How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin

 

DCDave’s “How FDR Dragged Out WWII for Stalin

 

War is the continuation of politics by other means.

Carl von Clausewitz

 

For more than half a century, every sixth of June, countless patriotic Americans, Britons, Canadians and others gather to pay homage to thousands of young men who “gave their lives for their country” on the beaches of Normandy. More than 200,000 American fighting men were killed in World War II, together with 375,000 British and millions of other nationalities. Most of these deaths occurred after mid-1943, when it was clear to all concerned that the Axis and Japan had lost. Why did the fighting continue for two years after the issue had been decided?

John Dombrowski

 

Suppose the United States had been presented with the opportunity to end World War II in 1943 on far more favorable terms than it was able to get after the sacrifice of so many lives in the subsequent two years.  The countries of Eastern Europe, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Albania would have been kept out of the hands of the Communists.  Perhaps even the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia would have regained their independence from the Soviet Union.  Adolf Hitler would have been deposed and either killed or turned over to allied authorities, and a united, non-Communist, anti-Nazi Germany would have peacefully given up its European conquests.

That we would have passed up such an opportunity is next to inconceivable to anyone who has received the standard education in American history.  It would not be at all shocking, though, to anyone familiar with what has been revealed about the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration on this web site.

The fact is that we were given just such an opportunity, but the president didn’t so much as give it a second look.  The conveyor of the message from the German power brokers to FDR, his friend and special envoy to neutral Turkey, former Pennsylvania governor George Earle, was as dumbfounded and disappointed as most Americans would have been.   He didn’t know what we now know—but most Americans still don’t—about Roosevelt and his administration.  Governor Earle had no way of knowing, for instance, that FDR had been told on good authority in 1939 that his government was laced with Stalin’s agents, throughout the State and Treasury Departments and right up to the White House, and he did absolutely nothing about it.  He even allowed the named agents to rise to positions of greater power and influence.

Governor Earle would not have known that when Rep. Martin Dies had similarly presented the president with wholesale Communist infiltration of the government in 1940, Roosevelt had responded:

I do not regard the Communists as any present or future threat to our country, in fact I look upon Russia as our strongest ally in the years to come.  As I told you when you began your investigation, you should confine yourself to Nazis and Fascists.  While I do not believe in Communism, Russia is far better off and the world is safer with Russia under Communism than under the Czars.  Stalin is a great leader, and although I deplore some of his methods, it is the only way he can safeguard his government.

Governor Earle would not have known that FDR had also told Dies, “I do not believe in Communism any more than you do, but there is nothing wrong with the Communists in this country.  Several of the best friends I have are Communists.”  Neither would Earle have known that FDR had confided to then Archbishop Francis Spellman that when the war was concluded he thought that the Communists would control about 40 percent of the world and that was pretty much as it should be.

Most importantly, Governor Earle would not have known that Roosevelt’s closest adviser on both foreign and domestic matters, Harry Hopkins, was, in all likelihood, an espionage agent for Joseph Stalin.

It may be a novel idea these days, our Middle Eastern policy being what it is, but when Governor Earle went to Turkey he no doubt thought he was representing a government that put the interests of his own country first.  Any foreign policy moves that appeared to run completely counter to U.S. interests he would have probably chalked up to stupidity.  He would not be aware of what would lie behind the statement that then Navy Secretary James Forrestal would make to the newly elected Senator Joe McCarthy in 1946, “McCarthy, consistency has never been a mark of stupidity.  If they were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”

What follows is a long excerpt from Appendix III of the little-known 1976 book by Hamilton Fish, FDR, The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War 11 entitled “Interview between Curtis B. Dall and Former Governor George Earl [sic] of Pennsylvania Regarding Secret Efforts of High German Officers and Officials to Surrender Eighteen Months before the End of the War”:

Colonel Curtis B. Dall, the author of FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law, very kindly gave me permission to use parts of his interview with former Governor George Earl of Pennsylvania, a close friend of President Roosevelt and his appointee as minister to Austria and minister to Bulgaria.  In 1943 Earl was the special envoy of the president as naval attaché to neutral Istanbul (Constantinople), Turkey, to keep the White House informed of what was going on in the Balkans and in Germany.

