American Monster: Chris Kyle, the American Sniper
Are Americans who lap up Chris Kyle’s blood-specked vomit suffering from hybristophilia—groupie-like fanboy adulation of psychopathic serial killers? Danish author and criminologist Soren Korsgaard has edited the peer-reviewed criminology journal Radians and Inches: The Journal of Crime. and currently posts at CrimeAndPower.com. I recently interviewed him about this article. — Kevin Barrett
By Soren Korsgaard | Veterans Today
When one delves into the subject of perpetrators of extreme violence, it is very rare for experts and writers to discuss legalized killers, much less study them; instead, they take aim at politically neutral cases, that being non-legalized killers, and consequently the literature in this regard has been based on an incomplete spectrum.
If researchers were able to bypass political undertones and the complexities involved with determining which legalized killers to include and which to discard in their analyses, they would quickly be able to establish that one of the most remorseless and prolific US serial killers of all time is neither named John Wayne Gacy nor Gary Ridgway but Christopher Scott Kyle, the American Sniper.
Chris Kyle, who has been branded an “American Hero [1],” never expressed any regrets for his many victims but stated that he wished he could have murdered more. Even Ted Bundy, who murdered dozens of women and occasionally indulged in necrophilia and decapitations, expressed that he deeply regretted his actions and reckoned that society deserved to be protected from him.
Chris Kyle was a United States Navy SEAL sniper and served several tours in the Iraq War. After his discharge from the U.S. Navy, he went on to publish his bestselling autobiography American Sniper in 2012 [2]. In his book, he claimed to be the most prolific sniper of all time, and it is generally agreed upon that he has killed more than 160 and possibly over 300 people, mostly Iraqis. After the publication of his book, he told the Sunday People that “There are no kills that I regret. None at all. The public is very soft. I either killed them, or they killed other Americans [3].”
In this article, we integrate the case into a broader framework that encompasses a discussion of the legal justification for the war. As we shall see, the Iraq War had been planned years in advance and violated international law. Killings committed during an illegal invasion are obviously illegal and this puts Chris Kyle‘s justification into a whole different perspective; that is, if the USA had never invaded Iraq, none of his colleagues would have ever been in any alleged danger.
From his own words, we will see that Kyle was able to kill like clockwork, without remorse, and even claimed to have continued to murder people when he returned from service. To gain a better comprehension of such behavior, his actions are analyzed from the perspective of psychiatry. This article furthermore analyses the possible root causes of why Kyle gained pervasive popularity and support despite information pertaining to his murders being in plain sight. It is argued that successfully implemented war propaganda and a disorder, known as hybristophilia, account for the observed behavior.
International Law and the Iraq War
In March 2003, just before the Iraq War commenced, a group of 31 Canadian professors of international law declared in an open letter that an attack on Iraq “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War [4].”
They furthermore condemned the scheduled war “in the strongest terms” and underlined that an invasion would have imperialist and colonial overtones: “Illegal action by the US and its allies would simply return us to an international order based on imperial ambition and coercive force [4].”
The group was backed by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva who expressed “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression [5].”
Under international law, a state is only allowed to use force against a sovereign nation if it has attacked first. Before any actions are undertaken, the consent of the United Nations Security Council is a necessity. The US never got the Security Council‘s approval for the Iraq War.
In 2002, well before the initiation of the war, a group of 317 law teachers from 87 law schools located in the US declared in an open statement that a war against Iraq would not only be a breach of international law, but also violate the American constitution; they, in the strongest terms, protested “the Bush administration‘s illegal plan to conduct a war against Iraq,” and argued that “President Bush maintains that Iraq‘s ‘decade of defiance‘ of United Nations resolutions justifies a war against Iraq. But the President ignores the fact that a US war, unleashed without the approval of the UN Security Council, against a country that has not attacked the United States, would itself be an unlawful act, in defiance of America‘s treaty obligations, and a violation of US and international law [6].”
Importantly, they also stated that “The dangerous path America is treading will only lead to more suffering by Americans, as well as by others. The international rule of law is not a soft luxury to be discarded whenever leaders find it convenient or popular to resort to savage violence. The international rule of law is a bulwark against the horrors of warfare that we Americans have so recently felt firsthand [6].”
They also made the essential historical reference which is that “every nation that has ever committed aggression against another claimed to be ‘defending‘ itself. The United States helped establish the United Nations precisely in order to impose the rule of law on such claims, to make it unlawful for nations to strike against others unless they were themselves under armed attack. The United States is not under armed attack by Iraq [6].”
In 2004, Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, spoke about the U.S. led invasion of Iraq:
“I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal [7].”
Kofi Annan‘s statement was echoed in a 2005 paper published in the British Journal of Criminology, professors Kramer and Michalowski, concluded that the “invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States and its allies is a violation of international law, and as such constitutes a state crime [8].”
Even UN‘s former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has stated that “all in all, we carried out about 700 inspections at different 500 sites and, in no case, did we find any weapons of mass destruction,” and “I am of the firm view that it was an illegal war [9].”
Former chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at the Nuremberg tribunal, Benjamin Ferencz, has declared that the Iraq War was illegal, and it constituted the “supreme international crime [10],” which was defined under the Nuremberg trials as a war of aggression without any justification. He has also stated, “Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder – that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you‘ve got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes [10].”
In a different interview, he briefly described the proceedings that led to the war:
“The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States, in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can‘t use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, ‘Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they’ve found – then we‘ll figure out what we‘re going to do.’ The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq – which was all prearranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter [11, 12].”
Even a political inquiry into the Iraq War has affirmed that it was illegal; the Dutch inquiry concluded, among others, that the “military action had no sound mandate in international law [13].” Philippe Sands QC, a professor of international law at University College London, who gave evidence to the inquiry, later told the media that:
“There has been no other independent assessment on the legality of the war in Iraq and the findings of this inquiry are unambiguous [13].”
The British inquiry into the war, which became known as the Chilcot Inquiry, concluded that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, military action was unnecessary, and it was also concluded that the UK government had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council [14].
Extensive evidence of systematic deception, fraud, manipulation, and criminality by the Bush administration was also put forth in the book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, by former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Bugliosi highlighted that Bush had warned in a speech on October 7, 2002, that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, capable of striking them at any time with weapons of mass destruction. However, Bush had, less than a week before the speech, received the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in which it was concluded by 16 US intelligence agencies that Iraq would only pose a threat if the US attacked it first, i.e. self-defense. When the Bush administration put out a declassified version of the NIE just before Congress were to vote on whether or not it authorized an invasion, the conclusion that Iraq was not an imminent threat was completely deleted from the document. Bugliosi also pointed his finger to the so-called Manning Memo that detailed how Bush had told Tony Blair about three possible ways for the US to provoke Saddam Hussein into a war. Bush elaborated on one of these provocations and stated that they could fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war [15]. If Bush honestly believed that Iraq was an imminent threat, the thought of provoking the country would never have entered his mind—the last person you want to provoke is the one you are deadly afraid of.
General Wesley Clark, a retired four-star general who was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War, revealed in 2007 that the Iraq War as well as several others had been planned years in advance. General Clark said:
“About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you‘ve got to come in and talk to me a second.’ … He says, ‘We‘ve made the decision we‘re going to war with Iraq.’ This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We‘re going to war with Iraq? Why?’ He said, ‘I don‘t know.’ He said, ‘I guess they don‘t know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He says, ‘There‘s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.’ …. So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said, ‘Oh, it‘s worse than that.’ He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, ‘I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defense‘s office — ‘today.’ And he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we‘re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran [16].’”
The illegality of the Iraq War has been thoroughly well documented, perhaps better than any other illegal war in history, but as it often is with state crimes: those who planned it and those who implemented the violence will rarely be held accountable.
Death Toll of the Iraq War
In addition to the killings carried out by Chris Kyle, the Iraqi people suffered greatly from the U.S. led war of aggression. Independent studies, such as those published in the Lancet, a top medical journal, have shown that hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of the war (first study covered the first 17 months of the war and found that 100,000 people had died due to the war. A follow up study from 2006 showed that the death toll had increased to 654,965) [17].
Subsequent to the publication of the 2006 study, “the war-declaring governments could not simply let these explosive figures go unchallenged [18],” and Bush and British prime-minister Blair immediately dismissed them as not credible, but in March 2007, BBC revealed that the British government‘s own scientists had confirmed the robustness and accuracy of the study. “The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to best practice in this area [18],” said chief scientific adviser of the Ministry of Defense, Sir Roy Anderson. Several scientists employed by the UK‘s Department for International Development even stated that “the Lancet study actually underestimated the mortality rates because of the methods it applied [18].”
Numerous other experts have confirmed that the reports are scientifically sound and provide the best data on the number of deaths. Shortly after the publication of the 2006 study, a large group of leading experts in medical epidemiology, population health, and biostatistics issued a statement which affirmed that the study was “valid and correct,” and “we can be confident that the excess deaths were above 390,000 and may in fact be as high as 940,000. The vast majority (92 per cent) of the excess deaths were due to direct violence. The cross-sectional household cluster sample survey method used is a standard, robust, well-established method for gathering health data [19].”
The independent Just Foreign Policy estimates that the current total death toll is approximately 1.5 million based upon extrapolation of the data from the Lancet studies [20].
In 2007 and 2008, the independent polling agency “Opinion Research Business” published two studies on the Iraq War mortality, and they ultimately estimated “that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been of the order of 1,033,000 [21].”
The Nobel Prize winning Physicians for Social Responsibility echoed these findings in 2015 when they released their detailed study in which they conservatively estimated that one million people had died due to the war. In their report, they furthermore scolded the often-cited Iraq Body Count Project (IBC) for grossly misrepresenting data and underestimating the actual death toll. [18]. An investigative report had furthermore exposed IBC as being “deeply embedded in the Western foreign policy establishment. IBC‘s key advisers and researchers have received direct and indirect funding from US government propaganda agencies and Pentagon contractors. It is no surprise, then, that IBC-affiliated scholars promote narratives of conflict that serve violent US client-regimes and promote NATO counter-insurgency doctrines [22].” Moreover, the investigative report concluded that “IBC has not only systematically underrepresented the Iraqi death toll, it has done so on the basis of demonstrably fraudulent attacks on standard scientific procedures. IBC affiliated scholars are actively applying sophisticated techniques of statistical manipulation to whitewash US complicity in violence… [22].”
Professor Gideon Polya, an expert in thanatology (the scientific study of the cause of death) and author of Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950, has estimated that the absolute Iraqi death toll of the war is in excess of 2.7 million. This figure encompasses 1.5 million who died as a result of violence and 1.2 million who died due to war-induced deprivation. The latter includes under-5 infant deaths of 0.6 million [23].
The Confessions
People ordered to kill by their governments or superiors, in particular soldiers, are not exempt from punishment by conveniently shifting the responsibility to their superiors if a moral choice was available. Such is explicitly declared by Nuremberg Principle IV, which states that “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him [24].” Chris Kyle ignored the Nuremberg Principles and the illegality of the war, and he asserted that his victims would have killed his colleagues if he had not acted first [3].
His arguments would, in all probability, have fallen short if he had been prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in Hague for war crimes. His charges may have included systematic extermination of Iraqis, i.e. crimes against humanity.
Judging from his own words, he enjoyed killing the Iraqi people as well as others. In his memoir, he described killing as “fun [2].” He also stated that “I never once fought for the Iraqis. I could give a flying fuck about them [2],” and “on the front of my arm, I had a crusader cross inked in. I wanted everyone to know I was a Christian. I had it put in in red, for blood. I hated the damn savages I‘d been fighting. I always will [2],” and remarked, “they‘ve taken so much from me [2].”
Later in the book, he reiterated his standpoint on the Iraqis:
“Savage, despicable evil. That‘s what we were fighting in Iraq. That‘s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages.’ There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there [2].”
Regarding how many people he had killed, he stated:
“People ask me all the time, ‘How many people have you killed?’ My standard response is, ‘Does the answer make me less, or more, of a man?’ The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more [2].” Kyle admitted, however, that “we were slaughtering the enemy … our kill total becoming astronomical…;” he also said: “It got to the point where I had so many kills that I stepped back to let the other guys have a few … Everyone I shot was evil. I had good cause on every shot. They all deserved to die [2].”
It is important to remember that Kyle murdered dozens of people in an illegal war, and he invariably pulled the trigger within seconds of an Iraqi coming into view of his rifle scope, hardly amounting to a fair and impartial trial. Furthermore, possible survivors and relatives have not been tracked down by the media and others, although a challenging task it would have been important in order to balance his account of events.
Despite the fact that Kyle had plenty of opportunity and incentive to embellish, omit, and distort the facts related to his killings, one gets the impression that sensory gratification frequently motivated him to kill, rather than alleged protection of fellow soldiers. In one of these incidents, Kyle, lying on a roof top, claimed to have observed a group of 16 armed men trying to pass a body of water, they had used beach balls to keep themselves afloat. He then allegedly shot the beach balls one by one and watched in enjoyment as the men kept fighting for their lives, several of them drowned. In his book, he uttered that “hell—it was a lot of fun [2].”
After many completed operations, he would smoke Cuban cigars with other military men.
Glorifying in Murder
The literature on non-legalized killers has shown that serial killers find it hard to stop killing. Apparently, the power associated with taking lives can result in a pathological addiction. Chris Kyle was no exception by his own admission. He has reportedly claimed that, upon his return from service, he teamed up with a friend and shot and murdered over 30 alleged looters after the ravages of Hurricane Katrina [25].
He also told Michael Mooney, a writer for D Magazine, that in 2009, he had murdered two alleged would-be carjackers, but Kyle was allegedly “released by police without questioning due to the intercession of the Department of Defense [26].” Mooney would later be unable to verify the story indicating it was a concoction, yet he would say this about Kyle: He was incredible and “he was a hero. He was the most celebrated war hero of our time,” and “people will tell stories about Chris Kyle for generations to come. Tales of his feats in battle, and of his antics and noble deeds, will probably swell [27].”
Many mainstream media outlets have promulgated the indefensible notion that Kyle was a noble man and a hero. For example, a CNN article about Kyle glorifies his actions and remarks that “he touched and inspired so many people [27].”
Having been branded an American hero, Hollywood, a couple of years after the publication of the autobiography, decided to release a film adaptation, titled after the book, American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood.
In a response to the movie‘s one-sided nature, Professor Chris Hedges stated that “American Sniper, like the big-budget feature films pumped out in Germany during the Nazi era to exalt deformed values of militarism, racial self-glorification and state violence, is a piece of propaganda, a tawdry commercial for the crimes of empire [28].”
Chris Kyle profited immensely from the movie and book, and he was the subject of numerous interviews on major news stations and on radio shows. He clearly relished getting national attention and being in the presence of actors and directors, including Clint Eastwood.
Fame and enjoyment would, nevertheless, soon come to an end. In a twist of irony, he was himself killed on a shooting range by an American who was reportedly suffering from war-induced post-traumatic-stress syndrome. His funeral procession stretched from Midlothian, Texas, to Austin. Thousands stood jammed together praising and praying for him as his coffin was escorted by dozens of buses, bikers, policemen, and others. People flocked to his funeral and thousands watched the memorial at the Cowboys Stadium. The minister said during the memorial:
“Chris would tell us if he was with us in person today, that we must love others and continue to do good [29].”
Clearly a large group had adopted a distorted view of Chris Kyle and his killings. Undoubtedly, many were persuaded by propaganda, which can be defined as misleading information presented as objective to influence and further an agenda, e.g. gain support for the Iraq War, construct an illusion about snipers being humanitarians, et cetera. However, while many may have adopted an uncritical fascination due to the highly subjective Clint Eastwood movie as well as propaganda from other sources, it is, nevertheless, evident that many had read his book and were apparently not appalled as indicated by a quick check on Amazon.com, which shows that Kyle‘s book has amassed over 15,000 reviews of which 89% are four- or five-star reviews. Across all formats, his book has sold millions of copies and made Kyle one of the most successful serial killers of all time in terms of profiting from his killings. It is perhaps revealing that a perusal of the negative reviews on Amazon.com indicates that many fault the book for poor writing rather than the immorality of murdering over 100 people in an illegal war.
One interpretation, other than successfully implemented war propaganda as a source of the manifest attraction to Chris Kyle, is that a large group became affected with a subset of a recently documented disorder, called hybristophilia. The attraction to serial killers and other violent predators is a well-documented phenomenon. Ted Bundy, one of the most savage and notorious women killers of the 1970s, married Carole Ann Boone and fathered a child while being behind bars. Richard Ramirez, a serial killer who indulged in pedophilia, rape, sadism, satanic rituals, and murder, received hundreds of fan-letters while on trial, and on death row he became married to Doreen Lioy.
Hybristophilia, which has not been researched well nor thoroughly defined via empirical studies, is a psychiatric disorder that addresses this obsession with people who have committed atrocities, such as rape, murder, and cannibalism. The affected will be infatuated and/or obsessed with the killer [30]. It has been proposed, thus far, that at least two subgroups exist, namely passive and aggressive hybristophiles, while those who suffer from the aggressive form will be propelled to assist with murders, the passive ones will instead be primarily physically and mentally attracted to those who commit vile acts [31].
At this point, it has been assumed that hybristophilia, for the most part, affects women; however, the Chris Kyle case indicates otherwise. Some researchers have theorized that perpetrators of extremely brutal crimes may convey an ultra-masculine image, and this image is ultimately what drives the hybristophiliac on an unconscious level. However, these theories remain untested empirically, and the causes remain unknown [32].
The pathological admiration and attraction to Chris Kyle are best exemplified by Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, who declared February 2 to be Chris Kyle Day in Texas, and by the pictures of thousands of people who mourned at his funeral procession, perhaps indicating a collective mental state of hybristophilia.
It has been argued that the central component of the disorder is the obsession or unhealthy attraction, while a secondary symptom may be rationalization of antisocial acts, which is the apparent tendency of the hybristophiliac to excuse the acts of the criminal whom they are infatuated with. Such rationalizations are evident in statements from journalists and people at his funeral procession who frequently referred to Kyle‘s acts as noble deeds or somehow else glorified them, entirely ignoring the moral and legal dilemmas.
An online search on YouTube and Google for “Chris Kyle Tribute” reveals dozens of tribute videos, songs, and other material dedicated to Kyle; very similar in content to what can easily be found glorifying non-legalized killers, especially school shooters and serial killers. For example, a Google search for “Ted Bundy Tribute” shows numerous videos dedicated to him, painting an image consistent with hybristophilia; one viewer commented, “R.I.P Teddy Bundy, you will be missed on this planet buddy,” while another stated, “One of the all-time greatest persons ever;” and one even proclaimed that “I understand the love for Ted…however I love Jeff Dahmer. If you loved Ted more power to you. We have the right to love whomsoever we want!! [33].” In view of the immense bloodthirst of Ted Bundy, these comments appear delusional but entirely consistent with hybristophilia. If we pay heed to Chris Kyle‘s tribute videos, their content and related comments are highly suggestive of hybristophilia. Dr. Chris Cowley, a forensic psychologist, has documented that “in the most pronounced form, the illness has an attention-seeking pathology a little like Munchausen‘s syndrome,” and the affected may attempt to “become semi-famous by association [34].” A surprisingly high number of the comments to his tribute videos revolve around an alleged association with Kyle. Here is just a very short segment of the comments to one of his tribute videos, notice the attention seeking quality to some of them:
“A HERO and a patriot. God. Country. Family. Honored to know him, and call him a friend. Humble, courageous, kind. Immortal warrior. Legend. Amazing man. Period,” “He sits next to the gates of heaven where he stands guard forever. God bless Chris and his family,” “LOL 57 people didn’t like this.. they are from Iraq,” “I read his book just a couple months ago and that was the first ive heard of him. I honor this man, in my mind he was a true hero to this country. Its not about his kills that’s just a number …. This man really is my hero, i look up to him and i wish i knew of him before his death so i can shake his hand and say thank you,” “Whoever hit dislike you don’t deserve to be an American!,” “The guys he killed were dirtbags,” “I cry so much, what a beautiful man-soul. Rip,” and “I spent time with this guy he was a true hero [35].”
These comments are consistent with the characteristics of hybristophilia outlined earlier in this article. It needs, also, to be stated that comments questioning the morality and legality of his killings were generally countered with hostile replies, indicating that information conflicting their current belief about Kyle produced cognitive dissonance as a psychological coping mechanism.
The major characteristics of hybristophilia are met by the observed behavior of many of Kyle‘s adherents, although, we cannot know with certainty without an extensive empirical analysis. At this point, it appears to be a valid hypothesis.
American Liar
Chris Kyle‘s legacy encompasses numerous immoral acts including outright deception. It has been shown that he deceived his readers about the numbers of awards he had received for military deeds. Mooney was unable to verify the carjacker story, and other researchers have been unable to document the factual basis for his claim regarding the sniper killings after Hurricane Katrina. Considering Kyle‘s moral track record it is reasonable to assume that both stories were lies. However, without a thorough investigation by objective experts, his assertions cannot be dismissed completely.
Furthermore, on radio and television, he alleged that he had punched out former governor Jesse Ventura at a bar in 2006. Ventura promptly sued Kyle for defamation. Despite Kyle dying during the trial, Ventura continued the law suit, and a jury awarded him over $1.8 million. In 2006, the judgment was overturned. While preparing for a new trial, he reached an agreement with the opposing side. Due to the agreement, he was unable to comment on how much money he had received but remarked that “the settlement is confidential, but I can smile [36].” Ventura has denounced Chris Kyle an “American Liar [37].”
