');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Mark Weber Archive
Collusion: Franklin Roosevelt, British Intelligence, and the Secret Campaign to Push the US Into War
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
President Roosvelt, Prime Minister Churchill and premier Stalin, at the historic “Big Three” conference in Yalta, February 1945

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks

      We’ve heard a lot recently about alleged secret and illegal collaboration by prominent Americans with foreign governments. Collusion is widely regarded as so malign and disgraceful that any official who cooperates with a foreign power in an underhanded way is considered unfit to hold public office. In particular, politicians and media commentators have been charging that devious cooperation by Donald Trump with the government of Ukraine or Russia renders him unfit to be President.

      However valid such accusations may be, secretive and unlawful collusion by an American leader with a foreign power that subverts the US political process is not new. The most far-reaching and flagrant case was by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940-41.

      The stage for this had been set some months earlier. In September 1939, Germany and then Soviet Russia attacked Poland. Two days after the German assault, Britain and France declared war against Germany.

      Following the defeat of Poland after barely five weeks of fighting, the German leader appealed to Britain and France for peace. Hitler’s plea was rejected. After British and French leaders made clear their determination to continue the war, Germany struck in the West in May 1940. Military and political leaders in Britain and France were confident that their forces would prevail. After all, those two countries had more soldiers, more artillery, more tanks and armored vehicles, and vastly more impressive and numerous naval vessels, than did the Germans. Nonetheless, in just six weeks German forces subdued France and forced the British to flee to their island nation.[1]Basil H. Liddell-Hart, The Second World War (New York: Putnam, 1971), pp. 17-22, 66; Clive Ponting, 1940: Myth and Reality (Chicago: 1993), pp. 79-80; Niall Ferguson, The War of the World (New York: Penguin, 2006), pp. 387-390; William Carr, Poland to Pearl Harbor (1986), pp. 93, 96.

      Hitler then launched yet another peace initiative. In a dramatic July 19, 1940, appeal for an end to the conflict, he stressed that his proposal did not in any way harm vital British interests or violate British honor. This offer was also rejected, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill vowed to continue the war.[2]Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and `The Unnecessary War’ (New York: Crown, 2008), pp. 361-366; John Charmely, Churchill’s Grand Alliance (Harcourt Brace, 1996), pp. 82-83, 178; Clive Ponting, 1940: Myth and Reality (1993), p. 124; Friedrich Stieve, What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933-1939.

      Privately, though, he and all other high-level British officials knew that their country’s resources were hopelessly inferior to those of Germany and her allies, and that Britain’s only hope for “victory” required somehow bringing the United States into the war. In a one-on-one conversation during this period Randolph Churchill pointedly asked his father just how Britain could possibly beat Germany. “With great intensity,” he later recalled, Winston Churchill replied: “I shall drag the United States in.”[3]Martin Gilbert, Finest Hour: Winston Churchill,1939-41 (1984), p. 358. Quoted in: Jon Meacham, Franklin and Winston (2004), p. 51; M. Hastings, Winston’s War, 1940-1945 (2010), p. 25.

      From mid-1940 onwards, bringing the US into war was a priority British government objective. The great problem, though, was that the great majority of Americans wanted to keep their country neutral, and avoid any direct involvement in the European conflict. Millions remembered with bitterness the deceit by which the US had entered the world war of 1914-1918, and the betrayal of the solemn, noble-sounding pledges made during those years by US President Wilson and the leaders of Britain and France.

      Roosevelt secretly supported Churchill’s efforts. Even before the outbreak of war in September 1939, the President was already working, behind the scenes, to encourage Britain to make war against Germany, with the goal of “regime change” there.[4]Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill (1976), pp. 23-31; M. Weber, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983. America’s most influential newspapers, magazines and radio commentators shared Roosevelt’s hostile attitude toward Hitler’s Germany, and they supported his campaign for war by putting out stories designed to persuade the public that Germany was a grave danger. Even prior to the outbreak of war in Europe, for example, the country’s most influential illustrated weekly, Life magazine, published a major article headlined “America Gets Ready to Fight Germany, Italy, Japan.” Readers were told that Germany and Italy “covet … the rich resources of South America,” and warned that “fascist fleets and legions may swarm across the Atlantic.”[5]“America Gets Ready to Fight Germany, Italy, Japan,” Life, Oct. 31, 1938.
      ( http://mk.christogenea.org/content/it-was-planned-w...page-1 )

      In the months before December 1941, when the US formally entered the war in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt did everything he could to get America into the global conflict without actually declaring war. He proceeded with caution and cunning, because his measures were often contrary to US law, and without Congressional or Constitutional mandate. Roosevelt also acted with ever more brazen disregard for international law and America’s legal standing as a neutral country. As part of his campaign, he sought to convince the public that Hitler’s Germany threatened the US.

      “The Nazi masters of Germany,” he announced in a December 1940 radio address, “have made clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world …” In August 1941, the President met with British premier Churchill to pledge US support for war against Germany. They issued a joint declaration, the “Atlantic Charter,” that laid out the ambitious and noble-sounding war aims of the two countries.[6]Roosevelt “fireside chat” radio address of Dec. 29, 1940. ; Regarding the “Atlantic Charter,” see: William H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (1950 and 2008); Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (1975).

      Roosevelt and Churchill at their historic “Atlantic Charter” meeting off the coast of Newfoundland, August 1941
      Roosevelt and Churchill at their historic “Atlantic Charter” meeting off the coast of Newfoundland, August 1941

      In a nationally-broadcast address two weeks later, Roosevelt told Americans that “… our fundamental rights – including the rights of labor – are threatened by Hitler’s violent attempt to rule the world,” and pledged that “we shall do everything in our power to crush Hitler and his Nazi forces.”[7]Roosevelt Labor Day radio address, Sept. 1, 1941. In another radio address on September 11 the President announced a “shoot-on-sight” order to US naval warships to attack German and Italian vessels on the high seas.

      In spite of these and other hostile measures, German leaders fervently sought to avoid conflict with the US. Hitler ordered German submarines to avoid any clash with American forces, and to use their weapons only in self-defense and as a final resort. So belligerent were US actions against Germany and her allies, and so blatant was US disregard for the country’s officially neutral status, that Admiral Harold Stark, US Chief of Naval Operations, warned the Secretary of State that Hitler “has every excuse in the world to declare war on us now, if he were of a mind to.”[8]Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill (1976), pp. 360, 415, 429; Stark memo to Secretary Hull, Oct. 8, 1941. Quoted in: J. P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill (1976), p. 426.

      As part of Churchill’s effort to bring the US into the war, in 1940 his government established an agency that came to be known as the British Security Coordination (BSC), which managed operations in North and South America of Britain’s key intelligence bureaus, including MI5, MI6, the Special Operations Executive, and the Political Warfare Executive.

      BSC operations were headed by William Stephenson. Born in Canada, he had distinguished himself as a flier with British forces during the First World War, and afterwards became a highly successful businessman in England. From its central offices on two floors of the Rockefeller Center building on Fifth Avenue in New York City, the BSC at its height supervised the work of more than two thousand full- and part-time employees, agents and operatives. These included linguists, cipher and crytology experts, intelligence agents, propaganda specialists, people skilled in business and finance, and operatives in a range of other fields. Nearly a thousand were active in New York, while more than that number worked in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, as well as in Canada, Mexico City, Havana, and other centers in Latin America. “The scale and audacity” of British intelligence activivities in the US between June 1940 and December 1941, concludes one historian, “were without parallel in the history of relations between allied democracies.”[9]Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44 (1999), p. 16; Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies: The Secret Connections Between Espionage and Journalism in Washington (Prometheus, 2018), pp. 101-104; Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days (New York: Random House, 2013), p. 117; William Boyd, “The Secret Persuaders,” The Guardian (Britain), Aug. 19, 2006.

      William Stephenson
      William Stephenson

      At the end of World War II, Stephenson arranged for an official history of the British Security Coordination to be written, based on its voluminous files and records. Just twenty copies of this secret and very restricted work were produced, and then the entire archive of BSC documents and papers was gathered together and burned.[10]Nigel West (introduction) in: William Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (New York: 1999), pp. xi, xii.

      In the years that followed, some information about BSC operations came to public attention in a few widely-read books. But it was not until 1999 – more than half a century after the end of World War II – that the full text was finally published. This important primary source, titled British Security Coordination: The Secret History of British Intelligence in the Americas, 1940-1945, throws light on the carefully hidden record of collusion between the Roosevelt White House and a foreign government.

      Not long after William Stephenson arrived in the US to begin work, Prime Minister Churchill informed President Roosevelt of Stephenson’s assignment. After a briefing on the BSC’s planned operations, Roosevelt said: “There should be the closest possible marriage between the FBI and British intelligence.” The president also communicated his views on this to the British ambassador in Washington.[11]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. xxv. Roosevelt arranged for Stephenson’s agency to work closely with William Donovan, a highly trusted colleague of the President who went on to establish and head the wartime Office of Strategic Services, which after the war became the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency.

      William Donovan
      William Donovan

      As the official BSC history acknowledges, BSC operations “could not have come into being at all without American approval on the highest level.” The official history goes on: “The climax of that offensive was reached some six months before Pearl Harbor when BSC secured, through the establishment of the organization which eventually came to be known as the Office of Strategic Services, an assurance of full American participation and collaboration with the British in secret activities directed against the enemy throughout the world.”[12]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. xxxvi, xxxiii.

      Moreover, “Inasmuch as the cause of American intervention was symbolized in the foresight and determination of the President himself, the ultimate purpose of all BSC’s Political Warfare was to assist Mr Roosevelt’s own campaign for preparedness. This was not merely an abstract conception, for WS [William Stephenson] kept in close touch with the White House and as time went on the president gave clear indication of his personal concern both to encourage and take advantage of BSC’s activities.”[13]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 16.

      This cooperation with British intelligence by the President and other high-ranking US officials, as well as with the FBI, the US federal government’s main domestic security and police agency, was quite illegal. Such collusion by the nominally neutral US to further the war aims of a foreign government was contrary to both US law and universally accepted international norms. Accordingly, the White House kept this collaboration secret even from the State Department.

      Incidentally, the official BSC history acknowledges the role of Donovan in a little known but important chapter of World War II history. On March 25, 1941, Yugoslavia joined the Axis alliance with Germany, Italy and other European countries. Two days later, a group of Serbian officers led by General Dusan Simovic, carried out a putsch in Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital, that violently overthrew the country’s legal government. Ten days later the new regime signed a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union.

      How did this sudden “regime change” come about? Several months earlier, during a visit to Belgrade in January 1941, William Donovan was in the Yugoslav capital as an agent of President Roosevelt and of the British government. During a crucial meeting and conversation with General Simovic, he set the stage for the “regime change” overthrow of the country’s government. The official BSC history puts it this way: “In Yugoslavia, Donovan paved the way for the coup d’état which resulted at the eleventh hour in Yugoslav resistance to, instead of acquiescence in, German aggression. He interviewed General Simovic, who asked him whether Britain could hold out against the Nazis and whether the United States would enter the war … He answered both questions in the affirmative; and at his persuasion Simovic agreed to organize the revolution which a few months later overthrew the pro-German government of Prince Paul.”[14]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 14.

      William Stephenson is honored for his wartime service with the US “Medal of Merit,” presented by William Donovan at a ceremony in 1946
      William Stephenson is honored for his wartime service with the US “Medal of Merit,” presented by William Donovan at a ceremony in 1946

      A major task of the BSC – as the official history reports – was “to organize American public opinion in favour of aid to Britain.” As part of what the BSC called “political warfare designed to influence American public opinion,” BSC agents were “placing special material in the American press.” Stephenson’s operatives were very active in prodding, cajoling and steering the US media to foment fear and hatred of Germany, and to encourage public support for Roosevelt’s ever more overt campaign of military backing for Britain, and later for Soviet Russia.

      “Of particular value,” the BSC history notes, was the cooperation of the publisher of the New York Post, the editor of the New York daily PM, the publisher of the New York Herald Tribune, the publisher of the Baltimore Sun, and the president of the New York Times, as well as the country’s most influential columnists, including Walter Lippman, Drew Pearson, and Walter Winchell. Pearson’s column alone appeared in 616 newspapers with a combined readership of more than twenty million. In working “to bring the United Sates into the `shooting’ war by attacking isolationism and fostering interventionism,” the BSC “was able to initiate internal propaganda through its undercover contacts with selected newspapers, such as the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the New York Post, and the Baltimore Sun; with newspaper columnists and radio commentators; and with various political pressure organizations.”

      The BSC worked closely with a specially created news service. Set up in July 1940, the “Overseas News Agency” was a supposedly legitimate and trustworthy enterprise. Actually, and as the BSC history notes, this was “a branch of the Jewish Telegraph[ic] Agency, owned in part by the rich New York Jew who controlled the liberal and vehemently anti-Nazi New York Post.”

      As the official history goes on to explain: “After a series of secret negotiations, BSC agreed to give ONA [Overseas News Agency] a monthly subsidy in return for promise of cooperation in certain specific ways … It’s value … lay in its ability not only to channel propaganda outwards but to assure wide dissemination of material originated by BSC and intended for internal consumption. In April 1941, the ONA clients within the United States already numbered more than forty-five English language papers, which included such giants as the New York Times … It afforded a useful instrument for rapid dissemination abroad of subversive propaganda originated by BSC in the United States.”[15]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 58, 59.

      The Jewish-run ONA agency soon became an important distributor of “fake news” as part of the widening campaign to smear and discredit National Socialist Germany, and to promote public support for US involvement in war against Germany and her allies. As one historian put it: “From the start, attacking Nazi Germany was a higher priority for ONA than hewing to the truth.” ONA articles influenced many millions of Americans, appearing in such major daily papers as the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Washington Post.[16]Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), esp. pp. 135-140, 325-327; P. J. Grisar, “Sharks Defending Britain From Nazis? How ‘Fake News’ Helped Foil Hitler,” Forward, Oct. 22, 2018; Menachem Wecker, “The true story of a Jewish news agency that peddled fake news to undo Hitler.” Religion News Service, October 1, 2018

      Here are a few examples:

      In August 1940 an ONA report cited anonymous “qualified Czech sources” to inform Americans that “Czechoslovak girls and young women have been transported from the [Czech] Protectorate to German garrison towns to become white slaves.” It went on to tell readers that “Nazi officials, dispatching these trainloads of prospective white slaves to the Reich, informed husbands and relatives that the women `will be entrusted with the important work of amusing German soldiers, in order to keep up the morale of the troops’.”[17]Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), p. 135.

      In February 1941 American newspapers carried a sensational ONA report claiming that the US was threatened by “fascist bands” in the Caribbean country of Haiti, which had become a dangerous center of Nazi activity. Germans were supposedly preparing that county as a base for attacks on Florida, the Panama Canal, and Puerto Rico.[18]S. T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 138-139, 326 (n.). In June 1941 an ONA report appearing in newspapers across the US told of a daring British parachute raid within Germany that had succeeded in capturing 40 German pilots. This and similar stories were meant to encourage Americans to believe that the British had the skill and resolve to defeat Germany and her allies. But the raid never happened. This “fake news” story was conceived in London by the MI6 agency, and was written by a British agent.[19]Larry Getlen, “The Fake News That Pushed US Into WWII,” New York Post, Oct. 3, 2019, pp. 20-21.

      In August 1941, an ONA item in the New York Post told readers that “Hitler is not at the Russian front, but at Berchtesgaden suffering from a severe nervous breakdown.” The article went on to assert that the German leader’s personal physician had recently traveled to Switzerland to consult with the famed psychiatrist Carl Jung to discuss “the rapid deterioration of Hitler’s mental condition,” which was supposedly characterized by delusional rages.[20]S. T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), p. 142. That same month, The New York Times published a report of the Overseas News Agency telling readers that in the Middle East the recent death of a 130-year-old Bedouin soothsayer was widely regarded as “a sign of a coming defeat for Hitler.”[21]Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 139, 326 (n.); Menachem Wecker, “The true story of a Jewish news agency that peddled fake news to undo Hitler.” RNS, Oct. 1, 2018

      Stephenson’s BSC also rigged public opinion polls to give the impression that Americans were more willing to join Britain and the Soviet Union in war against Germany than was actually the case. Polls that showed American unhappiness with British policies, such as Britain’s imperial rule in India, were suppressed. As a result, one historian cautions, many surveys of American public opinion during this period “should be seen for what they were: at worst they were flatly rigged, at best they were tweaked and massaged and cooked – advocacy polls without the advocate being visible.”[22]Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception (1999), pp. 70-86; S. T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 113-116, 154-155; W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 81-84.

