors, IBM, ITT, and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey, now known as Exxon – liked Hitler a lot; one of them – William Knudsen of General Motors – even glorified the German Führer as “the miracle of the 20th century.”[2] The reason: in preparation for war, the Führer had been arming Germany to the teeth, and the numerous German branch plants of US corporations had profited handsomely from that country’s “armament boom” by producing trucks, tanks and planes in sites such as GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim and Ford’s big plant in Cologne, the Ford-Werke; and the likes of Exxon and Texaco had been making plenty of money by supplying the fuel Hitler’s panzers would need to roll all the way to Warsaw in 1939, to Paris in 1940, and (almost) to Moscow in 1941. No wonder the managers and owners of these corporations helped to celebrate Germany’s victories against Poland and France at a big party in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York on June 26, 1940!
American “captains of industry” like Henry Ford also liked the way Hitler had shut down the German unions, outlawed all labour parties, and thrown the communists and many socialists into concentration camps; they wished Roosevelt would mete out the same kind of treatment to America’s own pesky union leaders and “reds,” the latter still numerous in the 1930s and early 1940s. The last thing those men wanted, was for Roosevelt to involve the US in the war on the side of Germany’s enemies, they were “isolationists” (or “non-interventionists”) and so, in the summer of 1940, was the majority of the American public: a Gallup Poll, taken in September 1940, showed that 88 percent of Americans wanted to stay out of the war that was raging in Europe.[3] Not surprisingly, then, there was no sign whatsoever that Roosevelt might want to restrict trade with Germany, let alone embark on an anti-Hitler crusade. In fact, during the presidential election campaign in the fall 1940, he solemnly promised that “[our] boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”[4]
That Hitler has crushed France and other democratic countries, was of no concern to the US corporate types who did business with Hitler, in fact, they felt that Europe’s future belonged to fascism, especially Germany’s variety of fascism, Nazism, rather than to democracy. (Typically, the chairman of General Motors, Alfred P. Sloan, declared at that time that it was a good thing that in Europe the democracies were giving way “to an alternative [i.e. fascist] system with strong, intelligent, and aggressive leaders who made the people work longer and harder and who had the instinct of gangsters – all of them good qualities”!)[5] And, since they certainly did not want Europe’s future to belong to socialism in its evolutionary, let alone revolutionary (i.e. communist) variety, the US industrialists would be particularly happy when, about one year later, Hitler would finally do what they have long hoped he would do, namely, to attack the Soviet Union in order to destroy the homeland of communism and source of inspiration and support of “reds” all over the world, also in the US.
While many big corporations were engaged in profitable business with Nazi Germany, others now happened to be making plenty of money by doing business with Great Britain. That country – in addition to Canada and other member countries of the British Empire, of course – was Germany’s only remaining enemy from the fall of 1940 until June 1941, when Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union caused Britain and the Soviet Union to become allies. Britain was desperately in need of all sorts of equipment to continue its struggle against Nazi Germany, wanted to purchase much of it in the US, but was unable to make the cash payments required by America’s existing “Cash-and-Carry” legislation. However, Roosevelt made it possible for US corporations to take advantage of this enormous “window of opportunity” when, on March 11, 1941, he introduced his famous Lend-Lease program, providing Britain with virtually unlimited credit to purchase trucks, planes, and other martial hardware in the US. The Lend-Lease exports to Britain were to generate windfall profits, not only on account of the huge volume of business involved but also because these exports featured inflated prices and fraudulent practices such as double billing.
A segment of Corporate America thus began to sympathize with Great Britain, a less “natural” phenomenon than we would now tend to believe. (Indeed, after American independence the ex-motherland had long remained Uncle Sam’s archenemy; and as late the 1930s, the US military still had plans for war against Britain and an invasion of the Canadian Dominion, the latter including plans for the bombing of cities and the use of poison gas.)[6] Some mouthpieces of this corporate constituency, though not very many, even started to favour a US entry into the war on the side of the British; they became known as the “interventionists.” Of course, many if not most big American corporations made money through business with both Nazi Germany and Britain and, as the Roosevelt administration itself was henceforth preparing for possible war, multiplying military expenditures and ordering all sorts of equipment, they also started to make more and more money by supplying America’s own armed forces with all sorts of martial material.[7]
If there was one thing that all the leaders of Corporate America could agree on, regardless of their individual sympathies towards either Hitler or Churchill, it was this: the war in Europe in 1939 was good, even wonderful, for business. They also agreed that the longer this war lasted, the better it would be for all of them. With the exception of the most fervent pro-British interventionists, they further agreed that there was no pressing need for the US to become actively involved in this war, and certainly not to go to war against Germany. Most advantageous to Corporate America was a scenario whereby the war in Europe dragged on as long as possible, so that the big corporations could continue to profit from supplying equipment to the Germans, the British, to their respective allies, and to America herself. Henry Ford thus “expressed the hope that neither the Allies nor the Axis would win [the war],” and suggested that the United States should supply both sides with “the tools to keep on fighting until they both collapse.” Ford practised what he preached, and arranged for his factories in the US, in Britain, in Germany, and in occupied France to crank out equipment for all belligerents.[8] The war may have been hell for most people, but for American “captains of industry” such as Ford it was heaven.
