-
Elizabeth Warren Dips into FDR’s Bag of Dirty Tricks
August 13, 2012 | 34 comments
-
Obama Against Any President
January 25, 2012 | 75 comments
-
Mitt Romney’s Chance for Glory
January 20, 2012 | 50 comments
-
Road Runners
January 9, 2012 | 24 comments
-
FDR’s Class Warfare: A Tutorial For Obama
December 8, 2011 | 138 comments
Buy the Book
Herbert Hoover’s Long-Awaited Magnum Opus
Our 31st President’s secret history of World War II is now available.
Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second
World War and Its Aftermath
Edited with an introduction by George H. Nash
(Hoover Institution Press, 957 pages, $49.95)
“I have not got too far to go [in writing my Magnum Opus] and this is the most important job of my remaining years.” Thus wrote former President Herbert Hoover in 1963, after almost 20 years of work on his secret history of World War II. During that war, Hoover watched in dismay as events unfolded; he went on a mission to collect the evidence to reveal the real story of the mishandled war—the mistakes of statesmanship, the lost opportunities for peace, and the disastrous consequences of this most devastating war in the history of the world. Yet, despite requests from eager publishers, Hoover never released his book during his lifetime, and neither would his family after his death. Until now.
We will analyze the contents of this remarkable book, but first, what is the story behind it? In 1933, Hoover left the White House, thrashed in his reelection bid by Franklin Roosevelt. Hoover, as a trained engineer in Stanford’s first graduating class, had been a world traveler and a statesman of the first rank. He served as Food Administrator under Woodrow Wilson during World War I and Secretary of Commerce under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Hoover was a major player on the world stage and a logical candidate for the Republicans to nominate for president in 1928. His easy victory in that election, however, was followed by stress, setbacks, and the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s triumph four years later was hardly surprising, but Hoover did not leave quietly. After a year of silence, he wrote Challenge to Liberty, a sharp criticism of the growth of government under FDR. Six years later, rejected by Roosevelt and ignored by Republicans, Hoover watched as an “avoidable” second world war emerged, sucking in the U.S., and then eroding liberty and threatening to destroy the victors as well as the vanquished.
In 1944, Hoover began collecting documents that would help explain the causes and consequences of what he considered to be the mishandled war. He started with newspapers and, over time, added accounts of the war published by participants. Then came the secondary sources, books about Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, and Joseph Stalin. Hoover’s Magnum Opus, as he called it, was more than a passive account of what happened, because Hoover himself was involved directly in the war relief of Finland and Poland. He also wrote letters to major players in the war and conducted interviews with them to discover the truth about how the war had originated and evolved. Hoover did not do archival research, but he knew key leaders throughout the world and tried to use their letters and conversations with him to fill in gaps. Thus, the book is unique—part primary source and part secondary source. Close to half of the book is a reprinting of documents and letters that Hoover assembled.
During the 1950s, when the world war was still a dominant topic, several publishers, such as Henry Regnery, eagerly sought to print Hoover’s book, but he could not let it go. Interestingly, Hoover was a workaholic and published his memoirs and other books on topics ranging from politics to fishing. For his Magnum Opus, however, he hired a platoon of typists and researchers to do draft after draft, swelling the manuscript to 1,400 typed pages. But he never released it.
George Nash, the nation’s foremost Hoover scholar, gingerly speculates that Hoover became a perfectionist, rewriting, editing, and adding new information on the war as it became available. Nash notes that Hoover, whose reputation was somewhat rehabilitated during the 1950s, may have been reluctant to suffer the almost certain negative reaction that would flow from the friends of FDR and intervention.
The fear of negative reaction probably did influence his heirs to pack the manuscript into storage in 1964, after Hoover’s death that year. And maybe those fears haunted Hoover as well. During his career, we should note, he often suffered criticism willingly for what he thought was right. For example, in 1932, President Hoover confronted about 10,000 or so veterans who had descended on Washington, D.C., to lobby for a special federal subsidy for those who had served their country in war. Hoover, and the Senate, said no, and when many veterans remained, Hoover became alarmed at their protests. Then, concerned about violence because the veterans camped so close to the Capitol, Hoover dispatched General Douglas MacArthur with troops to remove the raucous veterans from the Capitol area. But Hoover explicitly told MacArthur to use diplomacy, not firepower. MacArthur, for whatever reason, did attack the veterans, injuring some, and chasing them with infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks all the way to Maryland. The press excoriated Hoover, but the president took full responsibility and was mum on MacArthur’s disobedience. Duty prevailed over political self-interest. And that was in the midst of Hoover’s reelection campaign. Roosevelt, when he heard about the slaughter of the veterans, reportedly announced to Felix Frankfurter, “Well, Felix, this will elect me.”
The man who would suffer such criticism surely would not cave in to critics who would fault his history of World War II. But maybe he would. In 1952, with Hoover’s reputation on the rise, he published a volume of his presidential memoirs and for the first time revealed MacArthur’s duplicity. Hoover, historians would now have to write, was not to blame for the massacre of veterans. At almost the same time as Hoover tattled on MacArthur, he was refusing to publish his sensational, but controversial, history of World War II. Perhaps, as Hoover approached the age of eighty, his concern with posterity was outweighing his concern with wartime analysis.
WHATEVER THE CASE, the Hoover Institution has at last published Hoover’s remarkable book. It was initially titled Lost Statesmanship, but Hoover changed it to Freedom Betrayed. George Nash has exquisitely edited the book and has provided a long and lucid introduction to it. Hoover organized his book chronologically into three “volumes.” The first volume covered the breakout of war in Europe until the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. The second volume centered on the war itself, with the focus on political negotiations and the conferences held by the Allies. The third volume includes case histories of Poland, China, Korea, and Germany during and after the war. At the end is an Appendix of selected documents related to Hoover’s research and to the war itself.
Hoover’s book is indeed controversial because most histories of World War II stress the positive—the fall of Hitler, the triumph of the Allies, and the creation of a United Nations afterward to preserve and enforce peace after the guns of war became silent. These historians call it “the good war”: the U.S. finally grew up as a nation among nations, ceased its isolationism, and spearheaded the war effort, with the founding of the UN afterward. True, the peace proved to be fragile. The Russians aggressively marched into Eastern Europe, the Cold War emerged, and a new “limited war” erupted in Korea. But that was not the fault of FDR and others, who fought the good war, won it, and tried to give peace to the next generation.
Freedom Betrayed disputes this popular view on almost every point. Hoover argues that a major war may have been avoidable, and should have played out with much less damage. Hitler, of course, was a dangerous tyrant, but his ability to expand was limited. The U.S., in particular, was in no danger—if Hitler couldn’t conquer Britain 22 miles across the English Channel, Hoover quipped, he certainly couldn’t take his second-rate navy across the Atlantic to challenge North and South America. Even much of Europe would have been safe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Hoover stressed, should never have guaranteed aid to Poland from German attack. Eventually Germany and Russia would have been the chief warring nations. “We should have let those two bastards annihilate themselves,” Hoover said privately after the war.