      An important British propaganda outlet during this period was radio station WRUL, an American short-wave broadcaster based in Long Island, New York. With 50,000 watts of power, its reach was unsurpassed by any other station either in the US or Europe. “By the middle of 1941,” the official BSC history reports, “station WRUL was virtually, though quite unconsciously, a subsidiary of BSC, sending out covert British propaganda all over the world … Daily broadcasts went out in no less than twenty-two different languages …”[23]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 59, 60, 61.

      In its efforts to influence the American public, the British had formidable competition. News, photos and contextual information provided by German agencies was more timely and detailed, and consequently better appreciated and more effective, than what Britain provided. The German “news agencies, Transocean and DNB, were always first with the headlines,” the BSC history acknowledged.[24]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 68.

      In two confidential telegrams sent to London in April 1941, Stephenson wrote frankly about the unsatisfactory situation: “Close examination of US press during past fortnight indicates almost complete failure [to] prevent Axis monopoly of war news coverage … most journals … carry predominance of Axis news … [and] photographs … few if any British photographs appear … Axis news reports reach here more quickly than ours … rapidly followed by copious flow of descriptive material, photographs and films … Transocean and DNB keep up flow and build up stories even in quiet periods … invariably beat our news to headlines … US newsmen here say Germans show far better sense of news and timing … infinitely better understanding US psychology.”[25]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 69.

      As the BSC official history goes on to explain, “these warnings went unheeded, and accordingly WS [William Stephenson] decided to take action on his own initiative” by waging a “covert war against the mass of American groups which were organized throughout the country to spread isolationism and anti-British feeling.” This included coordination with vehemently anti-German organizations that were pushing for US involvement in war against Germany. BSC was especially keen to counter the formidable influence and effectiveness of the America First Committee. As the official history notes, “because America First was a particularly serious menace, BSC decided to take more direct action.” It took measures to “disrupt” America First rallies, and to “discredit” America First speakers. “Such activities by BSC agents and cooperating pro-British committees were frequent, and on many occasions America First was harassed and heckled and embarrassed.”

      Gerald Nye
      Gerald Nye

      British intelligence agents also worked to elect candidates who favored US intervention in the European war, to defeat candidates who advocated neutrality, and to silence or destroy the reputations of Americans who were deemed to be a menace to British interests. An important target of BSC operations was US Senator Gerald Nye, an influential critic of the President’s campaign for war. Once, when he was getting ready to address a meeting in Boston, a BSC-backed group called “Fight for Freedom” “passed out 25,000 handbills attacking him as an appeaser and as a Nazi-lover.”[26]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 74.

      Another political figure whom BSC operatives sought to discredit was US Representative Hamilton Fish, a vigorous critic of Roosevelt’s war policy. Fish was particularly effective because he was intelligent, well educated, and exceptionally knowledgeable about international relations, with extensive first-hand understanding of European affairs. British agents funded Fish’s election opponents, published pamphlets suggesting he was pro-Hitler, released a faked photo of Fish with the head of the pro-Nazi German American Bund, and planted stories saying that he was getting financial aid from German agents. Such underhanded activities was important in finally removing him from Congress in the November 1944 elections. The BSC history notes that while Fish “attributed his defeat to Reds and Communists. He might – with more accuracy – have blamed BSC.”[27]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 74, 80; T. E. Mahl, Desperate Deception (1999), pp. 107-135; Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 119-127; Christopher Woolf, “How Britain Tried to Influence the US Election in 1940,” PRI, Jan. 17, 2017.

      Hamilton Fish
      Hamilton Fish

      Fortune tellers were also used by British intelligence to sway public opinion. Such propaganda, the official BSC history notes, is effective only with people who are not very discerning or sophisticated. The BSC begins its description of these operations with condescending remarks about American gullibility:

      “A country that is extremely heterogeneous in character offers a wide variety of choice propaganda methods. While it is probably true that all Americans are intensely suspicious of propaganda, it is certain that a great many of them are unusually susceptible to it even in its most patent form … The United States is still a fertile field for outré practices. It is unlikely that any propagandist would seriously attempt to influence politically the people of England, say, or France through the medium of astrological predictions. Yet in the United States this was done with effective if limited results.”[28]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 102.

      In the summer of 1941 the BSC employed Louis de Wohl, who is described in the BSC history as a “bogus Hungarian astrologer.” He was directed to issue predictions to show that Hitler’s “fall was now certain.” At public meetings, in radio appearances, in interviews, and in widely distributed press items, he “declared that Hitler’s doom was sealed.” De Wohl, who was presented as an “astro-philosopher,” also sought to discredit Charles Lindbergh, the much admired American aviator who was also a prominent spokesman for the America First Committee and an effective critic of Roosevelt’s war policies. De Wohl claimed that Lindbergh’s first son, who had been kidnapped and killed in 1932, was actually still alive and living in Germany, where he was being trained as a future Nazi leader. “There is little doubt,” the BSC history concludes, that the work of de Wohl “had a considerable effect upon certain sections of the [American] people.”[29]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 102-103, 104; S. T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), p. 139.

      British agents also publicized the equally absurd predictions of an Egyptian astrologer who claimed that within four months Hitler would be killed, as well as similarly fantastic predictions of a Nigerian priest named Ulokoigbe. As Stephenson and his BSC colleagues intended, American newspapers eagerly picked up and spread such nonsense to millions of readers.[30]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 103.

      The BSC also set up a center that fabricated letters and other documents, as well as an organization that excelled in spreading expedient rumors. British agents illegally interecpted and copied US mail. They carried out wiretapping to get embarrassing information on those it wished to discredit, and leaked the results of its illegal surveillance. One important target was the French embassy in Washington, DC, which was wiretapped and burgled by Stephenson’s agents.[31]W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 104, 105, 107, 109; Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 102, 140, 145-148.

      Ernest Cuneo
      Ernest Cuneo

      An important figure in all this was Ernest Cuneo, a publicist, lawyer, and intelligence operative who played a key role as liaison between Stephenson’s BSC, the White House, Donovan’s agency, the FBI, and the media. He later described the scope of British operations in a memo. The BSC, he wrote, “ran espionage agents, tampered with the mails, tapped telephones, smuggled propaganda into the country, disrupted public gatherings, covertly subsidized newspapers, radios, and organizations, perpetrated forgeries – even palming one off on the president of the United States (a map that out-lined Nazi plans to dominate Latin America) – violated the aliens registrations act, shanghaied sailors numerous times, and possibly murdered one or more persons in this country.”[32]Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44 (1999), pp. 16, 193; Michael Williams, “FDR’s Confidential Crusader,” Warfare History Network. Jan. 17, 2019.

      A high point of British-White House collusion, and of the BSC campaign to influence American public opinion, came on October 27, 1941. While Franklin Roosevelt was not the first or the last American president to deliberately mislead the public, rarely has a major political figure given a speech as loaded with brazen falsehood as he did in his address on that date. His remarks, delivered to a large gathering at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, were broadcast live over nationwide radio.[33]John F. Bratzel, Leslie B. Rout, Jr., “FDR and The ‘Secret Map’,” The Wilson Quarterly (Washington, DC), New Year’s 1985, pp. 167-173; Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), pp. 602, 603, 801 (notes); Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s `Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985.

      In a nationally broadcast address of Oct. 27, 1941, President Roosevelt claimed to have documents proving German plans to take over South America and abolish all the world’s religions.
      In a nationally broadcast address of Oct. 27, 1941, President Roosevelt claimed to have documents proving German plans to take over South America and abolish all the world’s religions.

      After giving a highly distorted review of recent US-German relations, Roosevelt made a startling announcement. He said: “Hitler has often protested that his plans for conquest do not extend across the Atlantic Ocean … I have in my possession a secret map, made in Germany by Hitler’s government – by the planners of the new world order. It is a map of South America and a part of Central America as Hitler proposes to reorganize it.” This map, the President explained, showed South America, as well as “our great life line, the Panama Canal,” divided into five vassal states under German domination. He said: “That map, my friends, makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States as well.”

      Roosevelt went on to announce another startling revelation. He told his listeners that he also had in his possession “another document made in Germany by Hitler’s government. It is a detailed plan to abolish all existing religions – Catholic, Protestant, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish alike” which Germany will impose “on a dominated world, if Hitler wins.”

      “The property of all churches will be seized by the Reich and its puppets,” he continued. “The cross and all other symbols of religion are to be forbidden. The clergy are to be forever silenced under penalty of the concentration camps … In the place of the churches of our civilization, there is to be set up an international Nazi church – a church which will be served by orators sent out by the Nazi government. In the place of the Bible, the words of Mein Kampf will be imposed and enforced as Holy Writ. And in place of the cross of Christ will be put two symbols – the swastika and the naked sword.”

      “Let us well ponder,” he said, “these grim truths which I have told you of the present and future plans of Hitlerism.” All Americans, he went on, “are faced with the choice between the kind of world we want to live in and the kind of world which Hitler and his hordes would impose on us.” Accordingly, he said, “we are pledged to pull our own oar in the destruction of Hitlerism.”

      The full story about these documents did not emerge until many years later. The map cited by the President did exist, but it was a forgery produced by British intelligence. Stephenson had passed it on to Donovan, who had it delivered to the President. The other “document” cited by Roosevelt, purporting to outline German plans to abolish the world’s religions, was even more fanciful than the “secret map.”

      The “secret map” cited by President Roosevelt as proof of German plans to take over South America was produced by British intelligence and passed on to the White House by William Donovan.
      The “secret map” cited by President Roosevelt as proof of German plans to take over South America was produced by British intelligence and passed on to the White House by William Donovan.

      It’s not clear if Roosevelt himself knew that the map was a fake, or whether he was taken in by the British fraud and actually believed it to be authentic. In this case we don’t know if the President was deliberately lying to the American people, or was merely a credulous dupe and tool of a foreign government.

      The German government responded to the President’s speech with a statement that categorically rejected his accusations. The purported secret documents, it declared, “are forgeries of the crudest and most brazen kind.” Furthermore, the statement went on: “The allegations of a conquest of South America by Germany and an elimination of the religions of the churches in the world and their replacement by a National Socialist church are so nonsensical and absurd that it is superfluous for the Reich government to discuss them.”[34]“The Reich Government’s Reply To Roosevelt’s Navy Day Speech,” The New York Times, Nov. 2, 1941; Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945. Series D, Vol. XIII, (Washington, DC: 1954), pp. 724-725 (Doc. No. 439 of Nov. 1, 1941). German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels also responded to Roosevelt’s claims in a widely read commentary. The American president’s “absurd accusations,” he wrote, were a “grand swindle” designed to “whip up American public opinion.”[35]Joseph Goebbels, “Kreuzverhör mit Mr. Roosevelt,” Das Reich, Nov. 30, 1941. Nachdruck (reprint) in Das eherne Herz (1943), pp. 99-104. English translation: “Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined.”
      ( http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archiv...b2.htm )

      That the President’s claims were absurd on their face should have been obvious to any discerning and reasonably well-informed person. Assertions that Germany was planning to take over South America were clearly fantastic given that, first, Germany had been unable or unwilling even to launch an invasion of Britain, and, second, that German forces at that moment were fully engaged in a titanic clash with Soviet Russia, a conflict that would ultimately end with the victory of the Red Army.

      Roosevelt’s claim that Hitler was bent on quashing the world’s religions was not just a falsehood; it was nearly the opposite of the truth. At the same time he was telling Americans that Hitler’s Germany threatened religious life in their country and the rest of the world, President Roosevelt and his government were organizing military aid to the one country that was ruled by an openly atheist regime, the Soviet Union. While Roosevelt was speaking, military forces of Germany, Italy, Romania, Finland, Hungary and other European countries were battling to bring down the anti-religious Bolshevik state. Millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians, Belarusians, and others who had already been freed from Soviet rule were, with German support, opening churches and restoring the traditional religious life that had been so brutally suppressed by the Stalinist regime.

      During the war years, Germany’s Protestant and Catholic churches not only received government financial support, they were packed with worshipers. In Catholic regions of the Reich, notably in Bavaria and Austria, crucifixes were displayed in many public buildings, including courtrooms and school classrooms. The government of one country that was closely allied with Hitler’s Germany during World War II, Slovakia, was actually headed by a Roman Catholic priest.

      In 1941 few Americans could believe that their President would so deliberately and emphatically deceive them, especially about matters of the gravest national and global importance. Millions accepted Roosevelt’s alarmist claims as true. After all, whom should any decent, patriotic citizen believe?: Their President, or the government of a foreign country that much of the American media told them was a mendacious regime dedicated to brutally imposing oppressive rule over the United States and the entire planet?

      The Roosevelt-British propaganda campaign of 1940-41 was based on a great falsehood: the claim that Hitler was trying to “take over the world.” Actually, it was not Germany that launched war against Britain and France, but rather the reverse. It was Churchill, later joined by the US President, who rejected all German initiatives to end the terrible war. Demanding “unconditional surrender,” they insisted on the complete capitulation of Germany, including “regime change” elimination of the country’s government.

      The legacy of President Roosevelt’s secretive and unlawful collusion with a foreign government, including his sanctioning of crimes by British and US agents, are relevant for our time. That’s especially true because Roosevelt is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most admirable of America’s past leaders. He is, for example, one of the very few persons whose image appears on US coins. Roads, streets, schools and other learning centers across the country bear his name.

      His legacy should concern those who today are understandably unhappy with the routinely partisan and often polemical presentation of news and information in the mainstream media. The way that “fake news” and slanted, sensationalized information were given to the public in 1940-41 by the mainstream media, in secret collaboration with the White House and a foreign government, tells us much about how news and opinion can be manipulated in our country, and by whom.

      In 1990 The New York Times issued a kind of apology for having published, decades earlier, the reporting of its once highly regarded correspondent in Moscow. In 1932 Walter Duranty’s dispatches from the Soviet Union earned him America’s highest award for journalistic achievement, the Pultizer Prize. Only years later did it become clear that Duranty’s portrayal of life in the USSR amounted to a deliberate whitewashing of reality. In particular he concealed the famine, starvation, and deaths of millions, especially in Ukraine, due to the Stalinist regime’s brutal “collectivization” of the vast country’s rural and farming population. Although reporting by major American newspapers in 1940-41 about Roosevelt administration’s policies for war was similarly distored and misleading, neither the The New York Times, The Washington Post, nor any other paper has been moved to issue a comparable apology.

      President Roosvelt, Prime Minister Churchill and premier Stalin, at the historic “Big Three” conference in Yalta, February 1945
      President Roosvelt, Prime Minister Churchill and premier Stalin, at the historic “Big Three” conference in Yalta, February 1945

      President Richard Nixon is today widely regarded as a disgraced figure who deserved impeachment for trying to cover up the “Watergate” break-in. President Trump, many say, should likewise be punished for breaking the law. If that’s true, how then should we regard Franklin Roosevelt? His deceit and crimes – which are routinely ignored, excused or justified – vastly overshadow the misdeeds of Nixon and Trump.

      Those who admire Franklin Roosevelt seem to believe that presidential deception and miscondut are justified if the perpetrator’s motives or goals are good. One influential scholar who has expressed this view is American historian Thomas A. Bailey. He acknowledged Roosevelt’s record, but sought to justify it. “Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor,” he wrote. “He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good … The country was overwhelmingly noninterventionist to the very day of Pearl Harbor, and an overt attempt to lead the people into war would have resulted in certain failure and an almost certain ousting of Roosevelt in 1940, with a complete defeat of his ultimate aims.”[36]Thomas A. Bailey, The Man in the Street: The Impact of American Public Opinion on Foreign Policy. (New York: 1948), pp. 11-13. Quoted in: W. H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (Indianapolis: Amagi/ Liberty Fund, 2008), p. 125.

      Prof. Bailey went on with a further justification: “A president who cannot entrust the people with the truth betrays a certain lack of faith in the basic tenets of democracy. But because the masses are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. This is clearly what Roosevelt had to do, and who shall say that posterity will not thank him for it?”

      In spite of all the rhetoric we hear about “our democracy” and “government of the people,” it seems that our leaders do not really believe that American-style democracy works as it’s supposed to. They don’t trust the people to “handle the truth.” The defenders of the Roosevelt legacy apparently believe that, at least sometimes, political leaders can and must break the law, violate the Constitution, and deliberately deceive the people for what a supposedly enlightened elite believes is in the nation’s “real” best interest, and for what it regards as a “higher” and worthy cause.

