Roosevelt and Kennedy

[Myra Bronstein]

I'm most pleased to join this forum by sharing a point of information and an observation on the Butler/Roosevelt affair.

1. While Jules Archer's "The Plot to Seize the White House" remains the only book-length analysis of the coup attempt extant (albeit out of print), I'm told that Joseph Trento completed a volume on the same subject. Indeed, "The Last President," which he allegedly co-authored with William Corson, was coveted by Oliver Stone in 2000 as the basis for, as they say, a major motion picture.

Perhaps Mr. Trento will be moved to enlighten us on the status of the project. So too Mr. Stone.

2. I was morbidly gratified when I read in Dick Russell's extraordinary "The Man Who Knew Too Much" of how the author was tipped off to the probable involvement of Charles Willoughby and an unnamed American military hero in the Kennedy hit. The latter could only be the Old Fading Soldier himself.

For some time I had considered the possibility that Douglas MacArthur, having experienced first-hand the problematic nature of bloodless coups, subsequently made a "no more Mister Nice Guy" pledge to himself. So if he had been confronted in his retirment by serving flag officers bearing "evidence" of JFK's unsuitability for office, he would have given his blessing to executive action.

As a writer of fiction, I was intrigued by such a scenario -- one for which meaningful empirical evidence is all but absent. I bring it to the forum's attention only as an exercise in creative visualization. Sometimes -- not often -- intuition leads.

Charles Drago

General Smedley Butler named MacArthur in his statements about the coup attempt. And I wouldn't put anything past the Faded Soldier. My god, he attacked his own men, on American soil, when they merely assembled to demand the bonus they were promised. Killed some, injured many. General Faded was the lowest of the low.

However, President Kennedy reportedly met with him at least once, and supposedly was impressed with him. So he must have said something... human to so impress a decent President. Partly for that reason I don't suspect MacArthur in the President's murder right now. Of course that could change.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

"...

During the days after the Bay of Pigs debacle, Kennedy was deeply suspicious of the intelligence community and of proposals for military escalation in general, including in places like South Vietnam. Kennedy sought to procure an outside, expert opinion on military matters. For this he turned to the former commander in chief of the Southwest Pacific Theatre during World War II, General Douglas MacArthur. Almost ten years ago, a reliable source shared with one of the authors an account of a meeting between Kennedy and MacArthur in which the veteran general warned the young president that there were elements inside the US government who emphatically did not share his patriotic motives, and who were seeking to destroy his administration from within. MacArthur's warned that the forces bent on destroying Kennedy were centered in the Wall Street financial community and its various tentacles in the intelligence community.

It is a matter of public record that Kennedy met with MacArthur in the latter part of April, 1961, after the Bay of Pigs. According to Kennedy aide Theodore Sorenson, MacArthur told Kennedy, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and you happen to have just moved into the chicken house." 10 At the same meeting, according to Sorenson, MacArthur "warned [Kennedy] against the committment of American foot soldiers on the Asian mainland, and the President never forgot this advice." 11 This point is grudgingly confirmed by Arthur M. Schlesinger, a Kennedy aide who had a vested interest in vilifying MacArthur, who wrote that "MacArthur expressed his old view that anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland [of Asia] should have his head examined." 12 MacArthur restated this advice during a second meeting with Kennedy when the General returned from his last trip to the Far East in July, 1961.

Kennedy valued MacArthur's professional military opinion highly, and used it to keep at arms length those advisers who were arguing for escalation in Laos, Vietnam, and elsewhere. He repeatedly invited those who proposed to send land forces to Asia to convince MacArthur that this would as good idea. If they could convince MacArthur, then he, Kennedy, might also go along...."

[Myra Bronstein]

I'm most pleased to join this forum by sharing a point of information and an observation on the Butler/Roosevelt affair.

1. While Jules Archer's "The Plot to Seize the White House" remains the only book-length analysis of the coup attempt extant (albeit out of print), I'm told that Joseph Trento completed a volume on the same subject. Indeed, "The Last President," which he allegedly co-authored with William Corson, was coveted by Oliver Stone in 2000 as the basis for, as they say, a major motion picture.

Perhaps Mr. Trento will be moved to enlighten us on the status of the project. So too Mr. Stone.

