America's allies are its primary geostrategic, geopolitical enemies Part I
Examining World War II, the Second Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), the US-Russian war on Europe following Russia's February 22, 2022, invasion of Ukraine.
Only those who superficially observe military affairs – past and present – operate under the assumption that the military enemy being pounded and attacked is necessarily the real enemy of the opposing side; or, at least, that the military enemy being attacked is necessarily the only enemy of the leader of the coalition fighting against it. In a war, the enemy is the one you want to harm. But the will to do harm is often directed against parties other than the declared enemy. These other parties are in no way attacked by conventional military means: on the contrary, the other parties are professed “allies.” These other parties – these allies - do not retaliate. These allies frequently acknowledge the fact that a war waged by one of their allies, usually the most powerful, the dominant power, creates the conditions for their future dependence, destroys the sources of their wealth, or both.
The process of turning allies into vassals by waging common wars is as old as time. The Romans were masters of this art. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the thalassocrat leaders of the British Imperium were masters of this art; by 1936, the United States of America began taking over, under the tutelage of its’ Anglo-Saxon “older brother.”
World Wars I and II, perhaps more aptly described as The Second Thirty Years War1, the European Civil War (1914-1945; or 1918-1945), or The Western Civilization’s Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) are demonstrative of this truth. In both cases, the pretext was to destroy German power; the real reason was to enslave Europe, bring about the destruction of the European Colonial Great Powers, and establish a new world founded on “Free Trade,” “United Nations,” and other lofty, idealisms that masked predatory, plutocratic, globalist-totalitarian ambitions and objectives.
Demonstrative of this reality can be witnessed in the August 1941 discussions between United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt [FDR] (the closest thing to an American Patrician King, whose reign lasted just six weeks or so shorter than his German counterpart Herr Hitler [1933-1945]) and U.K. Prime Minister Winston Spencer Churchill that occurred during the four-day conference aboard a ship anchored off the coast of Newfoundland at Argentina Bay, which resulted in the Atlantic Charter joint statement issued by the two Anglo-Saxon war lords on August 14, 1941.
August 9, 1941 The five-feet 7 inched war criminal in chief, one of the greatest mass murderers in world history, Winston Spencer, greeting his enemy six-feet 2 inches tall FDR. Churchill - consumed with righteous frenzy and incapable of resisting the exciting schoolboy thrill of fighting the Germans (‘Huns’) not once but twice in 20 years (What luck!) was remarkably - almost tragically but even more so comically - failed to recognize Roosevelt as his enemy. Even as he told his enemy - the enemy of the British Empire - a few evenings later during this Conference, “Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the post-war world demonstrates it.” Churchill was often instinctually, correct on the fundamental matters of things - whether the importance of the British Empire; the nature of Bolshevism [See recent historical works such as Churchill’s Secret War on Lenin, etc.]; the folly and injustice of “decolonization,” the end of Western rule of the world (replaced by the post-1945 post-western globalist-totalitarian reign of senselessness; i.e. the replacement of responsible Imperial Western Rulers - the Greater German Reich, the British Empire, the French and Dutch Empires, the Belgian and Portuguese Empires, et al - and in another 15-30 years, the loss of Rhodesia and South Africa. The reign of American senselessness which fights wars not to restore or impose order on a specific territory with a prevailing Nomos, Hegemon, Idea; but fights wars with the exact opposite results - the victory of chaos over order. For these reasons, America can never be considered a true Imperium, a true Empire, a true Hegemon.
FDR arrived prepared for verbal combat with his British counterpart, whom Roosevelt had a long-standing record of contempt for.2
FDR told his son Elliott Roosevelt - who accompanied him on the trip - on the eve of the conference that, “Churchill told me that he was not his Majesty’s Prime Minister for the purpose of presiding over the dissolution of the British Empire. I think I speak as America’s President when I say that America won’t help England in this war simply so that she will be able to continue to ride roughshod over colonial peoples.”
FDR
British historian A.J.P. Taylor observed that Roosevelt blithely dispensed with the advice of his advisers, even to make decisions that put the American nation at risk. Undoubtedly, Roosevelt possessed intellectual faculties verging on genius. However, after my extensive, rigorous studying of Roosevelt as a leader and as a thinker – from primary sources to great works like Warren F. Kimball’s The Juggler, within Roosevelt’s psyche, like many Americans, a predominance of feelings and temperament over intellect prevailed. This, as history teaches us, very often leads to hubris and excess.
Also, Roosevelt's historical knowledge was nil. Roosevelt "sold himself" as president with a kind of catchy, publicity charisma, a rather extraordinary energy and vitality that came through in his radio addresses (in this sense, Roosevelt’s persona was a sort of precursor to the synthetic, Public Relations electioneering style that later prevailed with the advent of Television from Ike’s election campaigns, to Jack Kennedy’s 1960 campaign – bereft of any substance, grounded solely in Jack’s cheerfulness, witness, pseudo-vitality, and charisma – and all electoral campaigns and Presidents since).
The most destructive aspect of Roosevelt’s thinking was the desire to impose a “peace” with an “unconditional surrender” of the Greater German Reich, the Empire of the Sun, and the Kingdom of Italy. Roosevelt unveiled this totalitarian concept on January 23, 1943, in Casablanca, without first submitting it to Admiral Leahy, his main military adviser, or to the British.3
This solitary decision by Roosevelt was never unanimously accepted: Field-Marshall Jan Smuts, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Charles Bohlen, and former French Prime Minister Georges Bonnet, Ike Eisenhower, and countless others criticized this policy in their memoirs in the most withering of terms. Each charged that “Unconditional Surrender” prolonged the war senselessly, even prolonging the war by years. Stalin rejected the policy publicly until Yalta. Conservative circles, after the war, noted that the project of unconditional surrender brought about the ruin of Germany, created a vacuum in the center of the continent, which allowed the Russians to rush in and dominate the situation, to the detriment of the old European powers (this was the view of one of our greatest Senators and Americans since 1789 - Senator Robert A. Taft - and Montgomery).