      Roosevelt set a precedent for similarly deceitful and unlawful behavior by later presidents. Senator J. William Fulbright, a prominent critic of President Lyndon Johnson’s deception and disregard for law and the Constitution during the Vietnam war remarked that “FDR’s deviousness in a good cause made it much easier for LBJ to practice the same kind of deviousness in a bad cause.”[37]Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill, 1939-1941 (New York: 1976), pp. 9, 10, 420, 421; Address by Fulbright, April 3, 1971. Published in: Congressional Record – Senate, April 14, 1971, p. 10356.
      ( https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1971-p...-1.pdf )

      “After a generation of presidential wars,” observed historian Joseph P. Lash, “it is possible to see that, in the hands of Roosevelt’s successors, the powers that he wielded as commander in chief to deploy the army, navy and air force as he deemed necessary in the national interest and to portray clashes in distant waters and skies as enemy-initiated led the nation into the Vietnam quagmire.”[38]J. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill (1976), p. 421.

      J. William Fulbright
      J. William Fulbright

      Roosevelt’s methods seem to have become firmly entrenched in modern American political life. President George W. Bush, for one, followed in Roosevelt’s path when he and other high-level officials in his administration, with support from the mainstream media, deceived the American people to make possible the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. “I used to puzzle over the question of how American democracy could be adapted to the kind of role we have come to play in the world,” Senator Fulbright said in 1971. “I think I now know the answer: it cannot be done.”[39]Address by Fulbright, April 3, 1971. Congressional Record – Senate, April 14, 1971, p. 10356.

      While many Americans today yearn for honest and ethical political leaders, transparent governence, and “real” democracy, such hopes are likely to remain elusive as long as the mainstream media, educators and politicians continue to portray Franklin Roosevelt as an exemplary President, and his administration as a paragon of leadership, while successfully suppressing or justifying his record of deceit and wrongdoing.

      Endnotes

      [1] Basil H. Liddell-Hart, The Second World War (New York: Putnam, 1971), pp. 17-22, 66; Clive Ponting, 1940: Myth and Reality (Chicago: 1993), pp. 79-80; Niall Ferguson, The War of the World (New York: Penguin, 2006), pp. 387-390; William Carr, Poland to Pearl Harbor (1986), pp. 93, 96.

      [2] Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and `The Unnecessary War’ (New York: Crown, 2008), pp. 361-366; John Charmely, Churchill’s Grand Alliance (Harcourt Brace, 1996), pp. 82-83, 178; Clive Ponting, 1940: Myth and Reality (1993), p. 124; Friedrich Stieve, What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933-1939.

      [3] Martin Gilbert, Finest Hour: Winston Churchill,1939-41 (1984), p. 358. Quoted in: Jon Meacham, Franklin and Winston (2004), p. 51; M. Hastings, Winston’s War, 1940-1945 (2010), p. 25.

      [4] Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill (1976), pp. 23-31; M. Weber, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983.

      [5] “America Gets Ready to Fight Germany, Italy, Japan,” Life, Oct. 31, 1938.
      ( http://mk.christogenea.org/content/it-was-planned-way-3-years-previously-page-1 )

      [6] Roosevelt “fireside chat” radio address of Dec. 29, 1940. ; Regarding the “Atlantic Charter,” see: William H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (1950 and 2008); Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (1975).

      [7] Roosevelt Labor Day radio address, Sept. 1, 1941.

      [8] Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill (1976), pp. 360, 415, 429; Stark memo to Secretary Hull, Oct. 8, 1941. Quoted in: J. P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill (1976), p. 426.

      [9] Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44 (1999), p. 16; Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies: The Secret Connections Between Espionage and Journalism in Washington (Prometheus, 2018), pp. 101-104; Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days (New York: Random House, 2013), p. 117; William Boyd, “The Secret Persuaders,” The Guardian (Britain), Aug. 19, 2006.

      [10] Nigel West (introduction) in: William Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (New York: 1999), pp. xi, xii.

      [11] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. xxv.

      [12] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. xxxvi, xxxiii.

      [13] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 16.

      [14] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 14.

      [15] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 58, 59.

      [16] Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), esp. pp. 135-140, 325-327; P. J. Grisar, “Sharks Defending Britain From Nazis? How ‘Fake News’ Helped Foil Hitler,” Forward, Oct. 22, 2018; Menachem Wecker, “The true story of a Jewish news agency that peddled fake news to undo Hitler.” Religion News Service, October 1, 2018

      [17] Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), p. 135.

      [18] S. T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 138-139, 326 (n.).

      [19] Larry Getlen, “The Fake News That Pushed US Into WWII,” New York Post, Oct. 3, 2019, pp. 20-21.

      [20] S. T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), p. 142.

      [21] Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 139, 326 (n.); Menachem Wecker, “The true story of a Jewish news agency that peddled fake news to undo Hitler.” RNS, Oct. 1, 2018

      [22] Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception (1999), pp. 70-86; S. T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 113-116, 154-155; W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 81-84.

      [23] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 59, 60, 61.

      [24] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 68.

      [25] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 69.

      [26] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 74.

      [27] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 74, 80; T. E. Mahl, Desperate Deception (1999), pp. 107-135; Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 119-127; Christopher Woolf, “How Britain Tried to Influence the US Election in 1940,” PRI, Jan. 17, 2017.

      [28] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 102.

      [29] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 102-103, 104; S. T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), p. 139.

      [30] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), p. 103.

      [31] W. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination (1999), pp. 104, 105, 107, 109; Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies (2018), pp. 102, 140, 145-148.

      [32] Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44 (1999), pp. 16, 193; Michael Williams, “FDR’s Confidential Crusader,” Warfare History Network. Jan. 17, 2019.

      [33] John F. Bratzel, Leslie B. Rout, Jr., “FDR and The ‘Secret Map’,” The Wilson Quarterly (Washington, DC), New Year’s 1985, pp. 167-173; Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), pp. 602, 603, 801 (notes); Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s `Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985.

      [34] “The Reich Government’s Reply To Roosevelt’s Navy Day Speech,” The New York Times, Nov. 2, 1941; Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945. Series D, Vol. XIII, (Washington, DC: 1954), pp. 724-725 (Doc. No. 439 of Nov. 1, 1941).

      [35] Joseph Goebbels, “Kreuzverhör mit Mr. Roosevelt,” Das Reich, Nov. 30, 1941. Nachdruck (reprint) in Das eherne Herz (1943), pp. 99-104. English translation: “Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined.”
      ( http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb2.htm )

      [36] Thomas A. Bailey, The Man in the Street: The Impact of American Public Opinion on Foreign Policy. (New York: 1948), pp. 11-13. Quoted in: W. H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (Indianapolis: Amagi/ Liberty Fund, 2008), p. 125.

      [37] Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill, 1939-1941 (New York: 1976), pp. 9, 10, 420, 421; Address by Fulbright, April 3, 1971. Published in: Congressional Record – Senate, April 14, 1971, p. 10356.
      ( https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1971-pt8/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1971-pt8-4-1.pdf )

      [38] J. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill (1976), p. 421.

      [39] Address by Fulbright, April 3, 1971. Congressional Record – Senate, April 14, 1971, p. 10356.

      Bibliography / For Further Reading

      Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008

      Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. Institute for Historical Review, 1993

      William Boyd, “The Secret Persuaders,” The Guardian (Britain), August 19, 2006.
      ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/19/military.secondworldwar )

      John F. Bratzel and Leslie B. Rout, Jr., “FDR and The ‘Secret Map’,” The Wilson Quarterly (Washington, DC), New Year’s 1985 (Vol. 9, No. 1), pp. 167-173.

      Anthony Cave Brown, The Last Hero: Wild Bill Donovan. New York: Times Books, 1982

      Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and `The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. New York: Crown, 2008.

      William H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade. Chicago: 1950; Indianapolis: 2008

      John Charmley, Churchill’s Grand Alliance: The Anglo-American Special Relationship, 1940-1957. Harvest/ Harcourt Brace, 1995.

      Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory. Arlington House, 1975

      David Cole, “Tyler Kent and the Roosevelt Whistle-Blow Job,” Taki’s Mag, Nov. 19, 2019.
      ( https://www.takimag.com/article/tyler-kent-and-the-roosevelt-whistle-blow-job/ )

      Jennet Conant, The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington. Simon & Schuster, 2008.

      Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

      Hunter DeRensis, “The Campaign to Lie America Into World War II,” The American Conservative, December 7, 2019
      ( https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-campaign-to-lie-america-into-world-war-ii/ )

      Larry Getlen, “The Fake News That Pushed US Into WWII,” New York Post, Oct. 3, 2019.
      ( https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/the-fake-news-that-pushed-us-into-world-war-ii/ )

      P. J. Grisar, “Sharks Defending Britain From Nazis? How ‘Fake News’ Helped Foil Hitler,” Forward, Oct. 22, 2018.
      ( https://forward.com/culture/412422/sharks-defending-britain-from-nazis-how-fake-news-helped-foil-hitler/ )

      Henry Hemming, Agents of Influence: A British Campaign, a Canadian Spy, and the Secret Plot to Bring America into World War II. PublicAffairs, 2019.

      Robert Higgs, “Truncating the Antecedents: How Americans Have Been Misled About World War II.” March 18, 2008.
      ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html )

      Herbert C. Hoover, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath (George H. Nash, ed.). Stanford University, 2011.

      David Ignatius, “Britain’s War in America: How Churchill’s Agents Secretly Manipulated the U.S. Before Pearl Harbor, The Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1989, pp. C-1, C-2.

      Tyler Kent, “The Roosevelt Legacy and The Kent Case.” The Journal for Historical Review. Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pages 173-203. With Introduction by Mark Weber.
      ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p173_Kent.html )

      Warren F. Kimball, The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman. Princeton University Press, 1991

      Charles C. Kolb. Review of: W. S. Stephenson, ed., British Security Coordination: The Secret History of British Intelligence in the Americas 1940-1945. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. December 1999.
      ( http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=3623 )

      Thomas E. Mahl, Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44. Brassey’s, 1999.

      Jerome O’Connor, “FDR’s Undeclared War,” Naval History (U.S. Naval Institute), Feb. 1, 2004.
      ( http://historyarticles.com/undeclared-war/ )

      Joseph E. Persico, Roosevelt’s Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage. Random House, 2001.

      “The Reich Government’s Reply To Roosevelt’s Navy Day Speech,” The New York Times, Nov. 2, 1941. ( http://ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/411101a.html )

      Bruce M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II. New York: Harper & Row, 1972

      Friedrich Stieve. What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933- 1939.
      ( http://ihr.org/other/what-the-world-rejected.html )

      Steven T. Usdin, Bureau of Spies: The Secret Connections Between Espionage and Journalism in Washington. Prometheus, 2018

      Steve Usdin, “When a Foreign Government Interfered in a U.S. Election – In 1940, by Britain,” Politico, Jan. 16, 2017.
      ( https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-foreign-government-interfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634 )

      Mark Weber, “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two.” May 2008.
      ( http://www.ihr.org/news/weber_ww2_may08.html )

      Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s `Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp. 125-127.
      ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html )

      Menachem Wecker, “The true story of a Jewish news agency that peddled fake news to undo Hitler.” Religion News Service, October 1, 2018
      ( https://religionnews.com/2018/10/01/the-true-story-of-a-jewish-news-agency-that-peddled-fake-news-to-undo-hitler/ )

      Michael Williams, “FDR’s Confidential Crusader,” Warfare History Network. Jan. 17, 2019.
      ( https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2019/01/22/fdrs-confidential-crusader-2/ )

      Christopher Woolf, “How Britain Tried to Influence the US Election in 1940,” Public Radio International, January 17, 2017
      ( https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-17/how-britain-tried-influence-us-election-1940 )

      (Republished from Institute for Historical Review by permission of author or representative)
       
      Hide 144 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
        []
      1. onebornfree says: • Website

        “While many Americans today yearn for honest and ethical political leaders, transparent governence, and “real” democracy, such hopes are likely to remain elusive as long as the mainstream media, educators and politicians continue to portray Franklin Roosevelt as an exemplary President, and his administration as a paragon of leadership, while successfully suppressing or justifying his record of deceit and wrongdoing.”

        True, as far as it goes. But it needs to go further.

        Until enough people come to realize that :

        “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt  criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” …….

         ….then there is very little reason to believe that the criminality of a Roosevelt, [or whomever] can be effectively prevented.

        “This Power Elite directly employs several millions of the country´s working force in its factories, offices and stores, controls many millions more by lending them the money to buy its products, and, through its ownership of the media of mass communication, influences the thoughts, the feelings and the actions of virtually everybody. To parody the words of W. Churchill, never have so many been manipulated so much by few.” Aldous Huxley

        Regards, onebornfree

        • Replies: @Moi
      2. President Roosevelt did everything he could to get America into the global conflict without actually declaring war. He proceeded with caution and cunning, because his measures were often contrary to US law, and without Congressional or Constitutional mandate. Roosevelt also acted with ever more brazen disregard for international law and America’s legal standing as a neutral country.

        He sent US Marines to occupy Iceland despite objections from that peaceful nation’s government.

      3. Good work by Mr. Weber. The British collusion and infiltration during World War II is almost as infuriating as the Communist/Soviet one, but gets even less attention. Even though one would expect all of this to be first page news material.

        Indeed, perhaps the most shocking abuse by the Roosevelt administration in this connection is not actually brought up in this article, but only alluded to in the bibliography. That would be the treatment of whistleblower Tyler Kent, a foreign service official stationed in London who tried to get the news out on FDR’s flatly illegal dealings with Churchill all the way back in 1940 (which would have cost him the election, and possibly meant impeachment). The British chekists arrested Kent, and FDR canceled his diplomatic immunity. He was tried Star Chamber style in a secret military court, and essentially given the Guantanamo treatment.

        To repeat: FDR not only allowed, but actually encouraged a foreign actor to secretly and illegally imprison an American diplomat to cover up a domestic political scandal. Can anyone imagine the screeching we would still be hearing from the media today if it had been, say, Nixon who did this? Yet almost no one has heard of Tyler Kent. And of those who have, most only shrug. After all, it was for a good cause…….

        https://www.takimag.com/article/tyler-kent-and-the-roosevelt-whistle-blow-job/

        • Agree: Orville H. Larson
        • Thanks: eah
        • Replies: @fnn
      4. Today, a warm-and-fuzzy aura surrounds St. Franklin of Roosevelt. He’s regarded as the guy who got us out of the Depression, the guy who kicked the Axis Powers’ asses, blah blah blah. He did this, he did that, he did the other thing.

        Crap.

        In reality, Roosevelt was an accomplished bullshit artist. The Depression? Unemployment was higher in 1938 than it was when he took office in 1933. His administration spawned the huge federal government and expansion of federal power we’re laboring under today. In foreign policy, he was antagonistic toward Japan and Germany, to the point of ignoring potential diplomatic solutions. Then again, Roosevelt was doing everything he could to involve his country in the war, so it didn’t matter anyway. . . .

        • Agree: Carolyn Yeager, turtle, Wally
        • Replies: @Moi
        , @eah
      5. Mark Weber strikingly avoids mention of FDR’s engineering of the Pearl Harbor attack. I wonder why.

        • Replies: @Just Passing Through
      6. Anonymous[198] • Disclaimer says:

        Americans blame “the Brits” for all their problems, especially historically speaking. All the atrocities the settlers committed against the native Americans as well as slavery is typically blamed on “the Brits”.

        British people who think Americans are their allies are clueless, the attitude of the American people is one of the most anti-British in the world, their whole sense of identity and nationhood is built on being anti-British.

        • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
        , @Trinity
      7. sally says:

        Using the nation state as a weapon to accomplish a trade deal, is not bull shit, its leg breaking gangsterism.
        The humanity trapped within the nations states of many nations on both sides in world war I and II were made to sign up to die for the benefit of no one but the global mobsters.

        But whatever you call it, such activity models the Trump operations of today..arming armies willing to kill people in places like Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Venezuela and elsewhere and starving to death by sanctions the people in nations in order to bring about regime change or to take over, or to privatize an entire nation state has no interest to Americans. Domestic America is in shambles; its people are becoming less and less educated, while the USA spends American $s overseas to support mobsters and their global businesses.
        Lying to the American people to get elected <= I personally attended two Trump lie-ins (campaigns) .

        Just now i was listening to big mouth telling India all of the reasons and benefits to India in allowing the USA to trade with India. But what I did not hear, was anything that would matter to most private every day Americans. Already the USA has denied Americans the ability to buy and use Huawei [Huawei Honor View V20 PCT-L29 Smartphone from the Global version on T-Mobile network] because the mobsters don't own the Huawei patents <=the mobsters cannot make the Chinese pay royalties on phones they produce and sell.

