Sie sind auf Seite 1von 75

Ellen Brown: US economic reform creates full-employment, renewed infrastructure, zero national debt

We hold these Truths to be self-evident...

Attorney and author of the brilliant Web of Debt, Ellen Brown, is among the leading US advocates of
monetary reform and state-owned banks. Among Ellen’s articles is one worth highlighting for how
quickly a national economy can turn from ruin to astounding productivity: Nazi Germany’s direct
creation of money to pay for public goods and services.

This fundamental shift allows central government to create debt-free money to pay for full-employment
and renewed infrastructure. In addition, if the infrastructure investment causes greater overall
productivity than its cost (historically true), then society has the included benefit of decreasing prices.

The monetary system we still have today doesn’t create debt-free money; it allows privately-owned
banks to create loans (credit, not money) that along with its interest cost causes societal ever-increasing
and unpayable debt. The US national debt is ever-increasing; no political “leader” speaks of the
obvious and only solution: stop having and increasing a national debt-supply rather than a money-
supply and create a money-supply to pay the debt (details here).

As Ellen explains in detail below, Germany suffered from tragic-comic hyperinflation caused by a
privately-owned central bank and short-selling of the nation’s currency, and high unemployment; three
central features of our “modern” economic system today. As soon as Germany created a form of money
in exchange for productive goods and services, the government could respond to the market failure of
unemployment while addressing the nation’s public service needs.

Of course, the point of this article is not a history lesson, but an application of history to the US
economy of the present. Full-employment is possible and available now as a policy response (details
here).

The idea of government-created money has been advocated by many of America’s brightest historical
minds; the absence of its consideration in “leadership” conversation, I assert, is evidence that the US is
under an Orwellian government that has chosen the economic policies of an oligarchy rather than the
public good. That’s a cognitive dissonance evoking conclusion, I understand, but the evidence to prove
it is here if this topic of trillions of our dollars is of sufficient interest for you.

Ellen Brown and I agree that a powerful entry-point to break open the oligarchy is through state-owned
banks. This allows opportunity for state government (or county, city, university, etc.) to use existing
bank law to create credit at cost. The only solvent state in the US today, North Dakota, uses this
strategy. I recommend perusing Ellen’s articles to understand further. Ellen is interviewed in and
consulted for the creation of the outstanding economics film, Zeitgeist Addendum, below.

Here’s her article of how quickly a nation’s economy can become powerfully productive. Of course,
economic power is amoral and must be focused with policy for productive ends.
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX:
HOW A BANKRUPT GERMANY SOLVED ITS
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS

Ellen Brown, August 9th, 2007


http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/bankrupt-germany.php
Post your comments here

"We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency [backed by] gold of which we had none, but for
every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods
produced. . . .we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is
regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank."
- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Monetary System," www.rense.com, citing C. C. Veith, Citadels of
Chaos (Meador, 1949)

Guernsey wasn't the only government to solve its infrastructure problems by issuing its own money.
(See E. Brown, "Waking Up on a Minnesota Bridge," August 4, 2007.) A more notorious model is
found in post-World War I Germany. When Hitler came to power, the country was completely,
hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations payments on the German
people, who were expected to reimburse the costs of the war for all participants — costs totaling three
times the value of all the property in the country. Speculation in the German mark had caused it to
plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. At its peak, a wheelbarrow
full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty, and
huge numbers of homes and farms had been lost to the banks and speculators. People were living in
hovels and starving. Nothing quite like it had ever happened before - the total destruction of the
national currency, wiping out people's savings, their businesses, and the economy generally. Making
matters worse, at the end of the decade global depression hit. Germany had no choice but to succumb to
debt slavery to international lenders.

Or so it seemed. Hitler and the National Socialists, who came to power in 1933, thwarted the
international banking cartel by issuing their own money. In this they took their cue from Abraham
Lincoln, who funded the American Civil War with government-issued paper money called
"Greenbacks." Hitler began his national credit program by devising a plan of public works. Projects
earmarked for funding included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and
construction of new buildings, roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. The projected cost of the
various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. One billion non-inflationary
bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates, were then issued against this cost. Millions of
people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates.
This government-issued money wasn't backed by gold, but it was backed by something of real value. It
was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, "for every
mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark's worth of work done or goods produced."
The workers then spent the Certificates on other goods and services, creating more jobs for more
people.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It
had a solid, stable currency, no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United
States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare. Germany even
managed to restore foreign trade, although it was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic
boycott abroad. It did this by using a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged
directly with other countries, circumventing the international banks. This system of direct exchange
occurred without debt and without trade deficits. Germany's economic experiment, like Lincoln's, was
short-lived; but it left some lasting monuments to its success, including the famous Autobahn, the
world's first extensive superhighway.1

Hjalmar Schacht, who was then head of the German central bank, is quoted in a bit of wit that sums up
the German version of the "Greenback" miracle. An American banker had commented, "Dr. Schacht,
you should come to America. We've lots of money and that's real banking." Schacht replied, "You
should come to Berlin. We don't have money. That's real banking."2

Although Hitler has rightfully gone down in infamy in the history books, he was quite popular with the
German people, at least for a time. Stephen Zarlenga suggests in The Lost Science of Money that this
was because he temporarily rescued Germany from English economic theory — the theory that money
must be borrowed against the gold reserves of a private banking cartel rather than issued outright by the
government.3 According to Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow, this may have been a chief reason
Hitler had to be stopped: he had sidestepped the international bankers and created his own money.
Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of C. G. Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolsevism
and a Trotsky intimate, who was tried in show trials in the USSR under Stalin. According to Rakovsky,
Hitler had actually been funded by the international bankers, through their agent Hjalmar Schacht, in
order to control Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Trotsky. But Hitler had become an
even bigger threat than Stalin when he had taken the bold step of printing his own money. Rakovsky
said:

“[Hitler] took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money and not only physical moneys, but
also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the
benefit of the state . . . . Are you capable of imagining what would have come . . . if it had infected a
number of other states . . . . If you can, then imagine its counterrevolutionary functions.”4

Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany's remarkable transformation:

“The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with
ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an
independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the
Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into
the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.”5

In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:

“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise
from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war
operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and
Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of
the Bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of public (government)
schools today.”

Another Look at the Weimar Hyperinflation

What does appear in modern textbooks is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the
Weimar Republic (the common name for the republic that governed Germany from 1919 to 1933). The
radical devaluation of the German mark is cited as the textbook example of what can go wrong when
governments are given the unfettered power to print money. That is what it is cited for; but in the
complex world of economics, things are not always as they seem. The Weimar financial crisis began
with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Schacht, who was
currency commissioner for the Republic, complained:

“The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. . .
. [T]he Reich could not find any way of holding its head above the water other than by the inflationary
expedient of printing bank notes.”

That is what he said at first. But Zarlenga writes that Schacht proceeded in his 1967 book The Magic of
Money "to let the cat out of the bag, writing in German, with some truly remarkable admissions that
shatter the 'accepted wisdom' the financial community has promulgated on the German
hyperinflation."6Schacht revealed that it was the privately-owned Reichsbank, not the German
government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the
Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials but was operated for private gain. What
drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who would sell
the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale,
speculators borrow something they don't own, sell it, then "cover" by buying it back at the lower price.
Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the Reichsbank made massive amounts of
currency available for borrowing, marks that were created with accounting entries on the bank's books
and lent at a profitable interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for
marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as
well.7

According to Schacht, then, not only did the government not cause the Weimar hyperinflation, but it
was the government that got it under control. The Reichsbank was put under strict government
regulation, and prompt corrective measures were taken to eliminate foreign speculation, by eliminating
easy access to loans of bank-created money. Hitler then got the country back on its feet with his
Treasury Certificates issued Greenback-style by the government.

Schacht actually disapproved of this government fiat money, and wound up getting fired as head of the
Reichsbank when he refused to issue it (something that may have saved him at the Nuremberg trials).
But he acknowledged in his later memoirs that allowing the government to issue the money it needed
had not produced the price inflation predicted by classical economic theory. He surmised that this was
because factories were sitting idle and people were unemployed. In this he agreed with John Maynard
Keynes: when the resources were available to increase productivity, adding new money to the economy
did not increase prices; it increased goods and services. Supply and demand increased together, leaving
prices unaffected.
___________________
1
Matt Koehl, "The Good Society?", www.rense.com (January 13, 2005); Stephen Zarlenga, The Lost
Science of Money (Valatie, New York: American Monetary Institute, 2002), pages 590-600.
2
John Weitz, Hitler's Banker (Great Britain: Warner Books, 1999).

3
S. Zarlenga, op. cit.

4
Henry Makow, "Hitler Did Not Want War," www.savethemales.com (March 21, 2004).

5
Henry C. K. Liu, "Nazism and the German Economic Miracle," Asia Times (May 24, 2005).

6
Stephen Zarlenga, "Germany's 1923 Hyperinflation: A 'Private' Affair," Barnes Review (July-August
1999); David Kidd, "How Money Is Created in Australia," http://dkd.net/davekidd/politics/money.html
(2001).

7
S. Zarlenga, "Germany's 1923 Hyperinflation," op. cit.

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los
Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve
and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from
the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Brown's eleven books include the
bestselling Nature's Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies.
http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/ellen-brown-us-economic-reform-
creates-full-employment-renewed-infrastructure-zero-national-debt

Have you ever wondered how Adolph Hitler – a mediocre painter of Austrian origin – transformed
himself into Germany’s Fuhrer during the 1930s and 1940s?
The Nazi phenomenon was no historical coincidence, and far less a philosophical whim made real by
just one man. Nazism had its followers, many of them exceptionally wealthy, veritable alchemists of
the financial world back then.

According to research carried out over the last few years, Wall Street bankers (amongst others)
financed Hitler’s rise to power whilst making large profits at the same time. What is yet still more
deplorable is the fact that relatives of the current U.S. president were amongst this group of individuals.

U.S. authors Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Cheitkin reveal in the recently published George Bush: The
Unauthorized Biography that Prescott Bush (George W. Bush’s grandfather) and other directors of the
Union Banking Company (UBC) were Nazi collaborators.
The book relates how in 1922 – when national socialism was emerging – railroad impresario W. Averell
Harriman traveled to Berlin and interviewed the Thyssen family with a view to founding a German-
U.S. bank. The Thyssens were already behind-the-scenes owners of several financial institutions that
allowed them to transfer their money from Germany to the Netherlands and from there onto the United
States.
The banks in question were the August Thyssen Bank whose headquarters were located in Berlin; the
Bank voor Handel (Netherlands) and the Union Banking Corporation (New York). At the beginning of
the 1920s, one of the members of this family, Fritz Thyssen – author of I Paid Hitler – contributed some
$25,000 USD to the recently formed German National Socialist Workers’ Party, becoming the prime
and most important financier of the Fuhrer in his ascent to power.
According to the book’s authors, Thyssen was fascinated by Hitler, citing his talent as a public speaker
and his ability to lead the masses. However, what impressed him most was the order that prevailed at
his rallies and the almost military discipline of his followers.
And so, in 1931 Thyssen joined the Nazi party, becoming one of the most powerful members of the
Nazi war machine.

At that time, the magnate presided over the German Steel Trust, a steel industry consortium founded by
Clarence Dillon, one of Wall Street’s most influential men. One of Dillon’s most trustworthy
collaborators was Samuel Bush: Prescott’s father, George Senior’s grandfather and great-grandfather of
the current U.S. president George W. Bush.
In 1923, Harriman and the Thyssens decided to set up a bank and appointed George Herbert Walker –
Prescott’s father-in-law – as president. Later, in 1926, they established the Union Banking Corporation
(UBC) with Prescott Bush at the helm. That same year, he was also named vice president and partner at
Brown Brothers Harriman. Both firms allowed the Thyssens to send money to the United States from
Germany via the Netherlands.

U.S. economist Victor Thorn has noted that although a large number of other corporations aided the
Nazis (such as Standard Oil and Rockefeller’s Chase Bank, as well as U.S. automobile manufacturers)
Prescott Bush’s interests were much more profound and sinister.
Thorn adds that UBC became a secret channel to protect Nazi capital leaving Germany for the United
States via the Netherlands. When the Nazis needed to retrieve their funds, Brown Brothers Harriman
sent them directly to Germany.
In this way, UBC received money from the Netherlands and Brown Brothers Harriman sent it back.
And who was on the executive of both of these companies? Prescott Bush himself, the Nazis’ first
money launderer.

In their book, Tarpley and Cheitkin explain that in this way a significant part of the Bush family’s
financial base is related to supporting and aiding Adolph Hitler. Therefore, the current U.S. president,
just like his father (former CIA director, vice president and president) reached the peak of the U.S.
political hierarchy thanks to his great-grandfather and grandfather and generally his entire family, who
financially aided and encouraged the Nazis.
Some time later, in October 1942, the U.S. authorities confiscated Nazi bank funds from the New York
UBC, whose then president was Prescott. The firm was condemned as a financial and commercial
collaborator with the enemy and all its assets were seized.
Later, the U.S. government also ordered the seizure of the assets of a further two leading financial
agencies directed by Prescott through the accounts of the Harriman banking institution: the Holland-
America Trading Corporation (a U.S.-Dutch commercial firm) and the Seamless Steel Equipment
Corporation.

Then on November 11, 1942, an embargo was imposed on the Silesian-American Corporation –
another firm headed by Bush and Walker – under the same Trading with the Enemy Act.
However, in 1951, the embargo was lifted and the enterprising businessman recovered some $1.5
million USD, earmarked for new investments largely to swell the Bush family’s patrimony.
To this should be added a resumé of files belonging to Dutch and U.S. information services confirming
the direct links between Prescott Bush, the German Thyssen family and the blood money of a group of
rich U.S. families from the Second World War.

Tarpley and Cheitkin affirm that the great financial crash of 1929-1931 affected the United States,
Germany and Britain, weakening their respective governments. At the same time, Prescott Bush
became even more diligent, still more desirous of doing everything that was necessary to safeguard his
place in the world. It was during this crisis that some members of the Anglo-U.S wealthy class
supported the installation of Hitler’s regime in Germany.
To sum up, the authors categorically state that the Bush family’s fortune arose as a result of its
unconditional support for Adolph Hitler’s political project.
The UBC, under Prescott Bush’s direction and with the long-term cooperation of Fritz Thyssen’s
German Steel Trust participated in the emergence, preparation and financing of the Nazi war machine
through the manufacture of armored vehicles, fighter planes, guns and explosives.
The Bush family’s habit of dominating territories and wealth is nothing new. Their fascist genes were
generated during the 1930s. Therefore defining the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the threats
to other countries as a continuance of blitzkreig offensives as fascist is no blunder. Neither is convening
an anti-fascist front is a rhetorical exercise.
granma.cu

Institute for Historical Review

President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War


in Europe:

The Secret Polish Documents


MARK WEBER
Major ceremonies were held in 1982 to mark the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. With the exceptions of Washington and Lincoln, he was glorified and eulogized as
no other president in American history. Even conservative President Ronald Reagan joined the chorus
of applause. In early 1983, newspapers and television networks remembered the fiftieth anniversary of
Roosevelt's inauguration with numerous laudatory tributes.

And yet, with each passing year more and more new evidence comes to light which contradicts the
glowing image of Roosevelt portrayed by the mass media and politicians.

Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception and outright lies in getting the
United States to intervene in the Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in violation of American neutrality and
international law, his acts of war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a vast "dirty tricks" campaign against
U.S. citizens by British intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his provocations and
ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively
documented and reasonably well known.[1]

Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility for the outbreak of the Second
World War itself. This essay focuses on Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to
the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with his efforts to pressure Britain,
France and Poland into war against Germany in 1938 and 1939.

Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which had already engulfed Europe.
He bears a grave responsibility before history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.

This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret Polish documents which fell into
German hands when Warsaw was captured in September 1939. These documents clearly establish
Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing on the Second World War. They also reveal the forces behind the
President which pushed for war.

While a few historians have quoted sentences and even paragraphs from these documents, their
importance has not been fully appreciated. There are three reasons for this, I believe. First, for many
years their authenticity was not indisputably established. Second, a complete collection of the
documents has not been available in English. And third, the translation of those documents which has
been available in English until now is deficient and unacceptably bad.

When the Germans took Warsaw in late September 1939, they seized a mass of documents from the
Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a letter of 8 April 1983, Dr. Karl Otto Braun of Munich informed
me that the documents were captured by an SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg, whom Braun
knew personally. In a surprise attack, the brigade captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular
German army. Von Kuensberg told Braun that his men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just
as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating documents. Dr. Braun was an official
of the German Foreign Office between 1938 and 1945.

The German Foreign Office chose Hans Adolf von Moltke, formerly the Reich's Ambassador in
Warsaw, to head a special Archive Commission to examine the collection and sort out those documents
which might be suitable for publication. At the end of March 1940, 16 of these were published in book
form under the title Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges ["Polish Documents on the
Pre-History of the War"]. The Foreign Office edition was subtitled "German White Book No. 3." The
book was immediately published in various foreign language editions in Berlin and some other
European capitals. An American edition was published in New York by Howell, Soskin and Company
as The German White Paper. Historian C. Hartley Grattan contributed a remarkably cautious and
reserved foreword.[2]

The translation of the documents for the U.S. White Paper edition was inexcusably bad. Whole
sentences and parts of sentences were missing and portions were grossly mistranslated. H. Keith
Thompson explained to me why this was so during a conversation on 22 March 1983 and in a letter of
13 May 1983. A poor first draft English-language translation had been prepared in Berlin and sent to
America. It was given to George Sylvester Viereck, a prominent pro-German American publicist and
literary advisor to the German Library of Information in New York City. Thompson knew Viereck
intimately and served as his chief aide and re-writer. Viereck had hurriedly redrafted the translation
from Berlin into more readable prose but without any opportunity of comparing it to the original Polish
text (which he could not read in any case) or even the official German-language version. In making
stylistic changes for the sake of readability, the meaning of the original documents was thereby
inadvertently distorted.

The matter was also discussed at a small dinner for Lawrence Dennis hosted by Thompson at Viereck's
apartment in the Hotel Belleclaire in New York City in 1956. Viereck explained that he had been a
highly paid literary consultant to the German government, responsible for the propaganda effect of
publications, and could not be concerned with the translation groundwork normally done by clerks.
Even the most careful translation of complicated documents is apt to distort the original meaning, and
literary editing is certain to do so, Viereck said. Thompson agreed with that view.

In preparing the English-language text for this essay, I have carefully examined the official German
translation and various other translations, and compared them with facsimiles of the original Polish
documents.

Media Sensation

The German government considered the captured Polish documents to be of tremendous importance.
On Friday, 29 March, the Reich Ministry of Propaganda confidentially informed the daily press of the
reason for releasing the documents:

These extraordinary documents, which may be published beginning with the first edition on Saturday,
will create a first-class political sensation, since they in fact prove the degree of America's
responsibility for the outbreak of the present war. America's responsibility must not, of course, be
stressed in commentaries; the documents must be left to speak for themselves, and they speak clearly
enough.

The Ministry of Propaganda specifically asks that sufficient space be reserved for the publication of
these documents, which is of supreme importance to the Reich and the German people.

We inform you in confidence that the purpose of publishing these documents is to strengthen the
American isolationists and to place Roosevelt in an untenable position, especially in view of the fact
that he is standing for re-election. It is however not at all necessary for us to point Roosevelt's
responsibility; his enemies in America will take care of that.[3]

The German Foreign Office made the documents public on Friday, 29 March 1940. In Berlin,
journalists from around the world, including the United States, were given facsimile copies of the
original Polish documents and translations in German. journalists were permitted to examine the
original documents themselves, along with an enormous pile of other documents from the Polish
Foreign Ministry.

