The coup d"etat

[Drew Phipps]

I had always assumed that the US didn't jump early into WW2 because the public wouldn't support it (until Pearl Harbor), and because there were huge American fortunes invested in German business. I'm willing to read more. Thanks for the lead David.

[Michael Barwell]

I am also intrigued about Harry's assertion that the delay of the United States's entry into WW2 was not motivated by isolationism or lack of public support, but by a Machiavellian calculation that it would be in the US' interest to allow the British Empire to crumble, clearing the way for the US to assume Britain's role in the post-war world. Harry provides no evidence, but I am certain that other authors might have trod this particular path.

Projections of Power: The United States and Europe in Colonial Southeast Asia, 1919-1941 (book review extract) http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1052
"Concluding her assessment, Foster argues that despite the complicated and at times contradictory actions taken and relationships established by the Americans in Southeast Asia between the world wars, this subject requires more than simply (and very valuably) providing a description of the complexities of this particular part of the colonial world. She notes the importance of this period for the emergence of the notion of a defined and delineated Southeast Asia, predating the formalization of this idea in such structures as the Southeast Asia Command (SEAC) in the 1940s. (That SEAC became known to some American soldiers as Save England's Asian Colonies' speaks again to an existing American ambivalence about empire.)"


Strong-arming economic empires're fine tho'.


I read a memoir by a USAAF fella in the ETO who took the piss out of RAF Bomber Command for it's area bombing campaign in contrast to the 'point' daylight affair, but he neatly side-stepped the fire-bombing of Japan by USair. Myopic convenience as history, par for national cause.

[David Guyatt]

I had always assumed that the US didn't jump early into WW2 because the public wouldn't support it (until Pearl Harbor), and because there were huge American fortunes invested in German business. I'm willing to read more. Thanks for the lead David.

There was a very strong pro Nazi sentiment in untold number of leading business leaders that made it impossible for Roosevelt to go to war, even though he wanted to. I think we both briefly discussed some back back his encouragement to the Polish, British and French to push Hitler and Germany to war. That was, as I remember, 1937-ish.

You may also want to consider doing some deeper digging into Pearl Harbour itself. There is a fair amount now known about this and there are also a few very compromising documents that prove that Roosevelt strove to push the Japanese into war and that he allowed Pearl Harbour to happen. The history hitherto has always been that the Japanese fleet crossed the Pacific in radio silence and so no one knew their plans. THis is simply untrue. Japanese fleet signals were regular and numerous and the US and the British were decrypting and reading the product on a daily basis. I can probably did up some interesting links on this if you wish, but the McCollum memo is one place to start. Robert Stinnett's book Day of Deceit, from what I know of it, should also be a good read (I've read some of Stinnett's essays and dsicussion about his research etc).

[Drew Phipps]

I understand the Roosevelt/Pearl Harbor business. What Harry is saying, I think, is that Roosevelt (or the people that wanted Great Britain out of the way) might have waited even longer, had not Roosevelt's hand been forced by Pearl Harbor.

If Roosevelt had been "ordered" to stay out of the war for longer, he might have carefully kept advance knowledge of the Japanese fleet out of the reach of whatever (civilian) group was holding his leash. It would be interesting to see if the (hypothetical) "leash-holders" were some special interest bunch as opposed to the general public.

[David Guyatt]

I understand the Roosevelt/Pearl Harbor business. What Harry is saying, I think, is that Roosevelt (or the people that wanted Great Britain out of the way) might have waited even longer, had not Roosevelt's hand been forced by Pearl Harbor.

If Roosevelt had been "ordered" to stay out of the war for longer, he might have carefully kept advance knowledge of the Japanese fleet out of the reach of whatever (civilian) group was holding his leash. It would be interesting to see if the (hypothetical) "leash-holders" were some special interest bunch as opposed to the general public.

Interesting thought. But it looked to me that Roosevelt forced the Japanese hand? What would've been the purpose of delaying further?

[Drew Phipps]

Harry asked me to post three paragraphs of "Crosstrails" (P 12 - 13) in response to our questions about the US delayed entry into WW2:

"PLANS and PLANNERS

A certain piece of history not then known to them and of which they must have learned. An American plan being considered in the 1930's to declare war on the British Empire followed by the annexing and occupation of Canada and other English subject countries. British iron-grip control of world trade drove the entire European and American continents keeping them at a brink-of-war depression level. England's merchant fleets and navies ruled the waves. The sun never set on her world wide empire.

This strangulation, created the United States plan and a similar plan being formulated in Germany for unnatural expansion, simply for survival and economic recovery! Germany's dire problems made them first to execute their plan bringing England and British Canada into the European war in September 1939. The United States held back for the next two years as an alleged neutral nation until December 7, 1941. Diplomatic and trade relations where continued by the U.S. during those two years with all belligerent nations, surreptitiously, and openly.