Hoover singles out FDR for special blame. He became a war hawk in 1939 “to divert public attention from the failure of the New Deal.…” Then he pretended to be the candidate of peace in order to win a third term in 1940. But after he was safely reelected, “the tone changed; there was no more ‘short of war’ or promises to keep out. On the contrary, soon in 1941 there began a series of provocations and actions by the administration which amounted to an undeclared war upon Germany, and a few months later upon Japan.” Specifically, FDR pushed Lend-Lease, which allowed him extra-constitutional powers to ship arms to England; soon, contrary to his promises, the president was convoying British ships to pick up and deliver loads of military equipment from the U.S. The president also provoked the Japanese by refusing to trade oil and scrap iron with them. Hoover believes that FDR bungled by allowing a devastating surprise attack at Pearl Harbor: by sending so many fighter planes and antiaircraft guns to foreign governments through Lend-Lease, Roosevelt left Hawaii without a means of adequate defense.
Hoover has special scorn for FDR’s decision to give billions of dollars of Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union, “one of the bloodiest tyrannies and terrors ever erected in history.” As Hoover said at the time, “Joining in a war alongside Stalin to impose freedom is a travesty.” After the war, Stalin used American planes, guns, gas, and food to help conquer Eastern Europe. Furthermore, when Roosevelt endorsed “unconditional surrender” for the Germans, he gave them incentives to keep fighting to the death, extending the war unnecessarily and costing thousands of American lives.
HOOVER VIEWED NOT ONLY World War II but war in general very differently from Roosevelt. Hoover, for example, was appalled by war—and saw firsthand its devastating effects on everyone involved. Under President Wilson, Hoover visited Europe regularly during the First World War. He headed food and relief efforts throughout Europe, but was always saddened by war’s devastation. Aside from the destruction of property and lives, and the “spiritual degradation” as well, Hoover studied the financial burdens. In the U.S., for example, national debt increased from $1.2 billion in 1916 to $24 billion in 1920. That included almost $10 billion in loans to European countries, almost none of which (except for Finland) was repaid. Tax rates on income skyrocketed from 7 percent in 1913 to 73 percent in 1921, when Hoover took office as secretary of commerce. “Those who would have us again go to war to save democracy,” George Nash quotes Hoover as saying in 1938, “might give a little thought to the likelihood that we would come out of any such struggle a despotism ourselves.”
Hoover’s fears were partly realized when America entered World War II. Franklin Roosevelt used the wartime emergency to become an imperial president; through executive orders, he gained the power to close any stock exchange, order the military to take over any land, disregard tariffs, and control radio stations. FDR’s War Production Board (WPB) directed the allocation of raw materials and fuel during the war for all segments of the economy. Roosevelt also set up dozens of other regulatory agencies, and the American people generally went along with these intrusions on their liberties in the patriotic fervor of “let’s win the war!”
About the Author
Burton Folsom, Jr. is professor of history at Hillsdale College and author of New Deal or Raw Deal? (Simon & Schuster, 2008). His latest book, co-authored with Anita Folsom, is FDR Goes to War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America (Simon & Schuster, 2011).
About the Author
Anita Folsom works at Hillsdale College and is co-author of FDR Goes to War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America (Simon & Schuster, 2011).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Burton Folsom, Jr.
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/23/herbert-hoovers-long-awaited-m
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
oldfart| 2.23.12 @ 7:12AM
I ordered a copy of this book. The editing is excellent and makes for a good read. Based on my schedule I figure I finish it by the end of summer.
His chapters on his tour through Europe on the eve of the outbreak of WWII are very good. Especially his analysis and meetings with Hitler and Goering.
His does have a very negative view of FDR, and while not directly stated, one gets the impression he thought FDR was an intellectual light weight with zero understanding of basic economics.
I remember reading some comments from John L. Lewis that after meeting with FDR he, Lewis, never really knew where FDR stood on anything. FDR would just smile and turn on the charm, make you feel good. Lewis had the impression that FDR had all the substance of sea foam.
Even if you don't agree with everything Hoover did – the book is worth the read.
Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 7:36AM
This is one of the grestest books of revisionist history ever published about WW2. It is right up there with Pat Buchanan's great work, ' Churchill Hitler And The Unnecessary War. ' It is particularly apropriate in this time as warmongers try to lie us into another disasterous world war. Read the book and see how warmongers always use the same tactics to suck the poor slobs who fight wars into their insanity. Goring while he was a prisonor, explained it best, how governments use propagada to justify wars. Herbert Hoover was a great patriot who tried to stop this holocaust. He stood up to the warmongers and tried to stop them. Read this great book and Pat's too, to get a real history that has been surpressed far too long.
oldfart| 2.23.12 @ 8:01AM
Jack - Hoover was anything but a warmonger. I believe your analysis is flawed to include Hoover with someone like Pat Buchanan. The book is written from Hoover's detailed notes of his first hand experiences and very well cited with additional material to back up his statements.
It has nothing to do with party labels - which are frankly without any real substance in today's politics.
Nemo| 2.23.12 @ 8:29AM
No, this analysis is not flawed. Like Buchanan's revolting book. it's just nuts.
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 6:39PM
I guess the facts are always revolting to someone whose mind is closed and sealed with reinforced concrete.
Buchanan's book has been attacked repeatedly, but never, *never* on the facts. There's been a lot of emotion, and screaming, but the facts stand squarely on Buchanan's side.
OF, you had a knee jerk reaction to what Jack wrote. Jack did not say Hoover was a warmonger. Anyone that knows the least bit about Hoover wouldn't call him a warmonger.
Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 12:28PM
Old Farte: Hoover's book mirrors Pat Buchanan's fine work. It was written 50 years before Pat's and with much, much, first hand experiance. His book and Pat's are probably the best works of true history of WW2 and how we got into our present mess.
JFGalt| 2.24.12 @ 1:00PM
If you substitute Obama for FDR in what you said, it still works.
Jack in Wi.| 2.23.12 @ 7:47AM
Herbert Hoover, Robert M. La Follete Sr., George Norris, Robert Taft, Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan were and are great Republicans, of both left and right, who believed non intervention is the best way for America to go in this world. The warmongers have run us into the ground for 100 years. We are finally bankrupt because of all these unnecessary wars and foreign entanglements. This week of George Washinton's birthday it is time to remember his great words to his successors." Peace and trade with all and no permanent foreign alliances, and entanglements. " Bring all the troops home now, close up these wars and bases, and start thinking like Switzerland and Sweden.
JKS| 2.23.12 @ 8:30AM
I know I'm confusing you with the facts when your mind is made up, but entitlements have bankrupted us, not wars.
Stefan Stackhouse| 2.23.12 @ 10:17AM
There is plenty of blame to go around, excessive expenditure both on entitlements and on overseas internventionism has dug us into this hole.
