http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd84/SIrdrinksalot2/trolltech.gif
"Topaz" <mars1933@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:81cru39uq3i11u5l0tfbuvu8norpa2b0he@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> By Mark Weber
> Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
> and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
> Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
> December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
> violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
> war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
> declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
> vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
> intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
> provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
> against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively do***ented and reasonably
> well known.[1]
>
> Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
> for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
> Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
> outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
> his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
> Germany in 1938 and 1939.
>
> Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
> had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
> history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
>
> This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
> Polish do***ents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
> in September 1939.
>
> http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
> These do***ents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
> on the Second World War.
>
> Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
> German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
> Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
> in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
> against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
> In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
> campaign against Poland in 1939.
>
> Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
> a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a
> pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
> Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
> campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
> did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
> believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
> that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
> add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
> im****tant to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
> Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
> conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
> Germany.
>
> On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Wa****ngton, Count Jerzy
> Potocki, re****ted to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
> in making American foreign policy:
>
> The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
> Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
> ... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
> which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
> catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
> in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
> real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
> communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
> against Nazism.
> This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
> every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
> are ****trayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
> wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
> of blood.
> In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
> come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
> inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
> propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
> and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
> growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
> and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
> subdued by the 'democratic world.'.
>
> Ambassador Potocki's re****t from Wa****ngton of 9 January 1939 dealt in
> large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
> President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
> governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
> force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
> matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
> of the United States.
> The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
> which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
> specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
> strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
> with last year.
>
> Of all the do***ents in this collection, the most revealing is
> probably the secret re****t by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
> which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
> re****t is given here in full:
>
> The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
> hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
> connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
> who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
> press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
> Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
> concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
> extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
> knows nothing of the situation in Europe.
> It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
> which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
> is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
> friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
> Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
> clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
> the side of Red Spain.
> Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
> created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
> only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
> American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
> America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
> of freedom and democracy in the world.
>
> These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
> American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
> Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
> connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
>
> For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
> interests of its race, to ****tray the President of the United States
> as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
> this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
> hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
> camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
> has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
> and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
> coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
> regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
> attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
> United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
> and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
>
> On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki re****ted to the Warsaw
> Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
> Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt.
>
> 1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leader****p of President
> Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
> countries.
> 2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
> carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
> of 1.25 billion dollars.
> 3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
> must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
> countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
> of territorial changes.
> 4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
> the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
> side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
> its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
>
> The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
> top secret re****t to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
> of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
> explained to him by William Bullitt:
> A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
> returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
> have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
> his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
> Wa****ngton's policy.
> The international situation is regarded by official circles as
> extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
> authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
> Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
> other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
> endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
> continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
> the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
> France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
> As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
> certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
> it.'
>
> On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
> perceptive re****t on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
> Warsaw. This do***ent was first made public when leading German
> newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
> reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
> editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
> newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
> re****t with this observation:
>
> The do***ent itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
> not concern us, whether the internal American situation as re****ted by
> the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
> by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
> it is im****tant for us to show that the warmongering activities of
> American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
> proven by this do***ent. It still remains a secret just who, and for
> what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
> case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
> Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
> hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
> American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
> for generations as friends and want to remain so.
>
> While the Polish do***ents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
> treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
> posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
> evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
> dispatches to Warsaw.
>
> On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
> Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White
> House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
> Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
> necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
> himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
> State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
> Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
> secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
> that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
> Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
> could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
> a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
> Constitution and dupe the American people.
>
> The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
> forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
> also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
> France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
> declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
> it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
> response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
> actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
> based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
> hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
> life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
> conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
> the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
> loss of life."
>
> The im****tant point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
> plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
> believed he could talk the American people into sup****ting war against
> Germany, including ****pments of weapons to Britain and France, by
> insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
> non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
> would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
> States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
> re****ted.[19]
>
> The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
> postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
> committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
> 1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
> like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
> frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
> undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
> official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
> instructions from Wa****ngton, and these I never received."[20].
>
> The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
> against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
> been made without strong pressure from the White House.