Roosevelt himself is generally believed to have been an interventionist, but in Congress the isolationists certainly prevailed, and it did not look as if the US would soon, if ever, enter the war. However, on account of Lend-Lease exports to Britain, relations between Washington and Berlin were definitely deteriorating, and in the fall of 1941 a series of incidents between German submarines and US Navy destroyers escorting freighters bound for Britain lead to a crisis that has become known as the “undeclared naval war.” But even that episode did not lead to active American involvement in the war in Europe. Corporate America was profiting handsomely from the status quo, and was simply not interested in a crusade against Nazi Germany. Conversely, Nazi Germany was deeply involved in the great project of Hitler’s life, his mission to destroy the Soviet Union. In this war, things had not been going according to plan. The Blitzkrieg in the East, launched on June 1941, was supposed to have “crushed the Soviet Union like an egg” within 4 to 6 weeks, or so it was believed by the military experts not only in Berlin but also in Washington. However, in early December Hitler was still waiting for the Soviets to wave the white flag. To the contrary, on December 5, the Red Army suddenly launched a counter-offensive in front of Moscow, and suddenly the Germans found themselves deeply in trouble. The last thing Hitler needed at this point was a war against the US.[9]
In the 1930s, the US military had no plans, and did not prepare plans, to fight a war against Nazi Germany. On the other hand, they did have plans war against Great Britain, Canada, Mexico – and Japan.[10] Why against Japan? In the 1930s, the US was one of the world’s leading industrial powers and, like all industrial powers, was constantly looking out for sources of inexpensive raw materials such as rubber and oil, as well as for markets for its finished products. Already at the end of the nineteenth century, America had consistently pursued its interests in this respect by extending its economic and sometimes even direct political influence across oceans and continents. This aggressive, “imperialist” policy – pursued ruthlessly by presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, a cousin of FDR – had led to American control over former Spanish colonies such as Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines, and also over the hitherto independent island nation of Hawaii. America had thus also developed into a major power in the Pacific Ocean and even in the Far East.[11]
The lands on the far shores of the Pacific Ocean played an increasingly important role as markets for American export products and as sources of cheap raw materials. But in the Depression-ridden 1930s, when the competition for markets and resources was heating up, the US faced the competition there of an aggressive rival industrial power, one that was even more needy for oil and similar raw materials, and also for markets for its finished products. That competitor was Japan, the land of the rising sun. Japan sought to realize its own imperialist ambitions in China and in resource-rich Southeast Asia and, like the US, did not hesitate to use violence in the process, for example waging ruthless war on China and carving a client state out of the northern part of that great but weak country. What bothered the United States was not that the Japanese treated their Chinese and Korean neighbours as Untermenschen, but that they turned that part of the world into what they called the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, i.e., an economic bailiwick of their very own, a “closed economy” in with there was no room for the American competition. In doing so, the Japanese actually followed the example of the US, which had earlier transformed Latin America and much of the Caribbean into Uncle Sam’s exclusive economic playground.[12]
Corporate America was extremely frustrated at being squeezed out of the lucrative Far Eastern market by the “Japs,” a “yellow race” Americans in general had already started to despise during the 19th century.[13] Japan was viewed as an arrogant but essentially weak upstart country, that mighty America could easily “wipe off the map in three months,” as Navy Secretary Frank Knox put it on one occasion.[14] And so it happened that, during the 1930s and early 1940s, the US Power Elite, while mostly opposed to war against Germany, was virtually unanimously in favour of a war against Japan – unless, of course, Japan was prepared to make major concessions, such as “sharing” China with the US. President Roosevelt – like Woodrow Wilson not at all the pacifist he has been made out to be by all too many historians – was keen to provide such a “splendid little war.” (This expression had been coined by US Secretary of State John Hay in reference to the Spanish-American War of 1898; it was “splendid” in that it allowed the US to pocket the Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc.) By the summer of 1941, after Tokyo had further increased its zone of influence in the Far East, e.g. by occupying the rubber-rich French colony of Indochina and, desperate above all for oil, had obviously started to lust after the oil-rich Dutch colony of Indonesia, FDR appears to have decided that the time was ripe for war against Japan, but he faced two problems. First, public opinion was strongly against American involvement in any foreign war. Second, the isolationist majority in Congress might not consent to such a war, fearing that it would automatically bring the US into war against Germany.