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 6:40PM
Amen!
JFGalt| 2.24.12 @ 1:04PM
What has pushed over the edge has been the militarization kick we've been on since 2001 with DHS and police departments becoming more like militias and 2 wars that have sucked billions out of productive endeavors. While entitlements are a major problem these costly and largely unnecessary wars have bankrupted us. We know we were lied to about Iraq and we squandered our early victoies in Afghanistan. I'm not talking about our troops but the civilian-military leadership.
Aoborn| 2.24.12 @ 9:01PM
Uncontrolled Immigration has also had a major impact on our current situation.
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 8:03AM
Hoover was a technocrat with a pacifist Isolationist 1920's Progressive Elite world view. (Washington Treaties, Kellogg-Briand Pact - among other suicidal fantasies)
He was bitter and angry over at Roosevelt. He was a bit player for the remainder of his life, and will always be remembered as a total failure.
This work is of historical value because it illuminates the extreme differences that existed both before and after the war. It also shows that men who fail at leadership, and relegated to deferential support roles never again rise to any sort of popular prestige.
Revisionists come in all sorts of flavors. They all merit universal derision. The reality is as it happened. Accommodation for Adolf Hitler is the height of historical insanity. Hitler was a threat to the entire Western world, at that immediate time. The Allies made the bargains that they made and we survived to fight the next round.
Roosevelt was no saint for many (my grandfathers despised him - one was a civilian, one was a senior Navy NCO who served in the Atlantic the entire war.); but he was nearly a secular saint to the bulk of the remainder (my great uncles all loved him and voted for him - and all five of them enlisted in the Army during the war...) .
Ultimately this book will be a curiosity of jealousy and sour grapes written by an abject failure, who never overcame that image.
r/John - TMF
oldfart| 2.23.12 @ 8:26AM
The sour grapes are there but I don't agree that any work that has a different point of view of what occured should be dismissed out of hand. First history accounts are written by the victors, at that moment of time. With the passage of time, and emotion, as you mentioned in your family, fades, it is always wise to have another look.
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 9:10AM
As a halted Historian (I'll get back to it at some point in time... I just have to pay for my three children's college educations, first.) I value any work written by primary sources. I also temper the interest with the critical importance of context; that discipline which all Revisionists lack.
The inescapable conclusion is that Hoover's point of view merits historical analysis, and also begs the conclusion that Hoover failed for a reason; he was wrong. It doesn't make FDR right about much except the need to fight World War II- but it does make FDR the first president elected 4 times, and Hoover a one termer.
r/John - TMF
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 6:46PM
The book is just out. Have you read the book, or are you just slinging mud because you see Hoover as a failure?
In many ways FDR was a failure. The man was a rent seeker from the beginning and dug a hole that only Ike after him was able to make any effort to get us out.
Given the type of man Hoover was, vs what FDR was, I would say that Hoover was a man that loved his country, and hated to see it drubbed by twits that thought greatness came as a result of getting 100,000+ men killed in combat. The west might have survived the bad check France and Great Britain wrote to Poland, but millions did not.
If what you wrote above is typical, then we can be glad you are a halted historian. There are already plenty of leftists that wear blinkers in that field. The world will not miss another like them.
albert constantine jr.| 2.23.12 @ 8:30AM
"Roosevelt was no saint for many "
An early moment in my political awakening occurred when as a lad I read “Guadalcanal Diary” by Richard Tregaskis. He described a scene in which a Japanese soldier, probing the lines, kept shouting out “Roosevelt is a son of a bitch” over and over from different positions to their front. Tregaskis asked one of the Marines why they didn’t fire on him, and he responded to the effect “I can’t kill him. He’s a good Republican.”
Texas Engineer| 2.23.12 @ 9:18AM
I remember that as well Albert...I think I was in the 5th grade when I read Guadacanal Diary.
Dan Phillips| 2.23.12 @ 9:26AM
Hoover confirms what us non-interventionists have been saying all along. FDR deliberately antagonized the Japanese in order to back door us into the War in Europe. Are you willing to concede that now or are the people who make that case still conspiracy theory spouting America haters?
"Revisionists come in all sorts of flavors. They all merit universal derision."
Well isn't that convenient. That dispenses with that tiresome thing called thinking. No need for any of that.
Dan Phillips| 2.23.12 @ 9:34AM
This was supposed to be in reply to John-TMF's rant above.
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 10:15AM
Lindy landed in Paris there.. Red... er um Dan...
The world is a tiny place. Anyone can fly non-stop across more than half the globe, in less than a day. There are no isolated national economies, all are interconnected, and what happens in Athens, Tehran, or Bejing, effects EVERYTHING, HERE.
It isn't 1925 anymore. Isolationism failed, the pacifist movement of the 1920's lead to the Fascist dominance of the 1930's.
Isolationism is a fools policy. There is no fort, their is no safe spot. The world does not go away because we want to play with our own navels.
Pacifism is insane because it requires of it 100 % participation 100 % of the time. Perfection is not where mankind is just yet. (My old man used to say... "Mankind? Nah... Man-ok-sometimes, evil most."
But then any reasoned argument is a "Rant" I suspect the motives of the complainer.
-TMF
Dan Phillips| 2.23.12 @ 12:30PM
"But then any reasoned argument"
Reasoned argument? Coming from the guy who encourages unreflective "universal derision," that is mighty rich.
It funny how for interventionists it is always no longer 1796 (the date of Washington's Farewell Address) or 1925 etc., but it is always 1939. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Is it no longer 1796 or is it always 1939?
BTW, you didn't address my inconvenient point. Do you dispute that FDR deliberately attempted to provoke the Japanese so as to back door us into the War in Europe? This is a question that you addressed independently of whether you think our entry into WWII was wise or not.
Also, it is not "reasoned argument" to deliberately conflate pacifism with non-intervention. Pacifism is as far as I'm concerned a Christian theological position (Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, etc.) that I believe is theologically incorrect. Non-interventionism can be boiled down to the idea of wanting the US to act like other nations (this is the intuitively conservative position) and not assume for itself some sort of exagerated role (the inherently radical position). You prattled on about an interconnected world, but yet the US spends 50% give or take of the entire world's allocation for defense. Is not the world equally interconnected for all those other countries? But they spend a mere fraction of what we spend on "defense." If such lavish expenditures are necessary for the US then why are they not necessary for China? Russia? Bolivia?
Dan Phillips| 2.23.12 @ 12:33PM
"This is a question that you addressed independently of whether you think our entry into WWII was wise or not."
Should read "This is a question you can address independently..."
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 1:57PM
Once again you make my point.
1. If you cannot tell the difference between 1796 and 1939, technologically or socially there is no hope for you understanding that Alexander Hamilton's Farewell Address for George Washington was a document written by the departing executive of a small non-industrial nation perched on the edge of a continent that it did not control, and surrounded by wilderness, enemies, and marginal allies. His advice was advice for the time. A time of sail, wind, watermills, and only the first whiffs of industrialization.