2. I was morbidly gratified when I read in Dick Russell's extraordinary "The Man Who Knew Too Much" of how the author was tipped off to the probable involvement of Charles Willoughby and an unnamed American military hero in the Kennedy hit. The latter could only be the Old Fading Soldier himself.

For some time I had considered the possibility that Douglas MacArthur, having experienced first-hand the problematic nature of bloodless coups, subsequently made a "no more Mister Nice Guy" pledge to himself. So if he had been confronted in his retirment by serving flag officers bearing "evidence" of JFK's unsuitability for office, he would have given his blessing to executive action.

As a writer of fiction, I was intrigued by such a scenario -- one for which meaningful empirical evidence is all but absent. I bring it to the forum's attention only as an exercise in creative visualization. Sometimes -- not often -- intuition leads.

Charles Drago

General Smedley Butler named MacArthur in his statements about the coup attempt. And I wouldn't put anything past the Faded Soldier. My god, he attacked his own men, on American soil, when they merely assembled to demand the bonus they were promised. Killed some, injured many. General Faded was the lowest of the low.

However, President Kennedy reportedly met with him at least once, and supposedly was impressed with him. So he must have said something... human to so impress a decent President. Partly for that reason I don't suspect MacArthur in the President's murder right now. Of course that could change.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

"...

During the days after the Bay of Pigs debacle, Kennedy was deeply suspicious of the intelligence community and of proposals for military escalation in general, including in places like South Vietnam. Kennedy sought to procure an outside, expert opinion on military matters. For this he turned to the former commander in chief of the Southwest Pacific Theatre during World War II, General Douglas MacArthur. Almost ten years ago, a reliable source shared with one of the authors an account of a meeting between Kennedy and MacArthur in which the veteran general warned the young president that there were elements inside the US government who emphatically did not share his patriotic motives, and who were seeking to destroy his administration from within. MacArthur's warned that the forces bent on destroying Kennedy were centered in the Wall Street financial community and its various tentacles in the intelligence community.

It is a matter of public record that Kennedy met with MacArthur in the latter part of April, 1961, after the Bay of Pigs. According to Kennedy aide Theodore Sorenson, MacArthur told Kennedy, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and you happen to have just moved into the chicken house." 10 At the same meeting, according to Sorenson, MacArthur "warned [Kennedy] against the committment of American foot soldiers on the Asian mainland, and the President never forgot this advice." 11 This point is grudgingly confirmed by Arthur M. Schlesinger, a Kennedy aide who had a vested interest in vilifying MacArthur, who wrote that "MacArthur expressed his old view that anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland [of Asia] should have his head examined." 12 MacArthur restated this advice during a second meeting with Kennedy when the General returned from his last trip to the Far East in July, 1961.

Kennedy valued MacArthur's professional military opinion highly, and used it to keep at arms length those advisers who were arguing for escalation in Laos, Vietnam, and elsewhere. He repeatedly invited those who proposed to send land forces to Asia to convince MacArthur that this would as good idea. If they could convince MacArthur, then he, Kennedy, might also go along...."

[Paul Rigby]

I've ordered many of his books at the library. Unfortunately most are inter-library loan, which means they may be impossible to get. I have his book of quotes waiting for me now at the library. Can't wait to see that.

Myra,

Pleasure deferred has a depressing tendency to be pleasure wasted. If you've got some spare cash, or merely run out of patience waiting for the library, try this link for about the best search engine for second-hand books I've found: http://www.bookfinder.com/

Last time I looked, there was a fair bit of Seldes available at very reasonable prices.

I also urge you to get hold of the Spivak pieces. They quickly disabuse the reader of any misguided notions about the recentness of the coalition which comprises the neo-Con lobby in the US: It was all pretty much in place in the mid-1930s. Spivak briefly revisited the case, I believe though don't know for sure, in his 1967 book, A Man In His Time (NY: Horizon Press).

I am mildly astonished that the CIApedia contains any trace of the man. I assume it's all some ghastly mistake, and the real entry is for Gilbert (as in Sullivan).

Paul

[Myra Bronstein]

I've ordered many of his books at the library. Unfortunately most are inter-library loan, which means they may be impossible to get. I have his book of quotes waiting for me now at the library. Can't wait to see that.

