ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 03, 2014

Secrets under the sea

Keep this historical justification for American involvement in WWI in mind when you are tempted to buy into the Official Story of 9/11, the use of gas weapons by the Syrian government, and the perfidious behavior of the Russians in Ukraine:
It became a symbol of brutal German aggression - an unprovoked torpedo attack on a passenger cruise liner during the First World War.

The infamous sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, killing more than 1,000 innocent victims, sparked outrage in Britain and America. Public opinion in the States swung against the Kaiser - eventually helping President Woodrow Wilson take the country into the war in 1917.

But 70 years after the ship was torpedoed by a German U-boat eight miles off the coast of Ireland, British Government officials feared the secret of the tragedy would 'blow up on us' when a group of divers planned to search the wreck.

The German high command always maintained the steam liner, traveling between New York and Liverpool, was carrying explosives destined for the Western Front concealed as cheese or casks of beef. But ministers at the time rejected the claim and used the attack to whip up public anger against the Germans....

In a secret memo, Noel Marshall, from the Foreign Office's North American department, said: 'Successive British governments have always maintained that there was no munitions on board the Lusitania (and that the Germans were therefore in the wrong to claim to the contrary as an excuse for sinking the ship).

'The facts are that there is a large amount of ammunition in the wreck, some of which is highly dangerous.' He added: 'I am left with the uneasy feeling that this subject may yet - literally - blow up on us.'
The more that history reveals, the more it becomes clear that there has likely never been a foreign intervention that can be justified by its historical justification. Not the Spanish-American War, not World War I, not World War II, and not whatever inventive justification will be served up for World War III.

Labels: ,

136 Comments:

Anonymous Aviendha May 03, 2014 1:09 PM  

It was a game 20 years ago. "you can't make this stuff up!"...the onion...
Now when you read PC history, or main stream news its a game. Take the narrative, and invent the worst possible conspiracy theory you can come up with and write it down. 12-24 months later the truth will leak out, and it will be far worse than your original conspiracy theory.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 03, 2014 1:10 PM  

A boiler explosion tends not to have the brisance that explosives do, and possibly was one of those things it was engineered to withstand.

Anonymous Godfrey May 03, 2014 1:12 PM  

Nothing is as it seems. "History" is merely the stories perpetuated by the winners.

Anonymous Cranberry May 03, 2014 1:13 PM  

I don't know if I should feel relieved, satisfied, or frightened that I can say "I knew it" and feel like I'm not the nut-job most people in my family think I am.

Never believe the official story. I wonder how long it will take for this to trickle into the history books.

Blogger Some dude May 03, 2014 1:19 PM  

@VD

not World War II

I'm assuming that you're implying that Pearl Harbor wasn't enough justification. Why?

Anonymous The other skeptic May 03, 2014 1:20 PM  

'The facts are that there is a large amount of ammunition in the wreck, some of which is highly dangerous.' He added: 'I am left with the uneasy feeling that this subject may yet - literally - blow up on us.'

No doubt, Government psychologists will determine that he was smoking crack when he wrote that.

Anonymous Hillary May 03, 2014 1:21 PM  

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!?!?

Anonymous FP May 03, 2014 1:22 PM  

Much like the FBI report recently released on Sandy Hook. Most of it is blacked out. No conspiracy there. Just "national security".

Anonymous H May 03, 2014 1:23 PM  

Next up, Roswell and the moon landing?

Anonymous The other skeptic May 03, 2014 1:25 PM  

Next up, Roswell and the moon landing?

What? They used the moon landing as a pretext for foreign intervention? Why wasn't I told. Makes sense, though. Never let a conspiracy go to waste.

Anonymous H May 03, 2014 1:33 PM  

Yes, the Russians have teamed up with the Decepticons to build a lunar base on the dark side of the moon!

Anonymous dw May 03, 2014 1:34 PM  

No, the moon landing was the intervention, Roswell was the false flag

Anonymous The other skeptic May 03, 2014 1:40 PM  

The Lusitania info site claims:


Contrary to popular belief, the Lusitania disaster was not the proximate cause of the United States entering the First World War; however, the sinking of the steamship Lusitania is often credited for turning the then-neutral American public opinion against Germany. Furthermore, Germany, fearing American wrath, restrained themselves in submarine warfare, which may have been Germany’s best chance at winning the war. Yet, it was Germany’s very resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917 (in addition to the decoding of the Zimmerman Telegram) that finally forced the United States to declare war.


That white Hispanic gets blamed for everything.

Anonymous jack May 03, 2014 1:44 PM  

Where's Kratman?

OpenID simplytimothy May 03, 2014 1:54 PM  

What has changed is the speed at which counter-narratives propagate; TPTB no longer wield overwhelming information-space superiority.

It is plausible that these older official narratives are just now being debunked due to that change. We already see current official narratives--i.e. "Ukraine/F.U. EU", "NSA/Snowden", "AGW/FOI.zip", "Benghazi/Coptic Christian Egyptian Native Filmmaker" --being dismantled in less than a decade.

The battles over information-space are going to intensify as a result. We must win this war to prevail in the larger war against wars.

Anonymous JI May 03, 2014 1:59 PM  

It all comes back to, "The first casualty of war is the truth." Nations go to war for what the leaders perceive to be strategic reasons. Whenever one hears that we should go to war for a moral reason (e.g., those evil Germans sank a completely innocent passenger liner), well, you can bet that someone is telling a fib.

Anonymous JewKnowWho May 03, 2014 2:00 PM  

"and not whatever inventive justification will be served up for World War III"

Come now goyim Putin must be stopped. He is gassing Jews.

Anonymous Vidad May 03, 2014 2:11 PM  

Next thing you know we'll discover the Founding Fathers launched the Revolution to make a killing on their real estate investments...

Anonymous fish May 03, 2014 2:19 PM  

Where's Kratman?


Keeping me up till 3:00am reading "A Desert Called Peace"!

Anonymous paradox May 03, 2014 2:23 PM  

Not the Spanish-American War, not World War I, not World War II...

I'll add Fort Sumter to that list.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist May 03, 2014 2:32 PM  

"I'm assuming that you're implying that Pearl Harbor wasn't enough justification. Why?"

America goaded Japan into that war. Through threats, through embargos, through outright sending theoretically "retired" American soldiers to kill young Japanese via the "Flying Tigers" program.

And how'd that work out for us? Five years after the war ended, the Chinese and North Koreans who we had liberated from Imperial Japan thanked us by sending troops to slaughter American soldiers in places like the Pusan Perimeter and Pork Chop Hill. Twenty years later, the Vietnamese we had liberated from Japan were killing American soldiers at Ia Drang Valley. Meanwhile, Chairman Mao was off being responsible for the deaths of Chinese citizens on a scale that the Japanese couldn't have begun to contemplate, and a repression of them more brutal than the most horrible that Tojo could have come up with on his worst day.

In other words, simply leaving Asia to the Japanese Empire would have been better for just about everybody, and most especially for America, which in addition to not having had to have fought that war with Japan, would have not fought two subsequent wars that were direct consequences of our "victory" in WWII, which together cost us about 100,000 more sons and a few hundreds of billions of more dollars.

Oh, and then there's us being perpetually signed on as Asia's defenders, instead of that being Tokyo's problem. How I wish it was!

Anonymous Van May 03, 2014 2:42 PM  

"Keeping me up till 3:00am reading "A Desert Called Peace"!"

You'd think a guy of his intelligence wouldn't have to read out loud. Especially a book he wrote. Maybe ask him to go into another room?

Anonymous fish May 03, 2014 3:00 PM  

You'd think a guy of his intelligence wouldn't have to read out loud. Especially a book he wrote. Maybe ask him to go into another room?

Well he was reading to me at the time....(I kid, I kid)! I consider the $0.00 I paid for the work a tremendous bargain...and to dispel any notions of complete cheapskatedness on my part I will be paying for examples of his other works afters I finish this!

Anonymous Anonymous May 03, 2014 3:01 PM  

Captain: I'm shocked, shocked to find explosives in here!
Diver: Your ... *boom*

Anonymous Scott May 03, 2014 3:03 PM  

The US government has a long history of human radiation experiments done on its own citizens. Why wouldn't they lie about reasons for starting wars

Anonymous Ivan Poland May 03, 2014 3:05 PM  

The Zimmerman Telegram was "intercepted" by the same people who brought us the Lusitania Tale. Of course when I was in college, I was taught the reason Woodrow "Too Proud To Fight" Wilson went to war was to protect US banker's loans to France and the UK since Germany might win. Thus Wilson went to war and killed 115,000 American men to make sure the banks got repaid.

Anonymous Rum May 03, 2014 3:11 PM  

The RMS Lusitania was, in time of war, a commissioned warship of the RN. The admirality had given much of the funds needed to create her extraordinary speed. The fact that it was still carrying passengers is actually irrelevant, or even if it carrying war material. It was carrying small arms ammo. Small arms ammo is packed in such a way that a fire will not lead to an explosion. Same as always.
In other words, the Germans had a legal right to sink that particular ship without warning. That matter was never really disputed, even at the time.
As for America staying out of that war; never going to happen. When the average American reads in history how the English defeated the French or the Danes or whomever, they inwardly cheer even though their ancestors be French or Danish.
As a "frame", the English language is a sturdy thing.

Anonymous Grinder May 03, 2014 3:19 PM  

So much death and destruction so that the parasites and traitors could get richer. Every war since WWI has also moved us further along the path to one world government and extinction of the white race - victory or defeat on the battlefield made no difference to the transfer of wealth to the elites.

Blogger RobertT May 03, 2014 3:23 PM  

" Not the Spanish-American War, not World War I, not World War II, and not whatever inventive justification will be served up for World War III. "

I'd be interested in your stories on the others in this list.

Blogger RobertT May 03, 2014 3:25 PM  

" Never believe the official story. "

The majority is always wrong.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother May 03, 2014 3:36 PM  

Alan Stang discussed the Lusitania fraud decades ago. He also was exposing the Gulf of Tonkin fraud as well.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother May 03, 2014 3:39 PM  

Alan Stang was exposing the Lusitania fraud decades ago. He was also writing about the Gulf of Tonkin incident being a complete false flag as well back then.

Anonymous Philalethes May 03, 2014 3:46 PM  

Ah, that old Red Pill.

"War is the health of the State."

Anonymous dw May 03, 2014 3:58 PM  

"Next thing you know we'll discover the Founding Fathers launched the Revolution to make a killing on their real estate investments..."

So...you're saying there's a CHANCE that there's a map on the back of the Declaration?

Anonymous Anonymous May 03, 2014 4:01 PM  

To the inevitable people who think that the Imperial Japanese, US trade partners for more than half a century and fighting allies in the Boxer Rebellion, WWI, and the Siberian Intervention, I will restate what another poster already said: the US, specifically the State Department, goaded Japan into attacking the Allies (the strike at Pearl Harbor came as a nasty surprise to those who assumed they would turn their fury on the British and MAYBE Manila).

The book "Bankrupting the Enemy," is a very respectable and balanced review of the "goad" by the leading expert on War Plan Orange, Edward S Miller. To maintain trade dominance through the Open Door policy in China, the State Dept saw it as in the best interest of the US to ratchet up support for China, despite the Japanese gov't having succumb to what was essentially a military junta because of those very pressures. This policy defanged the liberal Japanese politicians of the Taisho democracy and lent legitimacy to the military gov't.

Even before the US stopped selling oil to Japan, then prohibited the Netherlands from concluding a bilateral agreement (and sealing the fate of NEI with the "Strike South" faction winning over the "Strike North" faction), and then threatening Mexico when Japan reached out to Mexico with a multi-billion dollar deal to build an export facility on the Pacific coast, the US gov't had seized the gold Japan held in trust with the US gov't and used as collateral for trade and international settlement. Not only was the gold seizure "unprovoked and dastardly," it was also a surprise, as Japan had been given no warning. (Of course the Roosevelt administration did the same to US citizens in 1933 and no one complained, so I guess they figured a samurai-ethos infused hyper-militaristic nation backed by a super navy wouldn't have anything to say about it either (cue modern Russia comparison.))

This is all well documented and not really even in dispute but so few people know their history, it literally shocks my conscience. Even without the facts, applying Occam's Razor to the Pearl Harbor attack, one could not conclude that the attack was unprovoked. It was COMMON knowledge world wide that Russia/USSR was by far the most bitter enemy of the Japanese and the Japanese had spent all of the 1920s and most of the 1930s sincerely trying to find agreement with the Western Allies as evidenced by the multiple arms limitations agreements entered into.

As an aside, part of the State Department's goal seems to have been to let loose the mad dog of Japan on the British as part of a ploy to destroy the empire and pick up the pieces, which was an an ongoing feature of US policy in WWII and after. All the while the British fatuously believed that it was the Soviets out to get them.

--JT

Blogger Hazim May 03, 2014 4:08 PM  

My H.S. history teacher spoke about the Lusitania mystique, I remember thinking he was a liberal America-hater as much as I respected his mentoring. Shoulda payed more attention to him, he was a Bataan Death March survivor, independently wealthy pilot who took up teaching as a retirement hobby. He knew about betrayal.

Anonymous Bobo May 03, 2014 4:12 PM  

IIRC, the Germans took out a full-page ad in a prominent NY newspaper a week before the Lusitania sailed, warning passengers not to board.
More warning than the sailors at Pearl Harbor got from FDR.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 03, 2014 4:12 PM  

*scratches head*

i could have sworn the 'Lusitania carried munitions' was verified over a decade ago?

or maybe people were just extrapolating that due to the admiralty warning to the salvage company?




RobertT May 03, 2014 3:23 PM
the Spanish-American War
...
I'd be interested in your stories on the others in this list.



the USS Maine sinking in Havana harbor was the primary propaganda cause of the US entering the Spanish-American war.

however, even at the time there was significant controversy about whether the Maine had been hit by a mine or suffered an internally sourced explosion ( steam powered vehicles are prone to boiler explosions ).

Admiral Rickover himself came to the conclusion that it was an internal explosion which sank the ship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29#Raising_and_final_sinking


when you think about it, it's really bizarre how many of our foreign entanglements have begun with the sinking of a ship:
numerous - First and Second Barbary
numerous impressment actions - War of 1812
USS Maine - Spanish American
Lusitania - WW1
Pearl Harbor - WW2
USS Liberty - did NOT get us into the 6 Day War
Gulf of Tonkin - Vietnam

Anonymous Salt May 03, 2014 4:13 PM  

I wouldn't be surprised if soon it's not found that Amelia Earhart was shot down by the Japanese and the film disappeared.

Anonymous Whitebuffalocalfwoman May 03, 2014 4:17 PM  

"Aviendha May 03, 2014 1:09 PM
It was a game 20 years ago. "you can't make this stuff up!"...the onion...
Now when you read PC history, or main stream news its a game. Take the narrative, and invent the worst possible conspiracy theory you can come up with and write it down. 12-24 months later the truth will leak out, and it will be far worse than your original conspiracy theory."

Sadly, very true. As other commenters noted, it does seem we are in a time of Apocalypse, or "Great Unveiling". Imagine if Arthur C. Clarke's concept of "Light of other days" came true!

The shilling, misdirection and lies of omissions are starting to be noticed by larger and larger numbers of people. The numbers of articles on hot button issues which have gone from moderating comments to directly going to "Comments are closed" mode is rapidly increasing. We all know why, no longer do we have rabid, spit-speckled extremists who can be easily laughed off and discredited as the driving voice. Instead, it is the reasoned, sardonic, cynical, but educated minds who can provide links and well-structured posts that cut off the MSM at the knees with ease and impunity.

Blogger The Aardvark May 03, 2014 4:18 PM  

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Anonymous dw May 03, 2014 4:23 PM  

" the US, specifically the State Department, goaded Japan into attacking the Allies (the strike at Pearl Harbor came as a nasty surprise to those who assumed they would turn their fury on the British and MAYBE Manila)."

Does this mean we get to attack China if they stop selling us stuff we need, then?

Anonymous DJF May 03, 2014 4:26 PM  

Submarines were suppose to follow "Cruiser Rules" when engaging civilian ships, they were suppose to surface and order the civilian ships to stop so they could be boarded and their cargo searched. If contraband was found the ship could be seized or sunk as long as the crew was not put in jeopardy.

However the British had already ordered their civilian ships including the Lusitania to ram all German submarines on sight so they were already acting as warships and so the Germans treated them as warships by sinking them without warning

The British also employed Q-ships which were Navy manned armed ships disguised as civilian ships so no German submarine could tell if the ship they were attacking was a warship or a civilian ship. By confusing the identity of what was civilian and what was a warship they put all civilian ships in jeopardy.

Anonymous dw May 03, 2014 4:27 PM  

"USS Liberty - did NOT get us into the 6 Day War"

Imagine that.

Anonymous H May 03, 2014 4:50 PM  

While we're on the topic of government subterfuge, has anyone here read the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island"? It went into the history of the Federal Reserve. I read it some years ago and am curious if anyone here had read it, especially since Vox isn't fond of the Federal Reserve.

Blogger Glen Filthie May 03, 2014 4:50 PM  

Hog wash.

All wars are about money and power, Vox. Politics and religion are merely the means by which the peons are motivated to fight. But that doesn't mean these wars are not worth fighting. If WW2 taught us anything - it was that it is better to make useful fertilizer out of human trash like Adolph Hitler - before they grow strong and mighty. I prefer leaders that don't make soap and lamp shades out of Jews, thank you very much.

So it went for Saddam Hussein. So it went for the fig farming goat feltchers of the Taliban. Justice was done, and a lot of people that needed killing were dispatched with aplomb.

