I watched the History Channel one hour show on what the Japanese Army did to prisoners and civilians of Nanking after taking the city in 1937. I had heard about this atrocity of coarse, but after watching actual Japanese films of their murderous rampage in Nanking even i was shocked. Iris Chang wrote a book called the Rape of Nanking and she narrated much of the show. Over 300,000 men women and children were murdered and raped by the Japanese Army :half of the city population. But 300,000 were saved by the foreign officIALS in a safe area and a German by the name of Robbe even told Hitler about it! it is claimed that this incident was the most brutal in the pre wAR and war period. The Japanese government ,like on all the other atocities its military committed in WWII, has never apoligized,paid any reparations, and even has shrines in its temples to some of these war criminals. The German people are reminded of the holocaust and admit to what happened in WWII,but the Japanese govenment and most of its people deny all of these atrocities. The Japanese Army commander of the area,who wasnt there when the atrocity occured was hung,but the Imperial Prince who was in charge of the destruction of the city was never tried. THe Emperor knew of the massacre,but we all know he was never tried for anything. Something isnt right and it looks like politics won the day. By the way, the Aussies and Brits wanted to try Hirohito as a war crimminal ,but good old Uncle Sam refused. Japan owes China, and the Allies reparations for all its crimes from WWII. Germany paid ,why not Japan?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rape Of Nanking: Japan has never even apologized
- Thread starter Ivan8883
- Start date
Do you think the politicians would have the nuts to force reparations after we dropped the big ones on them?
Apperently you're not up on your revisionist history. We owe them reparations and apologies. (sarcasm)
------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
Apperently you're not up on your revisionist history. We owe them reparations and apologies. (sarcasm)
------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
Ivan, I saw it also. Absolutely incredible!! At one time I thought how awful it was that the Japanese endured the two atomic bomb strikes. I am not one of a cold heart. I care about the suffering of the human race. But after witnessing The Rape, I feel no remorse for the butchers and their countrymen. They deserved the mushroom clouds. Ken
The field commander who actually led the troops, one Col Ichiki, got his trial on Guadalcanal courtesy of the U S Marines, all of his troops also died in the battle.
There were plenty of incidents throughout the war that the Japanese were never held accountable for. The murder of US POW's from Wake Island aboard the ship carrying them to japan is one such incident. The Japanese officer responsible for beheading the prisoners was never tried and rose to a high position in one of the Auto companies.
I believe that Douglas MacArthur stopped the proposed trials against the wishes of our allies.
Geoff Ross
There were plenty of incidents throughout the war that the Japanese were never held accountable for. The murder of US POW's from Wake Island aboard the ship carrying them to japan is one such incident. The Japanese officer responsible for beheading the prisoners was never tried and rose to a high position in one of the Auto companies.
I believe that Douglas MacArthur stopped the proposed trials against the wishes of our allies.
Geoff Ross
Deanf, here Uncle Scam detains in prison camps the Japanese Americans who lose their businesses and farms and on the other hand,after fighting a bloody war with Japan, allows most of their war crimminals to walk free over the oposition of our Allies. The man who ran the camp in Manchuria where many ,including Americans, were experimented on, ended up in the pay of Uncle Scam. Fredrick Douglas, in his 3 volume book, "Heinrick Muller,Gestapo Chief, points out that Muller,who later worked for our CIA,told him that the Germans could listen in to FDR and Churchills phone conversations. CHurchill warned FDR that the Japanese Fleet was heading towards Pearl Harbor. FDR of, coarse got upset ,but calmed down when Churchill told him to let them attack. The rest is history. And we (taxpayers) have a monument to FDR and Churchill is considered some kind of hero by the uninformed masses. I am digressing a bit but the point is that money talks and wars make money and,yes, there will no justice for Nanking victims or OUR victims of WWII from Pearl Harbor to the experiment camps in North Manchuria. David Irving, the British writer, has done a excellent job of exposing Churchill for the warmonger he was in his 2 volume book, "Churchills War." I think if the masses in England and America had really know what scoundrels FDR and Churchill were, there may have been war crime trials ahead of time!
------------------
------------------
I think we should stop trying to Civilize War. A War is a terible thing, unforgiving and savage, as it should be. By making War more civil and humane, you take away the main deterant to having one. The more you civilize War, the less you fear having one. Every country should fear war and the atrocities it brings. Don't get me wrong, there is a time and place when you must kick ass and take names, but you must realize that by entering into this arena you have but one goal, To Win. Just like in a dark alley, there is no such thing as a fair fight. You must be willing to do what it takes to reach your goal. When you are confronted with battle, you must have already made up your mind as to what you are willing to do to survive. You may find that you are capable of inflicting harm you'd never have imagined, when it comes down to you or him.
Chuck
Chuck
I heard on the G gordon liddy show today that the japanese were willing to sue for peace but that it was mistranslated by their people and we went ahead and bombed em, and saved countless lives.......on the same show he spoke of americans capturing Japanese in the phillipines and digging a trench and staking there feet at the bottom and filling it up with cement, the cement would crush the bodies as it dried, and they let the women have at the exposed heads.......like chuck said war is a terrible thing ....fubsy.
rabbit assassin
Moderator
I think the difference between the japanese and other countries is they wont admit they were wrong. They don't teach of the hundreds of thousands of forced Asian workers who died and thousands of Australians an other Allies as well on the Changi railiway and manyother Japanese POW camp. The current generation of Japanese are growing up not knowing about their past. It isn't allowed to be taught in schools.
If you want to see an ok movie about how the Japanese treated prisoners watch Blood Oath on video, it also shows how the allies let many Japanese go.
The Japanese worry me, unlike the Germans they don't admit the wrong they did, they aren't learning from the past and may well be condemned to repeating it.
I have a cousin who married a Japanese woman, I have nothing aginst the current generation its the past ones that were at fault.
------------------
New FREE Gun Auctions at http://www.gun-center.com/auctions.html
If you want to see an ok movie about how the Japanese treated prisoners watch Blood Oath on video, it also shows how the allies let many Japanese go.
The Japanese worry me, unlike the Germans they don't admit the wrong they did, they aren't learning from the past and may well be condemned to repeating it.
I have a cousin who married a Japanese woman, I have nothing aginst the current generation its the past ones that were at fault.
------------------
New FREE Gun Auctions at http://www.gun-center.com/auctions.html
LightningLink
New member
While we're at atrocities committed by nations, let's not forget what our dear America did to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Native Indians.
Don't get me wrong, I love my country and I'm proud of the democratic and industrial achievements made through the centuries. But, we are not without our own black marks in history.
But, as others have stated, the Japanese simply refuse to admit it even happened. And worse, they worship the perpetrators as national heroes. At least your average American would recognize that what we did was wrong.
LL
Don't get me wrong, I love my country and I'm proud of the democratic and industrial achievements made through the centuries. But, we are not without our own black marks in history.
But, as others have stated, the Japanese simply refuse to admit it even happened. And worse, they worship the perpetrators as national heroes. At least your average American would recognize that what we did was wrong.
LL
I happened to know one of the American special prosecutors appointed by President Truman to the Far East War Crimes Trials (the Tokyo Trials). Part of the preparation for his role as prosecutor was to research the Japanese atrocities in China. Until the end of his life, nearly fifty years later, he was never able to forget what the Japanese did in China or to forgive them for it. He was outraged by historical revisionists and especially American self-flagellants who've called into question the legality and sentencing of the Tokyo Trials. If anything, he felt that the Japanese got off far too easily. Considering Japanese conduct in Nanking and other unspeakable atrocities like those committed by Unit 731, he may very well have been right.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited August 25, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited August 25, 1999).]