The release of the documents was an international media sensation. American newspapers gave the
story large front page headline coverage and published lengthy excerpts from the documents. But the
impact was much less than the German government had hoped for.

Leading U.S. government officials wasted no time in vehemently denouncing the documents as not
authentic. Secretary of State Cordell Hull stated: "I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of
my associates in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations as those alleged,
nor do we give them the slightest credence. The statements alleged have not represented in any way at
any time the thought or the policy of the American government." William Bullitt, the U.S. Ambassador
to Paris who was particulary incriminated by the documents, announced: "I have never made to anyone
the statements attributed to me." And Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington
whose confidential reports to Warsaw were the most revealing, declared: "I deny the allegations
attributed to my reports. I never had any conversations with Ambassador Bullitt on America's
participation in war."[4]

These categorical public denials by the highest officials had the effect of almost completely
undercutting the anticipated impact of the documents. It must be remembered that this was several
decades before the experiences of the Vietnam war and Watergate had taught another generation of
Americans to be highly skeptical of such official denials. In 1940, the vast majority of the American
people trusted their political leaders to tell them the truth.

After all, if the documents made public to the world by the German government were in fact authentic
and genuine, it would mean that the great leader of the American democracy was a man who lied to his
own people and broke his own country's laws, while the German government told the truth. To accept
that would be quite a lot to expect of any nation, but especially of the trusting American public.

Comment from Capitol Hill generally echoed the official government view. Senator Key Pittman, the
Democratic Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called the documents "unmitigated
falsehood designed to create dissension in the United States." Senator Claude Peper, Democrat of
Florida, declared: "It's German propaganda and shouldn't affect our policies in the least." Only a few
were not impressed with the official denials. Representative Hamilton Fish of New york, the ranking
Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called for a Congressional investigation
and declared in a radio address: "If these charges were true, it would constitute a treasonable act. If
President Roosevelt has entered into secret understandings or commitments with foreign governments
to involve us in war, he should be impeached."[5]

American newspapers stressed the high-level denials in reporting the release of the documents. The
New York Times headline read: U.S. BRANDS AS FALSE NAZI DOCUMENTS CHARGING WE
FOSTERED WAR IN EUROPE AND PROMISED TO JOIN ALLIES IF NEEDED. The Baltimore
Sun headlined: NAZI DOCUMENTS LAYING WAR BLAME ON U.S. ARE ASSAILED IN
WASHINGTON.[6]

Although the book of Polish documents was labeled "first series," no further volumes ever appeared.
From time to time the German government would make public additional documents from the Polish
archives. These were published in book form in 1943 along with numerous other documents captured
by the Germans from the French Foreign Ministry and other European archives, under the title
Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten
Staaten ["Roosevelt's Way Into War: Secret Documents on the War Policy of the President of the
United States"].[7]

A very important unanswered question is: Where are the original Polish documents today? Unless they
were destroyed in the conflagration of the war, they presumably fell into either American or Soviet
hands in 1945. In view of recent U.S. government policy on secret archival material, it is very unlikely
that they would still be secret today if they had been acquired by the United States. My guess is that if
they were not destroyed, they are now either in Moscow or at the East German Central State Archives
in Potsdam.
It is particularly important to keep in mind that these secret reports were written by top level Polish
ambassadors, that is, by men who though not at all friendly to Germany nonetheless understood the
realities of European Politics far better than those who made policy in the United States.

For example, the Polish ambassadors realized that behind all their rhetoric about democracy and human
rights, and expressions of love for the United States, the Jews who agitated for war against Germany
were actually doing nothing other than ruthlessly furthering their own purely sectarian interests. Many
centuries of experience in living closely with the Jews had made the Poles far more aware than most
nationalities of the special character of this people.

The Poles viewed the Munich Settlement of 1938 very differently than did Roosevelt and his circle.
The President bitterly attacked the Munich agreement, which gave self-determination to the three and a
half million Germans of Czechoslovakia and settled a major European crisis, as a shameful and
humiliating capitulation to German blackmail. Although wary of German might, the Polish government
supported the Munich agreement, in part because a small Polish territory which had been a part of
Czechoslovakia against the wishes of its inhabitants was united with Poland as a result of the
Settlement.

The Polish envoys held the makers of American foreign policy in something approaching contempt.
President Roosevelt was considered a master political artist who knew how to mold American public
opinion, but very little about the true state of affairs in Europe. As Poland's Ambassador to Washington
emphasized in his reports to Warsaw, Roosevelt pushed America into war in order to distract attention
from his failures as President in domestic policy.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the complexities of German-Polish relations between
1933 and 1939 and the reasons for the German attack against Poland at dawn on the first day of
September 1939. However, it should be noted that Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-
determination for the German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called Polish
Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did in response to a growing Polish campaign
of terror and dispossession against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule. In my
view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German campaign against Poland in 1939.

Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of a fateful blank check guarantee
of military backing from Britain -- a pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German campaign, it is difficult to realize
today that the Polish government did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced that their troops would occupy
Berlin itself within a few weeks and add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between Germany and Poland was only
transformed into a Europe-wide conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany.

After the war the Allied-appointed judges at the International Military Tribunal staged at Nuremberg
refused to admit the Polish documents as evidence for the German defense. Had these pieces of
evidence been admitted, the Nuremberg undertaking might have been less a victors' show trial and
more a genuinely impartial court of international justice.

Authenticity Beyond Doubt


There is now absolutely no question that the documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw
made public by the German government are genuine and authentic.

Charles C. Tansill, professor of American diplomatic history at Georgetown University, considered


them genuine. "... I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the
prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic," he
wrote.[8] Historian and sociologist Harry Elmer Barnes confirmed this assessment: "Both Professor
Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents."[9] In
America's Second Crusade, William H. Chamberlain reported: "I have been privately informed by an
extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the
documents, so far as he was concerned."[10]

More importantly, Edward Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed
the authenticity of the documents in his diary, which was published in 1963 under the title In Allied
London. In his entry for 20 June 1940, he wrote:

The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki in Washington, Lukasiewicz in Paris and myself.
I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The
documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold
of originals and not merely copies.

In this 'First Series' of documents I found three reports from this Embassy, two by myself and the third
signed by me but written by Balinski. I read them with some apprehension, but they contained nothing
liable to compromise myself or the Embassy or to impair relations with our British hosts.[11]

In 1970 their authenticity was reconfirmed with the publication of Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939. This
important work consists of the official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the former Polish
Ambassador to Paris who authored several of the secret diplomatic reports made public by the German
government. The collection was edited by Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet
member, and later Professor Emeritus of Wellesley and Ripon colleges. Professor Jedrzejewicz
considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine. He quoted extensively from
several of them.

Mr. Tyler G. Kent has also vouched for the authenticity of the documents. He states that while working
at the U.S. embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the
files which corresponded to the Polish documents and which confirmed their accuracy.

Two Key Diplomats

Two American diplomats who played especially crucial roles in the European crisis of 1938-1939 are
mentioned often in the Polish documents. The first of these was William C. Bullitt. Although his
official position was U.S. Ambassador to France, he was in reality much more than that. He was
Roosevelt's "super envoy" and personal deputy in Europe.

Like Roosevelt, Bullitt "rose from the rich." He was born into an important Philadelphia banking
family, one of the city's wealthiest. His mother's grandfather, Jonathan Horwitz, was a German Jew
who had come to the United States from Berlin.[12] In 1919 Bullitt was an assistant to President
Wilson at the Versailles peace conference. That same year, Wilson and British Prime Minister Lloyd
George sent him to Russia to meet with Lenin and determine if the new Bolshevik government
deserved recognition by the Allies. Bullitt met with Lenin and other top Soviet leaders and upon his
return urged recognition of the new regime. But he had a falling-out with Wilson and left diplomatic
service. In 1923 he married Louise Bryant Reed, the widow of American Communist leader John Reed.
In Europe Bullitt collaborated with Sigmund Freud on a psychoanalytical biography of Wilson. When
Roosevelt became President in 1933, he brought Bullitt back into diplomatic life.[13]

In November 1933, Roosevelt sent Bullitt to Moscow as the first U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union.
His initial enthusiasm for the Soviet system gave way to a deep distrust of Stalin and Communism. In
1936 the President transferred him to Paris. He served there as Roosevelt's key European diplomat until
1940 when Churchill's assumption of leadership in Britain and the defeat of France made his special
role superfluous.

In the Spring of 1938, all U.S. envoys in Europe were subordinated to Bullitt by an internal directive of
the State Department.[14] As the European situation worsened in 1939, Roosevelt often spoke with his
man in Paris by telephone, sometimes daily, frequently giving him precisely detailed and ultra-
confidential instructions on how to conduct America's foreign policy. Not even Secretary of State
Cordell Hull was privy to many of the letters and communications between Bullitt and Roosevelt.

In France, the New York Times noted, Bullitt "was acclaimed there as 'the Champagne Ambassador' on
account of the lavishness of his parties, but he was far more than the envoy to Paris: He was President
Roosevelt's intimate adviser on European affairs, with telephone access to the President at any
hour."[15]

Bullitt and Roosevelt were fond of each other and saw eye to eye on foreign policy issues. Both were
aristocrats and thorough internationalists who shared definite views on how to remake the world and a
conviction that they were destined to bring about that grand reorganization.

"Between these teammates," the Saturday Evening Post reported in March 1939,

there is a close, hearty friendship and a strong temperamental affinity. The President is known to rely
upon Bullitt's judgment so heavily that the ambassador's mailed and cabled reports from abroad are
supplemented several times a week by a chat by transatlantic telephone. In addition, Bullitt returns to
the United States several times each year to take part in White House councils, to the displeasure of the
State Department, which considers him a prima donna.

In the whole roster of the State Department the President could not have found an adviser who would
have been so responsive to his own champagne personality as Bullitt. Both men, born patricians, have
the same basic enthusiasm for remolding society ...[16]

In Europe, Bullitt spoke with the voice and the authority of President Roosevelt himself.

The second most important American diplomat in Europe was Joseph P. Kennedy, Roosevelt's
Ambassador at the Court of St. James. Like Bullitt he was a wealthy banker. But this Boston Catholic
of Irish ancestry was otherwise a very different sort of man. Roosevelt sent Kennedy, an important
Democratic party figure and father of a future President, to Britain for purely political reasons.
Roosevelt disliked and distrusted Kennedy, and this sentiment grew as Kennedy opposed the
President's war policies more and more vehemently. Moreover, Kennedy despised his counterpart in
Paris. In a letter to his wife, he wrote: "I talk to Bullitt occasionally. He is more rattlebrained than ever.
His judgment is pathetic and I am afraid of his influence on F.D.R. because they think alike on many
things."[17]

The Documents

Here now are extensive excerpts from the Polish documents themselves. They are given in
chronological order. They are remarkably lucid for diplomatic reports and speak eloquently for
themselves.

*****
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the
Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in making American foreign policy:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more
powerful ...

... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world
into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.

in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together
the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against
Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the
cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler
which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.

In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable
and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda
to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this
way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their
satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the 'democratic world.'

On 21 November 1938, Ambassador Potocki sent a report to Warsaw which discussed in some detail a
conversation between himself and Bullitt, who happened to be back in Washington:

The day before yesterday I had a long conversation with Ambassador Bullitt, who is here on vacation.
He began by remarking that friendly relations existed between himself and [Polish] Ambassador
Lukasiewicz in Paris, whose company he greatly enjoyed.

Since Bullitt regularly informs President Roosevelt about the international situation in Europe, and
particularly about Russia, great attention is given to his reports by President Roosevelt and the State
Department. Bullitt speaks energetically and interestingly. Nonetheless, his reaction to events in Europe
resembles the view of a journalist more than that of a politician ...

About Germany and Chancellor Hitler he spoke with great vehemence and strong hatred. He said that
only force, and ultimately a war would put an end to the insane future German expansionism.

To my question asking how he visualized this coming war, he replied that above all the United States,
France and England must rearm tremendously in order to be in a position to oppose German power.

Only then, when the moment is ripe, declared Bullitt further, will one be ready for the final decision. I
asked him in what way a conflict could arise, since Germany would probably not attack England and
France first. I simply could not see the connecting point in this whole combination.

Bullitt replied that the democratic countries absolutely needed another two years until they were fully
armed. In the meantime, Germany would probably have advanced with its expansion in an easterly
direction. It would be the wish of the democratic countries that armed conflict would break out there, in
the East between the German Reich and Russia. As the Soviet Union's potential strength is not yet
known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be
condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack
Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, 'Undoubtedly
yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!' Feeling in the United States was no
intense against Nazism and Hitlerism, that a psychosis already prevails today among Americans similar
to that before America's declaration of war against Germany in 1917.

Bullitt did not give the impression of being very well informed about the situation in Eastern Europe,
and he conversed in a rather superficial way.

Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in large part with President
Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:

President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial governments, above all Germany and
Japan, only understand a policy of force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures of the United States.

The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence
and continuously conjures up the specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison with last year.

Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is probably the secret report by Ambassador
Potocki of 12 January 1939 which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This report is
given here in full:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above
all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of
the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this
propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible-above all religious
persecution and concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective
since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

Right now most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and Nazism as the greatest evil and greatest
danger threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of
all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who don't spare any words to incite the
public here with every kind of slander. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the
totalitarian states.
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all
against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only
in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet Russia were working with the
bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is
completely on the side of Red Spain.

Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially created. The American people are told
that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America must also take an active
part in order to defend the slogans of freedom and democracy in the world.

President Roosevelt was the first to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving a
double purpose: First, he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from domestic political
problems, especially the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating a war
psychosis and by spreading rumors about danger threatening Europe, he wanted to get the American
people to accept an enormous armament program which exceeds the defense requirements of the
United States.

Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is steadily
growing worse. The unemployed today already number twelve million. Federal and state expenditures
are increasing daily. Only the huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for
emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far there have
only been the usual strikes and local unrest. But how long this kind of government aid can be kept up
cannot be predicted. The excitement and indignation of public opinion, and the serious conflict between
private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other, have made many
enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.

As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever political player and an expert of the
American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation to fasten it on
foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to conjure up a war
menace hanging over the world because of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter
by babbling about an attack of the totalitarian states against the United States. The Munich pact came to
President Roosevelt as a godsend. He portrayed it as a capitulation of France and England to bellicose
German militarism. As people say here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France
and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace.

The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German Nazism is further
kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action,
various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York
State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the
Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the
President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who
in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in
the American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true Americanism' and 'defenders of
democracy' are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the
President of the United States as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and
divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner.
Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously
has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very
consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public attention from anti-
Semitism, which is constantly growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending
religion and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.

On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry on another
lengthy conversation he had with Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt:

The day before yesterday, I had a longer discussion with Ambassador Bullitt in the Embassy where he
called on me. Bullitt leaves on the 21st of this month for Paris, from where he has been absent for
almost three months. He is sailing with a whole 'trunk' full of instructions, conversations, and directives
from President Roosevelt, the State Department and Senators who belong to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.

In talking with Bullitt I had the impression that he had received from President Roosevelt a very
precise definition of the attitude taken by the United States towards the present European crisis. He will
present this material at the Quai d'Orsay [the French Foreign Ministry] and will make use of it in
discussions with European statesmen. The contents of these directives, as Bullitt explained them to me
in the course of a conversation lasting half an hour, were:

1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President Roosevelt, who severely and
unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.

2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be carried out at an accelerated pace and
will consume the colossal sum of 1.25 billion dollars.

3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put an end to any sort of
compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.

4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon the policy of isolation and be
prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to
place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.

The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a top secret report to the Foreign
Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:

A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt returned to Paris after a three
months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I have had two conversations with him which enable me to
inform you of his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington's policy.

The international situation is regarded by official circles as extremely serious and in constant danger of
armed conflict. Those in authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and
France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the other, and should Britain and France be
defeated, the Germans would endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United
States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war. As
Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the
beginning, but we shall finish it.'

On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and perceptive report on Roosevelt's
foreign policy to his government in Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading
German newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile reproduction of the first
page of the Polish original, in their editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's report with this observation:

The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does not concern us, whether the
internal American situation as reported by the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be
decided by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth it is important for us to
show that the warmongering activities of American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again
revealed and proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for what motives, have
driven American diplomacy to this course. In any case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe
and America. Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the hostility of great
nations which normally have no differences with the American people and, indeed, have not been in
conflict but have lived for generations as friends and want to remain so.

This report was not one of the Polish documents which was released in March 1940 and published as
part of the "German White Book No. 3" (or the German White Paper). However, it was published in
1943 as part of the collection entitled "Roosevelt's Way Into War." As far as I can determine, this
English translation is the first that has ever appeared. Ambassador Potocki's secret report of 7 March
1939 is here given in full:

The foreign policy of the United States right now concerns not only the government, but the entire
American public as well. The most important elements are the public statements of President
Roosevelt. In almost every public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating
foreign policy against the chaos of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements are picked up by
the press and then cleverly filtered into the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen
their already formed opinions. The same theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in
Europe and saving the democracies from inundation by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements
there is normally only a single theme, that is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world
peace.

As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and the spending of
enormous sums for the navy and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an
armed conflict the United States cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a
result of the effective speeches of President Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American
public is today being conscientiously manipulated to hate everything that smacks of totalitarianism and
fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not included in all this. The American public considers
Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was also the case during the Spanish civil war
when the so-called Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea.

The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of attention, although it is known that
Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance to the same ideas. However,
Hull shows more reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a distinction between Nazism and
Chancellor Hitler on the one hand, and the German people on the other. He considers this form of
dictatorial government a temporary "necessary evil." In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably
interested in the USSR and its internal situation and openly worries itself over its weaknesses and
decline. The main reason for United States interest in the Russians is the situation in the Far East. The
current government would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a conflict with Japan.
That's why the sympathies of the government are clearly on the side of China, which recently received
considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million dollars.

Eager attention is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries
of the President who serve as Ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his
representatives from abroad to Washington for personal exchanges of views and to give them special
information and instructions. The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is always shrouded in secrecy
and very little surfaces in the press about the results of their visits. The State Department also takes care
to avoid giving out any kind of information about the course of these interviews. The practical way in
which the President makes foreign policy is most effective. He gives personal instructions to his
representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal friends. In this way the United States is led
down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit intention of abandoning the comfortable
policy of isolation. The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his
own personal ambition. He listens carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In
domestic as well as in foreign policy, the Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in
the way of the President and his government in carrying out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One
hundred and fifty years ago, the Constitution of the United States gave the highest prerogatives to the
American parliament which may criticize or reject the law of the White House.

The foreign policy of President Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion in the
lower house and in the Senate, and this has caused excitement. The so-called Isolationists, of whom
there are many in both houses, have come out strongly against the President. The representatives and
senators were especially upset over the remarks by the President, which were published in the press, in
which he said that the borders of the United States lie on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb
political player and understands completely the power of the American parliament. He has his own
people there, and he knows how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation at the right moment.

Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together the question of foreign policy with the issues of
American rearmament. He particularly stresses the necessity of spending enormous sums in order to
maintain a defensive peace. He says specifically that the United States is not arming in order to
intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case of war, but rather because of the need to show
strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict in Europe. In his view this conflict is
becoming ever more acute and is completely unavoidable.