Roosevelt’s solution to this twin problem, according to the author of a detailed and extremely well documented recent study, Robert B. Stinnett, was to “provoke Japan into an overt act of war against the United States.”[15] Indeed, in case of a Japanese attack the American public would have no choice but to rally behind the flag. (The public had similarly been made to rally behind the Stars and Stripes before, namely at the start of the Spanish-American War, when the visiting US battleship Maine had mysteriously sunk in Havana harbour, an act that was immediately blamed on the Spanish; after World War II, Americans would again be conditioned to approve of wars, wanted and planned by their government, by means of contrived provocations such as the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Incident.) Furthermore, under the terms of the Tripartite Treaty concluded by Japan, Germany, and Italy in Berlin on September 27, 1940, the three countries undertook to assist each other when one of the three contracting powers was attacked by another country, but not when one of them attacked another country. Consequently, in case of a Japanese attack on the US, the isolationists, who were non-interventionists with respect to Germany but not with respect to Japan, did not have to fear that a conflict with Japan would also mean war against Germany.
And so, President Roosevelt, having decided that “Japan must be seen to make the first overt move,” made “provoking Japan into an overt act of war the principal policy that guided [his] actions toward Japan throughout 1941,” as Stinnett has written. The stratagems used included the deployment of warships close to, and even into, Japanese territorial waters, apparently in the hope of sparking a Gulf of Tonkin-style incident that could be construed to be a casus belli.  More effective, however, was the relentless economic pressure that was brought to bear on Japan, a country desperately in need of raw materials such as oil and rubber and therefore likely to consider such methods to be singularly provocative. In the summer of 1941, the Roosevelt administration froze all Japanese assets in the United States and embarked on a “strategy for frustrating Japanese acquisition of petroleum products.” In collaboration with the British and the Dutch, anti-Japanese for reasons of their own, the US imposed severe economic sanctions on Japan, including an embargo on vital oil products. The situation deteriorated further in the fall of 1941. On November 7, Tokyo, hoping to avoid war with the mighty US, offered to apply in China the principle of non-discriminatory trade relations on the condition that the Americans did the same in their own sphere of influence in Latin America. However, Washington wanted reciprocity only in the sphere of influence of other imperialist powers, and not in its own backyard; the Japanese offer was rejected.
The continuing US provocations of Japan were intended to cause Japan to go to war, and were indeed increasingly likely to do so. “This continuing putting pins in rattlesnakes,” FDR was to confide to friends later, “finally got this country bit.” On November 26, when Washington a demanded Japan’s withdrawal from China, the “rattlesnakes” in Tokyo decided they had enough and prepared to “bite.” A Japanese fleet was ordered to set sail for Hawaii in order to attack the US warships that FDR had decided to station there, rather provocatively as well as invitingly as far as the Japanese were concerned, in 1940. Having deciphered the Japanese codes, the American government and top army brass knew exactly what the Japanese armada was up to, but did not warn the commanders in Hawaii, thus allowing the “surprise attack” on Pearl Harbor to happen on Sunday, December 7, 1941.[16]
The following day FDR found it easy to convince Congress to declare war on Japan, and the American people, shocked by a seemingly cowardly attack that they could not know to have been provoked, and expected, by their own government, predictably rallied behind the flag. The US was ready to wage war against Japan, and the prospects for a relatively easy victory were hardly diminished by the losses suffered at Pearl Harbour which, while ostensibly grievous, were far from catastrophic. The ships that had been sunk were older, “mostly 27-year old relics of World War I,” and far from indispensible for warfare against Japan. The modern warships, on the other hand, including the aircraft carriers, whose role in the war would turn out to be crucial, were unscathed, as per chance (?) they had been sent elsewhere by orders from Washington and were safely out at sea during the attack.[17] However, things did not quite work out as expected, because a few days later, on December 11, Nazi Germany unexpectedly declared war, thus forcing the US to confront two enemies and to fight a much bigger war than expected, a war on two fronts, a world war.
In the White House, the news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had not arrived as a surprise, but the German declaration of war exploded there as a bombshell. Germany had nothing to do with the attack in Hawaii and had not even been aware of the Japanese plans, so FDR did not consider asking Congress to declare war on Nazi Germany at the same time as Japan. Admittedly, US relations with Germany had been deteriorating for some time because of America’s active support for Great Britain, escalating to the undeclared naval war of the fall of 1941. However, as we have already seen, the US Power Elite did not feel the need to intervene in the war in Europe. It was Hitler himself who declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, much to the surprise of Roosevelt. Why? Only a few days earlier, on December 5, 1941, the Red Army had launched a counteroffensive in front of Moscow, and this entailed the failure of the Blitzkrieg in the Soviet Union. On that same day, Hitler and his generals realized that they could no longer win the war. But when, only a few days later, the German dictator learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he appears to have speculated that a German declaration of war on the American enemy of his Japanese friends, though not required under the terms of the Tripartite Treaty, would induce Tokyo to reciprocate with a declaration of war on the Soviet enemy of Germany.
With the bulk of the Japanese army stationed in northern China and therefore able to immediately attack the Soviet Union in the Vladivostok area, a conflict with Japan would have forced the Soviets into the extremely perilous predicament of a two-front war, opening up the possibility that Germany might yet win its anti-Soviet “crusade.” Hitler, then, believed that he could exorcize the spectre of defeat by summoning a sort of Japanese deus ex machina to the Soviet Union’s vulnerable Siberian frontier. But Japan did not take Hitler’s bait. Tokyo, too, despised the Soviet state but, already at war against the US, could not afford the luxury of a two-front war and preferred to put all of its money on a “southern” strategy, hoping to win the big prize of resource-rich Southeast Asia, rather than embark on a venture in the inhospitable reaches of Siberia. Only at the very end of the war, after the surrender of Nazi Germany, would it come to hostilities between the Soviet Union and Japan. In any event, because of Hitler’s needless declaration of war, the United States was henceforth also an active participant in the war in Europe, with Great Britain and the Soviet Union as allies.[18]