RepublicThunderbolt
New member
Not to excuse the Japanese, who were happy to commit atrocities against the gaijin, but American history isn't exactly bereft of similar incidents. I was watching "Crucible of Empire" on PBS last night, and they mentioned something I hadn't heard before. It seem that after the Spanish-American War, the American general commanding our forces fighting the insurrection in the Philippines ordered the execution of all persons old enough to be combatants on Samar. When asked what age that would be, the general replied "ten".
As an American of Chinese ancestry I can tell you that I've heard enough information on this topic. My mom was about 4 when she had fled to Hong Kong to escape Japanese internment. My grandfather did not escape. His property and belonging was seized and obviously kept by the Japanese army.
It is believed that the number of Chinese (mostly civilians) killed in concentration camps probably came close to the number of Jewish victims of Nazi death camps.
Of course the American press doesn't really care as there is no stake in not making this kind of information available to anyone who wants to know about history.
I have grandaunts and uncles whose memories of these atrocities will never be lost. I don't think their testimonies hold any less weight the the survivors of Nazi death camp survivors.
It's amazing how the Hollywood types who love to say "never again" don't even mention this bit of history from WWII.
It is believed that the number of Chinese (mostly civilians) killed in concentration camps probably came close to the number of Jewish victims of Nazi death camps.
Of course the American press doesn't really care as there is no stake in not making this kind of information available to anyone who wants to know about history.
I have grandaunts and uncles whose memories of these atrocities will never be lost. I don't think their testimonies hold any less weight the the survivors of Nazi death camp survivors.
It's amazing how the Hollywood types who love to say "never again" don't even mention this bit of history from WWII.
Danger Dave
New member
In school, the Japanese are only taught about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They aren't taught about their aggression against the rest of Asia in their drive to form the "Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", or even that they attacked us first. They're only taught that the US nuked them. Yes, it was horrific, but I've never heard anyone of the "we shouldn't have A-bombed them" school of thought say that they thought the Japanese wouldn't have A-bombed us if they developed it first. We were at war, after all.
I lost 1 uncle to a Japanese sniper on Iwo, weeks after the fighting was over. I have another who was still fighting the Japanese in the Philipines in 1946 - 6 months after the surrender! They were perfectly willing to sacrifice their lives just to slow down the American advance or take an American life after the battle was over - how could we expect them to surrender? From the perspective of the military, it must have looked like annihilation was the only way to win.
Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were beginning preparations for an assault on Japan (they had already fought the Japanese in Korea). Ask an old Berliner about the "kindness" of a conquering Soviet army. They could be every bit as brutal as the Japanese, if they were left unleashed.
BTW, I don't think the A-bomb was any worse than the bombing of Dresden, and that was done with conventional bombs. And more lives were lost in the fire-bombing of Tokyo than in the A-bomb attacks.
If the Japanese view of war is so different from ours, why is it so unacceptable for them to teach about the crimes of their army? I mean, if Nanking was a crime in their view, why not admit it? Or do they believe they did nothing wrong? And, if their view is so different, what is their problem with us using the atomic bombs on them? It's all warfare, right? If they did nothing wrong at Nanking, how can they consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be unjust? It just sounds like the old victimizer claiming to be the victim to me.
I remember seeing riots in Korea a few years ago. It seems a Japanese ambassador referred to the invasion of Korea as a "friendly annexation." The film was kind of funny - lots of Koreans standing outside the Japanese embassy yelling, then an elderly gentlemen stepped up to the police line and threw a rock at the building. You could see the police (S. Korean police have plenty of experience in riot-control) smiling and saying something to him. I always figured it was something like "Now sir, you can't be throwing rocks at the embassy. There's a bunch of bricks over there..."
Would the Japanese have A-bombed us? Some historians are claiming they were probably 6-12 months from developing their own from research done mostly in Korea.
"It's foolish to die with a sword still in it's sheath." - Miyamoto Musashi, A Book of Five Rings (paraphrased - I don't have the book handy)
Ivan: I wouldn’t believe too much of what David Irving says. The man is a Nazi and much of his writing is done to defend Nazism and the Third Reich. I am saying this from personal experience – I have met him & heard him speak. He is full of talk about the “international Jewish conspiracy” and how Hitler never knew about the Holocaust, and it couldn’t have been six million, and there really weren’t gas chambers, etc. When I met him, he brought 2 people with him – a reporter friend recognized them as leaders of the KKK (he had interviewed one of them before). An Englishman who’s been kicked out of Canada for espousing his racist philosophy, and has spoken at Neo-Nazi rallies in Germany and shows up with two Georgia KKK leaders talking about an international Jewish conspiracy – the irony almost made me laugh. Before he started speaking, Irving said that there had been protestors last time he had spoken (at Berkley, I think) & that the protestors consisted of “Jews and lesbians – you know, scum.” His words. Just wanted you to know the facts about this “historian”. You’d be better served reading William Manchester (I recommend “The Arms of Krupp”) or Stephen Ambrose.
I lost 1 uncle to a Japanese sniper on Iwo, weeks after the fighting was over. I have another who was still fighting the Japanese in the Philipines in 1946 - 6 months after the surrender! They were perfectly willing to sacrifice their lives just to slow down the American advance or take an American life after the battle was over - how could we expect them to surrender? From the perspective of the military, it must have looked like annihilation was the only way to win.
Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were beginning preparations for an assault on Japan (they had already fought the Japanese in Korea). Ask an old Berliner about the "kindness" of a conquering Soviet army. They could be every bit as brutal as the Japanese, if they were left unleashed.
BTW, I don't think the A-bomb was any worse than the bombing of Dresden, and that was done with conventional bombs. And more lives were lost in the fire-bombing of Tokyo than in the A-bomb attacks.
If the Japanese view of war is so different from ours, why is it so unacceptable for them to teach about the crimes of their army? I mean, if Nanking was a crime in their view, why not admit it? Or do they believe they did nothing wrong? And, if their view is so different, what is their problem with us using the atomic bombs on them? It's all warfare, right? If they did nothing wrong at Nanking, how can they consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be unjust? It just sounds like the old victimizer claiming to be the victim to me.
I remember seeing riots in Korea a few years ago. It seems a Japanese ambassador referred to the invasion of Korea as a "friendly annexation." The film was kind of funny - lots of Koreans standing outside the Japanese embassy yelling, then an elderly gentlemen stepped up to the police line and threw a rock at the building. You could see the police (S. Korean police have plenty of experience in riot-control) smiling and saying something to him. I always figured it was something like "Now sir, you can't be throwing rocks at the embassy. There's a bunch of bricks over there..."
Would the Japanese have A-bombed us? Some historians are claiming they were probably 6-12 months from developing their own from research done mostly in Korea.
"It's foolish to die with a sword still in it's sheath." - Miyamoto Musashi, A Book of Five Rings (paraphrased - I don't have the book handy)
Ivan: I wouldn’t believe too much of what David Irving says. The man is a Nazi and much of his writing is done to defend Nazism and the Third Reich. I am saying this from personal experience – I have met him & heard him speak. He is full of talk about the “international Jewish conspiracy” and how Hitler never knew about the Holocaust, and it couldn’t have been six million, and there really weren’t gas chambers, etc. When I met him, he brought 2 people with him – a reporter friend recognized them as leaders of the KKK (he had interviewed one of them before). An Englishman who’s been kicked out of Canada for espousing his racist philosophy, and has spoken at Neo-Nazi rallies in Germany and shows up with two Georgia KKK leaders talking about an international Jewish conspiracy – the irony almost made me laugh. Before he started speaking, Irving said that there had been protestors last time he had spoken (at Berkley, I think) & that the protestors consisted of “Jews and lesbians – you know, scum.” His words. Just wanted you to know the facts about this “historian”. You’d be better served reading William Manchester (I recommend “The Arms of Krupp”) or Stephen Ambrose.
The Chinese have never forgotten about the Rape of Nanking.
The Allies looked the other way because of the growing menace of communism and thus a defeat enemy who was an ally, despite their past crimes, was better than a present threat. Accordingly, a lot of criminals were left unpunished and very few Japanese, including an Imperial Prince, were ever called to account for themselves.
The Chinese consider it a "second rape" when China and Japan formalized relations. While the Communist Govt. have prodded the Japanese for an apology, it hasn't really pressed the issue. The few Japanese who have come forward and admitted their crimes live in fear of death from the right wing Japanese.
What irks me is that unlike the Germans, who were constantly reminded by the Jews and have apologized and paid reparations, the Japanese refuse to acknowledge their crime. When talk of allowing Japanese rearmament arises, it becomes unconscionable in light of the historical abuses which are not redressed. If Japan needs defending, let us do it the old Athenian way: We maintain a fleet and they pick up the entire tab (including retirement). The Athenians did this and when a city wanted to withdraw, the Athenians threatened invasion (which they did). Most "tribute" cities paid.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
The Allies looked the other way because of the growing menace of communism and thus a defeat enemy who was an ally, despite their past crimes, was better than a present threat. Accordingly, a lot of criminals were left unpunished and very few Japanese, including an Imperial Prince, were ever called to account for themselves.
The Chinese consider it a "second rape" when China and Japan formalized relations. While the Communist Govt. have prodded the Japanese for an apology, it hasn't really pressed the issue. The few Japanese who have come forward and admitted their crimes live in fear of death from the right wing Japanese.
What irks me is that unlike the Germans, who were constantly reminded by the Jews and have apologized and paid reparations, the Japanese refuse to acknowledge their crime. When talk of allowing Japanese rearmament arises, it becomes unconscionable in light of the historical abuses which are not redressed. If Japan needs defending, let us do it the old Athenian way: We maintain a fleet and they pick up the entire tab (including retirement). The Athenians did this and when a city wanted to withdraw, the Athenians threatened invasion (which they did). Most "tribute" cities paid.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Danger Dave, that is very interesting in formation about David Irving. Like I said, I read his 2 volume set on Churchill and WWII. Of coarse, he was blasting Churchill from the getgo. Did you read the 2 books? His evidence did seem to be pretty strong that Hitler wanted peace with THe Empire and many British leaders also wanted to end the war after Dunkirk. Churchill hated Hitler, and yes, he keep England in the war. But the English people, especially the civilians, really suffered during the war, Churchill sold most of Englands gold to America, and at the end of the war, England was finished as a major nation. After reading Douglas book on Heinrich Muller, the Gestapo chief, it seems Churchill and FDR allowed the Japanese Fleet to attack Pearl Harbor. This fact,if true, really puts Churchill in a bad light. Heinrich Muller, after the War, had no reason to lie and in fact spent a lot of years working for our CIA! Muller, in Douglas 3 volume set, talked about a whole lot of subjects which included the infamous Holocaust. Muller claimed the numbers that died was less than a half million and most die of disease. Here it looks like he is covering his rear although he comes up with a bunch of statistics. What is the truth? The truth that the US goVt. had both ex Nazis like Muller and ex Japanese killers both working for us for many years after the war ended. And WWII was fought for some lofty ideals? It is begining to come out finally that the big boys made out good and countless millions died on all sides in another round of power politics. The poor people of Nanking are like our men killed at Pearl Harbor.Nanking should never have happened and Pearl Harbor likewise shouldnt have happened.
Danger Dave
New member
I don't know if Churchill and/or FDR knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor - there's not enough evidence to prove it. I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that they knew it might happen, though. I believe Billy Mitchell (I think it was him, anyway) predicted it in the 20's. BTW, what would have been the alternative to Pearl Harbor?