        Trumps speech is India, is just one more peg in the understanding that most Americans already have : "if you are an American don't you dare try to start a business and compete in the marketplace, your place as an American is to work for one these giant feudal lords the USA supports, these people are in the global business, so slave American, go to school and get loaded up with debt so you have to work for the global mobsters". The difference between America, American and the needs and wants of everyday Americans is 180 degrees out of phase with the things the elected, salaried few who operate the USA concentrate their efforts on. The USA could not even keep Epstein <=safe, in their jail. Politicians are not representatives elected to represent Americans, they are persons appointed to attend to the affairs of the mobsters. and the article by Marx Weber makes that very very clear.

        • Agree: Moi
        • Thanks: Nonny Mouse
        • Replies: @Anonymous
      8. gotmituns says:

        The filthy bum, FDR got us involved in WWII, a war that meant nothing to us but a lot to the jewish bankers.

        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
      9. Jane Doe says:

        General Patton was right. America should have allied with Hitler and together fought communist Russia.

        • Agree: anarchyst, Robert Dolan
        • Replies: @annamaria
      10. @Nonny Mouse

        Perhaps because that particular episode requires its own article, and the topic of this article was the collision between Britain and the US to soften up the American public for war against Hitler’s Germany?

      11. Mark Weber, where have I seen that name before?

        Same guy that stole IHR?

        • Replies: @Wally
      12. Anonymous[389] • Disclaimer says:
        @sally

        India trading with the USA would mean “don’t you dare buy Huawei” products, etc just as Trump is trying to bully the UK to do right now, white refusing to refusing to extradite CIA agent Anne Sacoolas.

        Trump is bad news for everyone, not just Americans.

        • Replies: @Wally
      13. DR3 says:

        Tom Fleming’s “The New Dealer’s War” is an excellent book on this topic.

        • Agree: Orville H. Larson
      14. anastasia says:

        Today, virtually everyone knows it is fake news Back then, only 1/2 the country knew it was fake news.

      15. Thanks for this very informative article. The hand of British influence is still very much involved in the US today. As much as some media pundits push the notion that the British are “lapdogs” for the US, I think it is just the opposite. Even the US policies in Venezuela, Iran and the Middle East smack of the imperial ambitions of the British. Why the US allows this is truly the crime of the century.

        • Replies: @mark green
      16. Chuckywiz says:

        I always wonder why Stalin hid all that information about holocaust and let the Zionists (not Jews, in my opinion these are two different groups) run with fakery. Why him and USSR were so pissed at Germany. I had put the same questions to several of my European and Russian friends. Any references?

      17. @Anonymous

        I would say that this and many other articles here make it quite clear that the British people and the American people share a common foe who has gone to great lengths to deceive them into needless and destructive wars, look at the state of both nations today.

        • Replies: @annamaria
      18. fnn says:
        @John Regan

        You forgot to mention that this was when Churchill was still First Lord of the Admiralty. FDR and Churchill were plotting behind the PM’s back.

        • Replies: @John Regan
        , @gregor
      19. Roosevelt knew to the minute when Japan would hit Pearl Harbor, read the book Day of Deceit by Robert Sinnett a retired naval officer, it is a documented book front to back, can be had on amazon.

        • Agree: Arnieus
        • Replies: @Arnieus
      20. Wally says:
        @Anti_barabas_ite

        “Stole” not.

        You mean the guy who was awarded the IHR by court decision.

        However, we do realize that you do not like the article.

      21. Wally says:
        @Anonymous

        Maybe Bolshevik Bernie is your guy.

        Which of the current candidates do you prefer over Trump & why?

        Trump in a landslide, get used too it.

      22. Jake says:

        Of course the Brit WASPs played endless spy games not just to get the US into WW2, but to make sure there was a WW2. The Brit WASPs played the same endless spy games to get the US into W1.

        Did those actions help or hurt the vast majority of white Americans? Did they help or hurt the vast majority of whites native to the British Isles? Did they help or hurt the vast majority of white Australians and Canadians?

        So how is WASP culture good for the vast majority of whites? It is obvious how it is great for the WASP Elites and for Jews. WASP rule clearly elevates blacks way beyond what they could ever do for themselves. WASP global hegemony is excellent for Arabic Mohammedans.

        But what is the case for WASP culture being good for the clear majority of whites its rules?

        • Troll: Trinity
      23. Trinity says:
        @Anonymous

        The British people are okay, but face it, the Jew has ran Britain for how long now? Whenever I get a little melancholy thinking about our situation here in America, I count my blessings that I am not in Europe or Canada, where you people are even more cuckold to political correctness. Hell, while visiting Glasgow, Scotland, a local lad said I looked like a Cockney. At first I thought he was calling me something like a “cawk” or maybe a “cawksucker.” haha. Well, after finding out what a Cockney was, I am not so sure that I prefer that over “cawksucker.” lolol. Only kidding. The everyday British people are A-OK, the people who rule Britain just like the other European leaders and our leaders over here, well, for the most part they are huge “cawksuckers.”

        Back to bidness. When I look at that picture featuring those 3 “cawksuckers” Cuckhill, FDR, and the little dwarf Stalin, God only knows where their collective souls rest today. I know not everyone believes in an afterlife or a God, a Devil, a Heaven or a Hell, but I sincerely think there is one. How many times have you heard that Hitler is in Hell? Hmm, we don’t know where Hitler is, because IF anyone really knows the TRUE story of WWII it is the all seeing, the all knowing, the Almighty. Remember the sendoffs that John McCain and Pappy Bush received? Everyone was talking about how they were going to Heaven to join all the other saints. So many funerals and so many people going to Heaven, ever see a funeral where the pastor suggests the deceased was a piece of scum who probably took the elevator down instead of up? haha. Do you think IF there is a just and righteous God, that he would let people like Cuckhill, FDR, Stalin, and Pappy Bush through the Pearly Gates?

        • Replies: @Z-man
      24. TGD says:

        The simple truth is that Hitler declared war on the United States after his ally, Japan, attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not British meddling that propelled the USA into WW2.

        Many speculate that if Hitler had not declared war, the USA would only wage war against Japan.

        The declaration of war against the USA was Hitler’s biggest blunder. Many top ranking German military officers were dumbfounded by this action.

      25. Z-man says:

        The current era British MI6 hoax of Russian poisoning of ‘British’ residents in England goes hat in hand with this article.
        The anti Russian Judaic globalist strain is strong in the UK.

        • Replies: @Desert Fox
        , @Lorain
      26. Mefobills says:

        Politics is Economics by other methods.

        War is invoked when economic interests collide and politics cannot resolve.

        Politicians are maneuvered by string pullers.

        String pullers are privateers who made their money with usury and deception.

        String pullers then pass hypnosis through their owned press and secret-societies.

        Any libertarian free-dumb ideas about the fabric of reality, is belied by actual history.

        The entire WW1 and WW2 fiasco was a function of maneuvering behind the scenes, especially by the Milner group.

        Milner group was formed as Cecil Rhodes round table, funded by Rhodes/Oppenheimer money stolen by slave labor as gold/diamonds dug out of the ground in South Africa. Rothschild funded Rhodes initial activities.

        The round table was created on Jesuit principles (also Jewish method) of an inner ring of the select, and an outer ring of the helpers. The inner ring included members of the press, and money men.

        Sound familiar to today? Nothing has really changed, as populations are easy to dupe and control.

        This group has been implanting its operatives into key positions to then maneuver the polity with bribes, compromat, or whatever it takes … including world war. Secret services like MI6 got their start when BOE took over the British East India Company soon after BOE was formed.

        Man is a rent seeking animal, and rentiers soon think of themselves as god… especially if they have some sort of ideology that allows self-aggrandizement.

        Note that it is always democracies that are easily string pulled by the puppeteers. Democracies are inherently weak, as a population can be duped by the press radicalizing the population using emotion (babies on bayonettes, etc.) Hereditary Kings are often easy for the cabal to maneuver as said kings do not have sanctioned power by the electorate.

        My opinion: It takes a constitutional king (who is elected) and has checks and balances on his behavior to overcome privateer and Oligarchic interests. Hungary’s constitutional kingdom lasted for nearly 1000 years.

        The Corbett Report does a good job of exposing the privateers who are the real movers and shakers in history. Follow the money.

        I recommend watching part 1,2, and 3:

        • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
      27. @fnn

        You’re quite right, I could have elaborated more on that dimension. In this case, I suppose I wanted to emphasize the atrocious treatment of an American Foreign Service officer, rather than the globalist meddling in Britain’s internal affairs.

        Perhaps I should say, unlike some of the more La Rouche-inspired posters around here, I have considerable sympathy for Britain and the dire fate she suffered in Churchill’s hands. Americans all too rarely acknowledge that Britain was herself among the greatest victims of World War II. FDR and the globalists gutted the British Empire and forced “free” trade and racial equality on them that essentially reduced the British to vassalage. From world superpower to bankruptcy estate in ten years… no wonder Ian Fleming was bitter.

        On this topic is to be recommended “Churchill’s Grand Alliance” by the paleoconservative British historian John Charmley. His earlier books “Chamberlain and the Lost Peace” and “Churchill: The Price of Glory” are also essential reading for a necessary correction of the popular images of “Bad” Neville Chamberlain and “Good” Winston Churchill.

        • Replies: @Mefobills
        , @Malla
      28. Mefobills says:
        @John Regan

        FDR and the globalists gutted the British Empire and forced “free” trade and racial equality on them

        Partly true.

        America did take advantage of England post WW2, especially with the dollar loan. This dollar loan converted sterling zones into dollar zones.

        At that point, American industry moved into former British colonies that held debt notes against the former British empire. These sterling debts could have been satisfied with British made goods, instead they were satisfied with American goods. Britain continued to make bombers and pretend she was still a world power, rather than become a provider of goods and services. To this day, the city of London still runs things behind the scenes.

        Post WW2 former British Sterling Zones converted into Dollar Zones due to “dollarization” with the post war loan, and then Bretton Woods.

        If you watch Corbett Report, which I posted above, you will come to understand that the actual line of causality runs from Britain toward America due to secret society maneuvers.

        Also, Britain handed off Atlantacist method to the U.S. post WW2, as by that time, the banksters had fully taken over the U.S. … the Republic was no more.

      29. @TGD

        I think Hitler assumed that Japan would comply and attack Russian forces in Siberia who were moving to defend Moscow. For unknown reasons, the Japanese did not, and even allowed Russian ships (provided by the USA) to ship lend-lease aid to Vladivostok unharmed.

        • Replies: @Johnny Rico
        , @Sparkon
      30. @Wally

        Haha, No TrumpWall-Wally, stuck to his usual and regular sophomoric routine, and once again pretending to be a tribe’polltaker, haha, this time he selected Anonymous, asked: “Which of the current candidates do you prefer over Trump & why?”

        🤣.

        Ideally Anonymous avoids Likud Rabbi.Wally. more than he would Coronovirus because Wallstein put on his Edgar Cayce hat & proclaimed;
        “Trump in a landslide, get used too it.” Greater 🇮🇱/Down with 🇺🇸.

        Linked down below. and along with this article’s author,😴 anyone can see how billionaire money trumps your vote; be you either zionized Democrat or zionized Republican.

        Makes slim difference to the small volume of Americans who will cast enthusiastic votes now & up to election day, 🙌 so I ask: “Which oligarch/billionaire 2020 backed ZUS presidential candidate do you plan to support this year?😲

        https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/meet-the-billionaires-bankrolling-the-presidential-election

        • Replies: @Wally
        , @Johnny Walker Read
      31. Mefobills says:

        FDR and the globalists gutted the British Empire and forced “free” trade and racial equality on them that essentially reduced the British to vassalage

        British became vassals in 1694 with advent of BOE. This was the first debt spreading bank to host a country, and this method has now spread world wide.

        Our (((friends))) figured out this method during the Levantine Greek period, where they used shipping to move pirated goods from port to port.

        In those days, silver was the “international money” to buy luxury items and goods in various ports ringing the Mediterranean.

        Note that it is money and goods movement. 1) Money and Goods movement by Caravan by the tribe across the middle east. 2) Money and Goods movement around the Mediterranean, especially using the Greek people as a host. 3) Money and Goods movement in Amsterdamn using the Dutch as host…. stock market capital invented. 4) Britain becomes the host shortly after 1694 with debt spreading stock owned bank. 5) The Parasite jumps to America fully by 1912

        The parasite always attaches itself to a sea-faring power.

        The U.S. is only the latest manifestation of being a host.

      32. Z-man says:
        @Trinity

        Good post.
        John McCain ‘McNuts’ should be on the top of the list roasting his ‘nuts’ in Hell.

        • Agree: Trinity
        • Replies: @Desert Fox
        , @Trinity
      33. anon[147] • Disclaimer says:
        @TGD

        Give you credit for one word, anyway — “simple.”

        did you even read Mark Weber’s essay?

        • Replies: @Johnny Rico
        , @TGD
      34. @Carlton Meyer

        Comply with what? The Japanese and Germans didn’t have any deal on the issue. And your use of the word “assumed” there is really, really problematic. You realize what we are discussing here, right?

        Japan and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact in April 1941. So, yeah, we do know why.

      35. annamaria says:
        @NoseytheDuke

        “…a common foe who has gone to great lengths to deceive them into needless and destructive wars…”
        — But the truth must be hidden. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-02-21-revealed-chief-magistrate-in-assange-case-received-financial-benefits-from-secretive-partner-organisations-of-uk-foreign-office/
        Here is how the anti-Assange sausage has been made through the cooperation between the mega war-profiteers who have been demanding the Wars for Israel, the zionzied AEI, and the Friends of Israel in the UK:

        Assange had never been charged with a crime, and in May 2017 the Swedish proceedings had been discontinued along with the European Arrest Warrant.

        Lady Arbuthnot’s rulings: Lady Arbuthnot’s husband is a key figure in the British military and intelligence establishment — a highly controversial issue given that Lady Arbuthnot has made rulings in the Assange case and continues to oversee it as chief magistrate. …

        …in 2012, he [Lord Arbuthnot] was chair of parliament’s Defence Committee. Arbuthnot was then also a member of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy and chair of Conservative Friends of Israel.

        Lord Arbuthnot was from 2016-17 a director of SC Strategy, a consultancy created by Sir John Scarlett, the former head of MI6 who had been behind the “dodgy dossier” used by Tony Blair to push for war with Iraq.

        Lady Arbuthnot has refused to formally recuse herself from the Assange case. …

        Declassified recently revealed how the AEI, which has a strongly anti-Assange position, has been courting British ministers for years.

        The AEI serves at the pleasure of zionists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

        Mearsheimer and Walt state that “pro-Israel figures have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute.

        More: https://solidarity-us.org/atc/107/p506/

        Lady and Lord Arbuthnot the Mega-Scoundrels:

        • Agree: Alfred
      36. I think he has the causation backwards. Sure, Churchill and the Brits worked hard to help the US get into the war, but it was a war that FDR pushed the Brits to get into. The Brits provoked WW1 to take down Germany as a rival; The Americans pushed Britain into WW2 to take Britain down as a rival.

        • Agree: utu
        • Replies: @Mefobills
      37. annamaria says:
        @Jane Doe

        You mean, American Jewish banksters should have allied with German Jewish banksters against the country of the victorious Bolshevik revolution accomplished thanks to considerable financial support from American & German Jewish banksters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country

        The defeat of several proletarian revolutions in countries like Germany and Hungary ended Bolsheviks’ hopes for an imminent world revolution and began promotion of socialism in one country by Joseph Stalin.

      38. Trinity says:
        @Z-man

        Yes sir, death is the great equalizer. Right, wrong or indifferent, these guys were nothing more than flesh and blood, and just as dead as some nameless homeless guy found dead on the streets. The way the (((establishment))) carried on when Pappy Bush and John McCain died was crazy. I mean how many funerals did each guy have? Seems like each of these guys had a funeral a day for a week. Funny thing though, I never see a U-haul behind a hearse, so these celebrated and decorated men died and carried nothing with them to the afterlife but their TRUE life history. There won’t be fake news, a publicist, a “celebrity,” or some corrupt politician reading from a prepared script to tell how great these guys all were and help cover their crimes against humanity when they stand before the Almighty. I am sure the TRUTH all comes out in the end and all those who ruled on Earth are definitely not going to rule over God or the other guy downstairs. Life here is very short, and one should definitely consider how they will end up in retirement.

        • Agree: Z-man
        • Replies: @Alfred
      39. Moi says:
        @onebornfree

        There will be no redemption for America because it has sunk (willingly!) too deep into the swamp

      40. Moi says:
        @Orville H. Larson

        A patrician man, FDR probably felt the sweaty masses were incapable of making the right choices.

