A Secret History of the United States

"Thirty years later, the British documents were released. Here is how the New York Times reported the revelations:

Formerly top secret British Government papers made public today said that President Franklin D. Roosevelt told Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August, 1941, that he was looking for an incident to justify opening hostilities against Nazi Germany. . . . On August 19 Churchill reported to the War Cabinet in London on other aspects of the Newfoundland [Atlantic Charter] meeting that were not made public. . . . “He [Roosevelt] obviously was determined that they should come in. If he were to put the issue of peace and war to Congress, they would debate it for months,” the Cabinet minutes added. “The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to force an incident.”

I know that Churchill deliberately witheld destroyer protection for the Lusitania, getting us into WWI. Now this.

You never suspected this kind of thing?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Thirty years later, the British documents were released. Here is how the New York Times reported the revelations:

Formerly top secret British Government papers made public today said that President Franklin D. Roosevelt told Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August, 1941, that he was looking for an incident to justify opening hostilities against Nazi Germany. . . . On August 19 Churchill reported to the War Cabinet in London on other aspects of the Newfoundland [Atlantic Charter] meeting that were not made public. . . . “He [Roosevelt] obviously was determined that they should come in. If he were to put the issue of peace and war to Congress, they would debate it for months,” the Cabinet minutes added. “The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to force an incident.”

I know that Churchill deliberately witheld destroyer protection for the Lusitania, getting us into WWI. Now this.

[/quote]
"Now, Class, for our first essay question: given the vital nature of neutral transatlantic shipping, and the strained resources of the Royal Navy, did FIrst Lord Churchill have adequate power to protect all of it? Is there any evidence at all that the Lusitania was specifically neglected? Did Churchill write the Zimmerman letter?

“Next question, class. Who declared war first: the US or Germany? Did Churchill arrange Dec 7, 1941 in his spare time?”

History is so much more interesting when it is read plain. Ideologic revisionists are read for comic relief.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
"Thirty years later, the British documents were released. Here is how the New York Times reported the revelations:

Formerly top secret British Government papers made public today said that President Franklin D. Roosevelt told Prime Minister Winston Churchill in August, 1941, that he was looking for an incident to justify opening hostilities against Nazi Germany. . . . On August 19 Churchill reported to the War Cabinet in London on other aspects of the Newfoundland [Atlantic Charter] meeting that were not made public. . . . “He [Roosevelt] obviously was determined that they should come in. If he were to put the issue of peace and war to Congress, they would debate it for months,” the Cabinet minutes added. “The President had said he would wage war but not declare it and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. . . . Everything was to be done to force an incident.”

I know that Churchill deliberately witheld destroyer protection for the Lusitania, getting us into WWI. Now this.

"Now, Class, for our first essay question: given the vital nature of neutral transatlantic shipping, and the strained resources of the Royal Navy, did FIrst Lord Churchill have adequate power to protect all of it? Is there any evidence at all that the Lusitania was specifically neglected? Did Churchill write the Zimmerman letter?

“Next question, class. Who declared war first: the US or Germany? Did Churchill arrange Dec 7, 1941 in his spare time?”

History is so much more interesting when it is read plain. Ideologic revisionists are read for comic relief.
[/quote]

There’s a lot of evidence of Churchill’s crimes. He as much as admits to his crimes in his diary. Documents in the Royal Navy Archives show Churchill calling back the destroyer Juno, despite the Lusitania sailing into known waters where a sub was on patrol. Oh, and he ordered Lusitania to sail at 3/4 speed.

There’s a lot more.

I find it fascinating how Big Brother uses us as pawns. Its really an interesting study.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
You never suspected this kind of thing?[/quote]

I know you were talking to HH, but my answer is that I actually never really thought of it. I always found the war fascinating, but other than the obvious causes I never gave it’s causes much thought. I just goes to show, war is inherently evil no matter whose side your on. No matter what side your on leadership especially make some vial, despicable, nasty, etc. decisions.

The good guy is the one who is the least nasty. I still have an issue with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have heard some of the justifications and some of those are ok, but the sheer magnitude of death and destruction makes it hard to take. The survivors had it the worst. War is nasty, I hate it…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

There’s a lot of evidence of Churchill’s crimes. He as much as admits to his crimes in his diary. Documents in the Royal Navy Archives show Churchill calling back the destroyer Juno, despite the Lusitania sailing into known waters where a sub was on patrol. Oh, and he ordered Lusitania to sail at 3/4 speed.

