Roosevelt's Road To War

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
flimflam
Member
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby flimflam » 1 year 5 months ago (Thu May 04, 2017 9:45 am)

hermod wrote:
Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor?

An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett by Douglas Cirignano



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://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=408


This sixteen page article claims to rebut Stinnett's claims, and while I'm no student of the matter, it seems convincing ...

A Deceitful Book: Robert B. Stinnett’s book “Day of Deceit” By Rear Admiral Richard E. Young, USN (Ret)

http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnett.pdf



User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby hermod » 1 year 5 months ago (Wed May 17, 2017 5:54 am)

flimflam wrote:This sixteen page article claims to rebut Stinnett's claims, and while I'm no student of the matter, it seems convincing ...

A Deceitful Book: Robert B. Stinnett’s book “Day of Deceit” By Rear Admiral Richard E. Young, USN (Ret)

http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnett.pdf


It seems convincing only if you want to be convinced by it.

The point that FDR didn't provoke Japan because he didn't reply to the McCollum memo with a memo or telegram stating "OK. Let's do that." is quite laughable. The best evidence for FDR's knowledge and acceptance of the plan in the McCollum memo is that he meticulously implemented it. Actions speak louder than words.

And FDR didn't only provoked Japan. He also provoked Germany. Japan was the first to respond to FDR's provocations, but FDR's aggressive policy was far from being limited to an oil embargo on Japan.

Image
Image
https://postimg.org/image/g3xjrq8wr/
https://postimg.org/image/8cgtt64rf/

Even FDR's state-sponsored excuse for his oil embargo on Japan (academic narrative) is a ludicrous lie. It's claimed:

In 1940 Japan invaded French Indochina [...] This move prompted the United States to embargo all oil exports, leading the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to estimate it had less than two years of bunker oil remaining [...] Responding to Japanese occupation of key airfields in Indochina (July 24) following an agreement between Japan and Vichy France, the U.S. froze Japanese assets on July 26, 1941, and on August 1 established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_le ... arl_Harbor


Indochina was a French colony and Vichy France was if not a military ally at least a friendly country of Germany and Japan. The Japanese so-called invasion of Indochina was not an invasion but an authorized occupation of a friendly country's lands. The United States had no right to authorize or ban an occupation of Indochina. The United States had as much right to authorize or ban an occupation of Indochina as France had the right to authorize or ban an occupation of Dakota.

The orthodox narrative of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a grotesque story. The policies of US warmongers are always hidden by academic historians (state-sponsored storytellers) behind alleged blunders of incompetent leaders. It's always: We told Saddam that we didn't care about his disputes with Kuwait (see April Glaspie), and we declared war on Saddam's country as soon as the Iraq-Kuwait war started. But that was not bellicose trick. That was just a diplomatic blunder. Oops, sorry for that. Won't happen again...until next time.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

avatar
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby Mortimer » 1 year 5 months ago (Wed May 17, 2017 6:28 am)

Roosevelt's warmongering should be obvious to any serious researcher on the topic of how the US came to be involved in the conflict. Here are excerpts from the concluding chapter to "America's Second Crusade" by William Henry Chamberlin. It shows that time and time again Roosevelt would say one thing in public and then do the exact opposite in private. Anyone who ignores the duplicitous character of Roosevelt is deluding themselves -
http://codoh.com/library/document/2554/
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

avatar
flimflam
Member
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby flimflam » 1 year 4 months ago (Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:12 pm)

hermod wrote:
flimflam wrote:This sixteen page article claims to rebut Stinnett's claims, and while I'm no student of the matter, it seems convincing ...

A Deceitful Book: Robert B. Stinnett’s book “Day of Deceit” By Rear Admiral Richard E. Young, USN (Ret)

http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnett.pdf


It seems convincing only if you want to be convinced by it.



The article does not claim that FDR did not goad the Germans and the Japanese, it convincingly argues that Stinnett's claim that FDR new of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened is bogus.

avatar
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby Breker » 1 year 4 months ago (Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:54 am)

flimflam wrote:The article does not claim that FDR did not goad the Germans and the Japanese, it convincingly argues that Stinnett's claim that FDR new of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened is bogus.

Really? Please say how exactly.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

avatar
flimflam
Member
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby flimflam » 1 year 4 months ago (Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:14 pm)

Breker wrote:
flimflam wrote:The article does not claim that FDR did not goad the Germans and the Japanese, it convincingly argues that Stinnett's claim that FDR new of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened is bogus.

Really? Please say how exactly.
B.



LOL. Like asking me to prove, exactly, that the holohoax didn't happen. The burden of proof is on Stinnett, and by proxy, you. You 'prove' FDR knew, quoting Stinnett as necessary, and I'll go to the trouble of trying to demonstrate that your proof is bogus, unless, of course, it is obvious conjecture and nonsense.

avatar
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby Breker » 1 year 4 months ago (Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:02 pm)

flimflam wrote:
Breker wrote:
flimflam wrote:The article does not claim that FDR did not goad the Germans and the Japanese, it convincingly argues that Stinnett's claim that FDR new of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened is bogus.

Really? Please say how exactly.
B.



LOL. Like asking me to prove, exactly, that the holohoax didn't happen. The burden of proof is on Stinnett, and by proxy, you. You 'prove' FDR knew, quoting Stinnett as necessary, and I'll go to the trouble of trying to demonstrate that your proof is bogus, unless, of course, it is obvious conjecture and nonsense.

False argument. I'm asking you to back up what you claimed about the article.
You are either dodging or you did not read the article that you said you did. Recall that you DID say that:
it convincingly argues that Stinnett's claim that FDR new of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened is bogus."

So then, please say how exactly, quote the part of the article that you think is 'convincing'.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

avatar
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby Mortimer » 1 year 1 month ago (Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:48 pm)

Pearl Harbor : Roosevelt's 9/11 is an article by James Perloff. At the very end he mentions Don Smith who was a director for the Red Cross and who claimed that FDR informed him before the attack that they would be receiving casualties and to be prepared with medical supplies. Also former Justice Department official Daryl Borgquist claimed Roosevelt began writing his "day of infamy" speech on 6 December 1941 as if he already knew what was going to happen -
https://jamesperloff.com/2014/11/06/pea ... velts-911/
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

avatar
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby Mortimer » 4 months 6 hours ago (Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:48 am)

Neo Cons in the Trump administration are saying there must be a change of government in North Korea because as a dictatorship it is a bad thing. During WW2 Roosevelt agreed that the northern part of the country should be given to Stalin which is exactly what happened and he promptly proceeded to install a communist dictatorship under Kim Il Sung. So it was Roosevelt (and Truman's) appeasement of Stalin which helped to create this very same dictatorship that the Neo Cons are complaining about.
https://Jamesperloff.com/2014/03/29/the ... ti-agenda/
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

avatar
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Roosevelt's Road To War

Postby Mortimer » 3 weeks 3 days ago (Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:31 am)

Roosevelt asked studio head Jack Warner to make a movie which showed Stalin and his USSR in a positive light. The result was Mission to Moscow released in 1943. It was based on the posting of former US ambassador Joseph E Davies and his recollections of the era. It shows the soviet tyrant as a friendly fellow, whitewashes his crimes and recalls the show trials with a positive point of view. The late syndicated columnist Joseph Sobran wrote a review here - https://codoh.com/library/document/2703/
Author and blogger John Wear has a review here in what is rightfully regarded as one of the worst propaganda films of all time -
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/01/ ... -a-comedy/
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests