Fighting Germany to Help Bolshevist Russia

Roosevelt the Second, as Mencken referred to FDR, maneuvered the US into war with Japan and Germany, deceiving few in the higher rungs of government and the military.  Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota said on August 4, 1941: “….And now we see America being stripped and groomed for another….war, only a more terrible and even a less justifiable one from our point of view….You know as well as I do, that this, as in the last war, has been a propaganda job. [Our government will] plunge us into the bloodiest war in history. And for what reason? To make the world safe for British Imperialism and Russian communism?” (Congressional Record, August 4, 1941)

--Bernhard Thuersam

 

“As time passed, it seemed clear to [FDR’s Ambassador to France Admiral William D.] Leahy that America’s support of Britain would inevitably bring the United States into war with Germany.  The sinking by a U-boat of the American freighter Robin Moor, Leahy thought, might very well “be the Lusitania incident of the present war.”  When American forces relieved British troops in Iceland, he wrote that the action “of the President appears to have moved America about a thousand miles toward the European war.”

On the morning of 22 June [1941], the Leahy’s picked up a BBC broadcast telling of the German invasion of Russia. The next day, he received Soviet Ambassador A. Bogomolov, who wanted to find out what the new American attitude would be toward Russia…..Having received no instructions, Leahy could only fence and show that he had learned the practice of diplomacy by referring to the president’s recent statements of “full sympathy with all those nations that are resisting Axis aggression.” When in doubt, quote the boss!

[In a letter to Sumner] Welles, Leahy summed up French feeling on the German invasion of the USSR. Most Frenchmen welcomed the new war, for they felt it would divert the Germans who would then leave France more to her own devices. No one expected the German venture to fail [and added] “Most of my contacts of all classes feel that a successful completion of the German campaign in Russia will be followed by peace proposals that Great Britain will accept.”

[In early 1942 it] soon appeared that Germany did not want a rupture of French-American relations. France, Hitler thought, might be useful if a negotiated peace could be worked out with the western allies. Then Germany could devote her full attention to the destruction of Bolshevist Russia…[Hitler] would like to see Frenchmen free to “volunteer” to fight against the Russians.

[In March of 1942] the Nazi’s were demanding the return to power of arch-collaborator Pierre Laval – “Black Peter” – to a major role in the [Vichy] government. “Black Peter” told Leahy that he expected to act as mediator between the United States and Germany, so that Germany would be free to devote herself to the annihilation of Bolshevism. “My policy, Laval declared, is founded on reconciliation with Germany.  Without this reconciliation, I can see no hope for peace, whether for Europe, France, or even the world.  Warming to his subject, he declared the present war was a “civil war” of which “Stalin will be the only victor if the democracies continue to fight the Reich.”

“I am convinced,” Leahy recorded, “that M. Laval is fully committed to go as far as he can in an effort to collaborate with Germany and to assist in the defeat of what he termed Soviet-British Bolshevism.  He definitely is not on our side in the war effort.” 

(Witness to Power, The Life of Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Henry H. Adams, pp. 157-158; 176-178)

 

Diplomacy

 

290 Foundation

VERBATIM

A series of short articles on how the different European powers approached issues of diplomacy with both

Union and Confederate governments.

 

FRANCE: On April 12, 1861, the Civil War breaks out in the United States. It divides the Northern and Southern States of the Union, with the latter forming a new Confederation. The Confederate States stated willingness defend their rights by force is soon followed by a mobilization of the forces of the Northern government and a rapid blockade of the coastal ports feeding its rival. Faced with this unprecedented event, the imperial powers of Europe, Great Britain and France adopt similar, diplomatic attitudes. They decides not to take sides in the American conflict but despite a stated neutrality, recognise the right of belligerency on the Confederacy. This duality draws the anger of Washington, which considers the southern 'separatists' as mere rebels. Britain, with a long established commerce with the Southern States, turns a blind eye to the many blockade runners financed and operated by businessmen across England. France on the other hand seeks to establish rules for its maritime transport since its commerce ships are likely to come across vessels of both sides on their way to North America. To ensure its maritime fleet remains free of any harrassment, France states its reliance on the 1856 Declaration of Paris, an agreement prohibiting privateering but protecting neutral goods in case of war and recognizing only fully effective blockades. However, the application of these clauses is complex because the United States had not ratified the agreement and, due to the large expanse of coastline it was required to monitor, the validity of the blockade becomes doubtful under maritime law and difficult therefore to enforce. Finally, the French government was forced to review the cases of vessels dropping anchor in its territorial waters.

