Displaying posts categorized under

HISTORY

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT’S PRAYER JUNE 6TH, 1944

My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest, until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas — whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them — help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace, a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

Remembering D-Day Illuminates the Relevance of Memorial Day By Dennis Jamison

https://canadafreepress.com/article/remembering-d-day-illuminates-the-relevance-of-memorial-day

They truly deserve to be remembered and to serve as an example of courage and willingness to sacrifice for us in this dark time.

As Americans just celebrated Memorial Day last week, many memories were conjured up of the brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives to advance the cause of Freedom. Truly, the original purpose of Memorial Day, initially intended as a day to honor the brave boys and men who fought to preserve the Republic during the Civil War, remains intact even in 2021. However, one of the most solemn days those from the older generations remember is D-Day because the advancement of Freedom came at such a great cost on such a single day. It is so very right that those of the “greatest generation” who served their country in World War II, should be remembered for sacrificing their lives so that Freedom could survive.

By the end of the first day, more than 12,000 Allied soldiers had been killed or wounded

Today, the anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944, is an especially appropriate time for shining the light a little longer on the relevance or value of Memorial Day as a proper way of honoring those who sacrificed their lives defending or advancing freedom. Memorial Day, in our time, is a day in which we honor all those men and women in uniform who gave their lives for their country, or for the cause of freedom in other countries, throughout any period of our history. So, it is especially fitting that the heroes on D-Day, as well as those who made the ultimate sacrifice during WWII, deserved to be remembered on Memorial Day, as well other moments of opportunity, such as the commemoration of D-Day.

By the end of the first day, more than 12,000 Allied soldiers had been killed or wounded, and many thousands more died that month as the Allies secured Normandy. But, for many of those, their first day in battle was their last. While many young Americans volunteered for military service after the attack at Pearl Harbor, far too many never made it home again. So many went off to Europe to fight against Hitler and the National Socialists who had taken over most of Europe by 1941. Those men gave their lives that freedom could survive, and that others would be freed from tyranny.

Remember Tiananmen Square The Chinese are keen to brush the historical reality of what happened in 1989 under the rug. Don’t let them. By Roger Kimball

https://amgreatness.com/2021/06/05/remember-tiananmen-square/

Early June marks the anniversary of the brutal suppression by the Chinese Communist Party of the Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing. The pro-democracy, anti-corruption protests started in the spring of 1989. At first, the Chinese authorities oscillated between conciliation and crackdown. But on June 4, the hard-liners, led by Premier Li Peng, prevailed. As the protests continued and became more virulent, the military was summoned. Estimates of Chinese citizens murdered range from many hundreds to many thousands. Thousands more were injured. 

On June 5, 32 years ago as I write, a lone man in a white shirt stepped in front of a column of tanks, temporarily halting its progress. The lead tank turned to go around him. He gingerly stepped in front of it again. And again. At one point, he clambered onto the tank to talk briefly to a crew member at the gunner’s hatch. Back on the ground, he continued to offer himself as a human obstacle. Eventually, some people in the crowd pulled him aside and the tanks proceeded.  

No one knows the name or the fate of that brave man. But photos and a fuzzy video of the event surfaced and etched the episode into the world’s conscience, catapulting the man to anonymous fame. Just utter the phrase “Tank Man.” Every adult, even those educated at the best schools, will instantly know whom you mean.  

Every adult in the West, that is. In China, the situation is different. There, the totalitarian’s most faithful handmaid, historical amnesia, has been the order of the day. (Though not yet in Hong Kong, as Claudia Rosett vividly reminds us.) 

I was alerted to the extent and seamlessness of that deliberately cultivated amnesia several years ago. Our son, then a freshman in high school, had befriended a young Chinese student in his class. One day, he brought his friend home for dinner, the first of several such gatherings. His English was still a little rough—it improved rapidly—but he was clearly very intelligent. He was also, we discovered over the next four years, socially accomplished and vibrating with energy. 

The Elusive Pursuit of World Peace-John Moses

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/05/the-elusive-pursuit-of-world-peace/

The preservation of international peace and the problem of negotiated disarmament among nations have been a problem for humanity from biblical times at least. Turning spears into pruning hooks and swords into ploughshares was urged by ancient Jewish prophets in the Old Testament and echoed in the New Testament by Jesus of Nazareth in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) by calling peace-makers “blessed”. That was an aspiration which the course of history has mocked. Wars and rumours of wars have plagued human history from time immemorial. Wars to end war have been fought and have succeeded only in the sowing of dragons’ teeth. The First World War led almost inexorably to the Second.