Colonel Dall lunched with Earl many years after the war.  The latter opened the conversation by saying, “Dall, I told your father-in-law, FDR, when I was his naval attaché in Istanbul, how we could greatly shorten World War II.  The governor then proceeded to unfold an amazing story.

Governor Earl arrived in Istanbul in the spring of 1943.  He told me one morning there was a knock on his hotel room door.  He opened it and there stood a broad-shouldered, medium-sized man in civilian clothes who requested an informal conference.  He presented himself as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the German Secret Service.  The gist of the conversation was, there were many sensible German people who loved their fatherland and who greatly disliked Adolf Hitler, feeling that Hitler was leading their nation down a destructive path.  Admiral Canaris continued, saying that the unconditional surrender policy recently announced by Roosevelt and Churchill at Casablanca was something the German generals could not swallow.  He said, however, if President Roosevelt would merely indicate he would accept an honorable surrender from the German army to American forces, such an event could be arranged.  That the real enemy of western civilization (Soviet Communism) could then be stopped.  The German army, if so directed, would move to the eastern front and stop the Communist army’s march into eastern Europe.  The Soviets’ main objective was to establish themselves as the supreme power in Europe.

The governor remarked that at first he was staggered, but was extremely cautious of his reaction to the admiral and to the startling proposal.

Then followed a meeting with the German ambassador Fritz von Papen, a devout Roman Catholic and strongly anti-Hitler in his feelings.  The governor told me that he soon became convinced of the sincerity manifested by the anti-Nazi Germans.  Becoming further informed concerning the hidden designs of the Soviet forces, he promptly dispatched a coded message to FDR in Washington via the diplomatic pouch reporting the whole matter.  He then waited for the requested prompt reply.  None came.  Thirty days later, as agreed, Admiral Canaris phoned him and asked, “Have you any news?”  The governor replied, “I am waiting for news but have none today.”

The same question was again posed to Governor Earl by Baron von Lersner, who headed the Orient Society.  If the anti-Nazi forces in Germany delivered the German army to the American forces, could they then count on allied cooperation in keeping the Soviets out of central Europe?  Hence, if Roosevelt would merely agree to an “honorable surrender,” von Lersner stated, even if Hitler was not killed by his group, he would be handed to the Americans.  Furthermore, the Soviet army could be held in check and contained in suitable areas.

Again, the governor said, he dispatched an urgent coded message to the White House, pleading with President Franklin Roosevelt to explore what the anti-Nazis had to offer.  Still no reply came back to him!

Then followed another meeting with von Lersner, who came up with an added plan to surround Hitler’s remote eastern military headquarters, then move the German army to the eastern front until a ceasefire could be arranged.

Governor Earl said he then prepared and sent a most urgent message to Roosevelt in Washington, not only via the diplomatic pouch but through Army-Navy channels, this time to make sure the important message got through to FDR.  He said he felt that FDR and his top advisers were under the spell of Joe Stalin, or that he, Roosevelt, mistakenly felt that he could “charm” Stalin.

A plane had been readied in Istanbul, he said; upon receipt of the hoped-for favorable reply from Roosevelt Governor Earl was to fly to an undisclosed spot in Germany, there to receive more details leading to surrender terms to be sent at once to the White House for further action.  The plane near Istanbul awaited the next step—and it waited and waited.

The governor said he was getting more and more discouraged and frustrated when no reply came from Washington in response to his urgent messages.

Finally, in effect, a purported answer did come.  It was the he should take up with the field commander in Europe any proposals for a negotiated peace.  Could any procedure have been more impractical or tragic?

Governor Earl continued, “I was shocked, greatly disheartened, and felt my usefulness was about over.  So I returned to the U.S.A., came back home, and World War II proceeded along its scheduled course until the Soviets sat astride Europe.”

He then added, after a while, “However, I decided to make known some of my views and observations about our so-called allies, the Soviets, so as to wake up the American people about what was really going on.  I contacted the president about it, but he reacted strongly and specifically forbade me to make my views known to the public.  Then, upon my requesting active duty in the Navy, I was ordered to Samoa in the distant South Pacific.  There my extensive experience with the double-faced Soviets and our lost opportunity to stop needless carnage, to prevent a great Soviet victory in Europe would not make any impression on the friendly Samoans.”

