FDR – Will Live In Infamy
FDR is the one that will likely live in infamy. Today is December 7th. Let me take a second to rant about the events that occurred 72 years ago. By the way, the 72-year point will be crucial for some of you doing research later on. Anyway, I present this not as a historical fact but as a historical question. Of course, I will present some facts, but the truth is that there are still so many questions. This is merely my attempt to look at the facts using the Three Rule Method and help you see it how I see it. This is not meant to be conspiratorial, either. Just an attempt to boldly question what we have been told in light of new information that has come to light since that time.
On December 7th, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. FDR said that day would be a day that would live in infamy. FDR used the attack to launch the United States into an extensive war that killed many people. For years, FDR was seen as a hero. I do not believe that history will be so kind in the long run based on numerous reasons. This account is merely one of the many reasons why.
The truth is that FDR is the one who should live in infamy. He is a big part of why the United States is so jacked up today. Pearl Harbor aside. History has been WAY too kind to that man, and you will not find a fan of him here.
History books, school teachers, and even the government itself try to continue the deception of that day by stating that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7th, 1941. We are told that this attack led to the United States entering World War II.
I’m afraid I have to disagree. First of all, FDR led the United States to enter WWII, but for the sake of time, we are going to focus on the “Surprise Military Strike” because it was not exactly a “surprise” at all. Many alluded to it before, felt it before, and warned of such an attack ahead of time. This is not to suggest that Churchill or Roosevelt knew the exact details of the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing to draw the United States into the war. Of course, I would not put it past them, considering the larger picture that has come to light since the mid-1990s, but I digress. It is to say, however, that they provoked the fight. In other words, you cannot pick a fight and then say you were surprised that a battle ensued.
That is the beauty of learning history. Facts will eventually outweigh the emotional aspects presented in the debate. Some people, even today, are greatly offended by the notion that the government would be willing to inflict harm on its people or allow an injury to occur to do something simple like bolster support for a war. Never mind blatantly obvious examples such as Operation Northwoods. Instead, let us examine my claim.
It starts with the McCollum memo, also known as the Eight Action Memo, which was declassified in 1994. If you were taught about Pearl Harbor before this date, undoubtedly, you have no idea what I am referring to. Dated October 7th, 1940, the memorandum, written by Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence, was submitted to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox, two of President Roosevelt’s most trusted military advisers.
This memo detailed eight steps which would PROVOKE Japan into attacking the United States since the people would not support an attack on them first. Throughout 1941, the President implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. Cause and effect.
Some try to refute this claim as conspiratorial because Anderson (the Director of Naval Intelligence) read McCollum’s memo and added his comments at the end, which included the phrase, “…we should not precipitate anything in the Orient.” However, this statement does not negate the fact that the United States did precipitate a few things in the Orient after all. And pretending for a second that the memo was a “what if” document didn’t stop the government from implementing all eight measures, did it?
Do you think Roosevelt was surprised? If he was, he should go down as the dumbest person to ever grace the planet. Even Admiral Nimitz saw it coming a mile away, which I will address shortly. This was the desired result, as detailed in the memo he implemented, and such an attack would be an excellent way to get the people to support something they did not support in the first place. Based on Occam’s Razor, the American people were lied to, and our servicemen and women were murdered.
Let us examine the memo:
9. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.
10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.
History shows us clearly that all 8 points were implemented. Of course, some people refute the “intent” of the memo and try to confuse the situation by saying that McCollum never actually met Roosevelt. That has nothing to do with it. The question is not whether they met. The question is whether or not Roosevelt subscribed to it. And the intent is irrelevant because the actions were still initiated.
Even Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson is on record favoring the policy of provoking a war, so why would anyone refute that the general idea or goal was somehow different? It is because too many are simply afraid to face the reality of such policies. They refuse to think that the government would purposefully hurt its people. Never mind the repeated examples of them doing it.