 

Disregarding neutrality, Napoleon III opened the shipyards of Nantes and Bordeaux to the Southerners for their ship building programme. On several occasions the Imperial Government of France attempted to propose intercession, for example in striving to overcome the serious dispute between Washington and London in the case of the Trent affair. This involved a British ship bound for Europe with two emissaries of the South being apprehended by the Federal Navy, despite the maritime rules of conflict. As the war dragged on, Napoleon III again offered his services in late 1862 and early 1863 to mediate between the North and the South - but on each occasion his proposals were dismissed and the hostilities continued.

Gradually, the Emperor who did not hide his preferences for the Southerners was tempted by the idea of recognizing their cause formally, most likely as, in addition to his sympathy for their cause, he considered that the independence of the Confederate States, seceded from the Union, would only strengthen his Mexican ambitions and the constitution of this "buffer State" offered a guarantee to protect Mexico from any annexation of its northern territories by the United States. In July 1862 and June 1863, Napoleon III unsuccessfully attempted to have England publically share his views but again, he was confronted with the disapproval of his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Thouvenel then Drouyn de Lhuys who remained hostile to the idea of a division of the American Republic.

Like so many others on both sides of the English Channel, Napoleon III was hampered and frustrated by his ministers and advisors. Unsurprisingly, his attempts to circumvent their objections by entering into direct correspondence with Ambassadors by using unofficial, personally appointed emissaries, was also doomed to failure. During the term of the American Civil War, a convoluted relationships with this major European power, demonstrated to all the deep political divisions that existed in France's government.

 

GREAT BRITAIN: British neutrality during the American Civil War was complicated and remains a difficult issue to analyze. Indeed, had Queen Victoria's beloved Albert not died tragically in 1861, his strong opinions and influence amongst British politicians may have swayed Britain to taking a more openly, sympathetic view of the South. As it was, at the heart of the matter lay British self-interest. If it had been advantageous for the Empire to openly support one side or the other, it would have done so. But despite the vocal support in Britain for both sides, and despite good arguments made by both U.S. and C.S. representatives, Britain did what was best for Britain, which was to keep itself carefully in the middle.

The war itself was bad news for Britain, no matter how they felt about the two sides. Both parts of America were important trading partners with Britain, and the cotton from the South was a particularly valuable commodity. Without cotton, England's massive textile industry would grind to a halt, and in fact once the Federal blockade of the Southern states became effective, the loss of a steady supply of cotton caused a major economic crisis. Nearly one thousand mills were forced to close, with over one hundred thousand workers made redundant at least temporarily. Many industrialists, seeing their empires collapsing, quickly obtained ships and crews to run the federal blockade carrying much needed materials to the South and returning with cargoes of cotton. Despite this urgency, confederate leaders, under-estimated the importance of their cotton in their determining British political policy and the fact that the North was also an important market for British industry. Even whilst English commercial interests endeavored to make the best of a bad situation, they were happy enough to build and sell the Confederates ships including the commerce raiders Alabama, Florida, and Shenandoah, whilst engaging in a lucrative arms trade with the South for most of the war. Full recognition and support for the Confederacy presented a number of nightmare scenarios for Britain’s politicians. The U.S. made not-so-subtle hints that such a situation would make legitimate targets of Britain's huge commercial maritime fleet for privateers and bring about a state of war between the two countries. The example of what a few Confederate commerce raiders were doing to U.S. shipping was incentive enough to wish avoiding a similar situation developing among British fleets. British subjects in Canada were openly worried what a conflict between the U.S. and Britain would mean for them. Britain had already assembled a considerable military force there and if it had come to war, Canada and the border would have been the main theatre of operations for a British-American war.

Great Britain also had its relationship with other European powers to consider. France generally mirrored the British view of things but at the time, France controlled Mexico; and British intervention for a ‘rebel’ nation on that border might have caused France to adopt a very different attitude. Russia, although also technically neutral, was clearly favoring the North. Russo-British relations were still a bit delicate after the Crimean War and it was desirable for Britain to avoid antagonizing the Russians unless strictly necessary to do so.

Finally, the issue of slavery presented a moral stumbling block, though it was not the most important issue to the British. Slavery had been banned throughout the British Empire in 1833 so openly supporting the slave-owning Confederacy was problematic, unless it became very clear that the South would win the war.

In the end, neither of the two sides in the conflict was very satisfied with British neutrality. The Confederacy was denied a powerful official ally, and the Union felt that Britain bent the rules to lend too much support to the South. The very declaration of neutrality, in fact, implied a certain level of recognition and Britain moved a step closer by recognizing the South as a ‘belligerent state’ thus regarding the Confederacy as a legitimate combatant and not a mere rebellion. Great Britain's problem was not to satisfy either side, but to look after British interests and under difficult circumstances, the mother country and her Empire was successful in that. At the end of the war America was desperate to rebuild and Britain was the only country able to supply the expertise to do this. With the decimation of most of America’s whaling fleets and cargo ships, the renewed Royal Navy ruled the oceans until after the end of the First World War, virtually unopposed!