Reflections upon the Psychology of Chris Kyle
If we loosely utilize the Psychopathy Checklist Revised, which was created by Robert D. Hare as a diagnostic tool, as a guide to assess the psychological dynamics of Chris Kyle, it remains clear that he was most likely a psychopath, possibly scoring a high total rating (maximum = 40) [38].
As we shall see, the major constituents of psychopathy correlate very well with his statements and documented behavior.
Unlike most cases with non-legalized serial killers who often are ashamed of their deeds, Kyle glorified in them and often vividly described them to interested bystanders and openly admitted his love for murder and violence. Indeed, the Chris Kyle case represents a near unique glimpse into the mind of a serial killer since many captured killers ostensibly embellish, withhold, manipulate, and distort their case for obvious reasons, e.g. getting out of prison, legal issues, embarrassment, manipulating public perception, et cetera. Few killers have openly admitted their love for killing and lack of remorse. One such exception though is the spree killer Charles Starkweather, who was questioned if he would change anything if he had the ability. He answered: “No, not really” and added, “I know I‘m a monster [39].” During the same interview, he admitted, “If I could go back into time, I would kill as many more people as I could because I hate people. I know they are gonna kill me in the electric chair. I don‘t really care because I‘m gonna be famous for all time [39].”
Among others, psychopaths are characterized by shallow emotions, diminished or non-existent conscience, and they lack empathy or are able to switch it off at will. Kyle repeatedly stated in interviews that he had no remorse and only regretted he had not murdered more people, clearly evidencing limited capacity for empathy and remorse, e.g. he rhetorically asked himself:
“Did it bother you killing so many people in Iraq? I tell them, ‘No.’ And I mean it [2].”
Regarding the depth of his emotions and empathy, the following quote from Kyle is also relevant:
“The first time you shoot someone, you get a little nervous. You think, can I really shoot this guy? Is it really okay? But after you kill your enemy, you see it‘s okay. You say, Great. You do it again. And again. …. I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different I‘d be back in a heartbeat. I‘m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun [2].”
The statement is clear evidence of limited capacity for sympathy and empathy, emotional poverty.
Based upon the above statement and others mentioned in the article, he conceived of the world as consisting of good and bad people, but he only killed bad ones. This simplification by Kyle comes as no surprise as a key trait in psychopathy is the ability to rationalize and justify actions regardless of how atrocious they may have been; they fail to take responsibility. In his book, he even proclaimed that “I have a strong sense of justice [2],” a statement which again underlines that he rationalized his murders by simply categorizing his victims as evil, and in his own mind, he most likely regarded himself as a savior and hero.
Rationalizations and moral shortcuts are common to most prolific murderers, including Herbert Mullin, who claimed that he killed people in order to prevent a massive earthquake from happening in California, and therefore, he was not really evil [40].
His reaction to shooting and killing a human being is reflective of a state of low anxiety, which also is commonly found among psychopaths who often exhibit a fearless mental state in situations where it would be expected that the individual would be gripped with fear and anxiety [41].
Chris Kyle also appears to have indulged in compulsive narcissistic deception. Judging by his statements, he apparently had a persistent need to elevate his self-worth: he lied about the number of military rewards he had received, probably about his murderous achievements, and about his fight with Jesse Ventura, all in all indicating grandiosity and a compulsive need for self-entitlement, suggesting a core of narcissism in his personality.
Pathological narcissism is a fundamental component of psychopathy; the condition is, among others, characterized by self-centeredness, status-seeking, distrust, arrogance, and a sense of entitlement.
It has long been observed that narcissists want to be the center of attention, and they often have a deep desire to get known, even nationwide. The publication of his murderous deeds may very well have been motivated by a narcissistic desire to attain nationwide appreciation and recognition for his perceived heroism.
While the majority of Kyle‘s kills were relatively fast, some of his acts suggest that he took pleasure in sadistic behavior. Sadists, of course, take great pleasure in causing and observing physical and/or psychological pain and anguish in others. Specifically, the previously mentioned beach ball incident, where he admittedly experienced great exhilaration from causing the drowning of multiple men, indicates that his psyche translated their pain into a greatly positive experience, perhaps even sexually.
Regarding his own psyche, Kyle had surprisingly little to say in his book, except that he briefly described that his psyche had built up defenses, and that is why he would “laugh at gruesome things like heads being blown apart, and worse [2].”
Importantly, he admitted in the book that killing and murder were already on his mind as he was growing up as he had “wondered, how would I feel about killing someone? Now I know. It‘s no big deal [2].” Numerous cases attest to the notion that the roots of repetitive killers can be traced to their upbringing as many serial killers have admitted to torturing animals in their childhood or have fantasized about killing people.
Although operating within the framework of US government approved violence, Chris Kyle appears similar in many respects to non-legalized serial killers.
Final Words
Unlike imprisoned killers, Kyle had no qualms about asserting his love for killing Iraqis – presumably due to a combination of factors that includes government approval, backing by military institutions, and encomiums celebrating his work as wonders of the first order. The multilayered saga of Chris Kyle represents a dangerous example of how institutions can shape and mold the underlying morality of a large group, and effectively make them celebrate acts and personalities that under normal conditions would cause an outrage. Undoubtedly, the military industrial complex had a vested interest in promoting the demonstrably false narrative surrounding Chris Kyle, to further their agenda.
References
- “Ex-Navy sniper, another military vet killed at Texas gun range” https://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/index.html
- American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History (William Morrow and Company 2012). Chris Kyle with Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice.
- “The REAL American Sniper: ‘There are no kills that I regret. None at all’” https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/real-american-sniper-there-no-5036121
- “Canadian law professors declare US-led war illegal” https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/lawy-m22.html
- “Iraq – ICJ Deplores Moves To-ward a War of Aggression on Iraq” https://web.archive.org/web/20051015040809/http://www.icj.org:80/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en
- “Law Professors For the Rule of Law” https://web.archive.org/web/20040214101825/http:/www.the-rule-of-law.com:80/index.html
- “Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
- “War, Aggression, and State Crime: A Criminological Analysis of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.” Ronald C. Kramer. Western Michigan University. Raymond J. Michalowski. Northern Arizona University. Revised for the British Journal of Criminology, October 2004.
- “Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal” http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-10770239
- “Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor” https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/167/35806.html
- “Nuremberg set a valid precedent for trials of war-crime suspects in Iraq‘s destruction‖ https:// http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ opinion/2009/05/26/commentary/ nuremberg-set-a-valid-precedent-for-trials-of-war-crime-suspects-in-iraqs-destruction/
- “Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?” https://www.alternet.org/story/38604/could_bush_be_prosecuted_for_war_crimes
- “Iraq war was illegal, Dutch panel rules” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-war-illegal-dutch-tribunal
- “Chilcot report: key points from the Iraq inquiry” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report
Also see: The Iraq Inquiry: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/
Also see: “Chilcot report: Findings at a glance” http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36721645 - “The prosecution of George W. Bush for murder” Vincent Bugliosi (New York: Vanguard Press, 2008.)
- “General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
- “Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey.” Burnham, Gilbert et al. The Lancet, Volume 368, Issue 9545, 1421 – 1428.
Also see: “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey.” Roberts, Les et al. The Lancet, Volume 364, Issue 9448, 1857– 1864. - Washington, D.C. Physicians for Social Responsibility: Body count: casualty figures after 10 years of the “War on Terror”: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan
- “The Iraq deaths study was valid and correct” https://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-iraq-deaths-study-was-valid-and-correct/2006/10/20/1160851135985.html?page=fullpage
- “Death Counter Explanation Page” http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/deathcount/explanation
- “January 2008 – Update on Iraqi Casualty Data” https://web.archive.org/web/20110220142121/http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=120
- “How the Pentagon is hiding the dead. The secret campaign to under-count the ‘war on terror’ death toll in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Latin America” https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-pentagon-is-hiding-the-dead-862a7b45ce57
- “An Iraqi Holocaust: 2.7 Million Iraqi Dead From Violence Or War-imposed Deprivation” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41378.htm
- “Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal” legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/7_1_1950.pdf
- “In the Crosshairs: Chris Kyle, a decorated sniper, tried to help a troubled veteran. The result was tragic” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs
- “Chris Kyle and ‘American Sniper’” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-file/
- “’Legend’ of American sniper Chris Kyle looms over murder trial” https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/09/us/chris-kyle-american-sniper/index.html.
Also see: “The Legend of Chris Kyle: The deadliest sniper in U.S. history performed near miracles on the battle-field. Then he had to come home” https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2013/april/the-legend-of-chris-kyle-01/?single=1 - “Killing Ragheads for Jesus” https://www.truthdig.com/articles/killing-ragheads-for-jesus/
- “Chris Kyle’s Memorial at Cowboys Stadium (FULL)” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmWZ7Fafhso
- “Passion Victim: A brief look at hybristophilia” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201310/passion-victim
- “Hybristophilia: When a Woman Is Sexually Attracted to Horrifying, Psychopathic Criminals” https://www.vagabomb.com/Hybristophilia/
- “3 Experts Explain Why Some People Are Attracted to Serial Killers” https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a17804534/sexual-attraction-to-serial-killers
- “Tribute to Ted Bundy” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhZG6trFdsE
- Cowley, Chris. “Face to Face with Evil: Conversations with Ian Brady” (2011 Metro Publishing), p. 116 & 118.
- “A Tribute to Chris Kyle ‘Devil of Ramadi’” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLvSuAznnks
- “Ventura settles defamation suit but won’t say for how much” http://www.startribune.com/jesse-ventura-to-discuss-settlement-of-defamation-law-suit-at-monday-afternoon-news-conference/461863413/
- “Jesse Ventura Slams ‘American Liar’ Chris Kyle After Settling Lawsuit”
http://www.insider.foxnews.com/2017/12/05/jesse-ventura-slams-american-liar-chris-kyle-after-settling-lawsuit - “Hare Psychopathy Checklist” http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare -Psychopathy-Checklist.html
- Korsgaard, Søren. “America‘s Jack the Ripper: The Crimes and Psychology of the Zodiac Killer” (2017), p. 273.
- “He Thought His Murders Could Stop Earthquakes: The Crimes of Herbert Mullin” https://didyouknowfacts.com/thought-murders-stop-earthquakes-crimes-herbert-mullin/
- “Inside the mind of a PSYCHOPATH: Researchers find they do feel fear – but don’t recognise danger” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ article-3767545/Inside-mind-PSYCHOPATH-Researchers-feel-fear -don-t-recognise-danger.html
- Alv A. Dahl, Aud Dalsegg, ”Chamør og Tyran” (Munksgaard 2002).
‘Defend International Law’ Petition Demands Norway Impose Sanctions on Israel
Sputnik – November 1, 2019
Dozens of Norway’s leading lawyers believe that Israel violates international law and doesn’t deserve the preferential treatment it currently enjoys.
A group of 44 lawyers, including award-winning luminaries and distinguished professionals such as professor Jan Fridthjof Bernt, have called on Norway to impose sanctions on Israel for its violations of international law.
The petition called “Defend international law” was published by the newspaper Dagsavisen.
Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and has announced the annexation of the Jordan Valley – without having any major consequences, the petition stressed.
Between March 2018 and September 2019 alone, the lawyers emphasised, 309 Palestinians who have participated in protest marches along the Gaza Strip border were killed. In the past year alone, 56 Palestinian children were killed by Israeli forces, again without any repercussions, including from Norway. The number of Palestinians who have died at the hands of the state is comparable to the number of murders in the country: 103 people were victims of homicide in 2018, compared with 136 in 2017, according to the local media. For comparison’s sake, police in the US, which is better known for police killings, fatally shot approximately one person for every 19 murder victims in 2017.
“Norwegian authorities and politicians must restore respect for international law and work to ensure that Israel’s long-standing and systematic breaches of international driving rules are met with sanctions”, the petition said.
The authors of the petition stressed that the absence of an international reaction to Israel’s violation of international law, human rights and humanitarian law raises concerns.
“While Israel’s serious and persistent violations are only verbally criticised, other countries that violate international law are exposed to reactions from the international community through concrete actions and sanctions”, the petition said.
On the contrary, Israel is the only country in the world to have been granted a special status in the Norwegian government’s Granavolden platform that allows Oslo to “facilitate enhanced research and development cooperation, trade, tourism and cultural exchange with Israel”.
“This attitude taken by the Norwegian authorities against serious violations of basic humanitarian and international law principles helps legitimise Israel’s policy based on the occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land, and the collective punishment of Palestinians on the Gaza Strip,” the petition said.
According to lawyer Kjell Brygfjeld, one of the signatories, the are plenty of sanctions Norway could impose on Israel.
“We are already involved in sanctions against Russia, Venezuela, Iran and a number of other countries. All countries should be treated in the same way and with the same severity for violations of international law. We must not make a difference between those we like and those we do not like,” Brygfjeld told the newspaper Klassekampen.
According to him, the Norwegian government has chosen an opposite strategy, where efforts to boost relations are made despite the fact that some Norwegian residents have been denied entry to Israel.
Earlier this week, Oslo’s newly installed “red-green” City Council led by three left-of-the-centre parties, the Socialist Left, Labour and the Greens, announced it was contemplating a ban on the municipality’s procurement of goods and services from Israeli settlements, which it called “an area occupied in violation of international law”.
However, State Secretary Audun Halvorsen of the Conservative Party said he doesn’t believe sanctions are the way to go. He also stressed that Norway expressed concern over Israeli authorities’ excessive use of force and human rights violations, “when there are grounds for doing so”.
Norway was one of the first nations to recognise Israel in 1949. The stance toward Israel is one of the issues that signals the left-right divide between Norwegian parties. While left-wing parties generally favour Palestine, to the point of being ready to boycott goods and services from what they view as territories occupied by Israel. Right-of-the-centre parties by contrast tend to be more supportive of Israel, with Progress Party leader Siv Jensen being a staunch supporter of Israel.
Five Years On, Saudi Attacks on Yemen’s Farmers Are Pushing the Whole Country into Famine
By Ahmed AbdulKareem | MintPress News | November 1, 2019
HODEIDA, YEMEN — The country of Yemen, known in the medieval period as “Green Yemen,” is one of the most extensively terraced areas of the world. There, Yemeni farmers transformed rugged mountain slopes into terraces and built dams like the Great Marib, a structure whose history spans long enough that it was mentioned in the Quran. During the medieval period, Yemen had one of the widest ranges of agricultural crops in all of the Middle East.
Farhan Mohammed is one of the richest farmers in Qama’el, a rural village in the region of Baqim in northwestern Yemen. He owns 50 hectares of land which he uses to cultivate corn, pomegranates, and apples. Now, Farhan is struggling to keep his farm afloat after Saudi airstrikes targeted his fields, burning his crops and rendering the soil so toxic that it’s no longer able to sustain life. Saudi Arabia’s now nearly five-year-old project in Yemen has decimated the incomes of Farhan and most other Yemeni farmers. Fuel is hard to come by thanks to a Saudi-led coalition blockade and the fuel that is available has become prohibitively expensive. Airstrikes targeting farm fields and orchards have rendered large swaths of Yemen’s arable land too toxic to use.
Almost immediately after March 2015, when the war began, the Saudi-led Coalition began targeting Yemen’s rural livelihood, bombing farms, food systems, markets, water treatment facilities, transportation infrastructure, and even agricultural extension offices. In urban areas, fishing boats and food processing and storage facilities were targeted.
Before the war began, over 70 percent of Yemen’s population lived in villages dispersed in the mountains and small towns with irregular, and at times torrential, summer rainfall. These rural residents relied on agriculture and animal husbandry and grew fruits and vegetables to feed their own families and to sell to markets. Yet that way of life has all but disappeared since the Saudi attacks began, undermining rural livelihoods, disrupting local food production, and forcing rural residents to flee to the city.
Now, Yemen’s nationwide level of household food insecurity hovers at over 70 percent. 50 percent of rural households and 20 percent of urban households are now food insecure. Almost one-third of Yemenis do not have enough food to satisfy basic nutritional needs. Underweight and stunted children have become a regular sight, especially amongst the holdouts in rural areas. Families that have fled to cities are often forced to beg or to pick through the trash for food scraps.
According to a recent report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), poverty in Yemen has jumped from 47 percent of the population in 2014 to a projected 75 percent by the end of 2019 because of the war. The report warned, “If fighting continues through 2022, Yemen will rank the poorest country in the world, with 79 percent of the population living under the poverty line and 65 percent classified as extremely poor.”
The intentional targeting of agriculture
The targeting of the Yemeni agriculture sector and rural livelihoods is not merely accidental collateral damage incurred while targeting military sites. Data from the country’s Ministry of Agriculture shows that in the period between March 2015 and March 2019, the Saudi-led Coalition launched at least 10,000 airstrikes that struck farms, 800 that struck local food markets, and about 450 airstrikes that hit silos and other food storage facilities in the country.
According to the Ministry, crop-area cultivation declined an average of 40 percent and crop yields by 45 percent in rural areas. Many farmers in these areas reported that they could no longer produce yields at pre-war levels due to the extensive damage to infrastructure, the high cost of diesel fuel and other agricultural inputs, a collapse in markets and the destruction of roads and storage facilities.
According to a field survey carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture in the period between March 2015 and March 2018, Saudi attacks completely destroyed 270 agricultural buildings and facilities, 43 agricultural associations, 9,017 traditional irrigation canals, 54 agricultural markets, and 45 export centers.
High precision U.S. bombs dropped by Saudi-led coalition warplanes destroyed at least 1,834 irrigation pumps, 109 artesian and surface wells, 1,170 modern irrigation networks, 33 solar irrigation units, 12 diggers, 750 pieces of agricultural equipment, 940,400 farms, 7,531 agricultural reserves, 30 productive nurseries, 182 poultry farms, and 359,944 beehives.
Yemen has no major rivers like the Euphrates in Iraq and Syria or the Nile River, which supplies water to farmers in a number of African countries. This leaves farmers reliant on irrigation canals that channel rain and floodwaters into weirs and bunds built by local communities that are vulnerable to Saudi attacks. Attacks that have already completely destroyed at least 45 water installations (dams, barriers, reservoirs) and partially destroyed at least 488, including the ancient Marib Dam.
Yemen’s fishing sector has not been spared either. By the end of May 2019, every fish off-loading port in Yemen had been targeted by Saudi attacks. At least 220 fishing boats have been destroyed, 222 fishermen have been killed and 40,000 fishermen lost their only source of income. According to Yemen’s Ministry of Fishing Wealth, this has affected the lives of more than two million people living in coastal cities and villages.
Data shows that Saudi Coalition forces have stopped at least 4,586 fishing boats from leaving port in the directorates of Midi, Hajjah, Dabab, Bab al-Mandab, and in the Mukha districts in the Taiz governorate. Thirty fishing industry companies have left the country and about fifty fish factories have closed, causing catastrophic damage to Yemen’s fishing industry. Even before the war, Yemen’s fishermen were amongst the poorest segments of society.
As the war nears its fifth year, the Saudi-led coalition has continued to target the livelihoods of Yemen’s food producers. The coalition has expanded its military offensive to include large areas of agricultural lands and valleys in the K16, Durahami, Al-Jah, A-Tahita, Al-Faza, Jabaliya, Al-Mughrous, Al-Khokha and Hays countrysides.
Yemen’s breadbasket withers
With family in tow, Haddi Ibrahim Koba fled his family home in Al-Shaab in northwestern Tihama months ago after Saudi airstrikes destroyed his farm. The Koba family now struggles to eke out an existence 60 km away in the populous Hajjah province. Once proudly self-sufficient, relying on animal husbandry and farming for their livelihood, they now depend on handouts from humanitarian organizations, the meager bodies of their children already show signs of malnutrition.
According to a study by the Sana’a University-based Water & Environment Centre (WEC) in collaboration with the Flood-Based Livelihoods Network issued in November 2017 to assess the impact of the current war on food security in Yemen, the war is already drastically aggravating Yemenis’ ability to earn a livelihood, rapidly deteriorating the availability of food and elevating the complexity of an already dire humanitarian crisis in the country.
The study, The War Impact on Food Security in the Tihama, (Tihama is a region of Yemen traditionally known to be the country’s breadbasket) showed how agriculture in Tihama, which sustains most of the country’s population, has been seriously disrupted by the war. This, the study’s authors say, is undermining the productivity and investment capacity of the entire country.
Wadi Zabid is one of Tihama’s main valleys located in the Houthi stronghold of Hodeida, the second-largest governorate in Yemen. It is the second-largest valley in Tihama, with an area of 4,639 square kilometers. Before the war, Wadi Zabid was a model of sustainable agriculture and food security, but as of June 2017, when the WEC study was released, 43 percent of the valley’s residents were going hungry every night. Land cultivation has decreased by 51 percent and crop yields per hectare have declined between up to 61 percent. The production of fruits and vegetables has been wiped out as has the livestock population. Today, conditions for farmers in Tihama are likely even more dire than they were when the study was released.
Tihama’s woes are not due to climate change or local mismanagement. Instead, they are a direct result of the destruction of irrigation and water infrastructure resulting from Saudi attacks on the valley’s diversion dams and irrigation systems. Water in the irrigation canals in the downstream villages of both of Tihama’s main valley’s has decreased by about 60 percent since the war began, according to the study.
That damage has also created a massive impact on upstream areas that rely heavily on floodwater irrigation and has damaged irrigation systems and diversion dams affecting up to 75 percent of Tihama’s households.
Creating a toxic legacy
The Saudi-led coalition’s blockade on Yemen’s ports, airports and borders has only exacerbated the suffering of the country’s farmers and rural residents. The coalition has prevented the export of their products, especially to wealthy Gulf countries which imported thousands of tons of pomegranates and vegetables from Yemen before the war began. Importing pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and fuel has also become difficult due to the frequent seizure of seafaring vessels by the coalition.
For 77 days, the coalition, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has continued to hold ships loaded with oil derivatives at sea, preventing them from entering the port of Hodeida. The four ships that were allowed in carried transport fuel, not the fuel needed to power generators on which farmers rely.
Like in Tahamah, the blockade and attacks on agricultural targets across Yemen have not only destroyed machinery and infrastructure, it has had acute ecological impacts that may take decades to reverse. The accumulation of sediment in flood channels due to damaged gates and automatic barriers has caused trees to begin to reclaim now-dormant stream beds and flood plains, hampering the arrival of much-needed floodwaters to agricultural fields.
A Yemeni farmer tries to chase locusts off of his fields. Photo | UNFAO
Fertile soil, especially in the border areas in Saada and Hajjah, has become environmentally polluted due to the number of weapons dropped in more than half a million airstrikes. That pollution has not only affected the soil, experts fear it could genetically alter the pomegranates, grapes and coffee that were once staple crops in Yemen. Farmers and their families are at constant risk from unexploded ordnance, especially cluster bombs like the one that killed a young boy on his family farm in Hodeida last Thursday.
Agricultural and environmental experts that spoke to MintPress said that the effects of the Saudi coalition’s targeting of the agricultural sector will likely last for decades. The Director of Agricultural Extension in Yemen, Salah al-Mashreqi, said that more catastrophic effects will appear in the medium and long term, including genetic changes to pomegranates, for which Yemen is famous.
The deliberate targeting of food is prohibited by article 54 of the Geneva Conventions and the May 24, 2018, UN Security Council resolution 2417 on the protection of civilians in wartime, specifically reiterates this principle. Article 14 of the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions clearly states that starvation as a means of combat is not allowed: ‘’It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population.” Yet the international community has done little to curb the Saudi-led coalitions use of starvation as a tactic of war in Yemen.
This, in large part, according to many Yemenis and legal scholars alike, is because Saudi Arabia enjoys the near-total diplomatic protection of the United States. Without that support, Saudi Arabia’s airstrikes, which rely on American contractors, targeting software, training, weapons, and technicians to target farmers that are concerned with little more than feeding themselves and their country, would not be possible.
Ahmed AbdulKareem is a Yemeni journalist. He covers the war in Yemen for MintPress News as well as local Yemeni media.
Airbnb complicit in ‘plunder of Palestinian refugee properties’ says new report
MEMO | October 29, 2019
Online accommodation and tourism giant Airbnb has been accused of “complicity in the plunder of Palestinian refugee properties”, in a new report published last week.
According to Who Profits, an independent research centre focused on exposing corporate involvement in the “ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian lands”, their new update sheds light on a “largely overlooked” dimension of Airbnb’s “complicity”.
Taking the Old City of Yafa (Jaffa) as a case study, the new report “aims to highlight the ways in which Israel confiscated and controlled Palestinian properties, leading to their privatisation”.
“Israel has transformed properties into economic assets that benefit both the state and private actors, thus undermining Palestinians’ legally enshrined Right of Return,” stated the research centre.
“Serving as a platform for showcasing the homes that once belonged to Palestinians, Airbnb plays a role in strengthening the Israeli hold over Palestinian refugee properties,” Who Profits added.
During the Nakba of 1948, more than 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes and lands – property that was subsequently appropriated by the Israeli state “through legal mechanisms that formalise their confiscation and turn them into economic assets”, Who Profits explained.
According to the centre, this “privatisation” of refugee properties has benefitted market actors and Jewish Israelis, “whilst further threatening the possibility of Palestinians reclaiming ownership of their properties in the future”.
In the case of Jaffa, what was once the largest Palestinian city was almost entirely ethnically cleansed during the Nakba (five per cent of its Palestinian residents remained post-1948). Today, the Old City is one of the most popular sites in Israel for tourists, where Airbnb lists more than 40 properties.
In its new report, Who Profit notes that “while the issue of listing settlement properties [in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem] has gained worldwide attention, the issue of listing refugee properties ‘abandoned’ in 1948 remains largely overlooked.”
“The act of plundering and privatizing refugee properties by the Israeli state, which started during the Nakba and continues to this day, has transformed the refugee properties in Yafa into commodities that can now be listed by hosts on platforms such as Airbnb,” the report concluded.
“In serving as a platform for these properties, as well as those in settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, Airbnb is profiting from the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians.”
READ ALSO:
Al-Baghdadi Raid is the US Empire “Creating Reality”
The latest attack on Syria, whatever the truth of it, is an exercise in narrative control
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | October 28, 2019
Apparently the United States killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi yesterday. US Special Forces allegedly killed the ISIS leader during a raid on a stronghold in Idlib.
As far as we know, this man was already dead. Maybe twice. He reportedly faked his death once as well.
The debate about whether or not Baghdadi was killed by US Special Forces, killed himself with a suicide vest, is still alive or died years ago has raged all day.
Trump says he died like a coward. The Russians maintain they have no data suggesting any attack was carried out at all. But that is far from conclusive.
From a domestic point of view, the purpose of the attack is fairly obvious: Donald Trump has an election coming up, and potential Presidents like nothing more than being seen to be tough. That means taking out some “bad guys”.
Of course, none of that matters.
It doesn’t matter what happened, it doesn’t matter why it happened and it doesn’t matter whether who it (allegedly) happened to was real, or alive… or otherwise.
Because, as always, the problem is not the specifics. It’s the principle and the precedent.
Let’s just assume that – for the first time in its entire existence – the Pentagon is telling the exact truth about both its actions, and the motives for those actions.
Well, then this is still unacceptable.
The United States is publicly claiming the right to carry out military strikes on foreign soil for the purpose of conducting extra-judicial executions.
This is completely illegal.
Syria is a sovereign state. Whatever the motivation for the alleged raid, carrying it out without the cooperation or permission of the legitimate government of Syria was illegal.
al-Baghdadi was (is?) not a US citizen, or an enemy combatant, and has never been convicted of any crime, in any court, by anyone. Whether or not he is alive… he as a right to be alive under the UN Charter of Human Rights.
And we’re all forgetting that.
Just a few weeks ago Trump announced the US was “pulling out” of Syria. Well, we now know what we suspected at the time, that the announcement is meaningless. This “raid” is their way of saying “just kidding!”
ISIS will still be used as they have always been used: as an excuse for the United States to occupy, attack, destabilise and control the Middle East.
Lost in this hubbub about ISIS, and Hollywood theatricals about daring night-raids on enemy compounds, the United States marched soldiers into North-Eastern Syria to “protect” oil fields.
At the end of the day THAT is really what this was about. Not hurting ISIS, or fighting terrorism, or even making Donald look cool to Rust Belt patriots… it was about an Empire acting as they would, and us letting them. It was about narrative control.
Don’t forget the famous quote from Karl Rove:
We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
When we argue about the specifics we let those in power control the conversation.
The US broke international law, and claim it as an achievement. They ignore borders and treaties and conventions on a whim, and we are so used to it we’re debating their motives and their effectiveness.
They proclaim loudly that they’re above the law. And, in letting them set that conversation, we agree with them. Even in our outrage.
UK protestors face jail for campaigning against Israel owned arms factory
MEMO | October 23, 2019
Seven people are facing the prospect of three months in prison for protesting against an Israeli-owned arms factory based in the UK.
The case against the seven activists will be heard in a Folkestone Magistrates Court Kent today. They are expected to plead not guilty of the charge of Aggravated Trespass, an offence which carries a maximum sentence of three months in prison. A number of the activists are locally connected to Kent.
The activists were arrested in August following a two-day occupation at the Elbit-Instro arms factory, which is newly situated in Discovery Park business park in Sandwich, Kent. Its parent company Elbit Systems supplies military equipment to Israel and activists claim that its products are the “backbone” of Israel’s drone fleet.
Elbit Systems also supplies weapons to a number of other countries accused of committing war crimes including Saudi Arabia. The weapons manufacturer is Israel’s largest privately-owned arms company. Campaign groups say that it provides 85 per cent of Israel’s drones which were used to attack Gaza’s civilian population repeatedly. Drones were used during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge which killed over 2,300 civilians, including over 500 children.
A statement released by the Stop Elbit-Instro Defendants Solidarity Campaign said: “The skilled engineers of Elbit-Instro could be working to make the world a better place, yet instead they are employed to build machines that incinerate children.” It added: “Shame on them all.”
According to the campaign group locals resent the arms manufacturer and relations between Elbit-Instro and Kent residents soured following its attempted take-over of an airport site.
A spokesperson for East Kent Campaign Against the Arms Trade said: “There are urgent questions about whether Instro’s specialist targeting technology is employed by Israel for targeting Gazan civilians every Friday during the Great Return March civil rights demonstrations, or in maintaining the surveillance of Palestinians along its illegal separation barrier, enabling the occupation’s apartheid infrastructure.”
4 Sinai civilians killed after Egypt army bombs house
MEMO | October 21, 2019
At least four civilians have been killed and 12 injured after a bomb was dropped on a house in Abu Al-Araj, Sheikh Zuweid, on Saturday.
Ten-year-old Mohammed Masoud, 90-year-old Farha Ibrahim, 24-year-old Aya Juma Eid and 28 year-old Rania Juma Eid all died in the drone attack in Egypt’s northern Sinai Peninsula.
For years now the Egyptian government has waged a war on Sinai it says is against terrorism, but which locals say is a war on civilians aimed at systematically displacing them from their land.
In the last seven years 14 villages in Sheikh Zuweid have been razed by the Egyptian military. According to a Facebook post written by Sinai researcher Ahmed Salem:
There is no such thing as a random aerial bombing and there is no such thing as a flight that makes mistakes 20 times in the coordination and rockets directed with modern technologies, the error rate is almost zero; the village has 20 or 30 homes and you know them by name.
The aggression continues across the peninsula. Just one week ago a shell hit a truck carrying civilians from an olive farm to the city of Bir Al-Abd as they were travelling home, killing at least ten people from the same family. Six others were injured and taken to hospital.
Following the attack the Arabic hashtag “Al-Sisi kills Sinai residents” was one of the top trending in the country.
A photograph of a baby with cuts on his head circulated online – the only survivor after the rest of his family died.
According to activists, the Egyptian government has been trying to remove the population of Bir Al-Abed for months now. Locals fear it will become the next Rafah, a city along the border with Gaza that has been completely flattened and the population displaced.
On 30 September the Egyptian military killed a six-year-old boy and his father in a revenge attack after Daesh attacked the Toffaha military checkpoint in Bir Al-Abed.
Suleyman Abu Dabbous, who works in a petrol station, was on his way home with his son Karim, 24, and his six-year-old grandson when the army opened fire on the car.
Ms. Pumpkin Head for President: A Nightmare
By Edward Curtin | Behind the Curtain | October 20, 2019
A few weeks ago I had a terrifying nightmare, so gruesome was it that I awoke screaming and had to run to the bathroom to vomit in the toilet. In this dark horror show, I was carving a pumpkin for Halloween. The cap came off easily and I disemboweled the slimy interior quickly, but as I did, I felt a strange sensation on my hand, as if a tongue were biting it. When I was finishing carving the face, however, the trouble really started. The pumpkin head came alive as the eyes and mouth moved and then it started speaking in a voice that was familiar but one I couldn’t place. Blond hair started sprouting from its head as it started shrieking and bouncing on the table in an hysterical manner. I jumped back in fear and trembling as it started cackling, “I running, I running.” Blood ran from between the carved teeth and the blue eyes pulsated with the mania of a serial killer in a horror movie.
I awoke with a scream when I realized it was Hillary Clinton.
So hideous was this night terror that I kept it to myself. But a week later when the next Democratic pseudo-debate was being promoted, I said to my wife that something told me that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee and the debates were a sideshow. She said she thought that would never happen and that Clinton was now hated and done for. I disagreed without recounting my nightmare because to describe it at that point would have induced more retching at the thought of the night monster.
Then this past week during the Democratic debate, the courageous Tulsi Gabbard put the lie to the murderous militarism of U.S. foreign policy and its regime change operations with its use of American supported terrorists in Syria and throughout the world. She calmly and eloquently denounced the militarist positions of the other candidates standing beside her, as they listened disquieted and disturbed to a patriotic American speaking truth that they dare not even think, so bought and sold are they.
She was a woman alone among a cast of sycophants denouncing the murderous policies carried out by presidents Democratic and Republican and foisted on the American people through a vast network of propaganda, appealing to their worst instincts. It was a stunning few minutes, for it is so rare, almost unheard of, for a politician to tell Americans the brutal truth about their government.
To many it was a sign of hope, but to the evil forces that run this country, Rep. Gabbard had gone too far and the knives came out in force, this time led by the pumpkin-headed Hillary Clinton and her accomplices at The New York Times and The Washington Post, who have consistently trashed Tulsi Gabbard in an effort to destroy her candidacy.
I felt my dream was prophetic when Clinton, in her slimy manner, attacked Tulsi Gabbard, without naming her, by saying,
I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve [The Russians] got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.
Well, I ain’t making any prediction either; I’m leaving that up to my nightmare to do my talking.
It tells me that Hillary-O-Lantern, spitting blood, is running and gunning again.
She’s the favorite of the CIA and the military industrial complex and all those who profit from war and live off the deaths of victims everywhere. They have bunches of sites and bots and fake news conspirators and all sorts of ways of supporting her, which they have been doing for many years, straight through their constructed Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate conspiracies and her barbaric support for wars everywhere, including the destruction of Libya and her joyful response to the fiendish death of Muammar Gaddafi, among so may atrocities.
Tulsi, never cowered, said it straight and true in response:
Great, Thank you. You the Queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
She later said, “I stand against everything she represents.”
Halloween is the time for masks and dissembling. Hillary Clinton is a figure straight out of a grotesque Halloween party, as are her clones in the Democratic party. Tulsi Gabbard was not invited to their party but came anyway, and came to tell the truth about the masquerade.
She has torn off Clinton’s mask and asks the American people to see the true face of Clinton and all her minions, who represent the triumph of war and death, and the sick play we have been living through, an endless war on terror justified by endless lies.
Norman O. Brown so well describes our stage set:
Ancestral voices prophesying war; ancestral spirits in the danse macabre or war dance; Valhalla, ghostly warriors who kill each other and are reborn to fight again. All warfare is ghostly, every army an exercitus feralis (army of ghosts), every soldier a living corpse.
Lying is the leading cause of living death in the United States.
Tulsi Gabbard has told the truth.
Like me, I am sure you don’t want your nightmares to become reality. Let’s live in the truth.
US forces transferring Daesh terrorists from Syria to Iraq: Report
Press TV – October 20, 2019
US military forces are transporting to safe sanctuaries hundreds of members of the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group from the desert region of al-Jazirah in Syria’s northeastern province of Hasakah to neighboring Iraq, a report says.
Syria’s official news agency SANA, citing media and local sources, reported that American forces had recently transported the terrorists to an unknown location. The Daesh members were being kept at al-Hol refugee camp, which lies close to the Syria-Iraq border and is run by the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The report said that less than a day before, 230 foreign terrorists from Daesh were transferred from al-Malikiyah prison to a detention center in al-Shaddadi town in southern Hasakah.
Since October 9, SANA said, US forces have transported hundreds of Daesh extremists and their relatives from Syrian territories to Iraq in six batches. The date is when Turkey and its allied militants launched a ground offensive against Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria.
American forces have also turned their illegal base in Shaddadi into a place of accommodation for Daesh terrorists and their families, who are being brought from al-Hol camp and prisons across Syria to the base in order to be transported on board military helicopters to Iraq.
US forces have until recently been airlifting Daesh terrorists from one place in Syria to another, under the cover of darkness, in order to save them in the face of advancement and territorial gains by Syrian government forces, and prevent revelation of their alliance with the Takfiri extremists.
Syrians celebrate army deployment in border towns amid Turkish incursion
In Syria’s eastern province of Dayr al-Zawr, dozens of people gathered to express support for the deployment of government forces in the Kurdish-populated border towns in the wake of Turkey’s offensive.
On Sunday, the residents of the provincial capital city of Dayr al-Zawr gathered at al-Intisar roundabout to denounce the Turkish aggression, and demand the full withdrawal of US troops from Syrian territories, SANA reported.
The participants waved the national Syrian flag and lifted pictures of President Bashar al-Assad. They described the Turkish aggression on Syrian soil a criminal act, vowing that the sons of Syria will all confront the offensive, dubbed Peace Spring Operation.
They also called for the complete withdrawal of illegal foreign forces, whether Turkish or American, from Syrian soil.
“All Syrians reject the Turkish operation, because it constitutes an act of aggression against a sovereign state. This is contrary to international law and regulations. We are here today to tell (Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip) Erdogan, his American masters and their proxies that Syria is strong with its army, its people, its leader. History has shown that this land is insurmountable to aggressors,” said Mudhi al-Muhaimid, a member of the executive office of Dayr al-Zawr provincial council.
Director of Education in Dayr al-Zawr Khalil Haj Ubaid said, “Syria’s civilization, history and originality will remain impervious to the greediness of enemies. The Syrian government and the Syrian Arab Army are the only forces that can protect Syrian people. The entire world is now witnessing how President Assad has triumphed over all forces of injustice and tyranny.”
Turkish military forces and Ankara-backed militants launched the long-threatened cross-border invasion of northeast Syria in a declared attempt to push Kurdish fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) away from border areas.
Ankara views the US-backed YPG as a terrorist organization tied to the homegrown Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been seeking an autonomous Kurdish region in Turkey since 1984. The YPG constitutes the backbone of the SDF.
The Kurdish-led administration in northeastern Syria says the Turkish offensive has killed 218 civilians, including 18 children, since its outset. The fighting has also wounded more than 650 people.
Turkish authorities say 20 people have been killed in Turkey by bombardment from Syria, including eight people who were killed in a mortar attack on the town of Nusaybin by YPG militants on October 11.
SANA tours US base in al-Saidiyah area southwest of Manbij
In another development, SANA journalists entered the abandoned US base in the al-Saidiyah area southwest of Manbij, only a few days after American forces evacuated the site.
The heavily fortified base contains a big open field, service stations for the maintenance of vehicles, training fields, communication towers and a number of military posts. US forces burned documents, communication devices, laptops, computers, monitors and medical supplies just before their withdrawal from the base.
‘Iranian threat’ gives Israel ‘fundamental right, even obligation’ to bomb Syria, Iraq or whomever it wants – Pompeo
RT | October 20, 2019
Israel should not be constrained by international borders or laws if it feels under threat – and can always rely on US support – US State Secretary Mike Pompeo said following his meeting with Israeli PM and the chief of Mossad.
The US administration has always been “very clear” that is gives Israel a free rein in hunting down any sprouts of purported ‘Iranian threat’ across the region, using the national security threat as an ultimate excuse, Pompeo said in an interview with Jerusalem Post.
“Israel has the fundamental right to engage in activity that ensures the security of its people. It’s at the very core of what nation-states not only have the right to do, but an obligation to do.”
The withdrawal of American troops from Syria raised some concerns in Tel Aviv, but Pompeo rushed to emphasize that the US remains committed to “continuing that activity that the US has been engaged in now for a couple of years.”
“We know this is a corner where Iran has attempted to move weapon systems across into Syria, into Lebanon, that threatens Israel, and we are going to do everything we can to make sure we have the capacity to identify those so that we can, collectively, respond appropriately.”
Pompeo visited Israel following his urgent trip to Turkey, where he convinced President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to temporarily halt the cross-border operation in Syria, somewhat allowing the Trump administration to save its face after the ‘betrayal’ of its Kurdish allies.
In Tel Aviv, Pompeo held a meeting with the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, apparently reassuring them that the US withdrawal wasn’t a sign of weakness or intentions to reduce its pressure on Tehran.
‘Queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption’: Tulsi Gabbard DRAGS Hillary Clinton after ‘Russian asset’ claim
Image by Gage Skidmore
RT | October 18, 2019
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has accused Hillary Clinton of being behind a ‘concerted campaign’ to destroy her reputation and challenged her to stop hiding and enter the 2020 presidential race.
“Great! Thank you Hillary Clinton,” Gabbard tweeted on Friday afternoon. “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.”
“From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine,” Gabbard added.
Clinton, who has blamed everyone from the FBI to Russia for her 2016 loss to Donald Trump, said in an interview on Thursday that “Russians” were “grooming” someone in the Democrat primary field to run as a third-party candidate. While not calling out Gabbard by name, her spokesperson later told CNN, “if the nesting doll fits,” leaving no room for doubt.
Of all the candidates in the crowded Democrat primary field, Gabbard has been under the heaviest fire from journalists who previously boosted Clinton, accused of being an “Assad apologist” over a fact-finding trip she took to Syria years ago.
“Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly,” Gabbard called out Clinton, who has dropped hints that she might run again in 2020 as a rematch for her 2016 humiliation.
During the 2016 campaign, Gabbard resigned as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee after endorsing Bernie Sanders for the party’s presidential nomination. Clinton beat Sanders out for the nomination largely due to support from the unaccountable “superdelegates,” and it emerged later that her campaign had taken over the DNC entirely – which might help explain Gabbard’s line about “the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.”
Roosevelt Conspired to Start World War II in Europe
By John Wear – Inconvenient History – January 26, 2019
Establishment historians claim that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt never wanted war and made every reasonable effort to prevent war. This article will show that contrary to what establishment historians claim, Franklin Roosevelt and his administration wanted war and made every effort to instigate World War II in Europe.
THE SECRET POLISH DOCUMENTS
The Germans seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs when they invaded Warsaw in late September 1939. The documents were seized when a German SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg’s men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating documents. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt’s crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. They also reveal the forces behind President Roosevelt that pushed for war.[1]
Some of the secret Polish documents were first published in the United States as The German White Paper. Probably the most-revealing document in the collection is a secret report dated January 12, 1939 by Jerzy Potocki, the Polish ambassador to the United States. This report discusses the domestic situation in the United States. I quote (a translation of) Ambassador Potocki’s report in full:
There is a feeling now prevalent in the United States marked by growing hatred of Fascism, and above all of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with National Socialism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible–above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited–this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.
At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who with a great many words and with most various calumnies incite the public. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are completely on the side of Red Spain.
This propaganda, this war psychosis is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is inevitable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America also must take an active part in order to defend the slogans of liberty and democracy in the world. President Roosevelt was the first one to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving a double purpose; first he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from difficult and intricate domestic problems, especially from the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating a war psychosis and by spreading rumors concerning dangers threatening Europe, he wanted to induce the American people to accept an enormous armament program which far exceeds United States defense requirements.
Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is growing worse constantly. The unemployed today already number 12 million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far only the usual strikes and local unrest have taken place. But how long this government aid can be kept up it is difficult to predict today. The excitement and indignation of public opinion, and the serious conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other, have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.
As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever player of politics and a connoisseur of American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to enhance the war menace overhanging the world on account of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by talking about the attack of the totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He described it as the capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As was said here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace.
The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals participated; for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and others who are personal friends of Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives of “Americanism” and “defenders of democracy” in the last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to put the President of the United States at this “ideal” post of champion of human rights, was a clever move. In this manner they created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is extremely convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.[2]
On January 16, 1939, Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry a conversation he had with American Ambassador to France William Bullitt. Bullitt was in Washington on a leave of absence from Paris. Potocki reported that Bullitt stated the main objectives of the Roosevelt administration were:
1. The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.
2. The United States preparation for war on sea, land and air which will be carried out at an accelerated speed and will consume the colossal sum of $1,250 million.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put [an] end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will leave the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.”[3]
Juliusz (Jules) Łukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to France, sent a top-secret report from Paris to the Polish Foreign Ministry at the beginning of February 1939. This report outlined the U.S. policy toward Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, W. Bullitt, returned to Paris after having spent three months holiday in America. Meanwhile, I had two conversations with him which enable me to inform Monsieur Minister on his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington’s policy….
The international situation is regarded by official quarters as extremely serious and being in danger of armed conflict. Competent quarters are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and France on the one hand and Germany and Italy on the other, and Britain and France should be defeated, the Germans would become dangerous to the realistic interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally after some time had elapsed after the beginning of the war. Ambassador Bullitt expressed this as follows: “Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall end it.”[4]
On March 7, 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent another remarkably perceptive report on Roosevelt’s foreign policy to the Polish government. I quote Potocki’s report in full:
The foreign policy of the United States right now concerns not only the government, but the entire American public as well. The most important elements are the public statements of President Roosevelt. In almost every public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating foreign policy against the chaos of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements are picked up by the press and then cleverly filtered into the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen their already formed opinions. The same theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe and saving the democracies from inundation by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements there is normally only a single theme, that is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world peace.
As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and the spending of enormous sums for the navy and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict the United States cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of President Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously manipulated to hate everything that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not included in all of this. The American public considers Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was also the case during the Spanish civil war when the so-called Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea.
The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of attention, although it is known that Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance to the same ideas. However, Hull shows more reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a distinction between Nazism and Chancellor Hitler on the one hand, and the German people on the other. He considers this form of dictatorial government a temporary “necessary evil.” In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its internal situation and openly worries itself over its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for the United States interest in the Russians is the situation in the Far East. The current government would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a conflict with Japan. That’s why the sympathies of the government are clearly on the side of China, which recently received considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million dollars.
Eager attention is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries of the President who serve as ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his representatives from abroad to Washington for personal exchanges of views and to give them special information and instructions. The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is always shrouded in secrecy and very little surfaces in the press about the results of their visits. The State Department also takes care to avoid giving out any kind of information about the course of these interviews. The practical way in which the President makes foreign policy is most effective. He gives personal instructions to his representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal friends. In this way the United States is led down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit intention of abandoning the comfortable policy of isolation. The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition. He listens carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In domestic as well as foreign policy, the Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in the way of the President and his government in carrying out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Constitution of the United States gave the highest prerogatives to the American parliament which may criticize or reject the law of the White House.
The foreign policy of President Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion in the lower house and in the Senate, and this has caused excitement. The so-called Isolationists, of whom there are many in both houses, have come out strongly against the President. The representatives and the senators were especially upset over the remarks of the President, which were published in the press, in which he said that the borders of the United States lie on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb political player and understands completely the power of the American parliament. He has his own people there, and he knows how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation at the right moment.
Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together the question of foreign policy with the issues of American rearmament. He particularly stresses the necessity of spending enormous sums in order to maintain a defensive peace. He says specifically that the United States is not arming in order to intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case of war, but because of the need to show strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict in Europe. In his view this conflict is becoming ever more acute and is completely unavoidable.
Since the issue is presented this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to object. To the contrary, the houses accepted an armament program of more than 1 billion dollars. (The normal budget is 550 million, the emergency 552 million dollars). However, under the cloak of a rearmament policy, President Roosevelt continues to push forward his foreign policy, which unofficially shows the world that in case of war the United States will come out on the side of the democratic states with all military and financial power.
In conclusion it can be said that the technical and moral preparation of the American people for participation in a war–if one should break out in Europe–is proceeding rapidly. It appears that the United States will come to the aid of France and Great Britain with all its resources right from the beginning. However, I know the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that America will enter the war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of the states in the mid-West and West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.[5]
These secret Polish reports were written by top-level Polish ambassadors who were not necessarily friendly to Germany. However, they understood the realities of European politics far better than people who made foreign policy in the United States. The Polish ambassadors realized that behind all of their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, the Jewish leaders in the United States who agitated for war against Germany were deceptively advancing their own interests.
There is no question that the secret documents taken from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw are authentic. Charles C. Tansill considered the documents genuine and stated, “Some months ago I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic.”[6]
William H. Chamberlain wrote , “I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned.”[7] Historian Harry Elmer Barnes also stated, “Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents.”[8]
Edward Raczyński, the Polish ambassador to London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed in his diary the authenticity of the Polish documents. He wrote in his entry on June 20, 1940: “The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki from Washington, Łukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of the originals and not merely copies.”[9]
The official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Łukasiewicz published in 1970 in the book Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939 reconfirmed the authenticity of the Polish documents. Łukasiewicz was the Polish ambassador to Paris, who authored several of the secret Polish documents. The collection was edited by Wacław Jędrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet member. Jędrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine, and quoted from several of them.
Tyler G. Kent, who worked at the U.S. Embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, has also confirmed the authenticity of the secret Polish documents. Kent says that he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded to the Polish documents.[10]
The German Foreign Office published the Polish documents on March 29, 1940. The Reich Ministry of Propaganda released the documents to strengthen the case of the American isolationists and to prove the degree of America’s responsibility for the outbreak of war. In Berlin, journalists from around the world were permitted to examine the original documents themselves, along with a large number of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry. The release of the documents caused an international media sensation. American newspapers published lengthy excerpts from the documents and gave the story large front-page headline coverage.[11]
However, the impact of the released documents was far less than the German government had hoped for. Leading U.S. government officials emphatically denounced the documents as not being authentic. William Bullitt, who was especially incriminated by the documents, stated, “I have never made to anyone the statements attributed to me.” Secretary of State Cordell Hull denounced the documents: “I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of my associates in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations as those alleged, nor do we give them the slightest credence. The statements alleged have not represented in any way at any time the thought or the policy of the American government.”[12] American newspapers stressed these high-level denials in reporting the release of the Polish documents.
These categorical denials by high-level U.S. government officials almost completely eliminated the effect of the secret Polish documents. The vast majority of the American people in 1940 trusted their elected political leaders to tell the truth. If the Polish documents were in fact authentic and genuine, this would mean that President Roosevelt and his representatives had lied to the American public, while the German government told the truth. In 1940, this was far more than the trusting American public could accept.
MORE EVIDENCE ROOSEVELT INSTIGATED WORLD WAR II
While the secret Polish documents alone indicate that Roosevelt was preparing the American public for war against Germany, a large amount of complementary evidence confirms the conspiracy reported by the Polish ambassadors. The diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. secretary of defense, also reveals that Roosevelt and his administration helped start World War II. Forrestal’s entry on December 27, 1945 stated:
Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not….
What Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with the British to the end that Chamberlain should have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany. Dillon told me that at Roosevelt’s request he had talked with Lord Lothian in the same general sense as Kennedy reported Roosevelt having urged him to do with Chamberlain. Lothian presumably was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with Dillon.
Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy’s belief that Hitler’s attack could have been deflected to Russia….”[13]
Joseph Kennedy is known to have had a good memory, and it is highly likely that Kennedy’s statements to James Forrestal are accurate. Forrestal died on May 22, 1949 under suspicious circumstances when he fell from his hospital window.
Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British ambassador to Washington, confirmed Roosevelt’s secret policy to instigate war against Germany with the release of a confidential diplomatic report after the war. The report described a secret meeting on September 18, 1938 between Roosevelt and Ambassador Lindsay. Roosevelt said that if Britain and France were forced into a war against Germany, the United States would ultimately join the war. Roosevelt’s idea to start a war was for Britain and France to impose a blockade against Germany without actually declaring war. The important point was to call it a defensive war based on lofty humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with a minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property. The blockade would provoke some kind of German military response, but would free Britain and France from having to declare war. Roosevelt believed he could then convince the American public to support war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still neutral in a non-declared conflict.[14]
President Roosevelt told Ambassador Lindsay that if news of their conversation was ever made public, it could mean Roosevelt’s impeachment. What Roosevelt proposed to Lindsay was in effect a scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution by illegally starting a war. For this and other reasons, Ambassador Lindsay stated that during his three years of service in Washington he developed little regard for America’s leaders.[15]
Ambassador Lindsay in a series of final reports also indicated that Roosevelt was delighted at the prospect of a new world war. Roosevelt promised Lindsay that he would delay German ships under false pretenses in a feigned search for arms. This would allow the German ships to be easily seized by the British under circumstances arranged with exactitude between the American and British authorities. Lindsay reported that Roosevelt “spoke in a tone of almost impish glee and though I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression of resembling a school-boy prank.”
Ambassador Lindsay was personally perturbed that the president of the United States could be gay and joyful about a pending tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all mankind. It was unfortunate at this important juncture that the United States had a president whose emotions and ideas were regarded by a friendly British ambassador as being childish.[16]
Roosevelt’s desire to support France and England in a war against Germany is discussed in a letter from Verne Marshall, former editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, to Charles C. Tansill. The letter stated:
President Roosevelt wrote a note to William Bullitt [in the summer of 1939], then Ambassador to France, directing him to advise the French Government that if, in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland, France and England did not go to Poland’s aid, those countries could expect no help from America if a general war developed. On the other hand, if France and England immediately declared war on Germany, they could expect “all aid” from the United States.
