Done by: Juan Pablo García Godoy

The first school of interpretation to emerge in the U.S. was "orthodox". For more than a decade after the end of the Second World War, few U.S. historians challenged the official U.S. interpretation of the beginnings of the Cold War. This "orthodox" school places the responsibility for the Cold War on the Soviet Union and its expansion into Eastern Europe.

U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s disillusioned some historians and created a cadre of historians with sympathy towards the Communist position and antipathy towards American policies. This group sought to challenge the premises of "containment", and thus with the assumptions of the "orthodox" approach to understanding the Cold War. "Revisionist" accounts emerged in the wake of the Vietnam War, in the context of a larger rethinking of the U.S. role in international affairs, which was seen more in terms of American empire or hegemony.

During the period, "post-revisionism" challenged the "revisionists" by accepting some of their findings but rejecting most of their key claims. Another current attempt to strike a balance between the "orthodox" and "revisionist" camps, identifying areas of responsibility for the origins of the conflict on both sides, John Lewis Gaddis's The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947 (1972).

American side/Post-revisionist Perspective:

About Ronald Reagan´s life and government:

The portrait that emerges is of a man instrumental in making conservative ideas palatable to the American public through his relatable, folksy demeanor; a man with a deep affinity for working class America but whose economic policies occasionally proved injurious to that constituency.

Though he was charismatic when he needed to be, Reagan wasn’t very introspective when it came to his own life and had few close friends aside from his wife Nancy, making him a somewhat elusive figure. It’s this mysterious quality that Jarecki believes has allowed people like Sarah Palin to project their own ideals on to him.

American side/Post-revisionist Perspective:

About Ronald Reagan´s life and government:

Jarecki, who describes himself as an “Eisenhower Republican” disillusioned with unsustainable policies of both major political parties, says today’s Republicans simply do not want to hear, for example, that Reagan had gay friends, provided amnesty for illegal immigrants, raised taxes six out of his eight terms, contributed to the deficit and negotiated with governments perceived as America’s enemies.

“I found myself actually finding that I needed to defend him from the misuse of his legacy by people who really do have insane and totally untested and uniformed views about American governance,” says Jarecki. “I had to protect him from them because they use him simply because they want to sell those notions on the American public, whether he would’ve agreed or not.”

Or, as Ron Reagan says in the film, his father was “smarter and better than many on the left think he was and less the giant than many on the right think he was.”

•He also is an author and a dramatic and documentary filmmaker based in New York.•His works include Why We Fight, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, Reagan, Freakonomics.

Was a British American author and journalist whose career spanned more than four decades. Hitchens, often referred to colloquially as "Hitch", contributed to New Statesman, The Nation, The Atlantic, The London Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, Slate Magazine, and Vanity Fair. He was an author of twelve books and five collections of essays, and concentrated on the subjects of politics, literature and religion. As a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits, he was a prominent public intellectual, and his confrontational style of debate made him both a lauded and controversial figure.

Hitchens was known for his scathing critiques of public figures. Three figures—Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, and Mother Teresa—were the targets of three separate full length texts, No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, and The Missionar Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. It can be seen as an Post-revisionist perspective historian.

In the text of The Trial of Henry Kissinger, he established theway how Henry Kissinger was the man behind the scenes of thecoup d´ etats in Latin America, like in Chile where he plannedwith Augusto Pinochet to took out Allende´s socialistgovernment and support a dictator government run byPinochet.

He also criticised that Henry Kissinger support theinvolvement of the United States in the War of Vietnam.

Nowadays many people consider him as a War Maker.For more details about Henry Kissinger, watch the

documentary of The Trial of Henry Kissinger in tne next link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bFOhAAYfqk.

Chile:In 1970, the prospect of Salvador Allende winning the Chilean presidency was highly controversial, particularly within the Chilean military, because of his Marxist ideology. Schneider had expressed firm opposition to the idea of preventing Allende'sinauguration by means of a coup d'état; as a constitutionalist, he wished to preserve the military's apolitical history.After the 1970 Chilean presidential election, a plot to kidnap Schneider was developed. "Neutralizing" Schneider became a key prerequisite for a military coup; he opposed any intervention by the armed forces to block Allende's constitutional election. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supplied a group of Chilean officers led by General Camilo Valenzuela with "sterile" weapons for the operation which was to be blamed on Allendesupporters.

Chile:

On October 22, 1970, the coup-plotters attempted to kidnap Schneider. His official car was ambushed at a street intersection in the capital city of Santiago. Schneider drew a gun to defend himself, and was shot point-blank several times. He was rushed to a military hospital, but the wounds proved fatal and he died three days later, on October 25.Military courts in Chile found that Schneider's death was caused by two military groups, one led by Viaux and the other by General Camilo Valenzuela. Viaux and Valenzuela were eventually convicted of charges of conspiring to cause a coup, and Viaux also was convicted of kidnapping. The lawsuit asserted that the CIA had aided both groups, but the charges were never satisfactorily proven, with the exception of the tens of thousands of dollars and also machine guns given to them by the CIA.On October 26, 1970, President Eduardo Frei Montalva named General Carlos Prats as Commander-in-Chief to replace Schneider. Ironically this happened at the same time that $35,000 were given by the CIA to the kidnappers as "humanitarian" assistance.

Chile:

On September 10, 2001 Schneider's family filed a suit against Kissinger, accusing him of collaborating with Viaux in arranging for Schneider's murder. While declassified documents show the CIA, displeased with the communist victory, had explored the idea of supporting Viaux in a coup attempt, they also show that the agency decided on tracking down other members of the Chilean military, deciding that a Viaux coup would fail. On October 15, 1970 Kissinger allegedly told President Nixon that he had "turned off" plans to support Viaux, explaining that "Nothing could be worse than an abortive coup." The US government claims they did not intend for Schneider to be murdered, only kidnapped. When Alexander Haig, Kissinger's aide was asked "is kidnapping not a crime?" he replied "that depends."

Chile:

During the presidential period of Allende, the United States with the CIA made many secret agreements with the leaders of the opposition in Chile. This people who own lands and control the market of Chile, agreed to have little incomes and supplies in the supermarkets like in others areas of production, by importing and exporting less as they were trying to sink the economy and people began to lose their jobs and less food was being sold, this cause poverty to come and also starvation for some. With this the opposition get their objective, that the people of Chile turn against Allende´s reforms and policies. By September 11, 1973 the Palacio of La Moneda was bombed from a military group which was lead by Augusto Pinochet and achieve a coup d'état turning down Allende´s government. Allende committed suicide and a dictator regime was established until 1990, under Pinochet. Days later of the coup in Chile, the economy began to recover as the supermarkets were magically supplied and the commerce was again opened, specially wit the United States.

Hitchens as others historians, support the idea that there was never a real “holocaust” and that most of the information about WWII and Hitler´s Third Reich, had been set up by the winners as they like it.

Irving rendered another service by unmasking some spurious documents connecting Churchill and Mussolini. He speaks faultless German. He has, in the most recent case, been the first historian to see some 75,000 pages of diary entries by Joseph Goebbels, held in secrecy in Moscow from 1945 to 1992. His studies of the Churchill-Roosevelt relationship, of the bombing of Dresden, of the campaigns of Rommel and others, are such that you can't say you know the subject at all unless you have read them. And, incidentally, he has never and not once described the Holocaust as a "hoax.“ (Christopher Hitchens)

For more detail information about this theme, go to the next link, http://www.fpp.co.uk/StMartinsPress/Hitchens0696.html.

He is an English writer and Holocaust denier, who specialises in the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany. He is the author of 30 books on the subject, including The Destruction of Dresden (1963), Hitler's War (1977), Uprising! (1981), Churchill's War (1987), and Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (1996). He is a revisionist historiographer.

In 1967 published Accident: The Death of General Sikorski. In the latter book, Irving claimed that the plane crash which killed Polish government in exile leader General Władysław Sikorski in 1943 was really an assassination ordered by Winston Churchill, so as to enable Churchill to betray Poland to the Soviet Union. Irving's book inspired the highly controversial 1967 play Soldiers by his friend, the German playwright Rolf Hochhuth, where Hochhuth depicts Churchill ordering the "assassination" of General Sikorski.

As a result of Irving's success with Dresden, members of Germany's extreme right wing assisted him in contacting surviving members of Hitler's inner circle. In an interview with the American journalist Ron Rosenbaum, Irving claimed to have developed sympathies towards them. Many ageing former mid- and high-ranked Nazis saw a potential friend in Irving and donated diaries and other material. Irving described his historical work to Rosenbaum as an act of "stone-cleaning" of Hitler, in which he cleared off the "slime" that he felt had been unjustly applied to Hitler's reputation.