In recent years, Uncle Sam has been going to war rather frequently, but we are invariably asked to believe that this is done for purely humanitarian reasons, i.e. to prevent holocausts, to stop terrorists from committing all sorts of evil, to get rid of nasty dictators, to promote democracy, etc.[19]
Never, it seems, are economic interests of the US or, more accurately, of America’s big corporations, involved. Quite often, these wars are compared to America’s archetypal “good war,” World War II, in which Uncle Sam supposedly went to war for no other reason than to defend freedom and democracy and to fight dictatorship and injustice. (In an attempt to justify his “war against terrorism,” for example, and “sell” it to the American public, George W. Bush was quick to compare the 9/11 attacks to Pearl Harbor.) This short examination of the circumstances of the US entry into the war in December 1941, however, reveals a very different picture. The American Power Elite wanted war against Japan, plans for such a war had been ready for some time, and in 1941 Roosevelt obligingly arranged for such a war, not because of Tokyo’s unprovoked aggression and horrible war crimes in China, but because American corporations wanted a share of the luscious big “pie” of Far Eastern resources and markets. On the other hand, because the major US corporations were doing wonderful business in and with Nazi Germany, profiting handsomely from the war Hitler had unleashed and, incidentally, providing him with the equipment and fuel required for his Blitzkrieg, war against Nazi Germany was definitely not wanted by the US Power Elite, even though there were plenty of compelling humanitarian reasons for crusading against the truly evil “Third Reich.” Prior to 1941, no plans for a war against Germany had been developed, and in December 1941 the US did not voluntarily go to war against Germany, but “backed into” that war because of Hitler’s own fault.
Humanitarian considerations played no role whatsoever in the calculus that led to America’s participation in World War II, the country’s original “good war.” And there is no reason to believe that they did so in the calculus that, more recently, led to America’s marching off to fight allegedly “good wars” in unhappy lands such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya – or will do so in the looming war against Iran.
A war against Iran is very much wanted by Corporate America, since it holds the promise of a large market and of plentiful raw materials, especially oil. As in the case of the war against Japan, plans for such a war are ready, and the present tenant in the White House seems just as eager as FDR was to make it happen. Furthermore, again as in the case of the war against Japan, provocations are being orchestrated, this time in the form of sabotage and intrusions by drones, as well as by the old-fashioned deployment of warships just outside Iranian territorial waters. Washington is again “putting pins in rattlesnakes,” apparently hoping that the Iranian “rattlesnake” will bite back, thus justifying a “splendid little war.” However, as in the case of Pearl Harbor, the resulting war may well again turn out to be much bigger, longer, and nastier than expected.
Jacques R. Pauwels is the author of The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, James Lorimer, Toronto, 2002
 Notes
[1] C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, New York, 1956.
[2] Cited in Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy: An Exposé of The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949, New York, 1983, p. 163.
[3] Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, New York, 2001, p. 17.
[4] Cited in Sean Dennis Cashman, America, Roosevelt, and World War II, New York and London, 1989, p. 56; .
[5] Edwin Black, Nazi Nexus: America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust, Washington/DC, 2009, p. 115.
[6] Floyd Rudmin, “Secret War Plans and the Malady of American Militarism,” Counterpunch, 13:1, February 17-19, 2006. pp. 4-6, http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/02/17/secret-war-plans-and-the-malady-of-american-militarism
[7] Jacques R. Pauwels, The Myth of the Good War : America in the Second World War, Toronto, 2002, pp. 50-56. The fraudulent practices of Lend-Lease are described in Kim Gold, “The mother of all frauds: How the United States swindled Britain as it faced Nazi Invasion,” Morning Star, April 10, 2003.
[8] Cited in David Lanier Lewis, The public image of Henry Ford: an American folk hero and his company, Detroit, 1976, pp. 222, 270.
[9] Jacques R. Pauwels, “70 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II,” Global Research, December 6, 2011, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28059.
[10] Rudmin, op. cit.
[11] See e.g. Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, s.l., 1980, p. 305 ff.
[12] Patrick J. Hearden, Roosevelt confronts Hitler: America’s Entry into World War II, Dekalb/IL, 1987, p. 105.
[13] “Anti-Japanese sentiment,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment
[14] Patrick J. Buchanan, “Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?,” Global Research, December 7, 2011,http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28088 . Buchanan refers to a new book by George H. Nash, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath, Stanford/CA, 2011.
[15] Stinnett, op. cit., p. 6.
[16] Stinnett, op. cit., pp. 5, 9-10, 17-19, 39-43; Buchanan, op. cit.; Pauwels, The Myth…, pp. 67-68. On American intercepts of coded Japanese messages, see Stinnett, op. cit., pp. 60-82. “Rattlesnakes”-quotation from Buchanan, op. cit.
[17] Stinnett, op. cit., pp. 152-154.
[18] Pauwels, “70 Years Ago…”
[19] See Jean Bricmont, Humanitarian imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War, New York, 2006.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Israel Lobbyist: U.S. Needs Another ‘False Flag' Operation