The great irony is that these most destructive wars in human history have been fought among avowedly Christian nations. The Florentine Machiavelli has triumphed over Jesus of Nazareth, the Prince of Peace. It is noted, however, that Machiavelli in his work The Prince of 1513 was only describing the behaviour of rulers at that time and what they did to stay in power. They all simply acted in their dynastic or national interest whenever they took up arms against a neighbouring state.

Nothing, it would seem, has really changed throughout history, despite the well-intentioned efforts of pacifists, who continue to recommend unilateral disarmament as if that were the magic formula to create a knock-on effect inspiring all other powers to risk doing the same. Peace, and hopefully justice on earth, would then prevail. Pacifists also accuse statesmen of duplicity and deceptive actions against their own people while in reality they are furthering their class interests.

During the great naval race between Britain and Germany, the English journalist and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Norman Angell published a book called The Great Illusion (1909). He had hoped to illustrate that modern warfare between great industrial powers would be so costly regardless of who actually won, that decision-makers would shy back from the risk. The naval build-up went on anyway and hostilities eventually broke out in August 1914 and lasted four horrifically ruinous years for all concerned.

The most reliable research on all this was carried out by the Hamburg-based Professor Fritz Fischer and more recently confirmed by his doctoral student Bernd Schulte in a number of detailed publications based on hitherto unexplored sources. The assertions made by Cambridge Professor Christopher Clark in his 2013 book The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 have created a furore, especially in Germany where liberals and social democrats have been outraged by Clark’s downplaying of the “guilt” of the imperial German power elite who were bent on war. Not a few Australasian historians have welcomed Clark’s assertions because it allows them to denigrate the imperial connection by arguing that the dominion contribution to that conflict was the result of a deception perpetrated by British decision-makers in Whitehall. In reality, so it is agued, the First World War had nothing to do with the Pacific dominions. Our leaders were simply duped into supplying cannon fodder for wicked British capitalists.

Biden’s Deceptive Acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide Why his vow “never again” rings hollow. David Boyajian

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/what-lies-beneath-bidens-deceptive-acknowledgment-david-boyajian/

Joe Biden’s April 24 statement acknowledging the Armenian Genocide (1915–1923+) carried out by Turkey was welcome, but flawed. Indeed, “Turkey” appears nowhere in the document. Moreover, the State Department swiftly undermined Biden’s virtuous-sounding words.

American acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide isn’t even new. The U.S. House has passed several resolutions on the Genocide. And a nearly unanimous Congress did so in 2019.

Presidents going back to Woodrow Wilson have described the Armenian ordeals with language such as: an effort to exterminate all Armenians; terrible massacres; mass killings; death marches; and an ancient [Armenian] homeland was erased. If these don’t describe genocide, the word is meaningless.

In 1951, the State Department cited the Armenian “massacres [as a] crime of genocide” in a filing at the International Court of Justice. In 1981, President Reagan included “the genocide of Armenians” in a Holocaust proclamation.

Genocide acknowledgments should not — like car insurance — lapse if not renewed annually. Will the Holocaust become a non-genocide next year if the White House happens to overlook it?

Still, the president’s statement is noteworthy. It could even reinvigorate several Armenian American lawsuits against Turkey. But the statement has problems.

It tries to take the heat off today’s Republic of Turkey by blaming only “Ottoman-era … authorities” for the Genocide.

After the Allies defeated Ottoman Turkey in WWI (1918), Ottoman General Mustafa Kemal’s (Ataturk) forces continued to massacre Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Kemal also ordered that Armenia be “politically and physically eliminated.” When he established the Turkish Republic in 1923, Kemal appointed Ottoman genocidists and continued to persecute Christians.

Thus, as President Erdogan himself has confirmed, his country is a “continuation” of Ottoman Turkey. Knowing this, the Turkish Republic has always tried to evade accountability for the Genocide.

Disgracefully, though, Biden tries to assist Turkey in that regard by writing, “We do this not to cast blame” [on Turkey].” The president has no right to hand Turkey a “Get Out of Jail Free card.”

Just two days later, American Ambassador to Armenia Lynne Tracy tried to help Turkey duck accountability. “The Armenian Genocide took place in 1915, the [UN] Genocide Convention did not come into force until 1951 … from the legal perspective the Convention is not being applied retroactively.”

The Barbary Pirates Circa 2021 By David F. Eisner

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/the-barbary-pirates-circa-2021/

A lesson on ransomware from the Founding Fathers.

Colonial Pipeline CEO Joseph Blount recently admitted that Colonial paid a ransom of $4.4 million to the criminal hackers who caused the company to shut down the country’s largest transporter of fuel. One news source reported that the decryption tool provided was not effective in restoring operations. Colonial managed, however, to recover by reliance on backup systems.

In the wake of the Colonial cyberattack, the Biden administration has indicated that it is looking again at the government’s “approach to ransomware actors and ransoms overall.” On the theory that the payment of ransoms encourages more attacks, the FBI has had a longstanding policy against paying ransoms.