>
> In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
> very well informed Wa****ngton journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
> Allen re****ted that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
> ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
> government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
> who completely sup****ted Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
> Britain could expect no more sup****t, moral or material through the
> sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
> gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
> cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
> Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
> to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
>
> In a confidential telegram to Wa****ngton dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
> re****ted from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
> Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
> prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
> cir***vent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
> to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
> Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
> financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
> believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
> to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
> planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
> Poland."[24]
>
> On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
> called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
> correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
> in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
> has the assurance of the sup****t of Britain and France, and will yield
> to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
> Britain and France enter it."[25]
>
> In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
> Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
> Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
> and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
>
> In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
> United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
> Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
> event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
> that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
> objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
> our interests."[27]
>
> Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
> in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pu****ng his
> country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
> Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
> everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An im****tant
> confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pu****ng
> Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
> U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
> wrote:
>
> Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
> about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
> Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
> 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
> could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
> would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
> had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
> of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
> French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
> not been for the constant needling from Wa****ngton. Bullitt, he said,
> kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
> they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
> stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
> war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
> 1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
> backside.[29].
>
> "In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
> elements openly pu****ng for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
> arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
> they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
> that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
> They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
> everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
> as well."[30]
>
> On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
> Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
> Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
> President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
> obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
> turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
> American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
> this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
> Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
> could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
> we could." Presented with this extraordinary op****tunity to possibly
> save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
> plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy re****ted, the Prime Minister lost
> all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
> the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
> can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
> all Europe."[31].
>
> But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
> Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
> silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
> Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
> the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
> If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
> working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
> get everybody to accept it."[33]
>
> Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
> at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
> his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
> on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
> the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
> op****tunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
> President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
> would not sup****t any move for peace initiated by this Government that
> would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
> aggression."[34]
>
> In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
> most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
> President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
> Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
> hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
> against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
> from some of those addresses.[35]
>
> On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
> The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
> and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
> American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
> emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
> the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
> such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
>
> All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
> haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
> America.
> I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
> liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
> to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
> Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
> quarantine the world with American blood and money.
> He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
> psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
> own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
> in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
> own imagination.
>
> On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
> The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
> are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
> to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
> lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
> arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
> them.
>
> Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
> network on 5 April with these words:
> The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
> in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
> If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
> from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
> percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
> and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
> American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
> Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
> long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
> wars of liberation.
>
> The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
> the better for the peace of the world.
>
> I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
> are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
> will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
> and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
> Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
>
> New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
> frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
> the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
> case of war jitters.
>
> President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
> largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
> given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
> jitters.
>
> I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
> to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
> million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
>
> I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
> we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
> to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
>
> Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
> preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
> munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
> participation in a new world war.
>
> On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
>
> It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
> foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
> and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
> impelling us to armed conflict.
>
> What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
> into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
> Wa****ngton, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
> rather than our own.
>
> In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
> He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
> declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
> The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
> official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
>
> Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
> almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
> that we must participate in the next world war.
>
> On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
> radio network:
> If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
> defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
> up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
> term.
> It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
> over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
> wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
>
> President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
> without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
> international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
> of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public sup****t
> for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
> attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
> the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
> top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
> leaders.[36]
>
> Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
> publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
> by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
> from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
> war industries in the United States.
> At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
> detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
> behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
> The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
> companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
> in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
> as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
> powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
> story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
> The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
> Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
> money.
>
> Some of the im****tant figures active in the Committee were revealed by
> Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
> government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
> the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
> influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
> LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
> Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with im****tant financial
> holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
> Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
> munitions and military supply companies.
>
> If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
> "American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
> 'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
> Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
> war."[37]
>
> In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
> made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
> America into the European war. Powerful international banking
> interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
> W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
> Other im****tant names from the New York financial world included Mr.
> and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
> Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
> was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
> investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
> Moscow.
>
> Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial ****tion of the long
> list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
> along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
> Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
> set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
> contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
> of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
>
> Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
> Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
> Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
> more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
> Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
> advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
> his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
> in light of Roosevelt's re****tedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
>
> In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
> aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pu****ng
> the United States into war:
> The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
> it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
> [is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
> country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
> radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
> 'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
> allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
> others.[41]
>
> Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
> Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
> Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
> considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
> beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
> influence in the press and in Wa****ngton demanding continuance of the
> war "[42]
>
> Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
> Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
> and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
> and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
> president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
> of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
> of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
> own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
> promised sup****t.
>
> Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
> they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
> hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
> of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
> 96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
> percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
> even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
>
> Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
> feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
> people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
> out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
> plunge Europe and America into war.
>
> In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
> the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
> President had secretly pledged United States sup****t to Britain in its
> war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
> on the publication in March of the captured Polish do***ents. The
> speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
> nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
> Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
> pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
> foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
> solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
> in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
> other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
> war or for any other purpose.[44]
>
> We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
> one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
> people.
>
> Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
> The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
> Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
> laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
> Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
> Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
> for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
>
> The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
> fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
> Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
> regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
> will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
> president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
> to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
> those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
> and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
>
> Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
> people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.
