12 September 2012

Rotten Heads

Some history:
Documents released Monday and seen in advance by The Associated Press lend weight to the belief that suppression within the highest levels of the U.S. government helped cover up Soviet guilt in the killing of some 22,000 Polish officers and other prisoners in the Katyn forest and other locations in 1940.

The evidence is among about 1,000 pages of newly declassified documents that the United States National Archives released and is putting online. Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur, who helped lead a recent push for the release of the documents, called the effort's success Monday a "momentous occasion" in an attempt to "make history whole."

Historians who saw the material days before the official release describe it as important and shared some highlights with the AP. The most dramatic revelation so far is the evidence of the secret codes sent by the two American POWs — something historians were unaware of and which adds to evidence that the Roosevelt administration knew of the Soviet atrocity relatively early on.
If you ever want to know why a country goes into decline, you need look no further than its leaders.  America’s leaders have been completely corrupt for quite some time.  Roosevelt was hardly the first president to gloss over atrocities for the sake of political expedience, and he is certainly not the last.  All presidents since him have been equally complicit in covering up various evils.

Furthermore, each hidden evil requires lie after lie to keep it buried.  The history that is taught in schools more closely resembles fairy tales than a recounting of reality, and glosses over the horrors that America has committed.  If there is any mention of the evils of past empires, no effort is made to draw the moral lessons out of these past examples.  Thus, many Americans believe their country to be the epitome of awesome awesomeness when in fact it is an evil empire hellbent on destroying humanity.

America is an empire of lies, brought upon itself by its various leaders who have sold the very people they claim to represent and act in the best interest of.  And all for a brief amount of power.  American leaders made their beds with numerous dogs, and in so doing become one of them, except more rabid and feral.  In constantly fighting evil the world over, America’s leaders became the very evil they decried.  American leaders decried the evils of fascism, yet covered them up when it was politically advantageous.  And now they have not only tacitly approved of the fascism they once decried, now our leaders embrace it as their own and follow its precepts.

Fortunately, this empire of lies will one day collapse upon itself

8 comments:

  1. I wonder what you think FDR should have done, if indeed he was aware of the massacres at Katyn. Should he have repudiated the Soviet Union as an ally during World War II? If you think this - and logically speaking, it seems the spirit of your essay mandates that you answer this question in the affirmative - then I think you have to face some pretty difficult issues. For instance, most historians recognize that Russia's help was vital during the war - the Nazis might not have been defeated without that assistance. Do you think the potential harm or evil of not immediately mentioning Stalin's dastardly(there's no evidence that FDR condoned it or thought that sometime in the future it shouldn't be addressed) deed outweighed the neccesity of defeating Nazi Germany? Again, it seems to me that you would have to answer yes. Am I wrong about this? And if you do think this, is not your opinion rather extreme?

    ReplyDelete
  2. yes Jason.

    Stalin was worse than Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, I don't think I was as clear as I should have been in my comment. Taking a cue from Anonymous above, I'm less interested in the problem of who was worse - Stalin or Hitler - than in the moral problem that you mentioned. Namely, whether FDR was malicious in his not mentioning the Katyn massacre. Perhaps I could put the matter rather provactively: Suppose the U.S. had been allied with Nazi Germany in an effort to destroy Soviet tyranny, and the U.S. found out during the war that Hitler was murdering Jews. Since Stalin is worse than Hitler, then would it have been okay in this instance for FDR to not mention it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder why this is being brought up now? It's been known for decades. It was "uncovered" by Congress during hearings in the 1950's as part of the Communist scare. Is it an attempt to paint Russia in a bad light?

    In any event, it only raises the obvious question - what is the US government still hiding?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Jason- to speak broadly, I believe that FDR should have kept all of our troops on US soil for the entirety of his terms. In fact, I believe all presidents should keep all troops on US soil for the entirety of their respective terms (note that "US soil" is used more broadly to indicate not only US land, but territory and territorial waters as well). My personal opinion of war is that it is only to be engaged in defensively, and therefore there is no need to ever send troops abroad. No nation has the role of international police man, and no nation has the moral right to attack, counter-attack, or pre-emptively strike another nation. A nation's only right is the right of self-defenese, and this does not require leaving one's territory.