During question time at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” the director of research at the pro-Israel think tank hinted that a Pearl Harbor-type attack might be necessary to get the United States to go to war against the Islamic Republic.




“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough,” said Patrick Clawson, who also heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what would happen if negotiations with Tehran fail. “And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.”

As a consequence, Clawson said he was led to conclude that “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.”

Intriguingly, he went on to recount a series of controversial incidents in American history — the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the blowing up of the USS Maine — that US presidents “had to wait for” before taking America to war.

“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked,” Clawson continued, “which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.”

“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise,” the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, “it would be best if somebody else started the war.”

Dennis Ross, Patrick Clawson, and David Makovsky discuss how the United States and Israel can regain the initiative in halting Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Pearl Harbor: The Seeds & Fruits Of Infamy

Book Review

By Greaves, Percy L. Jr.

A president faced an economic depression that wouldn't go away, and a deeply disgruntled electorate. Not for the first or last time, the option of entering a war seemed politically appealing. How badly did FDR want a war and to what lengths was he willing to go to get one? The questions have vexed historians for many decades.

Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy by Percy Greaves, Jr. (1906-1984), published for the first time in 2010, blows the top off a 70-year cover-up, reporting for the first time on long-suppressed interviews, documents, and corroborated evidence.

The first section (the seeds) provides a detailed history of pre-war U.S.-Japan relations, thoroughly documenting the sources of rising tension. The second section (the fruits) shows that the attack on December 7, 1941 was neither unexpected nor unprovoked. Nor was it the reason that Franklin Roosevelt declared a war that resulted in massive human slaughter. Instead, in exhaustive detail, this book establishes that Pearl Harbor was permitted as a public relations measure to rally the public, shifting the blame from the White House, where it belonged, to the men on the ground who were unprepared for the attack.

For 70 years, Greaves's documents have been the primary source of revisionist scholarship on Pearl Harbor. These documents were prepared under his leadership as main counsel for the Republican minority on the Joint Congressional Committee that investigated Pearl Harbor from 1945 to 1946.

More than any other person, he was qualified to speak on this subject. He possessed encyclopedic knowledge and had access to research available to no one else. He conducted in-person, detailed, comprehensive interviews with all the main players at Pearl Harbor and many people in the security apparatus. The contents of these interviews are further corroborated by military records.

However, for many reasons, the documents were not published. He continued to work on this book for many years before his death in 1984. At that point, his wife Bettina Bien Greaves took up the project. The result is absolutely astonishing.

Much of Greaves’s research has never appeared in print—effectively suppressed for 70 years. Even the censored minority report did not include it all. But at long last, the fullness of this report is revealed. The result is this monumental book, completed and edited by Bettina Greaves and published by the Mises Institute.

Pearl Harbor is a 937-page indictment of the Roosevelt administration, one that finally and devastatingly rips the lid off a case that has been shrouded in mystery for generations.

Because of the astonishing source material and thoroughness of the argument, Robert Stinnett, the leading authority on the topic and the author of Day of Deceit, calls Greaves's book "explosive!"

Indeed, it is. The author writes in a guarded tone, carefully backing up every statement with massive evidence, provided in a level of depth never before seen. The prevailing consensus is that the fault for Pearl Harbor attack belongs to General Walter Short and Admiral Husband Kimmel, while the major political and military figures in Washington should be completely exonerated.

Greaves turns this conventional wisdom on its head. "It is now apparent also that the president himself, even before the attack, had intended to order the U.S. armed forces to make a pre-emptive strike against the Japanese in the southwest Pacific in order to assist the British in southeast Asia. But the Japanese 'jumped the gun' on him by bombing Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941."

Greaves's conclusion is dramatic: "It must be said also that the evidence revealed in the course of the several investigations leads to the conclusion that the ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe inflicted on the U.S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, must rest on the shoulders of President Roosevelt.... It was thanks to Roosevelt’s decisions and actions that an unwarned, ill-equipped, and poorly prepared Fleet remained stationed far from the shores of the continental United States, at a base recognized by his military advisers as indefensible and vulnerable to attack.... Thus the attack on Pearl Harbor became FDR’s excuse, not his reason, for calling for the United States’s entry into World War II."

Greaves provides comprehensive coverage here on the history of U.S. and Japanese relations, the actions of the Roosevelt administration, the attack and the response on the ground, the investigations and cover-ups that began almost immediately and continue to this day. Today the "back-door-to-the-war" theory has become mainstream historiography, even if those who admit it say that the lies were necessary for the good of the country. That is a difficult opinion to maintain in the face of the fullness of the evidence against FDR.