Myra,

Pleasure deferred has a depressing tendency to be pleasure wasted. If you've got some spare cash, or merely run out of patience waiting for the library, try this link for about the best search engine for second-hand books I've found: http://www.bookfinder.com/

Last time I looked, there was a fair bit of Seldes available at very reasonable prices.

I also urge you to get hold of the Spivak pieces. They quickly disabuse the reader of any misguided notions about the recentness of the coalition which comprises the neo-Con lobby in the US: It was all pretty much in place in the mid-1930s. Spivak briefly revisited the case, I believe though don't know for sure, in his 1967 book, A Man In His Time (NY: Horizon Press).

I am mildly astonished that the CIApedia contains any trace of the man. I assume it's all some ghastly mistake, and the real entry is for Gilbert (as in Sullivan).

Paul

And then there's the school of thought that pleasure deferred is a bill paid. But I know what you're saying, and I'm hot on the trail of Seldes. He won't fall between the cracks. Thanks for the bookfinder source; I was unaware of it.

Whereas Spivak would have fallen between the cracks. Woah. Thanks for mentioning him; I'd hate to miss out on a source that good.

I totally agree with your astonishment over the CIApedia actually mentioning Seldes, and not even trashing him. I was drop-jawed in fact. I have every expectation that they'll McAdams it now that they're aware of that "thread to national security" from spying on this forum. (Does that make us CIA assetts? )

[Charles Drago]

I'm most pleased to join this forum by sharing a point of information and an observation on the Butler/Roosevelt affair.

1. While Jules Archer's "The Plot to Seize the White House" remains the only book-length analysis of the coup attempt extant (albeit out of print), I'm told that Joseph Trento completed a volume on the same subject. Indeed, "The Last President," which he allegedly co-authored with William Corson, was coveted by Oliver Stone in 2000 as the basis for, as they say, a major motion picture.

Perhaps Mr. Trento will be moved to enlighten us on the status of the project. So too Mr. Stone.

2. I was morbidly gratified when I read in Dick Russell's extraordinary "The Man Who Knew Too Much" of how the author was tipped off to the probable involvement of Charles Willoughby and an unnamed American military hero in the Kennedy hit. The latter could only be the Old Fading Soldier himself.

For some time I had considered the possibility that Douglas MacArthur, having experienced first-hand the problematic nature of bloodless coups, subsequently made a "no more Mister Nice Guy" pledge to himself. So if he had been confronted in his retirment by serving flag officers bearing "evidence" of JFK's unsuitability for office, he would have given his blessing to executive action.

As a writer of fiction, I was intrigued by such a scenario -- one for which meaningful empirical evidence is all but absent. I bring it to the forum's attention only as an exercise in creative visualization. Sometimes -- not often -- intuition leads.

Charles Drago

General Smedley Butler named MacArthur in his statements about the coup attempt. And I wouldn't put anything past the Faded Soldier. My god, he attacked his own men, on American soil, when they merely assembled to demand the bonus they were promised. Killed some, injured many. General Faded was the lowest of the low.

However, President Kennedy reportedly met with him at least once, and supposedly was impressed with him. So he must have said something... human to so impress a decent President. Partly for that reason I don't suspect MacArthur in the President's murder right now. Of course that could change.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

"...

During the days after the Bay of Pigs debacle, Kennedy was deeply suspicious of the intelligence community and of proposals for military escalation in general, including in places like South Vietnam. Kennedy sought to procure an outside, expert opinion on military matters. For this he turned to the former commander in chief of the Southwest Pacific Theatre during World War II, General Douglas MacArthur. Almost ten years ago, a reliable source shared with one of the authors an account of a meeting between Kennedy and MacArthur in which the veteran general warned the young president that there were elements inside the US government who emphatically did not share his patriotic motives, and who were seeking to destroy his administration from within. MacArthur's warned that the forces bent on destroying Kennedy were centered in the Wall Street financial community and its various tentacles in the intelligence community.

It is a matter of public record that Kennedy met with MacArthur in the latter part of April, 1961, after the Bay of Pigs. According to Kennedy aide Theodore Sorenson, MacArthur told Kennedy, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and you happen to have just moved into the chicken house." 10 At the same meeting, according to Sorenson, MacArthur "warned [Kennedy] against the committment of American foot soldiers on the Asian mainland, and the President never forgot this advice." 11 This point is grudgingly confirmed by Arthur M. Schlesinger, a Kennedy aide who had a vested interest in vilifying MacArthur, who wrote that "MacArthur expressed his old view that anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland [of Asia] should have his head examined." 12 MacArthur restated this advice during a second meeting with Kennedy when the General returned from his last trip to the Far East in July, 1961.