Since the issue is presented this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to object. To the contrary,
the houses accepted an armament program of more than one billion dollars. (The normal budget is 550
million, the emergency 552 million dollars.) However, under the cloak of a rearmament policy,
President Roosevelt continues to push forward his foreign policy, which unofficially shows the world
that in case of war the United States will come out on the side of the democratic states with all military
and financial power.

In conclusion it can be said that the technical and moral preparation of the American people for
participation in a war-if one should break out in Europe-is preceding rapidly. It appears that the United
States will come to the aid of France and Great Britain with all its resources right from the beginning.
However, I know the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word,
and I am of the opinion that the possibility that America will enter war as in 1917 is not great. That's
because the majority of states in the mid-West and West, where the rural element predominates, want to
avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the declaration of the Versailles
Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy. Neither the
Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there
remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.

Juliusz Lukasiewicz, Poland's Ambassador to France, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939 about
further conversations with U.S. envoy Bullitt in Paris. Lukasiewicz discussed Roosevelt's efforts to get
both Poland and Britain to adopt a totally uncompromising policy towards Germany, even in the face of
strong sentiment for peace. The report concludes with these words:

... I consider it my duty to inform you of all the aforesaid because I believe that collaboration with
Ambassador Bullitt in such difficult and complicated times may prove useful to us. In any case it is
absolutely certain that he agrees entirely with our point of view and is prepared for the most extensive
friendly collaboration possible.

In order to strengthen the efforts of the American Ambassador in London [Joseph Kennedy], I called
the attention of Ambassador Bullitt to the fact that it is not impossible that the British may treat the
efforts of the United States with well-concealed contempt. He answered that I am probably right, but
that nevertheless the United States has at its disposal the means to really bring pressure on England. He
would be giving serious consideration to mobilizing these means.

The Polish Ambassador in London, Count Edward Raczynski, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939
on the continuing European crisis and on a conversation he had with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, his
American counterpart. Kennedy's remarks to Raczynski confirmed Bullitt's reputation in diplomatic
circles as an indiscreet big mouth:

I asked Mr. Kennedy point blank about the conference which he is supposed to have had recently with
[British Prime Minister] Mr. Chamberlain concerning Poland. Kennedy was surprised and declared
categorically that a conversation of such special significance never took place. At the same time, and
thereby contradicting his own assertion to a certain extent, Kennedy expressed displeasure and surprise
that his colleagues in Paris and Warsaw [William Bullitt and Anthony Biddle] 'who are not, as himself,
in a position to get a clear picture of conditions in England' should talk so openly about this
conversation.

Mr. Kennedy-who made me understand that his views were based on a series of conversations with the
most important authorities here-declared that he was convinced that should Poland decide in favor of
armed resistance against Germany, especially with regard to Danzig, it would draw England in its
wake.

This concludes the excerpts from the Polish reports.

The Path To War

While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's treacherous campaign to bring
about world war, it is fortunate for posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the dispatches to Warsaw.

The secret policy was confirmed after the war with the release of a confidential diplomatic report by
the British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Ronald Lindsay. During his three years of service in
Washington, the veteran diplomat had developed little regard for America's leaders. He considered
Roosevelt an amiable and impressionable lightweight, and warned the British Foreign Office that it
should not tell William Bullitt anything beyond what it wouldn't mind reading later in an American
newspaper.[18]

On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in Europe -- Roosevelt called
Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White House. At the beginning of their long conversation,
according to Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the necessity of
absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he himself would tell nobody of the interview.
I gathered not even the State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very secret part of his communication
and it must not be known to anyone that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it could mean his impeachment.
And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the
U.S. Constitution and dupe the American people.

The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves forced to war" against Germany,
the United States would ultimately also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain
and France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually declaring war and force
other states (including neutrals) to abide by it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German
military response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to actually declare war. For
propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire
to wage hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property, and yet
bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but
"bombing from the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great loss of life."

The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything plausible but avoid actual
declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt believed he could talk the American people into supporting
war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the
United States was still technically neutral in a non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war
by blockade would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United States if its
humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay reported.[19]

The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his postwar memoirs that the
Roosevelt administration was already committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in
late 1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would like to have told him [Count
Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States
would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my official position, I could
not properly make such a statement without instructions from Washington, and these I never
received."[20]

Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar
memoirs on a remarkable conversation held at the end of 1938 with Anthony Drexel Biddle, the
American Ambassador to Poland. Biddle was a rich banker with close ties to the Morgan financial
empire. A thoroughgoing internationalist, he was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a
good friend of William Bullitt. Burckhardt, a Swiss professor, served as High Commissioner between
1937 and 1939.

Nine months before the outbreak of armed conflict, on 2 December 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt

with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. They would counter
the motorized strength of the German army with agile maneuverability. 'In April,' he [Biddle] declared,
'a new crisis would break out. Not since the torpedoing of the Lusitania [in 1915] had such a religious
hatred against Germany reigned in America as today! Chamberlain and Daladier [the moderate British
and French leaders] would be blown away by public opinion. This was a holy war!,[21]

The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war against Germany in case of a
Polish-German conflict would not have been made without strong pressure from the White House.

On 14 March 1939, Slovakia declared itself an independent republic, thereby dissolving the state
known as Czechoslovakia. That same day, Czechoslovak President Emil Hacha signed a formal
agreement with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech
portion of the federation. The British government initially accepted the new situation, but then
Roosevelt intervened.

In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually very well informed Washington
journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a
virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British government strongly oppose
Germany. According to Pearson and Allen, who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President
warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the
Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy
of cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Two weeks later
the British government formally pledged itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

Bullitt's response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was to
telephone Roosevelt and, in an "almost hysterical" voice, urge him to make a dramatic denunciation of
Germany and immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.[23]

In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt reported from Paris on another
conversation with Ambassador Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to circumvent its provisions. The
Roosevelt administration might be able to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The
Polish Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and
aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans
from the United States to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase planes for
cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland."[24]

On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt called American newspaper
columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the
U.S. embassy in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance
of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in
the war soon after Britain and France enter it."[25]

In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939, Roosevelt assured the former President
of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain and
France in the anticipated European war.[26]

In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the United States should establish "a
patrol over the waters of the Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted that "although the proposal was
vague and woolly and open to certain objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be
operated in our interests."[27]

Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's
role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March
1971, Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make
France enter the war."[28] An important confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in
pushing Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of
Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he wrote:

Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with
Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister] Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's
position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to
war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with
England if it had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the
Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland
a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling
Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun
Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.
In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939, the President kept telling him to
put some iron up Chamberlain's backside.[29]

When Ambassador Potocki was back in Warsaw on leave from his post in Washington, he spoke with
Count Jan Szembek, the Polish Foreign Ministry Under-Secretary, about the growing danger of war. In
his diary entry of 6 July 1939, Szembek recorded Potocki's astonishment at the calm mood in Poland.
In comparison with the war psychosis that had gripped the West, Poland seemed like a rest home.

"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of elements openly pushing for war:
the Jews, the super-capitalists, the arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation that is ready to fight: Poland.
They want to do business on our backs. They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed,
since everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that as well."[30]

On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities, Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir
Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister
for President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself in March to Poland
in case of war, Chamberlain now turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at this late hour and open
negotiations with Germany. By telephone Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that
they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could." Presented with this
extraordinary opportunity to possibly save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's
desperate plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost all hope. "The futility of
it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles.
We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe."[31]

Roosevelt liked to present himself to the American people and the world as a man of peace. To a
considerable degree, that is still his image today. But Roosevelt cynically rejected genuine
opportunities to act for peace when they were presented.

In 1938 he refused even to answer requests by French Foreign Minister Bonnet on 8 and 12 September
to consider arbitrating the Czech-German dispute.[32] And a year later, after the outbreak of war, a
melancholy Ambassador Kennedy beseeched Roosevelt to act boldly for peace. "It seems to me that
this situation may crystallize to a point where the President can be the savior of the world," Kennedy
cabled on 11 September from London. "The British government as such certainly cannot accept any
agreement with Hitler, but there may be a point when the President himself may work out plans for
world peace. Now this opportunity may never arise, but as a fairly practical fellow all my life, I believe
that it is entirely conceivable that the President can get himself in a spot where he can save the
world ..."

But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of Europe. To a close political crony,
he called Kennedy's plea "the silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in the neck: "Joe has been an
appeaser and will always be an appeaser ... If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow,
Joe would start working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to get everybody
to accept it."[33]

Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or at least limit the conflict that had
broken out, Roosevelt instructed his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of the question. The Roosevelt
government, it declared, "sees no opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States would not support any move for
peace initiated by this Government that would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of
force and aggression."[34]

Hamilton Fish Warns The Nation

In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the most vigorous and prophetic
American voice of warning against President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of hard-hitting radio speeches,
Fish rallied considerable public opinion against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few
excerpts from some of those addresses.[35]

On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:

The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress and the world [given two days
before] has unnecessarily alarmed the American people and created, together with a barrage of
propaganda emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to the peace of America
and the world. The only logical conclusion to such speeches is another war fought overseas by
American soldiers.

All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ... haven't the faintest thought of making
war on us or invading Latin America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life, liberty and happiness of our
people. The time has come to call a halt to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to quarantine the world with American
blood and money.

He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war psychosis as a red herring to take
the minds of our people off their own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and
creates in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his own imagination.

On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:

The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers are constantly inciting them to
disregard the Munich Pact and resort to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in
foreign lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by arbitration and the
processes of peace, but apparently we won't let them.

Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company network on 5 April with these
words:

The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath in Europe in order to make the
world safe for democracy.

If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away from Germany by the
Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90 percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats
and denunciations and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one American soldier
for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed
and hatred, and as long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be wars of liberation.

The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped the better for the peace of the world.

I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population are restored to Germany, except
Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the
Nazis and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of Great Britain or France or any of
the democracies.

New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable frenzy. The New Deal propaganda
machine is working overtime to prepare the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering
from a bad case of war jitters.

President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is largely responsible for the fear
that pervades the Nation which has given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.

I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria to cover up the failure and
collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12 million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.

I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than we have from without. All the
Communists are united in urging us to go to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet
Russia.

Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by preserving the British Empire and her
colonies. The war profiteers, munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.

On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:

It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of foreign entanglements and the rotten
mess and war madness of Europe and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.

What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced into a foreign war by
internationalists and interventionists at Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world
problems rather than our own.

In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:

He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to declare war and formulate the
foreign policies of the United States. The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.

Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed almost daily by the
internationalists and interventionists in America that we must participate in the next world war.

On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company radio network:

If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in defense of the munitions makers, war
profiteers, Communists, to cover up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third term.

It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war over Danzig, power politics,
foreign colonies, or the imperialistic wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.

Powers Behind The President

President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe without help from powerful allies.
Behind him stood the self-serving international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction of
Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support for U.S. involvement in the
European war prior to the Pearl Harbor attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America
by Aiding the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and top administration
officials consulted frequently with Committee leaders.[36]

Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper publisher, William Allen
White, the Committee was actually organized by powerful financial interests which stood to profit
tremendously from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant war industries in
the United States.

At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a detailed examination of the
Committee which exposed the base interests behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance companies, financial investing firms,
and industrial concerns. These in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well as
on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the powerful influences used by the
group is the '400' and social set. The story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.

The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British Empire helped plan the organization
and donated its first expense money.

Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a
paid war propagandist for the British government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S.
Allen of the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the influential publisher of Time,
Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City;
Herbert Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial holdings in war industries;
and Frank Altschul, an officer in the Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings
in munitions and military supply companies.

If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned, "American boys will spill their
blood for profiteers, politicians and 'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless war."[37]

In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was made public. It revealed the
nature of the forces eager to bring America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont and others of the
great Morgan banking house were listed. Other important names from the New York financial world
included Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm Forbes. Chicago
department store owner and publisher Marshall Field was a contributor, as was William Averill
Harriman, the railroad and investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.

Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long list. Hollywood film czar Samuel
Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there, along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International
Ladies Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been set up by the head
of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System, contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert
H. Lehman, wife of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]

Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry, Roosevelt's policies make little sense.
As Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and
Henry Morgenthau were his close advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles
were his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable in light of Roosevelt's
reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]

In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American aviator hero and peace leader,
nailed the coalition that was pushing the United States into war:

The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems
to have 'the bit in its teeth' and [is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion
pictures. There are also the 'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are allowed
free rein, the international financial interests, and many others.[41]

Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power. Before the outbreak of war he
privately expressed concerns about "the Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general,
which he considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the beginning of hostilities, Kennedy
lamented "the growing Jewish influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war."[42]

Betrayal, Failure, Delusion

Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against Germany succeeded all too well.
The result was untold death and misery and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had
intended and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American president to at least make
good on his assurances of backing in case of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of
peace sentiment of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his own people,
Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had promised support.

Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as they were in late 1939 about
staying out of war in Europe. When hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94
percent of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to 96.5 percent in
December before it began to decline slowly to about 80 percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is
hardly an issue that even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]

Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular feeling on this issue. That is why he
lied repeatedly to the American people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to plunge Europe and America into
war.

In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to the growing fears of millions of
Americans who suspected that their President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in
its war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part on the publication in March
of the captured Polish documents. The speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to
the nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible, Roosevelt categorically denied
that he had

pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some foreign war. I give to you and to the
people of this country this most solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding in
any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any other nation in any part of the world,
to involve this nation in any war or for any other purpose.[44]

We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another one of Roosevelt's many brazen,
bald-faced lies to the American people.

Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal. The Constitution of the United
States grants authority only to the Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several
major laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe. Roosevelt continually
violated his oath as President to uphold the Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the
public demand for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the fact that their presidents can
act criminally. That affair forced Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely regarded
as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name will never receive the respect that normally
goes to every American president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared to those
of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary
cover-up compared to an illegal and secret campaign to bring about a major war?

Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American people for their own good --
that he broke the law for lofty principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was
noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two, is not. This is, of course,
a hypocritical double standard. And the argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It
implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests. It further suggests that the
best form of government is a kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.

Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate -- almost personal. This was due in no
small part to an abiding envy and jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national leaders.

Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were astonishingly similar. Both assumed the
leadership of their respective countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide economic depression. Each became
a powerful leader in a vast military alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945, just before the end of the Second
World War in Europe. But the enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.

Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His was a life utterly free of
material worry. He took part in the First World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of
the Navy. Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family. As a young man he
worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served in the First World War as a front line soldier in
the hell of the Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for bravery.

In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt proved unable to master the great
challenges facing America. Even after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with all the resources for
incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between
labor and capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering racial problems which
erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict. The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied
his people behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years from an
economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a
social, cultural and economic rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the personalities
of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast between two diametrically different social-
political systems and ideologies.

And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a cynical politician and front man
for powerful alien interests. Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely believed
that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring Britain and France into war against Germany.
Like Wilson before him, and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called upon by
destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was
convinced, as so many American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself by
remodeling it after the United States.

Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex of different nations, races and
cultures which must mutually respect each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary perspective that divides the globe into
morally good and evil countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially permanent
leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view just happens to correspond to the economic and
political interests of those who wield power in the United States.

President Roosevelt's War

In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically predicted that one day the Second
World War would be remembered as Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,' because every step of his since his
Chicago quarantine speech [of 5 October 1937] has been toward war.[45]

The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war could probably have been
prevented in 1939 if it had not been for Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive
evidence that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland, and his commitments to
them before September 1939, especially to Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent
provocateur, William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in 1939, or, perhaps, for
many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:

President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and indirect, for the outbreak of war in
Europe. He began to exert pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German reoccupation
of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was making his strongly isolationist speeches in the
campaign of 1936. This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the coming of
the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum after the quarantine speech of October
1937. As the crisis approached between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles
to stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and French to back up the Poles
unflinchingly.

There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September 1939 had it not been for
Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances that, in the event of war, the United States would enter
on the side of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion around to support
intervention.

Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war broke out in 1939, and moved as
speedily as was safe and feasible in the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]

One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in history came from the pen of the
great Swedish explorer and author, Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:

The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be explained because of the
foundation laid by the peace treaties of 1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the
First World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great Britain and France. The decisive
push came from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders as undemocratic and un-
American those who admonish him in the name of peace and the preservation of the American way of
life. He has made democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about freedom of speech
and silences those who don't hold his opinion.

He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with Bolshevism.

He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of his own people with work, bread
or shelter. He talks about freedom from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis powers when it might have united
with them, and he thereby drove millions to their deaths.

This war will go down in history as the war of President Roosevelt.[48]

Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace cannot conceal forever his crucial
role in pushing Europe into war in 1939.

*****
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took place. For many they are an
irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past. But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in
Europe is very pertinent -- particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the past have never been
more important than in this nuclear age. For unless at least an aware minority understands how and
why wars are made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own era.

Notes

See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1948); William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago:
Regnery, 1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington
House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William
Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid (New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door
to War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (New York:
Doubleday, 1982).
Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf,
1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress, House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American
Activities in the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en
Guerre.
Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual
War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented], 1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also
quoted from several of the documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism (N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10.
This booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1979).
Chamberlin, p. 60.
Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p.
x1v [biographical foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E.
Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see
continuation in issue of 18 March 1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should
be America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the American People (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in Independence Hall in
Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France. For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist
hysterics, this anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar propensities of
many other interventionists in government and the press in those days.
Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton, 1980), pp. 203-04.
Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1979), p. 31. See also pp. 164-65.
Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed.
Ernest L. Woodward), Third series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27; Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold
A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich: Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald,
14 April 1939, p. 16. A facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.), American
Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also:
Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 232.
U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General,
Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 122.
"Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944, p. 2.
Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
Lash, p. 64.
Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York: Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute
for Historical Review, 1980), p. 62.
James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking,
1951), pp. 121-22. I have been privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references to the Jews were deleted from the
published version.
Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp. 475-76.
David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974),
p. 207; Moffat, p. 253; A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback], 1965), p. 262; U.S.,
Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 355.
Dallek, p. 164.
Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939,
General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 424.
The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were published in the Congressional Record
Appendix (Washington) as follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939) same,
pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21 April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May
1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp. 2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II
(New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December 1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-
25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part 17, pp. 5808-14.
New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New York Times Magazine, 18 April
1982, p. 102.
"FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle (London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in fomenting hatred against Germany between
1933 and 1939 is a subject that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides some
useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die
Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public opinion measurements to Roosevelt's
foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular
Demand in 1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist
Pamphlets.
Lash, p. 240.
New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published,
ca. 1948), p. 12. See also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately published, ca.
1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II,
No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp. 29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to Peace
and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No. 12], 1980).
Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography

Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the most important sources touching on
the questions of their authenticity and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the prelude to war. Full citations for all
references in the article will be found in the notes.

Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.

Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret. [Correspondence between Franklin D.
Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur
Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.

Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.] New York: Howell, Soskin
and Co., 1940.

Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.]
Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.

Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1970.

Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft. Jena: E.
Diederichs, 1942.
This item was first presented at the Fourth IHR Conference in Chicago, September 1982. It was first
published in The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pages 135-172.

The Bombing of Pearl Harbor


Douglas Dietrich talks about the
Dec. 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor
http://www.apfn.net/CC29/A001I081207-819a.MP3

On 7 December 1941 the greatest disaster in United States history occurred. Truly this was and is, “’A
date which will live in infamy.’”(Costello 1), but not for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, rather for the
deception and the mis-guidance used by the Government and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In a purely
artificial chess game Roosevelt sacrificed over 2400 American Seamen’s lives, thanks to his power as
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. By over-looking the obvious facts of an attack by Japan on
Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was able to control both the political and economic systems of the United
States. Most of American society before the Pearl Harbor bombing believed in the idea of isolationism.

