Forum Replies Created
A book on the Libertarian view of American History would interesting indeed! it could be just like the conservative and liberal equivalent of Paul Johnson’s and Howard Zinn’s books on American History.
Any of these capture your fancy?:
Here’s ‘The Best Enemy Money Can Buy’ online as well!:
Sutton wrote that Trotsky went through the Finnish-Russian border at Tornea on June 13, 1917. First Tornea is at the Swedish-Finnish border and also not to mention the fact that Finland didn’t exist yet!
He also claims that there was 700,000 Green Army troops in the Civil War, that fought as well. Erm….ok. Not sure where he got that. I’ve never heard of any ‘Greens’ before in the Russian Civil War. Atleast, not as an army he claims they were. All I’ve read on from them was that they were peasants trying to defend their respective homelands not an actual army that became a united into a cohesive national force.
And he also has an view of the Mexican Revolution that I feel is very incorrect. Though for the benefit of the doubt I read again on this revolution again before judging him on it again.
Either way despite, being small thing it does make just a bit wary. If someone can get mistakes like these wrong can we still trust them on the big points. No doubt even the best of historian is going to make a mistake….though……I would be somewhat well read on the Russian Civil War before taking his Bolshevik book as a end all on the subject (though I guess who shouldn’t take any book as a “end all” on any subject anyway!).
I do one question about the evidence of FDR possibly trying to provoke the Japaneses into firing a first shot……is there anything particularly pointing to the fact that the this would mean guarantee war against Germany? I mean surely the administration would want to make certain that would happen before getting themselves involved in what could possibly be a rather unwanted war only in the Pacific and not in Europe…where they really wanted to go. :-/
Or was provoking Japan to attack and Germany declaring war just a irrational not guaranteed possibility the administration held on hopeful that it would happen?
Thanks, I’ll get to that one when I’m done with my other readings!
And if it’s ok here is the Wall Street trilogy for anyone to read about these series of books:
FDR and Wall Street:
Wall Street and Hitler
Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution
I’ve heard the Wall Street & Hitler book is a good introduction, but rather dated book compare to more recent research done after the Berlin Wall fell. Check out these to get more on Hitler and his business buddies:
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution has some factual errors unfortunately, but not enough to effect or destroy Sutton’s main thesis. Just be cautious with it. And here is also some Sutton books about aid to the Soviet Union from the years of 1917-1965:
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917-1930 (1968)
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1930-1945 (1971)
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1945-1965 (1973)
Enjoy everyone! 😀
As far as I know David Donald Herbert wrote:
“In the spirit of conciliation Lincoln reached out for the support of Democrats as well as Republicans. His annual message contained an earnest plea to political opponents to support the proposed constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the United States. In the previous session of Congress his measure had failed to secure the required two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives, because all but four of the Democratic members voted against it. At Lincoln’s urging, the National Union convention had made the amendment a central plank in the platform on which he and a heavy Republican majority in the next Congress were elected. He now asked the lame-duck session of the Thirty-eighth congress to reconsider the amendment.”
“Without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition,” the President urged the Democrats to rethink their position. “Of course,” he admitted, “the abstract question is not changed: but an intervening election shows, almost certainly, that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not.” Since adoption was simply a matter of time, he asked, “may we not agree that the sooner the better?” Arguing that “some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority, simply because it is the will of the majority, ” he appealed for support of the amendment now.
Not content with rhetorical exhortation, Lincoln used his personal authority and considerable charm to influence Democratic and border-state congressmen whose votes were in doubt. Not since 1862, when he tried hard to persuade border-state congressmen to support his gradual emancipation plan, had the President been so deeply involved in the legislative process. He worked closely with James M. Ashley of Ohio, the principal sponsor of the amendment in the House, to identify members who might be persuaded to support the amendment and invited them to the Executive Mansion. For instance, he had a long talk with Representative James S. Rollins of Missouri, who had voted against the amendment in June, and entreated him as an old Whig and follower of “that great statesman, Henry Clay,” to join him now in supporting the measure. When Rollins said that he was ready to vote for the amendment, Lincoln pressed him to use his influence with the other congressmen from his state. “The passage of this amendment will clinch the whole subject,” the President assured him: “it will bring the war, I have no doubt, rapidly to a close.”