It is a remarkable fact that Greaves, who later became a close confidant of Mises himself throughout the 1950s and 1960s, and who is known mainly for his monetary work, has left us an amazing revelation 70 years after the fact and 26 years after his own death. It is proof that the wheels of justice can grind slowly but also very finely.
“Percy Greaves was chief of the minority (Republican) research staff of the (1945-1946) Joint Congressional Committee to Investigate the Pearl Harbor Attack. He attended all its hearings, interviewed many Army, Navy, and Washington principals involved in the attack and in the investigations. He researched diplomatic documents, studied reports and accounts of the event published during the years that followed. This book is not about the attack itself. It is about never before presented pre-attack and post-attack events, from the Washington point of view. Without name-calling, innuendo, or slander, Greaves simply presents the pertinent, significant and relevant facts which led the Japanese to attack and the political administration to want to cover-up its involvement.” - Bettina Bien Greaves
937 pages, Hardcover, 2010, 6x9, ISBN: 978-1-933550-33-6

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Pearl Harbour As Japanese BlowBack

The United States, its abandonment of law and worse

Christopher King says that the United States has gone beyond lawlessness and inhumanity into pathologically vicious means of waging warfare. It has experienced blowback from its past actions and can expect more from its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pearl Harbour attack was blowback and current Japanese objections to US base arrangements might be the commencement of blowback from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

By Christopher King
Source: "Redress"
December 8, 2009
Courtesy Of "Information Clearing House"

We have entered a period of government lawlessness, led by the United States, with inevitably serious consequences for everyone. Nuclear war is a possibility. With climate change threatening the planet itself, we do not need this as well. Europe must cease supporting this berserk state. It needs to recover the vision, the spirit of goodwill and humanity that laid the foundations of the European Union. In following America, Europe has lost its way.

American behaviour extends beyond inhumanity into viciousness. The character of Barack Obama, which in dealing with non-Americans is no different from that of George W. Bush, also shows the American characteristic of cruelty without limits.

It is said that the Afghan surge is Obama’s defining action, which is probably true politically. He revealed himself much earlier however, in April, at the time the Maersk Alabama’s captain was held by three teenaged pirates. The pirates were in a boat tied to a US warship and were attempting to negotiate for their lives. The captain was in no more danger than he had been for days but Obama approved killing the men who held him. It was not a firefight. It was cold-blooded murder by trained snipers – hailed in the American media as heroism. That defined Obama as I said at the time. His approval of the Afghanistan surge was inevitable.

Beyond inhumanity in Afghanistan

Speaking of Afghanistan, it is not that invading other countries, massacring their inhabitants and stealing their resources is unusual. Men have been doing it for millennia. Nor is it that trampling international law by kidnapping, torture, failure to prosecute torturers and dispensing with the oldest, most critical guarantee of freedom – habeas corpus – is particularly unusual, although we had hoped that these practices were past. What is unusual in Afghanistan is the detached murder of individuals, families and gatherings by drone aircraft whose pilots are hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles away. This “murder on suspicion” has by other means, hitherto only been practised by the secret police forces of despotic regimes. America has made it an army procedure in which anyone’s behaviour, as viewed from the air or on the word of informers, can make one liable to instant assassination. Even the Nazi Gestapo, Iranian Savak under America’s puppet Shah and Soviet KGB had the good grace to torture confessions from their victims. Drone assassinations on suspicion are America’s unique contribution to terror.

The 9/11 World Trade Centre attack that triggered the invasion was, of course, nothing to do with Afghanistan. It was blowback from America’s theft of Saudi wealth, its use of that country as a base for attacking other Muslim countries and its support of Israeli injustice against the Palestinians. Osama bin Laden said so.

Beyond inhumanity in Iraq

Perhaps the Afghans are fortunate, however. Although in Iraq US-sponsored sanctions killed half a million children, its invasion killed over a million persons and made four or five million homeless, one might say that the Nazis did worse and the worst is hopefully over. America has surpassed the Nazis, however, in its use of depleted uranium munitions which have spread radioactivity that will last hundreds of thousands of years over wide areas of Iraq. Cancers and birth defects directly attributable to this are now being seen in Iraq and will continue indefinitely, so it is likely that over time the Iraqi civilian death toll will exceed that of the Nazis. Americans say that this material is harmless; however, if depleted uranium were to be dispersed on American territory as in Iraq, it would be considered to be outrageous. If others were to do it, it would be called a “dirty bomb” attack. American use of depleted uranium goes beyond lawlessness to become an attack on life itself.

Beyond inhumanity in Vietnam

A similar case is America’s use of the dioxin-containing “agent orange” defoliant. Not content with using explosives and napalm on civilians, millions of gallons of agent orange were sprayed on Vietnam’s forests during America’s war on the Vietnamese. This environmental and humanitarian disaster killed about 400,000 persons and caused about 500,000 birth defects. Dioxin is persistent and its direct effects continue to the present time. Dioxin also damages human DNA so that its effects will persist in the Vietnamese population indefinitely.

No other country has ever before done such things to another.