It is the right policy and has been since the early days of the United States. The administration would do well to heed the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who found themselves in the ransomware crisis of their day — attacks by the Barbary pirates.

From the Crusades until the early 19th century, the Barbary pirates dominated nautical activity around northern Africa. They captured ships, stole cargo, and enslaved crews. Between 1530 and 1780, an estimated 1 million Europeans were enslaved in North Africa. In his best-selling book Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, acclaimed historian and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren wrote that from the 12th century until the early 19th century, Barbary piracy was Europe’s “nightmare.”

Piracy during the early centuries was mainly religiously motivated — Al-jihad fi’l-bahr, or holy war at sea. However, when the Moroccans gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in the late 18th century, piracy became a tool of foreign and trade policy. In many cases, pirates were given private commissions by the ruling pashas.

Rather than go to war, most of Europe mollified the Barbary states by paying “tribute” — the colonial equivalent of “ransomware.” According to Oren, this was a “cold calculation that tribute was cheaper than the cost of constantly defending the vital Mediterranean trade routes.”

When the Mob Came for the Jews of Baghdad We heard screams all through the night. Today only four known Jews remain in Iraq. By Joseph Samuels

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-mob-came-for-the-jews-of-baghdad-11622237901?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

I was 10 when mobs attacked the Jewish community of Baghdad, my community, with cruel and unimaginable violence. Rioters maimed, raped, killed and robbed the unsuspecting Jews. This massacre, which began June 1, 1941, was called the Farhud, Arabic for “violent dispossession” or pogrom.

The seeds of the Farhud had been sown two months earlier. On April 1, a pro-Nazi coup d’état overthrew the pro-British Iraqi government and seized power. The coup was staged by Rashid Ali al Gaylani, an Arab nationalist and former Iraqi prime minister, supported by four army generals, and aided by Fritz Grobba, a former German ambassador to Iraq. This dangerous group was further stoked by the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, who deeply hated the Jews. Anti-Semitic propaganda began to appear in the daily newspapers and in broadcasts on Radio Baghdad. It was intended to inflame the Muslim population and rally support for the new regime.

The Jewish community bore the brunt of this explosive combination of Arab nationalism, Nazi propaganda and anti-Semitism. In the weeks after the coup my family stayed home most of the time, huddled around the large console radio. We listened with disbelief to reports of Jews being arrested and accused of anti-Iraqi sentiment and of spying for the British. I shook just thinking of the torture being carried out to extract false confessions.

On May 31, 1941, the British army arrived at the outskirts of Baghdad. The pro-Nazi government collapsed quickly, but al Gaylani and his co-conspirators escaped to Iran. The Jewish community in Baghdad felt a sense of relief, especially as it coincided with the eve of the Shavuot festival, commemorating the time when God gave us the Ten Commandments. We had good reason to rejoice.

But that high spirit didn’t last long, and joy reverted to pain and sorrow. The absence of a functioning government created a power vacuum. Across the country, chaos and lawlessness followed.

The Farhud erupted early Monday morning, June 1. Soldiers in civilian clothes, policemen and large crowds of Iraqi men, including Bedouins brandishing swords and daggers, joined in the pillage, helping themselves to loot as they plundered more than 1,500 Jewish homes and stores. For two days, the rioters murdered between 150 and 780 Jews—exact counts aren’t known—injured 600 to 2,000 others, and raped an indeterminable number of women. Some say 600 unidentified victims were buried in a mass grave. All through the night we heard their screams. We heard gunshots too, then sudden quiet. Unarmed and unprepared to defend themselves, Jews were vulnerable and helpless. I was shaken, desperate and angry.

The Elusive Pursuit of World Peace John Moses

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/05/the-elusive-pursuit-of-world-peace/

The preservation of international peace and the problem of negotiated disarmament among nations have been a problem for humanity from biblical times at least. Turning spears into pruning hooks and swords into ploughshares was urged by ancient Jewish prophets in the Old Testament and echoed in the New Testament by Jesus of Nazareth in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) by calling peace-makers “blessed”. That was an aspiration which the course of history has mocked. Wars and rumours of wars have plagued human history from time immemorial. Wars to end war have been fought and have succeeded only in the sowing of dragons’ teeth. The First World War led almost inexorably to the Second.

The great irony is that these most destructive wars in human history have been fought among avowedly Christian nations. The Florentine Machiavelli has triumphed over Jesus of Nazareth, the Prince of Peace. It is noted, however, that Machiavelli in his work The Prince of 1513 was only describing the behaviour of rulers at that time and what they did to stay in power. They all simply acted in their dynastic or national interest whenever they took up arms against a neighbouring state.