In 1969, during a visit to Germany, Irving met Robert Kempner, one of the American prosecutors at Nuremberg. Irving asked Kempner if the "official record of the Nuremberg was falsified", and told him that he was planning to go to Washington, D.C. to compare the sound recordings of Field-Marshal Milch's March 1946 evidence with the subsequently published texts to find proof that evidence given at Nuremberg was "tampered with and manipulated".

In 1975, in his introduction to Hitler und seine Feldherren, the German edition of Hitler's War, Irving attacked the diary of Anne Frank as a forgery, claiming falsely that a New York court had ruled that the diary was really the work of an American scriptwriter Meyer Levin "in collaboration with the girl's father".

In 1977 Irving published Hitler's War, the first of his two-part biography of Adolf Hitler. Irving's intention in Hitler's War to clean away the "years of grime and discoloration from the facade of a silent and forbidding monument" to reveal the real Hitler, whose reputation Irving claimed had been slandered by historians. In Hitler's War, Irving tried to "view the situation as far as possible through Hitler's eyes, from behind his desk". He portrayed Hitler as a rational, intelligent politician, whose only goal was to increase Germany's prosperity and influence on the continent, and who was constantly let down by incompetent and/or treasonous subordinates. Irving's book faulted the Allied leaders, most notably Winston Churchill, for the eventual escalation of war, and claimed that the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was a "preventive war" forced on Hitler to avert an alleged impending Soviet attack. He also claimed that Hitler had no knowledge of the Holocaust; while not denying its occurrence, Irving claimed that Heinrich Himmler and his deputy Reinhard Heydrich were its originators and architects.

In September 1983, Irving for the first time attended a conference of the IHR. At the conference, Irving did not deny the Holocaust, but did appear happy to share the stage with Robert Faurisson and Judge Wilhelm Stäglich, and claimed to be impressed with the allegations of Friedrich Berg that mass murder via diesel gas fumes at the Operation Reinhard death camps was impossible. At that conference, Irving repeated his claims that Hitler was ignorant of the Holocaust because he was "so busy being a soldier".

Irving also took the view that Hitler often tried to help the Jews of Europe. In a June 1992 interview with the Daily Telegraph, Irving claimed to have heard from Hitler's naval adjutant that the Führer had told him that he could not marry because Germany was "his bride". Irving then claimed to have asked the naval adjutant when Hitler made that remark, and upon hearing that the date was 24 March 1938, Irving stated in response "Herr Admiral, at that moment I was being born".

In a 1986 speech in Australia Irving argued that photographs of Holocaust survivors and dead taken in the spring of 1945 by Allied soldiers were proof that the Allies were responsible for the Holocaust, not the Germans. Irving claimed that the Holocaust was not the work of Nazi leaders, but rather of "nameless criminals", and furthermore claimed that "these men [who killed the Jews] acted on their own impulse, their own initiative, within the general atmosphere of brutality created by the Second World War, in which of course Allied bombings played a part."

In the 1988 Zündel trial, Irving repeated and defended his claim from Hitler's War that until October 1943 Hitler knew nothing about the actual implementation of the Final Solution. He also expressed his evolving belief that the Final Solution involved "atrocities", not systematic murder: "I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so many millions of survivors. And believe me, I am glad for every survivor that there was.“ Irving testified for Zündel between 22–26 April 1988, where he endorsed Richard Harwood's book Did Six Million Really Die? as "over ninety percent...factually accurate".

As to what evidence further led Irving to believe that the Holocaust never occurred, he cited the Leuchter report by self-styled execution expert Fred A. Leuchter, which claimed there was no evidence for the existence of homicidal gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Irving said in a 1999 documentary about Leuchter: "The big point [of the Leuchter report]: there is no significant residue of cyanide in the brickwork. That's what converted me. When I read that in the report in the courtroom in Toronto, I became a hard-core disbeliever". In addition, Irving was influenced to embrace Holocaust denial by the American historian Arno J. Mayer's 1988 book Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?, which did not deny the Holocaust, but claimed that most of those who died at Auschwitz were killed by disease; Irving saw in Mayer's book an apparent confirmation of Leuchter's and Zündel's theories about no mass murder at Auschwitz.