Kennedy valued MacArthur's professional military opinion highly, and used it to keep at arms length those advisers who were arguing for escalation in Laos, Vietnam, and elsewhere. He repeatedly invited those who proposed to send land forces to Asia to convince MacArthur that this would as good idea. If they could convince MacArthur, then he, Kennedy, might also go along...."

__________________

Myra,

As I feel my way around this site I find myself counting on your posts to inform and stimulate. So thanks for your thoughts on this issue.

I was aware of the JFK/MacArthur encounters and of Kennedy's respect for the fading gerontocrat. But then again, the president was said to admire and perhaps even idealize "The Pear," "America's James Bond," aka William King Harvey, and I don't think that such positive executive evaluation is sufficient to remove Harvey from a valid short list of likely assassins.

As I noted in my original post, what I postulate in re Dastardly Douglas is the product of one giant leap from facts to informed speculation. So how do I reconcile your line of reasoning with the product of my imagination?

I do not consider MacArthur to have been a prime mover in the plot, but rather a facilitator in this sense, and for the sake of argument only:

Imagine ... Flag officers whose participation in the plot would be critical could not bring themselves to take the ultimate step. So other highest-level plotters 1) convince MacArthur that JFK is nothing less than a traitor, 2) further convince him that nothing short of executive action can remove him, and 3) direct him to the aforementioned reluctant rogues who in the end are moved to perfidy by the persuasions of their ultimate hero.

Fantastic? I'll so stipulate going in. But as you wisely note, the sick S.O.B. who "attacked his own men, on American soil, when they merely assembled to demand the bonus they were promised" surely would have been capable of such a deed as I imagine -- especially in his dotage.

Hence the lesson of Smedley Butler, the two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor, was not lost.

One last note on the Kennedy-as-traitor argument: It surfaces at interesting places throughout the story we investigate. Most recently Seymour Hersh, during his "Dark Side of Camelot" tour, was asked if he learned anything about JFK that was darker than the material included in the book.

Hersh responded, "Yeah, I heard some things I didn't want to believe," and left it at that. My guess is that the character assassins were trying to sell the treason argument again as part of the ever-functioning "he deserved to die" amelioration.

So it goes.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

As I feel my way around this site I find myself counting on your posts to inform and stimulate. So thanks for your thoughts on this issue.

I was aware of the JFK/MacArthur encounters and of Kennedy's respect for the fading gerontocrat. But then again, the president was said to admire and perhaps even idealize "The Pear," "America's James Bond," aka William King Harvey, and I don't think that such positive executive evaluation is sufficient to remove Harvey from a valid short list of likely assassins.

Thank you Charles; I'm interested in your posts as well. And I'm very interested in this thread...

Regarding President Kennedy's respect for MacArthur, who I find contemptible in case that isn't obvious, I wonder if he was projecting. I think that's a pretty universal human trait, to assume other people are like us and expect from them what we expect from ourselves. So jerks may expect others to act like jerks. And visa versa. A principled honorable man like JFK may see people in the best light. He's often described as idealistic and I can see why. He was so fair minded that he brought republicans into his administration so that he'd get divergent viewpoints.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0229520-00

"Kennedy chose his cabinet to represent the country's main sections and interests. To reassure business, a Republican, C. Douglas Dillon, was appointed secretary of the treasury, and another Republican, Robert S. McNamara, who had been president of the Ford Motor Company, was named secretary of defense. Dean Rusk, who had headed the Rockefeller Foundation, became the new secretary of state, and Adlai Stevenson was appointed ambassador to the United Nations. Robert Francis Kennedy, the president's brother, became attorney general."

Then there was McGeorge Bundy and later John McClone...

In assembling a diverse administration President Kennedy unknowingly surrounded himself with snakes and unwittingly isolated himself. As savvy as he was, and as much as he mistrusted the CIA, he clearly wasn't capable of comprehending the level of evil he was up against. Therefore he may well have been fooled or dazzled by MacArthur, who by most accounts was a skilled war technician.

