Pearl Harbor 80th: Hear Japan’s Side of the Story

Japan tells a different story than the one spun by FDR and the Fake News — a story which (surprisingly) was printed once on page 2 of The New York Times on December 8, 1941, and has since disappeared into the black memory hole of forbidden history.

Picture

DECEMBER 7, 1941

PEARL HARBOR 80th ANNIVERSARY EDITORIAL

The Truth About the Pearl Harbor Attack

The Setting

1941: Globalist agents FDR and Churchill want desperately to drag the United States into World War II. This becomes all the more urgent after Hitler had launched “Operation Barbarossa” in June of the same year — a justified preemptive invasion of the Soviet Union which now threatens to overthrow Stalin and his evil Bolshevik regime in Moscow.

Knowing that American entry into the war would endanger Germany’s war efforts, Hitler ignores repeated U.S. provocations of Germany. To further discourage U.S. entry into the war, Germany, Italy, and Japan sign on to a mutual defense pact in September of 1940- The Tripartite Pact. War against one means war with all three.

Ironically, the Tripartite Pact will have the unintended effect of facilitating FDR’s treasonous scheme to embroil the U.S. into the conflict. As a “backdoor” to the European conflict (which Germany was winning) FDR and Churchill intensify their instigation of Japan. When the aggressive moves become too much for Japan to bear (oil embargo, closure of Panama Canal to Japanese shipping, U.S. battleships cruising through Japanese waters, direct assistance to the Chinese aggressors etc.) Japan decides to make its first direct move against the U.S. aggressor — by attacking Pearl Harbor (the U.S. naval base in the territory of Hawaii) on December 7, 1941 ….exactly as FDR had intended! As a result of the attack, the powerful pro-peace movement in America is silenced in an instant.

Lets remember that only the old obsolete warships were in Hawaii, the newer more powerful American warships were at Midway.

In the ensuing days, war declarations between the Tripartite allies and the US/UK alliance were exchanged.

Picture
Hitler and Goering meet with Japanese foreign minister.
Picture
Japanese poster celebrates the DEFENSIVE Tripartite Pact.
Picture
Picture
With his famous theatrical flair, the diabolical FDR, acting “surprised”, delivers his  somber “Day of Infamy” speech to a confused and angry nation.
Picture
Picture
Exactly as FDR and the gang of Communists, Globalists, and Jews surrounding him had intended, the attack immediately put the pro-peace Charles Lindbergh, the “America First Movement” and the “Mothers Movement” out of business. Hence forward, the millions of patriotic Americans who had urged peace prior to Pearl Harbor would be ridiculed by Fake News and Fake Historians as “isolationists.”
Picture
Gullible young volunteers crowd military recruitment centers across America – 450,000 of these poor fools are destined to die in a war for International Jewry’s New World Order. 
Picture
The Five “Fighting Sullivan Brothers” volunteered after Pearl Harbor. They would ALL die when the USS Juneau was sunk in shark-infested waters on November, 1942 — murdered by FDR.

Japan tells a different story than the one spun by FDR and the Fake News — a story which (surprisingly) was printed once on page 2 of The New York Times on December 8, 1941, and has since disappeared into the black memory hole of forbidden history. But I’m pleased to bring you the actual text of Emperor Hirohito‘s War Declaration — a message which rings far truer than the lies of FDR and company.

Picture
Picture

TEXT OF HIROHITO’S WAR DECLARATION

By the grace of heaven, Emperor of Japan, seated on the throne occupied by the same dynasty from time immemorial, enjoin upon ye, our loyal and brave subjects:

We hereby declare war upon the United States of America and the British Empire. The men and officers of our Army and Navy shall do their utmost in prosecuting the war. Our public servants of various departments shall perform faithfully and diligently their respective duties; the entire nation with a united will shall mobilize their total strength so that nothing will miscarry in the attainment of our war aims.

To ensure the stability of East Asia, and to contribute to world peace is the farsighted policy which was formulated by our great illustrious Imperial Grandsire and our Great Imperial Sire succeeding him and which we lay constantly to heart. To cultivate friendship among nations and to enjoy prosperity in common with all nations, has always been the guiding principle of our Empire’s foreign policy. It has truly been unavoidable and far from our wishes that our Empire has been brought to cross swords with America and Britain. More than four years have passed since China, failing to comprehend the true intentions of our Empire, and recklessly courting trouble, disturbed the peace of East Asia and compelled our Empire to take up arms. Although there has been reestablished the National Government of China, with which Japan had effected neighborly intercourse and cooperation, the regime which has survived in Chungking, relying upon American and British protection, still continues its fratricidal opposition.

Eager for the realization of their inordinate ambition to dominate the Orient, both America and Britain, giving support to the Chungking regime, have aggravated the disturbances in East Asia. Moreover these two powers, inducing other countries to follow suit, increased military preparations on all sides of our Empire to challenge us. They have obstructed by every means our peaceful commerce and finally resorted to a direct severance of economic relations, menacing greatly the existence of our Empire.

Patiently have we waited and long have we endured, in the hope that our Government might retrieve the situation in peace. But our adversaries, showing not the least spirit of conciliation, have unduly delayed a settlement; and in the meantime they have intensified the economic and political pressure to compel our Empire to submission. This trend of affairs, would, if left unchecked, not only nullify our Empire’s efforts of many years for the sake of the stabilization of East Asia, but also endanger the very existence of our nation. The situation being such as it is, our Empire, for its existence and self defense has no other recourse but to appeal to arms and to crush every obstacle in its path.

The hallowed spirits of our Imperial Ancestors, guarding us from above, we rely upon the loyalty and courage of our subjects in the confident expectation that the task bequeathed by our forefathers will be carried forward, and that the sources of evil will be speedily eradicated, and an enduring peace be established in East Asia, preserving thereby the glory of our Empire.”

Picture
HARRY STIMSON

SECRETARY HARRY STIMSON’S CONFESSION

“We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move. … The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot.”
***
“When the news first came that Japan had attacked us my first feeling was of relief that … a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people. This continued to be my dominant feeling in spite of the news of catastrophes which quickly developed.”

From the diary of Henry Stimson, FDR’s Secretary of War

What If? Part 1

“What If?” histories are a good read. They are entertaining, and they provoke thought and encourage the imagination. How different the world would be if different judgments, decisions, and circumstances had prevailed at history’s turning points. Certainly English history would have been different if King Harold’s soldiers had obeyed his order not to pursue the defeated fleeing Normans down the hill. This broke the impenetrable Saxon shield wall and exposed King Harold to Norman cavalry. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Battle_of_Hastings

Would there ever have been a Soviet Union if the Czar had stayed out of World War I?

Would there have been a World War II if British, French, and American politicians had listened to John Maynard Keynes’ warning that the Treaty of Versailles would result in a second world war? Germany had been promised a different outcome–no reparations and no territorial loss–in exchange for an armistice. As Keynes realized, the betrayal of the peace led to another great war.

There are a couple of what ifs that I have been waiting for historians to explore. As no historians have risen to the challenge, I will have a go. Keep in mind that a what if outcome is not necessarily a better outcome. It might be a worse outcome. As what if did not happen and there is no what if history, there is no way of making a judgment.

Suppose Churchill had not succeeded in pressuring Chamberlain to interfere with Hitler’s negotiations with the Polish colonels by issuing a British guarantee to Poland in the event of German aggression. Would World War II have resulted or would it have been a different war?

The British guarantee emboldened the colonels and frustrated Hitler’s attempt to restore
a Germany dismantled by the Versailles Treaty. The result was Hitler’s secret pact with Stalin to divide up Poland, technically known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Having given the guarantee, Britain was honor-bound to declare war on Germany (fortunately not also on the Soviet Union), which pulled in France because of the British-French alliance against Germany.

Without Britain’s guarantee, the German (September 1, 1939) and Soviet (September 17, 1939) invasions of Poland would have been prevented by the Polish colonels’ acquiescence to Hitler’s demands and would not have resulted in Britain and France starting World War II by declaring war on Germany, resulting in the fall of France, the British driven off the continent, and Roosevelt’s determination to involve the US in a foreign war unrelated in any significant way to Americans’ interests.

Historians write that Hitler’s ambitions were in the East, not the West. Without the British and French declaration of war, the war might have been contained, with the two totalitarian powers fighting it out.

Alternatively, Hitler and Stalin might have continued their cooperation and together seized the oil rich Middle East. The British, French, and Americans would have been a poor match for the German and Soviet militaries. General Patton, the best American commander, thought he could take on the Red Army that had crushed the Wehrmacht, but his hubris did not worry Red Army commanders, who defeated the bulk of the German Army, which was deployed on the Eastern Front, while the Americans, aided by German motorized units running out of fuel, struggled to contain a small part of German forces in the Battle of the Bulge. Today we would be buying our oil from a German/Soviet consortium.

This outcome implies a different history for the Middle East, and so does another what if. What if the 9/11 Commission consisted of experts instead of politicians with their fingers in the wind, and what if the commissioners had too much integrity to write a report dictated by the executive branch? The unlikely and untenable failure of every institution of the American national security state would have been investigated, and the collapse of WTC 7 at free fall speed would have had to have been acknowledged in the report and explained. A totally different story would have emerged, a story unlikely to have locked Americans into permanent war in an expanding number of countries and into a domestic police state.

Americans might still be a free people. And American liberty might still be a beacon to the world.

On the other hand, a finding of government complicity in 9/11 could have threatened powerful interests and resulted in violent conflict and martial law.

What ifs are provocative, and that is what makes them fun. Thinking is America’s national disability. I’m all for anything that provokes Americans to think.

How the Spanish-American War Changed World History

SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR

High School history fables taught us that the Spanish-American War of 1898 was a meaningless war instigated by the Yellow Journalist William Randolph Hearst. Here’s a typical history-book sample of the retarded drivel that is still being spoon-fed to captive audiences of dumbed-down students who are even awake to hear it:

“It is arguable that the Spanish-American War was perhaps the most pointless war in the history of the United States. Although it was not known at the time, the war was not truly fought for territory, for markets, for principle, or even for honor. Rather, it began because William Randolph Hearst, editor of the popular New York Journal sought sensational material to print.”

Certainly, Hearst and his rival at the New York World, Joseph Pulitzer, helped to poison the public mind towards Spain. But this idiotic and incomplete analysis ignores the “big picture” of the Globalist hand which moves the chess pieces. The Spanish-American War was neither “pointless”, nor insignificant. To the contrary, without the precedent-setting features, tactical acquisitions, and adverse side-effects of this unjust war, and the prolonged US-Philippines War which grew out of it, World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution, World War II and all the other horror stories of the past 100 + years would not have been possible.

Intrigued? Keep reading.

1- As outrageous and essential as their propaganda was, the belief that a newspaper circulation rivalry between Hearst and Pulitzer caused the war, as the first cartoon above suggests, is just as moronic. // 2- The shocking claim of Spaniards strip-searching American women was false.

As the turn of the century approached, America was strong, independent, and what the Globalists would call “isolationist” – a stupid propaganda term used to mock the desire to maintain peaceful commerce and neutral relations with foreign countries. The very thought of picking a fight overseas was as foreign to the American psyche as homosexual “marriage” or government housing.