Roosevelt later betrayed his own promises, affirmed by the Atlantic Charter (August 14, 1941). Roosevelt wanted to subject any territorial changes, once hostilities were over, to the will of the populations concerned. In Tehran (1943), these promises of plebiscitary democracy had vanished! Poland was automatically amputated of its eastern provinces (with a majority of Belarusians and Ukrainians, to tell the truth) and compensated by the German lands of Silesia, Pomerania and South-East Prussia (with a German majority)4. A political and historical aberration. Roosevelt wanted even more: to create a new state in the West, made up of the departments of Nord and Pas-de-Calais, Luxembourg, Alsace-Lorraine and Wallonia! In September 1944, the American president became enthusiastic about the Morgenthau Plan, another wacky, genocidal construction that took no account of the subtleties of European history.
As far as the moral aspect is concerned, Roosevelt's professed indifference to the suffering inflicted on Japanese and German families as well as on American families who saw their sons leave for a war whose purpose they hardly understood speaks for itself.
However, Roosevelt's policy was not a failure, and the primary beneficiary was not Stalin. This conservative interpretation does not hold water: the undisputed winner of the Second World War is Roosevelt. U.S. dominance in the world was unquestionable. Roosevelt certainly realized that the unconditional surrender of Germany would make skirt-clinging U.S. satellites out of Britain and France and leave prostrate Europe to be fought over by a triumphant American army with an arsenal of atomic bombs abuilding and a Russian army on the verge of exhaustion and several years behind America in nuclear research.
It was America's tragic entry into World War I that made the U.S. a world power (and made World War II possible). By following similar tactics in World War II, FDR could not have helped but consider that victory over Germany and Japan would make his country the most powerful nation in the world, the arbiter mundi, so to speak, of the 20th and possibly many more centuries.
What the English did not realize, was that war was being waged against them not only by Nazi Germany, but also by the United States. After World War II the U.S., with its monopolistic grip on the atom bomb, was not only a superpower but in a position to create and make stick the first truly universal empire.5
Even if the USSR tried to challenge America’s dominant post-1945 position, it was illusory. In the face of America, Russia could not offer such a seductive model of society for the man in the street. It serves the interests of the United States by acting as a counter-model, as a counterexample for those who would be tempted to reject the American way of life. Europe, on the other hand, could have offered a model of society acceptable to all the peoples of the world. This is what justifies from the U.S. perspective, Europe’s increased subjugation (cultural colonization + missiles + economic pressures + NATO) during the “Cold War,” during the “Unipolar moment,” during the “War on Terror,” and during the Russo-Ukraine War today.
FDR proudly boasted to an advisor, “We have been milking the British financial cow, which had plenty of milk at one time, but which has now about become dry.”6
To be continued…
The significance of the 1618-1648 fratricidal war will be analyzed in subsequent posts.
Roosevelt repeatedly told aides, advisors, and even Canadian Prime Minister William L. Mackenzie King that (paraphrased), “It’s a pity the only [British statesman of any standing eager to provoke war against Germany] is Winston Churchill, and he’s a drunken bum.”
Stalin – whose Red Army troops were on the front lines fighting the German-led European powers at Stalingrad, and paying with their blood in numbers that would be utterly impossible for the American armed forces – wasn’t even given the courtesy of being informed of “Unconditional Surrender,” until Roosevelt publicly announced it at the end of the Casablanca Conference.)
Western Poland can be considered the West Bank of Europe. Western Polish territories of today are historically Eastern German territories. Regarding the terms “West Germany” [the provisional lie of the lying provisional Federal German Republic] and “East Germany” [the German Democratic Republic - which consisted of Central German territories; the “East Germans” behind the grotesque Berlin Wall were actually Central Germans, and a minority of Eastern Germans - of the 18 million Eastern Germans ethnically cleansed in the largest, most genocidal, forced population transfer in recorded history. These 18 million Germans had lived in their ancestral lands for at least half a millennium and were driven out by Communists after the Allied “liberation.” Some 3.3 million Germans perished as they walked on foot driven from their homes, their lands, personal and real properties plundered by the victorious Bolshevik hordes. See A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944–1950 by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas.
Never mind that as James Burnham observed repeatedly in his National Review essays, and magisterial books, Americans - with its origins as English Colonies and its geographical isolationism and way of life - lack the discipline that Imperium demands. The character of the American people was never fit for Empire. Americans like easy, quick wars, and have no stomach for prolonged battles with the objective of Victory. The comparison between the South Vietnam War and Reagan’s choreographed blitzkriegs of Grenada, Libya, Panama (Bush I) is demonstrative of this.
John Charmley, Churchill: The End of Glory: A Political Biography (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993), p. 463
Brilliant analysis. FDR's closest advisor, Harry Hopkins (who slept in the White House near the cripple) was an avowed Marxist, and helped Russia get the yellow cake uranium they needed to duplicate Oppenheimer (another Communist's) work.
https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion/stalins-secret-agents-held-high-posts-in-cold-war-u-s/