There’s a lot more.

I find it fascinating how Big Brother uses us as pawns. Its really an interesting study.

[/quote]

Hmmm…Well, HH, you may have some info there. Here is some more:

  1. On reduced speed of transit

The order to reduce speed did not come from Churchill, and was issued in February 1915, at the opening of submarine warfare, 3 months before RMS Lusitania was sunk. Here is why:
“…For economic reasons, Lusitania’s transatlantic crossings were reduced to once a month and boiler room Number 4 was shut down. Maximum speed was reduced to 21 knots (39 km/h), but even then, Lusitania was the fastest passenger liner on the North Atlantic in commercial service, and 10 knots (18.5 km/h) faster than submarines…”

  1. On Admiralty and sub warnings:

"…On 5 May and 6 May, U-20 sank three vessels in the area of Fastnet Rock, and the Royal Navy sent a warning to all British ships: “Submarines active off the south coast of Ireland”. Captain Turner of Lusitania was given the message twice on the evening of the 6th, and took what he felt were prudent precautions. He closed watertight doors, posted double lookouts, ordered a black-out, and had the lifeboats swung out on their davits so they could be quickly put into the water if need be. That same evening, a Seamen’s Charities fund concert took place in the first class lounge.

At about 11:00, on Friday, May 7, the Admiralty radioed another warning, and Turner adjusted his heading northeast, apparently thinking submarines would be more likely to keep to the open sea and so Lusitania would be safer close to land…"
[Why would the Royal Navy have issued these warnings to Lusitania if it were part of some grand conspiracy to sink it?]

  1. On revisionist theories:

"Some historians have theorised that Great Britain, in particular First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, conspired to have Lusitania sunk to draw the United States into the First World War. However, there is some argument against this. It was well known by British, American, and German governments at the time that if the Americans entered the war, they would divert war materials and ammunition toward raising and equipping their own army for fighting, rather than toward keeping the British going in their war effort.

Indeed, U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, while serving as Assistant to then Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, had prior to the sinking prepared a memorandum clearly outlining why American involvement in the war would be detrimental to the Allies. Similarly, two days after the sinking, the British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Cecil Spring�??Rice, telegraphed London advising that it was in Britain’s “main interest to preserve U.S. as a base of supplies.” It would take quite some time for the United States to train and equip its army."

[Lansing was far more influential with Wilson than was Bryan, who resigned after the Lusitania sinking, perhaps out of isolationist principal.]

  1. On HMS Juno:

"…Admiral Oliver drew to Churchill’s attention the fact that the Juno was unsuitable for exposure to submarine attack without escort, and suggested that elements of the destroyer flotilla from Milford Haven should be sent forthwith to her assistance. At this juncture the Admiralty War Diary stops short, perhaps understandably, as it was here the decision was made that was to be the direct cause of the disaster. No one alive today knows who made it, but Churchill and Fisher must share the responsibility.

Shortly after noon on May 5 the Admiralty signaled Juno to abandon her escort mission and return to Queenstown… The Lusitania was not informed that she was now alone, and closing every minute to the U-20. Admiral Coke at Queenstown was informed of the order and instructed to protect the Lusitania as best he could…"

Ok. This last, only, is from a pro-Winston website. But it is severely well documented.
And, to my faulty memory, the exhaustive biographies by Manchester and Gilbert, who would have had access to the 1971 documents, do not vet any of these particular “crackpot”…oops, I mean revisionist…theories.

Why bother looking into all this? If one believes in maniacal conspiracies, one can find fragments and threads in support. If you resent that you are a pawn, why would you surrender to the most manipulative sources out there, the Conspiracy Theorists?

Use your skills, man!
Don’t swallow it all, hook, line and “sinker.”

[quote]pat36 wrote:

I know you were talking to HH, but my answer is that I actually never really thought of it. I always found the war fascinating, but other than the obvious causes I never gave it’s causes much thought. I just goes to show, war is inherently evil no matter whose side your on. No matter what side your on leadership especially make some vial, despicable, nasty, etc. decisions.