And isn’t that a pointless argument to make anyway, considering the cause-and-effect scenario of the matter? Even Admiral Nimitz turned down the command of the Pacific Fleet because he didn’t want to become the scapegoat if the Japanese committed a “surprise attack” against the United States. In a 1996 History Channel interview, Admiral Chester Nimitz Jr. (a WW2 sub captain & later an admiral himself) described his father’s political maneuver: “He said, ‘It is my guess that the Japanese are going to attack us in a surprise attack. There will be a revulsion in the country against all those in command at sea, and they will be replaced by people in positions of prominence ashore, and I want to be ashore, and not at sea, when that happens.“
The thing you need to remember is that during that time, the policy of the United States (people) was not to find monsters to destroy. The people of the United States did not support another war. The actions of the United States, I.E., FDR, instigated and pretty much forced the hand of the Japanese. They attack, Americans die, the rest of America wants revenge, and support for the war is achieved. So we were attacked by the Japanese and went to war with the Germans and Italians. Curious.
Does this sound familiar? I remember a recent story about Americans being attacked by Saudis and Egyptians and Americans going to war with Iraqis and Afghans. But once again, I digress.
Why would FDR want or need support for the war? Why would anyone want a war in the first place? First of all, it was time. As we reported in “The Cycles of War” and covered at great length in RELOADED – An American Warning, the cycle had already presented itself. More than likely, it was inevitable. However, in this case, the public pressure brought about by economic upheaval required the President to act.
The Great Depression was caused by a few things but was rooted primarily in government actions and the bubble of buying stock on an inadequate margin. FDR’s New Deal was the government’s attempt to force correct an economy that was destroyed by manipulation in the first place. This ultimately did not work. In fact, like most social programs, the New Deal may have made the Depression more severe and last significantly longer than it otherwise would have. The cycle was solidified.
Now, I do not want to get into an economic debate over the supposed “myth” of great wars being a remedy for failing economic policy. I am pointing out that great wars (size-wise) are always joined at the hip of economic upheaval. This could be a positive swing in economics (like the Railroad and the Civil War) or a negative swing, such as what we saw during the Great Depression.
Now, a book could be written on this topic, and some, thankfully, have. The point I am trying to convey is that FDR was TRYING to get into the war. A lot of thought went into this. In fact, according to Charles Beard (at one time one of America’s most influential historians), on February 11th, 1941, FDR proposed sacrificing six cruisers and two carriers at Manila to get into a war. Navy Chief Stark objected: “I have previously opposed this, and you have concurred as to its unwisdom. Particularly do I recall your remark in a previous conference when Mr. Hull suggested (more forces to Manila) and the question arose as to getting them out and your 100% reply, from my standpoint, was that you might not mind losing one or two cruisers, but that you did not want to take a chance on losing 5 or 6.” (President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941, p 424)
And let us not forget that the U.S. Navy conducted “shoot on sight” convoy runs against the Germans in the North Atlantic while German U-boats had orders to refrain from initiating attacks on U.S. shipping. Was this an effort to provoke an “attack“?
And let us not forget that the United States and Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. Was this an attempt to provoke an “attack“?
And let us not forget that the United States provided military and other supplies and assistance, including warplanes and pilots, to the Chinese (as detailed in the memo), who were already at war with Japan. Was this an effort to provoke an “attack“?
The point is that I can not imagine how Pearl Harbor was a surprise to anyone. It was the result of picking a fight. A fight that FDR desperately wanted.
Some of the scariest evidence for me shows up in 1940. Until May 1940, the US Pacific Fleet had always been based in California. In his infinite wisdom, FDR ordered the fleet transferred to its exposed position in Hawaii under the guise of stopping the Japanese advancement. The problem is that FDR ordered it to remain stationed at Pearl Harbor, even though Admiral Richardson warned that protection from air attack was inadequate and that there was no protection from torpedo attack.
Wouldn’t you know it, Admiral Richardson was demoted to rear admiral and replaced by Admiral Kimmel. Of course, Kimmel also warned of the strategy, but by then, it was already too late.
My point is that to believe it was somehow all a big surprise seems naïve at best. The evidence clearly shows that there was 1) the desired result and 2) the result was met. Conversations, memos, records, etc., all allude to the same idea. Some of the details will be forever hidden, and because of that, there will always be questions, but what we have and what we know speaks volumes. You get to decide for yourself. However, considering the chain of events, it is a clear decision for me.
That day may live in infamy, but between FDR’s blatant disregard for American life, the destruction of the Republic via the introduction of his socialized democracy, and a complete disregard for presidential tradition (among MANY other things), it is my opinion that FDR was NOT a good man and not an American hero. In my opinion, that man may be at fault for the murder of thousands of Americans.
I write this story today to commemorate the lives of those who died on December 7th, 1941. I have not forgotten you.