Window cleaning the world's tallest building

Via The Feral Irishman

Rand Paul: “People In Congress…....Are Not To Be Trusted With Money”

 

If there is one person I love to hear speak the truth about how government isn’t functioning properly it’s Ron Paul (R-TX). Second to him, I do enjoy his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). In an interview with Fox News’ Great Van Susteren’s On The Record on Thursday, Paul told her that people in Congress “cannot be trusted” and “don’t deserve to manage any more money.”

Van Susteren questioned the Kentucky Senator as to whether the American people should be angry at the process when it comes to the fiscal cliff.

The Senator said that he was definitely “annoyed” because he was in Washington all week and said that they “did nothing all week long.”

“If the Democrats have a proposal, why don’t they put a proposal forward and let’s see if Republicans can agree to it,” Paul said. “But they need to be part of the process, and so far I haven’t seen much ‘give’ on the part of the Democrats.”

Greta then said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the “House is acting with the dictatorship of the Speaker.” This garnered laughter from Paul as he said that he didn’t know what that means necessarily.

Paul did point out that the current tax rates are going to expire. He then used an analogy about drowning, which I think makes an excellent point.

“It’s like 100 people are drowning and you’re going to save 98 of them by only protecting them from a tax increase, you know 98%? And my question is, ‘Well, if they’re all drowning, right? Which means that raising taxes is a bad thing for everyone, so why would we only do it on two to save 98% from a tax increase? Why would drowning be our policy? Why would we be in favor of a policy of drowning?’ You know raising taxes. It sounds like it’s a bad thing for everyone. Why are they (Democrats) so insistent that we taxes on someone?”

Van Susteren asked if Paul perceived that people were actually trying to talk and negotiate in the Senate.

Senator Paul said that he thinks that it is all happening among the leadership and said that he has to “ask the media” about the fiscal cliff because many in the Senate do feel like they are a part of it.
Paul took the time to say that he was standing up for the Constitution during the week with regards to the Fourth Amendment and personal emails, texts, and internet searches. For his stance on these things we can be thankful!

When asked if he thought most Americans will see a difference between December 31, 2012 and January 1 or 2 of 2013, Paul said that he believed that some people think that since Obama won re-election there is a certain “inevitablity” that he wants to raise taxes and that he controls the Senate and the White House. “So What I keep saying,” Paul said, “is Democrats will probably win. They’ll probably get their way either this year or next year and we’ll get higher taxes, but it will be a bad thing for the economy. It will be a bad thing for job creation and in the end may not even do what he wants, because sometimes you raise rates and you get less revenue.” Paul then pointed to England as an example of raising the rates and getting less wealthy people, which resulted in less revenue. He said that England was not in the midst of “reversing course” now.

Paul pointed to the history of lowering tax rates and increasing revenue. He noted both Ronald Reagan’s approach and George W. Bush’s approach of the tax cuts that are now our current, set to expire, tax rates.

Paul was also asked about the kinds of plans that are proposed, where we hear about these plans being for “ten years.” The question is if a ten year plan is adopted is there a possibility that Congress might come back in two years with a completely different plan?

The Senator said it was possible and that there were two main problems with ten year projections. The first is that historically the federal government is “bad at projections.” Paul said, “They can’t predict what will happen next year, much less ten years.”

The second thing is “You’re right, future Congresses can change,” Paul told Van Susteren. he then gave examples of what has taken place with regards to rules concerning legislation. He said, “We just disobey the rules. We just don’t care,” referring to the attitude of many lawmakers.

Paul then addressed the debt ceiling and taxes.

“I would raise the debt ceiling on one condition and that would be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution,” he said. “Barring that, people in Congress, those who I’ve met up here they don’t deserve to manage any more money. They’re doing a bad job managing the money they have. We should not send them any more money. They’re not to be trusted with money.“

Watch the interview @ Freedom Outpost

NC: Intruder killed in Henderson home invasion

Via Cousin John

 

WRAL 

VERBATIM

Henderson, N.C. — Police are investigating a fatal shooting Sunday at a Henderson home that appeared to result from a home invasion.

Deyon Durham, 24, of 279 Faulkner St., was found shot to death at 1221 Montgomery St. shortly after 7 a.m., police said.

The initial investigation suggests that Durham was breaking and entering at the home when the homeowner, whose name was not released, shot him.

No charges have been filed. Investigators planned to consult with the district attorney's office.

Durham had convictions, starting in 2005, for indecent liberties with a minor, sexual battery, breaking and entering vehicles, larceny and failure to register as a sex offender, according to state Division of Adult Correction records.

Will Banning Guns Stop Homicides? Stats from England and Australia Show….....

Via Don

The debate on gun control is only gaining momentum. On Thursday, Senator Diane Feinstein outlined her plans to introduce sweeping legislation that includes fingerprinting and registration of all those who currently own so-called semi-automatic “assault” weapons.

Those in favor of a total ban on firearms often point to countries like England and Australia where firearms are banned or virtually impossible to possess. A look into the statistics might offer some clarity, though, about how safe such a move actually makes a country.

Let’s start at home. From 2009 to 2011, homicides overall declined slightly according to a 2011 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, with a corresponding drop in homicides by firearms.
In fact, the report says homicide is not among the top 15 leading causes of death in America. (As recently as 2009, the CDC reported that homicide was in the top 15 at #15.) Instead:

• Accidents (unintentional deaths) were #5 and Suicide (intentional harm) has held solid as the 10th leading cause of death for several years.
• The stats from 2009 show that homicides totaled 16,799, with 11,493 of those attributed to guns.
• During that same year, motor vehicle deaths were nearly triple that of gun-related deaths — 34,485 vs. 11,493.
• Death from accidental falls totaled 24,792, almost double the firearms homicide total.

The stats for gun deaths have actually shown some significant declines in the past two decades.

 

 

More @ The Blaze

The William Dorsey Pender Civil War Roundtable will sponsor a free lecture by Ed Bearss

 

General Pender at my "Dixieland")

 `GENERALS’ ORDERS PENDER CIVIL WAR ROUNDTABLE 229 th Meeting

THIS January 11th , Friday we will meet at Edgecombe Community College, Tarboro Campus 6:00 to 6:30 social, 6:30 to 7:00 buffet, 7:00 to 8:00 speaker. COST OF BUFFET IS $12 – PAY WHEN YOU ARRIVE LAST MEETING :

Jack Travis was with us in December to remind us of the power of Field Artillery during the Civil War. With an excellent slide presentation we were entertained and informed about the Federal and Confederate soldiers who performed with unique skill. We were glad to have Jack back for his second appearance.

NEXT MEETING The Edgecombe Community College History Department and the William Dorsey Pender Civil War Roundtable will sponsor a free lecture by Ed Bearss, National Park Historian Emeritus on Friday, Jan 11, 2013 at the Mobley Atrium in the Fleming building on the Tarboro campus of Edgecombe Community College. He will speak on Gen Pettigrew of North Carolina.

FUTURE Feb 28 Donny Taylor Bentonville
Mar 28 Bill Brown Bentonville NC Units
Apr 25 Debra Blake,
May 23 Steve Winter Chancellorsville,
June 27 Jay Peacock
Aug 22 Chris Grimes
Sep 26 Lyle Holland,
Oct John Derbyshire Medicine

Hobby Lobby to defy Obamacare mandate

Via Cousin John

 

Hobby Lobby, the Christian-owned company that provides hobby, arts and crafts supplies to tens of millions of customers across America, will defy the Obamacare mandate that health insurance for its employees cover “abortion-inducing drugs.”

The confirmation is from a statement released by an attorney, Kyle Duncan, who said in a website statement that, “The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”

 

The conflict is the latest firefight in the battle against Obama’s mandate that employers pay for abortifacients no matter their religious beliefs. The administration has argued in many of the dozens of lawsuit that have erupted over the conflict that religious people who own corporations must give up their rights to religious freedom.

Hobby Lobby’s case against the mandate remains pending in a lower court, but the statement from the attorney, who is with the Becket Fund, was released after an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected.

Officials estimate the company could face $1.3 million in daily fines for refusing to pay for abortifacients as Obama demands.

Sonya Sotomayor, who responds to emergency actions to the Supreme Court from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, simply told the company that officials could pay up for the abortifacients or face crushing penalties while its case continues in the lower courts.

Duncan’s statement confirmed those appeal efforts will continue.

“The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the 10th Circuit,” he wrote.

Sotomayor wrote in her rejection of the appeal for recognition of the Constitution’s requirement for freedom of religion that the company didn’t meet the legal standard for blocking enforcement of the Obama demand.

While the judges at the 10th Circuit had rejected the company’s request, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier handed Christians a major victory against Obama, who previously has supported extreme abortion – to the point of advocating that babies who survive abortions be left to die.

 

More @ WND

US Marine to Marxstein: No ma'am, I will not comply

Via The Lonely Libertarian

 

CNN
VERBATIM

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Then and now

Via The Lonely Libertarian