Here is a truthful account by former Governor Earl of Pennsylvania, a friend and supporter of FDR, as to how he conveyed to President Roosevelt, eighteen months before the end of the war, a direct offer from the German army to surrender to the American army and kill Hitler or turn him over to American control.  In return the German army offered to fight to prevent Stalin and the Communists from taking over the free and independent eastern European nations and bringing communism [sic] into central Europe.  What a tragedy!

The freedom and democracy for which we fought was destroyed in eastern Europe.  FDR refused to accept a black-out of Nazism, the protection of Poland and eastern European nations from Communist domination, and to save the lives of scores of thousands of American, British and French soldiers and enormous additional war costs.

The American public has probably never heard of Governor Earl’s repeated attempts to end the war against Germany through the surrender of the German army and the trial and execution of Hitler by our armed forces.

If Roosevelt had accepted this capitulation, practically on his own terms, it would have been the end of Hitler and Nazism.  Freedom and democracy would have been restored to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and other nations.  It is enough to make you weep….  (pp. 237-241)

This 1943 peace overture was far from the only one made by high German officials to the U.S. government.  John Dombrowski, in his December 1997 Culture Wars article, “The Greatest War Crime,” lists a number of them.  Canaris, himself, as Dombrowski notes, hardly put all his eggs in the George Earle basket.  He also made contact with the head of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor of the CIA, William J. Donovan, through a subordinate of his who was an old friend of Donovan.  Donovan received about the same reaction from Roosevelt that Adolf Berle had received in 1939 when he brought the revelations from Whittaker Chambers of massive Communist infiltration of the government.  “In spite of Donovan’s pleadings ‘President Roosevelt… flatly declined to negotiate’” with key men such as Canaris whom he characterized as “these East German Junkers.”

Standing as an obstacle to any negotiated surrender, as noted by Admiral Canaris, was Roosevelt’s stubborn adherence to the “unconditional surrender” demand that he had announced at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943.  But what could have lain behind a policy that made the achievement of the political aims of the war so much more difficult for the United States?  Roosevelt’s fundamental anti-German prejudice has been offered as one explanation.  But that would not explain the rigid application of the same policy toward Japan, as well.  Maybe one could credit that to the anti-Japanese attitude of Roosevelt’s Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, but no one forced Roosevelt to put the Republican war hawk Stimson in that position.

When FDR propounded his “unconditional surrender” policy at Casablanca, it was opposed by both Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin.  Looking at who benefitted from it most, one can’t help but suspect that Stalin’s objections were insincere and cosmetic.  Communist gains and American military costs both human and material in the Pacific theater rivaled those in Europe from our adherence to the “unconditional surrender” doctrine.  Advised by the same people who advised FDR, President Truman responded to his own Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal, and his peace efforts the same way that Roosevelt responded to George Earle.

One might conclude from all this that we simply paid too little heed to the von Clausewitz dictum and lacked a clear vision of our political objectives in the war.  The preponderance of evidence indicates, however, that Forrestal’s suggestion to McCarthy was right on the money, that we weren’t just bunglers.  The objectives of those with the power were all too clear in their minds; they just weren’t those that served the best interests of the American people.

David Martin

October 31, 2012

Original article presented at DCDave’s Blog

Follow @BuelahMan

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

13 thoughts on “How FDR Dragged Out WW II for Stalin

  1. wonder who has the class A stock on the war PROFITS….?

    was rosenfeld a “Jewish”…? …..{fudge} packing the “Court”…?

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/30/illuminati-nazis-the-illegal-state-of-israel/

    why would the “Pharisees” & “Money Changers” need the Khazars out front calling themselves the “Jewish” people….when they are in fact GOG & MAGOG [Japhetic] PROSELYTES to Talmudic Judaism….the source of BAD FAITH….WAR for PROFIT stool sculpture deity cult ?

    Eustace Mullins work THE CURSE OF CANAAN is a good read on the subject.

    Like

  2. Gog and Magog?

    This is beginning to read like a GWB fairy tale, folks.