What you libertarians need to ask yourselves is this: does it matter who controls the power and the wealth? I say it very much does - the average slob does much better for himself with Uncle Sam than Uncle Joseph or Chairman Mao. We have to support our allies or they will not support us. It's as simple as that.

I hear all the time how we conservatives are no different from liberals from the libertarians. Well - I see little difference between libertarians and liberals. Liberals are actively wrecking things and I can understand that - they're idiots and that's what idiots do. But the libertarians are sitting back and letting them do it! More often they are helping them with the destruction of the family, the community and any semblance of public decency.

Islam IS a poison, every country that has had to live with them has regretted it - and they are far more your enemy than I am. But - what of it? We can't agree, so look forward to having Hillary as your next President! It is a truism that people get the gov'ts they want and deserve.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 03, 2014 4:52 PM  

"In other words, simply leaving Asia to the Japanese Empire would have been better for just about everybody, and most especially for America"

No it wouldn't have. There were plenty of factions of the Japanese ultranationalists who saw the consolidation of Asia under Imperial control as just Phase One. "Once we rule in China, we will ride China just as Rome rode Latium, and our Empire will be global." Those guys had some big appetites, and America was on the menu. Be thankful our boys nipped it in the bud.

Of course, they're now spinning in their graves; all that sacrifice to defend their homeland, only to see asshole liberals give it away for free. Apparently the Japanese and the Russians were wrong to arm themselves to the teeth to defeat America; all they really had to do was show up, complain a lot, and wash the dishes.

Blogger Hazim May 03, 2014 5:09 PM  

There were plenty of factions of American ultrnationalists who saw the consolidation of Asia under Washington's control as just phase one. They just planned on using China in a different way, a more bankery kinda way. And Japan was certainly on the menu.

Anonymous WhiteBuffaloCalfWoman May 03, 2014 5:15 PM  

"Glen Filthie May 03, 2014 4:50 PM

If WW2 taught us anything - it was that it is better to make useful fertilizer out of human trash like Adolph Hitler - before they grow strong and mighty. I prefer leaders that don't make soap and lamp shades out of Jews, thank you very much."

(coughcough) you mean the six million dead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_H._Glynn

"Glynn's article "The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!" was published in the October 31, 1919, issue of The American Hebrew; in it he lamented the poor conditions for European Jews after World War I. Glynn referred to these conditions as a potential "holocaust" and asserted that "six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas".[3][4][5] Because of these coincidences, the article has been exploited by Holocaust denial groups.[6]"

Eh, the Jews have been screaming about "six million" of them being genocided since the 1860's when Hitler's daddy wasn't even a gleam in his daddy's eye. It's getting old...Meanwhile, YKNs like the British Court Jews starved to death 30,000 White Boer women and children in the first concentration camps, burned their homes down as well to demoralize their men, flooded their nations with Negroids and Indians* clamouring for voting rights. 80% of the Bolshevics and CHEKA were Tribe. They genocided the Kulaks of the Ukraine and slaughtered other Ukrainian ethnicities twice, in 1923 and 1943 to the tune of 8-10 million. Lazar Kaganovich headed those efforts. And you have Talaat's Slaughter of 2 million Armenian Christians at the hands of the Don Meh young turks. Not to mention the Jewish run Gulags of the Soviet Union which worked to death 60 million Russian Goyim. Or how China from the Sassoons onwards have been in thrall to YKW interests. it was the TWMNBN'd Rewi Alley, Israel Epstein, Francis Coe among many others of the Tribe who were the Power beyond Mao's Throne and drafted and instituted the reforms that eventually slaughtered 100 million Chinese.

Here on the homefront, we had Leo Frank raping to death Mary Phagan and raping another 13 year old White Girl, knocking her up. The resulting fracas lead to the ADL.

America's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, written and pushed by YKWs Norbert Schlei,Emmanuel Celler,Jacob Javits,Julius Edelson,Harry Rosenfield and Max Rabb, using a weak Ted Kennedy to front it.

So pardon me if I don't shed any tears over the Tribe and their (Brought on themselves) misfortune over the ages.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 03, 2014 5:17 PM  

scoobius dubious May 03, 2014 4:52 PM
No it wouldn't have.



that's fine.

that's your opinion, TODAY. with +70 years of history.

it was unequivocably NOT the opinion of the population of the US in 1940.

now, if you're happy dispensing with 'the democratic will of the people' ( which is what FDR was doing ) ... all well and good.


scoobius dubious May 03, 2014 4:52 PM
Those guys had some big appetites, and America was on the menu.



*shrugs*

so what?

just as i've pointed out earlier, everything about alternate history WW2 scenarios disappear into the singularity of Hiroshima + 3000mi combat radius B-29.

stipulate that Pearl still happens.

stipulate that the US turtles up instead of entering the war.

stipulate that the US still ramps up production and research ( Manhattan Project ), simply in order to defend itself.

Japan was going nowhere with their nuke program. Germany wasn't doing much better. the only reason Russia got the bomb is because they stole the research from us.

let's say they win and dismember Russia/Stalin + China/Mao and then start licking their chops over the Americas around 1950. what are they going to do when we start nuking their fleets?

that might actually make for an interesting alt-history novel. Japan sets sail for the US ... and their entire fleet disappears.

remember, radar and radio were still pretty low tech. no satellites. no possible overflight by aircraft, Hawai'i much less the Cali coast is out of range.

Tokyo wonders what happened to their coastal invasion force, there was supposed to be a glorious coastal invasion.

the same applies to Germany, although the German Navy was never as integral to their ambitions ( almost landlocked ) as it was to Japan ( island nation ).

Anonymous WhiteBuffaloCalfWoman May 03, 2014 5:20 PM  

oh, forgot the "Indian*" follow up.

Ghandi was the Mahatma, the Man of True Peace, revered in our times. He also was an immigrant to South Africa and saw first hand what the Tribe was doing to the White Boers.
His response?

"Kill the Jews" and apparently he never moderated that stance either (Ben Kingsley posing not withstanding, bit of irony there ain't it?) Ghandi knew exactly what the Tribe is like no matter where they are in the Diaspora.

Anonymous Idle X May 03, 2014 5:36 PM  

What has changed is the speed at which counter-narratives propagate; TPTB no longer wield overwhelming information-space superiority.

It is plausible that these older official narratives are just now being debunked due to that change. We already see current official narratives--i.e. "Ukraine/F.U. EU", "NSA/Snowden", "AGW/FOI.zip", "Benghazi/Coptic Christian Egyptian Native Filmmaker" --being dismantled in less than a decade.

The battles over information-space are going to intensify as a result. We must win this war to prevail in the larger war against wars.


Oh yes.

Vox, I think you are going to see the internet pull the veil back on a lot of this stuff that has been hidden.

Similar to how the printing press pulled back the veil on corruption in the Catholic Church.


Things are going to get dangerous now.

Anonymous Daniel May 03, 2014 5:37 PM  

@VD

not World War II

I'm assuming that you're implying that Pearl Harbor wasn't enough justification. Why?


WWII did not start at Pearl Harbor.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein May 03, 2014 5:46 PM  

Japan sets sail for the US ...



In the name of all that is holy....

DON"T GO THERE!

Anonymous dw May 03, 2014 6:02 PM  

"DON"T GO THERE!"

There's still a few composite molecules of the expired equine left.

Blogger Eric May 03, 2014 6:07 PM  

'Successive British governments have always maintained that there was no munitions on board the Lusitania

Well, sure, but I don't think anybody actually believed them.

Blogger Eric May 03, 2014 6:10 PM  

In regard to WW II, I really wonder how things would have turned out had the Germans not declared war on the US. Would Roosevelt have found a reason anyway, or would he have been constrained by public opinion to concentrate on Japan?

At the time US destroyers were already attacking German submarines.

Anonymous Marvin The Martian May 03, 2014 6:15 PM  

Tokyo wonders what happened to their coastal invasion force, there was supposed to be a glorious coastal invasion

Instead there was and earth shattering KaBooom!

Anonymous Jeigh Di May 03, 2014 6:18 PM  

bob k. mando May 03, 2014 5:17 PM

"Japan was going nowhere with their nuke program. Germany wasn't doing much better. the only reason Russia got the bomb is because they stole the research from us."

I wouldn't be too sure, Bob. In July 1945 the United States tested a plutonium bomb in New Mexico, but in August they dropped a uranium bomb on Hiroshima. Riddle me this, why would they use an untested weapon for such an important mission, especially since they knew that the Japanese were working on a similar weapon?

Anonymous Idle X May 03, 2014 6:20 PM  

Like clockwork.

That's a nice blog you got there Vox. Pity if something happened to it.

Obama Administration launches Internet ID

//adjusts trench coat, walks out backdoor with briefcase

Anonymous Idle Spectator Cares May 03, 2014 6:22 PM  

Riddle me this, why would they use an untested weapon for such an important mission,

Because we only had three of them?

Anonymous VD May 03, 2014 6:31 PM  

I'm assuming that you're implying that Pearl Harbor wasn't enough justification. Why?