      41. kikl says:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_(DD-145)

        USS Greer (DD–145) was a Wickes-class destroyer in the United States Navy, the first ship named for Rear Admiral James A. Greer (1833–1904). In what became known as the “Greer incident,” she became the first US Navy ship to fire on a German ship, three months before the United States officially entered World War II. The incident led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to issue what became known as his “shoot-on-sight” order. Roosevelt publicly confirmed the “shoot on sight” order on 11 September 1941, effectively declaring naval war against Germany and Italy in the Battle of the Atlantic.

        So the war against Germany began on September 11, 1941. The war did not begin with a “declaration of war” on December 11, 1941.

        If you want to know how Roosevelt lied to the US public about the Greer incident, just read it on Wikipedia. It is a fascinating story.

        So was Ribbentrop lying, when he wrote this letter in order to end diplomatic relations with the US?

        On December 11, 1941, American Chargé d’Affaires Leland B. Morris, the highest ranking American diplomat in Germany, was summoned to Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop’s office where Ribbentrop read Morris the formal declaration.[12] The text was:

        MR. CHARGE D’AFFAIRES:

        The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

        On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

        Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

        The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

        Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

        The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

        Accept, Mr. Charge d’Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

        December 11, 1941.

        RIBBENTROP.[13]”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States

        I wonder why the “Greer incident” didn’t find its way into the German and American school books about history that I read as a teenager…

      42. CanSpeccy says: • Website

        There’s been nothing secret about Churchill’s efforts to get the US into WW2 since publication of Churchill’s six volume The Second World War (1948-1952).

        As for:

        In a dramatic July 19, 1940, appeal for an end to the conflict, he stressed that his proposal did not in any way harm vital British interests or violate British honor. This offer was also rejected, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill vowed to continue the war.

        the reason is obvious. Hitler wanted to move East and drive the Russians beyond the Urals (“here is my empire” as Otto von Bismarck had put it, while pointing to a map of Eastern Europe), and the last thing Hitler needed was a second battle front at his rear. Hence the promise, entirely worthless, to respect British interests.

        Only fools would have been taken in by it. With Russia occupied, Germany would rule most of the European continent, and with the resources of both Russia and the rest of Europe, including hundreds of millions of subject peoples from whom to raise conscript armies, Germany would naturally then have turned on England and over-run the British Empire (that is why, during WW2, Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of the Indian independence movement, was much less pro-British than he had been during WW1 (even though by 1939 Britain was committed to Indian independence). That’s because he knew India could fall into German hands, and he didn’t wish to be shot — something Hitler had years before urged the British to do.

        With Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan allied (since 1936) against Russia upon whom the Western allies were absolutely dependent for success in war with Germany, the US was bound to intervene on Britain’s side, else face the prospect of a monstrous German/Japanese global hegemony.

        The only question was how to engineer American intervention in a way that made it acceptable to the US population. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor solved that problem for Rooseveldt.

        • LOL: Wally
        • Replies: @kikl
      43. eah says:
        @Orville H. Larson

        His administration spawned the huge federal government and expansion of federal power we’re laboring under today.

        One could suggest/argue the Cold War and bipolar world that emerged in the aftermath of WWII is more responsible for that — see e.g. the Eisenhower valedictory (“the military-industrial complex”).

      44. Wally says:
        @ChuckOrloski

        – Same question for you, Comrade Chuck:

        Which of the current candidates do you prefer over Trump & why?

        Millionaire Communist Bernie Sanders owns THREE homes:
        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8025835/Take-peak-best-known-millionaire-socialist-Bernie-Sanders-three-homes.html

        • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
      45. @Mefobills

        Or does it take an autocrat who is not elected, is immune to lobbies and special interest groups? It was the earliest autocrats in Sumer who forgave all debts. They needed a happy country. Ghaddafi was doing a wonderful job for his people, free health care, independent currency etc., the very reasons the USA had to destroy him and his country.

        • Replies: @Mefobills
      46. kikl says:
        @CanSpeccy

        “Hitler wanted to move East and drive the Russians beyond the Urals…”

        That’s wrong. Hitler attacked the USSR because a Russian attack on Germany was imminent. The war against Russia was a preemptive war and both Roosevelt and Churchill were well aware of this.

        The rest of your post is a mixture of war propaganda and psychological projection. Hitler never aspired to have a world empire like the UK or the US. Imaginary wars and irrational fears do not justify preemptive warfare, because then any offensive war were justified. Only imminent threats do.

        • Replies: @CanSpeccy
        , @Greg S.
      47. @anon

        I can’t say anything good about Mark Weber’s 7800 words. It is a hack-job of history. Cherry-picking, willful negligence, and outright absurdities.

        Why would Britain accept a peace deal? They were not defeated. Resources? Britain had access to all the oil in the world. Germany did not. This was gasoline war.

        Ask me if I read it? Your comment is lazy ad hominem.

        • Replies: @KA
        , @james charles
      48. Mefobills says:
        @The Alarmist

        I think he has the causation backwards. Sure, Churchill and the Brits worked hard to help the US get into the war, but it was a war that FDR pushed the Brits to get into. The Brits provoked WW1 to take down Germany as a rival; The Americans pushed Britain into WW2 to take Britain down as a rival.

        The banksters all worked together. It was English, and French and to a small degree German private banking interests allied with American privateer banking interests.

        These banking interests in turn owned industry through debt instruments and outright ownership.

        This “network” of finance then maneuvered the U.S. into forming a money trust. If you follow Senator Aldrich back in time, he spent a long time in Europe working out the (((Plan)).

        The PUJO committee was commissioned by the House of Representatives, in order to understand the Cabal’s maneuvers. This is not speculation, but is documented facts.

        The U.S. became part of Anglo-Zionist interests fully after 1912. Zion especially wanted war in Europe in order to gain Palestine. Other interests dovetailed. For example, English finance had come to the realization they could not compete with Germany’s industrial capitalism. Churchill has admitted that this was the real reason for war.

        Sorry… England and Zion started the war. England has long been parasitized. The U.S. is now host to the same parasite.

        With regards to FDR, he also had many Zionists surrounding him. In 1912, then WW1 and WW2 can be seen as the transition point when the U.S. became a democracy (not a republic) and under thrall to monied interests. The case of British transition goes back further in time to 1694.

        So, lets please stop the blame game. Both countries and now much of the west is under ZOG control.

        It all begins and ends with the money system. Humans are directed by prices and money. As soon as the money power is privatized, then string pullers are amplified. This levering of power means that a very small group of psychopaths can maneuver the polity. Earlier, I identify who the string pullers were.

        https://publicintelligence.net/pujo-committee-money-trust-wall-street-banking-cartel-investigation-1912-1913/

      49. Mefobills says:
        @Nonny Mouse

        Or does it take an autocrat who is not elected, is immune to lobbies and special interest groups?

        That can work too.

        Bottom line: The elites have to work for their people, and not for themselves.

        It doesn’t matter what color the cat is, as long as he catches mice.

        In the U.S the Elites work for themselves, and in many cases, they are “international” with dual passports. They don’ t look like the people they represent, and have no fealty toward the deplorables, who they want to milk.

        Nothing good can come from this arrangement.

        Picking people at random from the phone book would produce a better ruling class than the current elite.

        In the Hungarian case, the King always represented the population at large.

        • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
      50. Meaculpa says:

        Excellent article. The way this filthy old cripple us lionized circa now just drives me bat shit. Wilson, Johnson and The Cripple are the biggest villains of the Twentieth century, full stop.

        • Replies: @Mefobills
      51. CanSpeccy says: • Website
        @kikl

        That’s wrong. Hitler attacked the USSR because a Russian attack on Germany was imminent. The war against Russia was a preemptive war and both Roosevelt and Churchill were well aware of this.

        LOL. Apparently Stalin was the only person who didn’t know Russia was planning a pre-emptive war on Germany. Or you read Stephen Kotkin’s two volume biography of Stalin and found proof of Stalin’s intention — maybe in secret invisible ink footnotes.

        Why is it so many Unzite know the historical reality without knowing any evidence for itÉ

        • Troll: L.K
        • Replies: @kikl
      52. Pft says:

        FDR was pulling the strings before Churchill came to power. He promised Chamberlain US support if war broke out which led him to issue guarantees to Poland should war break out with Germany. The US ambassador to Poland was also promising US support. This led Poland to take a hardline with Germany and not negotiate in good faith over the return of Danzig which had a predominantly German population.

        So the war began over Poland, thanks to FDR manipulations. Churchill was just a Zionist backed puppet. In the end, the war over Poland had the US and British taking in one of Polands invaders (Stalin) as their chief ally. In the end, despite victory, somehow half the worlds population ended up under Communist control, including Poland. The British were bankrupt and finished as a World Power. Yay Churchill.
        But hey, Churchill got his backers Israel.

        FDR recognized Uncle Joe in 1933 which opened up trade and allowed Stalin to begin building up his war machine which he planned to use against Europe. Meanwhile US corporations were helping Germany rebuild through cartel agreements that FDR did nothing to stop.

        FDR also engineered the war with Japan, supposedly over Manchuria and China.so the War for China against Japan ended up with China also communists. Stalin was arming the Communists in China while Truman suspended aid to our ally the Nationalists (CKS). So China also ended up Communists.

        Boy, with victories like this I wonder what losing looks like.

        The silver lining is we established the USD as the worlds reserve currency , occupied Germany and Japan permanently, got a Cold War to feed the MIC, and a short war in Korea and another occupation (South Korea), and of course Israel which would allow for us many wars in the Middle East after the cold war. Gotta keep feeding the MIC machine.

        FDR, got to hand it to him. 70 million dead and billions under communist rule. But we got an American Empire and Israel out of it. New Deal followed by New World Order. Who said it would be easy?

      53. The US is a fairly young country on this planet which has assembled a very strong defensive and offensive forces in a very short period of time. The first phase for displaying its power the US got involved in its territorial wars until it was established. Then it became involved in the international wars starting in early 1900 by being manipulated. The US elected officials and of course the Americans themselves have been and still are so naive politically and subject to manipulation by others with many centuries of political life! There are many good examples have been presented here in details by this author. What’s left off is the fact that the US has been and continues to be manipulated until today by a group of people since 1948 or even earlier. One example is that a small state has been manipulating the American elections in their own favor for many years and some of the self serving bastards in the US have found a cover for the “little shitty state” and calling it Russia which is utter bullshit! of course the MSM is complicit in disinformation and coverups of all the misdeeds. Now they’re working on discrediting Bernie Sanders because he doesn’t support everything that ”the little shitty state” has done and continues to do today.

        • Replies: @Trinity
      54. @Jimmy The Cop

        Yes, this was an excellent article by Mark Weber. Your assertion that “The hand of British influence is very much involved in the US today” is accurate on its face, keep in mind that global Jewry has woefully shaped and steered British statesmanship for well over a century. And these tribal manipulators are still at it.

        Note the orchestrated ruination of peace candidate, Jeremy Corbyn, the rise of unrestricted (and irreversible) Third World immigration throughout the UK, as well as the noose being tightened by world Jewry against any and all British subjects who dare expose Israel’s untoward influence in British politics. Even speaking out against Zionist parasitism and Israeli human rights violations in Great Britain has been criminalized.

        Last time I checked, The British House of Lords was the most Jewish-saturated ‘democratic body’ outside of the Israeli Knesset. As with Zionist-infatuated America, a substantial swath of British culture has become Israeli-occupied.

        • Agree: Mefobills, annamaria
        • Replies: @eah
      55. Mefobills says:
        @Meaculpa

        Wilson, Johnson and The Cripple are the biggest villains of the Twentieth century, full stop.
        ________________

        They were all puppets on a string, including Churchill – who was privately being funded by our (((friends))) with loans.

        Why is this concept so difficult for people? The Corbett report I posted above in this thread, explains how Wilson was duped, etc. It shows the exact events and who the actors were.

        Bolsheviks were funded into existence by Wall Street actors, especially Schiff at Kuhn and Loeb.

        The entire red thread of history is very coherent if you follow the money. The allies were all allied because they were part of finance capital, and that includes Bolshevik Russia.

        When Stalin killed Trotsky and nationalized the “bank” only then did the string pullers decide that Soviet Union was an enemy. And besides, when the bank was nationalized, Kuhn Loeb and others were denied their loot.

        The people you identify as villains are only the beard on the face, they are not the face. These “beards” are simply doing the bidding of their hidden masters.

        Every now and then a leader emerges who actually is the tip of the power pyramid and is not hidden.

        Do you think Trump has control over the various organs of government, the deep state, and finance actors?

        • Replies: @utu
        , @Oikeamielinen
      56. Trinity says:
        @Monty Ahwazi

        Oh yeah, lets all get behind the Jew commie, Bernie Sanders, he is the chosen savior. ROTFLMAO. Oh, yeah, Bernie is going to bring peace in the Middle East and be critical of Israeli war crimes, yo. LMAO again. People, who should we vote for? Commie Jew: Bernie or Capitalist Jew(s): Steyer or Bloomberg? How about shabbos goy, Donald J. Trump and Christian Zionist Pence with their sidekick, Super Zionist Kushner? Wow, we are really going to MAGA aren’t we?

        Hey everyone, Bernie is fighting the (((establishment))), and Bernie is another “Emanuel Goldtein.” Bernie just wants everyone to get a square deal, Bernie has suffered so much, he can totally relate to the poor working class and he knows firsthand how those suffering in poverty must really feel, he really feels their pain up in ALL-White Vermont. Good ole Bernie promising a “workers paradise?” Haven’t we heard that before? Oh of course we did, that is what the Jew Bolsheviks promised those poor working stiffs in Russia and the Ukraine before they starved them to death or beat and tortured them in the gulags.

        Bernie, not your cup of tea, how about Jewish billionaires, Bloomberg or Steyer? My gawd, if Jews are only 2% of the population how in the hell do they pull off 3 demshevik presidential candidates in the same year?

        People, it looks like we have two choices, really. Vote for the shabbos goy Orange Clown, who at least isn’t a rabid anti-White racist or don’t vote at all. All Bernie Bros should consider taking a psychiatric evaluation.

        • LOL: MrFoSquare
        • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
        , @Monty Ahwazi
      57. @Wally

        Bernie 2020💓

        Hi (off the) Wall.

        One (1) of The Bern’s 3-homes is located in Scranton’s Greenridge section, nearby homeboy Joe Biden’s.👌

        Fyi, since Christmas past, I live inside Bern The Non-Likud Jew’s servant room. 😊 I shovel snow in Winter, will cut his grass, and subsequently,🌟he knocked the rent down to $550/month, including the gas. Er… the natural variant.

        Question. Can your fave, Trumpstein, cut me a better deal, Wally? I can get him women💃and become his caddy. Haha.

        • Replies: @Wally
        , @Nonny Mouse
      58. @Mefobills

        I absolutely agree. Picking someone at random from the electoral roll to be your local congressman would result in a vastly better congress.

        The ancient Athenians had a general assembly in which every citizen had a place but they had a senate in which representatives were elected by lot i.e. picked at random. It was called Democracy.

        But today I think the only decent system is autocracy.

      59. @ChuckOrloski

        I’m voting “honest” Gil Fulbright this year..

        • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
      60. utu says:
        @Mefobills

        When Stalin [,,,] nationalized the “bank” – Are you saying that there was a period of tine when the bank was private in the USSR? Source?

        • Replies: @utu
        , @Mefobills
      61. utu says:
        @utu

        Chapter Title: The Origins and Evolution of the Soviet Banking System: An Historical Perspective
        Chapter Author: George Garvy
        https://www.nber.org/chapters/c4154.pdf

        • Thanks: annamaria
      62. @Johnny Walker Read

        Gil For Top Invader of The Occupied D.C. Hill 2020.

        Thanks a lot, 🌟Johnny Walker Read.🙌

      63. @gotmituns

        Many Americans who opposed FDR said that he was secretly a jew. They referred to him as “Rosenfeld”.

      64. KA says:
        @Johnny Rico

        Question here is not why Britan would accept a peace deal . Question is why Britan would wage war against Germany. After agreeing to let Germany and Poland gobble up Chekoslovakia ,it was not in a moral position to raise objection to Hitler ‘s aggression .
        Mark Weber is silent on the Zionist’s presence in the shadows of Churchill and Roosevelt . Churchill was lassoed by the Zionist in his youth . He paid them back . Empire was a small price .

        • Replies: @Johnny Rico
      65. Wally says:
        @ChuckOrloski

        Ah, just as I thought, you’re living off US taxpayers.

        Indeed, Trump tries to reduce welfare as much possible and get the unproductive parasites to earn their keep for a change, a good thing.

        Biden? Who cares?

        No doubt this was also your guy in Cuba.

      66. Wally says:
        @eah

        So IOW, another “Holocaust” Fantasy Theme Park will still be built at taxpayers expense and upkeep, where Jews Only will be paid huge salaries, at another location.

        • Replies: @turtle
      67. @Wally

        Haha.

        Wally, (zzZigh). Just another Mar a laGonzo Airhead.

        Should I post for him a pic of Trumpstein doing his obligatory homage at the Wailing Wall? Nah. Too dense.🤣

      68. Lorain says:
        @Z-man

        I agree. Anti-Russian agents trained at Porton Down and operating in Yugoslavia (Kosovo)É …

        The Nurse’s Tale – “How We Poisoned the Skripals”

        https://ahtribune.com/world/europe/uk/skirpal/2822-nurse-tale-alison-mccourt.html

      69. @Wally

        It may well take a Trump second term for Trump’s chumps to realise that they’ve been had, again. Possibly some of them won’t even see it then. I would say that none of the available choices for president deserves a vote at all until after the swamp has been drained, something Trump assured people he would do but he has since revealed himself to be a swamp-dweller instead.

        • Agree: turtle, Desert Fox
        • Replies: @turtle
      70. @Trinity

        Answer the question you just asked. How in the hell? Tell me! Knowing the answer is essential to escaping the tentacles.

      71. turtle says:
        @Wally

        Considering that the British invented the “concentration camp,” should we not reasonably expect a memorial to the victims:

        of “Lord” Kitchener and his minions?
        I wouldn’t hold my breath…

        • Replies: @Theodore
      72. @ChuckOrloski

        I’m being impertinent, not being a USA-ian, but Bernie definitely looks the best choice from this distance.

        • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
      73. Mefobills says:
        @utu

        We have now gone beyond this evidence to establish a continuing working relationship between Bolshevik banker Olof Aschberg and the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust Company in New York before, during, and after the Russian Revolution. In tsarist times Aschberg was the Morgan agent in Russia and negotiator for Russian loans in the United States; during 1917 Aschberg was financial intermediary for the revolutionaries; and after the revolution Aschberg became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank, while Max May, a vice president of the Morgan-controlled Guaranty Trust, became director and chief of the Ruskom-bank foreign department. We have presented documentary evidence of a continuing working relationship between the Guaranty Trust Company and the Bolsheviks. The directors of Guaranty Trust in 1917 are listed in Appendix 1.

        http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-ch11.html

        • Replies: @utu
      74. turtle says:
        @NoseytheDuke

        none of the available choices

        with the possible exception of Tulsi Gabbard.
        But of course,we are not “allowed” to elect her.
        The “Guardian Council” has spoken…

        “The game is rigged, folks.
        The table is tilted.”

        – George Carlin

        • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
      75. @KA

        Did you miss the first part of this saga? It used to be called The Great War but now they call it World War I.

        There was a horrible movie about it that was favored to win best picture this year.

        “Moral position”? Spare me.

        I’m going to stay silent on this “Zionist” thing as well. That is your business.

        • Replies: @KA
      76. Trupright says:

        FDR – a crippled mind in a crippled body.

      77. Yeah yea, FDR baaad, Hitler goood. The writer obviously has pro-German/Nazi bias. Nothing wrong with that. I like reading both sides of stories. Would be nice to read some articles here from time to time with a Soviet bias.

        I keep hearing the excuse for Hitler attacking the Soviets was because the Soviets were planning to attack Germany, probably. Hmmmmm who does this sound like? The Israelis/Jews “Rise and kill first” Coincidence? I think not!

        In the years that followed, some information about BSC operations came to public attention in a few widely-read books. But it was not until 1999 – more than half a century after the end of World War II – that the full text was finally published. This important primary source, titled British Security Coordination: The Secret History of British Intelligence in the Americas, 1940-1945, throws light on the carefully hidden record of collusion between the Roosevelt White House and a foreign government.

        I honestly don’t think you can 100% trust any documents, official or whatever. These documents do come from the most deceitful people that on Earth. I’m sure most of the stuff they don’t want in history books is destroyed before its ever exposed.

        The BSC worked closely with a specially created news service. Set up in July 1940, the “Overseas News Agency” was a supposedly legitimate and trustworthy enterprise. Actually, and as the BSC history notes, this was “a branch of the Jewish Telegraph[ic] Agency, owned in part by the rich New York Jew who controlled the liberal and vehemently anti-Nazi New York Post.”

        I’m certainly no expert or historian, but you should always consider that a lot of what the media pushes is disinfo or deception. Even if these newspapers were supposedly “anti-Nazi” doesn’t mean much. Pretty much all MSM today is anti-ISIS and anti-Al Qaeda, does that mean we’re not actually supporting, funding and arming Al Qaeda and ISIS? Nope! We consider the birthplace of Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia to be one of our top allies for goodness sake.

        Its pretty well known that much of the media was very pro-Hitler in the early years, media tycoon William Hurst was pro-Nazi.

        You can try to convince me all day that we were pro-Soviet and anti-Nazi all you want but all the evidence, before, during and after the war says otherwise as far as I can tell. Maybe FDR and a few others wanted to favor the Soviets against Germany? I think we were trying to play Soviets, Germans, and Britain against each other for Americas benefit. I guess it worked out pretty well.

        Rich people run the govt., CAPITALISTS. The commies were obviously more of a threat to them than the fascists, with whom they share ideologies. Pretty much all the rich businessmen and corporations were Nazi/fascist collaborators. Ford Motors, General Motors, General Electric, IBM, Standard Oil, IG Farben, National City Bank, Prescott Bush, Dupont family, Kennedy family, Dulles bros (CIA), Charles Lindbergh, Rockefeller.

        These are just some of the known American ones, many Australian and European were Nazi collaborators as well. Not only were the Anglo American elites Nazi collaborators, but they supported all the fascists from Franco in Spain, to Mussolini in Italy

        Even the British royal family were fans of Hitler. Edward the 8th gave Nazi salutes to Hitler.

        The actions of the CIA collaborating with Nazis after the war is what tells me that they were allies all along. Same goals, protect the rich, big business, corporations, exploit the poor, steal resources, terrorism, overthrow govts, kill everyone whether they’re socialists, Muslims or commies that want to use their resources for their own benefit. Same BS the CIA is still up to today. Obviously the Nazis were valued because they already had experience in doing these things.

        Our own FBI were notorious for locking up socialists and suspected communists at the time as well. So I find it kind of hard to believe that America was somehow secretly communist. Its absurd. I read somewhere that there was far more scrutiny for Jewish “holocaust survivors” coming into the country than there was for Ukrainian Nazis, they just let the Nazis in willy nilly. Here we are today still supporting the Ukrainian Nazis, Obama as well as the Israelis of all people! LOL

        Its obvious the history we’ve been taught is a lie, but this writer is so blinded by his own bias that he is not looking for the truth, only to confirm his own bias.

        Just muh opinion of course!

        • Disagree: Vaterland
        • Thanks: Nonny Mouse
        • LOL: Trinity
      78. The whole covert and spy operation to get the US involved in WWII is interesting reading.

        Generally the movement was not as successful as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And I simply don’t think there is much beyond filling in gap theory that Pres Roosevelt permitted the attack to move the country in that direction.

        That was japan’s error and theirs alone.

        • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
      79. kikl says:
        @CanSpeccy

        Stalin knew very well what he was up to, since he had been planning the conquest of Europe diligently. Here is just one simple piece of circumstantial evidence:

        “(*) The Soviets had produced a remarkable line of light BT tanks, easily able to shed their tracks and continue on wheels, achieving a top speed of 60 miles per hour, two or three times faster than any other comparable armored vehicle, and ideally suited to exploitation drives deep into enemy territory. However, such wheeled operation was only effective on paved highways, of which Soviet territory had none, hence were ideally suited for travel on Germany’s large network of autobahns. In 1941 Stalin deployed almost 6,500 of these autobahn-oriented tanks, more than the rest of the world’s tanks combined.”

        https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-stalin-almost-conquered-europe/

      80. utu says:
        @Mefobills

        Where is the bank that Stalin supposedly nationalized? Do not obfuscate bringing up various operation that were created by Bolsheviks for the purpose of trade. Besides Stalin did not shut down the various operations served the USSR in trade.

      81. S says:

        “The Nazi masters of Germany,” he announced in a December 1940 radio address, “have made clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world …”

        Like many people in the US I’m plenty happy with a republic, provided it’s not empire seeking and slavery based, ie chattel or wage (so called ‘cheap labor), and seeking to biologically replace me.

        Having said that, much of what FDR said seems to be a case of projection and is inverted.

        Regarding slavery, it was the British Empire, of which the thirteen colonies had been a part, which had last dominated the trade in the 19th century. It was the Anglosphere countries which dominated chattel slavery and it’s trade monetization, wage slavery, ie so called ‘cheap labor’, in the 20th and 21st century.

        If Germany was wishing to dominate Europe, she had plenty of company in this, as both the US/UK and Soviet Russia desired the same thing with their respective Capitalist and Communist ideologies.

        As for dominating the world, I’ll let W T Stead, a close associate of Cecil Rhodes of British Empire fame answer that.

        Circa 1900, the US and UK formed the ‘special relationship’, a relationship only just short of an outright political union. In part, apparently to celebrate this, Stead in 1902 wrote a book entitled The Americanization of the World which I’ve linked to and excerpted below.

        On pages 10, 11, and 12, Stead calculated that the US and UK between them had three times the wealth and economic resources of the combined French, Russian, and German empires. He declared ‘the lion’s share of the world is ours.’ As the British Empire was still largely intact at the time of Roosevelt’s excerpted 1940 speech, economic figures like these probably still held.

        The first chapter’s page subheadings tell their own story in regards to US/UK power, ie ‘world conquerers’, ‘the supreme power’, and the ‘decree of destiny’.


        Washington and London

        ‘The lion’s share of the World is ours..’

        The Americanization of the World (1902) – pg 7

        The lion’s share of the world is ours, not only in bulk, but in tid-bits also. The light land of the Sahara is not worth a centime an acre. The vast area of German South Africa would hardly provide a livelihood for the population of a middle-sized German village. With the exception of the Rhine, the Danube, the Amoor, the Volga, the Platte and the Amazon, nearly all the great navigable rivers of the world enter the sea under the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes. The valley of the Yang-tse-Kiang is earmarked as the sphere of our influence. The whole of the North American Continent,’ from the North Pole to the frontier of Mexico, is within the ring fence of the English-speaking race, and from the whole of Central and Southern America all trespassers have been emphatically warned off by the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine.

        https://archive.org/details/americanizationo01stea/page/n6/mode/2up

        • Replies: @S
        , @Wizard of Oz
      82. @EliteCommInc.

        Disagree. I don’t have the details at my fingertips, this is vague memory, but FDR sacked an admiral who objected to moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor, moved the latest and best ships back, out of harm’s way, leaving those that it didn’t do much harm if they were sunk, and Pearl Harbor was without the wonderful new invention, the computing machine, while Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines had one that was decrypting Japanese Morse Code transmissions. Pearl Harbor was deliberately left bereft and exposed. FDR was directing the attack there, deliberate temptation, while putting huge pressure on Japan, stupendous boycott, not allowing ships to pass through the South China Sea with oil for Japan, absolutely forcing Japan to attack, and to attack Pearl Harbor.

        • Replies: @Nonny Mouse
      83. @Nonny Mouse

        Add to that: It was known that Japan had entered its previous wars with an initial surprise attack. FDR new full well that he was forcing Japan to launch a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Someone has said he knew in advance, almost to the day, when and where this surprise attack would happen. It wasn’t a surprise to him.

      84. S says:

        In a one-on-one conversation during this period Randolph Churchill pointedly asked his father just how Britain could possibly beat Germany. “With great intensity,” he later recalled, Winston Churchill replied: “I shall drag the United States in.”

        The Belcher Foundation has an article excerpted below which explores British colonial policy in the decades prior to the 1776 Revolution. According to this article, the idea had been proposed by the British Board of Trade that the British North American colonies would provide troops for wherever the Empire might need them globally. It’s pointed out in the article that, with or without the Revolution, the United States in effect did just that in certain of it’s wars, ie WWI and WWII.

        Also, the concept of the North American colonies becoming the Empire’s center of power, it’s ‘peripheral center’, in effect taking the place of England, had been explored by the Board of Trade prior to the Revolution as well.

        [The site owner, Fon Belcher, is an apparent distant relation of royal governor Jonathan Belcher, the first ‘native born’ Freemason in British North America, and is almost certainly a Freemason himself.]

        [MORE]


        US Army Infantryman – 1942

        ‘Serve and safeguard the interests of the British empire..’

        President of the Board of Trade from 1717-1746 and a former military officer, Col. Martin Bladen largely originated the Peripheral Center concept when he proposed a plan for forming an Angloamerican colonial union, dominated by a military Captain General (a “Generallissimo” possessing the right to make war), who would turn the colonies into a “homeland” and training ground for native-born American soldiers to fight in European wars…

        …Whereas, according to Bladen’s plan, a colonial “Parliament” would have the power to send American troops upon any mission that would best serve the interests of Great Britain, to him, “Great Britain” represented the currently-existing form of Empire. Thus, American troops would serve and safeguard the interests of the British empire, wherever they might be found.

        http://www.belcherfoundation.org/camerica.htm

      85. KA says:
        @Johnny Rico

        Yes,that first part known as WW1 also revealed nothing but the psychopathic nature of British both before and after the war . Britain had no reason to destroy itself .WW1 should have taught it that the getting involved in war in the continent was not in its interest .
        But the psychos got mugged by Zionist a bunch of much worst psycho and beat the Britain in its own game which continued till 1947. That marked the comeuppance for the Britain the day Begin said that his militia would kill the dog in its own kennel.

      86. @eah

        The council set up a webpage for residents to air their support/concerns regarding the monument, most real responded were negative in that people were opposed to the destruction of green space and the cost was very high, but the government hired a PR firm to add fake positive feedback to the webpage. The genuine concerns were predictably denounced as anti-Semitism.

      87. @turtle

        If Gabbard is a possible exception why not Buttigieg?

        • LOL: NoseytheDuke
      88. Arnieus says:
        @Desert Fox

        I second that book recommendation. FDR was doing everything he could think of to provoke a war with Japan. He was obviously a socialist and agent of the, as I often refer to them, inbred dynastic banker clans. The central bankers of the Federal Reserve were entrenched as the real power in the US just as the Bank of England was calling the shots in England. After the unexpected quick KO of France and England and the threat to Russia, they were desperate to push the US into the war. Japan and Russia had fought only two decades before and much of Russia’s military assets were occupied on that front. A war with Japan allowed Stalin to redeploy assets west against Germany. All wars are banker wars.

        • Agree: Desert Fox
      89. Sparkon says:
        @Carlton Meyer

        I think Hitler assumed that Japan would comply and attack Russian forces in Siberia who were moving to defend Moscow. For unknown reasons, the Japanese did not, and even allowed Russian ships (provided by the USA) to ship lend-lease aid to Vladivostok unharmed.

        I know this is a popular idea, but according to Nigel Askey’s research, there was no significant movement of Red Army troops from Siberia or the Far East to the Western (Moscow) Front in 1941 after the Germans attacked on June 22.

        There was no need. The reason being the Soviet Union was able to mobilize a vast force of new units in the second half of 1941, including 182 rifle divisions, 62 tank brigades, 8 tank divisions, 55 rifle brigades, 43 militia rifle divisions, 50 cavalry divisions, and 33 marine brigades amounting in all to 41 armies in 11 fronts.

        http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/

        The Wehrmacht attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 with just 148 divisions, mostly horse-drawn, and with no tank capable of knocking out either the T-34, or the heavier KV-1.

        So the Red Army had abundant manpower, and much of it would have been in relatively close proximity to Moscow, which was also the focal point of the USSR’s entire rail network. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that, in 1941, all roads led to Moskva. The idea that Stavka would need to transfer troops all the way from the Far East is rather silly given the Red Army’s abundant reserves in the western part of the country.

        There was no need at all for the Red Army to denude its forces in the Far East, even though they had a non-aggression pact with the Japanese, who in any event needed the readily exploitable oil to the south in Indonesia. In Siberia, there was little that the Japanese could exploit expeditiously, let alone transport it back to Japan.

        Rather than moving troops east to west, Stavka continued to reinforce its forces in the Far East throughout the war.

        The story of the hardened Siberians riding in at the last second to save Moscow was Soviet propaganda crafted to conceal the true extent of the Red Army’s order of battle, and make the need for U.S. aid appear all the more urgent, aid in the form of Lend Lease that was a bonanza for the Soviet Union, but mostly an unneeded giveaway to the Reds, who had virtual carte blanche to get anything they wanted in the U.S. inventory at the time. The only thing we wouldn’t give them was heavy bombers.