And I can see where MacArthur would have had motives. Before he faded away he desperately wanted to be president. Much of his stint in Japan, to rebuild it after knocking it down, was all about polishing his image for his White House run which didn't get far. He may well have been resentful. He had a history of gross insubordination to Truman, ignoring direct orders and getting so far out of control in Korea and China that Truman canned him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macarthur (This jibes with what I've read at actual--you know--good sources.)

The insubordination that got him fired by Truman may have been a red flag indicating that was capable of committing violence against a president. As we’ve discussed, he was certainly capable of committing violence against uniformed soldiers in his own country's armed services. "General Omar Bradley later speculated that MacArthur's disappointment over his inability to wage war on China had "snapped his brilliant but brittle mind."" What you refer to as his dotage.

So here's this young brilliant Kennedy guy in the oval office MacArthur aspired to. Given the nasty piece of work MacArthur was, he may have had assassination in him. I won't rule it out. But I totally agree with you that he was not a prime mover. I see him as a hired gun. An old faded soldier of (mis)fortune.

Now, regarding Sy Hersh, he is to journalism what MacArthur was to peace. A soldier of disinformation for hire. A CIA mouthpiece. There has been a lot of discussion here on Hersh’s hatchet job on the Kennedys. For example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...Hersh&st=15

But I wont waste a lot of words on him ‘cause this article says it all:

http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html

http://ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html

It’s long but it’s a masterpiece. And it outs the orchestrated strategy that you pointed to:

the "he deserved to die" propaganda, and it fingers the propagandists who spew it.

"The Posthumous Assassination of JFK Part II

Sy Hersh and the Monroe/JFK Papers:

The History of a Thirty-Year Hoax"

By James DiEugenio

Highly recommended.

[Charles Drago]

Myra,

You're preaching to the choir on Hersh, who is long overdue for revisionist examination of the sort currently underway with Chomsky.

Within the next day or so I'll create a new thread in which I propose that appreciations of the JFK assassination by scholars and journalists stand as valid litmus tests for the balance of their respective canons. This based, of course, on the position proffered in my first post: conspiracy as established, unambiguous, and eminently knowable historical fact.

As for MacArthur, his shade darkens the story told by the Seagraves in "Gold Warriors." I can accept his motivations for looting Yamaxxxxa's treasure as two-fold: personal enrichment and establishing a secret treasury for a secret government -- his secret government.

That JFK held the old bastard in esteem is quite likely -- for, among other reasons, the fact that MacArthur was his commanding (if not technically, then emotionally) officer in the Pacific. Further, and perhaps on a much deeper psychic level, the president desperately may have been seeking a flag officer -- a comrade in arms -- in whom he could place his trust and respect.

[Charles Drago]

More on Oliver Stone's interest in the Smedley Butler affair, this time from the New York Post in 2000:

Writers William Corson and Joseph Trento have pulled a literary reverse. A year ago, they sold film rights to a nonfiction project called "The Last President"- about a real-life plot to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 - to producer Arnold Copelson. Copelson has since gotten Oliver Stone and 20th Century Fox interested in the project.

Now, with Stone said to be well along in writing the script, the authors have turned around and sold the book proposal to Simon & Schuster's Free Press imprint for an estimated $200,000.

According to Free Press editor Chad Conway, the book will detail how some of the nation's leading capitalists - alarmed by the election of FDR and his plans to introduce radical reforms during the Great Depression - tried to engineer a military coup to overthrow the government. The plotters first talked to General Douglas MacArthur and then to General Smedley Darlington Butler, Conway says. "Butler eventually exposed the plot," he says.

FDR started public hearings but then quashed them. "He thought the nation was going through enough turmoil," Conway says. But, he adds, FDR used the information to keep the plotters in line for the rest of the New Deal. "FDR comes off looking even more Machiavellian and heroic than we thought," Conway says.

Corson is a writer and former FBI agent, and Trento works for the Public Education Center.

"Corson's father was one of the guys involved with investigating the original plot," Conway says.

The Free Press is planning a 100,000 print run for the book for fall 2002.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Paul Rigby]

Clayton Cramer, “An American Coup d’Etat?”, History Today, Vol 45 (11), November 1995, pp.42-47;

John L. Spivak, "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy: 1. Testimony that the Dickstein Committee Suppressed," New Masses, Vol 14 (5), January 29, 1935, pp.9-15;

John L. Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy: 2. Morgan Pulls the Strings,” New Masses, Vol 14 (6), February 5, 1935, pp.10-15;

NB: For UK readers, the relevant editions of New Masses were held - presumably still are - by the Hallward Library of Nottingham University.