2. World War II was started. How it got started is a complex set of events, but it started earlier than most people think.
There were two separate wars that conflated at one time - the opening volleys were fired in 1931 with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. The Pacific War was started by restless expansionist Imperial Japan without an ounce of baiting by FDR - who wasn't even President at the time of the invasion, who was? HOOVER! Who sat on his hands and did nothing, because we had NO ARMY to speak of, and our navy was old WWI battleships, four piper destroyers, under armed and armored cruisers and an experimental aircraft carrier. We still were flying a hodgepodge of fabric covered biplanes up until 1935. We were weak, and the Imperial Japanese knew it. They were building Navy with all metal monoplane aircraft designs on the board. They were a serious threat, and meant to control the entire western Pacific, and China.
Europe was a festering dangerous stew of old hatreds and new technologies. The dual threats of the infighting on the Left between Fascism and Marxism. In Europe the Spanish Civil War lit the fuse, and assertions to the contrary are total nonsense.
The United States could no more avoid World War II than we could stop the Earth from rotating. We were the "enemy" by virtue of us being what we are and were even with our puny little army, old rusty navy, and ancient air corps.
Germany declared war on us.
Japan not only bombed Pearl Harbor - only diplomatic slowness with coding and delivery prevented their declaration of hostilities from being delivered on time. In effect Japan delcared war on us first, too. They invaded the Philippines (US Territory at the time), Wake Island, and Guam. It was expansionist, Imperialistic, and its colonial rule was cruel.
As to our current military budget. We have the world's largest economy. We spend a paltry 4% of our GDP on defense. That number is dropping rapidly. The danger level is rising, and we are playing with social engineering and budgetary penny pinching.
We either police the world with the assistance and cooperation of whoever we can enlist to help, maintain a strong, engaged and deployed military, or we die.
It's that simple.
Go ahead, live in your box. But be aware that it is in the middle of a highway, and is unlikely to survive the semi bearing down on it.
-Ok... no more feeding the trolls...
Peace, Love, and Bobby Sherman....
Dan Phillips| 2.23.12 @ 2:59PM
If it is not now 1796 and "times have changed," then neither is every threat Hitler nor every non-militaristic response “appeasement”, but often interventionist ideologues appeal to WWII as a first resort. Good grief! At least have the self respect to save the Hitler and Chamberlain references to the third or fourth resort after you have run out of other options.
What America was in 1796 was a limited federated republic. What it is today is an empire that fancies itself benevolent. What America should be today is what the Founders intended and what it was in 1796, a limited federated republic. This may be difficult for you, but try to wrap your mind around it. Conservatives want to conserve things. Go figure. Therefore it follows that an American conservative should want his country to be what it was designed and intended to be, a limited federated republic, not what it was not intended to be, an empire.
The reason our military was “weak” (actually adequate) in 1935 was because we faced no realistic threat to the homeland. Who was poised to invade us? Canada? Mexico? There is actually a great statistic that I will look for that demonstrates that a large military build-up actually preceded our entry into WWI, suggesting that large militaries facilitate wars, not vice versa. Had we had a “weak” military, we would not have felt the need to meddle in Europe’s business in WWI. This is a fundamental truth that some of the Founders recognized when they warned that a large standing army is a danger to liberty and invites mischief.
“or we die.”
Well of course. For the interventionist ideologue such alarmist rhetoric is par for the course. Every threat is an existential threat and if not for their vigilance in keeping the masses in fear … err… I mean apprised of the situation, all would be lost.
And me thinks your attempt to dismiss me as a mere troll is a sign of intellectual cowardice. I never dismiss an intellectual foe. I say bring it on.
Dan Phillips| 2.23.12 @ 3:03PM
Here is the statistic I promised.
"There is nothing inherently or historically conservative about our national standing military. It was a Republican-led effort that ignored everything the American founders wrote about the dangers of standing armies and centralized the state militias into a national army, then outlawed state militias. Shortly after the Militia Act of 1903, in one ten year span before WWI, the military budget rose from $2 million to $53 million—a 2,650% budget increase. The whole program was carried out by Progressives which at that time dominated the Republican Party." ~ Joel McDurmon of American Vision
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:01PM
Like most interventionists, John does not understand we have no more money to do what he wants. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself or interests. I would posit that if we did defend our interests then things like 911 would not have happened. It would take just one horrible example to realize that baiting the Eagle leads to very serious consequences.
Because of FDRs stupidity in getting us into WW2 (he did bait Japan, and it is true that Germany declared war on us, but the underlying issues are things he has no desire or ability to treat), and his idiocy in supporting Stalin, got us into a cold war we should not have had to fight. neither Japan or Germany were the threat historical morons like to make them out as. Germany did not have much of a Navy and did not have the resources to put the kind of Navy to sea he would have needed cut off the UK from the world and fight the Soviets. Japan had neither the resources, industry or manpower to be anything close to a threat to us. Yamamoto knew this and told the General Staff they could not win a war against the US. If Germany had not intervened we could have crushed Japan in less than 3 years. As it was, figuring in the more dangerous Germans, we still did it in less than 4 years, but at the cost of over 400,000 men in combat, not to mention billions in treasure we really could not afford.
Over 50 million died in that conflagration because of the idiocy of Churchill, Clemenceau. And while it is true the shooting started in Manchuria, it did not become a world war until we got drug into it at the end of 1941. The real revisionists are people like John-TMF as they re-write history to suit themselves all the while say "that's how it happened." We see this in every war we have been drug into by the elites, all of them telling us it's for our own good. I have no trouble with self defense, but I have real problems when we get drug in so some Political rat can be mentioned as great in a history text. Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were rats that betrayed their country.
Stefan Stackhouse| 2.23.12 @ 10:15AM
FDR may have done that deliberately, or he may simply have not had the slightest idea what he was really doing and what the implications were. He really wasn't nearly as brilliant as the propaganda made him out to be.
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:03PM
He had some people, however, that knew exactly what they were doing. The trade policy with Japan was the work of Dean Acheson who was another of those rats that sold us out. FDR also knew a lot more than people like to make out too.
Mike 3/505| 2.23.12 @ 9:33PM
"He really wasn't nearly as brilliant as the propaganda made him out to be."
Wow! do those words sound apropos today.
John| 2.23.12 @ 10:18AM
Does Hoover's book deal with the Soviet origins of Roosevelt's provocation of Japan? The ultimatum sent to the Japanese was written by Harry Dexter White, a Soviet agent. See "The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on Amer Postwar Policy
Ryan| 2.23.12 @ 10:49AM
The problem there is that the Japanese were committing serious atrocities against the Chinese. Denying them access to materials to commit war crimes wasn't exactly a bad thing to do.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 11:20AM
With regard to the Japanese, we were in an unenviable position.
If we continued such exports, we were turning a blind eye to atrocities in China, we were allowing the Japanese leadership to continue to think that the United States was weak and desperate for peace, and moreover, the oil we exported to the Japanese was necessary for the Japanese war machine.
