Consult your bookstore for books
reviewed here — or write to publishers listed.
Japanese attack. He wished to execute
his own "Pearl Harbor" by a surprise
sneak airplane attack on the Japanese
fleet as it by-passed the Philippines on
its way to the South Pacific. President
Roosevelt vetoed this proposal on the
ground that it would torpedo the "official record" of the administration in
regard to its promise not to move
without being attacked. But Stimson's
proposal of a sneak attack by the
United States provides a not too
oblique commentary on the moral hypocrisy of Mr. Roosevelt in his
remarks before Congress about "the
Day of tnfamy" wtien he asked for a
declaration of war the day after Pearl
Other chapters deal with Stimson's
role in the disgraceful transplantation
of loyal Japanese-American citizens to
concentration camps remote from their
homes on the Pacific Coast; his advocacy of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after he knew that
the Japanese were trying to surrender
and had offered peace terms much
like those accepted in August, 1945;
his deplorable fantasy in helping to
formulate the legal subterfuges under
which Nazi "war criminals" were tried
at Nuremberg; and his role in launching the United States into the Or-
wellian era in which it is proclaimed
that "war is peace" and vice-versa.
The only weak spot in Professor
Current's book lies in his treatment of
the attitude of Roosevelt and his entourage in the days immediately preceding Pearl Harbor. Here he indulges
in a degree of myth and fancy equal
to that of writers like Robert Sherwood
and Jonathan Daniels, although obviously not from the same motives or
for a similar purpose.
Professor Current's argument is the
following. With Roosevelt's approval,
we had entered into a secret agreement with the British and the Dutch
at Singapore in the spring of 1941.
We would make war upon Japan if
her forces crossed a mystic line in the
Pacific (100° East and 10" North)
even though the Japanese made no
attack on American forces or territory.
For a brief moment, it looked as
though the Japanese were not going
through with their attack on Pearl
Harbor, but were moving toward this
arbitrary line. This so excited and
alarmed Roosevelt and his associates
that the\' feared the attack on Pearl
Harbor would not come off, some
perhaps being so distracted that they
even momentarily forgot the danger
There is no doubt that the White
House and the warmongering strategists in the Cabinet were panic-
stricken for a time over this possibility
of having to make war without any
Japanese attack — and the probable
effect on the American people if Mr.
Roosevelt tried to get a declaration of
war without the hoped-for attack on
the United States, thus violating the
Democratic campaign promises and
platform of 1940.
But tin's alarm passed away with
the receipt of the welcome news (decoded Japanese messages) which revealed, as clearly as daylight, that the
Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese government had ordered
its spies in the Hawaiian Islands to
make daily reports on the American
military and naval situation at Pearl
Harbor, but requested no such information about any other American outpost in the Pacific. By the evening of
December 6th, the Japanese reply to
Hull's ultimatum of November 26th
convinced Roosevelt that war with
Japan was about to break out. By 8:00
a.m. on the morning of December
7th. it was clear that the Japanese
would attack Pearl Harbor at 1:00
p.m. that day, or 7:30 a.m., Pearl
Harbor time. On December 7th, as
sources friendly to the White House
tell us, President Roosevelt was fully
relaxed over his stamp collection while
Harry Hopkins fondled Fala, the President's Scotty terrier, both impatiently
and expectantly awaiting the news of
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Admiral Theobald has made it clear
that Roosevelt had ordered that no
warning should be sent to General
Short or Admiral Kimmel at Pearl
Harbor before noon of December 7th,
thus making it certain that any information that arrived would be too late
to make possible any defensive preparations that might frighten off the
Japanese task force.
Only one favorable tribute may be
paid to the public career of Henry 1,.
Stimson. He was not a physical coward. In his polities, lie may have
been almost invariably "Wrong-Horse
Harry." But he never asked others to
do what he himself was afraid to
tackle. Although he was the chief
author of the draft of 1910, lie was
also a volunteer in the first World War
and, but for his age, he might *'
have asked to fight in the second c*
flict — unless he felt that he co"»
serve his country better in a civil"1
-Harry Elmeb Ba»*
.arnes, The C«*
Idaho, 1953, 6"'
Perpetual War for
Edited by Harry Elmer
Printers, Ltd., Caldwel
No less an authority than the Ji
Yorfe Times recently confirmed. '"''
vertently, the thesis of this outsjj
ing book. In an editorial, the '".',
proclaimed, as one phase of o"r.,i
" foreign policy, that theHf
: is continually engag1'*
a "war for peace." Well, that is e*I
what revisionist historians sud},
Harry Elmer Barnes, the editor of,
book, and Charles A. Beard, the*
inator of its title, have contend1'1',
along. That our present foreign P"
— inaugurated by Roosevelt and
tinned by his successors — is o" i
perpetual intervention and war "
the pretense of establishing pl';,l'f
presented with devastating <'°c%
tation. The highly publicized ver >
of history — history written to
and preserve Roosevelt's prestifje
not hold up well under the r
trating scrutiny of these authors-
Now that a leading cxarnP
"liberal" journalism and a violf?
of revisionism has agreed xV J
revisionists on what our foreign r>
is, perhaps the virtues of such
can be debated
global meddling consume
per cent of our national expc'"-,!
icy would appear to be
( not to mention the casualties ■ u
and-a-half foreign wars), fore'." » tors ()
i dt'b?3 eornpi
subject. How we reached wh^j
are might also be of interest to
The sentiments of intervew'j
liberals may have been well eXFj
in another Times editorial
dignantly denounced Khrushch'
cent attempt to rewrite histoJj'J
this new-found attitude does ""
it Ii the lofty frowfl.
which the 'Times and other l".
tempts to contest Aincric;
history." But it is always
get any decent recording
as long as hordes of journalised ''
ers, and politicians have a .
politicians have ■ '
interest ill the official myth<>'*|
that as it may, one of the "^i
poses of the writers of this vol" [j
that „i combatting the body $ "atred
"history" that is still being i"'1"^' ^h ii
in main quarters. They have ' , Miy,-jt
too, for any sort of intel
proach to contemporary p1'1
difficult, if not impossible
Fa< is Fori \i News, Februi