Franklin D. Roosevelt knew this, and knew the only way in which United States countrymen would
take arms and fight in Europe’s War was to be an overt action against the United States by a member of
the Axis Power. Roosevelt also believed Hitler would not declare war on the United States unless he
knew they were beatable. There are numerous accounts of actions by Roosevelt and his top armed
forces advisors, which reveal they were not only aware of an attack by Japan, but also they were
planning on it, and instigating that attack. On 7 October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H.
McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the eight-action memo.
This memo outlined eight different steps the United States could do that he predicted would lead to an
attack by Japan on the United States. The day after this memo was giving to Franklin D. Roosevelt, he
began to implement these steps. By the time that Japan finally attacked the United States at Pearl
Harbor on 7 December 1941, all eight steps had occurred (Willy 1). The eight steps consisted of two
main subject areas; the first being a sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack, the
second being a forceful control on Japans trade and economy. The main subject area of the eight-action
memo was the sign of United States military preparedness and threat of attack. McCollum called for
the United States to make arrangements with both Britain (Action A) and Holland (Action B), for the
use of military facilities and acquisition of supplies in both Singapore and Indonesia.

He also suggested for the deployment of a division of long-range heavy cruisers (Action D) and two
divisions of submarines (Action E) to the Orient. The last key factor McCollum called for was to keep
the United States Fleet in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands (Action F). Roosevelt personally took
charge of Action’s D and E; these actions were called “pop up” cruises. Roosevelt had this to say about
the cruises, “’I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing (Stinnett
9).’” With the fleet located around Hawaii and particularly in Pearl Harbor a double-sided sword was
created; it allowed for quicker deployment times into South Pacific Water, but more importantly it
lacked many fundamental military needs, and was vulnerable due to its geographic location. To
understand the true vulnerability of Pearl Harbor one must look at Oahu, the Hawaiian Island that the
military base is located. The North part of the island is all mountains, these mountains hinder the vision
of military look out points, making an attack from the North virtually a surprise until the sound of
fighter planes are over head.

There were many key military needs that were missing from Pearl Harbor, and they were; a lack of
training facilities, lack of large-scale ammunition and fuel supplies, lack of support craft such as tugs
and repair ships, and a lack of overhaul facilities such as dry-docking and machine shops. Commander
in Chief, United States Fleet - Admiral James O. Richardson, was outraged when he was told by
President Roosevelt of his plans on keeping the fleet in Hawaiian Waters. Richardson knew of the
problems and vulnerability of Pearl Harbor, the safety of his men and warships was paramount. In a
luncheon with Roosevelt, Richardson confronted the President, and by doing so ended his military
career. Four months later Richardson was removed as commander-in-chief, and replaced by Rear
Admiral Husband Kimmel (Stinnett 11).

Kimmel by many top Naval personal was looked down upon on, for taking orders from Roosevelt and
not considering the immediate dangers he was putting the fleet in. The second part of McCollum’s
eight-action memo was a forceful control on Japans trade and economy. He insisted that the Dutch
refuse to grant Japanese demands for oil (Action G), and a complete embargo of all trade with Japan
(Action H), by the United States. This embargo closely represented a similar embargo that was being
imposed by the British Empire. McCollum also knew that if Japan controlled the Pacific, it would put a
strain on America’s resources for copper, rubber, tin, and other valuable goods. These imports from the
Pacific were all essential to America’s Economy, and to protect these trading routes McCollum insisted
for all possible aid to be given to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek (Action C).

Japan had some control over China due to a military operation, which took over part of the country.
Thanks to the control, Japan took and used many raw goods from China that were not in abundance in
their own homeland. The government of Chiang Kai-shek was completely against Japan, and with
economic support from the United States, they were able to deny certain possessions from Japan. The
United States Government and United States Navy by withholding important information about the
bombing of Pearl Harbor have done everything they can do to protect the integrity of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the government. True nationalist believe this information is withheld from
the general public in order to protect national security, and not to hide a conspiracy that was created by
the United States Government some fifty years ago.

This school of thought asks people and wants them to think, “How in the world could the President of
the United States sacrifice over 2400 American seamen’s life’s, horrific amounts of damages to the
Fleet, and tremendous amounts of destruction to Army fighter planes?” This group also asks, “In the
past fifty years why has there not be one single piece of hard evidence which links Roosevelt to Pearl
Harbor, or why has there not been one person who had top security clearance to come out and say
something about Roosevelt and his involvement with the bombing?”

On 5 December 1941 at a Cabinet meeting, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox said, “Well, you know
Mr. President, we know where the Japanese fleet is?” “Yes, I know, …Well, you tell them what it is
Frank,” said Roosevelt (Toland 294). Knox became extremely excited with the ok from Roosevelt, and
he went to tell the group of where the Japanese were and where they were headed. Just as Knox was
about to speak Roosevelt interrupted saying, “ We haven’t got anything like perfect information as to
their apparent destination (Toland 294).” All Navy reports showed the Japanese were in Pacific Water,
and were in a direction towards Hawaii and Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt knew this information, but one
must wonder why in the world would he not want to tell his cabinet this information, unless he wanted
to hide something? On 6 December 1941 at a White House dinner Roosevelt was given the first
thirteen parts of a fifteen part decoded Japanese diplomatic declaration of war and said, “This means
War (Toland 318).”

Later that night, Roosevelt along with top advisor Harry Hopkins, Henry Stimson, George Marshall,
Secretary of the Navy Knox, with aides John McCrea and Frank Beatty deliberately sat through the
night waiting for the Japanese to strike Pear Harbor (Toland 320). Not until the morning of 7 December
1941 at 7:55 Hawaii Time did Japan deliberately and forcefully attack the United States at Pearl
Harbor, finally ending disillusioned isolationist ideas of an only European War. United States
countrymen immediately ran to recruiting offices after the news of the attack, to join the armed forces
and fight against the Japanese and Hitler.

Beyond a doubt Pearl Harbor was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s back door into the European War.
Roosevelt’s decisions and actions were very much so, deliberate and calculated, in order to lead a
victorious Allied Powers in World War II. By provoking the Japanese and the foreknowledge of an
attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt along with his top advisors and the Federal Government are truly to
blame for the lost of American life’s and American property. 7 December 1941 shall be a day in
American history, which will be remembered as “a day of deceit.”

Works Cited

Costello, John. Days of Infamy. New York: Pocket Books, 1994. Stinnett, Robert B. Day of Deceit.
New York: The Free Press, 2000. Toland, John. Infamy. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1982.
Willey, Mark. “Pearl Harbor Mother of all Conspiracies.” 13 Mar. 2001.
www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html. Works Consulted Larrabee, Eric. Commander in Chief.
New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Prange, Gordon W. December 7, 1941 The Day the Japanese Attacked
Pearl Harbor. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988. The Roosevelt Years to United States
Enters World War II. Videocassette. By Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Flimic Achieves, 1995. 75 mins.
Thompson, Robert S. A Time For War. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991.
http://tinyurl.com/5whg3e

Why did Roosevelt want to enter into World War II? Was it to defeat the tyranny of Hitler? Stalin, who
was our partner during the war, was even more vicious and tyrannical than Hitler. Was it to stop the
aggression of the Japanese? Before the war, this country did everything it could to give Japan no choice
and goad them into waging war.

Roosevelt was a 33rd degree mason. That is the highest level one can attain in the satanic Masonic
order. One of objectives of the lucifer worshipping Masonic order is to establish a one world
government. After World War I these people tried, and failed, to start a one world government
organization, The League of Nations. Realizing they would need another world war to finally create
such an organization, they manipulated world events, started and won World War II, and created the
United Nations, the tool for the final phase of one world government.

http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove


FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?
Robert B. Stinnett, Douglas Cirignano

An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett by Douglas Cirignano

On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese
warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from
November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to
his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: “...the task force, keeping its movements strictly
secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters,
and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii
and deal it a mortal blow...”

One might wonder if the theory that President Franklin Roosevelt had a foreknowledge of the Pearl
Harbor attack would have been alluded to in this summer’s movie, Pearl Harbor. Since World War II
many people have suspected that Washington knew the attack was coming. When Thomas Dewey was
running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about America’s ability to intercept
Japan’s radio messages, and thought this knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In
the fall of that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of the
attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded
Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan’s naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes,
and Dewey’s speeches could have sacrificed America’s code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said
nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time.

Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster’s Day Of Deceit, we have the
proof. Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of
Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in
the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act
requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting,
clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an
author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He
poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous
research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew.

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars,” was Roosevelt’s famous campaign
statement of 1940. He wasn’t being ingenuous. FDR’s military and State Department leaders were
agreeing that a victorious Nazi Germany would threaten the national security of the United States. In
White House meetings the strong feeling was that America needed a call to action. This is not what the
public wanted, though. Eighty to ninety percent of the American people wanted nothing to do with
Europe’s war. So, according to Stinnett, Roosevelt provoked Japan to attack us, let it happen at Pearl
Harbor, and thus galvanized the country to war. Many who came into contact with Roosevelt during
that time hinted that FDR wasn’t being forthright about his intentions in Europe. After the attack, on
the Sunday evening of December 7, 1941, Roosevelt had a brief meeting in the White House with
Edward R. Murrow, the famed journalist, and William Donovan, the founder of the Office of Strategic
Services. Later Donovan told an assistant that he believed FDR welcomed the attack and didn’t seem
surprised. The only thing Roosevelt seemed to care about, Donovan felt, was if the public would now
support a declaration of war. According to Day Of Deceit, in October 1940 FDR adopted a specific
strategy to incite Japan to commit an overt act of war. Part of the strategy was to move America’s
Pacific fleet out of California and anchor it in Pearl Harbor. Admiral James Richardson, the commander
of the Pacific fleet, strongly opposed keeping the ships in harm’s way in Hawaii. He expressed this to
Roosevelt, and so the President relieved him of his command. Later Richardson quoted Roosevelt as
saying: “Sooner or later the Japanese will commit an overt act against the United States and the nation
will be willing to enter the war.”

To those who believe that government conspiracies can’t possibly happen, Day Of Deceit could prove
to them otherwise. Stinnett’s well-documented book makes a convincing case that the highest officials
of the government—including the highest official—fooled and deceived millions of Americans about
one of the most important days in the history of the country. It now has to be considered one of the
most definitive—if not the definitive—book on the subject. Gore Vidal has said, “...Robert Stinnet has
come up with most of the smoking guns. Day Of Deceit shows that the famous ‘surprise’ attack was no
surprise to our war-minded rulers...” And John Toland, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the Pearl
Harbor book, Infamy, said, “Step by step, Stinnett goes through the prelude to war, using new
documents to reveal the terrible secrets that have never been disclosed to the public. It is disturbing that
eleven presidents, including those I admired, kept the truth from the public until Stinnett’s Freedom of
Information Act requests finally persuaded the Navy to release the evidence.”

What led you to write a book about Pearl Harbor?


Stinnett: Well, I was in the navy in World War II. I was on an aircraft carrier. With George Bush,
believe it or not.

You wrote a book about that.

Stinnett: Yes, that’s right. So, we were always told that Japanese targets, the warships, were sighted by
United States submarines. We were never told about breaking the Japanese codes. Okay. So, in 1982 I
read a book by a Professor Prange called At Dawn We Slept. And in that book it said that there was a
secret US Navy monitoring station at Pearl Harbor intercepting Japanese naval codes prior to
December 7. Well, that was a bombshell to me. That was the first time I had heard about that. I worked
at The Oakland Tribune at that time....So I went over to Hawaii to see the station to confirm it. And,
then, to make a long story short, I met the cryptographers involved, and they steered me to other
sources, documents that would support all of their information. And so that started me going. My
primary purpose was to learn about the intercept procedures. And so I filed Freedom of Information Act
requests with the Navy because communications intelligence is very difficult. It’s a no-no. They don’t
want to discuss it. But the Navy did let me, gave me permission to go to Hawaii and they showed me
the station....So that started me on it. And then I would ask for certain information, this is now, we’re
talking about in the 1980’s, the late 1980’s. And they’re very reluctant to give me more information.
I’m getting a little bit.

Historians and government officials who claim that Washington didn’t have a foreknowledge of the
Pearl Harbor attack have always contended that America wasn’t intercepting and hadn’t cracked
Japan’s important military codes in the months and days preceding the attack. The crux of your book is
that your research proves that is absolutely untrue. We were reading most all of Japan’s radio messages.
Correct?

Stinnett: That is correct. And I believed that, too. You know, because, Life magazine in September
1945, right after Japan surrendered, suggested that this was the case, that Roosevelt engineered Pearl
Harbor. But that was discarded as an anti-Roosevelt tract, and I believed it, also.

Another claim at the heart of the Pearl Harbor surprise-attack lore is that Japan’s ships kept radio
silence as they approached Hawaii. That’s absolutely untrue, also?

Stinnett: That is correct. And this was all withheld from Congress, so nobody knew about all this.

Until the Freedom of Information Act.

Stinnett: Yes.

Is this statement true?—If America was intercepting and decoding Japan’s military messages then
Washington and FDR knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor.

Stinnett: Oh, absolutely.

You feel it’s as simple as that?

Stinnett: That is right. And that was their plan. It was their “overt act of war” plan that I talk about in
my book that President Roosevelt adopted on October 7, 1940.
You write that in late November 1941 an order was sent out to all US military commanders that stated:
“The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.” According to Secretary of War
Stimson, the order came directly from President Roosevelt. Was FDR’s cabinet on record for
supporting this policy of provoking Japan to commit the first overt act of war?

Stinnett: I don’t know that he revealed it to the cabinet. He may have revealed it to Harry Hopkins, his
close confidant, but there’s no evidence that anybody in the cabinet knew about this.

I thought you wrote in your book that they did...That some of them were on record for...

Stinnett: Well, some did. Secretary of War Stimson knew, based on his diary, and also probably Frank
Knox, the Secretary of Navy knew. But Frank Knox died before the investigation started. So all we
have really is Stimson, his diary. And he reveals a lot in there, and I do cite it in my book...You must
mean his war cabinet. Yes. Stimson’s diary reveals that nine people in the war cabinet—the military
people—knew about the provocation policy.

Even though Roosevelt made contrary statements to the public, didn’t he and his advisors feel that
America was eventually going to have to get into the war?

Stinnett: That is right. Well, his statement was, “I won’t send your boys to war unless we are attacked.”
So then he engineered this attack—to get us into war really against Germany. But I think that was his
only option. I express that in the book.

Who was Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum and what was his connection to the Pearl Harbor
attack?

Stinnett: He worked for Naval intelligence in Washington. He also was the communications routing
officer for President Roosevelt. So all these intercepts would go to Commander McCollum and then he
would route them to the President. There’s no question about that. He also was the author of this plan to
provoke Japan into attacking us at Pearl Harbor. And he was born and raised in Japan.

McCollum wrote this plan, this memorandum, in October 1940. It was addressed to two of Roosevelt’s
closest advisors. In the memo McCollum is expressing that it’s inevitable that Japan and America are
going to go to war, and that Nazi Germany’s going to become a threat to America’s security. McCollum
is saying that America’s going to have to get into the war. But he also says that public opinion is against
that. So, McCollum then suggests eight specific things that America should do to provoke Japan to
become more hostile, to attack us, so that the public would be behind a war effort. And because he was
born and raised in Japan, he understood the Japanese mentality and how the Japanese would react.

Stinnett: Yes. Exactly.

Has the existence of this memo from Commander McCollum ever been revealed to the public before
your book came out?

Stinnett: No, no. I received that as pursuant to my FOIA request on January 1995 from the National
Archives. I had no idea it existed.

FDR and his military advisors knew that if McCollum’s eight actions were implemented—things like
keeping the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor, and crippling Japan’s economy with an embargo—there was
no question in their minds that this would cause Japan—whose government was very militant—to
attack the United States. Correct?

Stinnett: That is correct, and that is what Commander McCollum said. He said, “If you adopt these
policies then Japan will commit an overt act of war.”

Is there any proof that FDR saw McCollum’s memorandum?

Stinnett: There’s no proof that he actually saw the memorandum, but he adopted all eight of the
provocations—including where he signed executive orders...And other information in Navy files offers
conclusive evidence that he did see it.

The memo is addressed to two of Roosevelt’s top advisors, and you include the document where one of
them is agreeing with McCollum’s suggested course of action.

Stinnett: Yes, Dudley Knox, who was his very close associate.

The “splendid arrangement” was a phrase that FDR’s military leaders used to describe America’s
situation in the Pacific. Can you explain what the “splendid arrangement” was?

Stinnett: The “splendid arrangement” was the system of twenty-two monitoring stations in the Pacific
that were operated by the United States, Britain, and the Dutch. These extended along the west coast of
the United States, up to Alaska, then down to Southeast Asia, and into the Central Pacific.

These radio monitoring stations allowed us to intercept and read all of Japan’s messages, right?

Stinnett: Absolutely. We had Japan wired for sound.

You claim that the “splendid arrangement” was so adept that ever since the 1920’s Washington always
knew what Japan’s government was doing. So to assert that we didn’t know the Japanese were going to
bomb Pearl Harbor would be illogical?

Stinnett: That is correct.

Your book claims that in 1941 Japan had a spy residing in the Japanese consulate in Honolulu.

Stinnett: Japan secreted this spy—he was a Japanese naval officer—in Honolulu. He arrived there in
March 1941 under an assumed name, and he was attached to the Japanese consulate there. But when
the FBI checked on him they found out he was not listed in the Japanese foreign registry, so they were
suspicious immediately. They put a tail on him. And then the spy started filing messages to Japan that
we were intercepting. This was in a diplomatic code now. And so the FBI continued to tail him, and so
did Naval intelligence.

Naval intelligence, the FBI, and Roosevelt knew this man was spying on the fleet in Pearl Harbor, and
they let the espionage go on. The policy of FDR’s government then was to look the other way and let
Japan prepare itself for attacking us?

Stinnett: That’s right. That is correct. He was providing a timetable for the attack.
The spy was even sending bomb plots of Pearl Harbor?

Stinnett: Yes. From March to August he was giving a census of the US Pacific fleet. Then starting in
August he started preparing bomb plots of Pearl Harbor, where our ships were anchored and so forth.

And Roosevelt even saw those bomb plots, right?

Stinnett: Yes, that is correct.

You claim that twice during the week of December 1 to 6 the spy indicated that Pearl Harbor would be
attacked. According to a Japanese commander, the message on December 2 was: “No changes observed
by afternoon of 2 December. So far they do not seem to have been alerted.” And on the morning of
December 6 the message was: “There are no barrage balloons up and there is an opportunity left for a
surprise attack against these places.” These messages were intercepted by the Navy, right? Did
Roosevelt know about these messages?

Stinnett: They were intercepted. That is correct. They were sent by RCA communications. And
Roosevelt had sent David Sarnoff, who was head of RCA, to Honolulu so that this would facilitate
getting these messages even faster. Though we were also intercepting them off the airways, anyway.
And on December 2 and on December 6 the spy indicated that Pearl was going to be the target. And the
December 2 message was intercepted, decoded, and translated prior to December 5. The December 6
message...there’s really no proof that it was...it was intercepted, but there’s all sorts of cover stories on
whether or not that reached the President. But he received other information that it was going to happen
the next day, anyway.

You saw the records of those intercepts yourself?

Stinnett: Yes. I have those.