F.D.R.’s instructions to Bullitt were to send this word along to “Joe” and “Tony,” meaning Ambassadors Kennedy, in London, and Biddle, in Warsaw, respectively. F.D.R. wanted Daladier, Chamberlain and Josef Beck to know of these instructions to Bullitt. Bullitt merely sent his note from F.D.R. to Kennedy in the diplomatic pouch from Paris. Kennedy followed Bullitt’s idea and forwarded it to Biddle. When the Nazis grabbed Warsaw and Beck disappeared, they must have come into possession of the F.D.R. note. The man who wrote the report I sent you saw it in Berlin in October, 1939.[17]
William Phillips, the American ambassador to Italy, also stated in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration in late 1938 was committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France. Phillips wrote: “On this and many other occasions, I would have liked to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my official position, I could not properly make such a statement without instructions from Washington, and these I never received.”[18]
When Anthony Eden returned to England in December 1938, he carried with him an assurance from President Roosevelt that the United States would enter as soon as practicable a European war against Hitler if the occasion arose. This information was obtained by Senator William Borah of Idaho, who was contemplating how and when to give out this information, when he dropped dead in his bathroom. The story was confirmed to historian Harry Elmer Barnes by some of Senator Borah’s closest colleagues at the time.[19]
The American ambassador to Poland, Anthony Drexel Biddle, was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend of William Bullitt. Roosevelt used Biddle to influence the Polish government to refuse to enter into negotiations with Germany. Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs on a memorable conversation he had with Biddle. On December 2, 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. Biddle predicted that in April a new crisis would develop, and that moderate British and French leaders would be influenced by public opinion to support war. Biddle predicted a holy war against Germany would break out.[20]
Bernard Baruch, who was Roosevelt’s chief advisor, scoffed at a statement made on March 10, 1939 by Neville Chamberlain that “the outlook in international affairs is tranquil.” Baruch agreed passionately with Winston Churchill, who had told him: “War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you [the United States] will be in it.”[21]
Georges Bonnet, the French foreign minister in 1939, also confirmed the role of William Bullitt as Roosevelt’s agent in pushing France into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated March 26, 1971, Bonnet wrote, “One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war.”[22]
Dr. Edvard Beneš, the former president of Czechoslovakia, wrote in his memoirs that he had a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park with President Roosevelt on May 28, 1939. Roosevelt assured Beneš that the United States would actively intervene on the side of Great Britain and France against Germany in the anticipated European war.[23]
American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, who was the chief European newspaper columnist of the International News Service, met with Ambassador William Bullitt at the U.S. embassy in Paris on April 25, 1939. More than four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt told Wiegand: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it.”[24] When Wiegand said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, Ambassador Bullitt replied: “What of it. There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth Bolshevizing.”[25]
On March 14, 1939, Slovakia dissolved the state of Czechoslovakia by declaring itself an independent republic. Czechoslovakian President Emil Hácha signed a formal agreement the next day with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the Czech portion of the previous entity. The British government initially accepted the new situation, reasoning that Britain’s guarantee of Czechoslovakia given after Munich was rendered void by the internal collapse of that state. It soon became evident after the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia that the new regime enjoyed considerable popularity among the people living in it. Also, the danger of a war between the Czechs and the Slovaks had been averted.[26]
However, Bullitt’s response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was highly unfavorable. Bullitt telephoned Roosevelt and, in an “almost hysterical” voice, Bullitt urged Roosevelt to make a dramatic denunciation of Germany and to immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.[27]
Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported in their nationally syndicated column that on March 16, 1939, President Roosevelt “sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain” demanding that the British government strongly oppose Germany. Pearson and Allen reported that “the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”[28]
Responding to Roosevelt’s pressure, the next day Chamberlain ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany when he made a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Chamberlain also announced the end of the British “appeasement” policy, stating that from now on Britain would oppose any further territorial moves by Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally committed itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.
Roosevelt also attempted to arm Poland so that Poland would be more willing to go to war against Germany. Ambassador Bullitt reported from Paris in a confidential telegram to Washington on April 9, 1939, his conversation with Polish Ambassador Łukasiewicz. Bullitt told Łukasiewicz that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, the Roosevelt administration might be able to supply warplanes to Poland indirectly through Britain. Bullitt stated: “The Polish ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and airplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland, but added that it might be possible for England to purchase planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland.”[29]
Bullitt also attempted to bypass the Neutrality Act and supply France with airplanes. A secret conference of Ambassador Bullitt with French Premier Daladier and the French minister of aviation, Guy La Chambre, discussed the procurement of airplanes from America for France. Bullitt, who was in frequent telephonic conversation with Roosevelt, suggested a means by which the Neutrality Act could be circumvented in the event of war. Bullitt’s suggestion was to set up assembly plants in Canada, apparently on the assumption that Canada would not be a formal belligerent in the war. Bullitt also arranged for a secret French mission to come to the United States and purchase airplanes in the winter of 1938-1939. The secret purchase of American airplanes by the French leaked out when a French aviator crashed on the West Coast.[30]
On August 23, 1939, Sir Horace Wilson, Chamberlain’s closest advisor, went to American Ambassador Joseph Kennedy with an urgent appeal from Chamberlain to President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. Kennedy telephoned the State Department and stated: “The British want one thing from us and one thing only, namely that we put pressure on the Poles. They felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could.”
Presented with a possibility to save the peace in Europe, President Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain’s desperate plea out of hand. With Roosevelt’s rejection, Kennedy reported, British Prime Minister Chamberlain lost all hope. Chamberlain stated: “The futility of it all is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”[31]
Conclusion
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers played a crucial role in planning and instigating World War II. This is proven by the secret Polish documents as well as numerous statements from highly positioned, well-known and authoritative Allied leaders who corroborate the contents of the Polish documents.
ENDNOTES
[1] Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 4, No. 2 , Summer 1983, pp. 136-137, 140.
[2] Count Jerzy Potocki to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 29-31.
[3] Ibid., pp. 32-33.
[4] Juliusz Lukasiewicz to Polish Foreign Minister in Warsaw, The German White Paper: Full Text of the Polish Documents Issued by the Berlin Foreign Office; with a foreword by C. Hartley Grattan, New York: Howell, Soskin & Company, 1940, pp. 43-44.
[5] Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943. Translated into English by Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , pp. 150-152.
[6] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 184 (footnote 292).
[7] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 60 (footnote 14).
[8] Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Court Historians versus Revisionism, N.p.: privately printed, 1952, p. 10.
[9] Raczynski, Edward, In Allied London, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963, p. 51.
[10] Weber, Mark, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983, Vol. 4, No. 2 , p. 142.
[11] Ibid., pp. 137-139.
[12] New York Times, March 30, 1940, p. 1.
[13] Forrestal, James V., The Forrestal Diaries, edited by Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield, New York: Vanguard Press, 1951, pp. 121-122.
[14] Dispatch No. 349 of Sept. 30, 1938, by Sir Ronald Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy, (ed.). Ernest L. Woodard, Third Series, Vol. VII, London, 1954, pp. 627-629. See also Lash, Joseph P., Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941, New York: Norton, 1976, pp. 25-27.
[15] Dallek, Robert, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 31, 164-165.
[16] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, pp. 518-519.
[17] Tansill, Charles C., “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Barnes, Harry Elmer (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 168.
[18] Phillips, William, Ventures in Diplomacy, North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952, pp. 220-221.
[19] Barnes, Harry Elmer, Barnes against the Blackout, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1991, p. 208.
[20] Burckhardt, Carl, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939, Munich: Callwey, 1960, p. 225.
[21] Sherwood, Robert E., Roosevelt and Hopkins, an Intimate History, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948, p. 113.
[22] Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 62.
[23] Beneš, Edvard, Memoirs of Dr. Edvard Beneš, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954, pp. 79-80.
[24] “Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago-Herald American, Oct. 8, 1944, p. 2.
[25] Chicago-Herald American, April 23, 1944, p. 18.
[26] Hoggan, David L., The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Costa Mesa, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1989, p. 250.
[27] Moffat, Jay P., The Moffat Papers 1919-1943, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956, p. 232.
[28] Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, April 14, 1939, p. 16.
[29] U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I, Washington: 1956, p. 122.
[30] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, pp. 101-102.
[31] Koskoff, David E., Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974, p. 207; see also Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005, p. 272.
Featured Video
Diplomacy is Now a Crime in Britain / Ian Proud
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Is America behind the massive surge in Kiev regime’s child trafficking?
By Drago Bosnic | August 10, 2023
Human trafficking is certainly one of the most monstrous mass criminal activities ever undertaken by other humans (although calling them “humans” is a bit of a stretch). And yet, there’s a special kind of this deeply repulsive crime that pushes it to diabolical proportions – child trafficking. Underage kids, particularly those who were abandoned, sold or have very poor/abusive family backgrounds, are by far the most vulnerable group. The depraved criminals who engage in such illicit activities specifically target unfortunate children and given there are millions of them all around the globe, particularly in war-torn areas, the “recruitment pool” is effectively endless. Unfortunately, the demand on the black market also seems to be constant and growing, making it a very lucrative and appealing prospect for criminals. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Can a Spice Rival a Drug? 10 Head-to-Head Trials Put It to the Test.
- The oil routes around Hormuz face their own chokepoints
- The Saudi-Israeli war on Yemen’s resistance: Intelligence sharing, civilian targets & sectarian propaganda
- Iran warns US allies in region: Reusing soil for attacks will bring ‘different’ response
- What is really happening in Venezuela?
- Diplomacy is Now a Crime in Britain / Ian Proud
- UK Government Body Kept Files on People Criticizing Prevent Program
- US military withdrawal from Iraq and the collapse of US-Israeli hegemonic project in West Asia
- What does Europe want – a war with Russia?
- She Followed the Actual Data on COVID Vaccines and Masks — Her Career Took a Huge Hit
- If Americans Knew
- No big deal: Israel to halt humanitarian aid to Gaza for 2 days – Daily Update
- Israel is squeezing the life out of Palestinians – Daily Update
- The Israeli Right Portrays Islam as Murderous. It Serves a Political Purpose
- Jordan Has Had Enough: King Abdullah’s Scathing Warning to Israel
- Israeli Colonizers (i.e. Settlers) Kill Palestinian Man Near Salfit
- New Google Maps images reveal massive scale of devastation in Gaza
- Jewish supremacy, anti-Palestinian bigotry on display in Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Soldiers Abduct At Least 22 Across Occupied West Bank
- Eight Palestinians Killed in Israeli Attacks on Gaza
- Israeli former leaders and security chiefs threaten legal action over ‘Jewish terrorism’
- No Tricks Zone
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