In a 1993 speech, Irving claimed that had been only 100,000 Jewish deaths at Auschwitz, "but not from gas chambers. They died from epidemics". Irving went on to claim that most of the Jewish deaths during World War II had been caused by Allied bombing. Irving claimed that "The concentration camp inmates arrived in Berlin or Leipzig or in Dresden just in time for the RAF bombers to set fire to those cities. Nobody knows how many Jews died in those air raids". In another 1994 speech, Irving claimed that there was no German policy of genocide of Jews, and that only 600,000 Jews died in concentration camps in World War II, all due to either Allied bombing or disease. In a 1995 speech, Irving claimed that the Holocaust was a myth invented by a "world-wide Jewish cabal" to serve their own ends. A frequent theme was the claim that Winston Churchill had advance knowledge of the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor, and refused to warn the Americans in order to bring the United States into World War II.

In an interview with Australian radio in July 1995, Irving claimed that at least four million Jews died in World War II, through he argued that this was due to terrible sanitary conditions inside the concentration camps as opposed to a delibrate policy of genocide in the death camps.

Was an Austrian-born American political scientist and historian. He was widely considered to be the world's preeminent scholar of the Holocaust, and his three-volume, 1,273-page magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews, is regarded as a seminal study of the Nazi Final Solution.

Hilberg delineated the history of the mechanisms, political, legal, administrative and organizational, whereby the Holocaust was perpetrated, as it was seen through German eyes, often by the anonymous clerks whose unquestioning dedication to their duties was central to the efficacy of the industrial project of genocide. To that end, Hilberg refrained from laying emphasis on the suffering of Jews, the victims, or their lives in the concentration camps. The Nazi program entailed the destruction of all peoples whose existence was deemed incompatible with the world-historical destiny of a pure master race – and to accomplish this project, they had to develop techniques, muster resources, make bureaucratic decisions, organize fields and camps of extermination and recruit cadres capable of executing the Final Solution.

Hitler developed a master plan for the genocide of the Jewish people and that everything that happened was the unfolding of the plan. This clashed with the lesson Hilberg had absorbed under Neumann, whose Behemoth:The Structure and Practice of National Socialism (1942) described the Nazi regime as a virtually stateless political order characterised by chronic bureaucratic infighting and turf disputes. The task Hilberg set for himself was to analyse the way the overall policies of genocide were engineered within the otherwise conflictual politics of Nazi factions. It helped that the Americans classifying the huge amount of Nazi documents used, precisely, the categories his future mentor Neumann had employed in his Behemoth study.

Hilberg came to be considered as the foremost representative of what a later generation has called the functionalist school of Holocaust historiography. This is an ongoing debate, around approximately the following basic points: Intentionalists see "the Holocaust as Hitler's determined and premeditated plan, which he implemented as the opportunity arose", while functionalists see "the Final Solution as an evolution that occurred when other plans proved untenable". Intentionalists argue that the initiative for the Holocaust came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy.

Since Hilberg was an Austrian Jew who had fled to the United States to escape the Nazis, he obviously had no Nazi sympathies, which helps to explain the vehemence of the attacks by intentionalist historians that greeted the revised edition of The Destruction of the European Jews in 1985.Hilberg's understanding of the relationship between the leadership of the Third Reich and the implementers of the genocide evolved from an interpretation based on orders to the RSHA originating with Adolf Hitler and proclaimed by Hermann Göring, to a thesis consistent with Christopher Browning's The Origins of the Final Solution, an account in which initiatives were undertaken by mid-level officials in response to general orders from senior ones. Such initiatives were broadened by mandates from senior officials and propagated by increasingly informal channels. The experience gained in fulfilling the initiatives fed an understanding in the bureaucracy that radical goals were attainable, progressively reducing the need for direction.

As Hilberg put it in a late interview:“As the Nazi regime developed over the years, the whole structure of decision-making was changed. At first there were laws. Then there were decrees implementing laws. Then a law was made saying, "There shall be no laws." Then there were orders and directives that were written down, but still published in ministerial gazettes. Then there was government by announcement; orders appeared in newspapers. Then there were the quiet orders, the orders that were not published, that were within the bureaucracy, that were oral. Finally, there were no orders at all. Everybody knew what he had to do.”In earlier editions of Destruction, in fact, Hilberg discussed an "order" given by Hitler to have Jews killed, while more recent editions do not refer to a direct command. Hilberg later commented that he "made this change in the interest of precision about the evidence[...]." Notwithstanding Hilberg's focus on bureaucratic momentum as an indispensable force behind the Holocaust, he maintained that the large-scale extermination of Jews was one of Hitler's primary aims: "The primary notion in Germany is that Hitler did it. As it happens, this is also my notion, but I'm not wedded to it" (qtd. in Guttenplan, p. 303).