George Wolfskill. The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of the American Liberty League, 1934-1940 (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962);

Official report into the plot: Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington D.C., December 29, 1934. Hearings No. 73-D.C.-6, Part 1; p.194: McCormack-Dickstein Committee published "Extracts," a 125 page "document";

Hans Schmidt. Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History (Univ. Press of Kentucky, 1987).

And for the grand Anglo-American strategy underpinning the inter-war period - in summary, it explains why Fascism couldn't conceivably have triumphed in Washington or London, even though significant, if not preponderant, sections of both countries' elites devoutly desired such a development - try this:

Guido Giacomo Preparata. Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich (London: Pluto Press, 2005).

A remarkable book, which sheds just as much light on the present as the past.

Paul

[Ron Ecker]

Jules Archer's book "The Plot to Seize the White House" will be back in print in paperback on March 1. Available from Amazon.com for $10.17:

Amazon.com link

If you can't wait till March 1, you can buy a used copy of the 1973 edition at Amazon.com for $139.

[Ronald R. Williams]

And for the grand Anglo-American strategy underpinning the inter-war period - in summary, it explains why Fascism couldn't conceivably have triumphed in Washington or London, even though significant, if not preponderant, sections of both countries' elites devoutly desired such a development - try this:

Guido Giacomo Preparata. Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich (London: Pluto Press, 2005).

A remarkable book, which sheds just as much light on the present as the past.

Paul

This indeed is an important book and I wish Paul Rigby would have told us more about it. Here is my take.

[written for and originally posted on the JFK Research Forum (www.jfkresearch.com)]

Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich

by Guido Giacomo Preparata

Pluto Press, London/Ann Arbor, 2005

ISBN 0-7453-2181-X (paperback edition)

Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich, is a sweeping economic and historical analysis of the process whereby Germany, the greatly feared continental land-power rival of the dominant sea-power empire of Great Britain was--over an approximately fifty-year period--set up and maneuvered into its own destruction, and was thus eliminated once and for all as a geopolitical threat. This first half of the twentieth century is called in the book “the great siege of Europe.”

The author, Guido Giacomo Preparata, currently an Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Washington/Tacoma, received his Ph.D. in Political Economy and Economic History from the University of Southern California in 1998. The book grew out of a continuation of his doctoral dissertation and a five-year long series of lectures. In addition to his teaching duties, Professor Preparata is also the managing editor of the American Review of Political Economy (www.arpejournal.com).

Although the book is related to works by Antony Sutton (Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution), John Loftus (The Secret War Against the Jews), Charles Higham (Trading With the Enemy), James Stewart Martin (All Honorable Men), and the accumulated works of the LaRouche historians, Anton Chaitkin, Webster Tarpley, H. Graham Lowry, et al, I believe it stands uniquely alone in its field. With this work, the author has succeeded in bringing “conspiracy theory” into the mainstream in a resounding fashion. But this book is not theory, this is real history. History is conspiracy!

The book is divided into five chronological chapters and a conclusion. The first chapter called “Introductory: The Eurasian Embrace. Laying Siege to Germany with World War I” describes how, by 1900, it was clear that Germany, the continental upstart, was a dead serious rival of the British Empire, and the empire leaders schooled in the emerging geopolitical “heartland” theory were convinced that action could no longer be delayed. All the skills, all the methods, all the key operatives would have to be utilized in order to counter the deadly threat. Steps that had to be taken included a “regime change” in Russia, the unleashing of the “useful idiots of Sarajevo” to put a spark to the planned great siege war, and finally the maneuvering of the American colonial dumb giant into providing the supplies, financing, and manpower that would make it all possible. This last section in the chapter is called--most appropriately--“The Last Days of America: from Republic to Truculent Empire.”

