[Note: Reference/Notes #s 1-19 here have different corresponding numbers in the book. Reference/Notes #s 272-293 here have the same reference number as the corresponding reference in the book in its "Origins of the War" section.]


1. Jeremy Brecher, Strike, South End Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1997, p. 174., pp. 169-74


2. Ibid., pp. 188-90


3. Ibid., pp. 188-90


4. Ibid., pp. 190-92


5. NYT, March 19, 1937, cited in Brecher, p. 227


6. Lebow, R.N., Between Peace and War, 1981, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press


7. Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming Of The War: 1941, New Haven, Yale University Press 1948, p. 419


8. Charles Higham, Trading With The Enemy, Dell Publishing Co., New York, 1983, p. 184


9. Sergio Bologna, Nazism and the Working Class; 1933-93, [paper presented at the Milan Camera del Lavoro, 3 June 1993], p. 49


10. Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and The War Within World War II, Basic Books (Perseus Books Group), New York, 2001, pp. 373-4


11. Ibid., pp. 175


12. Gabriel Kolko, The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943-1945, Pantheon Books, New York, 1968, 1990.., p. 173


13. Ibid., p. 188


14. Ibid., p. 190


15. Ibid., p. 70


16. Ibid., p. 68-9


17. Ibid., p. 131


18. New York Times, 21 August, 1963, p. 30


19. Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1964, p.260

272. Higham, pp. 23-40

273. Ibid, pp. 41-50

274. Kevin Phillips, Wealth and Democracy, Broadway Books, New York, 2002, p. 72 (based on Ferdinand Lundberg, America's Sixty Families 1937)

275. Ivy Lee was a master of public relations who had earlier counseled John D. Rockefeller, Sr. to develop a reputation as a philanthropist when the nation was outraged at the way he tycoon broke a coal strike in Colorado by massacring coal miners and their wives and children in Ludlow.

276. Higham, pp. 53-82

277. Ibid, pp. 175-95

278. George Seldes, Facts and Fascism, 1943, p. 262, [ ]

279. The notion that business interests need their home governments to have empires (as opposed to needing anti-working class regimes regardless of which flag flies over them), and that this explains foreign policy of nations, does not accord with reality. even the British Empire before World War I, the classic example supposedly of "capital following the flag," does not bear out the theory. "[I]mperial possessions were not the main destination of British investment taken as a hole: for the period between 1865 and 1924, only around a quarter of investment went to the Empire, compared with 30 percent for the British economy itself and 45 percent for foreign economies. [Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War, p. 37, citing Davis and Huttenback, Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire: The Political Economy of British Imperialism, 1860-1932, Cambridge, 1986] A slight variant of the "capital following the flag" theory was advanced by the United States government under the phrase, "Open Door Policy." but the history of this phrase indicates that it was never taken seriously by U.S. leaders as a motive for waging war. The historian Charles Beard writes of the "Open Door": "This old phrase used by Republicans to justify the intervention of the Government of the United States in Oriental affairs on behalf of economic interests was never more than a kind of shibboleth. Various powers, including Japan, had agreed to observe or respect it, but none of hem, not even the United States, had undertaken to guarantee it by political and military action. That profound student of American policy in the Far East, Tyler Dennett, writing in 1922, said of it (as of 1899): 'The United States merely demanded an open door for trade in that part of China in which American merchants were already interested, viz., the area westward from Kwangtung on the South to Manchuria on the North...And as for those parts of the traditional Chinese Empire in the extreme South where France had already carved out an empire, or along the Amur where Russia had begun the partition of China in 1860, the United States never murmured a protest...It seems clear that the United States would not have taken up arms either to enforce assent to the open door policy, or to prevent the partition of the Empire.'" When Japan invaded China's Manchurian territory and created the puppet state of Manchukuo in 1931, United States leaders were not yet seeking an excuse for waging war, which explains why President Herbert Hoover, quite candidly, informed his Cabinet that "the actions of Japan in Manchuria 'do not imperil the freedom of the American people, the economic or moral future of our people.'" [Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941: A Study in Appearances and Realities, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1948, p. 238-9, and citing Americans in Eastern Asia, pp. 648f.] The reason Hoover could make this statement is that American capitalists were fully able to do business as easily following the Japanese Imperial flag as the American flag. As late as January 1941 the American oil company, Associated Oil Company, which later became the Tidewater Associated Company, was a partner in business with the Japanese Mitsubishi Oil Company. Tidewater's president, William F. Humphrey, planned a joint venture with Mitsubishi in Japanese-occupied China. The project was prevented, not by the fact of Japanese expansion, but by U.S. government objections. "Humphrey attempted to improve sentiment toward Japan by indicating to these government officials and businessmen that his relationship with Mitubishi had been 'more pleasant than any other association with accounts in any other country in the world...'" [Senator Harley M. Kilgore and Japan's World War II Business Practices, by Robert F. Maddox, Volume 55, pp.127-142]