IF however we denied them such exports, we forced them to turn covetous eyes to the Dutch East Indies, and we forced them to either shut down their war efforts in China, ----------- or expand them dramatically throughout the Pacific.
That being the case, ------------- and I don't think there was a third option because American complaints about atrocities in China increasingly made us appear a weak and decadent society, -------- I think the only available option was shutting down exports.
BUT that should have coincided with SERIOUS positioning of war material to the Pacific, and to Australia.
We were edging towards war yet we failed to prepare ourselves militarily.
Ryan| 2.23.12 @ 12:56PM
You're probably right on most of those points. However, we didn't "force" Japan to turn to the East Indies. They could just as easily have pulled back militarily and decided the aggression wasn't worth it, and played ball with the West civilly.
They CHOSE war.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 6:05PM
Exactly, the choice was theirs, and they chose war.
And we chose to destroy them......
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:07PM
And we were within our rights to do so.
The problem with Japan was the leavings of the old Samurai system. They took over the Japanese military and did some pretty stupid things. What they did in China was pretty gross and they will bear the blot as long as there is a Japan.
Simultaneously, Hoover was right. There were men on the General Staff that knew what the US was, and what would happen if we were aroused. Yamamoto was not the least bit surprised at the curse of the war. He didn't want it, but did his best to obey his orders.
Stefan Stackhouse| 2.23.12 @ 10:13AM
Hoover's main fault was getting elected in 1928. If it had been FDR that had gotten elected in 1928, he would have been a one-term president, losing just as badly as Hoover did, and being just as badly thought of as Hoover was. Given the roaring 20s bubble, a steep downturn was inevitable. Smoot-Hawley wasn't, and the mismanagement of the money supply by the Fed wasn't, but we have been given no reason to think that FDR wouldn't have made these or equally bad mis-steps if he had been the one in the White House.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 11:24AM
I have the book and found it fascinating. Our Quaker President was of course a pacifist and there is much to learn from misguided attempts at international agreements. Tyrants neither respect them nor act rationally. It is a mistake our non-interventionist friends too often make.
War for its own sake is not a rational policy for the United States to pursue. However, that must not be construed to deny the ability to defend national interest or to destroy enemies when they arise. The other mistake is the Wilsonian concept of "nation building" which we too often attempt. The Iraq theater of operations (one theater in a global war) is a case in point. The war there last only a few short weeks, but the mistaken attempt to impose order (of our liking) following the war is just that.
The current issues in the ME and the wider Moslem world, stem from the errors made by the "Great Powers" following WWI. We are still paying for those mistakes.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 11:26AM
Sometimes the thread betrays. I was trying to get in the conversation with TMF
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 2:10PM
Al,
We actually have very good success building nations. Well, rebuilding them, anyway. We helped rebuild France and the UK after the war. We also did something really weird. We rebuilt our former enemies. Germany, Italy, and Japan were all stunning successes.
Even in Korea, and our most unsatisfying war, was still a major victory. When you make a cell call on your Samsung, get your beer out of the LG fridge, flip the keys to the Hyundai to your kid or even entertain buying her a Kia Soul. The stunning US enabled success of South Korea is an argument FOR US nation building not AGAINST.
We are the Nation's Policeman. We have the right to expect that our friends will assist us, but we cannot shrink from the duty that God has handed to us. We are it. We are the Last Best Hope of Man on Earth.
We either do our job, or perish in our aversion to our duty.
r/TMF
W| 2.23.12 @ 2:34PM
France, Britain, Italy, Germany, and Japan were functioning nation-states that needed primarily our economic aid. We did not have to step in to stop civil wars, like we have in Iraq between the Sunnis-Shites-Kurds, or try to cobble tribes into a nation-state as in Afghanistan. Plus we destroyed Germany and Japan and imposed our will by force on Japan.
Economic aid is not nation building.
Al Adab| 2.23.12 @ 2:44PM
With the exception of Japan, the nations were Western in orientation and culture. Japan had been in the process of becomming a Western type power for some time and its modernization proceeded apace as it adopted Western values. The Moslem world will not due so and it is futile to expect them do do so. The American occupation of Japan represents the only successful military conquest and restructuring in history. S. Korea simply followed that model after 1953.
W: As to our conversation on the other thread, I think many of us have spent our lives holding our noses to vote and are simply quite tired of doing so. We wish for something better, "A Choice not an Echo" if I may borrow.
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 2:46PM
Yes and no. France couldn't keep a government together. It was bitterly fractured during the war, and without US assistance was struggling up until DeGaulle withdrew from the Military part of the NATO Treaty.
Italy has never really been a functional nation state - [rimshot here] But the US lent it enough stability and support (political, not just economic) to allow it to continue.
Germany WAS not any form of functional nationstate at all. It was torn Federation with no real central government, and with an "Iron Curtain" looming between the Federal States in the West, and the Communist puppet in the East. We provided political, social, educational, military, food, monetary, and industrial assistance throughout the latter half of the 20th Century.
Japan was the only functioning nation state, and it too had no government at the end of the war. The new and current Japanese constitution was basically written by Douglas McArthur and his occupation government. Japanese industry was rebuilt by giving shares of major Japanese manufacturing corporations to each of the major US corporations. Mitsubishi - Chrysler; Isuzu and Toyota - GM, Mazda - Ford.. etc. Japanese self-discipline, intellect, and engineering prowess did the rest.
We did, indeed build those new nations, and we should be proud of doing it. The same goes for South Korea.
Iraq is one of the oldest nation-states on the planet. Just ask Abraham.
r/TMF
W| 2.23.12 @ 3:02PM
You are confusing milatary nation building with diplomatic and economic aid.
While we had our military in West Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea they were not involved in a shooting war between Italians or between Japanese or between South Koreans. Our military was in West Germany to keeps the Soviets out, and in S. Korea to keep the North Koreans out.
Your comment about Iraq makes no sense. We lost 5,000 Americans in trying to keep the Sunnis and Shites from killing each other. The only thing the Sunnis and Shites agreed upon was that they wanted to kill Americans and they both wanted us out of Iraq. "Iraq" was a geographical description before 1920, not a nation state.
Germany was the most powerful nation state in Europe after its unification in 1871. Italy was unified as a country in 1861. None of these countries required the US military to impose unification. The did need economic and diplomatic assistance.
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 3:45PM
No, you are artificially separating it. The truth is written in world events from 1941 until the present.
It is one and the same. "War is diplomacy by other means"... and I didn't invent that phrase.
The current Western world was reconstructed by the United States of America. We rebuilt friends and allies. We reshaped governments were necessary and created others out of whole cloth where they didn't exist.
The USA is a force for good in the world. The world is a better place for our efforts and sacrifices.
-TMF
W| 2.23.12 @ 4:30PM
We disagree except for the statement that the world is a better place for our efforts and sacrifices.