Because the USA coerced Japan to attack it in order to get into the Pacific war before the Japanese opened a second Axis front against the Soviet Union. The entire Pacific war was nothing but a means of keeping the Soviets focused against the Nazi forces to the West. If the USA hadn't successfully been able to distract Japan, the Soviets might have made a separate peace.

Anonymous Jeigh Di May 03, 2014 6:44 PM  

Because we only had three of them?

Actually we had four. The fourth became the first of our stockpile. But that's not the point. Try again.

Anonymous Idle Spectator May 03, 2014 6:50 PM  

And the point is?

(This outta be good)

Anonymous The other skeptic May 03, 2014 6:52 PM  

That's a nice blog you got there Vox. Pity if something happened to it.

Obama Administration launches Internet ID


Yeah, 'cause they will send Hillary to assassinate you.

Of course, it's not really the Administration who wants to gain control, or even Obama.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 03, 2014 6:59 PM  

Similar to how the printing press pulled back the veil on corruption in the Catholic Church.

Ahhh, so we will see a new Martin Luther, and not that immoral replica King.

Anonymous Idle Spectator May 03, 2014 7:03 PM  

Yeah, 'cause they will send Hillary to assassinate you.

Of course, it's not really the Administration who wants to gain control, or even Obama.


WOW DUDE, let me spell it out instead: people say things anonymously online they don't say in public.

I'm glad I could be of help.


Ahhh, so we will see a new Martin Luther, and not that immoral replica King.

Is that a question lacking a ?-mark ?

Anonymous The other skeptic May 03, 2014 7:12 PM  

people say things anonymously online they don't say in public.

Nobody is really anonymous online. The NSA knows who me and you are. Of course, it is a little hard for them to expose us to public censure and opprobrium.

Anonymous Idle Spectator May 03, 2014 7:22 PM  

Nobody is really anonymous online. The NSA knows who me and you are.

Yes, I'm sure Snowden was not really anonymous online. That's why they found him in Hong Kong so quickly.

Of course, it is a little hard for them to expose us to public censure and opprobrium.

And the light bulb goes on about the internet ID.

Anonymous Bob Sacamano May 03, 2014 7:29 PM  

"that's your opinion, TODAY. with +70 years of history. it was unequivocably NOT the opinion of the population of the US in 1940."

When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, and the Finnish army demonstrated tenacity on the battlefield, prominent isolationists (Herbert Hoover, George Norris, Robert K. Wagner) pleaded for American intervention. A Gallup poll in March 1940 found that 73% of its respondents advocated direct federal financial assistance to Finland. While 80% of Americans continued to oppose America declaring war against the Axis Powers, these same individuals favored providing humanitarian and military aid to countries invaded by totalitarian AND communist regimes. This invasion had a significant influence, along with the Fall of France and the Battle of Britain, in modifying the American isolationist position and generating public support for expanding assistance to European nations enduring oppression.

So, I guess it comes down to how one defines "neutrality".



"just as i've pointed out earlier, everything about alternate history WW2 scenarios disappear into the singularity of Hiroshima + 3000mi combat radius B-29."

Blah, blah, blah. The fact remains America was justified in entering World War II. Unequivocally, our country was the next target. So piss off.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 03, 2014 7:38 PM  

"Of course, it is a little hard for them to expose us to public censure and opprobrium."

And the light bulb goes on about the internet ID.


I like this game. We should play some more.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami May 03, 2014 7:46 PM  

Eric: In regard to WW II, I really wonder how things would have turned out had the Germans not declared war on the US


It was a mere formality. Germany was allied with Japan. By declaring war on Japan, the US also declared war on Germany and Italy.

Anonymous Idle Jigsaw May 03, 2014 7:50 PM  

I like this game. We should play some more.

Saw Voice: I want to play a game...

Anonymous John Hancock May 03, 2014 7:54 PM  

Vidad: Next thing you know we'll discover the Founding Fathers launched the Revolution to make a killing on their real estate investments...

That's a LIE!

Some of us were in shipping.

Anonymous WhiteBuffaloCalfWoman May 03, 2014 8:00 PM  

" Bob Sacamano May 03, 2014 7:29 PM
"that's your opinion, TODAY. with +70 years of history. it was unequivocably NOT the opinion of the population of the US in 1940."

When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in 1939, and the Finnish army demonstrated tenacity on the battlefield, prominent isolationists (Herbert Hoover, George Norris, Robert K. Wagner) pleaded for American intervention. A Gallup poll in March 1940 found that 73% of its respondents advocated direct federal financial assistance to Finland. While 80% of Americans continued to oppose America declaring war against the Axis Powers, these same individuals favored providing humanitarian and military aid to countries invaded by totalitarian AND communist regimes. This invasion had a significant influence, along with the Fall of France and the Battle of Britain, in modifying the American isolationist position and generating public support for expanding assistance to European nations enduring oppression.

So, I guess it comes down to how one defines "neutrality".



"just as i've pointed out earlier, everything about alternate history WW2 scenarios disappear into the singularity of Hiroshima + 3000mi combat radius B-29."

Blah, blah, blah. The fact remains America was justified in entering World War II. Unequivocally, our country was the next target. So piss off."

Gotta love Finland, yet....why should we Americans spend any blood and treasure for any foreign Nation or Tribe? Perceived threats? We can remain totally insular despite any Jew threats as long as we are a White, Jew-Wise Nation.

Anonymous Ala May 03, 2014 8:01 PM  

It was a mere formality. Germany was allied with Japan. By declaring war on Japan, the US also declared war on Germany and Italy.

Not true. The Tripartite Pact was not an automatic military alliance. It did not require Germany to come to the support of Japan against the U.S., anymore than it required Japan to aid Germany against the USSR. The Soviet-Japanese Nonagression Pact held until the Soviets denounced it in August 1945.

Blogger Chris Mallory May 03, 2014 8:10 PM  

"Blah, blah, blah. The fact remains America was justified in entering World War II. Unequivocally, our country was the next target. So piss off."

The Japanese could not even successfully invade the Aleutians.
So, how were they going to get an invasion fleet across 6300 miles of ocean? If they did manage it, what were they going to do about the rifle behind every blade of grass?

Anonymous Ala May 03, 2014 8:12 PM  

The fact remains America was justified in entering World War II. Unequivocally, our country was the next target.

Next in line to what? Japan wanted to conquer East Asia. Germany wanted to conquer East Europe. Japan would eventually need a war against the UK and France, since its Asian supremacy required the expulsion of the white colonialists, but Germany would not, as long as they did not interfere with Germany's mano a mano match with the Soviets in the East. Neither Germany nor Japan gave a damn about the American continent.

Anonymous lees May 03, 2014 8:19 PM  

Some say our entry into WWI also led to the spread of the 'Spanish Flu' from it's origination point in Kansas to Europe, where it killed 50 million people. I think the source of the flu is still debated, but that's one theory.

Anonymous Michael May 03, 2014 8:20 PM  

Is anyone surprised? Using false-flag events as pretext for war goes all the way back to Nero, maybe even further.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

Anonymous WhiteBuffaloCalfWoman May 03, 2014 8:35 PM  

"John Hancock May 03, 2014 7:54 PM
Vidad: Next thing you know we'll discover the Founding Fathers launched the Revolution to make a killing on their real estate investments...

That's a LIE!

Some of us were in shipping."

LMAO! Best post of the Thread! a bunch of greedy Freemason Gentiles who hated the Articles of Confederation and allowed enslaved Negros, Whites, Native Turtle Islanders and their stud-book mulattos to be counted in census...Feh.

Anyways, not that I approve of the "Tariff of Abomination", I see ancestral Whites of many sources screwing up and allowing the TWMNBN'd taking advantage of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjmfMAPtj2c

Never,ever, forget White Men, what a SINGLE member of the Tribe can do.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 8:41 PM  

Speaking of Pearl Harbor, why was the reaction to that attack so strong? I'm not talking about the retaliation, but the emotional response. I mean it was an attack on a MILITARY target FAR away from the rest of America, a country that was obviously hostile to the Japanese and planning to attack them anyway. (embargos and so forth)

Is it because Americans don't get attacked that often, being spoiled and therefore overreacted? Was the attack especially devastating? I mean, I fair to see how it was different from other unprovoked initial attacks on other countries. (Saddamn attacking Kuwait, US attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, Germany attacking everyone) I don't think that the average Soviet citizen shit himself with rage after Operation Barbarossa started.

Furthermore, what is the "correct" move for Japan in that situation? It has been stated that the US clearly harrassed Japan and essentially put the noose around it's neck through various embargos. Is it possible that the attack on Pearl Harbor was actually the strategically correct choice?

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 8:43 PM  

What's more, it was said here that America was always going to win because of it's superior production capabilities. Is that the primary determinant of the victor in warfare and if one made a list today, how would the top 10 be?

OpenID cailcorishev May 03, 2014 9:07 PM  

Even without the facts, applying Occam's Razor to the Pearl Harbor attack, one could not conclude that the attack was unprovoked.