And all these other messages that the Navy was constantly intercepting showed exactly where the
Japanese ships were, that they were preparing for war, and that they were heading straight for Hawaii.
Right?

Stinnett: That’s right. Our radio direction finders located the Japanese warships.

You say Roosevelt regularly received copies of these intercepts. How were they delivered to him?

Stinnett: By Commander McCollum routing the information to him. They were prepared in monograph
form. They called it monograph....it was sent to the President through Commander McCollum who
dispatched it through the naval aide to the
President.

On page 203 of the hardcover edition of your book it reads, “Seven Japanese naval broadcasts
intercepted between November 28 and December 6 confirmed that Japan intended to start the war and
that it would begin in Pearl Harbor.” Did you see the
records of those intercepts yourself?

Stinnett: Yes. And also we have new information about other intercepts in the current edition that’s
coming out in May 2001....There’s no question about it.
According to Day Of Deceit, on November 25 Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the Japanese
fleet. Part of the message read: “The task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining
close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very
opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a
mortal blow...” What’s the proof that the record of that intercept exists? Did you see it yourself? Again,
did Roosevelt know about it?

Stinnett: The English version of that message has been released by the United States, a government
book. The Japanese version—the raw message—has not been released by the U.S. I have copies of the
Station H radio logs—a monitoring station in Hawaii. They prove that the Navy intercepted eight-three
messages that Yamamoto sent between November seventeenth and twenty-fifth. I have those records,
but not the raw intercepts, eighty-six percent of which have not been released by the government...As
far as Roosevelt, early in November 1941 Roosevelt ordered that Japanese raw intercepts be delivered
directly to him by his naval aide, Captain Beardall. Sometimes if McCollum felt a message was
particularly hot he would deliver it himself to FDR.

Late on December 6 and in the very early morning hours of December 7 the United States intercepted
messages sent to the Japanese ambassador in Washington. These messages were basically a declaration
of war—Japan was saying it was breaking off negotiations with America. At those times, General
Marshall and President Roosevelt were shown the intercepts. When FDR read them he said, “This
means war.” When the last intercept was shown to Roosevelt it was still hours before the Pearl Harbor
attack. In that last intercept Japan gave the deadline for when it was breaking off relations with the U.S.
—the deadline was the exact hour when Pearl Harbor was attacked. FDR and Marshall should have
then sent an emergency warning to Admiral Kimmel in Pearl Harbor. But they acted nonchalantly and
didn’t get a warning to Kimmel.

Stinnett: Yes. This is a message sent from the Japanese foreign office to the Japanese ambassador in
Washington DC. And in it he directed....it broke off relations with the United States and set a timetable
of 1:00 PM on Sunday, December 7, eastern time.

Which was the exact time that Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Stinnett: That’s right. So they realized, with all their information, this is it. And then General Marshall,
though, sat on the message for about fifteen hours because he didn’t want to send...he didn’t want to
warn the Hawaiian commanders in time....he didn’t want them to interfere with the overt act.
Eventually they did send it but it didn’t arrive until way after the attack.

Roosevelt saw it too. They should have sent an emergency warning to Admiral Kimmel in Hawaii,
right?

Stinnett: That’s right. But you see they wanted the successful overt act by Japan. It unified the
American people.

This seems like a classic case of higher-ups doing something questionable, and then getting the people
below them to take the blame for it. Admiral Husband Kimmel was in charge of the fleet in Pearl
Harbor, and he was demoted and took the blame for the attack. Was that justified?

Stinnett: No, it was not. And Congress, you know, last October of 2000 voted to exonerate him because
the information was withheld from them. That’s very important. But it was subject to implementation
by President Clinton who did not sign it. But at least Congress filed it, made the finding.

You claim that Admiral Kimmel and General Short—who headed up the army in Hawaii—were denied
by Washington of the information that would have let them know the attack was coming. In what ways
were Kimmel and Short denied intelligence?

Stinnett: Well, they were just cut off...They were not told that the spy was there, and they were not
given these crucial documents, the radio direction finder information. All this information was going to
everybody but Kimmel and Short. That’s very clear.... At one point Kimmel specifically requested that
Washington let him know immediately about any important developments, but they did not do that.

Kimmel was given some information, because two weeks before the attack he sent the Pacific fleet
north of Hawaii on a reconnaissance exercise to look for Japanese carriers. When White House military
officials learned of this what was their reaction?

Stinnett: Admiral Kimmel tried a number of occasions to do something to defend Pearl Harbor. And,
right, two weeks before the attack, on November 23, Kimmel sent nearly one hundred warships of the
Pacific fleet to the exact site where Japan planned to launch the attack. Kimmel meant business. He
was looking for the Japanese. His actions indicated that he wanted to be thoroughly prepared for action
if he encountered a Japanese carrier force. When White House officials learned this, they directed to
Kimmel that he was “complicating the situation”....You see, the White House wanted a clean cut overt
act of war by Japan. Isolationists would have charged FDR was precipitating Japanese action by
allowing the Pacific fleet in the North Pacific...So, minutes after Kimmel got the White House directive
he canceled the exercise and returned the fleet to its anchorage in Pearl Harbor...That’s where the
Japanese found it on December 7, 1941.

The White House was handcuffing Kimmel? They wanted him to be completely passive?

Stinnett: That is right.

FDR did send a war warning to Kimmel on November 28. Was that enough of a warning?

Stinnett: Well, that was a warning, but also in there they directed Admiral Kimmel and all the Pacific
commanders to stand aside, don’t go on the offensive, and remain in a defensive position, and let Japan
commit the first overt act. That’s right in the message, and it’s in my book. And Admiral Kimmel, the
message he received, it was repeated twice....stand aside and let Japan commit the first overt act, the
exact wording is in my book.

Your book makes it abundantly clear that FDR and his advisors knew Japan was preparing for war, and
knew that Japan was eventually going to attack. But can it be said that FDR knew that the attack was
going to take place specifically on the morning of December 7 at Pearl Harbor?

Stinnett: Yes.....Absolutely.

Through the radio intercepts.

Stinnett: Through the radio intercepts. Right. Both military and diplomatic.
Did America’s ambassador in Japan, Ambassador Joseph Grew, have any indications that Japan was
planning a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?

Stinnett: The information is that he did. I do quote him in the book, and he warned Washington to be on
the alert because he couldn’t give them the last minute information.

Well, according to your book Ambassador Grew had a reliable source in the Japanese embassy tell him
that Japan was planning the attack, and then Grew sent dire warnings to the White House that an attack
on Hawaii was a very real possibility.

Stinnett: Yes, well, he was the first one to—after President Roosevelt adopted this eight action memo—
Ambassador Grew learned about the Pearl Harbor attack in January1941. And then Commander
McCollum was asked to evaluate this, and he said, “Oh, there’s nothing to it.”—even though it was his
plan!

He was being disingenuous, McCollum.

Stinnett: Yea. Exactly.

On December 5 the Navy intercepted a message telling Japanese embassies around the world to burn
their code books. What does it mean when a government is telling its embassies to burn their code
books?

Stinnett: That means war is coming within a day or two.

That’s common knowledge in the military. And the military officials in Washington saw this intercept
and the meaning of it wasn’t lost on them.

Stinnett: Yes. That’s right.

FDR and Washington also knew that Japan had recalled from sea all its merchant ships. What does that
mean?

Stinnett: It’s known in government and the military that if a nation recalls its merchant ships then those
ships are needed to transport soldiers and supplies for war.

So, in your opinion, if there had been no Pearl Harbor, then would America ever have ended up
dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Stinnett: Well, that’s what the survivors, the families of those who were killed at Pearl, and other
people say. They claim that if there hadn’t been Pearl Harbor there would have been no Hiroshima.
But, of course, that’s a “what if” question. And I don’t know how to answer it.

One could only speculate on that. But it seems in a way Hiroshima and Nagasaki were maybe
retribution for Pearl Harbor.

Stinnett: I think it was more really to bring a close to the war. You know, I was out there at the time,
and, frankly, I...we were subject to kamikaze attacks, they were attacking our carriers, and about half of
our carriers were knocked out as of July 1945, so, personally, I was very pleased with the atom
bombing because that ended the war. It probably saved my life.

If what you’re saying is true, then Pearl Harbor is a prime example of government treating human
beings like guinea pigs. Yet, you, yourself, don’t disparage and don’t have a negative view of FDR.

Stinnett: No, I don’t have a negative view. I think it was his only option to do this. And I quote the chief
cryptographer for the Pacific fleet, who said, “It was a pretty cheap price to pay for unifying the
country.”

That cryptographer, Commander Joseph Rochefort, was a confidant of McCollum’s. He worked closely
with Kimmel in Pearl Harbor. It could be argued that Rochefort was the closest one to Kimmel who
was most responsible for denying Kimmel of the vital intelligence. And he did make that statement. But
do you agree with that? A lot of people would be offended and angered by that statement. A lot of
people wouldn’t agree with it.

Stinnett: A lot of people would not, but I think under the cirumstances this was FDR’s only option.
And, of course, this was sort of used in the Viet Nam War, you know. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
was based on a provocation aimed at the North Vietnamese gunboats—something like that. That’s how
President Johnson got The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed through the Congress. There was a
provocation.

Apparently, it’s a military strategy, but the families—obviously—of the people who get killed when a
military uses this strategy wouldn’t agree with it.

Stinnett: Oh, right. I know. Oh, when I speak about this with the families they just start crying about it,
you know. They’re terribly upset....But, you know, it was used by President Polk in the Mexican War in
1846. And also by President Lincoln at Fort Sumter And then also, as I say, another example is Viet
Nam, this Gulf of Tonkin business.

It could be a traditional military philosophy, the idea that a military has to sometimes provoke the
enemy to attack, sacrifice its own soldiers, so as to unify a country for war.

Stinnett: I think so. I think you could probably trace it back to Caesar’s time.

How much in your book has never been revealed to the public before?

Stinnett: The breaking of radio silence. The fact that the Japanese ships did not keep silent as they
approached Hawaii....The breaking of Japanese codes—I mean the full proof of it. Military codes, I
want to emphasize that....And also McCollum’s eight action memo—that’s the whole heart of my book.
If I didn’t have that it wouldn’t be as important. That is the smoking gun of Pearl Harbor. It really is.

Your research seems to prove that government conspiracies can exist. In your view, how many people
would you say ultimately knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, but kept quiet about it and
covered it up before and after the event?

Stinnett: I cite about thirty-five people there in the book that most certainly knew about it. And it’s
probably more than that.

It also seems like a classic Washington cover-up. In your book you use the phrase “Pearl Harbor
deceits”. Ever since the attack there have been missing documents, altered documents, people being
disingenuous, and people outright perjuring themselves before the Pearl Harbor investigation
committees. Correct?

Stinnett: That is right. Absolutely. And you know the Department of Defense has labeled some of my
Pearl Harbor requests as B1 National Defense Secrets, and they will not release them. I say that in the
book. Janet Reno would not release them to me.

And all the official Congressional Pearl Harbor committees were denied and weren’t privy to all this
revealing information?

Stinnett: That’s right. They were cut out, also.

A lot of people probably don’t want to believe that a president would let something like Pearl Harbor
happen. Have you gotten any criticism for contending that FDR had a foreknowledge of the attack?

Stinnett: Yes. I get about a seventy percent approval rating. From, you know, comments, news media,
radio, and all that. And there’s about thirty percent just don’t accept this....But the nitty-gritty questions
are fine to me. You know, the people who are attacking me, what they are really quoting from is 1950
information. They don’t have the 1999 or 2000 information....

The information you put out in your book. You’re talking about new things here.

Stinnett: That’s right. And this thirty percent, I feel they just don’t want to accept it, or they regard FDR
as an icon who brought Social Security, and all that. But he also unified this country, and we were able
to stop Hitler, you know, and the holocaust, and everything else that was going on. So, you could also
say that this was a victory for President Roosevelt.

But it seems under our system of government if President Roosevelt felt it was an emergency to go to
war with Germany then he should have come before the American people and the Congress and
explained it and convinced us that we had to go defeat Hitler.

Stinnett: Well, you see that was the problem. The strong isolation movement. Eighty percent of the
people wanted nothing to do with Europe’s war. And, you know, German submarines were sinking our
ships in the North Atlantic. That did not rouse the American public. Nobody gave a damn. The USS
Ruben James was a destroyer that was sunk, and lost a hundred lives about a month before Pearl
Harbor. And there were other ships, merchant ships, and other ships in the North Atlantic that were
sunk or damaged. But no one cared about it. I think the American people thought that Roosevelt was
trying to provoke us into the German war, or Europe’s war. They didn’t want anything to do with that.
But, you see, Commander McCollum was brilliant. He fashioned this—it was a real PR job—he got
Japan to attack us in a most outrageous manner that really did unite the country.

A lot of people would probably be of the opinion that it wasn’t so brilliant. The families of the three
thousand people who were killed and injured at Pearl Harbor probably wouldn’t think it was brilliant.

Stinnett: I know, I know. You see, that’s the argument today.

But if this is true, then you agree with what FDR did?
Stinnett: I do. I don’t see what other option he had.

Because a lot of the tone in your book seems to be questioning and disagreeing with Roosevelt’s
actions.

Stinnett: Well, I disagree with the way he treated Admiral Kimmel and General Short, letting them
hang out to dry.

Kimmel and Short were cut off from the intelligence loop.

Stinnett: They were cut off. And Congress, you know, last October, the Senate and the House, found
that they were cut off. They made the finding. That would have never happened five years ago. Or ten,
twenty years ago

It happened because of the Freedom of Information Act?

Stinnett: I think so. And the Short and Kimmel families have credited my book with getting that
through Congress.

Did you ever read Clausen’s book? Colonel Henry Clausen was part of a Pearl Harbor investigation of
November 1944. He wrote a book that was published in 1992 that claimed FDR didn’t have a
foreknowledge of the attack.

Stinnett: Well, you know, I read that. But I fault Colonel Clausen because he had access to all of these
military intercepts and he did not bring them out. And I think that was a crime for him to have done
that. He should have been court-martialed for that.

You infer in your book that at one point Clausen was probably trying to cover up for General
Marshall’s actions of December 6 and 7.

Stinnett: I think so. You know, he was acting on the behalf of the Secretary of War. He had carte
blanche with these intercepts.

When was he acting on behalf of the Secretary of War?

Stinnett: Well, Clausen was authorized by Secretary of War Stimson to conduct the Pearl Harbor
investigation in November 1944. He traveled to the Hawaiian monitoring stations and interviewed
cryptographers but failed to obtain any evidence or testimony concerning the intercepts the Navy was
making prior to December 7. So when Congress opened its Pearl Harbor investigation in November
1945 there were no pre-Pearl Harbor Japanese naval intercepts available. Clausen was told by Stimson
to get the intercepts, but he didn’t do it.

Did you ever talk with Clausen? Did he criticize you?

Stinnett: He died. I tried to contact him. He was an attorney in San Francisco, and I did write him but
he would never answer me. I wanted to ask him why he didn’t obtain the intercepts. His book doesn’t
address that major issue. He didn’t return my calls, and he never answered my letters. I guess he just
didn’t want to be exposed to this. Clausen was obviously a part of the conspiracy that kept the pre-Pearl
Harbor intercepts from Congress and the American public.
What kind of attention did your book get from the mainstream media? Did it get as much attention as
you thought it would?

Stinnett: Most of the mainstream print media has given Day Of Deceit very fine reviews. That includes
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, et al. Mainstream TV has not
been forthcoming. The exceptions have been C-Span, PAX TV, and local television stations. Neither
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or Fox News have carried a word. C-SPAN carried ninety minutes of me
discussing the book with a crowd of one hundred-fifty people. That was arranged by independent.org—
The Independent Institute, a major, progressive think tank in Oakland, California.

Why do you think the information in your book is important?

Stinnett: It’s important because it reveals the lengths that some people in the American government will
go to deceive the American public, and to keep this vital information—in our land of the First
Amendment—from the people. And that’s against everything I believe in.
Robert B. Stinnett is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and the author
of the book, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (Free Press). For further
information, see the Pearl Harbor Archive.

http://tinyurl.com/67tpc8

Banker Plot To Remove FDR Was A Ruse


By Henry Makow PhD

The story that Wall Street bankers planned to overthrow FDR in 1933 still makes the rounds in 2007.

Last week, the BBC named "Dubya's" grandfather, Prescott Bush as one of the conspirators.

Clearly, the Illuminati bankers staged the "planned coup" to give FDR credibility as Wall Street's
nemesis. As I will show, they routinely used such tricks to build up their Presidential puppet.

The NWO apparently still considers Roosevelt and his model of Big Government as a propaganda
asset. Fascism takes the form of socialism, as we have seen with Communism and Nazism.

The conspirators (members of the "American Liberty League") approached retired Major General
Smedley Butler to use 500,000 veterans to remove FDR and become a Mussolini-like figure himself.

Smedley Butler was the LAST man you would ask if you were serious about such a coup. However, if
you wanted someone to expose your coup ( as he did; thought it "smacked of treason,") Butler was the
"go-to" person.

The most decorated Marine in history; Gen. Smedley Butler recently had been forced to resign by
Herbert Hoover for calling Mussolini a "mad dog" and warning that his fascist cohorts "were about to
break loose in Europe." Butler refused to retract his remarks and thus became a national hero overnight.

Nor was Butler fond of Wall Street, touring the nation with a speech stating that the bankers used the
US army as "gangsters for capitalism" -- thugs and debt collectors:

"Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints," Butler said. "The best he
could do was .. operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." ("War is a Racket"
1933)

"There was definitely something crazy about the whole affair," remarked Curt Gentry. "Butler who had
gained prominence for speaking out / against fascism/, being asked to become an American Duce." ("J.
Edgar Hoover" p.203)

Nevertheless, Gentry and most other historians accepted the tale, indicating that they function as highly
paid flacks.

The story received its widest currency in Jules Archer's book "The Plot to Seize the White House"
(1973). Judging from Archer's other works, he is either the Illuminati's best propagandist or biggest
dupe (or both.)

His other subjects include such "defenders of the people" as: Trotsky, Mao Tse Tung; Chou En Lai; and
Ho Chi Minh. He has also penned books about such elite-sponsored movements as feminism, civil
rights and environmentalism.

WHO WAS FDR?


For the answer, we are indebted to a book by a courageous honest, public-spirited New York doctor,
Emmanuel Josephson: "The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt" (1948).

FDR was the scion of two Illuminati families, the Delanos and the Roosevelts. He was related to a
dozen US Presidents: four on the Roosevelt side and eight on the Delano side. He was a third cousin of
King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.

These families have some Jewish antecedents but they also have Dutch, German, Swedish and
principally English blood. FDR's mother's father, Warren Delano made a sizable fortune in the opium
trade. His father James Roosevelt was Vice President of a railway and director of several companies.