In the second chapter entitled “The Veblenian Prophecy. From the Councils to Versailles by Way of Russian Fratricide” the author presents the breathtaking prophecy by socio-economist Thorstein Veblen, that he says “...stands possibly as Political Economy’s most extraordinary document – a testimony of the highest genius – and as the lasting and screaming accusation of the horrendous plot that was being hatched by the British during the six months of the Peace Conference following World War I.” Also described is the Allied Russian “intervention” that was actually a betrayal of the White Russian generals in the civil war that followed the Revolution, and lastly the infamous Versailles Treaty that helped lay the foundation for the horrible catastrophes that were to follow.

The third chapter, called “The Meltdown and Geopolitical Correctness of Mein Kampf (1920-1923)” lays out the time of the great hyperinflation and the futility of the Weimar Republic that cleared the ground for the emergence of Hitler “the drummer.”

Chapter four “Death on the Installment Plan, Whereby Governor Norman Came to Pace the Damnation of Europe, 1924-1933,”describes the incredible machinations of the governor of the Bank of England Montagu Norman. Also covered in this chapter are the great American bailouts, the Dawes and Young Plans which made possible the growth of the German war machine.

In chapter five, “The Reich on the Marble Cliffs. Fire, Legerdemain and Mummery all the Way to Barbarossa, 1933-41,” we have Hitler’s coup - the final consolidation of power that followed a spectacular act of synthetic terror, the great Reichstag Fire. Then the “money magic” is explained that allowed prostrate Germany to come miraculously to life and with full employment begin the great war machine production. Also in this chapter is explained and put to rest the potent and persistent myth of “appeasement.” “All appeased the Nazis: the Pope for fear, the British by design, and the Russians to buy time. Stalin, too, had read Mein Kampf – he harbored no illusions: the Nazis would come to him sooner or later.” When this phase had run its intended course, the time for Winston Churchill and the war party had come, and in turn the Americans would be “dragged in” to do their part. And “then and only then (1944) did Britain deem that the time had finally come to dispatch this Nazi creature, by now mortally wounded, that she had nurtured for over a quarter of a century for the sake of her Eurasian ambition.”

I do not find a lot to criticize in this book. Professor Preparata explains in the preface, that being trained as an economist, he first set out to explain the Nazi economic boom of the 1930s. He has accomplished that with flying colors, but that is only the beginning. What grew out of this first step is a book that brilliantly demonstrates how power is exercised and how things in this world really work.

I think that students and researchers of the Kennedy assassination will find this book invaluable. This is a book about the who and the why and a model of explanation for a huge historical calamity, the planned destruction of nations. After a thorough reading and the appropriate reflection it may not be out of place to say that the who and the why and a model of explanation for the assassination of an American president will just naturally fall into place.

Ron Williams

[John Simkin]

[written for and originally posted on the JFK Research Forum (www.jfkresearch.com)]

Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich

by Guido Giacomo Preparata

Pluto Press, London/Ann Arbor, 2005

ISBN 0-7453-2181-X (paperback edition)

Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich, is a sweeping economic and historical analysis of the process whereby Germany, the greatly feared continental land-power rival of the dominant sea-power empire of Great Britain was--over an approximately fifty-year period--set up and maneuvered into its own destruction, and was thus eliminated once and for all as a geopolitical threat. This first half of the twentieth century is called in the book “the great siege of Europe.”

The author, Guido Giacomo Preparata, currently an Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Washington/Tacoma, received his Ph.D. in Political Economy and Economic History from the University of Southern California in 1998. The book grew out of a continuation of his doctoral dissertation and a five-year long series of lectures. In addition to his teaching duties, Professor Preparata is also the managing editor of the American Review of Political Economy (www.arpejournal.com).

Although the book is related to works by Antony Sutton (Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution), John Loftus (The Secret War Against the Jews), Charles Higham (Trading With the Enemy), James Stewart Martin (All Honorable Men), and the accumulated works of the LaRouche historians, Anton Chaitkin, Webster Tarpley, H. Graham Lowry, et al, I believe it stands uniquely alone in its field. With this work, the author has succeeded in bringing “conspiracy theory” into the mainstream in a resounding fashion. But this book is not theory, this is real history. History is conspiracy!