The good guy is the one who is the least nasty. I still have an issue with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have heard some of the justifications and some of those are ok, but the sheer magnitude of death and destruction makes it hard to take. The survivors had it the worst. War is nasty, I hate it…[/quote]

Agree with your general assessment, but read this book on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pat36 wrote:
.

The good guy is the one who is the least nasty.

[/quote]
I think it depends on initiation as well. Even if the Nazi’s didn’t want to exterminate the Untermensch, and even if they didn’t attack civilians (something that Churchill is thought to have systematically initiated first by some, Hitler had given direct orders for the Luftwaffer not to attack civilian targets), their campaign to establish Lebensraum (“living space”)in Eastern Europe would have been sinister enough on its own to be considered “evil” no matter how nicely they would have tried to do it.

This is one of the reason Soviet war crimes on the German population are often overlooked, history has little sympathy for the initiators no matter how nasty and objectively “evil” the retaliation was.

You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

I find it fascinating how Big Brother uses us as pawns. Its really an interesting study.

Hmmm…Well, HH, you may have some info there. Here is some more:

Why bother looking into all this? If one believes in maniacal conspiracies, one can find fragments and threads in support. If you resent that you are a pawn, why would you surrender to the most manipulative sources out there, the Conspiracy Theorists?

Use your skills, man!
Don’t swallow it all, hook, line and “sinker.”
[/quote]

Well, HH? No response yet from lewrockwell.com, or another purveyor of The Conspiracy?
At least I get credit for pun of the day.

[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
pat36 wrote:
.

The good guy is the one who is the least nasty.

I think it depends on initiation as well. Even if the Nazi’s didn’t want to exterminate the Untermensch, and even if they didn’t attack civilians (something that Churchill is thought to have systematically initiated first by some, Hitler had given direct orders for the Luftwaffer not to attack civilian targets), their campaign to establish Lebensraum (“living space”)in Eastern Europe would have been sinister enough on its own to be considered “evil” no matter how nicely they would have tried to do it.

This is one of the reason Soviet war crimes on the German population are often overlooked, history has little sympathy for the initiators no matter how nasty and objectively “evil” the retaliation was.

You mess with the bull, you get the horns.[/quote]

I didn’t mean to sound like a fag choir boy, I know no matter how ugly, war is necessary in some cases. I mean that no matter what side your on it’s always ugly. Despite that, there is always a good guy and a bad guy. Usually in the end, the good guy wins.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pat36 wrote:

I know you were talking to HH, but my answer is that I actually never really thought of it. I always found the war fascinating, but other than the obvious causes I never gave it’s causes much thought. I just goes to show, war is inherently evil no matter whose side your on. No matter what side your on leadership especially make some vial, despicable, nasty, etc. decisions.

The good guy is the one who is the least nasty. I still have an issue with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have heard some of the justifications and some of those are ok, but the sheer magnitude of death and destruction makes it hard to take. The survivors had it the worst. War is nasty, I hate it…

Agree with your general assessment, but read this book on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

[/quote]

The book looks interesting. I can’t say I am going to get around to it any time soon, but like I said it isn’t the reason for dropping the bomb that bothers me. It’s the magnitude of the death and destruction. No wonder Iran wants the bomb. They’d be ecstatic at the number of jews they could kill in one fell swoop.
The problem with the atomic bomb is that it is such a big stick, it’s almost unsuable except in the most extreme of circumstances. Our enemies know this and exploit the shit out of that fact. Could you imagine if we called their bluff?

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Why bother looking into all this? If one believes in maniacal conspiracies, one can find fragments and threads in support. If you resent that you are a pawn, why would you surrender to the most manipulative sources out there, the Conspiracy Theorists?

Use your skills, man!
Don’t swallow it all, hook, line and “sinker.”
[/quote]

I am at work so obviously can’t research too much now. However, I have read from several sources. Here’s an over view: Britain was being beaten by sub warfare. This was making it harder and harder to sell British paper on the US Bond market. The British would be unable to continue fighting except by destroying the pound. They HAD to bring in the USA. So, Winston ordered that his ships fire on white flags, and never surrender. This made the Germans attack ships with no warning, which would eventually cause a catastrophe, like the Lusitania.

The Lusitania was a warship btw, not a passenger liner.

HH, would you have done the same thing in Churchill’s position?