FDR was a spoiled brat who could always change the rules to suit his whims. He was tutored privately,
and failed law school but allowed to enter the bar anyway. He never held a real job. In the 1920's, he
helped float some stock market scams. As Governor and later President, he was extremely suggestible,
evasive and shifty. Louis Howe created his public persona and did his thinking for him. He was FDR's
"alter and wiser ego." (102)

FDR had a small army of speech writers and sometimes there were screw-ups. For his Democratic
nomination acceptance in 1932, he was handed two speeches with diametrically opposed views and
read them both. (157)

After his attack of encephalomyelitis, the Rockefellers gave him a health spa at Warm Springs,
Georgia. They subsequently funneled millions of dollars to FDR in the guise of contributions to his
"foundation" to help the sick. (Dr. Josephson found that the institution did not accept charity cases and
didn't issue financial statements.) (118-ff)

In Josephson's words, "Roosevelt was magnificently bribed to run for office. By the end of 1930, some
$700,000 was poured into the coffers of the Foundation ...[FDR] was the pathetic puppet of
conspirators scheming the destruction of democracy and the establishment of an American monarchy."
(95, 124)

In return under FDR, the US Treasury spent hundreds of millions bribing Saudi King Ibn Saud and
building oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia to benefit Standard Oil. (262-263)

Josephson said the basic doctrines of the Rockefeller Empire are "feudalistic monarchic government" ...
"monopoly of every necessity of life and of national existence, and absolute dictatorship..." (86-87)

The rich must "divide and rule": " The people must be dealt with not as Americans but as minorities set
at each other's throats, labor vs. Capital, Black vs. White, Catholic vs. protestant, Christian vs. Jew for
e.g." (87) He could have added male vs. female and gay vs. straight.

FEIGNED OPPOSITION FROM WALL STREET

Rich degenerate inbreds running for President naturally pretend to defend the public good. Naturally
their banker-sponsors are willing to feign displeasure and opposition.

FDR learned the game from his cousin Theodore Roosevelt who pretended to be a "trust buster," while
remaining a creation of the trusts.

The contributors to FDR's 1932 campaign include a Who's Who of the US business elite, the same
people who supposedly tried to overthrow him a year later: Hearst, Rockefeller, Morgan, Baruch, Du
Pont, Astor.

In 1933, a group of "publicity men" advised that Fascism was becoming unpopular in America and
FDR could score points by opposing the Nazis. "They suggested that Hearst and his publications
launch a sham attack on Roosevelt and at the same time pretend to support Nazism and Fascism, thus
throwing the Anti-Nazis and Anti-Fascists in the Roosevelt camp." (167)

"As the perverters of public opinion expected, the gullible public raged at Hearst and flocked to the
standards of Roosevelt, blind to the fact that he was giving them another of the same brand of
dictatorship." (167)

The antagonism was an utter sham. Hearst employed FDR's son Elliot, and his daughter and her
husband! Similarly the public enmity of the munitions manufacturing Duponts was also a sham. Ethel
Dupont married FDR Jr. !
"The Liberty League was then set up for the ostensible purpose of attacking Roosevelt and fighting his
re-election. This served to throw the entire pacifist vote into Roosevelt's camp and helped reassure his
re-election." (169)

Clearly the "Fascist Coup" was another clever ploy invented by the "publicity men."

CONCLUSION

Curtis Dall was a banker and FDR's son-in-law. He portrays the President not as a leader but as a
"quarterback" with little actual power. The "coaching staff" consisted of a coterie of handlers
("advisers" like Louis Howe, Bernard Baruch and Harry Hopkins) who represented the international
banking cartel. For Dall, FDR ultimately was a traitor manipulated by "World Money" and motivated
by conceit and personal ambition.

The 1933 Fascist Coup is indicative of the trouble the elite takes to manipulate the public. After FDR,
no President (until George W. Bush) did more to take America down the road to tyranny.

Today we have to take attacks on Bush with a grain of salt. They are designed to drive the public into
the open arms of Illuminati puppets Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama. In fact, much of the conflict in the
world today may be generated and controlled by the Illuminati central bankers.

Henry Makow Ph.D. is the inventor of the game Scruples and author of "A Long Way to go for a Date."
His articles exposing fe-manism and the New World Order can be found at his web site
www.savethemales.ca He enjoys receiving comments, some of which he posts on his site using first
names only. hmakow@gmail.com
http://www.rense.com

False Flag Operations, 9-11 and the Exopolitical Perspective

© Michael E. Salla, PhD

September 11, 2006

http://www.exopolitics.org

Introduction[1]
On the fifth anniversary of the ‘9-11’ attacks, more citizens than ever before are questioning official
versions of the attacks and the adequacy of the 9-11 Commission Report. According to an August 2006
Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9-11 was an ‘inside job’
with government agencies complicit in what occurred.[2] A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of
Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11 Commission were covering up the truth.[3]
There has been a steady stream of authors, journalists, researchers and media personalities coming
forward to declare that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’. Some of the more prominent include the theologian Dr
David Ray Griffin author/editor of a number of books on 9-11 including 9/11 and American Empire:
Intellectuals Speak Out (2003), Michael Ruppert author of Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the
American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (2004), and actor Charlie Sheen who went public with
his views on March 2006.[4] Finally, a website was recently created by a committee of scholars
criticizing official explanations and also arguing that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’.[5]

With the ever growing number of those claiming 9-11 was an inside job and that there was an official
cover up, it comes as no surprise that many now view the 9-11 attacks as part of an historical pattern of
governments using ‘false flag’ operations to overcome opposition to their policy objectives. A false flag
operation is best described as a covert operation conducted by “governments, corporations, or other
organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.”[6]

An increasing number of books and videos are now discussing historic false flag operations in relation
to 9-11. The more prominent include David Griffin’s, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions
About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004); Barrie Zwicker’s more recent, Towers of Deception:
The Media Cover-up of 9/11 (2006); and Alex Jones recent video, TERRORSTORM: A History of
Government Sponsored Terrorism (2006). Griffin, Zwicker and Jones examine historic 'false flag'
operation to present the historical context for analysis of events surrounding 9-11 and the contrived
“war on terror”. In historic ‘false flag’ operations such as the burning of the Reichstag in 1933, the
1953 Iranian coup, the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, intelligence operatives from governments
staged events that would be blamed on targeted groups in a way that would facilitate government
polices to increase their power or topple foreign governments. More controversially, Griffin argues that
the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack was a false flag operation and that this demonstrates the magnitude to
which false flag operations can be conducted. [7]

Zwicker and Jones discuss how the Nazis directly benefited by covertly orchestrating the burning of the
Reichstag and blaming it on communists. Similarly, they describ how US and British policies directly
benefited by false flag operations aimed at the popular nationalist Prime Minister of Iran, Muhammad
Mossadeq, who was accused of pro-communist sympathies. This led to a coup in 1953 whereby the
Shah of Iran was able to assume dictatorial powers that reversed the controversial nationalization
policies of Mossadeq. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident according to Zwicker, Jones and Griffin was
another false flag operation whereby communist North Vietnam was blamed for two attacks on US
warships. Documents later released conclusively showed that the second attack never occurred. They
also describe failed false flag incidents such as the attack on the USS Liberty by the Israeli Airforce in
1967 during the six day war. They claim that the sinking of the Liberty would have put great pressure
on the US to enter the war in support of Israel which planned to shift responsibility to Egypt.
Griffin, Zwicker, and Jones have all cited the Operation Northwoods documents that showed the Joint
Chiefs of Staff had approved false flag operations in the early 1960s that involved terrorist attacks
against American infrastructure and even cities. These covert actions would have been blamed on

Cuba and used to justify a military invasion but were never approved by the Kennedy administration
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ ). Griffin, Zwicker and Jones use this and other cases
as evidence that false flag operations have a long history in the covert actions of many governments
including the US.

Having persuasively presented evidence that governments have in the past used false flag operations,
Griffin, Zwicker and Jones turn their attention to the 9-11 attack; and, to varying degrees, a number of
other ‘terrorist attacks’ in Britain, Spain and Bali. In all these cases, Griffin, Zwicker and Jones present
evidence that these were false flag operations. They cite historic documents, interview whistleblowers,
identify inconsistencies in official versions, and circumstantial evidence that all point to these recent
terrorist attacks being false flag operations. In terms of the 9-11 attack in the US and the July 7, 2005
(7-7) attack in Britain, they examine security drills that led to much confusion on the part of security
forces that permitted security lapses that may have allowed the attacks to occur. Zwicker and Jones
argue that such drills are a characteristic of false flag operations where it is critical to have security
forces not involved in such covert operations stand down. They present persuasive evidence that the
war on terror is contrived with the goal of depriving citizens in the US and western democracies of
their civil liberties, and to neutralize domestic opposition to the war in Iraq.

Who was really behind 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, and why?
With regard to the question of who was really behind 9-11 and other terrorist attacks, a number of 9-11
authors provide what they believe to be the real factors driving the contrived war on terrorism. To
facilitate this study, I will concentrate on four that represent the major thrust of 9-11 arguments: Griffin,
Zwicker, Jones, and Ruppert, and simply refer to them collectively as the 9-11 authors. To varying
degrees the 9-11 authors point to efforts led by the US and Britain to capture the oil resources of 'rogue
nations' such as Iraq in order to gain control of the oil industry. By capturing Iraq, driving oil prices up,
corporate interests in the US and Britain stand to make enormous short term profits. As the supply of
oil reaches peak production, an idea most strongly championed by Michael Ruppert, this ensures that
US/British corporate interests are in the driver’s seat for benefiting in the long term from skyrocketing
oil prices as industrializing nations such as India and China generate increasing demand for oil. Control
over the vital oil industry would therefore enable US corporate dominance in global financial markets
well into the next generation. This would make China and India, potential future competitors to US
global dominance, more subservient to US policies.
The 9-11 authors argue that it is not just oil interests seeking to benefit from wars in Iraq, but also the
armaments industries in the US which are by far the world’s largest weapons suppliers. Essentially, US
corporate contractors need a contrived war on terrorism to continue to sell their military products to the
Pentagon which needs to conduct punitive missions against rogue nations. The ultimate rationale for
the arms industry is driven by corporate greed to take advantage of security threats to maintain a
perpetual war economy that is funded at the expense of the ordinary tax payer. Eisenhower’s famous
farewell address warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex is most commonly cited as
evidence of such a danger.

In addition to US financial dominance and corporate greed, the 9-11 authors offer their ultimate
rationale for the contrived war on terrorism. This is the theory of Pax Americana that what drives US
policy is the need to establish US hegemony around the planet. Griffin, Jones, Ruppelt and Zwicker
argue that by the Bush administration claiming that 'rogue states' are 'harboring terrorists', and
developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that would be given to the terrorists, the US has the
rationale to launch preemptive wars and establish control over nations opposed to US dominance. They
cite neo-conservative figures associated with the New American Century Project as exponents of this
imperialist agenda to establish US global dominance.[8] Consequently, the war on Iraq was justified
using the WMD thesis that Saddam Hussein was allied with terrorist groups that he would have used as
proxies to launch such weapons on the US. While US global hegemony would be justified on the need
to make the world safe for democracy, the true rationale according to 9-11 authors is to make the world
profitable for key US corporations allied with the oil and armaments industries.
The assessments of the 9-11 authors of false flag operations as being rooted in the greed of the oil and
armaments industries, and the imperialist designs of neo-conservatives continues to attract much
support from many disenchanted with official explanations for terrorist attacks on the US and Britain;
the spinning of the intelligence data used to justify the war on Iraq; and the enormous profits generated
by corporations involved in the oil and armaments industries. In particular, Griffin’s, Zwicker’s and
Jones’ analysis of false flag operations is helpful in identifying the catalyst for government policies that
result in diminished civil liberties and dampen domestic opposition to preemptive wars ostensibly
aimed to "protect democracy", but which provide windfall profits for large US corporations. The 9-11
authors analyses focusing on US imperialism helps identify the enormous influence of neo-
conservatives in the Bush administration in dictating official government policy. There is however a
missing factor in the analyses of the 9-11 authors focusing on the trifecta of the oil industry, the
military-industrial complex, and US imperialism. A factor that provides a deeper level of analysis for
what is really driving US policies in the Middle East and elsewhere around the planet. The 9-11 authors
are missing the exopolitical factor.

Understanding the Exopolitical Perspective


Exopolitics is based on extensive evidence that extraterrestrial civilizations are visiting the Earth and
that this evidence is systematically covered up by both government agencies and military departments
in the US and other major nations in what has been described as a “Cosmic Watergate”.[9] The
mainstream scientific view that the speed of light presents and insurmountable obstacle to the physical
presence of extraterrestrial visitors has been increasingly challenged by new theories concerning faster
than light speed travel.[10] Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) suggests
that our understanding of science periodically undergoes a paradigm shift. Exopolitics represents a
paradigm shift in political thinking about the underlying forces driving domestic and international
affairs.

Not only is evidence of extraterrestrial visitation in the contemporary era being covered up; but,
perhaps more significantly, evidence of an historic extraterrestrial presence that has sponsored past
human civilizations is also covered up. This means that both the knowledge and technology of
extraterrestrials currently visiting the Earth, and historic evidence of earlier extraterrestrial visitations,
have become paramount national security concerns that are kept hidden from the general public. The
true extent of the national security implications concerning public disclosure of an extraterrestrial
presence is revealed in a Brookings Institute study for NASA in 1960 claiming that public discovery of
an extraterrestrial intelligence could lead to the collapse of Western civilization.[11] The impact of an
extraterrestrial presence and its implications for politics, science, economy and culture, could very
quickly lead to a collapse of vital institutions for every country on the planet thereby threatening the
sovereignty of major nations. Furthermore, according to a number of former military whistleblowers,
UFOs have disabled or destroyed US nuclear missiles on a number of occasions.[12] This partly
reveals the secret concern of policy makers over extraterrestrial visitors. In short, the national security
implications of an extraterrestrial presence trumps every other national security issue, and is the
Rosetta Stone for understanding the true dynamics underlying global politics and international finance.
[13]
Evidence for the cover-up of an extraterrestrial presence is extensive and persuasive. Hundreds of
credible whistleblowers have emerged from the military, government and corporate sectors to describe
the cover up various aspects of UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The testimonies of many of
these government whistleblowers are available through private organizations such as the Disclosure
Project.[14] Furthermore, leaked classified documents have disclosed critical features of the national
security system created to deal with the extraterrestrial presence. Many of these documents are
available through the popular “Majestic Documents” website.[15] Numerous websites, books and
organizations have presented the evidence and testimonies of thousands of witnesses, ‘experiencers’,
researchers and whistleblowers revealing the extent of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth.
The 9-11 authors fail to identify a number of key exopolitical factors behind false flag operations.
These factors have to do with the political management system created for extraterrestrial affairs; the
technology and knowledge about extraterrestrials that are located on the territory of different foreign
governments; and with the ‘black budget’ needed to finance covert operations based on acquiring
extraterrestrial technologies and information. Given the highly classified nature of extraterrestrial
affairs, all these activities occur without any congressional or legislative oversight in the US and other
major nations such as Britain, Russia and China. I will now examine five exopolitical factors that need
to be considered when analyzing false flag operations in general.

Five exopolitical factors and False Flag Operations


The first factor is the existence of a covert web of interlocking governmental and military agencies in
the US and around the world created to manage extraterrestrial affairs. Often described as the ‘secret
government’, this organization operates in parallel with the more conventional political system
comprising elected representatives and appointed government officials. This is similar to Lewis
Lapham’s distinction between the “provisional government” and the “permanent government” wherein
the former comprises elected officials while the latter comprises special interest groups drawn from
corporations, military and educational sector.[16] Individuals in the conventional system of
government, Lapham’s “provisional government”, are only briefed on the basis of “need to know” and
not due to their rank or position. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that sitting Presidents can be
kept out of the loop as occurred in the cases of presidents Carter and Clinton.[17] President Clinton
reportedly said to senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon: "Sarah, there's a secret government
within the government, and I have no control over it."[18] The ‘secret government’ managing
extraterrestrial affairs sits at the apex of the unelected “permanent government” and has been described
as MJ-12 or PI-40.[19]

Major false flag operations such as 9-11 almost certainly involve the ‘secret government’ using such
operations as part of its broader agenda in managing extraterrestrial affairs. It is very unlikely that
transitions in the “provisional government”, such as the 2000 election of George Bush and the
appointment of neo-conservatives to prominent positions would be capable of producing false flag
operations on the order of 9-11. The ascendancy of neo-conservatives to high government positions
would not be sufficient to enable false flag operations to proceed due to the potential opposition of
many career bureaucrats and government officials. Only a more long term and secretive management
system that exists outside of the rotation of elected political officials could hope to rein in career
bureaucrats and government officials. Consequently, given the magnitude of the 9-11 attacks, this could
only have occurred with the assent of the secret (or permanent) government that used neo-conservatives
appointed to senior positions in the Bush administration (the ‘provisional government’) as the
instruments for achieving the former’s policy goals. The uncritical support of major governments such
as Britain and Australia in subsequent policies adopted by the Bush administration, is due to the ‘secret
governments’ of these nations coordinating their policies in a global management system created for
extraterrestrial affairs. This involves many quasi governmental organizations such as the Trilateral
Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and the Council of Foreign Relations that supply the resources and
leadership for dictating long term secret government policies around the planet.[20]

The second factor to consider for false flag operations is the need by the secret government to maintain
exclusive control of all extraterrestrial technology and evidence found around the world. This involves
the removal of any physical evidence of extraterrestrial visitation from the public realm, and the
relocation of this to the classified scientific laboratories of the US or other major nations. There are
numerous instances of extraterrestrial vehicles crashing around the planet. These have been
documented and analyzed in a recent book by Ryan Woods, Majic Eyes Only.[21] In all these cases,
governments are expected to comply either through inducements or sanctions with these covert efforts
led by the secret government which is global in scope. National leaders who do not comply run the
great risk of being removed from office.

For example, the 1979 coup that removed the Prime Minister of Granada, Sir Eric Gairy, was a false
flag operation designed to prevent Gairy from getting the United Nations to seriously move forward in
investigating the UFO issue. Gairy was instrumental in Grenada's sponsorship of the only United
Nations Resolution dealing with UFOs (passed in 1978) and was scheduled to meet with UN Secretary
General on 13 March 1979, to discuss further UN initiatives on UFOs based on extraterrestrial material
recovered in Grenada.[22] On the same day of his meeting, his government was removed from power
in a revolutionary coup led by Maurice Bishop. Gairy’s case suggests that false flag operations
resulting in coups led by disgruntled elites may be a result of a policy of forcing out of office non-
compliant national leaders to the global system covering up UFO/extraterrestrial information. Such
leaders are replaced by more compliant individuals who can be easily discredited or removed in the
future.

The third exopolitical factor is the need to gain control of any territory that once hosted ancient
civilizations that contain artifacts providing valuable information or technology left by extraterrestrials.
These ancient civilizations have buried within their ruins much information and even technology
gained through extraterrestrial intervention that allegedly occurred millennia ago. For example, there is
much evidence that the ancient Sumerian civilization was sponsored by an extraterrestrial civilization
known as the Anunnaki.[23] Sumer, known as the cradle of western civilization, was located in
southern Iraq and was subjected to a number of archeological excavations supported by Saddam
Hussein’s regime.

There is growing evidence that the 1991 and 2003 US led military interventions in Iraq were aimed at
gaining access to some of the ancient archeological sites in Iraq in order to find any information or
technology concerning the Anunnaki.[24] The fabrication of intelligence data concerning Iraq’s
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and alliance with terrorist organizations was a false flag
operation intended to justify US military intervention in 2003 in order to ensure Iraq’s extraterrestrial
assets could not be exploited by Hussein’s regime or fall into the hands of strategic competitors such as
Russia and China. Evidence for this fabrication came in the September 2006 Report by the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence that confirms that intelligence data used to justify the Iraq war was
‘overstated’.[25]

The fourth exopolitical factor concerns the use of weather modification technologies that former
Secretary of State William Cohen confirmed as existing in 1997.[26] False flag operations using
weather modification technologies are used to shift blame onto ‘unpredictable’ environmental factors,
when in fact such technologies are being used as an instrument of national policy. Such technologies
can be used to create natural disasters or events that coerce nations into complying with the global
secrecy system concerning extraterrestrial affairs. This global secrecy system ensures that scientific
information, alternative energy technologies and information concerning extraterrestrials is not released
into the global media. For example, the December 2004 Asian Tsunami affected a number of nations
including the Indian sub-continent. At the time, India had been at the forefront of a growing number of
disclosures concerning extraterrestrial visitation.[27]

It is very possible that the Asian Tsunami served as a signal to India that weather modification
technologies could be used if India pursued its disclosure policies. Subsequently, the Bush
administration signed in July 2005 an extraordinary agreement to help India develop its nuclear
industry, and continued to allow US industries to outsource jobs to India. This suggests that a mix of
inducements and sanctions using weather modification technologies is used to gain the compliance of
rising nations such as India that might otherwise challenge the global secrecy system.