        It’s important to remember too that the Soviet military build up began almost as soon as the Reds consolidated power after the defeat of the Whites in the Civil War. The first major steps in this program began already in the early and mid-1920s when Western specialists like Henry Ford were brought in to construct vast new industrial complexes, some beyond the Ural mountains.

      90. Theodore says:
        @turtle

        The British also had concentration camps in WWII for Jews, and Jews died in them. They even gassed Jews with DDT, a known carcinogen!

        British WWII Concentration Camps for Jews
        https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=12732

      91. @Trinity

        You troll missed the point all together! Reread my post again and again until you get it!

      92. S says:
        @S

        That should read pg 8 on upthread post #87 linked below in regards to the reference and excerpt from W T Stead’s The Americanization of the World.

        https://www.unz.com/article/collusion-franklin-roosevelt-british-intelligence-and-the-secret-campaign-to-push-the-us-into-war/#comment-3735251

      93. Saggy says: • Website

        You can see a vido clip from Roosevelt’s ‘secret map’ speech here ….
        https://archive.org/details/FranklinD.RooseveltsDeceptiveSpeechOctober271941
        Does anyone know where to find the complete speech?

        Also, there are many clips of Hitler’s speeches floating around, or there used to be, for example here a clip from a speech of Hilter mocking a telegram sent to him by Roosevelt ….




        However I can’t find the entire speech.

        • Replies: @Vaterland
        , @Siegfriedson
      94. Alfred says:

        In 2007, William Boyd came out with a spy thriller that describes beautifully how the British manipulated American public opinion and encouraged the USA to enter the war.

        This book contains so many details that could only have been gleaned by the author from real spies and PR people. It is an excellent read. He is one of my favourite authors.

        Restless (novel)

      95. Alfred says:
        @Trinity

        In Kiev, they now have a “John McCain Street”.

        Google Maps does not have it yet.

        Kyiv City Council renames street to honor John McCain

        • Replies: @Trinity
        , @annamaria
      96. Vaterland says:
        @Saggy

        The Americans truly are great at propaganda. Their humanitarian facade and smiling appeal was always more charming than their brutish warmongering. Obfuscation and spin reliably prove more effective than outright lies at winning over your audience. Easy to understand the decline of the US Empire, from its peak post WW2 to around the 80s, and since the rise of the Neocons. Sometimes it is really hard to believe in that high Ashkenazi IQ ‘trope’.

        The greater USA turned enemies into vassals and vassals into admirers. The declining USA treats vassals like slaves and will turn slaves into enemies.

      97. Trinity says:
        @Alfred

        We truly live in a world where good is called evil and evil is identified as good. What can you say? Scum rises to the top in a world that is ruled by Satan. No matter, like I said in an earlier post, whether you believe there is a supreme being and we will be held accountable in the end or you think there is nothing out there, in the end, we all end up a bag of bones. IF there is a God, I am sure people like Cuckhill, FDR, Stalin and McAmnesty’s power and fame in this world will mean absolutely nothing and I would really hate to be in their shoes judging them by their actions here in this world. Who knows? I only have to account for my actions and I am far from perfect but me thinks I am better than the aforementioned humanoids.

      98. Great article. This is a keeper.
        In the comments I found the usual variance from the great (story about Tyler Kent) to the stupid (Hitler was going to take over USSR and conquer the world so we had to illegally start a war).
        I couldn’t help but notice that the (((usual suspects))) were at it even back then in the form of the ONA. I think it was the the great philosopher Mel Gibson who once said, “Jews start all the wars in the world.”
        Looking at the world stage today, I see similar patterns repeating, but these are not as clear to some of our NPC TDS readers. To make this more apparent:
        1. In this story virtually all of the MSM colluded to present the National Socialists as villains. Who does the MSM vilify today?
        2. George Bush started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama started wars in Syria and Libya. Where has Trump started a war?
        3. In this story a fake map of South America was created by British intelligence. In recent news, Christopher Steele created a fake dossier about Donald Trump and this was used by the DOJ to illegally spy on Trump. What foreign intelligence service did Christopher Steele work for?

      99. annamaria says:
        @Alfred

        The zionized banderistan or Kaganat of Nuland (former Ukraine) is a great sample of the ZUSA achievements on the international stage.

        Meanwhile, the ZUSA and the thoroughly zionized UK government (that includes an amazing amount of Jewish “lords”) have been torturing Assange thus giving a lesson on the “human rights,” “freedom of information,” and other trifles that the so-called western democracies love to boast about.

        https://www.rt.com/uk/481657-wikileaks-barred-extradition-assange-abuse/
        “UK inexplicably bars WikiLeaks editor from extradition hearing day after Assange handcuffed 11 times & STRIPPED twice”

        the “English court is being misled by Americans who are trying to abuse the process of extradition by mere fabrications.” The cramped quarters — just 12 or 13 seats in the public gallery, while the legions of protesters are kept outside the court compound “for no apparent reason” — are “totally inadequate for a trial of this importance…”

        … despite London’s claims, the hearing is “not being held in public.”

        The mega war-profiteers and the ever-shameless zionists are not interested in upholding justice. Too much money is involved to let the honest and principled person prevail over the mega scoundrels. The UK government cares only about its perverts in high places and about Mossad/Knesset orders.

      100. Let’s just hope a president comes along to deceive about the might and intentions of China in the near future to check on the wannabe hegemon otherwise what FDR may have lied will come true albeit not from Germany.

      101. @S

        It can truly be said that a little knowledge [learning] is a dangerous thing. But it is made worse by a poor memory.
        1. The British Empire didn’t dominate the slave trade in the 19th century. It abolished it in 1806 and, with some success, forced that abolition on others.
        2. Whatever your bookish theories about wage slavery it was not dominated by the Anglosphere in the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone chattel slavery which even the US had abolished!). Apparently you are unaware of the leading role Anglosphere nations played in legislating for better wage labour terms of employment.
        3. “Circa 1900 the US and UK formed the “special relationship** *a relationship only just short of total political union* ” !!!

        What complete tosh! You should try reading more than one book and then have what you read explained to you.

        **You wouldn’t be aware of it but Bismarck is supposed to have said that the most important geopolitical factor of the 20th century would be the fact that Americans spoke English. However it was only in 1944 that Churchill began the general use of “special relationship” to describe what had previously found the two countries in opposition as often as in friendly relations.

      102. annamaria says:

        “Lies, lies and more lies’: Lawyer slams day 2 of Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing:” https://www.rt.com/news/481662-assange-extradition-hearing-day-two/

        In short: An honest and courageous journalist has been abused by the ZUSA ‘justice’ system, beginning with the accusations of rape of a woman who never complained about the “rape.”

        Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, the frequent-flier customer of Lolita Express, and his dear friend Ghislaine Maxwell, the procuress of underage girls for influential scoundrels (see Bill Clinton), have no fear of the ZUSA ‘justice’ system; they wonder free and they have never been questioned by police.
        The so-called progressives stand morally naked. Since queen Clinton wants to see Assange dead, the progressives show complete indifference to the ignominy of the Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing. The ZUSA is a nation of cowards.

        https://www.mintpressnews.com/genesis-jeffrey-epstein-bill-clinton-relationship/261455/

        https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/22/did-sen-warner-and-comey-collude-on-russia-gate/

      103. @Wally

        @Wally @Chuck

        So is a Shabbaz Goy who works for Jews better that a Jew who pretends he doesn’t? Or maybe not? Trump may have betrayed his base but his presence at the helm allows for a certain narrative that propelled him to the top to continue. That’s if he allows it to continue in certain quarters of the alt-Internet, or what is left of this after having been decimated by recent corporate censorship. Bernie would just shut down the alternative media and allow only the Jewish narrative.

      104. S says:

        From mid-1940 onwards, bringing the US into war was a priority British government objective. The great problem, though, was that the great majority of Americans wanted to keep their country neutral, and avoid any direct involvement in the European conflict.

        So, how can this be?

        Two world wars where large numbers, even majorities, want the United States to stay out, yet the US still goes to war any way in each instance.

        The British propaganda no doubt had it’s effect on some of the elites and hangers on, but could there be more involved? Something that powerful elements amongst the US elites know, perhaps, and the rest of us don’t, which might explain in part their all too seeming readiness to ignore their own people’s desires, and to answer England’s call?

        [MORE]

        Yes, I submit there is.

        According to the New Rome, a remarkable geo-political book published in 1853, the United States itself is the planned direct continuation of the British Empire, and is indeed at this time it’s very center.

        It has been this way since about 1900 according to the book’s two authors, when the US and UK formed the ‘special relationship’, a relationship only just short of an outright political union. [See the Majority Rights link below for more on the ‘special relationship’.]

        The book, as excerpted and linked to below, elaborates that the 1776 Revolution was a planned false split, to allow the newly established republican system in British North America time in protected relative isolation, so as to gain strength. At a certain point in the future, the former British colonies (now the US) would openly rejoin the UK. When this reunion occurs, the center of power of the British Empire will move from England to the United States.

        ‘Crazy’, you might say?

        That’s nothing. The same mid-19th century book makes the even crazier claims that a future US/UK united front will someday conquer and gain control of Germany, the center of power upon continental Europe. This conquest will be immediately followed by a worldwide struggle between the US and Russia, and their respective allies, for control of the Earth, the global projection of it’s great airpower to be the deciding factor in favor of the United States over Russia’s ground forces.


        Bush and Blair

        ‘The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States…’

        The New Rome (1853) – pg 87 – 88

        The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre. That centre is in the United States. The Anglican empire is essentially oceanic. Its dominions extend along the coasts of the Atlantic and the Pacific, the lesser and the greater ocean. America, lying in the midst of the ocean, is therefore its natural point of gravitation…

        cont

        …The realization of an idea higher than could be developed in the mother island, that of the republican democracy, required a temporary segregation of the centre; that task accomplished, it is time to call for a reunion; but the former adjunct being now no longer merely the geographical centre, but the political and social focus, must take the lead…

        The above excerpts were written 167 years ago.

        A person might ask if there is something similar today which supports The New Rome’s premise? The answer to that is yes.

        There is a website run by the Belcher Foundation, whose site owner, Fon Belcher, is an apparent distant relation of Jonathan Belcher, the site’s namesake. Jonathan Belcher was a British royal governor of multiple colonies in North America, a founder of Princeton, and British North America’s first ‘native born’ Freemason.

        One article from the site I’ve linked to and excerpted below says exactly the same thing the New Rome does in regarding the premise that the thirteen colonies were being steered towards becoming the British Empire’s center of power. It uses virtually the same language.

        The article fills in the details the 1853 book does not provide, and names names, ie the British Board of Trade’s Martin Bladen and the British Whig party interests and machinations behind the scenes in the decades and years just prior to the 1776 Revolution. Unlike the book, however, Fon Belcher leads up to and strongly hints that the 1776 Revolution was a false split, but does not declare it a fact.

        Bladen’s view of America as Britain’s Peripheral Center made Great Britain’s peace and survival depend on America. Thus already, he hinted at the view that Britain should look to America for help and support–not the other way around. In the future, America would be the center, and Britain would be America’s ideological and economic periphery. The balance of ideology, as well as economy, was shifting centers.

        Despite the actions of those who may have been operating behind the scenes, both the rank and file ‘rebels’ and crown forces fought honorably, sincerely, and courageously during the Revolution, and deserve our respect.

        Having said that, I seriously doubt the British Empire ever had the slightest intention of ever in reality giving up it’s rich North American colonies.

        For the everyday US citizen, the actual reality of his or her historic relationship with the British Empire might well be illustrated by the plot line of a late 1960’s episode of The Prisoner television series entitled ‘Many Happy Returns’, the synopsis of which is below.

        The Prisoner, Number 6, seizing an unexpected opportunity makes good a harrowing escape from his long time island prison, and makes it safely to London. After convincing his former intelligence officer colleagues there of the reality of his experience, he makes plans to return to the island with a procured fighter jet, the plan being to ultimately destroy the place once the island prison has been relocated.

        However, due to the actions of rogue British intelligence officers who have waylayed his assigned pilot, and replaced him with one of their own, Number 6 is unceremoniously and unexpectedly ejected from the plane back on to the island, a prisoner once more.

        It is then made plain to him that from start to finish of his ‘escape’, that he had never been out of the control of those who had imprisoned him.

        His perceived ‘freedom’ had only ever been in reality a phantasm.


        Number Six

        ‘Many happy returns!’

        Number 6 awakens to find the Village completely deserted. He sees this as an opportunity to escape. He takes numerous photos before assembling a raft and taking flight by sea for 25 days. He takes careful notes as to headings and times as best he can, but has an unfriendly encounter with gun-runners who steal his belongings and throw him in the sea. Clambering on board their boat, he takes control of it, is later overwhelmed and ends up on a deserted beach. Wandering, he encounters a small band of Gypsies who speak no English.

        He eludes what appears to be a police manhunt and stows away on a truck which takes him to what he now recognises as London. A Mrs. Butterworth now occupies his old townhouse and drives his Lotus Seven. She is unperturbed when he approaches her, seems intrigued by his plight, and feeds and clothes him.
        He mentions that the next day is his birthday. Receiving Number Six’s promises that he will return, Mrs. Butterworth says she might even bake him a birthday cake.

        He returns to the underground car park/office from the theme sequence, where he presents himself to his old boss. His photographs and other evidence of The Village meet with considerable scepticism. Former colleagues “The Colonel” and “Thorpe” are not entirely convinced that Number Six has not defected and now returned as a double agent, but after verifying all the details of his escape and evasion story, they seem to be more reassured.

        With the assistance of some military officers and a map, they determine the general vicinity of the Village (“coast of Morocco, southwest of Portugal and Spain”; “might be an island”). He leads a jet fighter pilot in a sweep of the area and spots the Village from the air, but is unceremoniously ejected, parachutes in, and is greeted in his cottage by the new Number Two: Mrs. Butterworth. She offers him “Many happy returns!” and a birthday cake.

        https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

        https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_special_relationship

        https://www.belcherfoundation.org/camerica.htm

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_Happy_Returns_(The_Prisoner)

        • Replies: @Commentator Mike
      105. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:

        One can see parallels between Roosevelt’s constant antagonism toward Japan and Germany before WW2 and the belligerency against Russia and China today. Roosevelt got his war but Trump and his handlers haven’t been as successful yet. We can only hope that they’re never successful because a war today would be the end of the world as we know it. Does Trump and his handlers actually think that they will survive in their underground bunkers and that they will be free to come out and escape to the southern hemisphere? After a nuclear war between the three powers there will be no place on earth that will be free from nuclear fallout.

      106. @Mefobills

        An American preacher whom I respect greatly, told his congregation that Stalin’s demise resulted from his going against the Will of God. 19 of the best surgeons were in attendance but to no avail, God grabbed Stalin.
        I saw this on television (channel 51 on the local cable, hehheh) so it must be true.

        Apparently Stalin was an OK guy through the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s but went astray in the 50’s and God then took notice of him.

        • LOL: NoseytheDuke, Trinity
      107. Malla says:
        @John Regan

        Very true, after the Great Depression, the entire British Empire started the Imperial preference system, trying to isolate the entire British Empire from the USA or to be precise, from the Wall Street Crazies who were responsible for the Depression. This pissed off the Wall Street guys a lot and they had planned after they destroy the immediate threats of Third Reich Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy, the British and all other European Empires would be next in line for liquidation. Not much hatred against the Soviet Union though, they loved the Soviets.
        So very soon you had all those Wall Street funded ‘liberation movements’ and after Stalin died, Krushev the Trotskyite joined in. Think tanks and foundations started talking about “The Winds of Change’ or whatever nonsense that meant.

        • Replies: @S
      108. S says:
        @Malla

        This pissed off the Wall Street guys a lot and they had planned after they destroy the immediate threats of Third Reich Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy, the British and all other European Empires would be next in line for liquidation. Not much hatred against the Soviet Union though, they loved the Soviets.

        A lot of truth there.

        London was where the defacto Capitalist ‘manifesto’, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (WON), was first published in 1776. Almost immediately Capitalist revolution ‘broke out’ in British North America, ie July 4, 1776.

        [MORE]

        Same pattern with the publication of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto in 1848, also first published in London, and Communist revolution ‘breaking out’ almost immediately across Europe.

        Smith’s WON first publisher, William Strahan, was a ‘Freeman of the City of London’, while Marx’s Manifesto was first published within the City of London itself.