I thought that was generally accepted. Even if you leave out the conspiracy theories about FDR ignoring advance warning and so on, we know the administration was trying to sway the isolationist US public in favor of war, and that we were cutting off Japan's supply lines, especially of oil, which was important for both military and civilians. I thought the official story was that we were provoking them pretty hard, but that their response was an over-the-top miscalculation, bringing us into the war when they really just wanted to back us off in the Pacific.

The older I get, the more I suspect that none of our wars have been just.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 03, 2014 9:37 PM  

Bob Sacamano May 03, 2014 7:29 PM
"just as i've pointed out earlier, everything about alternate history WW2 scenarios disappear into the singularity of Hiroshima + 3000mi combat radius B-29."

Blah, blah, blah. The fact remains America was justified in entering World War II. Unequivocally, our country was the next target. So piss off.



you stupid fucking retard.

*i* never made the argument that Pearl wasn't sufficient justification. you want to argue that, you need to be quoting somebody else.



Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 8:41 PM
Speaking of Pearl Harbor, why was the reaction to that attack so strong?


another useful time to pimp "Byline: Ernest Hemingway".
http://www.amazon.com/-line-Ernest-Hemingway/dp/B000KWIBGI/ref=sr_1_5_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1399165266&sr=1-5&keywords=byline+ernest+hemingway

people forget that Hemingway was nominally a newspaper reporter and 'military affairs expert' as well as a fiction writer.

prior to the war, Hemingway's articles were resolutely against involvement in the coming war ... BUT ...
were cognizant that the US might be attacked by Japan.

immediately upon Dec 7, the entire tone of Hemingway's articles changed, demanding that the US join the war.

even while reading this decades ago i was struck by the bizarre change in tone despite Pearl having been something that Hemingway basically predicted.

it's almost as though Hemingway were a 'controlled opposition' who changed his story immediately upon receiving orders ...


also interesting is "Across the Pacific", a 1942 movie which takes place entirely in the Atlantic and concerns a Japanese plot to make a surprise aerial attack on the Panama Canal.

why is this interesting? not because it was in production in 1941 and originally was supposed to involve a sneak Japanese bombing attack on *Pearl Harbor*.

no.

it's interesting because after Dec 7, director John Huston walked off of production, STOLE THE SCRIPT and enlisted in the military.

when asked by the cleanup director how he was supposed to finish the movie, Huston's only response was "Bogie will know how to get out".

what possible point could there be in stealing a movie script ... ? i mean, isn't that fiction? how the hell did that original script end?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Across_the_pacific


and, of course, Huston was overtly producing propaganda for the home front for his entire wartime service. it's not much of a stretch to think that he MAY have been doing agitprop on an ad hoc basis prior to the war.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 03, 2014 9:37 PM  

Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 8:41 PM
Is it because Americans don't get attacked that often, being spoiled and therefore overreacted?




excuse me?

maybe you'd like to make a list of all the instances when Country A attacks Country B and Country B does NOT subsequently reciprocate by either attacking Country A or formally declaring war?

that's gonna be a pretty damn short list. populated mostly by Country Bs that got over run.

or, you know, Turkey was just being childish at Gallipoli.



Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 8:43 PM
What's more, it was said here that America was always going to win because of it's superior production capabilities.



in 1940, the US was the largest manufacturer on the planet, by a pretty wide margin.

in the Industrial Age, manufacturing capacity weighs pretty heavy.

we are no longer in the Industrial Age, we are now in the Technological Age.

China is currently the world manufacturing leader, but they are still ramping up their armed forces. i think they're pretty dependent on shipping for a lot of resources as well.

so interdiction is still, i would suppose, a theoretical possibility.

in actuality, so long as the US has the *WILL* and the advantage in nukes, no one can do more than constraining us to a pyrrhic victory.

i'm not so sure we've got the will ...

note that having the will and ability to accomplish almost anything IS NOT me advocating that we should do everything.

not least because you can't wave the nuke stick around all the time without using it or people will just start ignoring you.

you've got to constrain your actions to what you can accomplish with conventional forces except in truly exceptional circumstances.


Pournelle's thoughts on modern warfare, force multiplication, tech and the modern battlefield, etc:

http://baen.com/sot/

Blogger Desiderius May 03, 2014 9:47 PM  

"The older I get, the more I suspect that none of our wars have been just."

One can fairly say, at least, that they weren't just about the casus belli. But more often than not, there was casus nonetheless.

I'm not prepared to go full Quaker, nor full Machiavelli.

Blogger Desiderius May 03, 2014 9:51 PM  

"Speaking of Pearl Harbor, why was the reaction to that attack so strong?"

AMOGs gonna AMOG,

OpenID cailcorishev May 03, 2014 9:54 PM  

Does this mean we get to attack China if they stop selling us stuff we need, then?

Surely you're aware that we did a lot more than "stop selling Japan stuff," so nice try. But if China blockaded shipping into the west coast, causing shortages and driving up the prices of important goods, I don't think you'd have a hard time convincing most Americans that we'd be justified in attacking a small Chinese military outpost in the middle of the Pacific to get their attention and back them off.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 10:00 PM  

"maybe you'd like to make a list of all the instances when Country A attacks Country B and Country B does NOT subsequently reciprocate by either attacking Country A or formally declaring war?"

I said it's not about the actual retaliation but the anger and emotion it caused. I seems like the response was more andry than warranted. Either I'm wrong and the US weren't above average in their anger or there was something that justified that high level of bitterness.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 03, 2014 10:33 PM  

Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 10:00 PM
Either I'm wrong and the US weren't above average in their anger or there was something that justified that high level of bitterness.



you're wrong. Canadians and ANZACs rushed to enlist in WW1 ... and Australia/New Zealand/Canada didn't even get directly attacked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66p2SotiquE

your squeamishness about US militarism is particularly amusing given YOUR particular desire to go full genocide when people even dare talk about trying do anything about the various predations of Muslims in the modern west.

and, given the egregious provocations of western muslims, one would think the polarity on the genocide discussion would be pointing the other way.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=muslim+prostitution+ring&t=palemoon

instead, British nationals *in England* are being prosecuted for Hate Crimes for ... quoting Winston Churchill.

http://www.steynonline.com/6300/denial-is-a-river-in-sudan

Anonymous automatthew May 03, 2014 10:33 PM  

What did Jeff Sutton know about the Atomic Bomb?

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 10:59 PM  

So apparently people were mad because it was a sneak attack. Considering that it would've been strategic suicide to declare war before attacking....

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 11:10 PM  

"you're wrong. Canadians and ANZACs rushed to enlist in WW1 ... and Australia/New Zealand/Canada didn't even get directly attacked."

Modern day ANZAC People don't hate Germany though. I've seen People on Facebook talk about how Japan deserved the Tsunami in 2011 because "REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR". I've seen People say that Japan suing for peace at any time wouldÄve been a pointless endeavor as nothing short of the destruction of the Japanese empire would've sufficed.

This strikes me as excessively angry. I mean aren't sneak attacks common in Military history? Aren't soldier deaths in the thousands normal numbers for airstrikes?

"your squeamishness about US militarism is particularly amusing given YOUR particular desire to go full genocide when people even dare talk about trying do anything about the various predations of Muslims in the modern west."

Shit that never happened.

"and, given the egregious provocations of western muslims, one would think the polarity on the genocide discussion would be pointing the other way.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=muslim+prostitution+ring&t=palemoon"

Muslims don't do this to humiliate British White Girls. They do this because they are pimp scum and White Girls are easy to fool (and more numerous). I won't Claim that Brits do it as often as muslims, but most muslims aren't pakis either. There are such cases with Turks. we are only excessively violent like the Irish were considered to be in the 19th century.

"instead, British nationals *in England* are being prosecuted for Hate Crimes for ... quoting Winston Churchill.

http://www.steynonline.com/6300/denial-is-a-river-in-sudan"

So Brits being sackless Retards is my fault. Cute.

Anonymous Luke May 03, 2014 11:11 PM  

Semi-related, due to the PC/diversity-fad decreasing the prospects of the U.S. military being victorious in nonslam-dunk wars:

From www.angryharry.com (no direct link possible to specific essay, so just posting excerpt here):

""">online book by Jacob Abbot; ...writer of the nineteenth century. ...is about King Richard I of England (1157-1199) who is often known as Richard the Lionheart because of his bravery in fighting in the Christian Crusades...

I only read the first 25 pages, and I found myself laughing at some of the descriptions of Richard's mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine.

She spent a considerable portion of her time in Paris, at the court of her husband, but then she often returned to Aquitaine, where she held a sort of court of her own in Bordeaux, which was her capital. She led this sort of life for some time, until at length she was induced to form a design of going to the East on a crusade.

... Her motive was a love of adventure and a fondness for notoriety. She thought that by going out, a young and beautiful princess, at the head of an army of Crusaders, into the East, she would make herself a renowned heroine in the eyes of the whole world. So she immediately commenced her preparations, and by the commanding influence which she exerted over the ladies of the court, she soon inspired them all with her own romantic ardor.