The final exopolitical factor concerns the ‘real’ black budget in the US. Official estimates of the black
budget by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) focus on CIA disclosures revealing the true size
of the budget funding the activities of all US intelligence agencies. Revealed by the CIA to be 26.7
billion dollars for fiscal year 1997, this money appears in single line items on the annual Pentagon
budget, and has been estimated by the FAS to be 30.1 billion for fiscal year 2007. Conventional
wisdom is that the ‘black budget’ is funded by the Pentagon which creates dummy projects and
exaggerates the costs of actual defense expenditures (e.g., toilet seats), and channels all these funds into
‘deep black’ projects. However, the real size of the black budget is estimated to be closer to one trillion
dollars per calendar year which is more than double the whole Pentagon budget of $420 billion for
Fiscal Year 2006. This vast sum of money is accumulated by the CIA not for ensuring US corporate
profits nor for financial dominance, but to fund a secret network of deep black projects that constitute a
second Manhattan Project.[28]

In his book, The Dark Alliance, Gary Webb revealed compelling evidence that the CIA was involved in
the drug trade, and that local law enforcement agencies were deliberately undermined in their efforts to
capture the major players in the drug trade due to CIA intervention. Evidence for this has been amassed
by Michael Ruppert on his From the Wilderness website and book, Crossing the Rubicon.[29] If the
CIA is complicit in the funneling of drugs into the US in order to generate an enormous pool of illicit
funds, the main purpose of these funds is not to enrich ‘drug barons’ or corrupt politicians, but to fund
the second Manhattan Project. Furthermore, profits generated from the armaments, oil and other
industries, both legal and illicit, are accumulated by CIA front companies that are also funneled into
deep black projects that escape Congressional scrutiny. These highly immoral funding activities are
tolerated on the basis of the national security concern of hiding the true extent of the extraterrestrial
related projects created in response to an extraterrestrial presence.

Conclusion: Incorporating the Exopolitical Perspective on 9-11 and False Flag Operations
False flag operations can lead to US military intervention in areas that can help maintain the drug trade
that the CIA uses to generate funding for black budget projects. False flag operations such as the
Tonkin incident and the September 11 attack led to military intervention in areas vital for the drug
trade: Indochina and Afghanistan. According to Zworkin and Jones, the Tonkin incident was
orchestrated to ensure that the US would enter the war in Vietnam to maintain US global hegemony
through military efforts to prevent communist expansion in Indochina, and provide armaments
industries with new weapons orders. However, the Vietnam war fulfilled deeper exopolitical purposes
for the US, one of which was to help the CIA to profit from lucrative drug running operations. This is
something that Ruppert himself identifies but he opposes an exopolitical perspective due to his refusal
to consider evidence substantiating UFOs.[30] Similarly, the US intervention into Afghanistan was also
motivated, according to Ruppert, by the desire to restore the drug trade that had been threatened by the
policies of the fundamentalist Taliban regime that had all but eliminated the heroin production cycle.
[31]

The 9-11 authors provide a cogent case that recent terrorist attacks in the US, Britain and other
countries have the distinguishing features of false flag operations that have been used in the past by
governments to target potential opponents, create contrived threats, and to erode civil liberties. The
various books and videos dealing with 9-11 as a false flag operation are powerful warnings of the
extent to which governments can go in order to augment their power. In explaining the ultimate goal of
these false flag operations, the level of analysis of the most well known 9-11 authors, Jones, Zwicker,
Ruppert and Griffin do not go deep enough into revealing the true agenda and beneficiaries.

According to Jones, Zwicker and many others, the ultimate beneficiaries of false flag operations are the
corporate barons behind the oil and armaments industries, and the imperialistic designs of US
neoconservatives currently dominating the Bush administration. This supposedly provides a persuasive
explanation for who is ultimately behind the war on terrorism and why it is being pursued. Rather than
corporate greed and imperialistic intentions driving the war on terrorism, there are deeper factors that
concern covert policies involving deeply classified projects involving extraterrestrial technologies
funded by illicit black budget sources that use front companies in the oil and armaments industries.
This is where the explanations for 9-11 offered by Griffin, Jones, Ruppert and Zwicker do not go far
enough in identifying the true parameters of the ‘inside job’ that led to 9-11. Corporate greed and neo-
conservative imperialism are not the driving force behind the war against terrorism, but the vehicles
used to generate funds for a second Manhattan project that trumps all other national security concerns
in the US and other major nations.

With the internet and increased communications threatening to undermine the global secrecy system
covering up evidence confirming an extraterrestrial presence, the war on terror provides a means of
distracting the public, discrediting researchers seeking to expose this evidence. The war on terrorism
also provides a useful cover for continuing to generate enormous sums of revenue for a second
Manhattan project that escapes government oversight and to increase the power of the secret
government in control of the distribution of this revenue. The authors and researchers associated with
the thesis that 9-11 was an ‘inside job’ have pointed us in the right direction in terms of government
complicity. They deserve credit for helping open the eyes of the American public to what really
transpired in 9-11 as evidenced in the recent Zogby and Scripps polls. However, the 9-11 authors do
not identify the different exopolitical factors that reveal the deeper agenda behind false flag operations.
This is understandable given the way in which advocates of a ‘Cosmic Watergate’ concerning UFOs
and extraterrestrial visitation have been ridiculed in the past. Invoking evidence pointing to a “Cosmic
Watergate” could easily be perceived by some as a means of jeopardising public consideration of
objective studies of 9-11. Even worse, considering exopolitical factors may even lead to accusations of
mis-information designed to throw 9-11 researchers off track. However, surveys such as the 2002
Roper Poll show that approximately 70% of the American public believes the government is not telling
the truth about UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation.[32] This suggests that there is great benefit in
connecting the 9-11 and UFO cover ups to better understand the key actors and institutions involved in
false flag operations and possible exopolitical factors. It is only through a systematic understanding of
the exopolitical perspective that the true motives underscoring the ‘war on terror’ and the nature of the
‘secret government’ can be fully gauged, and a durable solution found that prevents future false flag
operations.

About the Author: Michael E. Salla, PhD., is the author of Exopolitics: Political Implications of the
Extraterrestrial Presence (Dandelion Books, 2004) and founder of the popular website: Exopolitics.Org.
He has held full time academic appointments at the

Australian National University, and American University, Washington DC. He has a PhD in
Government from the University of Queensland, Australia. During his professional academic career, he
was best known for organizing a series of citizen diplomacy initiatives for the East Timor conflict
funded by U.S. Institute of Peace and the Ford Foundation. He is the Founder of the Exopolitics
Institute (www.exopoliticsinstitute.org ); Chief Editor of the Exopolitics Journal and Convenor of the
“Extraterrestrial Civilizations and World Peace Conference” (www.etworldpeace.com )

Endnotes
[1] I wish to thank Hugh Matlock for his thoughtful ideas and suggestions for improving the
substantive content and organization of this paper, and for identifying a number of typographical
errors.
[2] Go to: http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
[3] Go to: http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZogbyPollFinalReport.htm
[4] For Charlie Sheen’s testimony go to:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm
[5] See: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease20060909.html .
[6] Cited from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag .
[7] For an article discussing Griffin’s views on Pearl Harbor and false flag operations go to:
http://bohemian.com/bohemian/06.14.06/david-ray-griffin-0624.html
[8] For information on the New American Century project, go to: http://www.newamericancentury.org/
[9] For a historical survey of exopolitics go to: http://exopoliticsjournal.com/Journal-vol-1-1.htm .
[10] See James Deardorff, et al., “Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation”
available online at: http://www.ufoevidence.org/news/article204.htm
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report .
[12] See Robert Salas and James Klotzhttp, Faded Giant (BookSurge Publishing 2005). Details
available online at: www.ufopop.org/Special/FadedGiant.htm .
[13] See Michael E. Salla, Exopolitics: Political Implications of the Extraterrestrial Presence
(Dandelion Books, 2004). Online articles are available at: http://www.exopolitics.org .
[14] http://www.disclosureproject.org .
[15] http://www.majesticdocuments.com .
[16] See Lewis Lapham, “Lights, Camera, Democracy, Harper Magazine, August 1996, excerpts
available at: http://fdt.net/~aabbeama/PJB_from_left.html .
[17] For more information go to: http://presidentialufo.com .
[18] http://www.presidentialufo.com/part5.htm .
[19] http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper-5.htm .
[20] See Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission,
the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids (Harper, 2001).
[21] http://www.majiceyesonly.com .
[22] For Gairy’s account of what occurred, go to:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/exopolitics/message/278
[23] See Zecharia Sitchin’s The Twelfth Planet and other books from his Earth Chronicles series
available at: http://www.sitchin.com .
[24] Go to: http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper2.htm .
[25] See “Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they
Compare with Prewar Assessments”, available at: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf .
[26] http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm .
[27] For a number of stories concerning India’s release of information on UFOs and extraterrestrials go
to: http://www.indiadaily.com .
[28] See Michael Salla, “The Black Budget Report,”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0401/S00151.htm .
[29] Go to: http://www.fromthewilderness.com .
[30] See “Michael Ruppert Responds to Victor Thorn’s Ten Questions”:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml .
[31] See Michael Ruppert, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_10_01_heroin.html .
[32] See: http://www.scifi.com/ufo/roper/

copyright © 2003 - 2007 2010 Dr Michael Salla

10 false flags operations


that shaped our world
From Nero to 9/11, via Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin incident... Joe Crubaugh provides an "all
time greatest hits" of false flag operations, whereby one scenario is repeated... as the world keeps
falling for the same lie.

The most commonly known false flag operations consist of a government agency staging a terror
attack, whereby an uninvolved entity gets blamed for the carnage. As at least two millennia have
proven, false flag operations, with healthy doses of propaganda and ignorance, provided a great recipe
for endless war. _In "War is a Racket", Two-time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley
Butler wrote: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent
most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short,
I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for
American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the
benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown
Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in
1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I
helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." _You may not have heard of these
operations, but perhaps you have heard of these?

1. Nero, Christians, and the Great Fire of Rome


Rome, the night of July 19, 64 AD. The Great Fire burst through the rooftops of shops near the mass
entertainment and chariot racing venue called Circus Maximus. The flames, whipped by a strong wind,
rapidly engulfed densely populated areas of the city. After burning uncontrolled for five days, four of
the 14 Roman districts were burned to the ground, and seven more were severely damaged._It was no
secret that Nero wanted to build a series of palaces which he planned to name "Neropolis". But, the
planned location was in the city and in order to build Neropolis, a third of Rome would have to be torn
down. The Senate rejected the idea. Then, coincidentally, the fire cleared the very real estate Neropolis
required.

Despite the obvious benefit, there's still a good probability that Nero did not start the fire. Up to a
hundred small fires regularly broke out in Rome each day. On top of that, the fire destroyed Nero's own
palace and it appears that Nero did everything he could to stop the fire. Accounts of the day say that
when Nero heard about the fire, he rushed back from Antium to organize a relief effort, using his own
money. He opened his palaces to let in the homeless and had food supplies delivered to the
survivors._Nero also devised a new urban development plan that would make Rome less vulnerable to
fire. But, although he put in place rules to insure a safer reconstruction, he also gave himself a huge
tract of city property with the intention of building his new palace there. _People knew of Nero's plans
for Neropolis, and all his efforts to help the city could not counteract the rampant rumours that he'd
help start the fire. As his poll numbers dropped, Nero's administration realised the need to employ False
Flag 101: When something - anything - bad happens to you, even if it's accidental, point the finger at
your enemy._Luckily, there was a new cult of religious nuts at hand. The cult was unpopular because
its followers refused to worship the emperor, denounced possessions, held secret meetings and they
were always talking about the destruction of Rome and the end of the world. Even more luckily for
Nero, two of the cult's biggest leaders, Peter and Paul, were currently in town. Nero spread word that
the Christians had started the Great Fire. The citizens of Rome bought his lie hook, line and sinker.
Peter was crucified and Paul beheaded. Hundreds of others in the young cult were fed to the lions or
smeared with tar and set on fire to become human street lamps.

2. Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain

The Spanish Empire was the first truly global empire, reaching its territorial height in the late 1700s.
By 1898, Spain was losing territories regularly. Cuba too was becoming increasingly hard to control
and a minor revolution had broken out. This wasn't welcome news to people in the United States who
owned Cuban sugar, tobacco and iron industry properties valued at over $50 million (worth ca. $1.2
billion today)._The main stream media, then dominated by newspaper magnates Joseph Pulitzer and
William Randolph Hearst, exaggerated - and outright fabricated - stories of horrible conditions under
Spanish rule. Following the age-old maxim, "If it bleeds, it leads", the newspapers published stories
about Spanish death camps, Spanish cannibalism and inhumane torture. The newspapers sent reporters
to Cuba. However, when they got there, they found a different story. Artist and correspondent Frederick
Remington wrote back to Hearst: "There is no war. Request to be recalled." Hearst's famous reply:
"Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." And he did. His newspaper, continually
screaming how Spanish Cuba was going to hell in a hand basket, convinced big business interests in the
US to put pressure on anti-war President William McKinley to protect their Cuban investments.
McKinley, in response, sent the USS Maine battleship to Havana Harbour as a calming show of force.

Three weeks after arriving, on the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded, killing 266
men. There are two theories for the explosion: some believe the explosion was caused by an external
mine that detonated the ship's ammunition magazines. Others say it was caused by a spontaneous coal
bunker fire that reached the ammunition magazines. Currently, the evidence seems to favour the
external mine theory._Without waiting on an investigation, America's mainstream media blamed the
tragedy on Spain and beat the drums for war. By April, McKinley yielded to public pressure and signed
a congressional resolution declaring war on Spain. To help pay for the Spanish-American War, congress
enacted a "temporary" tax of 3 percent on long-distance telephone bills. This was essentially a tax on
the rich, as only about 1,300 Americans owned phones in 1898. Although the Spanish-American War
ended in 1898, the temporary tax was only abolished in... 2005. Over its lifetime, the 107-year-old tax
generated almost $94 billion - more than 230 times the cost of the Spanish-American War.

The Spanish-American War put a large nail in the coffin of Spain's global empire. And by the end of
1898, the United States, which was founded in opposition to imperialism, found itself in control not
only of Cuba, but of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Hawaiian Islands as well.

3. The Manchurian Incident

The economic slump following 1929's thorough and convincing near-obliteration of Wall Street hit
Japan especially hard: exports fell, unemployment rose. Japan, not being rich in natural resources,
needed oil and coal to make power to run machines to produce goods to sell to other countries to make
money to buy food to have enough energy. Manchuria, a province of China, had its fair share of oil and
coal._After Japan decided it needed to invade Manchuria, they needed a pretext to justify the invasion.
They chose to create a false flag attack on a railway close to Liutiao Lake... a big flat area that had no
military value to either the Japanese or the Chinese. The main reason the spot was chosen was for its
proximity (about 800 meters distant) to Chinese troops stationed at Beidaying. The Japanese press
labelled the no-name site of the blast Liutiaogou, which was Japanese for "Liutiao Bridge." There was
no bridge there, but the name helped convince some that the sabotage was a strategic Chinese
attack._Colonel Itagaki Seishiro and Lieutenant Colonel Kanji Ishiwara ordered officers of the
Shimamoto Regiment to place a bomb beneath the tracks. The original bomb failed to detonate and a
replacement had to be found. Then, at 10.20pm, September 18, 1931, the tracks were blown.
Surprisingly, the explosion was minor. Only one side of the rail was damaged, and the damage was so
light that a train headed for Shenyang passed by only a few minutes later. But it was a good enough
excuse to invade...

The Japanese immediately charged the Chinese soldiers with the destruction, then invaded Manchuria.
A puppet government known as Manchukuo was installed. The League of Nations investigated and in a
1932 report denied that the invasion was an act of defence, as Japan had advertised. But rather than
vacate Manchuria, Japan decided to vacate the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations.

4. Secrets of the Reichstag Fire

In 1933, just a week before general elections that might place enough Nazis in office to make Hitler
defacto dictator, the Reichstag, which housed the parliament of the German Empire, was set on fire.
Adolf Hitler assured everyone that communist terrorists started the fire. Hitler's party member
Hermann Göring stated that he had secret evidence that would soon be made public; evidence that
proved communists did it. These proclamations came on top of weeks of Nazi-organized street violence
designed to whip the public into a pathological fear of communists._The next day, the Nazis convinced
a senile President von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Decree. The decree, using defence against
terrorism as an excuse, suspended just about every major civil liberty set forth in the Weimar
Constitution: habeus corpus (the right to know why you're being put in jail)? Gone. Freedom of
opinion? Gone. Freedom of the press? Not any more. Freedom to organise and assemble? Deported.
The Reichstag decree even allowed the government to spy on its own citizens' personal mail and
telephone conversations without a warrant... something most Americans today could hardly begin to
fathom... a precursor to President George W. Bush secret order in 2002 ordering the National Security
Agency to do just exactly the same thing._So what about the fire? The only thing historians seem to
agree on is that Marinus van der Lubbe, a former Dutch Communist and mentally disturbed arsonist
hungry for fame, was found inside the building. Despite the Nazi attempt to blame the fire on a group
of communists, the communists were later acquitted by the Nazi government itself. After years of
extensive investigation, most historians believe the Hitlerites themselves set fire to the Reichstag using
van der Lubbe as their patsy: they knew a nut was going to try to burn down the building and not only
did they let him do it, but they may have befriended him, encouraged him and even helped the blaze
spread by scattering gasoline and incendiaries._Most Germans, feeling safe from terrorism again, didn't
mind that their freedom and liberty had been stolen, or that so much of their life and work had become
so strictly controlled. On the contrary, they felt very enthusiastic and patriotic about the new
government because they ignorantly believed the new government cared about them. And as long as the
average citizen worked hard, kept his mouth shut and let his kids take part in the Hitler Youth
organization, he stayed out of the detention camps.

5. The Fake Invasion at Gleiwitz

In the late evening of Thursday, August 31, 1939, German covert operatives pretending to be Polish
terrorists seized the Gleiwitz radio station in the German/Poland border region of Silesia. The station's
music program came to an abrupt halt, followed by frantic German voices announcing that Polish
formations were marching toward town. Germany was being invaded by Poland! Then, like a bad
imitation of the previous year's infamous War of the Worlds broadcast, the transmission went dead for a
moment of dramatic silence. Soon, the airwaves popped and crackled to life again, and this time Polish
voices called for all Poles in the broadcast area to take up arms and attack Germany. _In no time, radio
stations across greater Europe picked up the story. The BBC broadcast this statement: "There have been
reports of an attack on a radio station in Gleiwitz, which is just across the Polish border in Silesia. The
German News Agency reports that the attack came at about 8.00pm this evening when the Poles forced
their way into the studio and began broadcasting a statement in Polish. Within quarter of an hour, says
reports, the Poles were overpowered by German police, who opened fire on them. Several of the Poles
were reported killed, but the numbers are not yet known." And thus, Hitler invented an excuse to
invade Poland, which he did the next day: September 1, 1939. World War II began.

