Making the World Safe for Stalin -- Jews in FDR's administration

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Saturday, February 25, 2012
Making the World Safe for Stalin

Freedom Betrayed


Hoover was of the strong opinion that the best thing the United States and the West could do as regards the European war was to stay out and allow Hitler and Stalin to go at each other. He made many comments in this regard, starting with his observations that Roosevelt was slowly but purposefully taking actions to move the U.S. into the conflict. In April 1941, in the wake of the Lend-Lease bill, Hoover conveyed his view:

The American people, he wrote, "do not realize that they have been pulled into a war without any constitutional or democratic process – but they will realize it before six months are over.

He predicted that U.S. convoy ships would be lost to German submarines; this would involve losses in U.S. life. Propaganda would increase in both the U.S. and in Britain. Support would come from "the New York intellectuals." His final prediction was most arresting:

"Western civilization has consecrated itself to making the world safe for Stalin."

After Hitler turned his troops against Russia in the summer of 1941, Churchill offered Britain's aid and support to Russia.

No longer was the world conflict an unambiguous struggle "between tyranny and freedom....The alliance of the British with the Russians against Germany destroyed "that illusion."

Hoover remained content to let Hitler and Stalin fight it out. He was against any U.S. involvement.

On June 20, Hoover dedicated the building at Stanford University that would come to be known as the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace. "The purpose of this institution is to promote peace. Its records stand as a challenge to those who promote war....As war sanctifies murder, so it sanctifies the lesser immoralities of lies." Sadly for Hoover, a few weeks later, 176 members of Stanford's faculty signed a petition asking Americans to give Roosevelt "unified support" in the current "national emergency." The faculty demanded "a more dynamic policy of action" against "the totalitarian menace." Hoover exploded in dismay:

"The confusion of mind in American intellectuals over the United States supporting Communism is almost beyond belief. And that is what these Stanford professors are doing. I wonder if it ever occurred to them what would happen to the world if we entered the war and brought victory to Russia."

Hoover was convinced that Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to get the United States into the war.

By September, he was convinced that FDR and his associates were "certainly doing everything they can to get us into war through the Japanese back door."

And the day after Pearl Harbor, Hoover said to a friend, "You know and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten." In a sense, this book was born on December 7, 1941. Hoover was convinced that Roosevelt, by its trade restriction and other provocations, had driven the Japanese government into a corner. He was positive he could demonstrate that the war in the Pacific could have been averted.

I have elsewhere covered this subject of Japan and Pearl Harbor, in reviewing The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable. My comments can be found here:

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012 ... ng_15.html

History will ask some stern questions of Mr. Roosevelt's statesmanship. It will list his promises to keep out of war; the deceptions in Lend-Lease; his undeclared wars on Germany and Japan; his alliance with Communist Russia; his refusal of repeated opportunity for peace in the Pacific; his campaign of a dozen fictions of frightfulness; and finally it will ask questions of his good faith with regard to the Constitutional processes of our Republic. They will not be answered by a single reference to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.

Sadly, in this, Hoover was sadly mistaken. It is true that many individual revisionist historians have taken up these questions and more. In their studies, they have concluded that Roosevelt was deceptive at best, forgiving him of this as, in the Machiavellian world, this is what leaders do.

However, in the hearts and minds of American folklore, Roosevelt remains a hero, both in peace and in war. Perhaps this must remain so, because to seriously address the issues Hoover raises would be overwhelming to the narrative that is U.S. involvement overseas. It seems a bridge too far for too many.

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012 ... talin.html

[Christopher Marlowe]

Thanks CSR.  Another great post.  I was so impressed that I went to that website and found the sequel this post:

Freedom Betrayed, Part 2
Saturday, February 18, 2012
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012 ... art-2.html

When asked about the possibility of writing a book outlining the most significant blunders of statesmen, Hoover replied

...I am going to tell you what should be the first chapter....When Roosevelt put America in to help Russia as Hitler invaded Russia in June, 1941. We should have let those two bastards annihilate themselves.

