tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18105492.post3300786473284602211..comments2023-03-17T07:18:49.868-04:00Comments on Issues & Views - The Blog: Wrecking what was left of the WestElizabeth Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06957503056880341197noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18105492.post-20018082182126325082009-09-13T03:21:36.164-04:002009-09-13T03:21:36.164-04:00"... Concerning your remark about "revis..."... Concerning your remark about "revisionist history," to me, revisionist history is simply the act of "doing history." As time passes, new research is unearthed and the historian either adds new data or revises old data. Since no history is ever permanently "done," historians continually "do history. ..."<br /><br />Thank you so much for pointing out the Soviet-style hysterics some people go into when anyone dares to merely, and intelligently, question the officialista 'party line'!<br /><br />Isn't that what we Americans have always prided ourselves on, our ability and respect for open inquiry and discussion; and conversely, looked down upon other regimes that engaged in this type of thought censorship?<br /><br />You are a Godsend, Elizabeth.Langobardhttp://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18105492.post-6438358648208965972009-09-12T03:25:53.376-04:002009-09-12T03:25:53.376-04:00There really is no "eery silence," since...There really is no "eery silence," since Buchanan has written about the Pacific in other works. He (along with others), explains the eventual war with Japan in this way: When Britain, very reluctantly, capitulated to U.S. demands to put an end to its 20-year treaty with Japan, this insulted, isolated and enraged Japanese leaders. Remember, Japan had been a faithful ally to Britain in WWI, and was credited with making much of British success possible.<br /><br />This termination of the treaty, apparently, turned Japan into an isolated, pariah nation, which led directly to its beefed up militarism. Those Brits who wanted to see a renewal of the Anglo-Japanese treaty rightfully feared that the humiliated Japan might lend its services to either Germany or the Soviet Union. <br /><br />When Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria, Britain (along with the impotent League of Nations) condemned the action, making itself a real enemy of Japan and, by extension, an enemy of Britain's U.S. ally. Now Britain's leaders began to regret the folly of throwing over Japan. Like the other WWI winners, Japan had been dealt some booty under the Versailles Treaty, but attempts were made to keep Japan from acquiring part of said booty, that is, Shantung. <br /><br />In 1937, Japan invaded and finally controlled the coastal cities of China, and then moved onward into northern French Indochina, and then into southern Indochina. At this point, Roosevelt ordered all Japanese assets frozen. His administration also drew up sanctions to block Japan from buying U.S. oil. <br /><br />The Japanese Prime Minister (the one prior to Tojo), instead of being belligerent, offered to meet with FDR. The U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, claimed that Japan was willing to give up Indochina, except for a buffer region as protection from Stalin, if the U.S. would end the oil embargo. Grew said that Japan was ready to give the orders for retreat. FDR said No.<br /><br />Japan then decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies, but the one obstacle to this plan was the U.S. naval fleet in Honolulu. Well, as we all know, the rest is, indeed, history. Buchanan makes the point that had FDR met with the Japanese Prime Minister, there might have been no Pearl Harbor and no Pacific war, which means there would also have been no Korea and no Vietnam.<br /><br />Buchanan does not seem to be among those who believe that Roosevelt had fore-knowledge of the coming attack, because the Japanese naval codes were intercepted, decoded, and translated into English by U.S. naval cryptographers prior to Pearl Harbor. According to this story, Roosevelt's motives for playing with a couple of thousand sailors' lives, was due to the fact that most Americans did not want to enter Europe's war. Knowing this, FDR is said to have cynically decided to induce an overt action against the U.S. by Japan, a member of the evil, hated Axis powers. This, he surmised, would inspire the masses to want war.<br /><br />Concerning your remark about "revisionist history," to me, revisionist history is simply the act of "doing history." As time passes, new research is unearthed and the historian either adds new data or revises old data. Since no history is ever permanently "done," historians continually "do history."<br /><br />Of course, if that federal "hate crime" bill is passed, historians here in the U.S. will be as restricted from revising certain history (especially about WWII) as they are restricted in Europe and Australia and, until recently, Canada. Buchanan could end up legally prosecuted and imprisoned for his "revisionist" histories. Already the forces that be managed to get his recent column re the above subject taken off the MSNBC website.Elizabeth Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06957503056880341197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18105492.post-82291996521292064522009-09-11T14:37:37.078-04:002009-09-11T14:37:37.078-04:00Would Pearl Harbor still have taken place? Pat Buc...Would Pearl Harbor still have taken place? Pat Buchanan focuses on Europe, but an eery silence regarding the Pacific. What's to prove that Hitler would have been just satisfied with conquering Russia? One has to be leery of "revisionist history."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com