There is a big difference between diplomatic and economic aid to countries versus sacrificing 5,000 young Americans to separate Sunnis and Shites from killing each other. It is not an aritificial separation to the families of the dead Americans.
You are a Wilsonian "make the world safe for democracy" and a GWB "rid the world of tyrrany" believer. I don't believe in getting Americans killed unless we have a declared war and it is in our national interest.
We have a disagreement.
aware| 2.23.12 @ 5:23PM
. "War is diplomacy by other means"... and I didn't invent that phrase.
No offense, but it's "War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means."
"diplomacy" is a State policy as is organized murder(war) and organized theft(taxes).
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:21PM
Germany, Italy, France, Austria, Japan. None of them had functioning states at the end of the war. All, however, were nations that had taken centuries to build. A nation and a state are two different entities. The Hebrews have been dispersed throughout the world for the better part of 2500 years, yet they have maintained their identity as a nation. Nations exist because of ties of blood and heritage. States are a political entity that may, or may not be established by a nation. The people of the US, for example, have not reached the status of a nation, although they do have a federal state of smaller entities that originated in shared political opinions on liberty and prosperity.
Your statement that Iraq is a nation-state betrays a level of ignorance that marks you as something far different from what you claim to be. Iraq was an empire. Its people consist of many ethnicities, with differences in language. The religious differences in Islam alone make a nation impossible, and a state possible only in the presence of a strong dictator. What is now Iraq was 3 separate provinces under the Ottoman Empire, which the British, in their enormous stupidity, forced together under a single state. That laid the Kurds on a plate for Saddam later, and caused the regional upset we see now for the Kurdish people.
For all of our efforts, we have as yet to build a nation anywhere, including at home.
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 3:51PM
I meant something more subtle than the "World's Policeman" with the term "Nation's Policeman" but an apostrophe in the wrong place muddled the potential elegance of the concept. It should have been "Nations' Policeman". However, the cruder "World's Policman" probably will do for the purposes of this discussion.
-TMF
Tim the Enchanter| 2.23.12 @ 5:21PM
Wasn't there a movie about that? "Team America-World Police"?
Dan Phillips| 2.23.12 @ 6:20PM
I wrote:
"Non-interventionism can be boiled down to the idea of wanting the US to act like other nations (this is the intuitively conservative position) and not assume for itself some sort of exaggerated role (the inherently radical position)."
John wrote:
"We are the Nation's Policeman. We have the right to expect that our friends will assist us, but we cannot shrink from the duty that God has handed to us. We are it. We are the Last Best Hope of Man on Earth.
We either do our job, or perish in our aversion to our duty."
Thanks for proving my point John. You are not a conservative. You are a Jacobin like radical. You are a caricature of a hyper-interventionist. Is your real name Kagan?
aware| 2.24.12 @ 6:07AM
"American exceptionalism" is a new variation on the "Master Race". It excuses all folly on our part because we are "doing God's work".
James Solbakken | 2.25.12 @ 1:11PM
""American exceptionalism" is a new variation on the "Master Race". It excuses all folly on our part because we are "doing God's work"."
The exceptionalism was supposed to be a result of having a constitution that severely limited the power of government compared to the rest of the despotisms of the world. The problem now is that people stupidly believe in American EXEMPTIONALISM, i.e. the stupid idea that America is EXEMPT from the consequences of various realities, e.g. economic, social, mathematical, etc. See the difference?
James
JimH| 2.23.12 @ 11:49AM
Remember, whatever the merits of what you term the isolationist position in the twenties, these people had just come through the most horrific war ever experienced and were in no hurry to do it again.
Controse| 2.23.12 @ 10:10PM
And how many statements of fact in Hoover's book do you have sourced contradictions? You don't sight any in your post; not one. How convincing.
Stormy| 2.23.12 @ 10:02AM
Sounds as though FDR has much in common with our current president.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 11:15AM
Which is Jonah Goldbergh's point in his book "Liberal Fascism."
Controse| 2.23.12 @ 10:17PM
That's just what I was thinking while reading this description of Hoover's book. Especially the part about how FDR thought he knew more about war than his generals. FDR's purported motivation for our entry into WWII, his re-election, is as monstrous as Obama's, or whoever he is, destruction of our economy to get re-elected.
Ryan| 2.23.12 @ 10:51AM
One major point
The Imperial Japanese, Fascist Italians, and Nazi Germans were among the worst villains of all time. Hoover may have had a point about letting the Germans go at it with the Russians, but there is also an issue there with not allowing repressive regimes to commit massive atrocities simply because it's not in our "national interest."
The Germans, Japanese, and Italians needed to be stopped, in the interest of simple justice.
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 12:39PM
Add to that the "Final Solution", which seems to have totally slipped out of Hoover's thoughts...
But then there are lots of people out there (they know who they are) who either don't believe that the holocaust happened, or don't care that it did. Their cooperation with evil is reprehensible.
r/TMF
W| 2.23.12 @ 2:39PM
We did not go to war to stop the Holocaust and did nothing to stop the Holocaust.
FDR turned away from the USA as ship carrying about 1,000 Jewish refugees.
Either FDR knew about the Holocaust and did nothing, or he did not know and therefore the Holocaust was not a reason for the war.
We went to war because Japan attacked us, we then declared war on Japan, then Germany and Italy declared war on us, then we declared war on Germany and Italy.
John - TMF| 2.23.12 @ 2:59PM
No we did not. We did however STOP it, but too late for 6million plus innocent souls.
It is speculation as to how may Jews would exist in the world today, if we had not participated in and won the war. I doubt the number would be too large.
FDR had indications some accurate, some not so accurate of what was going on, but the highest volume of murder happened AFTER 1943 and we had no physical presence on the European continent.
We had no need to declare war on Japan or Germany. We were, on December 8, 1941 fully at war, regardless of how the politicians felt about it.
-tmf
W| 2.23.12 @ 3:07PM
Congress and FDR thought they needed a declaration of war to wage war against Japan that attacked us and Germany and Italy that declared war on us. Those are the facts.
Since then presidents agree with you that we can "be at war" like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc without a declaration of war.
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:24PM
John-TMF is a Jacobin. We call the current cop Neoconservatives, because they are not conservatives.
nathan| 2.24.12 @ 3:43PM
At the time of the ship in question there was no Holocaust. Sorry. No camps. To say that anyone AT THAT TIME could see two years later and were projecting Auschwitz, well show me those people. They didn't exist.
The allies later on were asked to bomb Birkenau. They said no their excuse being the Eight Air Force could not get to and from Auschwitz without stopping in Russia. True but Ninth Air Force planes in Italy could make the trip. They were not offered.
No one looks good here except Denmark. Virtually all the rest of Europe had no problems putting their Jews on those trains. Under His Very Walls is as good a book about the Vatican and what they did and didn't do. What's ghastly is how everyone, ourselves included, protected war criminals. In our case we protected the head of the Gestapo. Nazi criminals used rat lines under the auspices of the Catholic Church to get out of Europe, and the Vatican knew full well what was going on.