If Lincoln used other means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment, his actions were not recorded. Conclusions about the President’s role rested on gossip and later recollections like those of Thaddeus Stevens, who remarked, “The greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America.” Lincoln was told that he might win some support from New Jersey Democrats if he could persuade Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy Railroad, but he declined to intervene, not on grounds of priciple but because, he said, “I can do nothing with Mr. Sumner in these matters.” One New Jersey Democrat, well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change.
Whatever the President’s role, in the final ballotting more than two-thirds of the House members voted for the Thirteenth Amendment and submitted it to the states for ratification. Celebrating, the House adjourned after inadvertently sending the resolution to the President, who happily signed it on February 1. He was untroubled when senators pointed out that, according to a Supreme Court decision of 1798, presidential approval was not required for constitutional amendments. He was convinced that, with or without his signature, the Thirteenth Amendment would root out “the original disturbing cause” of the rebellion and would fully settle all questions about the legal validity of the Emancipation Proclamation. Finally the country had “a King’s cure for all the evils.”
Source: David Herbert Donald, Lincoln, pp. 553 – 554
Seems as clear as daylight to me. 😮
I’d say if what Bacque says is true then like most of his readers I have to say his estimate of 1 million dead is most likely very skewered and his estimates of death rates are a tangled mess. Not to say he’s completely wrong or his critics as well.
As for other books on Allied Occupied atrocities there’s his other book:
Good! Sutton is labeled by many a conspiracy theorist and nutjob, but I’ve never seen actual refutation of his work which made me curious. He seems to be hated for stating uncomfortable truths which, made me all the more interested in his work.November 9, 2012 at 4:07 pm in reply to: The Founders Weren't Isolationists Nor Libertarians #14930
Funny, I’ve also been reading articles about the Founding Fathers overseas abroad action.
This one claims that we intervened in 60 times between 1783-1860: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/06/in-the-service-of-liberty-understanding-american-military-actions-abroad-1783-1860/
This one states that non-interventionist is not what the Founding Fathers meant by their policy: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/20/the-founders-on-intervention-american-military-action-abroad-1783-1860/
This one discusses the Barbary Pirate episode: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/13/the-founders-on-a-standing-navy-american-military-action-abroad-1783-1860/
About the use of force abroad: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/17/the-founders-on-war-peace/
This one has to be the worst though. Right out deceptive charts in the beginning show apparently, how ‘little’ we’re spending on defense spending now compared to the first 70 years of the Republic. Ridiculous.
Thankfully, even some the comments call the article out on its BS.
I do also remembering reading that Hitler almost want to provoke war in 1938 by invading Czechoslovakia which the way I see it does put a dent that Hitler was looking for peace theory. I think the operation was called Fall Grün. Granted, to be fair I don’t know many sources exist for the plan, but it from the sound of it seemed like a very offensive plan from the start.
There’s this piece on Ike!
I’m surprised there hasn’t been a more comprehensive critical look on him like other Republican Presidents like Bush and Nixon.
As far as WW2 revisionist books go I know off:
President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: Appearances and Realities by Charles A. Bread
The New Dealers’ War: FDR And The War Within World War II by Thomas Fleming
Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 by Charles Tansill
America’s Second Crusade by William Chamberlin
If you’re also interested in the British side:
Desperate Deception: British Convert Operations in the United States, 1939-1944 by Thomas E. Mahl
Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick J. Buchanan (I’d say to confront this one with caution.)
Dere you go! If this is what you’re specifically looking for!
Thank you! I’ll check all recommendations out when time permits! I figured some work must have existed about it, but it seemed pretty obscured.
Well, this is basically like choosing between Hitler and Stalin. Both are terrible, both are going to bring the country down even farther, both are pro-war, both advocate unsound economic policies, and both are puppets.
I’ve tempted to have hope Obama would win this election just for the faint hope that atleast capitalism wouldn’t be blamed if the downturn gets worse and maybe Obama’s socialism as, some have stated. Then, I realized it doesn’t matter whoever wins! Unless, it’s Ron Paul…no doubt the Free Market will be blamed whatever if it’s a Democrat or Republican in office.
The lesser of the two evils is still evil anyway…….