With England pounded almost into submission and her global empire melting forever away, the U.S. began to aide that British wreckage. The greatest enemy (extensive British economic tyranny) had been destroyed. The elimination of the eroding German European military/economic control was all but assured. Having accumulated much of the wealth of warring nations, and with her greater industrial production in hand, the United States then entered and directed the war, on her own terms. The successful invasions from England upon German-held Europe was to the U.S. with her trailing allies the beginning of a-like-it-or-not new world order?"

*******

(I have reproduced Harry's text, spelling, and grammar, as exactly as I could manage.)

Harry doesn't say how he came into information supporting his idea; however, he worked on a British Great Lakes freighter in (I think) 1942 and 1943. He also joined the US Merchant Marine in 1944. Such talk about the significance and decline of British maritime trade might have been common among his co-workers. It also seems to be the sort of idea that would have been floated around in the John Birch Society, of which Harry was a member. I wonder if there is any historical evidence, besides certain known common economic interests of the US and Germany in the 1930's, for "a plan for the US to attack Britain..."

I do remember an analogous situation involving a party with certain common economic interests with the US: that Saddam Hussein might have heard from a State Department official that the US "wouldn't interfere" with his plan to invade Kuwait.

[Magda Hassan]

I understand the Roosevelt/Pearl Harbor business. What Harry is saying, I think, is that Roosevelt (or the people that wanted Great Britain out of the way) might have waited even longer, had not Roosevelt's hand been forced by Pearl Harbor.

If Roosevelt had been "ordered" to stay out of the war for longer, he might have carefully kept advance knowledge of the Japanese fleet out of the reach of whatever (civilian) group was holding his leash. It would be interesting to see if the (hypothetical) "leash-holders" were some special interest bunch as opposed to the general public.

Did FDR take orders? Not that he ran the show 100% at all times but was he such a puppet. Clearly 'they' didn't like him if they asked Smedley Butler to led the military in the coup against FDR but FDR called them on it. Though on the other hand he never prosecuted any one for it either. And he never stuck with Wallace either. I'm just trying to establish just how subservient FDR was.

[Magda Hassan]

I wonder if there is any historical evidence, besides certain known common economic interests of the US and Germany in the 1930's, for "a plan for the US to attack Britain..."

It is ringing a bell with me but I am just trying to remember if it was Canada or the UK that was the invasion target or both.
There is the War Plan Red here:
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red



[/URL]

[Magda Hassan]

And Canada was going to invade the US 'Defence Scheme No. 1' apparently.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/09/09/...a-invasion

[David Guyatt]

Harry asked me to post three paragraphs of "Crosstrails" (P 12 - 13) in response to our questions about the US delayed entry into WW2:

"PLANS and PLANNERS

A certain piece of history not then known to them and of which they must have learned. An American plan being considered in the 1930's to declare war on the British Empire followed by the annexing and occupation of Canada and other English subject countries. British iron-grip control of world trade drove the entire European and American continents keeping them at a brink-of-war depression level. England's merchant fleets and navies ruled the waves. The sun never set on her world wide empire.

This strangulation, created the United States plan and a similar plan being formulated in Germany for unnatural expansion, simply for survival and economic recovery! Germany's dire problems made them first to execute their plan bringing England and British Canada into the European war in September 1939. The United States held back for the next two years as an alleged neutral nation until December 7, 1941. Diplomatic and trade relations where continued by the U.S. during those two years with all belligerent nations, surreptitiously, and openly.

With England pounded almost into submission and her global empire melting forever away, the U.S. began to aide that British wreckage. The greatest enemy (extensive British economic tyranny) had been destroyed. The elimination of the eroding German European military/economic control was all but assured. Having accumulated much of the wealth of warring nations, and with her greater industrial production in hand, the United States then entered and directed the war, on her own terms. The successful invasions from England upon German-held Europe was to the U.S. with her trailing allies the beginning of a-like-it-or-not new world order?"

*******

(I have reproduced Harry's text, spelling, and grammar, as exactly as I could manage.)

Harry doesn't say how he came into information supporting his idea; however, he worked on a British Great Lakes freighter in (I think) 1942 and 1943. He also joined the US Merchant Marine in 1944. Such talk about the significance and decline of British maritime trade might have been common among his co-workers. It also seems to be the sort of idea that would have been floated around in the John Birch Society, of which Harry was a member. I wonder if there is any historical evidence, besides certain known common economic interests of the US and Germany in the 1930's, for "a plan for the US to attack Britain..."

I do remember an analogous situation involving a party with certain common economic interests with the US: that Saddam Hussein might have heard from a State Department official that the US "wouldn't interfere" with his plan to invade Kuwait.

Thanks Drew and Harry. As Maggie says US War Plan Red and their Colour Coded war plans cover this and resulted from the negotiations of the Geneva Naval Conference that were aimed at setting the number and size of war ships of the leading powers of the time.