    And lots of Americans were and are communists (meaning those who advocate a communitarian/sharing-type of economy over cutthroat capitalism) who despised and ostracized Stalin and his thugs in the Soviet Union.

    Broad brush.

    Like

    • Hey there. Long time, no comment.

      I think that there are more than one definition (at least in the minds of people) to Communism. Sure, there is the watered down version you speak of, then there is the version that is equated to Talmudism (by Talmudic Rabbis, not Lil Ole Me).

      The watered down version would have us believe what you say, but if you study what happened in the Soviet Union, you would understand that the guise of “communitarian/sharing-type” is a ruse and certainly had little to do with what Stalin was doing with the help of a Jewish kill-force. National Socialism was much more representative of “communitarian/sharing-type” than communism was.

      Surely you don’t think that anyone here (especially me) would propagate a George W Bush fairy tale (whatever you mean by that).

      And surely you also know that communism in America was primarily a Jewish instigated thing. This is no secret.

      Like

  3. From an email exchange discussing this article (with permission):

    Good historical article, except for the naïve view that surrendering and turning Hitler over to the West would have ended the war. I’d like to add that Germany – with Hitler’s OK, no doubt – approached the Vatican in 1943 with a similar offer – minus the turning over of the German leader. That offer was that IF the Western powers would accept a TRUCE with Germany, that nation would remove all its forces in the west to pre-WW2 boundaries, and concentrate ALL of its efforts at keeping the USSR out of Europe. If that meant kicking them all the way back past Moscow, that’s what would have been done.

    The Western leaders (FDR, Churchill) also ignored THIS offer, and the reason for that is the “missing link” in the article below. It was not just Hitler, but National Socialism itself that had to be destroyed. As long as that form of government was alive, it posed a deadly threat not only to communism, but to the international banking business – which held (and still holds) its captive nations hostage to an eternal debt financial system, and CONTROL under those who wield that system. THAT was the very reason for the declaration of the “unconditional surrender” policy. Just defeating Germany was not enough. The USSR, England, and the USA were ALL under the direction of the SAME crowd that Hitler kicked out of his nation when he brought control of the German money supply BACK into German hands. That action alone was enough that Hitler signed his own death warrant. And the fact that his efforts failed has doomed most of the world to eternal debt slavery because of WHO CONTROLS THE MONEY. Those who fought against National Socialism fought for the very force that enslaved them then, and that is STILL enslaving them today.

    Ray Goodwin

    Texas

    Like

    • DCDave’s reply:

      Hi Ray,

      You make a very good point that German surrender would have had to entail more than deposing Hitler. I think that you are right that it would have to have meant ending National Socialism and probably would have required the restoration of something resembling the previous economic order for our side to agree to it. But where does it say in the Hamilton Fish article that nothing would have changed in the leadership of Germany but getting rid of Hitler? A proper representative of the American people could well have taken it to mean getting rid of Hitler and all that he stood for. That’s the sort of thing that you hammer out and nail down with negotiations, you don’t reject the overture out of hand, as FDR did, that is, unless you have the sort of pro-Stalin agenda that I think I have pretty thoroughly established that Roosevelt had (as did the leading opinion-molding organ in the country, The New York Times.).

      Comparison with the offer through the Vatican, of course, won’t do because Hitler and therefore National Socialism would have certainly remained in place.

      Dave

      Like

      • My comment:

        I do think he’s on to something about keeping the financial system in line with the Jews. This, of course, was Hitler’s biggest issue (he didn’t hate Jews for hate’s or Jew’s sake). National Socialism was a direct assault on the Usury system that took control of Germany. When he ousted the system (and those in control of it), Germany turned itself around with a speed unmatched in history (before or since).

        Some also suggest that Stalin hated Jews, while many believe he was a Jew.

        even if not, he was married to three Jews, his daughter married a Jew and his son almost married one. He surrounded himself with Jews (many, some of the most ruthless killers ever known on the planet).

        I agree that Rosenfeld had a pro-Stalinist agenda, but I would think that it was because of the Jewish finance controllers.