The ladies at once laid aside their feminine dress, and clothed themselves like Amazons, so that they could ride astride on horseback like men. All their talk was of arms, and armor, and horses, and camps. They endeavored, too, to interest all the men—the princes, and barons, and knights that surrounded them—in their plans, and to induce them to join the expedition."

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 11:12 PM  

" There are NO such cases with Turks"

Anonymous Luke May 03, 2014 11:12 PM  

(Cont.)
" A great many did so, but there were some that shook their heads and seemed inclined to stay at home. They knew that so wild and heedless a plan as this could end in nothing but disaster. The ladies ridiculed these men for their cowardice and want of spirit, and they sent them their distaffs as presents. "We have no longer any use for the distaffs," said they, "but, as you are intending to stay at home and make women of yourselves, we send them to you, so that you may occupy yourselves with spinning while we are gone." By such taunts and ridicule as this, a great many were shamed into joining the expedition, whose good sense made them extremely averse to have any thing to do with it.

The expedition was at length organized and prepared to set forth. It was encumbered by the immense quantity of baggage which the queen and her party of women insisted on taking. It is true that they had assumed the dress of Amazons, but this was only for the camp and the field. They expected to enjoy a great many pleasures while they were gone, to give and receive a great many entertainments, and to live in luxury and splendor in the great cities of the East. So they must needs take with them large quantities of baggage, containing dresses and stores of female paraphernalia of all kinds. The king remonstrated against this folly, but all to no purpose. The ladies thought it very hard if, in going on such an expedition, they could not take with them the usual little comforts and conveniences appropriate to their sex. So it ended with their having their own way.

The caprices and freaks of these women continued to harass and interfere with the expedition during the whole course of it. The army of Crusaders reached at length a place near Antioch, in Asia Minor, where they encountered the Saracens. Antioch was then in the possession of the Christians. It was under the command of the Prince Raymond, who has already been spoken of as Eleanora's uncle. Raymond was a young and very handsome prince, and Eleanora anticipated great pleasure in visiting his capital. The expedition had not, however, yet reached it, but were advancing through the country, defending themselves as well as they could against the troops of Arab horsemen that were harassing their march.

The commanders were greatly perplexed in this emergency to know what to do with the women, and with their immense train of baggage. The king at last sent them on in advance, with all his best troops to accompany them. He directed them to go on, and encamp for the night on certain high ground which he designated, where they would be safe, he said, from an attack by the Arabs. But when they approached the place, Eleanora found a green and fertile valley near, which was very romantic and beautiful, and she decided at once that this was a much prettier place to encamp in than the bare hill above. The officers in command of the troops remonstrated in vain. Eleanora and the ladies insisted on encamping in the valley. The consequence was, that the Arabs came and got possession of the hill, and thus put themselves between the division of the army which was with Eleanora and that which was advancing under the king. A great battle was fought. The French were defeated. A great many thousand men were slain. All the provisions for the army were cut off, and all the ladies' baggage was seized and plundered by the Arabs. The remainder of the army, with the king, and the queen, and the ladies, succeeded in making their escape to Antioch, and there Prince Raymond opened the gates and let them in.

As soon as Eleanora and the other ladies recovered a little from their fright and fatigue, they began to lead very gay lives in Antioch ..."

Blogger rcocean May 03, 2014 11:15 PM  

Its amazing how people come up with these ridiculous excuses for the Japanese unprovoked and dastardly attack on us. Because we wouldn't sell the Japanese the Oil and Steel they wanted in order to continue their immoral war against China, we deserved to get attacked. And incho-chinese of course "deserved" to be invaded, and and Indonesians deserved to used a slave labor by the Japanese - all because we wouldn't sell the oil and steel they wanted.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 11:19 PM  

Luke, that reminds me of a certain subset of gamer. I wonder if they bitched about there not being enough beheaded female crusaders.

Blogger rcocean May 03, 2014 11:19 PM  

Vox is slightly wrong about the Lusitania. It really doesn't matter if the ship had a small amount of Ammo on it. The correct course for the Imperial German government was to file a diplomatic protest, and release the information that the UK was using innocent Americans as human shields. There was no reason to torpedo a ship full of American civilians because of a minuscule amount of ammo.

OpenID cailcorishev May 03, 2014 11:20 PM  

Admitting that we provoked Japan -- and wanted them to attack -- is not the same thing as excusing their attack. Is that really too complicated to understand?

Blogger rcocean May 03, 2014 11:24 PM  

And real reason we went to war with Germany is they violating our neutral rights by sinking our neutral ships without warning in violation of international law. We even asked the Germans to let our ships sail to England under some kind of arrangement but the Germans said no. They were so arrogant they didn't care if we declared war. They also had been showing themselves to be "Huns" by invading Belgium, commiting atrocities, night bombing London, using Poison gas, trying to blow up chemical plants in the USA, and most stupidly of all, offering Mexico an alliance! The Kaiser wasn't as bad as Hitler, but he was a lot closer than must people think.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 11:25 PM  

If you deny important resources to a Country that is utterly dependent on it you can't EVER talk about an attack being unprovoked.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 11:29 PM  

"And real reason we went to war with Germany is they violating our neutral rights by sinking our neutral ships without warning in violation of international law"

"Submarines were suppose to follow "Cruiser Rules" when engaging civilian ships, they were suppose to surface and order the civilian ships to stop so they could be boarded and their cargo searched. If contraband was found the ship could be seized or sunk as long as the crew was not put in jeopardy.

However the British had already ordered their civilian ships including the Lusitania to ram all German submarines on sight so they were already acting as warships and so the Germans treated them as warships by sinking them without warning

The British also employed Q-ships which were Navy manned armed ships disguised as civilian ships so no German submarine could tell if the ship they were attacking was a warship or a civilian ship. By confusing the identity of what was civilian and what was a warship they put all civilian ships in jeopardy. "

Ahem.

Blogger Jake May 04, 2014 12:03 AM  

There was no reason to torpedo a ship full of American civilians because of a minuscule amount of ammo.

Um... There were (relatively speaking) very few Americans on board. About 10%. If you as a neutral party go for a joy ride on a warship belonging to a waring nation and wind up getting blown to smithereens that's really a shame and all, but the death of ~100 American such joy-riders seems a weak justification indeed for entering into a global war that is certain to kill thousands.

Anonymous The Great Martini May 04, 2014 12:22 AM  

Can't remember which decade it was, possible the 50s, but the Royal Navy peppered the wreck of the Lusitania with depth charges on at least one occasion. Not sure if it was ever revealed why.

Anonymous Vidad May 04, 2014 12:22 AM  

Read the history of Hawaii. We shouldn't have even owned that island and had no right to it whatsoever.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist May 04, 2014 12:36 AM  

America is ruled by cruel and ignorant children, who neither understand nor care about the consequences of the chaos they create. What's going on in Ukraine right now - what has gone on there ever since we fomented a revolution that toppled their legitimate government - is precisely the stuff that 1914 was made of. Where are the grownups? Where are the people who care about who gets hurt or understand how bad this could all potentially get if we're not lucky?

God help us all.

Anonymous Togo May 04, 2014 12:54 AM  

"Can't remember which decade it was, possible the 50s, but the Royal Navy peppered the wreck of the Lusitania with depth charges on at least one occasion. Not sure if it was ever revealed why."

Spite?

Anonymous The other skeptic May 04, 2014 1:10 AM  

All I can say is that there was a lot of bacon and about 30 tons of cartridges on the manifest and who knows what else.

I am sure that the Ukrainians would like all that bacon and cartridges as well.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 04, 2014 1:10 AM  

Beware, that PDF takes a while to download.

Blogger IM2L844 May 04, 2014 2:19 AM  

Nobody is really anonymous online. The NSA knows who me and you are.

You're not layering properly.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 04, 2014 2:50 AM  


Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 11:10 PM
Modern day ANZAC People don't hate Germany though. I've seen People on Facebook talk about how Japan deserved the Tsunami in 2011 because "REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR". I've seen People say that Japan suing for peace at any time wouldÄve been a pointless endeavor as nothing short of the destruction of the Japanese empire would've sufficed.



well your first problem is, you're spending time on Facebook. i don't know any people like this in real life.

hell, the 1st and 2nd most popular new cars in sales America is the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord, and have been for years. can't be too much hate ... or people would be afraid to own the cars simply because they would be getting defaced all the time.

which may be a clue. probably a lot of UAW dumbfucks who are steaming under the collar about the fortunes of the US big 3 automakers displacing blame on Japan. union guys are classy like that. they don't talk much better about us non-union guys. i know, i've worked next to the assholes.

other thing is the tendency of the Japanese to fight to the death, including things like booby trapping wounded soldiers and leaving them to blow up American medics. the Pacific Island campaign was notorious for it's viciousness. most of which the Japs brought on themselves by repeatedly feigning surrender ( white flag, etc ) and then murdering the hell out of the troops who started walking up to take them into custody.

it wasn't unheard of for a commander in the Pacific theater took to issue orders that no surrender would be accepted. and there was a lot more of that that was done without orders.

you don't have to watch too many of your buddies die walking up to a white flag before you adopt the RoE that after a flag has been torched with napalm it's pretty tough to figure out what color it used to be.


Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 11:10 PM
So Brits being sackless Retards is my fault. Cute.



that's another assertion i never made.

sackless brits being sackless brits is the fault of brit elite ... and the brit people who allowed those elite to control the cultural institutions. which is the same problem the US has.

i'm just pointing out that muslims rioting in the streets, demanding the hijab in schools, getting Sharia courts recognized, forcing halal restaurants and running kaffir child sex rings ( in many nations, not just England ) might, reasonably, expect a different cultural response than what is actually occurring.

because, you know, the muslims fucking deserve a far different cultural response.

and don't bother arguing this; if a Christian went to Turkey and ran a muslim child sex slave ring in Istanbul you wouldn't hesitate to demand the murder of his entire family. we watched you assert similar before.

but that's just the typical hypocrisy that's so integral to muslim practice that we all know and love.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 04, 2014 2:51 AM  

Luke May 03, 2014 11:12 PM
As soon as Eleanora and the other ladies recovered a little from their fright and fatigue, they began to lead very gay lives in Antioch ..."



the more things change, the more women stay the same.

or

men of the west have been letting their women get away with stupid shit for far, FAR too long.






cailcorishev May 03, 2014 11:20 PM
Is that really too complicated to understand?


you're not dealing with the brightest bulbs here, cail.



Tommy Hass May 03, 2014 11:25 PM
If you deny important resources to a Country that is utterly dependent on it you can't EVER talk about an attack being unprovoked.



at the time of Pearl Harbor the Japanese had attacked:
China - 37
Mongolia - 38
Soviet Union - 38
French Indochina - 40

we are, of course, supposed to just give the Japs a pass on ALL of that + Pearl Harbor and sit over in a corner sucking our thumbs.

i mean, really, how fucking dare we?



Vidad May 04, 2014 12:22 AM
Read the history of Hawaii. We shouldn't have even owned that island and had no right to it whatsoever.



if you want to get finicky, we didn't belong in the Philippines either.

Anonymous Bull doug browser May 04, 2014 3:00 AM  

I blame those dirty Brit bastards for getting us into WWI and II. Those bastards were doing tabloid long before Rupe Murderock came on the scene.
Check out "The Irregulars" and "The Wolf" for more World war drama!

Anonymous George of the Jungle May 04, 2014 3:47 AM  

Each next version of historical revisionism depends almost exclusively on the writer's preconceived political point of view. The results are completely predictable, and eminently boring.

Blogger Whiskey May 04, 2014 4:10 AM  

Vox, I love you but that's a childish and stupid statement. WWI was fought on our side to keep Europe from being dominated by Germany, which would have been hostile to our interests. Yes peacenik idiots wanted to like John Lennon (great musical talent, the mind of a kindergartner in politics) to "give peace a chance" but the Kaiser running Europe would have allowed a great continental rival to the US to basically strangle us in infancy. Properly Wilson would not allow that. No matter what the idiot opinion of the masses.

Because the ugly reality is that WAR is the eternal condition of man. There is no use in pretending otherwise, merely to fight them as little as possible, and win as decisively as possible.

As for WWII, THAT conflict was foreseen in the 90's. The 1890s as Japan moved to try and push the US out of the Pacific. The alternative to War with Japan, was always going to be surrender. You might want to, being a sci-fi writer and all, read Philip K. Dick (a mentally ill man, but great talent) story "the Man in the High Castle" regarding the fate of America had Japan and Germany won. Its a pretty imaginative tale, and one fairly consistent with what was known.

No non-bath house habituating, non bend-over Lightworker President would ever contemplate letting Japan (or China) dominate the Pacific and turn America into what we were in 1812, only on the West Coast. Nor would any sane and rational President allow Germany to conquer Europe because we'd face the same thing on the Atlantic. Much less both at once. That would be as stupid as racing a train across the tracks every day. You'd be bound to be killed eventually.

Really, much of the commentary here is essentially liberal. PC-ridden. Fairly naive, stupid, and unable to grasp how the world works. No, much of the world is violent, rotten, and a threat to be dealt with.

FDR could easily have avoided WWII by building 25 carrier groups (we ended up building over 50 in WWII as it was), and cruising say five or six of them off the coast of Germany in 1937-38. Whilst cruising say, 10 off the coast of Japan at the same time. Arnold Schwarzenegger shockingly after he pumped iron did not get bullied! Fancy that! Instead FDR built useless stuff for political patronage while powerful, dangerous enemies were arming up and Patton was practicing manuevers with trucks labeled "Tank" in the 1940 Louisiana exercises.

Both Hitler and Tojo figured the US was weak enough, disarmed enough, pacifist enough, to topple with a few big blows. For someone who reads a lot of Larry Correia and Tom Kratman, you sure are pacifist.

Me? I figure Ghandi was a nasty old Hindoo with plenty of perversions, from sleeping naked with girls young enough to be his grand-daughters "to test his chastity" to having them give him enemas to his insane hatred of Jews and Blacks to his idiot suggestion of non-violence regarding Japan (see: Nanking, Rape of). I also figure you can spot his character in the filth and disease that is India today.

In short, I'd argue that the very model for any sensible guy is Winston Churchill. A fighter, Imperialist (and what's wrong with that I ask you Marxists) and a visionary. Quoting him got Paul Weston arrested in the UK, so you know he's dangerous.

Blogger Whiskey May 04, 2014 4:24 AM  

Last add, all that being said, it has been known for decades (at least the 1970s, I recall reading books published that decade about the Lusitania) that the whole blowing up the ship was a sham. It was carrying ammunition and weapons. That was known at the time and disclosed IIRC from a variety of books on the subject, in the 1920s.

So what? Imperial Germany and the US were edging towards War anyway, over ...

Mexico.

The Kaiser sent a whole bunch of his best soldiers to advise Carranza on how best to repel guys like Pancho Villa (answer: trenches and barbed wire and machine guns, the Golden Ones were used to chasing Apaches on horseback not fighting a ground war trench contest). The Zimmerman telegram was faked, by British Intel, but the German soldiers were real. And a threat.

Recall the Monroe Doctrine? What was that all about? Keeping hostile European powers out of the Western Hemisphere so they did not get ambitions about nibbling off parts of the US through proxies or establishing bases to harass us or even say, occupying Mexico (paging Emperor Napoleon III to the White Courtesy Telephone!) Poor old Maximilian got it in the end, but the whole episode reinforced the notion that the US had better keep the Europeans out or we'd be facing a whole lot of trouble. It was not as if Spain had not, with British help, supplied hostile Seminoles to attack Americans for say, 40 years or so before Florida was annexed.

The great Philosopher Vladimir Putin once said, the "weak get beaten." This was after Beslan. It is better in all ways to be strong, strong enough so that fights don't even start. For a man, this takes good luck (enough height and stature to begin with -- Bruce Lee had trouble here) plus enough training and weight lifting to project a stance and then enough friends, weapons or both for more dangerous encounters. If you would not want to walk around being weak and wimpy and easy target, why in the hell would you want your country to do so?

I'd agree that America no longer exists, just a place on a map for Northern Mexico, China, and Greater Haiti to slug it out. But that does not mean that once America didn't exist. It did. It mattered. Gone now. But it should not be forgotten.

I hope this is racist, sexist, hetero-normative, imperialist, running-dog capitalist enough for everyone here.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 04, 2014 7:52 AM  

"that's another assertion i never made.

sackless brits being sackless brits is the fault of brit elite ... and the brit people who allowed those elite to control the cultural institutions. which is the same problem the US has.

i'm just pointing out that muslims rioting in the streets, demanding the hijab in schools, getting Sharia courts recognized, forcing halal restaurants and running kaffir child sex rings ( in many nations, not just England ) might, reasonably, expect a different cultural response than what is actually occurring.

because, you know, the muslims fucking deserve a far different cultural response."

Meh, that's the pakis for you. As I said, muslims here are like mexicans in America right now. I don't think sharia or forced hijab is a popular sentiment here.

"and don't bother arguing this; if a Christian went to Turkey and ran a muslim child sex slave ring in Istanbul you wouldn't hesitate to demand the murder of his entire family. we watched you assert similar before.

but that's just the typical hypocrisy that's so integral to muslim practice that we all know and love."

Why would I do this? I don't care about that. There are laws and police that tends to that. I target my hate on targets I perceive to be things that are not being dealt with.


Oh btw Whiskey: much like every problem Looks like a nail when you have a hammer, everything looks like a mortal threat out to murder your people when you're a mentally ill neocon Jew.

"In short, I'd argue that the very model for any sensible guy is Winston Churchill"

You mean the guy who advocated for a third world war after the second was just finished? You know, the guy who was considered a war hero and yet lost Support because he was a raving lunatic?