I ask this as an Englishman who is under no patriotic delusions as to the progress of the war. Heck, the Nazi’s practically invited us in on their side and we turned that down.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
War is nasty, I hate it…[/quote]

Amen.

[quote] Joe wrote:
HH, would you have done the same thing in Churchill’s position?

I ask this as an Englishman who is under no patriotic delusions as to the progress of the war. Heck, the Nazi’s practically invited us in on their side and we turned that down.[/quote]

I fully recognize that there is no morality between nations. Still, putting civilians on a ship and sailing it into the path of a sub…all to (as WC said) bring an ally into the field…pretty bad.

WC knew that the Empire was about played out and wanted to try to string it out, with a transfusion, so to speak, from a young vigorous America. He succeeded.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

Why bother looking into all this? If one believes in maniacal conspiracies, one can find fragments and threads in support. If you resent that you are a pawn, why would you surrender to the most manipulative sources out there, the Conspiracy Theorists?

Use your skills, man!
Don’t swallow it all, hook, line and “sinker.”

I am at work so obviously can’t research too much now. However, I have read from several sources. Here’s an over view: Britain was being beaten by sub warfare. This was making it harder and harder to sell British paper on the US Bond market. The British would be unable to continue fighting except by destroying the pound. They HAD to bring in the USA. So, Winston ordered that his ships fire on white flags, and never surrender. This made the Germans attack ships with no warning, which would eventually cause a catastrophe, like the Lusitania.

The Lusitania was a warship btw, not a passenger liner.

[/quote]

Not quite…

“…At the onset of World War I, the British Admiralty considered Lusitania for requisition as an armed merchant cruiser; however, large liners such as Lusitania consumed too much coal, presented too large a target, and put at risk large crews and were therefore deemed inappropriate for the role. They were also very distinctive. Smaller liners were used as transports, instead.
The large liners were either not requisitioned, or were used for troop transport or as hospital ships. Mauretania became a troop transport while Lusitania continued in her role as a luxury liner built to convey people between Great Britain and the United States.”

Your earlier assertions are more difficult to dispute because they are vague, but they also do not ring true and sound. First, the sub war was only 3 months along in May 1915; the burn rate was not yet threatening. (For the devastation caused to civilians–Germans, in 1918–see the horrifying descriptions in “Einstein in Berlin.”) Second, the Brits had no trouble selling paper to the US; by 1918, the US was converted from a net debtor nation to the largest creditor nation, largely by virtue of British debt (without much devaluation.)

My purpose here is to suggest, HH, that you are being led astray by “your sources.” I suggest, humbly, that you, as a teacher, would demand of yourself the same rigor which you demand of your students.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pat36 wrote:

I know you were talking to HH, but my answer is that I actually never really thought of it. I always found the war fascinating, but other than the obvious causes I never gave it’s causes much thought. I just goes to show, war is inherently evil no matter whose side your on. No matter what side your on leadership especially make some vial, despicable, nasty, etc. decisions.

The good guy is the one who is the least nasty. I still have an issue with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have heard some of the justifications and some of those are ok, but the sheer magnitude of death and destruction makes it hard to take. The survivors had it the worst. War is nasty, I hate it…

Agree with your general assessment, but read this book on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

[/quote]

Sorry to butt in. Here in Japan it is taboo to offer any justification of the bombings of hiroshima and Nagasaki. Politicians lose their jobs for saying anything like this. Somehow the a-bomb survivors have managed to take the bombings out of the context of the war, thus they are seen only as victims.

This I think is wrong. The bombings must be viewed in the context of the war. While I do think the that the bombings could be justified as neccessary I don’t think they could be morally justified. You have these two sides, some Japanese think that that the bombings were no way neccessary and some Americans who continue to find reasons to morally justify the bombings.

The bombings might have been neccessary and morally wrong which just goes to show that in war sometimes your choices are not between good and bad but between bad and worse.

[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
This is one of the reason Soviet war crimes on the German population are often overlooked, history has little sympathy for the initiators no matter how nasty and objectively “evil” the retaliation was. [/quote]

Exactly. That’s the reason people will naturally oppose “preemptive war” and turn against the aggressor.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
No wonder Iran wants the bomb. They’d be ecstatic at the number of jews they could kill in one fell swoop. [/quote]

And for the last time, nukes are deterrents.

War only benefits those who finance them.