As far as that goes, think about this: You're the leader of a powerful nation, facing two other powerful nations who are far more prepared for war than you. Your allies have surrendered their countries, and generally proven themselves unwilling to fight. You are offered a peace treaty with a man who is an absolute ruler in his country and has broken every peace treaty he ever signed. Do you negotiate, allowing him to take the next move at the time & place of his choosing, or do you resolve to stand your ground? Additionally, althogh they're not directly involved, you have two potential allies - one is on very friendly terms and is already assisting you through the loan of war materials, and your enemy has pledged to destroy the other (although you're not on friendly terms with them). But, as of now, neither is involved. Would you try to get them into the fight, or would you choose to risk it all and fight alone?
After hearing him speak, I won't read another of Irving's books. The man is full of hate, and I will not support that by spending my money to support him. Hate obscures fact, and I believe he has lost touch with truth. Interestingly, he has done some quite good historical work (earlier in his career) on the Dresden bombing and Germany's atomic program, although he left out that Dresden was the German communication center for the war on the Eastern front - a military target. That, and he is one the two people in the world that can read Goebbel's handwriting.
BTW, remember the so-called "Hitler Diaries" that appeared a few years ago? The fake ones? Guess which author told the British press about their "existence" - Irving. Please, do some research on this guy. Just because it gets published and it sounds good doesn't mean it's not crap!
So, my Jewish friend's family who all disappeared during the war - disease? All the people who were hauled off to camps and lived to tell their stories - lying? All the US, British, Soviet, French, and Germans (yes, there have been a few) who told what they saw - hallucinating? All the films espousing euthanasia for the insane and mentally retarded made by the Third Reich - fiction? All the plans for designing concentration camps, including clearly marked gas chambers and crematoriums(surfaced in Moscow archives) - fabrications? The near eradication of the Roma, the persecution of homosexuals - exaggerations? The facts are out there. There may be a dispute about the numbers (6,000,000 or 2,000,000 or even 12,000,000) but don't believe Muller either - he had to make his part seem not so bad, and if he admitted it, he would make the US look bad for wanting him! About 90% of the Jews living in Poland were nowhere to be found after the war. If they died of disease, what is this peculiar Jewish disease that's deadlier than the plague (no one else got it)?
Please, ask some questions out there. If the holocaust is a fake, what purpose would it serve and how would they get so many people who had never seen each other to collaborate their stories, when they didn't even speak the same languages?
Yes, England may have lost the Empire, but she survived intact and unconquered. France, Germany, Poland, Japan, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Norway, and Belgium (and more) can't say that.
As far as that goes, think about this: You're the leader of a powerful nation, facing two other powerful nations who are far more prepared for war than you. Your allies have surrendered their countries, and generally proven themselves unwilling to fight. You are offered a peace treaty with a man who is an absolute ruler in his country and has broken every peace treaty he ever signed. Do you negotiate, allowing him to take the next move at the time & place of his choosing, or do you resolve to stand your ground? Additionally, althogh they're not directly involved, you have two potential allies - one is on very friendly terms and is already assisting you through the loan of war materials, and your enemy has pledged to destroy the other (although you're not on friendly terms with them). But, as of now, neither is involved. Would you try to get them into the fight, or would you choose to risk it all and fight alone?
After hearing him speak, I won't read another of Irving's books. The man is full of hate, and I will not support that by spending my money to support him. Hate obscures fact, and I believe he has lost touch with truth. Interestingly, he has done some quite good historical work (earlier in his career) on the Dresden bombing and Germany's atomic program, although he left out that Dresden was the German communication center for the war on the Eastern front - a military target. That, and he is one the two people in the world that can read Goebbel's handwriting.
BTW, remember the so-called "Hitler Diaries" that appeared a few years ago? The fake ones? Guess which author told the British press about their "existence" - Irving. Please, do some research on this guy. Just because it gets published and it sounds good doesn't mean it's not crap!