Anonymous Jeigh Di May 04, 2014 8:02 AM  

Idle Spectator May 03, 2014 6:50 PM
"And the point is?

(This outta be good)"

Sorry it took so long. Unlike some, I have to work for a living. The point is that though anything can be made to look good on paper, you never know what's going to actually happen until you do a test.
So either Truman said, "the figures look good to me, go ahead and drop it," or a uranium bomb had actually been tested. I'll let you go from there.

Anonymous Eric Ashley May 04, 2014 8:50 AM  

William Forschten and Newt Gingrich wrote an alt-history or two based on the notion that Hitler had a flu during the Pearl Harbor attack. This kept him from unneccessarily declaring war on America at that time.



Blogger jon spencer May 04, 2014 9:06 AM  

And the U-2 / TR-1 that knocked out the air traffic at LAX recently. As if those planes have not been flying in and around that area for the last 50 years and it just now messed up the system.

Anonymous Mister Smith May 04, 2014 9:41 AM  

@IDLE X

RE: government ID.

No fears - I'm in NISTIC IDESG, and so are several other privacy advocates. We could use more non-NGO types though to help balance out Gov + BIZ vs. everyone. Join!

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 04, 2014 11:11 AM  

WWI was fought on our side to keep Europe from being dominated by Germany, which would have been hostile to our interests.

And, two world wars, the death of Western Civilization and millions of Europe's best men slaughtered and maimed, guess who dominates the European continent?

Idiot.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 04, 2014 11:57 AM  

Tommy Hass May 04, 2014 7:52 AM
Meh, that's the pakis for you.



gotta love Tommy's casual racism *against his fellow muslims* here.

because, you know, Turks are WAY too civilized to ever pull this typical homicidal Islamic bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide


because, you know, muslim violence is a recent innovation:
http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/IncessantTerrorism.htm

Blogger Tommy Hass May 04, 2014 12:07 PM  

"gotta love Tommy's casual racism *against his fellow muslims* here."

Shortening pakistani to paki is racism now? I'm just saying that the muslim population in the UK is not of the same genetic stock that the muslims here are. The have an inbreeding rate of 70% or so.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide"

Presuming that the "genocide" happened as advertised: that wasn't religiously motivated but nationalistically. Armenians sided with the Russians as a fifth column. Completely different from the situation in the UK.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, MIT Nuclear Physics May 04, 2014 12:32 PM  

So either Truman said, "the figures look good to me, go ahead and drop it," or a uranium bomb had actually been tested. I'll let you go from there.

I knew it would be good, that's why I asked.

So basically you have no point at all. This is like me saying "if I flip a coin, I either got heads or I got tails. I'll let you go from there."

That plutonium bomb Fat Man was not tested either, even though Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki. The Gadget was a different prototype from Fat Man.


And what are these "four bombs" you are talking about.

Anonymous Gen. Kong May 04, 2014 1:43 PM  

Well, the 1000 bovine lives sacrificed by l'affaire Lusitania helped feed Daddy Warburg's starving little ones (who needed new shoes). That a was surely worth it, no? Just think, we'd not be enjoying the benefits of the shiny free-and-equal utopia we now live in were it not for the visionary leadership of real entrepreneurs and innovators like Warburg, Rockefeller and Morgan who were willing to break a few million eggs for the omlet we all enjoy - right?

Anonymous Mr. Stubby May 04, 2014 2:10 PM  

So, how were they going to get an invasion fleet across 6300 miles of ocean?

It would have had to make D-Day look like a pip-squeak. And, for it to be even remotely successful, Japan would have to invade the U.S. on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.

All WWII did, was create a new class of industry... the Military Industrial Complex that feeds off of war. War is not the health of the State, it is the health of the Military Industrial Complex.

And how is that corporate fascism working out for us? Whole industries have sprung up, not to serve us, but the government, who in turn use all this new tech to grope us, spy on on us, kill us, subdue us...

Anonymous Gapeseed May 04, 2014 2:15 PM  

"FDR could easily have avoided WWII by building 25 carrier groups (we ended up building over 50 in WWII as it was), and cruising say five or six of them off the coast of Germany in 1937-38."

Whiskey: Although he certainly had designs to be one, FDR was no dictator. Spending bills still originated in Congress, and in the throws of a Great Depression, Congress would not have been willing to build Great White Fleet 2.0. Also, you use quite a bit of hindsight in talking about carrier groups when the settled conventional wisdom considered battleships and not carriers to be the centerpieces of any fleet. If FDR had the budget, the former Secretary of the Navy most likely would have built a fleet of Arizonas to be scattered on the ocean floors of both the Atlantic and Pacific rather than Pearl Harbor.

Projecting forward strength is an exhausting proposition in even the best of circumstances. In the alternative timeline scenario you propose (with battleships and not carriers), such projection would have been disastrous for the United States.

Blogger Desiderius May 04, 2014 2:30 PM  

"In short, I'd argue that the very model for any sensible guy is Winston Churchill. A fighter, Imperialist (and what's wrong with that I ask you Marxists) and a visionary. Quoting him got Paul Weston arrested in the UK, so you know he's dangerous."

Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my Whiskey clear. Hear, hear!

Vox is a sigma. LeMay, Patton et. al. alphas to the bone. That's the difference.

"...if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precious chance of survival. There may be an even worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than than live as slaves."

Churchill, The Gathering Storm, pg. 272

Blogger Tommy Hass May 04, 2014 6:12 PM  

WHat a retarded argument. By that logic, we should go ahead and murder potential criminals before they can even get so far.

The funny thing is, from that perspective, nothing actually distinguishes him from Nazis. I mean, Hitler merely attacked every other country in Europe because he needed all of those resources to prepare against the allies! History has shown that he was right: they really wanted to attack him.

If you faggots like war so much, why don't you vounteer?

Anonymous A. Nonymous May 04, 2014 7:59 PM  

Shortening pakistani to paki is racism now?

According to the British media, apparently. There was a bit of a fuss a few years back over Prince Harry referring to one of his army squad-mates as "our Paki friend," for example.

I'm just saying that the muslim population in the UK is not of the same genetic stock that the muslims here are.

Yes, thanks in part to the forcible accumulation of European mitochondrial DNA for century upon century.

Anonymous Jeigh Di May 05, 2014 6:55 PM  

Idle,
Since you can't connect the dots, I will explain.
There were rumors that Germany had successfully tested an atomic bomb using uranium. If those rumors were true and Truman was aware of if, he would know that there was no need to test a uranium bomb. They would know for sure the critical mass needed. If the rumors were false, then although they thought they had the critical mass, they could not be sure. Understand?

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, MIT New-cue-lar Physics May 06, 2014 2:55 PM  

Since you can't connect the dots, I will explain.

I'm sexually excited now.


There were rumors that Germany had successfully tested an atomic bomb using uranium. If those rumors were true and Truman was aware of if, he would know that there was no need to test a uranium bomb. They would know for sure the critical mass needed. If the rumors were false, then although they thought they had the critical mass, they could not be sure. Understand?

In other words, no point at all.

Why do assume that because I know they tested something successfully, I know the critical mass (k = 1)? That's like saying because I know you used a barbecue sauce on your ribs successfully by eating them, I know the ingredients in your secret sauce.

Your critical mass varies based on shape of material, temperature, and density, among other things. A bare sphere is completely different than firing material together. Even if I hit the k = 1, the chain reaction is barely self-sustaining. How the Hell am I supposed to make a bomb out of it? In other words, rumors or not, I would need the plans right in front of me to tell the critical mass, especially with a new invention.


As punishment for your transgressions, you have to spend the night in reactor no. 4 at Fukushima.

Anonymous jayb May 09, 2014 11:40 PM  

There's numerous examples of backwater government departments saying one thing years later that then turn out to be red herrings.

You need to match the explosives theory with the eyewitness accounts of the sinking at the time - a large armaments explosion would have simply blown the entire front of the vessel off completely - there are numerous examples of battleships magazines doing just that. That never happened. There were survivors from the forward boiler rooms, something that I would not expect if large munitions in the adjacent compartment went up. The keel - although damaged by sea floor impact, hull bending and the ravages of time is still intact. It's not missing a key section from a munitions explosion.

This was a medium sized explosion, larger than you'd expect from a torpedo - thus the mystery - but smaller than what secret explosives would do. It didn't blow the vessel apart, but it did enough damage that adjacent watertight bulkheads were compromised allowing water to spread out quickly enough that the vessel foundered in twenty minutes. Stability - lusitania's side coal bunker system was never that clever - and a number of open ports - further accelerated this process.

Reasonable causes of an explosion of that scale already exist on the ships manifest. These are the small arms ammunition crates that came onboard at the last minute due to a cancelled sailing of another vessel, the aluminium powder she was carrying, a coal dust explosion or a boiler room explosion.

The last two are unlikely. Leaving the first two as a reasonable fit.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts