The idea for the U.S. Government to grab Greenland originated during the turning-point event when the U.S. Government’s President Truman made the fateful decision, on 25 July 1945, that it must take over ultimately the entire world because, as both Eisenhower and Churchill had advised the gullible new President, if the U.S. won’t do that, then the Soviet Union would. Thus, the Cold War started on that day, and on that basis (see that link for the evidence). The Soviet Union was the main conquest-target at the time because it was the second-most-powerful country then and thus was the natural main target at that time for ultimate U.S. take-over in order to be able to control the entire world. When the Soviet Union started having an atomic bomb on 29 August 1949, it became especially the main target. And, then, when the Soviet Union itself ended in 1991, the U.S. Government’s intention secretly continued unchanged, and the idea of a “peace dividend” was secretly trashed by the President, GHW Bush, and this secret intention to capture ultimately Russia itself, continues to this very day.
This was exactly the opposite of what the prior U.S. President, FDR, had been carefully planning even before Pearl Harbor, when on 9 August 1941, he had his first-ever personal meeting with the passionate supporter of imperialism, Winston Churchil, and in the evening of that day the two clashed ferociously about imperialism, and FDR told his son Elliott, who was in attendance throughout and included this in his notes, “It is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.” Churchill, self-defensively asked FDR “Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?” Here is FDR’s answer and the continuation of that conversation, from Elliott’s 1946 book, As He Saw It, which Elliott wrote because already in 1945 he recognized and was appalled, that Truman had reversed his father’s international policies:
“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation — by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. [Harry] Hopkins [a major FDR adviser] was grinning. Commander [C. R.] Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
“You mentioned India,” he growled.
“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy”
“What about the Philippines?”
“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down
“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”
“They’re artificial …”
“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”
“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. [FDR despised ANY type of hegemony.] Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. …”
At the very end of the day, after that meeting, privately, “Father grunted, ‘A real old Tory, isn’t he? A real old Tory, of the old school.’” (On international matters, though not domestic matters, FDR actually agreed far more with the passionate anti-imperialist Stalin than he did with passionate pro-imperialist Churchill.) And then, two days later, Churchill and FDR were working together on a draft of the Atlantic Charter, which Churchill was aiming to become the foundation of what turned out in 1949 to be the NATO anti-Russian alliance, but FDR had no such intention and was instead intending it to become the draft document for what would would become (in 1945) his U.N. (which Truman instead ended up shaping so as to weaken it). As FDR’s confidante Sumner Welles, who drafted the Atlantic Charter, along with FDR, with inputs from Churchill, put the matter in his 1946 book (likewise written in disgust at what Truman had just done), Where Are We Heading?), (p. 4):
The way the mind of the President was running at that time is shown in some notes which I made on August 11, during the time of the Atlantic Charter meeting, of a conversation which I had with the President on the afternoon of that day:
“I said I had been surrised and somewhat discouraged by a remark that the President had casually made in our morning’s conference, which was that nothing coulld be more futile than the reconstitution of a body such as the Assembly of the League of Nations. … The President said that he agreed fully with what I said and that all that he had intended by the remark which he had made in the morning was to make clear his belief that [only something much stronger than the League, with actual enforcement powers of its own, could suffice to keep the peace after WW2 if the Allies would win].”
FDR had another concern beside his difference with Churchill — American public opinion: For example, “He eliminated the greater part of the suggested preamble because of his belief that American public opinion was not as yet prepared for so drastic a statement of policy” as Welles had offered to him. FDR was a master of timing, and his U.N. would have to be structured with a suitable enforcement power, but the time to go public with that was not to be for public presentation in 1941.
Such documentations of the severe difference between FDR and Truman regarding their foreign policies has been ignored by almost all historians, and so is not known by the general public today, but today’s world events cannot be sensibly understood without understanding this 180-degree foreign-policy turnabout that Truman finally fixated upon on 25 July 1945, which actually started the Cold War.
The moment that FDR died on 12 April 1945, Bill Donovan and many others in his OSS were hoping that Truman would turn toward a coming U.S. imperialism, but it wasn’t until 25 July 1945 that Truman finally and irreversibly did. And, then, he started his Administration’s planning to, first, conquer the Soviet Union, so that next would come ultimately control of the entire world by the U.S. In 1949, both the Defense Department and the CIA were created for that very purpose — ultimate take-over of the world.
Truman’s Secretary of State was James Byrnes, who was an intense neooconservative like Truman was, and fully supported Truman’s plan for the U.S. Government ultimately to take control over the entire world. Byrnes (also much like Truman) was a White-supremacist and was the leader in the U.S. Senate who blocked passage of an anti-lynching bill. Of course, Trump himself is both a White supremacist and a neoconservative; so, he is very similar to Truman and to Byrnes; and one of the ways he is, is that Truman was the first U.S. President who wanted the U.S. to grab Greenland from Denmark, but he (unlike Trump today) wasn’t willing to invade Greenland for that. Trump is much bolder. Otherwise, Trump was remarkably like Truman, who was the founder of neoconservatism, which is the opposite of what FDR’s foreign polices and intentions for the post-WW2 world had been.
For example, the “Memorandum by the Director of the Office of European Affairs (Matthews) to the Secretary of State: top secret [Washington,] January 17, 1947” included the following:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated that our first objective should be to acquire Greenland by outright purchase from Denmark; alternatively to acquire long-term military base rights [which would likewise mean ceding their sovereignty to the U.S.].
In an exploratory conversation with Danish Foreign Minister Rasmussen on December 14, 1946, Mr. Byrnes5 emphasized the vital importance of Greenland to US security and suggested to him that our needs in regard to Greenland might be met by a new agreement giving the US long-term rights to construct and maintain military facilities in specified areas of Greenland or by a US-Danish treaty in which the US would undertake to defend Greenland from aggression and would secure the right to maintain such military installations there as would be necessary. Mr. Byrnes stated, however, that possibly the best solution, in the long run, both from the Danish and US points of view, would be outright US purchase of Greenland under an agreement concluded in accord with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. These several points were contained in more detail in a memorandum which Mr. Byrnes handed to Mr. Rasmussen at the close of the conversation. A copy of the memorandum is attached.6 The Minister’s first reaction was that he had not thought of anything so drastic but had in mind something along the lines of the US October 7 Agreement with Iceland. He agreed, however, to give Mr. Byrnes’ suggestions careful study. Mr. Byrnes indicated that we were willing to continue the status quo while a solution is being sought. Mr. Rasmussen has since agreed not to take the matter up with the Danish Parliamentary Committee until Soviet-Norwegian negotiations regarding Spitsbergen should materialize or be made public.
State Department Action: Await Danish reaction to December 14 conversation. If such reaction is delayed, consider course to be followed.
Truman was the first neoconservative U.S. President; but all except JFK among his successors have likewise been so, and Trump might turn out to be the boldest of the entire lot of them and go straight into WW3 in order to “Make America Great Again.” He might prefer destroying the entire world, to America losing its status of being the world’s most powerful nation. That preference would make him the most extreme of all neocons, and maybe he would like to wear that crown. But in any case, he is making the world increasingly dangerous with every passing day, and almost everyone outside the U.S. knows it. Only he and his followers do not.
Prior to Truman, during WW2, under FDR, before the Pearl Harbor attack, as early as the 12 April 1940 “CONSIDERATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF MEASURES FOR THE DEFENSE OF GREEBNLAND AFTER THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF DENMARK”, the U.S. Government recognized Greenland as being covered by the Monroe Doctrine, and thus within the scope of U.S. concern to prevent Germany from invading Greenland. In that document, this was a friendly personal agreement between the U.S. Secretary of State and Denmark’s U.S. Ambassador, so that if Germany would invade Greenland, then the U.S. would treat this as being an invasion of the U.S. Then, three days later, that Ambassador “said that he was tremendously relieved to have this information” after the U.S. Under Secretary of State, Sumner Welles, upon whom FDR particularly relied, confirmed it to him. This was, indeed, the U.S. Government’s position. The U.S. Government, in that instance, was not grabbing for anything, but instead working with Europe’s anti-Nazis, in order to protect democracy not just in the U.S., but in Greenland. However, now that America itself — as a direct consequence of Truman’s decision on 25 July 1945 — is ruled by an ideological nazi (racist-fascist-imperialist-supremacist — America’s European colonies (‘allies’) are being forced by Trump to choose whether to continue to side with today’s leading nazi power, in order to ‘defend’ themselves against their fellow-Eurasians, Russia and China, each one of which is much more powerful than they are, and both of which they had previously relied upon for oil and gas (Russia) and inexpensive imports (China). Trump is now threatening America’s own ‘allies’ (colonies) to choose sides: nazi, or anti-nazi. Like Trump’s fellow-nazi, President G.W. Bush, had said on 16 February 2002, “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us.” That challenge forces the 3-option choice: 1. Stay nazi. 2. Switch sides. 3. Choose neutrality. However, because the leading nazi has demanded reaffirmation of today’s nazi alliance, choosing neutrality would be dangerous unless the given nation first negotiates with the anti-nazi side, Russia and China, for their protection against the nazi power. Upon what terms would, say, Russia, defend that given neutral nation against an invasion by the U.S.? Europe’s leaders need now to be asking that question, both of Russia, and of China. It might also entail switching from supporting Israel to supporting Iran.
Trump is set upon bifurcating the world. He, too, is commanding “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us.” Will America’s ‘allies’ continue the status-quo and accept their country’s now enslavement to America’s billionaires? Trump obviously thinks that they will.
On January 17th, I headlined “Trump heads toward war against 8 European countries.” He named Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland, as the targets. Already, one country out of the 8, Germany, has caved to the nazi side, Chancellor Merz saying on January 19th, “The greatest threat to Europe today does not come from the West — it comes from the East. … My greatest concern for Europe’s security is not Greenland, but Ukraine.” He has always been a nazi, no different from Hitler’s hatred of Jews than Merz’s hatred of Gazans and supplying 30% of Israel’s weapons to exterminate them — Biden and Trump supplied the rest. Merz and Hitler both craved war against Russia. The U.S., under both Biden and Trump, has hammered down Germany’s economy, caused its de-industrialization, but Merz says that Germany must forswear what had been the by-far-cheapest energy-supplier to Germany and continue to do the U.S. regime’s bidding. All in order to conquer Russia, which has the low-cost energy that German industry needs in order to remain internationally competitive. So, Germany instead buys its energy from the U.S., at three times the price. What about the 7 other nations — are they, too, America’s slaves?
Alexander Mercouris, whose opinions on such matters I consider as close to authoritative as I know of, argued on January 19th that European nations are simply so dependent upon the U.S. that all of them — all EU members — ultimately will allow the U.S. Government to take Greenland for only, as Mercouris calls it, a “token” payment; no military force will oppose this happening. (Among the authorities he cites is Thomas Fazi’s January 9th “Trump and Greenland: why Europe will cave”. Fazi notes: “After all, Europe has already sacrificed its core economic and security interests to US imperial diktats. It has joined a proxy war against Russia that has devastated Ukraine and hollowed out European industrial competitiveness.” So: the Europeans ought to sink still further into that embrace? Even Fazi says no to this questtion question, but he STILL thinks that they WILL. He doesn’t say WHY.) I know that it’s tough for a slave to rebel against its master, but the U.S. has already done so much harm to Europe that letting this continue on and become evermore exploitative seems to me to be as-if in 1776 the Americans would have decided that breaking their ties to Britain wasn’t worth the trouble to do; so, there would have been no American Revolution. Pehaps what’s needed now is a European Revolution. In any case, you can hear Mercouris’s case (and/or read Fazi’s) right there. But I wonder what Mercouris would have said to the Committee of Five, appointed by the Continental Congress on 11 June 1776, to draft the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Maybe “Watch out, fellows! It’s too dangerous. You had better not do this!” And, of course, the U.S. Revolutionary War lasted 7 years, both sides seemingly invincible at various times, and then ending after 7 years of extremely bloody fighting, and then taking yet another 5 years to produce a Constitution. But that, it seems to me, is the choice for Europeans to make right now: either continue as slaves to America’s billionaires, snking deeper and deeper into humiliation, or else risk everything to defeat the tyrannous master-aristocracy that is exploiting them.
This is the world that Truman created, reversing FDR. Trump is merely culminating it. And if he will get no resistance, then what will the world’s future be like?
Comments