What really happened? Alfred Helmut Naujocks received the orders from Heinrich Müller, chief of the
Gestapo, to put the staged terrorist attack together at the Gleiwitz station. At Naujock's disposal were
what the Germans had codenamed "canned goods," which were dissenters and criminals kept alive in
detention camps until the Gestapo needed a warm dead body. To add cogency to the Gleiwitz attack,
Naujocks brought along one such canned good: Franciszek Honiok. Honiok, a German from the
Silesian region, was a known Polish sympathizer. Before arriving at the station, the Gestapo gave him a
lethal injection. Then, they dressed him up like a Polish terrorist and brought him to the front of the
radio station. Naujocks later testified that the man was unconscious, but not dead yet, when he was shot
full of pistol rounds. When the police and press found Honiok's body, they assumed he'd been one of
the fictional Polish terrorists that attacked the station._In all, there were 21 fake terror actions along the
border that same night, many of them using "canned goods" from German prisons so there would be
plenty of bodies in the morning: evidence of Polish attackers that had been shot in self defence. The
next day, after a long night filled with fake terror, Hitler gave a speech to the German Army, complete
with synthetic anger: "The Polish State has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired,
and has appealed to arms. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and driven from their
houses. A series of violations of the frontier, intolerable to a great Power, prove that Poland is no longer
willing to respect the frontier of the Reich. In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice
than to meet force with force from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and
the vital rights of reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier, mindful of the
great traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that he is a representative of the
National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and our Reich!"_Had it not been for the
Nuremberg trials in 1945, the real story behind the Gleiwitz attack might never have been uncovered. It
was there that the operation's leader, Alfred Naujocks, spilled the beans in a written affidavit.

6. The Myth of Pearl Harbour

On Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that
decimated the US Pacific Fleet and forced the United States to enter WWII. That's what most of us
were taught as school children... But, except for the date, everything you just read is a myth. In reality,
there was no sneak attack. The Pacific Fleet was far from destroyed. And, furthermore, the United
States took great pains to bring about the assault._On January 27, 1941, Joseph C. Grew, the U.S.
ambassador to Japan, wired Washington that he'd learned of the surprise attack Japan was preparing for
Pearl Harbour. On September 24, a dispatch from Japanese naval intelligence to Japan's consul general
in Honolulu was deciphered. The transmission was a request for a grid of exact locations of ships in
Pearl Harbour. Surprisingly, Washington chose not to share this information with the officers at Pearl
Harbour. Then, on November 26, the main body of the Japanese strike force (consisting of six aircraft
carriers, two battleships, three cruisers, nine destroyers, eight tankers, 23 fleet submarines, and five
midget submarines) departed Japan for Hawaii._Despite the myth that the strike force maintained strict
radio silence, US Naval intelligence intercepted and translated many dispatches. And, there was no
shortage of dispatches: Tokyo sent over 1000 transmissions to the attack fleet before it reached Hawaii.
Some of these dispatches, in particular this message from Admiral Yamamoto, left no doubt that Pearl
Harbour was the target of a Japanese attack: "The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and
maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon
the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal
blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order."_Even
on the night before the attack, US intelligence decoded a message pointing to Sunday morning as a
deadline for some kind of Japanese action. The message was delivered to the Washington high
command more than four hours before the attack on Pearl Harbour. But, as many messages before, it
was withheld from the Pearl Harbour commanders.Although many ships were damaged at Pearl
Harbour, they were all old and slow. The main targets of the Japanese attack fleet were the Pacific
Fleet's aircraft carriers, but Roosevelt made sure these were safe from the attack: in November, at about
the same time as the Japanese attack fleet left Japan, Roosevelt sent the Lexington and Enterprise out to
sea. Meanwhile, the Saratoga was in San Diego._Why did Pearl Harbour happen? Roosevelt wanted a
piece of the war pie. Having failed to bait Hitler by giving $50.1 billion in war supplies to Britain, the
Soviet Union, France and China as part of the Lend Lease program, Roosevelt switched focus to Japan.
Because Japan had signed a mutual defence pact with Germany and Italy, Roosevelt knew war with
Japan was a legitimate back door to joining the war in Europe. On October 7, 1940, one of Roosevelt's
military advisors, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, wrote a memo detailing an 8-step plan
that would provoke Japan into attacking the United States. Over the next year, Roosevelt implemented
all eight of the recommended actions. In the summer of 1941, the US joined England in an oil embargo
against Japan. Japan needed oil for its war with China, and had no remaining option but to invade the
East Indies and Southeast Asia to get new resources. And that required getting rid of the US Pacific
Fleet first._Although Roosevelt may have got more than he bargained for, he clearly let the attack on
Pearl Harbour happen, and even helped Japan by making sure their attack was a surprise. He did this by
withholding information from Pearl Harbour's commanders and even by ensuring the attack force
wasn't accidentally discovered by commercial shipping traffic. As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner
stated in 1941: "We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the
traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any
traffic."

7. Israeli Terrorist Cell Uncovered in Egypt

In July, 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell was activated inside Egypt. The ensuing attacks, cleverly designed
to look like the work of Arabs, blasted and torched American and British targets. First, the Israeli
terrorists firebombed the Alexandria Post Office. Then, they firebombed the US Information Agency
libraries: one in Alexandria, and one in Cairo. Then, they firebombed a British-owned Metro-Goldwyn
Mayer theatre, a railway terminal, the central post office, and a couple more theatres..._To smuggle
their bombs inside the buildings, the terrorists used devices shaped like books, hiding them inside book
covers. Once inside, bags filled with acid were placed on top of the nitroglycerin bombs. After several
hours, the acid ate through the bags and ignited the nitroglycerin, causing explosions and blazing
infernos.

In the early 1950s, the United States was making fast friends with Egypt, taking advantage of the new
pan-Arab Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. The warming relationship between the US and
Egypt caused a very insecure Israel to feel threatened. Nassar also had plans to nationalize the Suez
Canal, which had been controlled by the British for decades. Egypt had been known to blockade Israeli
shipping through the canal and Israel feared Nassar would make a blockade permanent._After US
President Eisenhower began encouraging the British to leave the Suez Canal Zone, Israel started
looking for a way to make the British stay, and a way to remain best buddies with America. And what
better way to treat your best friend than to stab them in the back and tell them one of your other friends
did it?

David Ben Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister, thought that Egyptian terrorist attacks against
Americans would be a perfect way to cool the growing US/Egypt relationship. Since there were no
Egyptians planning attacks against Americans, Ben Gurion's protégés did the next best thing: they
recruited Israeli agents to pretend to be Egyptian terrorists._The top-secret Israeli terrorist cell, Unit
131, had existed since 1948. In 1950, Israel's Directorate of Military Intelligence Aman was created
and Israel sent an undercover agent, Colonel Avraham Dar (alias: John Darling, British citizen of the
island of Gibraltar), to recruit more members to Unit 131. He also trained them in how to build bombs
and terrify Americans and British civilians working and living in Egypt._Before the terrorist cell was
activated, another Israeli agent named Avraham (Avraham Seidenberg) was sent to take control from
Avraham Dar. Seidenberg first went to Germany to establish an alias: he assumed the identy of Paul
Frank, a former SS officer, complete with underground Nazi connections. By 1954, his new identity
was in place and he went to Egypt to take command of Unit 131. Everything was going well for the
Israeli terrorists it seemed. But, there was one thing the members of Unit 131 didn't know: their
terrorist sleeper cell had itself been infiltrated by the Egyptian intelligence service. The new Unit 131
leader, Seidenberg, had betrayed them to the Egyptians. So, when Unit 131 member Philip Nathanson
made his way to bomb the British-owned Rio theatre in Alexandria, not only was he being followed,
the Egyptian intelligence service had a fire engine waiting to put out the flames. As Nathanson stood in
the ticket line, his bad luck turned worse when one of the bombs in his pocket ignited and then
exploded. Nathanson was burned but not killed. As nearby pedestrians shouted warnings and wondered
if he was a suicide bomber, Egyptian policemen stepped in, calmed the crowd, and identified
Nathanson as one of the terrorists who had been blowing up American and British
buildings._Nathanson was interrogated by Egypt's military intelligence and confessed the whole plot,
which led to more arrests. When the Israeli spies were given a public trail, all the details of their
terrorist training in Israel came to light._Former Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion and Israel's Aman
chief, Binyamin Gibli, tried to frame their own Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon. They even offered
forged documents as proof. The frame-up worked for a while, so much so that the entire incident is still
popularly known as the Lavon Affair. Lavon resigned and Ben Gurion came out of political retirement
to replace him as Israel's Defense Minister. However, the truth did finally emerge. In 1960, a review of
the inquiry discovered the fake documents, as well as perjury by Seidenberg. A committee of seven
Cabinet members cleared Lavon. Although Ben Gurion never admitted fault, he did resign his post as
Defense Minister.

8. Operation Northwoods

In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism on
American soil, against American citizens. The head of every branch of the US armed forces gave
written approval to sink US ships, shoot down hijacked American planes, and gun down and bomb
civilians on the streets of Washington, D.C., and Miami. The idea was to blame the self-inflicted
terrorism on Cuba's leader, Fidel Castro, so the American public would beg and scream for the Marines
to storm Havana. _The public learned about Operation Northwoods 35 years later, when the Top Secret
document was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. Among other
things, Operation Northwoods proposed:_- Faking the crash of an American passenger plane. The
disaster was to be accomplished by faking a commercial flight from the US to Jamaica, and having the
plane boarded at a public airport by CIA agents disguised as college students going on vacation. An
empty remote-controlled plane would follow the commercial flight as it left Florida. The commercial
flight's pilots would radio for help, mention that they had been attacked by a Cuban fighter, then land in
secret at Eglin AFB. The empty remote-controlled plane would then be blown out of the sky and the
public would be told all the poor college students aboard were killed._- Using a possible NASA
disaster (astronaut John Glenn's death) as a pretext to launch the war. The plan called for
"manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the
Cubans" if something went wrong with NASA's third manned space launch. _- Blowing up buildings in
Washington and Miami. Cuban agents (undercover CIA agents) would be arrested, and they would
confess to the bombings. In addition, false documents proving Castro's involvement in the attacks
would be "found" and given to the press. _- Attacking an American military base in Guantanamo with
CIA recruits posing as Cuban mercenaries. This involved blowing up the ammunition depot and would
obviously result in material damages and many dead American troops. As a last resort, the plan even
mentioned bribing one of Castro's commanders to initiate the Guantanamo attack. That deserves
repeating: the Pentagon considered using our tax dollars to bribe another country's military to attack
our own troops in order to instigate a full-scale war.

Operation Northwoods was only one of several plans under the umbrella of Operation Mongoose.
Shortly after the Joint Chiefs signed and presented the plan in March, 1962, President Kennedy, still
smarting from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, declared that he would never authorize a military invasion of
Cuba. In September, Kennedy denied the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lyman Lemnitzer, a
second term as the nation's highest ranking military officer. And by the winter of 1963, Kennedy was
dead... killed, apparently, by a Cuban sympathiser in the streets of an American city.

9. Phantoms in the Gulf of Tonkin

On August 2, 1964, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked a US destroyer, the USS Maddox.
The boats reportedly fired torpedoes at the US ship in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin, about
thirty miles off the Vietnam coast. On August 4, the US Navy reported another unprovoked attack on
the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy._Within hours, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a
retaliatory strike. As the bases for North Vietnamese torpedo boats were bombed, Johnson went on TV
and told America: "Repeated acts of violence against the armed forces of the United States must be met
not only with alert defense, but with a positive reply. That reply is being given as I speak tonight." The
next day, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara assured Capital Hill that the Maddox had only been
"carrying out a routine mission of the type we carry out all over the world at all times." McNamara said
the two boats were in no way involved with recent South Vietnamese boat raids against North
Vietnamese targets._At Johnson's request, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The
resolution pre-approved any military actions Johnson would take. It gave Johnson a free ticket to wage
war in Vietnam as large as the President wanted. And, true to his large Texas roots, Johnson got a big
war: by 1969, over half a million US troops were fighting in Indochina. Despite McNamara's testimony
to the contrary, the USS Maddox had been providing intelligence support to South Vietnamese boats
carrying out raids against North Vietnam. McNamara had also testified that there was "unequivocable
proof" of an "unprovoked" second attack against the USS Maddox. In fact, the second attack never
occurred at all._At the time of the second incident, the two US destroyers misinterpreted radar and
radio signals as attacks by the North Vietnamese navy. It's now known that no North Vietnamese boats
were in the area. So, for two hours, the two US destroyers blasted away at nonexistent radar targets and
vigorously manoeuvred to avoid phantom North Vietnamese ships. Even though the second "attack"
only involved two US ships defending themselves against a nonexistent enemy, the President and
Secretary of Defense used it to coerce Congress and the American people to start a war they neither
wanted nor needed._After the Vietnam War turned into a quagmire, Congress decided to put limits on
the President's authority to unilaterally wage war. Thus, on November 7, 1973, Congress overturned
President Nixon's veto and passed the War Powers Resolution. The resolution requires the President to
consult with Congress before making any decisions that engage the US military in hostilities. It is still
in effect to this day.

10. The September 11, 2001 Attacks

Like many buildings built in the 1970s, the twin towers were constructed with vast quantities of cancer-
causing asbestos. The cost of removing the Twin Tower asbestos? A year's worth of revenues at a
minimum; possibly as much as the value of the buildings themselves. The cost to disassemble the Twin
Towers floor by floor would have run into the double-digit billions. In addition, the Port Authority was
prohibited from demolishing the towers because the resulting asbestos dust would cover the entire city,
which it did when they collapsed, resulting in many cancers with a confirmed link to the WTC
dust._Despite its questionable status, in January of 2001, Larry Silverstein made a $3.2 billion bid for
the World Trade Center. On July 24, the Port Authority accepted the offer. Silverstein then took out an
insurance policy that, understandably, covered terrorist attacks, which happened seven weeks later. To
date, Silverstein has been awarded almost $5 billion from nine different insurance companies. What
was an asbestos nightmare turned into a $1.8 billion profit within seven weeks.

Donald Rumsfeld said about the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001: "According to some
estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." That bombshell was pretty much forgotten by
the next morning. So, as a reward for losing $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America,
taxpayers patriotically forked over another $370 billion and counting to invade Iraq. True to form, the
Pentagon promptly lost $9 billion of that money, too.

Eight days after the attacks, the 342-page Patriot Act was given to Congress. That same week, letters
armed with anthrax from a US military lab entered the mail. Subsequently, while Congressional offices
were evacuated, examined, cleaned and nasal cavities swabbed, the Patriot Act remained largely
unread. Then, with little debate, the Patriot Act became law, giving the Bush administration
unprecedented power to access people's medical records, tax records, information about the books they
bought or borrowed and the power to conduct secret residential searches without notifying owners that
their homes had been searched.

In early 2001, executives from Shell, BP, and Exxon met with Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force while
it was developing its new national energy policy. Later, the companies freely admitted interest in
profiting from Iraq's oil fields, even before the US invaded Iraq. And now? A new Iraq hydrocarbon
law expected to pass in March 2007 will open the door for international investors, led by BP, Exxon
and Shell, to siphon off 75 percent of Iraq oil wealth for the next thirty years.

According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a Bronze Star recipient with 22 years of
experience in intelligence operations, a classified intelligence program codenamed Able Danger had
uncovered two of the three 9/11 terrorist cells a year before the attacks and had identified four of the
hijackers. Shaffer alerted the FBI in September of 2000, but the meetings he tried to set up with bureau
officials were repeatedly blocked by military lawyers. Four credible witnesses have come forward to
verify Shaffer's claims. _In August 2001, a Pan Am International Flight Academy instructor warned the
FBI that a student (Zacarias Moussaoui) might use a commercial plane loaded with fuel as a weapon.
The instructor asked "Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?" Moussaoui
was then arrested on immigration charges, but despite the repeated urging of the school and local
agents, FBI headquarters refused a deeper investigation. The US also received dozens of detailed
warnings (names, locations, dates) from the intelligence agencies of Indonesia, Great Britain, Germany,
Italy, Egypt, Jordan, India, Argentina, Morocco, Russia, Israel, France and even the Taliban. It would
seem that the entire world was onto the bungling Saudi hijackers and somewhat perplexed that the US
wasn't taking preventative actions. But in each case the US, as if by design, chose not to investigate.
Instead. Condoleezza Rice, on May 16, 2002, stated: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that
these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam
it into the Pentagon."_We also know that on the morning of 9/11, multiple Air Force war games and
drills were in progress. The hijackers would have never made it to their targets without these war
games: Operation Northern Vigilance ensured that many jet fighters that would have normally been
patrolling the east coast were flying over Alaska and northern Canada in a drill that simulated a Russian
air attack, complete with false radar blips. _Remarkably, operation Vigilant Guardian simulated
hijacked planes in the north eastern sector, while real hijackers were in the same airspace. This drill had
NORAD and the Air Force reacting to false blips on FAA radar screens. Some of these blips
corresponded to real military aircraft in the air posing as hijacked aircraft. That's why when NORAD's
airborne control officer, Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, heard Boston claim it had a hijacked airliner, her first
words were, "It must be part of the exercise."

Changing colours

If you follow the money, you can see that the people with the most to gain occupied the key military
and civilian positions to help 9/11 happen, as well as to cover up the crime. Such is the hallmark of
false flag operations throughout history. But the incredible scale of the 9/11 sham, and the sheer
number of people who still refuse to see the mountain of truth in front of their eyes...that's what makes
the September 11, 2001 attacks the greatest false flag operation of all time._Hermann Göring stated:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in
Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine 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. ...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 to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country."_Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, a book still forbidden in some countries (such as France),
wrote: "In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great
masses of the people...will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one."

Joe Crubaugh is a freelance writer, artist, and software consultant.

The President and the Press: Address before the


American Newspaper Publishers Association

President John F. Kennedy


Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:


I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how
particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing
of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl
Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished,
constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent
salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty
bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood
and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to
the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had
remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will
bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the
expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest
that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my
sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that
our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to
reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear
that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party
press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the
press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of
Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans
regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the
courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press
should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church
services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that
they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But
neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of
recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat
have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for
reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its
challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in
every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press
and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be
reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater
public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently
and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long
ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the
dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed
society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of
our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced
need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very
limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my
control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military,
should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up
our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own
standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the
press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized
disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the
privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are
advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared,
no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are
awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been
more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the
people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the
world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its
sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on
intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which
has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient
machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters
are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It
conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to
match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the
question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this
kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our
newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or
espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have
been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location
and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been
pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and
that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites
were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning.
Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in
the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national
security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No
governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to
the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to
meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful
consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are
times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen
to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that
those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I
am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no
easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am
asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their
own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty
of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you
add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in
America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of
their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new
steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those
recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a
free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any
action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which
knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an
obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make
certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the
prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes
understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am
not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous
task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response
and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration
intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake
until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you
to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic
can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from
controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in
America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to
emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform,
to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to
lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and
foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as
well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its
obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national
security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions
already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between
the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of
one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution
of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the
courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be
what he was born to be: free and independent.