Everyone looked bad, again Denmark being the exception and probably the only exception.
lew| 2.27.12 @ 3:32PM
FDR said 'unconditional surrender' for Germany, as well as Japan.
Germany could not conquer all of Europe : it gave up invading Britain before Pearl Harbor. The US could have gone on supplying supplies and volunteers through Canada without entering the war in Europe.
Germany was required to declare war on the US by its treaty with Japan.
After 'unconditional surrender', Hitler had no opportunity to appease anyone, and then the 'final solution' happened. Had the US not been in the war, we could have saved millions of people that Hitler killed : Jews were sold and offered for ransom numerous times as the war and mass murder progressed.
There would be a lot more Jews alive now had FDR not pushed the US into the war.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 11:13AM
Remember, the Japanese were raping China at the time we were sending them scrap metal and oil. All of America was thoroughly disgusted with what the Japanese were doing in China.
The United States was not out of bounds trying to rein in Japanese predations in the Far East.
Now in a way, declining oil exports to them was provocative, -------- but only provocative because the Japanese leadership were militaristic to the core, racial supremacists to the bone and dismissive of a weak and corrupt United States.
As for Europe.
Churchill himself called World War II "the unnecessary war." That war could have been prevented several times in the '30s. There were bone-headed moves throughout that set Europe on course for conflict.
FDR WAS a bastard. This arrogant jerk deluded himself that he alone was of such importance that he just had to, HAD TO run for President for life. And none of us should forget that the jerk tried to make a co-equal branch of the government utterly servile by stacking the Supreme Court of the United States.
Joanah Goldbergh goes into some detail the fascistic traits throughout FDR's government.
So though Hoover's take is not without a certain level of bitterness, ------ it isn't off for all that.
Moreover, we had opportunities to come to terms with Hitler during the war, and we could have forced him out of his western conquests via diplomacy. Now I'm NOT saying that would have necessarily been the wise and prudent move at the time. But none of us should fail to understand that the continuation of the war in Europe allowed the Soviet Union ultimately to dominate the East. THAT could have been prevented.
albert constantine jr| 2.23.12 @ 11:31AM
“Roosevelt believed he could charm Stalin, lead the Allies to victory, and then, with Stalin's help, set up the United Nations and establish world peace for a generation.”
With regards to your assessment of FDR, assuming the above staement from the article is correct, rather than US President for Life, perhaps he thought he would ascend to “higher” office had he lived.
fwb| 2.23.12 @ 11:30AM
One should add Flynn's _The Roosevelt Myth_ to this reading to expand the picture.
Can't find it, check out ABEBOOKS.COM
Jeff Krasney| 2.23.12 @ 1:09PM
I think the following about World War II:
France and Great Britain made a mistake declaring war on Germany in 1939 since they were unwilling to attack Germany while its army was tied up in Poland.
I think President Roosevelt negligently provoked the Japanese into attacking the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor. He ordered the bulk of our Pacific Fleet to forward deploy from San Diego to Pearl Harbor without providing adequate defense from an airborne attack which made the Pearl Harbor catastrophe possible.
Great Britain made a heroic but, judged from the perspective of June 1940, bad decision to continue the war after Germany conquered France. The British got lucky because Hitler attacked Russia and declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. In June of 1940, Great Britain faced overwhelming odds that it would win the war.
The U.S. did not make a mistake by aiding Great Britain during the second half of 1940 and 1941. We had to help Great Britain to survive so as a potential ally in a world that could be dominated by Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
Germany made catastrophic errors when it attacked Russia in June of 1941 and when it declared war on the U.S. in December of 1941. How would the U.S. make war on Germany because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor?
The U.S. had to help Russia stay in the war during 1942 and 1943. The Russians did well over 90% of the fighting against Germany during those years and no other country deserves more credit for defeating Nazi Germany. The Russians could have lost the war in 1942 and could have made a separate peace in 1943. American war aid furthered U.S. interests at that time and was not a mistake.
Using two nuclear weapons to end the war against Japan was not a mistake. We needed Japan to surrender unconditionally, an invasion of Japan was prohibitively costly in lives and money, and a negotiated peace would have not achieved our war goals of preventing further agression from Japan.
The bottom line is that Roosevelt made some costly errors at the beginning of the war but his judgment was generally correct thereafter. With the exception of allowing the invasions of the Phillipines and Peleilu, Roosevelt's military judgment was good from December 8, 1941 going forward.
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:36PM
We had an obligation to the Philippines to eject the Japanese. Their rule in the PI was utterly brutal, and they fought a valiant guerrilla war against the Japs, with some of our men among them. Had we not gone back to the PI, our stock would have sunk to the bottom of Marianas Trench after the war, and we would have had little influence, and no bases in the PI to keep fighting the cold war that came about because of FDR's, and later Truman's, stupidity.
The only good things that came of the war, was our influence in the world after the war, which our politicians squandered.
All we needed from the Japs was a surrender. It didn't have to be unconditional, and, in the end, it wasn't. When we said that we would recognize the Emperor as head of state, they surrendered. The two nukes were influential, but the Japs were prepared to go down totally with Hirohito if he had not been accepted by the allies.
Unconditional surrender is a foolish condition upon which to end a war. It simply prolongs combat. War with Germany probably could have been ended in late 1943. Our affiliation with Stalin also prolonged the war. Much of Europe regarded Stalin and the Russians as beasts, and for good reason, as they proved in Eastern Europe after the war. Stalin saw Hitler as "the ice breaker of the Revolutions" and had intended to hit while Hitler was distracted fighting the Brits and French. Stalin overestimated the combat abilities of the Brits and french, and badly underestimated the Germans. Instead of getting all of Europe as he expected, Stalin got just the Eastern portion. The German Army unintentionally saved western Europe from the Russians.
Susan Benton| 2.23.12 @ 1:47PM
Thank you. This seems to prove what I always knew, that Hoover was in someways naieve and that FDR was a scroundrel. No wonder BHO thinks FDR was a great president - they both are natural tyrants.
Mazzuchelli| 2.23.12 @ 3:01PM
Terrific commentary. Thank you for sharing your insights. While touring historical sites across Europe, Scandinavia and Russia, the common thread among tour guides is the ongoing loathing of the Germans who tended to put the torch to national and in some cases, world treasures, during World War II battlefield retreats. At the same time, these folks are all driving Bimmers & Benzs. If one is going to hold onto the hate, make it meaningful. To be fair, the Estonians are particularly resentful of the Russians, and many European guides despise also the British for filling the British Museum with treasures of opportunistic provenance.