        Like

      • RG’s reply:

        The previous economic order was a big part of the REASON for the war, Dave. I agree with Fish’s article in part, of course. He is quite correct about FDR rejecting the offer out of hand so that the USSR would be the dominant power once the war was over. He had many fellow travelers in his administration as personal advisers. But – the German people had every right to choose their form of government, and they did so by voting overwhelmingly for the National Socialists. What right did WE have to tell them they had to change their leaders as well as their form of government back to their financial slavery, and incompetence, of Weimar??

        One must examine honestly just “what Hitler stood for.” And contrary to the belief of most people, it was much more than removing Zionists and communists from positions of authority and influence in Germany. Do you think that Hitler stood for EVIL? If so – in what manner? Wanting to free his country from the grip of internationalists and putting it back into German hands smacks not of EVIL, but of patriotism to his people and nation.

        One can see the SAME forces of EVIL operating today – DEMONIZING any NATIONALIST who defies the Money Power on behalf of his country. Chavez in Venezuela. Gadhafi in Libya, et al. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy for the United States to dictate to ANY country what kind of government it should have, and/or to try and overthrow any government with covert forces simply to install puppets to Washington, DC. Such actions serve only the interests of those same forces FDR was kosher with – NOT the interests of the citizens of the US.

        What scenario do you envision had the Vatican been persuasive enough to get that offer accepted by the West, and Hitler and National Socialism remained in power in Germany? Do you think Germany would have been like a ticking time bomb, just chomping at the bit for its “next opportunity to conquer the world?” Personally, I envision a Europe protected from Communism AND Zionism AND predatory capitalism. And nearly a million volunteers from 16 countries who joined the Waffen SS to protect Europe would have agreed with me. So would Ezra Pound – and others capable of seeing past the immediacy. The countries conquered by Germany were allowed to carry on after surrender with their own people in charge, their own governments intact. Any THREAT to Germany would certainly have been dealt with, of course.

        So much has been made of Germany crossing the Atlantic and invading the US. Pretty good for a nation that didn’t even try to cross the English channel. Conquer the world? Hitler knew that National Socialism was not for everybody, contrary to communist doctrine which believes the opposite – that communism should be world-wide.

        Thank you for your reply, Dave. Good dialog hopefully prompts thinking and sometimes even re-evaluation.

        Like

        • Let us not get too far afield from the central message of the article. People with the apparent power to make good on it had offered to surrender the German army to the United States, and FDR wouldn’t give them the time of day. It’s all speculation as to how things would have played out had he taken them up on it, but without an Army I’d say that the cards the Germans would have had to play would not have been all that strong. I’m pretty sure that things wouldn’t have gone like Canaris and von Papen hoped they would, because they were as ignorant as Gov. Earle was of the true nature of the FDR administration. They got a pretty quick lesson, though, when he ignored them.

          I would also caution against going too far in the other direction just because Hitler and the Nazis have been excessively demonized–even cartoonishly so–by Western propaganda. The German people never “voted overwhelmingly” for the Nazis. The party never even won a majority of the vote. I don’t know about Mr. Goodwin, but I believe that under either the Nazis or the Communists I would have been among the first to be locked up.

          Like

        • Reply to RG from N:

          The Anglo-American invaders of France kept completely still all autumn and winter in ’44-’45, whereas they might have overrun a terribly weakened Germany well before “Yalta” and the Russian conquest of all of Central Europe, new Mongolian invasion rolling back 1,000 years of history (the words of British brigadier general and historian J. F. C. Fuller, The Decisive Battles of the Western World (1956), vol. III, p. 589). Horrifying truth.

          Like

  4. From Lord Stirling:
    FDR, Churchill, Stalin and Hitler were backed by the Global Banking Cartel…they were agents-in-place of the satanic monsters that wanted and created World War II, whose fathers had wanted and created World War I, and whose ancestors had wanted and created the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Their descendents want and are creating World War III. Satan demands the blood orgy of mass murder that we call war, and they serve him. Do take the time to read, what for most is a shocking article. Stirling
    http://europebusines.blogspot.com/

    Like

  5. Pingback: Sweetie Misdirects For His Tribe | B'Man's Revolt
  6. Pingback: Linkable guides for distrusting your government | vulture of critique

You Got Something To Say? Please keep your maw respectful and gab on topic.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s