> His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
> while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
> is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
> argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
> that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
> It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
> benevolent liberal-democratic dictator****p.
>
> Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost
> personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
> jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
> their personal characters but also in their records as national
> leaders.
>
> Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
> astoni****ngly similar. Both assumed the leader****p of their respective
> countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
> challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
> economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
> alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
> while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
> just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
> enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
> remarkable.
>
> Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
> was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
> World War from an office in Wa****ngton as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
> Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
> As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
> in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
> Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
> bravery.
>
> In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
> proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
> after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
> undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
> all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
> plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
> capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
> racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
> The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
> behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
> from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
> Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
> rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
> personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
> between two diametrically different social-political systems and
> ideologies.
>
> And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
> cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
> Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
> believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
> Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
> and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
> upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
> egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
> American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
> by remodeling it after the United States.
>
> Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
> of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
> each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
> in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
> perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
> countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
> permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
> just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
> those who wield power in the United States.
>
> President Roosevelt's War
> In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
> predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
> Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
> called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
> because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
> October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
>
> The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
> could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
> Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
> that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
> and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
> Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
> William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
> 1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
> Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
>
> President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
> indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
> pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
> reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
> making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
> This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
> coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
> after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
> between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
> stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
> French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
> There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
> 1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
> that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
> of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
> around to sup****t intervention.
> Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
> broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
> the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
> this country in the European conflict.[47]
>
> One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
> history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
> Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
>
> The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
> explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
> 1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
> World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
> Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
> Atlantic Ocean.
> Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
> as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
> peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
> democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
> freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
> He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
> Bolshevism.
> He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
> his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
> from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
> people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
> powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
> millions to their deaths.
> This war will go down in history as the war of President
> Roosevelt.[48]
>
> Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
> cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pu****ng Europe into war in
> 1939.
>
> * * * * *
> It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
> place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
> But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
> very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
> past have never been more im****tant than in this nuclear age. For
> unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
> made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
> era.
>
>
> Notes
> 1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
> the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
> William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
> 1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
> N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
> York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
> (New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
> War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
> Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
> 2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
> States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
> House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
> the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
> 3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
> 4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
> 5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
> 6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
> 1940, p. 1.
> 7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
> title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
> 8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
> Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
> Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
> Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
> 1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
> do***ents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
> 9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
> (N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
> Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
> York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
> Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
> 10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
> 11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
> Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
> 12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
> Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
> foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
> 13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
> Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
> 14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
> die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
> 15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
> 16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
> Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
> 1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
> America's attitude toward it can be found in his Re****t to the
> American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
> Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
> blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
> Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
> For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
> anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
> propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
> press in those days.
> 17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
> 1980), pp. 203-04.
> 18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
> Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
> also pp. 164-65.
> 19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
> Do***ents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
> series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
> Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
> Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
> World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
> 20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
> privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
> 21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
> Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
> 22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Wa****ngton Daily
> Merry-Go-Round," Wa****ngton Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
> facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
> American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
> Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
> 23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
> University Press, 1956), p. 232.
> 24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
> States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Wa****ngton: 1956),
> p. 122.
> 25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
> p. 2.
> 26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
> Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
> 27. Lash, p. 64.
> 28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
> Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
> 1980), p. 62.
> 29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
> Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
> privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
> manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
> to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
> 30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
> 475-76.
> 31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
> (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
> A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
> Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
> 1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
> United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Wa****ngton: 1956), p. 355.
> 32. Dallek, p. 164.
> 33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
> 34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
> Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Wa****ngton:
> 1956), p. 424.
> 35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
> published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Wa****ngton) as
> follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
> same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
> April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
> 2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
> 36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
> American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
> Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
> 37. Congressional Record Appendix (Wa****ngton: 1941), (30 December
> 1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
> 17, pp. 5808-14.
> 38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
> 39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
> York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
> 40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
> (London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
> 41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
> Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
> 42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
> fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
> that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
> some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
> Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
> Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
> Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
> 43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
> opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
> Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
> 1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
> Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
> 44. Lash, p. 240.
> 45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
> 46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
> Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
> also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
> published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
> Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
> 47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
> Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
> 29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
> Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
> 12], 1980).
> 48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
> Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
>
> Bibliography
> Listed here are the published editions of the Polish do***ents, the
> most im****tant sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
> and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
> was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
> prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
> be found in the notes.
> Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
> Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
> [Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
> Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
> Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
> Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
> Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
> Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
> New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
> Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
> Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
> Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
> Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
> Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
> 1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
> Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
> Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
>
>
> http://www.ihr.org/
http://www.natvan.com
>
> http://www.thebirdman.org
http://www.nsm88.com/
>
> http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
|