Thus begins the editor's introduction to "Freedom Betrayed", Herbert Hoover's writings and recollections of U.S. policy during the time when he left office until the early 1950s. The editor makes clear that Hoover was not an isolationist, a label Hoover seemed anxious to avoid. The editor describes Hoover as an anti-interventionist. It is an interesting distinction, and one that strikes me as funny given how a certain Ron Paul today is constantly badgered about this distinction – important for diplomats, but nonsensical to those who enjoy war.

He seems to have come to this anti-interventionist views because of what he saw as the "baneful domestic lessons from the recent Great War", where

"...the victors suffer almost equally with the vanquished" in economic misery and "spiritual degradation....Those who would have us again go to war to save democracy might give a little thought to the likelihood that we would come out of any such struggle a despotism ourselves."

I will admit I am not the most well-read of the history of presidents in the progressive era, but other than President Carter, I cannot imagine any other president in that time saying such a thing with credibility.

Hoover spent seven weeks on a trip to Europe coinciding with Germany's annexation of Austria. During this trip he met with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Hoover told the prime minister that another world war would probably destroy the British Empire. Additionally Hoover believed that Germany had no significant designs in the west, that if "given a certain freedom," Germany would not cause trouble in Western Europe.

"Western civilization will be infinitely better off if the Germans fight in the east instead of the west. It would be a disaster if the western Democracies were dragged down by a war the end result of which would be to save the cruel Russian despotism." According to Hoover, Chamberlain agreed completely with his guest's "hunch."

Hoover believed America should stay out of this coming war.

Americans should "harden our resolves" to "keep out of other people's wars," and we should convince Europe "that this is our policy." "We should have none of it. If the world is to keep the peace, then we must keep peace with dictatorships as well as with popular governments. The forms of government which other people pass through in working out their destinies is not our business. We can never herd the world into the paths of righteousness with the dogs of war."

If only such words were spoken and understood today.

Hoover also believed that the best act in the service America could undertake is to remain an example to the world by staying out of war. And in the coming war, if it stayed out, America had nothing to fear from the totalitarian regimes of Germany, Italy, and Japan, as America had the protection of the two large oceans. Speaking of the fascist regimes

"I am confident that if the lamp of liberty can be kept alight [at home] these ideologies will yet die of their own falsity. To think that Germany, Italy, Russia, or Japan "or all of them together" had "the remotest idea" of attacking the Western Hemisphere was, in Hoover's words, "sheer hysteria."

Hoover sees the primary blunder of Britain in the guarantee of Poland, jointly offered with France.

"They cannot in any circumstance protect Poland from invasion by Hitler. It is simply throwing the body of Western Civilization in front of Hitler's steam-roller which is on its way to Russia."

Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of the United States becoming involved again in a foreign war, certain of Hoover's warnings proved out:

- The war cost Britain its empire

- The war handed half of Europe to the dark night of Soviet communism

- The war cost further erosion of freedom in America

- If it was not known at the time, it has been demonstrated since then that the axis powers had little if any desire and even less ability to mount a successful attack or invasion of the United States.

As far as Hoover was concerned, the United States (and Britain) had no business entering the war and not only gained nothing from it but lost much in life, wealth, and liberty by doing so.

So far, I can say I agree with Hoover's version of history!
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012 ... art-2.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Yeah... CM... funny that I was always taught that Hoover was a "Failure"... maybe there was more to shooting him down as a public figure after the 100% J-Puppet FDR?  It's not like most of the US Presidents were J-Puppets in one way or another with the exceptions of Kennedy and Nixon (and barely, maybe the first Teleprompt puppet idiot Reagan?) who weren't on board 100%. Right or Left it is all just a huge J-Scam like the current US GOD-DAMNED election... pandering to Jew evil...and Jew interests...  ---CSR