F-22 (Raptor) attacked a Russian attack aircrafts Su-25

Well. The Earth is round it goes around the Sun and these laws as a rule of laws are universal. But it looks that you have a universe of your own and being inside is more comfortable. The problem however is that the law stays the law even in a year, a decade or century. Every mistake will be paid for. The longer you accumulate the percentage the worse it will be for you or your kids in future.

 

Guy, what's your major?

 

I have read extensively, for many years, about the events that lead up to the involvement of the United States in World War II, and I must say that I've never read anything else is so fact-filled and hard-hitting as this book you've recommended: "Day of Deceit"!

I ordered it in from Amazon the day I read your post, and MAN, what a stunner! Needless, to say, even by page 50 of this 386-page, well-documented stunner it was clear as could be that FDR colluded with his hand-picked, high-ranking people in government and the military to make absolutely certain that the Japanese would be provoked into attacking us! Thank you for the recommendation. I've built a small collection of books through the years that describe FDR's obviously deliberate intent, and the actions he took and approved of that got us needlessly into a war with Japan, and "Day of Deceit" is now probably the most valuable book I have to prove that point. Thank you!

 

Would the synopsis then be this:

The Samurai traditionalists said "Hi" like a fly to a spider and jumped right ahead into FDR's web?

I have even more respect for FDR's great entrapment feat.

 

A simple synopsis might be:

By the 1940's, more than any other thing, the Japanese needed OIL. The British, and the Americans totally controlled the vast majority of all the oil in the East Indies. So, while both Britain and the U. S. were completely at PEACE with Japan, both countries decided to slap a total embargo on the transfer of any more oil to Japan. The Japanese were forced to retaliate, or cease to exist as a modern nation. Without the oil they needed, they'd have to go back to living as they did before Commodore Perry barged into Edo Bay in 1853, demanding American access to the Japanese islands....

Interesting link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition

. "OK, FDR, I'm back like I was last century... are you happy now...?"

 

they were not forced to retaliate, they could have innovated solar panels to replace fossil fuels

 

I first read Stinnets book many years ago. And like you, it floored me. I did not realize that such a plot could happen and the author supplies documented proof. I have recommended that book so many times I lost count.

If they think Trump has flaws, wait until they learn of the flaws of FDR. A good book to display those is by Amity Shlaes called the Forgotten Man. Excellent from cover to cover.

 

I first was stunned to learn of an 8 point plan to get the US into the 2nd world war. And Japan was a key component. Now, if any of you have visited Pearl Harbor, if you thought the harbor was a bit crowded, you saw it clear of ships. FDR put into that small port over 160 ships of war. What would Japan suppose they were there for? Should Japan wait for them to sail to Japan or should Japan neutralize the danger to themselves? Why did Japan hit Pearl Harbor in the first place? Stinnet pretty much explains it. Democrats hate his book. I know because I have yet to have one tell me he read the book and appreciated the recommendation. We find those who truly want to know more about FDR will study it. And study it you you must.

This site says 130 ships of war were in the tiny harbor. See the photo and judge yourself. i once researched and my tally was over 160 ships. I had listed them by name. Even so, 130 ships in such a place not capable of servicing so many ships was what FDR did.

Some may say those ships were a deterrent. But did they deter the Japanese? If for a deterrent, they were not correctly used as a screen. We have the bombing of the ships as proof of that.

https://visitpearlharbor.org/pearl-harbor-ships-on-december-7th/

 

there ain't enough solar panels on the planet, that could provide all the power needed of a large city, let alone an entire country... then there's the night, cloud cover, storms, etc. how many freagin batteries would be needed to store enough energy to power a nation 8-10 hours every damned night...

pipe dreaming is non-reality, best to sleep it off...

 

iircc putting so many marbles at Pearl, and Norfolk, was one reason for starting the Strategic Homeport program in the 1980's. It started small, only about 6 small naval ports got built to disperse possible targets. Then when the base closure program began a few years later, the strategic homeports went on the sacrificial altar.

 

Take the Hornet that was sunk by the Japanese. Not in a port, but out in open combat. The Hornet was hit by Japanese bombers. Our men eventually got back on the ship and put out the fires. They righted the ship that was listing. A japanese submarine shows up and hits it with torpedos. Sunk it quickly.

I have no idea other than he wanted war why FDR ordered so many ships into a tiny port such as Pearl Harbor. The admiral protested he did not have an way to properly service so many many combat ships then in the port.

 

You're very welcome and thank you for posting this response.

 

I think John Toland made a good case for this view in "Infamy".

 

John Toland's book, "Infamy" was my 'mainstay' source of information for decades. But now, even better, and even more detailed, with even more documented information is the book @Striped Horse brought to our attention, "Day of Deceit", by Robert Stinnett.