What is most contentious about Hilberg's work, the controversial implications of which influenced the decision by Israeli authorities to deny him access to the Yad Vashem's archives, was his assessment that elements of Jewish society, such as the Judenräte (Jewish Councils), were complicit in the genocide. and that this was partly rooted in longer-standing attitudes of European Jews, rather than attempts at survival or exploitation. In his own words:"I had to examine the Jewish tradition of trusting God, princes, laws and contracts [...] Ultimately I had to ponder the Jewish calculation that the persecutor would not destroy what he could economically exploit. It was precisely this Jewish strategy that dictated accommodation and precluded resistance."The result of his approach, and the sharp criticism it aroused in certain quarters, was such, as he records in the same book, that:"It has taken me some time to absorb what I should always have known, that in my whole approach to the study of the destruction of the Jews I was pitting myself against the main current of Jewish thought."

The Question . . .

81 DUKE STREETLONDON W. 1

TELEPHONE 01 499 94095th December 1975

Dear Sir, I am an English historian and have completed a lengthy biography on Adolf Hitler based entirely on primary documentary sources. In connection with the final solution of the Jewish question I have run up a monumental difficulty, however, and I wonder if you with your expert knowledge can provide me with the evidence that I am seeking: is there any acceptable evidence linking Hitler himself with the order to exterminate European Jews? (There is such evidence linking him with the killing of Russian Jews and with the deportation of the European Jews to the East.) The extraordinary thing is that after ten years reading the entire German records available I have found no such evidence, but only evidence to the contrary. As my book is to be published by Viking Press and other publishers in a year's time, I would be grateful if - since shortly the book goes to press - you could provide me with any assistance on this matter. Yours faithfully, (David Irving)

. . . The AnswerProf. Raul Hilberg

December 12, 1975 Mr. David Irving81 Duke Street

London W.1England

Dear Mr. Irving: The question you raise has troubled me for a number of years, more so recently than before. About fifteen years ago, in a passage dealing with the famous Göring letter to Heydrich of July 31, 1941, I indicated that the order, while signed by Göring, was given by Hitler. Now I wish I had not put things in such definite terms. Even then I really meant to say "must have been given" by Hitler, but I had no direct evidence at that time nor do I have such proof at this late date to permit the flat assertion that Hitler originated the "final solution" through this letter. You have probably studied the work of Uwe Dietrich Adam, Judenpolitik imDritten Reich. Clearly he feels that the Göring letter was not an instruction to inaugurate the "final solution" as we now understand the term. To Adam the "final solution" was an expandable concept. If we accept that notion for a minute, we can even suppose that no single order for the total annihilation of European Jewry was ever given by anyone, including Adolf Hitler himself. Personally, I can no longer dismiss this thought completely.

. . . The Answer continuous

My reasoning years ago was that Hitler, totally preoccupied with the Eastern front in the summer of 1941, would not in any case have written a directive (such as in the case of the euthanasia program), but that he probably told Göring to take care of the matter with the result that the aforementioned letter was written. I did not think (and still do not) that Hitler would have given a written letter to Göring and I therefore do not believe that such a paper will ever be found. Adam, of course, raises the more profound question of whether there was ever a Hitler order, oral or written. It is true that in Jewish matters Hitler decisions turn up as often in vetoes (the Jewish star, the race pollution case against Katzenberger and Seiler and perhaps the proposed transport of Jews from Germany in August, 1941) as they do in positive instructions for action. Possibly, the destruction of the Jews was so drastic that it could only have occurred in an organic, evolutionary process, from vagueness to specificity, and in a very real administrative sense, from the bottom up. I realize that this answer to your question is very frustrating but inasmuch as I do not have decisive documents, I thought that I should at least give you my indecisive thoughts. I will be looking forward to your book. Sincerely, Raul HilbergRH/ha

Was an American author and historian. He is best known for his bestselling biography of Adolf Hitler and for his Pulitzer Prize-winning World War II history of Japan, The Rising Sun. Is a Revisionist historian.

The Rising Sun, based on original and extensive interviews with high Japanese officials who survived the war, the book chronicles Imperial Japan from the military rebellion of February 1936 to the end of World War II. The book won the Pulitzer because it was the first book in English to tell the history of the war in the Pacific from the Japanese point of view, rather than from an American perspective.

Toland tried to write history as a straightforward narrative, with minimal analysis or judgment. One exception to his general approach is his Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath about the Pearl Harbor attack and the investigations of it, in which he wrote about evidence that President Franklin Roosevelt knew in advance of plans to attack the naval base but remained silent.

On December 7, 1941— often referred to as "a day of infamy" — a surprise attack was staged by the Japanese on the American naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Heavy American casualties were inflicted on those based on the island outpost which lay halfway between the United States and Japan. The devastation aroused the anger of the American people. Soon afterwards, the U.S. government declared war on Japan and Germany and joined the Allies in World War Two.

A Day of Infamy

According to historian, John Toland, "The events of Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, have always been shrouded in mystery. Japanese bombs had scarcely stopped falling on Pearl Harbor before shocked and angry Americans were calling for an investigation of the catastrophe, one of the most sudden and complete defeats in United States history. Within weeks, Franklin D. Roosevelt had appointed a blue-ribbon committee, headed by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, to look into the events leading up to the Japanese attack. Its judgment placed the blame on the Hawaiian commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, in spite of much contradictory evidence. "Their disgrace aroused a storm of controversy. Pleading a wartime need for secrecy, the government kept a tight lid on the facts surrounding the Pearl Harbor disaster. There were rumors of a whitewash, and knowledgeable crypt-analysts talked of a Japanese order given in the highly classified Purple Code (which, under extreme security wraps, the United States had been decoding for years).

A Day of Infamy

The so-called "winds execute" signal, they said, had warned Washington of imminent attack — a warning never passed on to Hawaii. "Eight more investigations followed, during and after the war, as partisans on both sides — field officers versus the Washington establishment — traded sensational and sometimes incredible assertions, accusations, and denials. Witnesses changed their testimony under pressure; files were destroyed or ‘mislaid'; and key government figures ‘forgot' where they were, what they said, and what they did in the crucial hours preceding the attack."INFAMY, by John Toland, raises and answers some important questions about Pearl Harbor. Was there prior knowledge? Why were commanding officers Short and Kimmel not informed of an impending attack? Could Roosevelt have known of the approaching carrier force and decided not to act? Could the Americans have ambushed the Japanese and shortened the war? According to Toland, the Roosevelt administration had foreknowledge of Japan's military plans.

Prior Warning

"Confirmation of Dutch foreknowledge of the Japanese attack also came from General Albert C. Wedemeyer. In 1980 he informed the author that during a meeting in 1943, Vice Admiral Conrad E. L. Helfrich of the Royal Netherlands Navy expressed wonder that the Americans had been surprised at Pearl Harbor. The Dutch, Helfrich said, had broken the code and knew that the Japanese were going to strike Pearl Harbor. "He seemed surprised that I did not know this," recalled Wedemeyer, "and when I explained that I doubted seriously that this information was known in Washington prior to Pearl Harbor attack, Admiral Helfrich was skeptical because it was his clear recollection that his government had notified my government." (p. 317 - 318)

Prior Warning continuous

"Vice Admiral Conrad E. L. Helfrich of the Royal Netherlands Navy expressed wonder that the Americans had been surprised at Pearl Harbor. The Dutch, Helfrich said ... knew that the Japanese were going to strike Pearl Harbor ... it was his clear recollection that his government had notified [the U.S.] government." "By December 4, Roosevelt and a small group of advisers, including Stimson, Knox and Marshall, were faced with three options. They could announce to Japan and the world word of the approaching Kido Butai [the Japanese fleet]; this would indubitably have forced the Japanese to turn back. Second, they could inform Kimmel and Short that Japanese carriers were northwest of Hawaii and order them to send every available long-range patrol plane to discover this force. An attack conceived in such secrecy would necessarily depend on complete surprise for success, and once discovered out of range of its target, Kido Butai would have turned back ... "A month before the Hull ultimatum to Japan, Ickes had written in his diary: ‘For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan.' The first bomb dropped on Oahu would have finally solved the problem of getting an America — half of whose people wanted peace — into the crusade against Hitler. And the third option would accomplish this: keep Kimmel and Short and all but a select few in ignorance so that the Japanese could continue to their launching point unaware of their discovery. This would insure that the Japanese would launch their attack. If Kimmel, Short and others had been privy to the secret, they might possibly have reacted in such a way as to reveal to the Japanese that their attack plan was known." (p. 318)