Beyond inhumanity in Japan

Indeed, America is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another. The American narrative of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour is of a treacherous, unprovoked attack by that country. We will recall, however, that in 1852 the American Commodore Matthew Perry used armed force to obtain a trade agreement with Japan. Having had America force itself, its economic philosophy and its technology on them, the Japanese industrialized, only to find Western markets closed to their “cheap” goods. Japanese attempts to found an oriental empire and their attack on Pearl harbour were blowback from their humiliation by Perry and the American and European tariff barriers against them. We might notice that the Japanese are currently unhappy both with American bases, particularly on Okinawa, and a secret treaty under which the US has brought nuclear weapons into Japan. America considers that the Japanese should do whatever it wants. We have yet to see blowback in Japan from Hiroshima and Nagasaki but this might be its beginning. There is always blowback from inhumanity and injustice.

Blowback in Iran

This reaction was evident in the case of Iran following the CIA overthrow of the democratic Mossadeq government in 1953 and installation of the puppet Shah. Bush dismissed it as “ancient history” even though the blowback from that event gave rise to the Islamic revolution and the current regime. The viciousness that America currently shows toward Iran is not due to anything that the Iranians have done. To the contrary. It is a case of the attacker blaming the attacked, the thief blaming the person from whom he stole.

Blowback from Hitler and Europe’s reaction

Europe acknowledged that the harshness of the Versailles treaty following World War I gave rise to blowback in the form of Hitler’s rise and World War II, with Italy and Japan joining him as the Axis powers. By recognizing the reality of those events and the simple fact that wars create problems rather than solve them, it has been possible for the European Union to be developed. Unfortunately, the EU is now seen by its newer entrants and applicants for entry in terms of economic benefits rather than the primary objective envisaged by the six founder states.

The original objective of the original coal and steel community was to make warfare impossible by means of economic integration. That spirit and objective needs to be recovered if the EU is to survive. Under the influence of the US, law is slipping away from the EU. Europe has been led by America beyond lawlessness in Iraq and Afghanistan, setting precedents for European behaviour that we had hoped the formation of the EU had extinguished. Other countries will also adopt US and EU behaviour as precedents. We have lost the moral high ground. Neither the US nor Europe is now able to criticize any other country for the awful crime of torture or for “pre-emptive war” on a non-threatening country. America has done it and Europe has been complicit.

President Obama believes that it is legitimate for him to interfere in EU business by pressing for the EU entry of other countries as American presidents have done before him. America controls NATO directly and is selecting and training European officers who are willing to place American interests before those of Europe. This follows the model of the School of the Americas at Fort Benning that in the past has trained most of the coup and subversion leaders of South America.

Blowback in Europe from the Iraq war

European cities, notably Madrid and London, have experienced terrorist attacks as blowback from supporting the US in its Middle Eastern atrocities. Association with the US is as toxic as its fraudulent financial derivatives, not because of harm that might occur to our soldiers or cities but because US foreign policy is aggressive, unjust and illegal. The vicious element in US behaviour makes the US a fit partner for Saddam Hussein to whom it sold the chemical weapons that he used against Iran. Iran had never harmed the US. US lies about Iran’s nuclear programme, its fabricated evidence, sanctions, subversion programme, the chemical weapons used by Saddam as a US proxy, the overthrow of the Mossadeq government are now typical US behaviour. Leaving aside what the US has done to other countries, if an individual were to exhibit behaviour of this nature he would be declared criminally insane and locked away for life. US behaviour is pathological. It is criminally insane.

Europeans must examine carefully the US bases on their soil and the US’s NATO First Act, now before Congress, that has the intention of making them permanent. It is incomprehensible that Europe’s leaders, particularly those of the UK, should collude with the US in its crimes. The only explanation can be that our political class has the same motivations as Anthony Blair – that immediate personal gain is more important than the good of the country. The UK and Europe are giving legitimacy to American lawlessness and worse – not merely inhumanitarian behaviour but behaviour of inhuman viciousness.

The UK has never understood the European Union nor committed itself to it. It might as well leave and be done with it. Europe will not miss it and its leaders can concentrate on enriching themselves by pimping for the US and transferring its population’s cash to its banks.

The British military’s role

The UK military establishment is in full accord with its corrupt politicians and has now committed itself to supporting the politicians in selling the Afghanistan/Pakistan disaster to the British public. We may now recognize them as mercenaries and nothing more. It is, in fact, in the interests of the UK and European military establishment to withdraw from Afghanistan as a war of aggression, get rid of American bases on their soil and develop a European fighting force independent of NATO as the French, before America’s sycophant Sarkozy, always advocated. Their precious careers, pensions and status would be safe and probably enhanced.

The message from the UK’s military establishment is now that UK opposition to the Iraq war encourages Afghan insurgents to kill UK soldiers. UK soldiers are in fact being killed in Afghanistan because of the cowardice of their commanders who will not take the political risk of complying with international and UK law by abandoning this war of aggression.

Anthony Blair, who enriched himself by selling British soldiers lives to the Americans, out-bluffed the other UK political parties at the time of the last election by claiming that failure to support the Iraq war was failure to support our soldiers. It was a disgusting lie but the Liberal Democratic Party, which to its credit voted against the Iraq war, did not credit the British public with the ability to distinguish between supporting our forces by bringing them back from an illegal war and Blair’s mendacity. It is a disgrace to the British army that it is now preaching the same message prior to the coming election in six months time. The British army is playing politics – another destructive trait learned from America.

Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb, British adviser to General McChrystal, said: “We hear people saying the fight isn't worth it. Does that mean all the sacrifices which have been made, the deaths and the injuries have been for nothing?” Yes, lieutenant-general, that is precisely what it means. Their deaths and injuries have been for nothing. Lives, both British and Afghan, are being thrown away as of no value and for no gain. That is why our troops should come home. The good lieutanant-general said on 2 December: “We are continuing to strike the Taliban ... until their eyballs bleed.” This is surely the unhappy effect of his getting drunk with Americans.

The public must become more politically aware

The matter is worse than current sacrifices of lives being for nothing. If that outcome, tragic though it is, finalized conflict at least damage would be known and limited. Unfortunately, the Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistani wars have introduced malevolence, destructiveness or evil, as G.W. Bush would call it, into the affairs of men that will produce blowback as it always does. Osama bin Laden’s attacks were blowback from American meddling that were amplified by America drawing Europe and other nations into the illegal Afghan and Iraqi wars. This destructive dynamic must be extinguished. The best way is for every person to refuse cooperation with it. We need a better informed and more politically aware public, which can begin by seeking information from more reliable sources than the UK government-controlled BBC.

This week, the BBC gave Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili about 20 minutes of television time to present himself as a peace-lover, friend of the “free world” using Cold-War language, doing wonderful things, whose tiny country is under threat from an aggressive Russia. Saakashvili is perhaps the most dangerous man in Europe who, with American backing, attempted to embroil NATO in a war with Russia when he invaded South Ossetia. He has rushed to offer President Obama one thousand Georgian troops for Afghanistan, which immediately makes him a friend of Gordon Brown and the UK government-appointed BBC governors.

There is no point in our military families protesting to the government after their sons, husbands or womenfolk have been killed or maimed in Afghanistan. This is not a war in defence of Britain. It is in defence of Gordon Brown’s future payoff, our politicians’ company directorships and our military leaders’ careers. Military families and the general public should appraise themselves of the law and the facts of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. These are extremely simple.

The only law necessary is the Nuremberg Principles which are part of UK law and prescribe punishment for war crimes, including wars of aggression. The only facts necessary are: Iraq did not threaten or attack Europe or America and neither Afghanistan nor any Afghan threatened or attacked Europe or America. The only interpretation possible, therefore, is that the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions are wars of aggression and constitute war crimes.

That was not apparent immediately following the 9/11 attack on the World Trade centre when we struggled to understand the attack itself, to find Afghanistan on a map, to distinguish the Taliban from Al-Qaeda, and to understand the aims of Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush and Anthony Blair. It took time to get the truth and when it emerged it was not from our government. Now, eight years on, we know more and it has been evident for much of that time that the Afghanistan invasion was a war of aggression. The American and British governments lied to us.

Gordon Brown, the Joint Chiefs of Defence Staff and government ministers such as Douglas Alexander can give no reason why UK soldiers are fighting and dying there. As Alexander said on television recently: “We’re in Afghanistan defending the UK.” How, exactly, he did not say and nor has anyone else been able to. The London bombers were UK citizens, born in this country and if they had a connection to any other country it was Pakistan, not Afghanistan. None of the Madrid bombers came from Pakistan or Afghanistan either.

Political change in the spring election is needed

The UK needs drastic political change to extract us from the war in Afghanistan as the first stage of detaching from the malign influence of the United States of America. Europe has permitted itself to be occupied by this berserk, vicious state that has 113,337 structures of all types, including 60,086 buildings, in countries external to the United States, according to the US Dept of Defence Base Structure Report. One can see from this that Japan and Germany are still under occupation. The UK is also occupied by half a dozen major bases. The UK’s “special relationship” with America means that our politicians give the US whatever it wants and the US pays off people like Anthony Blair. Watch Gordon Brown’s fortunes improve after he is thrown out of office in the coming elections.

There is no future for Europe or the UK in being parasitized by the USA. The only function of US bases in Europe is to permit political meddling, military provocations and, ultimately, armed force over which Europe has no control. The Japanese are finding that they have no influence whatsoever on what the US does on their territory. We in Europe need to rid ourselves of US bases, form an independent European force and take responsibility for our own security. America is no longer a friend to Europe.

Our current crop of UK politicians and military chiefs are looking after themselves, not the country or the people for whom they are responsible. We now have our own military-industrial complex. The UK’s citizens must find a new type of politician or we can look forward to lives as poverty-stricken serfs of our business, military and political leaders in the service of America. The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, the behaviour of our politicians and banks as well as the growing underclass in the UK and America itself, demonstrate it.

Never mind the nonsense that our politicians and military chiefs spout about how we endanger our troops by not supporting their wars. Anthony Blair, for whom justice is waiting at the International Criminal Court, kept the Iraq war out of the last election by preaching that. Watch our current politicians fudge the issue with half-truths and hedged promises. In the spring elections we need candidates who will pledge to bring our troops home immediately, take the Iraq war to the International Court of Justice and unlike Barack Obama’s “change”, actually do it. That is the best possible support for our troops and in the best possible long-term interests of our country and the country knows it.

Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.