        As the center of world finance has since moved from London to New York City, it makes perfect sense that Wall Street would have now largely taken the place of the City of London as the primary arbiter (ie referee) of this manufactured and controlled Hegelian Dialectic of Capitalism versus Communism that has been foisted upon humanity since 1776 and 1789.

        Meanwhile, to be heralded by WWIII it would appear, Capitalism and Communism inexorably continue their march ever onward towards final synthesis in global Multi-Culturalism, to form the biggest empire the world has ever yet seen, the ‘United States of the World’.

        https://www.unz.com/article/karl-marx-and-jewish-power/#comment-3721272

        https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/revolution_and_counter_revolution

        https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

        • Agree: Malla
        • Replies: @Malla
        , @Poco
      109. annamaria says:

        The ZUSA/UK are dancing jointly a pornographic gigue against Assange. The zionized UK parliament of PC-correct cowards and “lords” of Jewish descent shows not a scintilla of dignity with regard to Assange. As for the US Senate, who on earth would expect any decency from the stinky body of Bibi-adoring cowards. https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/25/live-updates-from-london-assange-extradition-hearing-wednesday/

        The essential part of the argument of the prosectors’ case is that WikiLeaks publications endangered sources. This is simply not true. The Pentagon admitted, under oath, in Chelsea Manning’s trial that nobody had been hurt by the releases.

        Robert Gates, ex-secretary of defense, in testimony before Congress, said it’s awkward, it’s embarrassing, but no damage was done. …

        After more than ten years, there is absolutely no evidence that any informant’s life was harmed by WikiLeaks revelations.

        Who was then endangered? — War profiteers and ziocons. Cheney, Bush, Blair, Clinton (the Butcheress of Libya), the cowardly Rumsfeld and very X-tian Rice, and the whole zionist cabal of “eternal victims.” https://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity/

        For years, Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel …

        The trial of Assange is inseparable from the US-led illegal war of aggression against Iraq and from the ongoing Wars for Israel.

        • Replies: @annamaria
      110. annamaria says:
        @annamaria

        More on the British Crown’ idiotic position re Assange: https://russia-insider.com/en/assange-hearing-day-1-craig-murray-your-man-public-gallery-reports/ri28354 James Lewis QC, the prosecutor, makes some amazing declarations:

        The 1989 Official Secrets Act had been introduced by the Thatcher Government after the Ponting Case, specifically to remove the public interest defence and to make unauthorised possession of an official secret a crime of strict liability – meaning no matter how you got it, publishing and even possessing made you guilty. Therefore, under the principle of dual criminality, Assange was liable for extradition whether or not he had aided and abetted Manning. Lewis then went on to add that any journalist and any publication that printed the official secret would therefore also be committing an offence, no matter how they had obtained it, and no matter if it did or did not name informants.

        Lewis had thus just flat out contradicted his entire opening statement to the media stating that they need not worry as the Assange charges could never be applied to them. And he did so straight after the adjournment, immediately after his team had handed out copies of the argument he had now just completely contradicted. I cannot think it has often happened in court that a senior lawyer has proven himself so absolutely and so immediately to be an unmitigated and ill-motivated liar. This was undoubtedly the most breathtaking moment in today’s court hearing.

        To sum the prosecution statement: James Lewis QC is an unmitigated and ill-motivated liar.

      111. @S

        S,

        The same mid-19th century book makes the even crazier claims that a future US/UK united front will someday conquer and gain control of Germany, the center of power upon continental Europe. This conquest will be immediately followed by a worldwide struggle between the US and Russia, and their respective allies, for control of the Earth, the global projection of it’s great airpower to be the deciding factor in favor of the United States over Russia’s ground forces.

        Are you claiming that authors of a book published in 1853 knew about airplanes? Definitely seem like crazy claims in those days before a plane was even built. Did they know about atomic bombs and missiles too?

        • Replies: @S
        , @Alden
      112. Malla says:
        @S

        Wow, awesome posts. Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. Also, Karl Marx it seems was a relative of the Rothschild clan.

        • Replies: @S
      113. S says:
        @Commentator Mike

        Are you claiming that authors of a book published in 1853 knew about airplanes? Definitely seem like crazy claims in those days before a plane was even built.

        The book, very Alexander Dugin like, delves into the geo-political importance of dominating the air, and the ocean. The authors write about the future development of flying machines and indicate using them for aerial bombardment.

        [MORE]

        From the context, it seems they were writing about what we would call today dirigibles (ie zeppelins). Below is a brief excerpt from the book. [The complete excerpt referencing future exploitation of the air in the book can be found at the link below.]

        The New Rome (1853) – pg.155-156

        We are on the eve of aerial navigation…

        ‘It [air power] will give us the victory over Russian continentalism. American air-privateers will be down upon the Russian garrisons, to use our own expressive slang, ‘like a parcel of bricks’…

        Did they know about atomic bombs and missiles too?

        Hehe. They were good, but not quite that good. 😉

        https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853#c89783

        • Thanks: Commentator Mike
      114. S says:
        @Malla

        Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin.

        Yes, they’re complimentary.

        Capitalism, with it’s artificial hyper-individualism, and Communism, with it’s artificial hyper-collectivism, paralleling each other in just about every way.

        I think the idea (in part) is to create out of the two system’s synthesis a new man, ie the new ‘Multi-Cultural Man’, having the desired characteristics the London Times once described of being ‘more mixed’, ‘more docile’, and ‘which can submit to a master’.

        • Agree: NoseytheDuke, Malla, Trinity
      115. Alden says:

        A movie’s been made of jerzy Kosinski’s book of lies The Painted Bird. It’s all about a poor, pathetic, pitiful Jewish boy who survived the holofraud in Poland. I skimmed through it and his auto bio. Like George Soros , Polanski and Abe Foxman he was sheltered by Poles all through the war. His autobiography claims horrendous persecution not by the Nazi occupiers but by the anti Semitic Poles.

      116. Alden says:
        @Commentator Mike

        I think the French used balloons for observation during the Napoleonic wars and the later Franco Prussian war. War’s always been a major driver of technology.

        • Agree: Commentator Mike
        • Replies: @S
      117. S says:
        @Alden

        I was surprised to find out they not only had balloons in the latter 18th century, but that they pretty quickly developed parachuting too.

        The Frenchman Andre Garnerin did a parachute jump from a balloon at an altitude of 3,200 feet in 1797. In 1799, his wife Jeanne-Genevieve, became the first woman parachutist. In 1802 Garnerin made an 8000 foot parachute jump at an English public exhibition.

        It seems the balloonist and parachutists had their own ‘air show’ thing on going about a hundred years before the ‘barn stormers’ came around. 😉

        https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-parachutist

      118. Poco says:
        @S

        The revolutions of 1848 were defeated but the agitation to destroy the ancien regime never abated.
        You’re probably aware of Alexander Herzen, one of the constant communist/socialist agitators of the time. He was from Russian nobility but fled Russia to western europe. When the Czar seized his inheritance John Rothschild himself interceded on his behalf with some monetary arm twisting of the Czar. Herzen got his inheritance.

        Now why was Rothschild interceding? You know why, of course, as evidenced by your post.

      119. S says:

        Actually, I’d never heard of Herzen, but thanks for mentioning him. I note after his leaving Russia he spent a lot of time in London. Makes sense, as London since 1776 and 1789 has historically been something like a central clearing house for both Capitalist and Communist global revolution.

        Jewish writings themselves acknowledge the heavy involvement of powerful elements and hangers on amongst their financial elites, amongst others to varying degrees, in promoting these revolutions. That Rothschild would intervene in a supportive way financially for the agitator/revolutionary Herzen makes perfect sense.

      120. Greg S. says:
        @kikl

        Sorry but your statement regarding the intent to push the Russians (aka “Asiatics” in Hitler’s parlance) beyond the Urals is an ignorant one. Hilter himself is quoted many times in private diaries and speeches saying that his exact intent was to push them all beyond the Urals where they could “trouble Germany no longer.” He greatly feared the USSR because at that time it was a completely unknown entity, much unlike a country such as England. In fact, one of Hitler’s main undoings was that he vastly underestimated the sheer numbers of people the USSR churned out at Germany. Many times during the war Hitler is quoted as saying something along the lines of “surely now that’s the last of them.” Hitler also wanted to send all the Jews and other undesirables to the east with the Russians. Hitler fans take this as some vindication because he was not ordering them into a gas chamber directly. And yet they ended up just as dead.

        • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
        , @kikl
      121. @Greg S.

        And yet they ended up just as dead.

        The US and UK Jewish zionists should have thought of that early in 1933 when they began their campaign of provocation to start the war.

        In fact, one has to assume that Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, JR., and others similarly astute in the geopolitics of the regions and the various Jewish classes involved, were fully aware that war would result and that the classes of Jews who would “end up dead” were those of Jewish zionist’s choosing.

        Zionism was and is an eugenic project.

        The Challenging Years: The autobiography of Stephen Wise
        “All German Jews must leave Germany.”

        Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture, by Etan Bloom
        Arthur Ruppin was an award-winning scholar and practitioner of eugenics and a staunch follower of Haeckel. He determined that certain groups of Eastern European Jews were less desirable for the “human material” to make the “New Jew” that would populate the zionist project in Palestine.

        nb. Jabotinsky himself was just as dismayed at the “degenerated state” of Jews in Prague as Hitler was of Jews he encountered in Vienna. Nordau chronicled the degeneracy.

      122. annamaria says:

        Food for thought for philosophers:
        https://thesaker.is/assange-extradition-can-a-french-touch-pierce-a-neo-orwellian-farce/

        WikiLeaks “allowed whistleblowers to act,” by growing an archive parallel to the “production of data related to the mechanism of contemporary power apparatuses.” Under this framework “every citizen is able to become a researcher.” …

        Assange’s work has been about redistributing power. …

        … the top reason for the United States government’s unbounded thirst for vengeance against Assange, [is that] he challenged the fact that “American acts have a natural regulatory function for the rest of the world, a result of their over-dominance of the contemporary geopolitical space.”

      123. kikl says:
        @Greg S.

        “Sorry but your statement regarding the intent to push the Russians (aka “Asiatics” in Hitler’s parlance) beyond the Urals is an ignorant one. …”

        I provided evidence you didn’t. My reply to your post is: “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

      124. @Johnny Rico

        Is this “a hack-job of history. Cherry-picking, willful negligence, and outright absurdities.”?

        “Friendly Fire explores the intrigue and treachery between – and within – the nations that were ostensibly allies during the Second World War. It demonstrates the extent to which the Allied war effort was driven by vested interests primarily concerned with the balance of power in the post-war world rather than the defeat of Germany and Japan. These machinations prolonged the duration of the war by as much as two years and the end results were a Europe divided between East and West, and the onset of the Cold War.
        Among the many revelations, we learn how, for its own economic ends, the Roosevelt administration actively encouraged the hostilities war between Britain and Germany, and how Anglo-American relations during the Second World War were characterised by suspicion, mistrust and a struggle for future supremacy. The authors detail how British agents tricked Hitler into declaring war on the US in order to bring America into the European conflict and how, under the guise of war aid, the US gave the USSR the means to establish itself as a world superpower – including, from 1943, the secrets of the atom bomb.
        Friendly Fire is based on extensive research undertaken on both sides of the Atlantic and contains information obtained from important archives and the testimonies of those individuals actively involved in the events. It relays the shocking truth about now-legendary figures – Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin – who actively shaped the destiny of countless millions, and details the real agenda behind the formation of the post-war world and the consequences for us all.”
        https://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fire-Secret-Between-Allies/dp/1840189967/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

      125. gregor says:

        Hitler’s plot of world domination

        https://altcensored.com/watch?v=QT8MEXdr6tw

        David Irving on Churchill-Roosevelt Communications

        https://www.bitchute.com/video/isJrBcBFdlEA/

        • Thanks: Zumbuddi
      126. gregor says:
        @fnn

        Below is a quote from a 1975 article by James Leutze, “The Secret of the Churchill-Roosevelt Correspondence: September 1939 – May 1940.”

        The origins of the correspondence are obscure, but the evidence suggests that one of FDR’s most ubiquitous advisors may have been instrumental in stimulating contact. Felix Frankfurter was visiting Oxford University in June 1939 to receive an honorary degree. Frankfurter had a number of British friends and one of them, Sir Maurice Bowra, the Warden of Wadham College, recalls that he found the American jurist deeply perturbed by events in Europe. Frankfurter was convinced that Hitler was unappeasable and posed a threat to civilization everywhere. Bowra, seeking to help put Frankfurter’s mind at ease, suggested that a talk with one of Britain’s leading opponents of Nazism might be in order. Frankfurter was enthusiastic about the possibility and an appointment with Winston Churchill was arranged through Professor F.A. Lindemann, one of Churchill’s closest advisors.

        Shortly after the interview, Bowra sent Lindemann a note of thanks for bringing “Winston and Frankfurter together.” Frankfurter had been greatly impressed and, as Bowra put it, “will be able to give a good report to the President of the United States, who is almost our only friend in the world worth cultivating.” Bowra was aware that Frankfurter was one of the President’s principal sources of private information, and the Warden was sure that the information about Churchill would go straight to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

        Any doubt that Frankfurter was impressed was dispelled by his letter of thanks to Lindemann. “That talk with Mr. Churchill,” Frankfurter wrote from his ship, “was one of the most exhilarating experiences I had in England – it made me feel more secure about the future …” Less than two months later Roosevelt communicated with Churchill for the first time.

        • Thanks: SolontoCroesus, John Regan
      127. Thomasina says:

        Mark Weber – that was an excellent article. Well done!

        • Agree: kikl
      128. TGD says:
        @anon

        …did you even read Mark Weber’s essay?

        I skimmed over it but I read the same dubious assertions many years ago in “The Spotlight” and “The American Mercury,” both owned by Weber’s ideological mentor, Willis Carto.

        Yes, it’s no secret that Churchill tried mightily (and with the complicity of FDR) to get the US to declare war on Germany, but it required the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s war declaration on the USA to accomplish it.

        Hitler was obligated to declare war on the USA because of the Tripartite Agreement and because he felt that a war with the USA would be the ultimate test of the superiority of the German Herrenmenschen.

        • Replies: @Siegfriedson
      129. Mr. Weber and readers interested in this subject might also read :”Roosevelt and Churchill Men of Secrets”” by David Stafford published by GK Hall & Co in 1999 = also large print
        It is excellent history/great read on the FDR Churchill relationship esp as it relates to both countries initiating the OSS and BSC. \
        Another aspect of interest is how Churchill lied and withheld information from FDR in encourage US entry into the war as the Brits were clearly losing the war and had run out of money.. Lend Lease saved the Brits from total financial ruin.

      130. Bukowski says:

        Roosevelt and Churchill were partners in crime before US entry into WW1 as well. Their duplicity in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvsE9zk9KQY

        • Replies: @Jett Rucker
      131. Y’all may want to also read “A Man Called Intrepid”

      132. Jett Rucker says: • Website
        @Bukowski

        What did Roosevelt have to do with the Lusitania? Yes, he mentioned the Lusitania in his 1941 speech, but that’s about it, as far as I know. Have you discovered something?

        • Replies: @Hibernian
        , @Bukowski
      133. @TGD

        The declaration of war against the USA was Hitler’s biggest blunder. Many top ranking German military officers were dumbfounded by this action.

        A virtual state of war had existed for over two years thanks to American provocations; Hitler just made it formal.

      134. @TGD

        [Hitler] felt that a war with the USA would be the ultimate test of the superiority of the German Herrenmenschen.

        *face palm, shaking head*

        • Agree: Carolyn Yeager
      135. @Saggy

        there are many clips of Hitler’s speeches floating around, or there used to be

        A few years ago most of Hitler’s speeches (whether video or audio recordings) were available on Youtube, but they were purged (‘inappropriate content’ and ‘hate speech’, you know).

      136. Hibernian says:
        @Jett Rucker

        He was Assistant Secretary of the Navy during WW1.

      137. Bukowski says:
        @Jett Rucker

        He lied through his teeth and stated that there was no war materiel on board the Lusitania when the cargo included shells, bullets, gun cotton etc. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy he was in a position to know. Watch the short documentary I linked to well worth 24 minutes of your time. Here is the link again.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvsE9zk9KQY

      138. Dan Hayes says:

        Bukowski:

        Thanks for the link!

        It documents Perfidious Albion in action ably assisted by its anglophile acolytes across the pond.

        Quite a nefarious collection of cutthroats: Wilson, FDR, Churchill, et al.

      Current Commenter
      says:

      Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


       Remember My InformationWhy?
       Email Replies to my Comment
      Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
      Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mark Weber Comments via RSS