    I've written on the philosophy and ethics of cause for war elsewhere on this blog; I will post URLs at the bottom of this comment to get you started. In the meantime, my philosophical approach would lead to conclude that FDR should never have been involved with Stalin, and, consequently, there would have been no need to cover up Stalin's misdeeds. The fact of the matter is that FDR, like many other US presidents, was a dishonest power-hungry politician, as he sought power, it became necessary to lie down with dogs, and eventually lie about the fact that he had risen up with fleas. The same is true for other presidents as well. Lying is still lying, no matter the rationale. and the consequences still remain, no matter how noble the intentions behind the lie.

    And yes, my opinion is rather extreme.

    @Carnivore- My bet is that there is a simpler reason-: the leftist press was able to use government laws to paint the US in a bad light.

    "What is the US government still hiding?" That is indeed the question, and the point of this post.

    @Jason- here are the relevant URLs:

    http://cygne-gris.blogspot.com/2011/05/war-and-pretense-of-knowledge.html

    http://cygne-gris.blogspot.com/2011/03/principles-of-war.html

    http://cygne-gris.blogspot.com/2011/01/interventionism.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for your detailed response (actually, come to think of it, your philosophy seems similar to that of the scholar/diplomat George Kennan, who was of course a very thoughtful and brilliant guy), as well as the links which I will look at. I think all I would ask is whether you’re giving enough thought to the actual real-world consequences of non-intervention, especially in the case of World War II. It is hard to believe that non-intervention would have been benign in the case of Europe, since without American assistance Hitler could easily have won the war and ended up dominating all of Europe (not just the eastern half, as the Russians did after the war). France, England (yes, I know Hitler made peace overtures to them – they probably would not have lasted), the Netherlands, Poland, and others would have endured the Middle Ages again, but without the mercy of Christ - as Paul Reynaud put it. How long the German occupation would have lasted is of course impossible to say, but considering the mental and economic resources of Germany (not to mention the prestige of National Socialism, which was always more powerful than Communism) it could have been a very long time. It’s also hard to belief that the German occupation would not have had an impact on even the U.S. in a nuclear and global age – indeed, Nazism or some other forms of fascism probably would have infiltrated the Western atmosphere eventually, like a virus.

    Anyway,FFT - again thanks for your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. " I think all I would ask is whether you’re giving enough thought to the actual real-world consequences of non-intervention, especially in the case of World War II. It is hard to believe that non-intervention would have been benign in the case of Europe, since without American assistance Hitler could easily have won the war and ended up dominating all of Europe (not just the eastern half, as the Russians did after the war)."

    It certainly is possible that Germany could have conquered Europe, but, last I checked, that was Europe's problem, not ours. I would also argue that it would have been monstrously difficult, if not outright impossible, for Germany to conquer the world, even with the help of their allies. It takes a ton of resources to conquer another country, and it takes a lot of young men as well. Furthermore, there is no way to completely prevent infighting and internal sabotage. And these are just the considerations for conquering a single country. The complexity of these calculations and the costs of war magnify exponentially when you start talking about conquering dozens of countries on multiple continents against a decent number of countries that are your economic equal or superior.

    " France, England (yes, I know Hitler made peace overtures to them – they probably would not have lasted), the Netherlands, Poland, and others would have endured the Middle Ages again, but without the mercy of Christ - as Paul Reynaud put it."

    Since it only the merciful who receive mercy from Christ (Mat. 5:7), it is extremely unlikely, in light of the Treaty of Versailles (link below), that France, England, and the rest would have merited mercy from either Christ or Germany.

    "It’s also hard to belief that the German occupation would not have had an impact on even the U.S. in a nuclear and global age – indeed, Nazism or some other forms of fascism probably would have infiltrated the Western atmosphere eventually, like a virus."

    First, fascism has infiltrated America to a very great degree already. The current US government bears a closer resemblance to the fascist countries of the 40's than to the Republic founded by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al. NOw, the question is this: would non-interventionism in WWI and WWII have slowed the infiltration of fascism in the US or acted as a catalyst?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and here's the link to the treaty of Versailles:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles

    ReplyDelete