If anyone is interested in either of these books:

https://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-T...&qid=1551099506&sr=8-1&keywords=day+of+deceit
https://www.amazon.com/Infamy-Pearl...&qid=1551099567&sr=8-1&keywords=infamy+toland

 

I think what they mean is that the Russian jets targeted the Raptor but didn't fire at it. I assume that happens often enough. I can see how it wouldn't make the news.

 

Thanks Pollycy.

Regarding the pre-war fomentation of WWII (in both theatres):

Shoup & Minter’s Imperial Brain Trust is worth reading in regard to America’s commercial, economic and financial strategy for a post WWII. This began with the CFR’s War & Peace Studies Project that began in 1939.

In particular I would recommend Chapter 4 that sets out the plan for a post war American hegemonic world: Shaping a New World Order: The Council's Blueprint for World Hegemony, 1939-1975

This book is availabe for free in a .pdf download HERE. I have found it very instructive.

For those with an interest, I would also suggest reading about Roosevelt’s fostering of war with Germany in the years leading up to and immediately after the outbreak of WWII as outlined in the Polish Diplomatic Papers and discussions between Rossevelt’s roving Amabassador, William Bullitt and Polish diplomat, Count Potocki (warning; the language of those times is really very anti-Semitic)

President Roosevelt's Campaign To Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents HERE (also in free .pdf).

With the British Empire rapidly declining America took the decision to step into her shoes and reap the economic benefits of becoming the new world power - completely aware that this would likely result with war with Germany and Japan.

 

Uh, are you just happening to forget that the reason for this was because Japan started occupying places in Indochina/Indonesia?

This anti-American stuff is just too funny, people rewriting history to act like America wasn't the first country to stop "actual empire" from happening.

Before the world wars; UK, Germany, France, Japan, Denmark and plenty others had colonies all over the world.

 

I will be following up on the new information you have provided above, @Striped Horse . You are a treasure-trove of information!

 

I'm not being "anti-American", Draco. Not my intention at all. But I do think it is the epitome of "anti-American" to have deliberately gotten this country into a horrific war that got 416,800 American military personnel killed (and many thousands more badly wounded) in a war we could have avoided completely by not colluding with the British in deliberately cutting off nearly every bit of oil for Japan -- with whom both Britain and the United States were at PEACE.

Afterthought -- those who tried to scare Americans in 1941 by saying Germans could possibly 'invade' the U. S. at our seacoasts must have been out of their minds! Hitler was so unwilling to get involved in invasions by sea that he refused even to invade the British coast, which was less than 21 miles away from where the Germans were in France. Were these the same Germans who were then going to launch some stupendous sea invasion of the United States, across the entire Atlantic Ocean? The distance between Normandy, France and New York City is more than 3,550 miles!

Anyway, back on topic, is this the incident that the OP was supposed to have referrenced? Surely not -- the story is old and it didn't involve any Russian or American planes attacking each other. Nevertheless.... Link: http://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17...tercept-over-syria-but-is-there-more-going-on

 

Democrats eyes glow brilliant red when we criticize FDR. But the man truly made major changes away from our real government to create one he preferred. A socialist one.

 

I think anyone who is reasonably familiar with World War II knows that the US wanted the Japanese to shoot first -- otherwise, the American people would not have wanted to go to war ... and that threatening to cut off the fuel oil to their Navy was undertaken with that in mind.

However, do I understand people here to be saying that the war in Europe was not started by Hitler, but by Roosevelt? That Hitler would not have forcibly incorporated Austria, would not have invaded Czechoslovakia, would not have invaded Poland, would not have invaded the USSR ... except for Roosevelt?

Could you elaborate on this please?

 

I'm uncertain who this is directed at? But I'll try to repeat some of what I've covered on this forum before.

No one is saying Hitler was a pleasant guy btw, in case that is the point you're making.

Also, "started" is the wrong imo. "Manipulated" might be more accurate. Nothing new there.

Wall Street as well as bankers in London and Paris were responsible for funding Hitler's Reich and assisting in his development of a mighty war machine (see HERE).

Having Hitler go to war against the Soviet Union would have worked well for the British (the Oxford Group) who had for a great many years operated a divide and conquer policy in Europe. The overriding fear was that Germany, with its masterful engineering skills and military abilities, and Russia with its vast natural resources, might possibly combine thus creating a really menacing European power.

In this sense, Tony Sutton's Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (HERE) is required reading imo.

Also, the Polish Diplomatic papers (an unsavoury read but anti-semitism was rife back in the Thirties) also reveal that Roosevelt was agitating for war against Germany in Europe circa 1938.

At this point in time - the mid-late Thirties it was clear that Great Britain's tenure as the world hegemon was coming to an end. The Oxford Group, after some discussion, believed that America would take over the white man's burden and become the new hegemon

This is an off-the-cuff and a very loose summary btw. But I have covered this in more detail several times on this forum already.