During one of those trips, my stepdaughter provided an interesting history lesson she'd picked up at an Oregon university. It had to do with a class she took titled, American War Crimes in the Philippines. I took a breath thinking she was referring to the war that occurred at the turn of the 20th century. But, no. She was referring to World War II. The ensuing discussion disrupted the dining room. Later that same evening we were invited to attend a crew celebration of Philippine independence. I asked the steward, independence from whom? His reply, "Well, from you!" But, who knows. If we'd left them to the Japanese, they might have acquired a more robust manufacturing base.
o.t.neal| 2.23.12 @ 4:24PM
What's with the "spam" business ????
aware| 2.23.12 @ 5:35PM
The single most important event of the 20th century was General Von Kluck's turn in front of Paris in 1914. When he turned south the whole world turned south with him. Pandora's box was then opened and hasn't been closed since.
Had he encircled Paris to the north and west, as planned, the French would have been forced to surrender as in 1871. Russia and England would have followed suit. Some territories and indemnities exchanged.
No Bolsheviks, no Fuhrer, no WW2. And here, no Garrison State, no Welfare State and we'd still be the Republic we used to be minding our own business.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 6:10PM
Rather, THE single most important event of the 20th century was probably an event most of you are little familiar with.
It was the assassination of the Tsarist Russia Prime Minister, Pytor Stolypin.
THAT assassination prevented Stolypin from preventing Tsar Nicholas II getting too closely involved in the events of the Balkans following the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. Without Russia backing up Serbia, Germany would never have been called upon to come into the calculation with regard to its ally, the Hapsburg Empire.
aware| 2.24.12 @ 6:03AM
A war between Germany and France was inevitable regardless of what happened in the Balkans. 2 major wars had already occurred in 1912 and '13 with purely local results. The French and Germans entire military planning revolved around plans of attack on each other.
There were a number of ways this war could have started without reference to the Balkans or Russia. No matter how it started the main event was Germany and France, as plainly shown by how it played once under way.
Even with no involvement by Russia, or even Austria or England, the great right wheel envisioned by Schlieffen is how it would have unfolded. Notice that once war began everything was subordinated to a all out effort to march on Paris, or Berlin if the pitiful plan of the French had worked, not Belgrade or Moscow.
While the assassination of Stolypin was very important, it was mainly a disaster for Russia in aiding to drag them into a war they were plainly unprepared for. They were a match for Austria but were continually outclassed and out fought by Germany.
How events got to the point of the march on Paris is inconsequential but how that played out is paramount. Had Kluck not turned and instead followed the plan France would have been crushed. Of course, Moltke is ultimately responsible for the unraveling of Schlieffen's plan.
I still say Von Kluck's turn is the linchpin of the 20th century.
Drek| 2.23.12 @ 6:15PM
Which means the ENTIRE First World War would have stayed an exclusive Balkans affair, --- and never would have involved the West or the Tsarist Empire.
The Tsar's family would probably still be in charge of Russia, as a constitutional monarchy. Likewise Wilhemine Germany would still be a constitutional monarchy.
Hitler would never have come to power because the Bolshevicks would never have gotten close to power.
No revolution in Russia.
No World War II, no Warsaw Bloc.
No Gulag.
No concentration camps.
No toll of scores of millions of people killed by the Left.
No Viet Minh.
No Mao.
No Khmer Rouge.
No American defeat in French Indochina.
No Korean war.
No space race.
There's a whole host of things set entrain by the assassination of that remarkable man.
Quartermaster| 2.23.12 @ 7:41PM
Good shot Drek! I had totally forgotten about him. and, you are exactly correct in the second post. None of that at all. Hitler would have starved to death in Vienna, and Lenin would have remained in Switzerland raving about how sorry the Russian people were.
Even better, Stalin would probably eventually gotten himself hung or shot. Either way the millions that died because of him in Russia, and in other countries the Commintern and descendants aided would have lived much longer lives.
Richard Baker| 2.23.12 @ 8:14PM
Have read Nash's books on Hoover and in many ways he was a remarkable man, to be sure. Sadly, a lot of his criticism of WWII is due to his disappointment/anger at losing in 1932 to FDR. While Roosevelt's ego and shallow education caused him to make mistakes, to say that Hitler and the Japanese didn't have world conquest on the brain or could develop the wherewithal to attack the US is loony. As an example, until the anti-submarine war technologies were developed, the German U-boat wolf packs were decimating merchant shipping and even Churchill was extremely concerned. As I said earlier, Hoover was rejected by the country in '32 and don't think he ever got over it. He wouldn't be human if he weren't affected by this repudiation. His criticisms must be read in that light. Coolidge's comments regarding Hoover must also be taken into account.
POST American| 2.23.12 @ 9:21PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
"Be careful with Hoover. Like Rosevelt
he was a BIG admirer of the 'planned'
centralized economy that Wall Street
and London had brought into being
with their Bolshevik coup of 1917.
IN FACT, it's now been revealed, even
the US expeditionary forces in Russia
during the 1919-22 ---were openly and
deliberately there to stablilize things -and
bring aid ---not to the Whites ---but to
the Bosheviks. The REDS even publicly
thanked the departing Americans
in Vladivodstock for guarding the
Trans-Siberian Railway for them --and keeping it safe from
the Japanese. BOTH French and British
forces on the scene at the time reported
this ---and complained bitterly. Remember,
Hoover was in charge of this deceptive aid
program."
W ARE.
OF course, the cover up of the VAST
engineered Ukranian genocide ---er,
we meant famines, by 'the Big Boys'
by our media at the time is already
well known. and richly documented.
Hence, sad to report, Hoover was,
more or less -----PART of the pogrom
--uh-- we meant 'program'.
albert constantine jr.| 2.23.12 @ 10:24PM
---and our ex-SPED--itionary force in Russia in 1919 wore the patch of the Indian Head Division.
Today, in Korea, following the forgotten war, the American troops wear the same patch, with the same chief, with the same WAR BONNET, with camps named RED Cloud.
Trans-Siberian Railway, meanwhile, today plays CHRISTMAS music.
You have the clues. The SECRET is yet to be told.
POST American| 2.25.12 @ 12:51AM
"Remember, from the days
of' 'Play--dough' in ancient Greece
---WE are the 'ITs' ".
And 'Pyth--a---GORE--US' in old
Cretona, and before and after,
---these 'progressive' occult circles
ALWAYS slip up.
People get wind of the REAL nature,
REAL objectives, REAL 'collateral
damage' involved in
'RA'--dick--ALLLL 'change'.
-----------------------ALWAYS---------------------------
Even self-professed 'A'--theists get a
chill when they REAL--eyes this. . .
BTW ----at least be a REAL atheist
-------------------dump the theist
---------------------and stand revealed as an 'A'.
Tenn Slim| 2.25.12 @ 9:10AM
Hoover as Ex President was active during my early formative years. Today, as I type, I can relate to many of the FDR policies he abhored during those Great Depression years.
We sit here, today, with a Great Recession still going full blast, with a Psuedo FDR in charge.
Would that this book, by H. Hoover, be read, commented on, analysied in todays light, for our edification and perhaps some level of our salvation.
end
Semper FI