The book is divided into five chronological chapters and a conclusion. The first chapter called “Introductory: The Eurasian Embrace. Laying Siege to Germany with World War I” describes how, by 1900, it was clear that Germany, the continental upstart, was a dead serious rival of the British Empire, and the empire leaders schooled in the emerging geopolitical “heartland” theory were convinced that action could no longer be delayed. All the skills, all the methods, all the key operatives would have to be utilized in order to counter the deadly threat. Steps that had to be taken included a “regime change” in Russia, the unleashing of the “useful idiots of Sarajevo” to put a spark to the planned great siege war, and finally the maneuvering of the American colonial dumb giant into providing the supplies, financing, and manpower that would make it all possible. This last section in the chapter is called--most appropriately--“The Last Days of America: from Republic to Truculent Empire.”

In the second chapter entitled “The Veblenian Prophecy. From the Councils to Versailles by Way of Russian Fratricide” the author presents the breathtaking prophecy by socio-economist Thorstein Veblen, that he says “...stands possibly as Political Economy’s most extraordinary document – a testimony of the highest genius – and as the lasting and screaming accusation of the horrendous plot that was being hatched by the British during the six months of the Peace Conference following World War I.” Also described is the Allied Russian “intervention” that was actually a betrayal of the White Russian generals in the civil war that followed the Revolution, and lastly the infamous Versailles Treaty that helped lay the foundation for the horrible catastrophes that were to follow.

The third chapter, called “The Meltdown and Geopolitical Correctness of Mein Kampf (1920-1923)” lays out the time of the great hyperinflation and the futility of the Weimar Republic that cleared the ground for the emergence of Hitler “the drummer.”

Chapter four “Death on the Installment Plan, Whereby Governor Norman Came to Pace the Damnation of Europe, 1924-1933,”describes the incredible machinations of the governor of the Bank of England Montagu Norman. Also covered in this chapter are the great American bailouts, the Dawes and Young Plans which made possible the growth of the German war machine.

In chapter five, “The Reich on the Marble Cliffs. Fire, Legerdemain and Mummery all the Way to Barbarossa, 1933-41,” we have Hitler’s coup - the final consolidation of power that followed a spectacular act of synthetic terror, the great Reichstag Fire. Then the “money magic” is explained that allowed prostrate Germany to come miraculously to life and with full employment begin the great war machine production. Also in this chapter is explained and put to rest the potent and persistent myth of “appeasement.” “All appeased the Nazis: the Pope for fear, the British by design, and the Russians to buy time. Stalin, too, had read Mein Kampf – he harbored no illusions: the Nazis would come to him sooner or later.” When this phase had run its intended course, the time for Winston Churchill and the war party had come, and in turn the Americans would be “dragged in” to do their part. And “then and only then (1944) did Britain deem that the time had finally come to dispatch this Nazi creature, by now mortally wounded, that she had nurtured for over a quarter of a century for the sake of her Eurasian ambition.”

I do not find a lot to criticize in this book. Professor Preparata explains in the preface, that being trained as an economist, he first set out to explain the Nazi economic boom of the 1930s. He has accomplished that with flying colors, but that is only the beginning. What grew out of this first step is a book that brilliantly demonstrates how power is exercised and how things in this world really work.

I think that students and researchers of the Kennedy assassination will find this book invaluable. This is a book about the who and the why and a model of explanation for a huge historical calamity, the planned destruction of nations. After a thorough reading and the appropriate reflection it may not be out of place to say that the who and the why and a model of explanation for the assassination of an American president will just naturally fall into place.

Ron Williams

Does Preparata have anything to say about Prescott Bush and Nazi Germany?

[Ronald R. Williams]

Does Preparata have anything to say about Prescott Bush and Nazi Germany?

Yes, page 198.

I could post the entire quote but is it just the regular information that everyone is familiar with by now.

Ron Williams

Edited February 23, 2007 by Ronald R. Williams

[Paul Rigby]

And for the grand Anglo-American strategy underpinning the inter-war period - in summary, it explains why Fascism couldn't conceivably have triumphed in Washington or London, even though significant, if not preponderant, sections of both countries' elites devoutly desired such a development - try this:

Guido Giacomo Preparata. Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich (London: Pluto Press, 2005).

A remarkable book, which sheds just as much light on the present as the past.

Paul

This indeed is an important book and I wish Paul Rigby would have told us more about it. Here is my take.

Thank God I didn't - your "take" is admirable!

Paul

PS My point was to suggest a very different take on who approached Smedley Butler and why. I don't know the answer, but I do think the hypothesis should be explored that the Wall Streeters who sought out Butler may have had the opposite purpose to the ostensible.