 

It's not a question of Hitler's being a pleasant guy. We all agree he wasn't -- putting it mildly.
And of course the power states of the period each had their own self-interest at heart.
And of course any people on the Right, outside of Germany, originally saw Hitler as a kind of
lesser evil to the Communists. Leftists like to try to embarrass conservatives by quoting pro-Hitler, or
at least neutral, statements from these people.

However, it would take a lot of evidence to convince me that Hitler was basically satisfied with the
Versailles-configured European status quo. He was first of all a German nationalist, who wanted to
undo the Treaty, and restore and expand German power in Europe and the world.

What would have happened if the US had not gone to war against the Japanese and Germans? Surely
those two countries would have ended up dividing the British and French empires between them and also
dividing up the Soviet Union.

We would have been in a very poor position then.

 

I have no interest in Right or Left political persuasions and arguments.

However, the facts of the matter is that the British elite feted Hitler and admired him and were prepared to reach an accommodation with him circa 1941. Churchill scuppered that.

Yep, I generally agree with that. However, there is the argument that the terms of the Versailles Treaty were so unfair to Germany that they de facto created the conditions for the completion of unfinished business - otherwise known as WWII.

An interesting read is the actual background of the origins of WWI (HERE), which is vastly different to what most of us have been led to believe.

As Napoleon Bonaparte said: "what is history but a fable agreed upon?"

Speaking personally, I don't view that theory as even remotely likely. So far as both Germany and Japan were concerned, the CFR War & Peace Studies project provides a most interesting (if not intriguing) insight to US elite thinking and planning as regards WWII. This was the time of America to take over the world stage from the decaying hegemon, Great Britain. Nothing was to be left to chance to ensure that eventuality succeeded.

 

Well, I don't disagree with anything you said, except that I believe it would have been very very very bad for the US, and for the cause of liberal democracy in general, everywhere, had the Nazis and the Japanese divided the world between them, leaving the US isolated. How can anyone disagree with this?

Here's the thing -- which I have argued over and over with young leftists who have read a bit of William Appleman Williams, DF Fleming, Noam Chomsky, etc etc ... It's perfectly true that the US ruling elite, like the ruling elite of every country everywhere at all times, looks first of all to its own interests. AS DO WE ALL.

And of course we convince ourselves that OUR self-interest is actually the general interest: X wants lower taxes because he hates paying higher taxes; Y wants higher taxes because he doesn't think he'll have to pay them, but he will benefit. Both of them argue that 'society' will be better off with lower/higher taxes.

But that still leaves the question ... lower or higher (or no change in ) taxes. Under the assumption that how this question is answered will indeed affect the general welfare.

Similarly, it's very plausible to me that the American ruling elite finally come to a general consensus on the role the US must play in the world after the end of WWII. (Some of them no doubt had this view earlier, others had to be convinced.) We moved from 'isolationism' -- ie. the Western hemisphere is ours, and all we ask of the rest of the world is access to their markets, which we will only try to enforce with guns when the country in question is weak -- to the realization that now we had all the guns, except for those pesky Communists.

And, to be fair, the idea that the US should just return home after the war and ignore Europe, as it did after WWI, didn't look very smart, especially with the Communists having high prestige -- being, after Hitler invaded their homeland, the most determined fighters against Nazism -- plus mass parties in Italy and France with a base of 1/3 of the population -- plus the victorious Red Army sitting on Europe's borders.

So, cue the beginning of the 'American Century', with the only obstacle to it being Communism.

We could have a long interesting discussion about the nature of Communism ... I think it was fundamentally misunderstood by the American elite, especially Third World Communism. But that's another argument.

The question of interest here is: from the point of view of people who believe in liberal democracy -- i.e. who would like to see it everywhere that it's possible for it to be (and it takes a certain cultural/economic level to have it -- some peoples are still too primitive and backwards to sustain a liberal democracy) -- was it a good thing, or a bad thing, that the US got involved in the Second World War?

I think it was a good thing.

There is another argument, which precedes this: if the British had just appeased Hitler, would he have stopped with Poland? How anyone can believe this is beyond me.

It's not directly relevant to the argument -- people's motivations are logically separate from their arguments -- but I believe that the 'revisionist' view -- ie. that World War Two was forced on the poor Nazis, who only wanted a few reasonable demands -- is actually motivated in many cases by repugance at the advance of 'multiculturalism' in the world, plus the power of the Israeli lobby. And, I suppose, reluctance to grant credit for anything to that liberal Democrat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

But whatever you make of these two phenomena, it's still a huge stretch to blame Britain/the US/the Rothschilds/the Bolsheviks for the Second World War.