The Globo-Zionist crime gang was not nearly as entrenched among the American elite as it is today, but the pernicious influence of the Globalists was indeed growing fast. Money Masters such as Jacob Schiff, John D Rockefeller, Rothschild front-man JP Morgan and others were already on board with the Globalist movement; as were media moguls like Adolph Ochs (NY Times), and the aforementioned Hearst and Pulitzer. America’s potential as a global ‘hit-man’ for the N.W.O. was not lost upon these One Worlders, particularly in regard to establishing a menacing naval presence from which the emerging U.S. bully could influence the affairs of Asia. Thus was born the idea for the first “Asian pivot” – the theft of the Spanish colonies of Guam and the Philippines.

The “problem” of overcoming American “isolationism” posed a challenge for the Globalists. Americans wanted as much to do with the affairs of the Asia Pacific as they did those of Mars or Venus. Besides, Spain wasn’t about to give away territories which it had benevolently ruled for more than three centuries. Concurrent with the desire to take Guam and the Philippines was a movement to annex Hawaii and make it an American territory. But in 1897, the annexation movement stalled due to the strong opposition of native Hawaiians and the inability of supporters to win a 2/3 majority in the U.S. Senate. What’s a Globalist to do?

1- Location. Location. Location. The stepping-stones of Hawaii, Spanish Guam & Spanish Philippines would enable the U.S. to project a presence in Japan’s backyard, with proximity to China and far eastern Tsarist Russia as well. //  2- Rothschild, Rockefeller and Jacob Schiff (above) had long range plans to control Asia.

It just so happened that the Spanish colony of Cuba was located only 90 miles off the coast of Florida. What if, using the pretext of “Spanish tyranny” over Cuba, the U.S. could pick a fight with “evil” Spain in America’s own backyard? The public might not get too excited about “oppressed” Spanish subjects 5,000 miles away, but certainly, the good and decent American people would never allow the poor freedom-seekers of nearby Cuba to be so oppressed by a European monarchy and get a nice treasure out of it as well, “Puerto Rico”.

And what if, using the cover of this oh-so-noble war for “Cuban liberation,” the U.S. could then chase the Spaniards out of the Asian Pacific and establish its own bases? Can you see the scam now? Toward these ends, a baseless propaganda campaign was suddenly unleashed against Spain, with Hearst and Pulitzer taking the lead in the press while certain U.S. Senators and Congressmen worked from inside DC.

Although the intensive propaganda campaign of 1897 and early 1898 had succeeded in poisoning the public perception of Spain, the reluctance to go to war of many in Congress, as well as that of the conservative President, William McKinley, still had to be overcome. Can you smell the false-flag event coming?

President McKinley was not impressed by the anti-Spanish propaganda. Some further “persuading” had to be done.

In 1897, The Globalist “Powers That Be” had arranged for the ambitious control-freak, New York City Police Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt, to be appointed as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. In February of 1898, TR, on his own initiative, ordered the USS Maine to provocatively sail into Cuba’s Havana Harbor (controlled by Spain). In a remarkable “coincidence”, the Maine “spontaneously” and oh-so-conveniently blew up, killing 251 American sailors. TR and the Yellow Press wasted no time in blaming Spain for the “mine attack.”

Assistant Naval Secretary Roosevelt murdered 251 sailors and then blamed Spain for it.

Spain strongly denied the false charges and invited an investigation into the matter. President McKinley continued to resist the demands and threats of the Congressional warmongers and the Yellow Press. But by April, the pressure for war was just too much for McKinley to resist. On April 25, 1898, America declared war upon Spain — a war whose rallying cry was: “Remember the Maine and to hell with Spain.”

Neither the Pope, nor the innocent Spaniards, nor the U.S. President were able to beat back the insane war mania and press propaganda which followed the destruction in the Maine.

Immediately after the war declaration, “Assistant” Secretary Roosevelt again took matters into his own hands by issuing an order for America’s Asiatic Squadron – stationed in British Hong Kong in order to “protect commerce” – to destroy the Spanish fleet based in the Philippines. Try not to laugh, dear reader; but Americans on the west coast were told that this outrageous act of aggression was a necessary defensive strike aimed at preventing a Spanish attack on California! The Battle of Manila Bay took place on May 1. It was a rout. Commodore Dewey not only destroyed the Spanish fleet, but also captured the harbor of Manila – effectively a U.S. body of water ever since.

On June 20, a U.S. fleet commanded by Captain Henry Glass, captured the island of Guam – a U.S. territory ever since. And finally, in July, the House and Senate worked their way around the 2/3 Senate requirement for annexing Hawaii by voting on a joint resolution instead. The “emergency” of the war is what finally enabled the establishment of a huge base in Hawaii (Pearl Harbor).

Philippines, Guam, Hawaii; yes, the war with Spain turned out to be very good for the future conquerors of Asia. Hey Teddy! Wasn’t this holy war supposed to be about “liberating” Cuba?

The war for “Cuba’s freedom” was really all about controlling Asia.

The totally lopsided war ended in August, after just 3 and 1/2 months. But not before the war’s most important instigator, Teddy Roosevelt, stepped down from his position and volunteered to “fight.” The grand-standing clown served just long enough to build his resume as a “war hero.” His mythical achievements as the fearless, horse-mounted leader of the “The Rough Riders” and “hero of San Juan Hill” would be hyped by the very same Yellow Press which propagandized for the phony war in the first place. In reality, the Battle of San Juan Hill was only a minor skirmish, fought on foot, in which Americans outnumbered Spaniards 15-1!

Just three months after the war had ended, Roosevelt was elected Governor of New York State. He had campaigned vigorously on his puffed-up war record, winning the election by just 1%. Then, as now, dumb Americans loved their “war heroes.”

The following year, 1899, McKinley’s Vice President, the equally conservative and pro-“hard money” Garret Hobart, conveniently died of a “heart ailment” (or poison?) at age 55. The same warmonger / “progressive” faction that had imposed the Spanish-American War upon McKinley, would now impose Roosevelt upon the reluctant President McKinley. In 1900, after an astonishingly rapid climb up the political ladder, the fiendishly ambitious TR was just “a heartbeat away” from the Presidency.

1- Idiotic false propaganda turned TR into an instant “war hero” //  2- Vice President Garret Hobart (r) died suddenly. Was he poisoned to make way for TR? // 3- With TR just “a heart beat away” from power, the Globalists need only to kill the conservative McKinley.

In September of 1901, President McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz, a Red terrorist-anarchist and devotee of the New York Anarchist-Communist Jew, Emma Goldman. How convenient! Pinko-Progressive Teddy Roosevelt became President and immediately began accelerating the process of converting America towards socialism at home and imperialism (New World Order) abroad.

TR waged a brutal war against the ex-Spanish colony of the Philippines. During TR’s war of aggression, 5,000 Americans and 20,000 Filipinos were killed, with as many as 100,000 more natives dying of disease. This was the Philippine independence movement’s reward for rising up against Spain, based on America’s empty promises. The formerly Spanish-speaking natives were then converted to the English language, which they speak to this day.

1- A Red’s bullet put a “Progressive” into the White House. //  2- Under TR’s reign of terror, Philippine rebels were tortured. // 3-  Cartoon mocks TR and the Banksters as being fans of Karl Marx.

In 1903, irritated by Colombia’s request for better terms for what was to become the Panama Canal, TR ordered a fake revolution in Colombia. The result was the newly formed puppet state of Panama. Colombia got screwed out of lease payments!

In 1905, TR, with Asian-Pacific naval bases now in hand, brokered a peace deal between Russia and Japan. Jacob Schiff’s money and TR’s anti-Russian peace deal helped to weaken the Tsar, who would be overthrown by murderous Reds in the decade to come. For this contribution towards anti-Russian Globalism, war-loving TR was awarded the phony Nobel Peace Prize!

In 1907, the megalomaniac TR sent “The Great White Fleet” to sail around the world as a show of intimidation.

In 1908, one year after the Bankster-engineered Panic of 1907, TR established the “National Monetary Commission” to study the crash and make suggestions. Nelson Aldrich, an in-law of the Rockefellers, was named Chairman. The NMC suggested the establishment of a Central Bank for America – which will eventually come into being in 1913 as “The Federal Reserve.”

This is how Bankster puppet TR rolled. Both personally and politically, he was a classic bully and a fake “man of the people” who set the precedents which many other Presidents would follow for the next 100 years. Great American author and essayist Mark Twain described TR as follows:

“Mr. Roosevelt is the Tom Sawyer of the political world of the twentieth century; always showing off; always hunting for a chance to show off; in his frenzied imagination the Great Republic is a vast Barnum circus with him for a clown and the whole world for audience; he would go to Halifax for half a chance to show off and he would go to hell for a whole one.”

Yes, indeed, TR did quite a bit of damage to America and, by extension, the world; and none of it would have been possible were it not for the Spanish-American War which created him, after he had created it.

1- Psycho TR’s ‘Great White Fleet’ – USA! USA! USA! // 2- Nelson Aldrich, David Rockefeller’s maternal grandfather, will help Schiff, Warburg, Rockefeller and Morgan to set up the criminal Federal Reserve scam. // 3- Mark Twain despised Roosevelt.

After a 10 year run of killing U.S. sailors and Philippine natives, ex-President Roosevelt took to killing elephants, rhinos, leopards and lions as a hobby.

In closing, let us review the adverse consequences and historical mutations which grew out of what one of TR’s backers described as “a splendid little war”:

  • The successful selling of the sinking of The Maine to the gullible public set the original precedent and template for all future false-flags and/or provocations (Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Gulf, USS Liberty, 9-11, the Sandy Hook non-shootings etc)
  • The legal, historic and psychological precedents for America going overseas to fight wars and impose puppet regimes was also established. Without which, US entry in World War I (just 19 years later) would not have been possible.
  • An imperialistic American/NWO naval foothold was established in the Pacific (Philippines, Guam, Hawaii). Without which, the 1905 undermining of Tsarist Russia, the 1930’s U.S. influence over China, and the associated harassment and provocation of Japan (World War II) would not have been possible.
  • Phony “war hero” TR, an unelectable “progressive”, was skyrocketed to the Governorship of New York, then to the Vice Presidency, and finally to the Presidency. Without TR, the establishment of the currency-debasing perpetual debt machine known as ‘The Fed’, and the 1912 election of Woodrow Wilson (yikes!) would not have been possible. (TR ran 3rd Party in 1912 solely for the purpose of splitting the Republican vote and unseating the conservative, William H. Taft.)

Those four monstrous ‘mutations’ alone spawned every other disaster of the past 118 years, making the “pointless” Spanish-American War, in many ways, one of the most important watershed events in American and world history. Indeed, the Spanish-American War was the ‘Typhoid Mary” of the world disasters which followed, and continue to unfold today.

Pearl Harbor and the destructive effects of perpetual war — It all traces back to 1898!

1941: TEXT OF JAPAN’S WAR DECLARATION AGAINST USA

 

ussarizona41.jpg.w300h238

 

                                                        DECEMBER 8, 1941

 

 

 

 

The Setting:

3b12442u_lrg.jpg.w300h210

 

Globalist agents FDR and Churchill want desperately to drag the United States into World War II. Knowing that American entry into the war would endanger Germany’s war efforts, Hitler ignores repeated U.S. provocations of Germany. To further discourage U.S. entry into the war, Germany, Italy, and Japan sign on to a mutual defense pact in September of 1940- The TriPartite Pact. War against one means war with all three.

Ironically, the TriPartite Pact will have the unintended effect of facilitating FDR’s treasonous scheme to embroil the U.S. into the conflict. As a “backdoor” to the European conflict (which Germany was winning) FDR and Churchill intensify their instigation of Japan. When the aggressive moves become too much for Japan to bear (oil embargo, closure of Panama Canal to Japanese shipping, U.S. battleships cruising through Japanese waters etc.) Japan decides the make the first move, by attacking Pearl Harbor (the U.S. naval base in the territory of Hawaii) on December 7, 1941 ….exactly as FDR had intended!

220px-1ngoku

In the ensuing days, war declarations between the TriPartite allies, and the US/UK alliance were exchanged.

 

The diabolical FDR, acting “surprised”, delivers his “Day of Infamy” speech to a confused and angry nation.

 

  1- Gullible volunteers crowd military recruitment centers across America – 450,000 of these poor fools are destined to die in a war for International Jewry’ New World Order.   2- The Five “Fighting Sullivan Brothers” volunteered after Pearl Harbor. They ALL died when the USS Juneau was sunk in November, 1942  — murdered by FDR.

 

But Japan tells a different story; a story that was printed once on page 2 of The New York Times, and has since disappeared into the black memory hole of forbidden history. Thanks to those of you who continue to support our monthly subscription fee for The New York Times Archives, Mike King and Sugar are pleased to bring you:

 

Globalist agents FDR and Churchill want desperately to drag the United States into World War II. Knowing that American entry into the war would endanger Germany’s war efforts, Hitler ignores repeated U.S. provocations of Germany. To further discourage U.S. entry into the war, Germany, Italy, and Japan sign on to a mutual defense pact in September of 1940- The TriPartite Pact. War against one means war with all three

TEXT OF HIROHITO’S WAR DECLARATION

.

By the grace of heaven, Emperor of Japan, seated on the throne occupied by the same dynasty from time immemorial, enjoin upon ye, our loyal and brave subjects:

.

We hereby declare war upon the United States of America and the British Empire. The men and officers of our Army and Navy shall do their utmost in prosecuting the war. Our public servants of various departments shall perform faithfully and diligently their respective duties; the entire nation with a united will shall mobilize their total strength so that nothing will miscarry in the attainment of our war aims.

 

To ensure the stability of East Asia, and to contribute to world peace is the farsighted policy which was formulated by our great illustrious Imperial Grandsire and our Great Imperial Sire succeeding him and which we lay constantly to heart. To cultivate friendship among nations and to enjoy prosperity in common with all nations, has always been the guiding principle of our Empire’s foreign policy. It has truly been unavoidable and far from our wishes that our Empire has been brought to cross swords with America and Britain. More than four years have passed since China, failing to comprehend the true intentions of our Empire, and recklessly courting trouble, disturbed the peace of East Asia and compelled our Empire to take up arms. Although there has been reestablished the National Government of China, with which Japan had effected neighborly intercourse and cooperation, the regime which has survived in Chungking, relying upon American and British protection, still continues its fratricidal opposition.

 

Eager for the realization of their inordinate ambition to dominate the Orient, both America and Britain, giving support to the Chungking regime, have aggravated the disturbances in East Asia. Moreover these two powers, inducing other countries to follow suit, increased military preparations on all sides of our Empire to challenge us. They have obstructed by every means our peaceful commerce and finally resorted to a direct severance of economic relations, menacing greatly the existence of our Empire.

 

Patiently have we waited and long have we endured, in the hope that our Government might retrieve the situation in peace. But our adversaries, showing not the least spirit of conciliation, have unduly delayed a settlement; and in the meantime they have intensified the economic and political pressure to compel our Empire to submission.  This trend of affairs, would, if left unchecked, not only nullify our Empire’s efforts of many years for the sake of the stabilization of East Asia, but also endanger the very existence of our nation. The situation being such as it is, our Empire, for its existence and self-defense has no other recourse but to appeal to arms and to crush every obstacle in its path.

 

The hallowed spirits of our Imperial Ancestors, guarding us from above, we rely upon the loyalty and courage of our subjects in the confident expectation that the task bequeathed by our forefathers will be carried forward, and that the sources of evil will be speedily eradicated, and an enduring peace be established in East Asia, preserving thereby the glory of our Empire.”

 

December 8, 1941

 

HenryStimson

                                              HARRY STIMSON’S CONFESSION!

 

“We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move. … The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot.”

***

“When the news first came that Japan had attacked us my first feeling was of relief that … a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people. This continued to be my dominant feeling in spite of the news of catastrophes which quickly developed.”

 

From the diary of Henry Stimson, FDR’s Secretary of War

 

 

Debunking A Century of War Lies

images (3)

In the modern age of democracy and volunteer armies, a pretense for war is required to rally the nation around the flag and motivate the public to fight. That is why every major conflict is now accompanied by its own particular bodyguard of lies. From false flag attacks to dehumanization of the “enemy,” here are all the examples you’ll need to help debunk a century of war lies.

If, as the old adage has it, the first casualty of war is the truth, then it follows that the first battle of any war is won by lies.

Lies have always been used to sell war to a public that would otherwise be leery about sending their sons off to fight and die on foreign soil. In times long past, this was easy enough to accomplish. A proclamation by a king or queen was enough to set the machinery of war in motion. But in the modern age of democracy and volunteer armies, a pretense for war is required to rally the nation around the flag and motivate the public to fight.

That is why every major conflict is now accompanied by its own particular bodyguard of lies. From false flag attacks to dehumanization of the “enemy,” here are all the examples you’ll need to help debunk a century of war lies.

download

WWI

In 1915, the RMS Lusitania, a British ocean liner en route from New York to Liverpool, was sunk by a German U-boat 11 miles off the coast of Ireland. The ship’s sinking, which resulted in the death of 128 of the 139 Americans aboard, became a symbol of German evil and helped psychologically prepare the US public for their country’s eventual entry into WWI. But every facet of the story of the Lusitania as it has been presented to the public was a deliberate lie or a lie by omission.

The boat was not a purely civilian vessel carrying 3,813 40-pound (unrefrigerated) containers of “cheese” and 696 containers of “butter,” as the official manifest held, but guncotton, in keeping with the shipment’s stated destination: the Royal Navy’s Weapons Testing Establishment.

It was not sunk by the German torpedo boat but by secondary explosions from the munitions the ship was (illegally) carrying.

It was not the victim of a cowardly German surprise attack (the German Embassy placed a warning notice about the Lusitania in 50 American newspapers right next to Cunard’s own listings).

And the American ambassador to England at the time, Walter Hines Page, wrote to his son five days before the ship was sunk, asking: “If a British liner full of American passengers be blown up, what will Uncle Sam do? That’s what’s going to happen.”

So what did the official cover-up of the incident conclude? That the dastardly Germans had waged a perfidious sneak attack on an innocent peace boat, of course. And the rest, as they say, is history.

download (2)

WWII

A little over two decades later, America’s entry into WWII came when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, killing over 2,400 American servicemen and civilians. But far from an unprovoked sneak attack, as the official government-approved history would have you believe, Pearl Harbor is best understood as a conspiracy to motivate the American public for war by first provoking and then allowing a Japanese strike on American targets.

This is not even a controversial idea; it was commonly understood and discussed by many in the Roosevelt administration at the time. Henry Stimson, the US Secretary of War, noted in his diary that just the week before the attack President Roosevelt had told him “we were likely to be attacked perhaps (as soon as) next Monday” and then solicited Stimson’s advice on “how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” Around the same time, Roosevelt sent a message to all military commanders stating that “The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.”

So how did FDR and his administration provoke the Japanese into attacking?

In late 1940, Roosevelt ordered the United States Fleet to be relocated from San Pedro to Pearl Harbor. The order incensed Admiral James Richardson, Commander-in-Chief of the US Fleet, who complained bitterly to FDR about the nonsensical decision: It left the fleet open to attack from every direction, it created a 2,000-mile-long supply chain that was vulnerable to disruption, and it packed the ships in together at Pearl Harbor, where they would be sitting ducks in the event of a bombing or torpedo raid. FDR, unable to counter these objections, went ahead with the plan and relieved Richardson of his command.

Then in June 1941, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes wrote a memo advising FDR to embargo Japanese oil in order to goad them into war: “There might develop from the embargoing of oil to Japan such a situation as would make it, not only possible but easy, to get into this war in an effective way.” Roosevelt followed through weeks later with an order seizing Japanese assets in America and effectively preventing Japan from purchasing much-needed American oil, which at that time accounted for four-fifths of Japanese oil imports.

The provocations had their intended effect, and the Americans listened in on Japanese war preparations via radio. They received warnings of an imminent attack from diplomatic officials and military attachés. The attack was even predicted by the Honolulu Advertiser days before it happened. But all of these warnings were ignored. Even today, nearly 80 years after the events, new documents and memos continue to be found showing more warnings that Roosevelt and his administration deliberately ignored in the run-up to the attack.

FDR got his wish. The Japanese attack was successful: 2,400 Americans died, and the nation, outraged, responded by rallying around the flag and jumping enthusiastically into war.

But the Japanese themselves were no innocents when it came to lying their way into war. Ten years before Pearl Harbor, in 1931, Japan was looking for a pretext to invade Manchuria. On September 18th of that year, a lieutenant in the Imperial Japanese Army detonated a small amount of TNT along a Japanese-owned railway in the Manchurian city of Mukden. The act was blamed on Chinese dissidents and used to justify the invasion and occupation of Manchuria. When the lie was later exposed, Japan was diplomatically shunned and forced to withdraw from the League of Nations.

download (3)

The Korean War

The League of Nations fell apart precisely for its inability to prevent World War II. Its successor organization, the United Nations, engaged in its own war lies shortly after its creation to ensure that it would not meet the same fate.

The Korean War, waged under the UN flag and sold to the public as a virtuous mission to save the South from the North’s communist aggression, was on its face a war that should never have happened. The division of Korea into North and South was not the organic decision of the Korean people, but a plan that originated in an article in 1944 in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, which suggested dividing the country up and putting its administration in the hands of the Allies, including the Soviets. When the newly-founded UN put that plan into action in 1945, Korea was arbitrarily divided along the 38th parallel, with the US administering the South and the Soviet Union administering the North.

Neither was the war itself the organic result of decisions taken by the Korean people. In 1949, Owen Lattimore, a member of the Carnegie and Rockefeller-funded Institute for Pacific Relations and an advisor to the State Department on East Asian issues, wrote: “The thing to do is let South Korea fall, but not to let it look as if we pushed it.” In a speech at the National Press Club the following year, Secretary of State Dean Acheson placed Korea outside of the US’ “defensive perimeter of the Pacific,” stating that any attack that took place outside of that perimeter would have to be dealt with “under the Charter of the United Nations.” Taking this as a green light, the North Koreans, heavily fortified and equipped with Soviet military aid, invaded the South.

The war began on June 27, 1950, when the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for members to provide military assistance “to restore international peace and security in the area.” The Soviet Union, being a veto-wielding member of the Council, could have vetoed the resolution and prevented the UN from engaging in the war, but they abstained from the vote altogether.

When General MacArthur, leading the UN forces, managed to repel the North right to the Chinese border, he was prevented from completing the mission by Truman, who would not authorize any operations north of the Soviet-held 38th parallel unless there was no chance of confrontation with either Chinese or Soviet forces. MacArthur, shocked by this development, wrote in a letter years later: “Such a limitation upon the utilization of available military force to repel an enemy attack has no precedent either in our own history or, so far as I know, in the history of the world. [. . .] To me it clearly foreshadowed the tragic situation which has since developed and left me with a sense of shock I had never before experienced in a long life crammed with explosive reactions and momentous hazards.”

In the end, the bloody Korean conflict ended not with a peace deal but a ceasefire. Not with the reunification of the Korean peninsula but with the establishment of a demilitarized zone to keep them separated. Nearly three million civilians died during the fighting, and the country was torn to pieces, all in the name of a military action under the UN flag that should never have escalated into war in the first place.

images (1)

The Vietnam War

In August of 1964, President Johnson was preoccupied in finding an excuse to justify a formal escalation of American military involvement in Vietnam. That excuse came on August 2nd when the USS Maddox, a destroyer supposedly on a peaceful mission in international waters, reported a surprise attack from North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. Just two days later it reported another attack. Johnson responded by launching retaliatory strikes and signing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, thus formally launching the Vietnam War.

Years later, it was revealed that the story of the Maddox, too, had been a tissue of lies. The Maddox was not peacefully drifting near Vietnamese waters, minding its own business; it was part of a covert electronic warfare campaign assisting the South Vietnamese in launching attacks on the North. It had not been attacked out of the blue on August 2nd, as originally reported, but in fact had fired first. And, as even the NSA’s own internal publication, made available to the public for the first time 40 years after the incident, concluded, the second attack on August 4th had never taken place at all.

But these were mere details, and, just like the facts about the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor, these details were suppressed long enough for the event to have its intended effect: rallying the public for war.

images (2)

The Six-Day War

The Six-Day War in 1967 between Israel and Egypt, Syria and Jordan is yet another example of a war which was justified for reasons that were later exposed as lies.

When Israel launched an attack on Egypt’s airfields on the morning of June 5th, they initially claimed that it was a defensive strike and that Egypt had struck first. But this was an easily proven lie, and the claim was quickly dropped.

Next they claimed that the attack was “preemptive self defense” and that Egypt and its Arab allies had been preparing to strike Israel. But multiple Israeli officials, including Yitzhak Rabin, later admitted that Egypt had not been preparing a war, or even interested in one.

And then, in the most outrageous incident of all, Israel attempted to get America involved in the war by attacking the USS Liberty, a US technical research ship collecting electronic intelligence just outside Egypt’s territorial waters at the time of the war. The attack, carried out by Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats, was relentless. The Liberty was strafed and torpedoed repeatedly, with the crew sending distress messages and even hoisting a large American flag so there could be no doubt as to their identity.

The Israeli attack was finally called off an hour and a half into the assault. Israel, caught in a blatant attempt to sink an American ship, offered an “apology” for “mistaking” the identity of the vessel. But it was no mistake. In 2007 the NSA declassified intercepts confirming that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship, not an Egyptian ship as their cover story has maintained.

Even mainstream historians now characterize Israel’s attack on the Liberty as “a daring ploy by Israel to fake an Egyptian attack on the American spy ship, and thereby provide America with a reason to officially enter the war against Egypt.” But the incident was soon memory-holed, and to this day the Six-Day War is portrayed as an act of “preemptive self defense” by the valiant Israelis against the dastardly Arab aggressors.

download (4)

Gulf War 1

By the 1990s, the post-Vietnam public was growing increasingly wary of calls for war in far-flung corners of the world in countries many had never heard of. And so it was that in 1990, when the politicians and their deep state controllers required the American public to be motivated to wage war against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait, they hired a literal PR firm to sell an even more brazen set of lies to Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom.

The most famous of these lies revolved around Nayirah, a “young Kuwaiti girl” who sparked international headlines for her shocking testimony before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in October 1990. In a tear-stained speech she told a harrowing story of the horrors she witnessed being committed by Iraqi soldiers at a Kuwaiti hospital where she was volunteering.

NAYIRAH: I volunteered at the Aladein hospital with 12 other women who wanted to help as well. I was the youngest volunteer. The other women were from 20 to 30 years old. While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators . . . took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor!

SOURCE: Human Rights Violations in Kuwait

It is difficult today to understand just how important this testimony was in setting the tone of the debate about whether America should commit military forces to defend Kuwait. It was reported breathlessly on the evening news, and it was repeated by President Bush on not one or two occasions, but six separate times in the lead up to war.

GEORGE H. W. BUSH: . . . babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor…

SOURCE: Nayirah Episode of 60 Minutes

GEORGE H. W. BUSH: . . . and they had kids in incubators, and they were thrown out of the incubators so that Kuwait could be systematically dismantled.

SOURCE: To Sell A War – Gulf War Propaganda (1992)

Then, when the Gulf War Resolution was making its way through the House, the incubator story was raised in Congress:

REP. HENRY HYDE: Now is the time to check the aggression of this ruthless dictator whose troops have bayoneted pregnant women and have ripped babies from their incubators in Kuwait.

SOURCE: To Sell A War – Gulf War Propaganda (1992)

And then again in the Senate. The vote passed and combat operations formally began in January 1991.

The only problem? “Nayirah” was not some anonymous Kuwaiti girl, but, as a subsequent CBC investigation discovered, she was Nayirah Al-Sabah, daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States. Her testimony had been written for her by Hill & Knowlton, a PR agency hired by the Kuwaiti government-supported astroturf organization, the “Citizens For A Free Kuwait,” to help sell the Gulf War. And the “Congressional Human Rights Caucus” that held the hearing where Nayirah gave her testimony? It was later found to be a Hill & Knowlton front itself.

download (5)

Gulf War II

As everyone knows by now, the second Gulf War, in 2003, was also built on lies. We all remember the lies about Saddam’s WMDs and the way that story was sold to the public by Colin Powell at the UN. But this time the media took the driver seat in the campaign to sell the war to the public.

The New York Times led the way with Judith Miller‘s now-infamous reporting on the Iraqi WMD story, now known to have been based on false information from untrustworthy sources, but the rest of the media quickly fell into line, with the NBC Nightly News asking “what precise threat Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction pose to America” and Time debating whether Hussein was “making a good-faith effort to disarm Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” Reports about chemical weapons stashes were reported on before they were confirmed, although headlines boldly asserted their existence as indisputable fact. And any media personality that showed skepticism about the claims being made—even wildly popular ones like Phil Donahue, host of MSNBC’s then highest-rated program—were summarily removed from the air.

PHIL DONOHUE: Scott Ritter is here and so is Ambassador . . .

BILL MOYERS: You had Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector, who was saying that if we invade, it will be a historic blunder.

DONOHUE: Yes. You didn’t have him alone. He had to be there with someone else who supported the war. In other words, you couldn’t have Scott Ritter alone. You could have Richard Perle alone.

MOYERS: You could have the conservative.

DONOHUE: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn’t have a dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.

MOYERS: You’re kidding.

DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true.

MOYERS: Instructed from above?

DONOHUE: Yes.

SOURCE: Bill Moyers Journal APRIL 25, 2007: “Buying the War”

We now know that in fact the stockpiles did not exist and the administration premeditatedly lied the country into yet another war, but the most intense opposition the Bush administration ever received over this documented war crime was some polite correction on the Sunday political talk show circuit.

DONALD RUMSFELD: You and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase “immediate threat.” I didn’t. The president didn’t. And it’s become kind of folklore that that’s what’s happened. The president went—

BOB SCHIEFFER: You’re saying that nobody in the administration said that—

RUMSFELD: I can’t speak for nobody— . . . and everybody in the Administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: The Vice-President didn’t say that?

RUMSFELD: If you have any citations I’d like to see them.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN: “Some have argued that the nu—” this is you speaking “some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.”

RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm.

FRIEDMAN: That’s close to “imminent.”

RUMSFELD: Well, I’ve tried to be precise and I’ve tried to be accurate. Sometimes—

FRIEDMAN: “No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iran.”

RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm.

download (6)

The Libya Intervention

The WMD story blew up in the neocons’ face shortly after the war, but by that time they had already succeeded in their plan to reshape the Middle East. But for the would-be controllers of public opinion, a valuable lesson was learned: “Human rights” and “protecting the innocent” is a more effective lie to sell to the public to motivate them for war. So when it came time to sell the war on Libya to the public, the UN-backed, NATO-led aggressors once again donned the cloak of “human rights” by turning to none other than the UN’s Human Rights Council.

The process that launched the intervention was begun by a coalition of 70 non-governmental organizations, which issued a joint letter urging the UN to suspend Libya from the Human Rights Council and for the Security Council to invoke the so-called “responsibility to protect” principle in protecting the Libyan people from alleged atrocities being committed by the Libyan government.

In a special session on the issue on February 25th, 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution affirming the NGOs’ recommendations. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

The Security Council immediately passed resolutions 1970 and 1973, authorizing the establishment of a “no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation” for the “protection of civilians” and the “delivery of humanitarian assistance.” Three days later, using the resolution as its justification, the US, UK and France began bombing the population of Libya.

Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court’s Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, began working on the legal basis for the invasion. He drafted the request for the Court’s judges to issue an arrest warrant for Gaddafi for crimes against humanity. Although NATO forces were already engaged in an invasion of the country on the basis of undocumented allegations by a group of NGOs, Moreno-Ocampo’s request was not issued until May 16th.

On June 28th, the day after the judges agreed to issue the warrant, Moreno-Ocampo participated in a press conference in which one reporter asked about the evidence that Gaddafi had ever engaged in the atrocities he was accused of.

LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO: I advise you to read the application of the prosecutor’s office. Many pages. I think it was 77 pages. We describe in detail the facts. Most of it is public and the judges also decided on the evidence. So of course we are prosecutors and judges, so we rely on facts, so we prove the crimes. That’s what we did.

Although the document that Moreno-Ocampo urges the public to read to understand the evidence of Gaddafi’s crimes is indeed public, and is 77 pages long, the version made available to the public has been heavily redacted. In fact, of the 77 pages, 54 of them have been redacted, comprising the entire section of the document dealing with the evidence for the charges themselves.

The most sickening part of this war lie is just how obvious it was. No one involved in this charade cared about the well-being of the Libyan people. Not the press, not the politicians, not the ICC prosecutors. And as a result, today, seven years after the destruction of Libya at the hands of the United Nations-sanctioned NATO “saviours,” open-air slave markets are running in the country that the human rights crusaders once pretended to care about.

Conclusion

False flags. Provocateur conflicts. Fake news and fake human rights crusades. Throughout the last century, a host of methods have been employed to keep the public playing the military-industrial complex’s game. And over that century, the blood of untold millions has flowed as a direct result of these war lies.

Truth is the first casualty of war, as they say. But if we desire peace, then we must confront the liars with our knowledge of these war lies. And armed with this truth, the public finally stands a chance of stopping the next war before the warmongers can conjure it into existence.