Quote from: tabnloz on June 16, 2015, 11:09:43 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 16, 2015, 09:23:44 PM

Quote from: tabnloz on June 16, 2015, 09:09:11 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 16, 2015, 08:14:17 PM

Quote from: rocks on June 16, 2015, 08:04:28 PM

It's always shocked me how many 9/11 conspiracy theories people buy into, where there exists significantly more evidence that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor a day or so in advance, but allowed it to happen in order to push a reluctant US into war.

It is very likely that he did. In my fairly rudimentary research on the matter I would say it's almost a certainty. That's a leader's job.

Quote

Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:

Quote

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

FDR had it easy in that he had someone (and a very foolish someone) who was actually able and willing to attack us. Ah, the good old days.

FDR's platform was to remain isolationist, however as time went on it was increasingly obvious the US could not remain so as the Allies were beng dominated by the Axis throughout Europe and Japan had controlled much of Asia for years by 1942. In order to provoke Japan, the US (iirc) blocked oil supplies to the Home islands, amongst other things, effectively daring them to throw the first punch that would get the American public onside. Hitting Pearl Harbour (and Darwin in Australia) was an attempt to decimate the US fleet in the Pacific to stymie the effectiveness of the US when they eventually joined (as the Japanese knew was inevitable). and, iirc someone stood up in parliament (Denmark?) in the weeks before the attack and spoke of intelligence of an attack on PH.....

That is the biggest bunch of historical revisionist bunk. FDR was the very opposite of isolationist and very strongly pushing the US to support Briton very early on. This was to the point where the US was essentially engaging the German navy on Briton's behalf on the Atlantic side. FDR explicitly intermixed US merchant ships with British convoys, providing explicit protection to the Brits. That is not isolationist.

The Germans however learned their lesson in WWI, where the US only entered the war after their uboats sunk US merchant ships. Without that Wilson would not have been able to get the US to enter WWI. So in WWII the Germans went very far out of their way to avoid a direct confrontation with the US navy or US merchant ships. Very far out of there way. To call FDR isolationist is absurd, he was pro-Briton.

This presented a problem for the pro-Briton FDR. He needed a spark, and found it in Japan.

No, its not revisionist bunk. If the environment was so hawkish the US could have just joined the war on the allied side without a catalyst. You're really almost agreeing with what I wrote, so my use of 'FDR's platform to remain isolationist' is what is to blame / incorrect. It would have been better to say he came to power in an environment where public sentiment and congress were decidedly dovish. Platform isnt the right word. The events of ww1, not joining the league and the effects of the depression were a big part of the landscape in the early to mid 30's. Even in 39-40 the sentiment was still anti-war. the Allies also were being pushed back, France capitulated and an invasion of the UK was a possibility. He wasn't overtly hawkish, often meeting Churchill in secret, so he needed a spark as you wrote. Blocking supplies to Japan was what caused it, as without oil the Japanese war machine would halt. This backed Japan into a corner and culminated in the attack.

There is where I diverge from Armstrong. He characterizes FDR's confiscation of gold and the devaluation of the dollar as necessary to restart to economy. Whereas I follow the late One Handed Economist who pointed out that Americans were eating more butter and chicken per capital in 1933 than they were in 1929, and then almost no butter in the great sacrifice of the war. The war was also the way to pull women out of the house and introduce them to working.

FDR was apparently a former Wallstreet guy and was aligned with the banksters.

The New Deal socialism, the turning of the income tax into tax on all wages when by law it is only a tax government wages, etc all took place during his dictatorial reign.