Nothing, it would seem, has really changed throughout history, despite the well-intentioned efforts of pacifists, who continue to recommend unilateral disarmament as if that were the magic formula to create a knock-on effect inspiring all other powers to risk doing the same. Peace, and hopefully justice on earth, would then prevail. Pacifists also accuse statesmen of duplicity and deceptive actions against their own people while in reality they are furthering their class interests.

During the great naval race between Britain and Germany, the English journalist and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Norman Angell published a book called The Great Illusion (1909). He had hoped to illustrate that modern warfare between great industrial powers would be so costly regardless of who actually won, that decision-makers would shy back from the risk. The naval build-up went on anyway and hostilities eventually broke out in August 1914 and lasted four horrifically ruinous years for all concerned.

Reflections on the Biden vs. Begin Collision For the Delaware Democrat, mean-spirited ignorance remains the rule. Lloyd Billingsley

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/05/bidens-begin-back-story-lloyd-billingsley/

““As over 3,000 rockets are fired into Israel, the establishment of the Democratic Party seems paralyzed over how to respond to the latest Middle East war,” Victor Davis Hanson explains in “Why Does the Left Hate Israel?” Democrats are “in terror also that anti-Israelism is becoming synonymous with rank anti-Semitism. And soon the Democratic Party will end up disdained as much as was the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.”

Back on May 10, Hamas fired seven rockets into Jerusalem, followed in short order by 3,200 rockets into Israeli cities. Targets included homes, apartment blocks, schools, kindergartens and an oil storage tank. Israel responded with strikes on targets in the Gaza Strip, and that prompted Joe Biden’s call to Benjamin Netanyahu, pushing for “a significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire.”   

Biden also encountered Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who was on record that  “apartheid-in-chief Netanyahu will not listen to anyone asking nicely.” Biden told her, “You’re a fighter and God thank you for being a fighter.” Back on June 22, 1982, Sen. Biden met a fighter of a different sort, Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, a veteran of Israel’s war of independence and survivor of Arab wars against Israel from 1948 onward. 

Under the Camp David Accords, brokered by President Jimmy Carter, Israel returned to Egypt the Sinai Peninsula, occupied during the 1967 war. Begin and Anwar Sadat were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1978. On June 22, 1982, while Israel was tangling with the PLO in Lebanon, Menachem Begin appeared in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Sen. Biden told Begin that if Israel did not immediately cease building settlements in Judea and Samaria, the United States would cut off economic aid to Israel. 

“Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work,” Begin responded. “I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”

Biden then raised his voice at Begin and banged twice on the table. 

“This desk is designed for writing, not for fists.” Begin said.

Palestine Shouldn’t Exist By refusing to accept Palestinians into the neighboring land, Arabs were able to make them a permanently aggrieved class. By Dan Gelernter

https://amgreatness.com/2021/05/18/palestine-shouldnt-exist/

At the end of World War I the Ottoman Empire had been destroyed, leaving the allies to administer its former territories in the Levant. The French received a League of Nations mandate for Lebanon, which had been Catholic since the crusades, as well as for what is now Syria. The British created new kingdoms with varying degrees of independence in Egypt, Iraq, and in Hejaz, which would be invaded by the Sauds and transformed into Saudi Arabia a few years later. 

The British also received a League of Nations mandate to implement the Balfour Declaration in Palestine. As the Mandate stated, “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” 

Lord Balfour said in a speech he hoped the Arabs would not “begrudge that small notch” of land to the Jews, reminding them of the new Arab sovereignty in Hejaz, which covered 870,000 square miles. Palestine, this “small notch of land,” included Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, and all of Jordan. This territory jointly constituted about 46,000 square miles, or 5 percent of the area of Hejaz, and had a population of just a few hundred thousand, including nomadic Arabs as well as Jews who had largely arrived in the first Zionist settlement movement of the 1880s.

Unfortunately, the British had made a certain Prince Faisal, who had been an ally in the war, king of Iraq. And his brother Abdullah, who had also been a good British ally, wanted to be a king, too. He complained to the British, who duly made him a king. Their solution was to give him the largely empty Transjordan, figuring the Jews wouldn’t mind if 75 percent of their promised homeland was deleted right at the outset.

The Jews were left with about 8,000 square miles, roughly the size of New Jersey. Between the world wars, the British restricted Jewish immigration and settlement to small areas and simultaneously encouraged Arab immigration. The Arabs were vastly more influential in the region and had the innate sympathies of the British. They might have gotten away with eradicating the Jews from Palestine entirely if not for the unfortunate trick played on the Arabs by World War II: The Arabs had supported Nazis, and this made them look bad. As a result, the British felt compelled to stick to their guarantee of a Jewish homeland. To an extent.