So, my Jewish friend's family who all disappeared during the war - disease? All the people who were hauled off to camps and lived to tell their stories - lying? All the US, British, Soviet, French, and Germans (yes, there have been a few) who told what they saw - hallucinating? All the films espousing euthanasia for the insane and mentally retarded made by the Third Reich - fiction? All the plans for designing concentration camps, including clearly marked gas chambers and crematoriums(surfaced in Moscow archives) - fabrications? The near eradication of the Roma, the persecution of homosexuals - exaggerations? The facts are out there. There may be a dispute about the numbers (6,000,000 or 2,000,000 or even 12,000,000) but don't believe Muller either - he had to make his part seem not so bad, and if he admitted it, he would make the US look bad for wanting him! About 90% of the Jews living in Poland were nowhere to be found after the war. If they died of disease, what is this peculiar Jewish disease that's deadlier than the plague (no one else got it)?
Please, ask some questions out there. If the holocaust is a fake, what purpose would it serve and how would they get so many people who had never seen each other to collaborate their stories, when they didn't even speak the same languages?
Yes, England may have lost the Empire, but she survived intact and unconquered. France, Germany, Poland, Japan, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Norway, and Belgium (and more) can't say that.
Ivan8883; I haven't read Irving's books (nor am I likely to do so, given Danger Dave's intel), but there are some points that need addressing;
* England's economy was dying before Hitler invaded Poland. their economic troubles were due to the unraveling of their empire, the inherent inefficiency of their capital system, their continual fixation with class structure and class consciousness, and an education system completely incapable of serving an industrial economy. gifts of war materiel from the US to England were far in excess of any gold transferred.
* concerning PH, its very likely that *some* American military and intelligence folks knew something, but did FDR? given the way information travels in the gov't (and I work in the federal government environment), I believe the problem was due to incompetence rather than malice. also, you have to recall that FDR was a Navy proponent from the start; if he were to sacrifice American units, it would have been Army or Marines.
* when judging Churchill, or for that matter any head of state that has the parliamentary system of government, you have to realize that they are limited in their actions; the head of state rules by consensus, and can be fired at any time. the prime minister is chosen by the majority party, and they can replace him whenever they want to.
* nazi Germany and England would have gotten into it sooner or later. the nazis needed continual expansion to provide raw materials, slave labor, and infrastructure to support their inefficient war economy. sooner or later, Germany would have needed something that Britain had (tin, or coal, or who-knows-what). so for Churchill, the question was not if but when. which puts him into the situation of trying to determine the best time to strike. early entry forced FDR to choose sides early, which of course brought the US into the European conflict sooner.
* England's economy was dying before Hitler invaded Poland. their economic troubles were due to the unraveling of their empire, the inherent inefficiency of their capital system, their continual fixation with class structure and class consciousness, and an education system completely incapable of serving an industrial economy. gifts of war materiel from the US to England were far in excess of any gold transferred.
* concerning PH, its very likely that *some* American military and intelligence folks knew something, but did FDR? given the way information travels in the gov't (and I work in the federal government environment), I believe the problem was due to incompetence rather than malice. also, you have to recall that FDR was a Navy proponent from the start; if he were to sacrifice American units, it would have been Army or Marines.
* when judging Churchill, or for that matter any head of state that has the parliamentary system of government, you have to realize that they are limited in their actions; the head of state rules by consensus, and can be fired at any time. the prime minister is chosen by the majority party, and they can replace him whenever they want to.
* nazi Germany and England would have gotten into it sooner or later. the nazis needed continual expansion to provide raw materials, slave labor, and infrastructure to support their inefficient war economy. sooner or later, Germany would have needed something that Britain had (tin, or coal, or who-knows-what). so for Churchill, the question was not if but when. which puts him into the situation of trying to determine the best time to strike. early entry forced FDR to choose sides early, which of course brought the US into the European conflict sooner.