Prior Warning continuous

"One of Knox's close friends, James G. Stahlman, wrote Admiral Kemp Tolley in 1973 that Knox had spent most of the night of December 6 at the White House with the President: All were waiting for what they knew was coming: an attack on Pearl Harbor." (p. 320)"There, therefore, can be no question that between the dates of December 4 and December 6, the imminence of war on the following Saturday and Sunday, December 6 and 7, was clear-cut and definite ... "Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States except the final message instructing the Japanese Embassy to present the 14th part together with the preceding 13 parts of the long message at one o‘clock on December 7, or the very hour and minute when bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor." (p. 108)

Cover-Up?

"A massive cover-up followed Pearl Harbor a few days later, according to an officer close to Marshall, when the Chief of Staff ordered a lid put on the affair. ‘Gentlemen,' he told half a dozen officers, ‘this goes to the grave with us.'" (p. 321)Three years later, after the Army Pearl Harbor Board and Navy Inquiry announced its findings, one man from Rhode Island summed up the feelings of the American people:"The Government's cover-up of the responsibility for that catastrophe has done more to undermine morale than any other single event of the past three years. The thinkers of America, and there are millions of them, won't stand for such guff. I am but one of the millions of Americans today who are shocked, humiliated and indignant because of this announcement." (p. 130)"But there was little doubt in knowledgeable Washington circles that the navy would find it all top secret and the Pearl Harbor cover-up would continue." (p. 109)And the cover-up continues to this day. Witness the plethora of Hollywood videos, history books and media coverage which say nothing of the real story behind Pearl Harbor. But history has its own way of painting its victims. On his death, President Roosevelt was described by one who knew him well as "a man who never told the truth if a lie would suffice." (p. 134) John O'Donnell in the New York Daily News wrote, "The evidence builds up to the simple brutal fact that F.D.R., the Big Brain, through blind stupidity ... was directly and personally responsible for the blood and disaster." (p. 160)The evidence presented by John Toland suggests that Pearl Harbor was a crisis created by the U.S. government on December 7, 1941 to manipulate public opinion and sway the American people into going to war.

Was a German historian, journalist, critic and editor, best known for his writings and public commentary on Nazi Germany, including an important biography of Adolf Hitler and books about Albert Speer and the German Resistance. He was a leading figure in the debate among German historians about the Nazi period.

In 2002 he published Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich, a work based on newly-available evidence following the opening of the Soviet archives, but which largely confirmed the account of Hitler's death given in Hugh Trevor-Roper's book The Last Days of Hitler (1947). Inside Hitler's Bunker, along with the memoirs of Hitler's personal secretary Traudl Junge, formed the source material for the 2004 German film Der Untergang (Downfall), the third postwar German feature film to depict Hitler directly.

Was an English historian of early modern Britain and Nazi Germany and Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford. In academe, Trevor-Roper was known not so much for his books as for his lively intellectual controversies with fellow historians. His most successful book emerged from his assignment as a British intelligence officer in 1945 to discover what happened in the last days of Hitler's bunker. From his interviews with a range of witnesses and study of surviving documents he demonstrated to the satisfaction of most analysts that Hitler was dead and had not escaped from Berlin. His book The Last Days of Hitler was a popular and critical success. However, his reputation was seriously damaged in 1983 when after a brief examination he authenticated the Hitler Diaries, which were subsequently shown to be forgeries.

In regard to the Globalist-Continentalist debate between those who argued that Hitler had as his aim the conquest of the entire world, as against those who argued that he sought only the conquest of the continent of Europe, Trevor-Roper was one of the leading Continentalists. He argued that the Globalist case rested upon taking a wide scattering of Hitler's remarks over several decades and attempting to turn these views into a systematic ideology. In his opinion, the only consistent objective Hitler sought was the domination of Europe.

http://realscreen.com/2011/02/07/eugene-jareckis-reagan-aims-to-uncover-the-enigma/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bFOhAAYfqkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchenshttp://www.fpp.co.uk/StMartinsPress/Hitchens0696.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irvinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberghttp://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Hilberg051275.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Toland_(author)http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WOO203A.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Festhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Trevor-Roper