280. Higham, pp. 33-6

281. Ibid, pp. 80-1

282. Some typical business affiliations of CFR directors at this time include: Paul D. Cravath, a director of the Equitable Trust Co.; Russell C. Leffingwell, a partner of J.P. Morgan & Co.; George o. May, a partner of Coopers & Lybrand, a predecessor firm to PricewaterhouseCoopers; Owen D. Young, Chairman of the Board of General Electric Corp.; Leon fraser, President of The First National Bank of the City of New York (as of 1945).

283. One might question whether the actions of the Rockefeller Foundation necessarily reflected the views of John D. Rockefeller II, but in fact at this time he senior Rockefeller exerted personal control over the foundation. G. William Domhoff, in State Autonomy or Class Dominance, writes, "The most important and tightly controlled organizations in the Rockefeller network were the three major foundations created by the family: the Rockefeller Foundation, the General Education Board, and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial," and refers to the Rockefeller Foundation being "under the watchful eyes of close Rockefeller advisors like Raymond B. Fosdick, Arthur Woods, Clarence J. Hicks, Beardsley Ruml, and Walter Teagle" (the last of whom, as we have seen, worked to promote a positive image of Nazis in the United States [pp. 120-22])

284. G. William Domhoff, The Power Elite and the State: How Policy is Made in America, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1990, pp. 107-144

285. The pro-fascist leanings of the Rockefeller family were not limited to its senior member. John D. Rockefeller II's son, Nelson Rockefeller, a CFR member, was appointed by FDR in 1940 to head the Office of Inter-American Affairs and be Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs; in reality he was in charge of U.S. intelligence operations in Latin America where his family had tremendous business interests. Rockefeller's economic preoccupation in Latin America was keeping the British, not the Germans, out. According to John Loftus and Mark Aarons, when Rockefeller discussed taking on his new government responsibilities with FDR aide Harry Hopkins, he "proposed that while Hitler and Churchill fought each other to death, the United States should be ready to pick up the pieces by seizing the opportunity to increase the economic influence of American businessmen...All through the war, at least while Rockefeller was in charge, everything the Germans wanted in South America they got, from refueling stations to espionage bases. The British, on the other hand, had to pay in cash. Behind Rockefeller's rhetoric of taking measures in Latin America for the national defense stood a naked grab for profits. Under the cloak of his official position, Rockefeller and his cronies would take over Britain's most valuable Latin American properties. If the British resisted, he would effectively block raw materials and food supplies desperately needed for Britain's fight against Hitler." [The Secret War Against the Jews, pp. 164-5, St. Martins Griffin, New York, 1994]

286. Higham, p. 43.

287. Loftus and Aarons, p. 89.

288. Domhoff, p. 118.

289. webpage:

290. Diana Richards et al, Good Times, Bad times and the Diversionary Use of Force: A Tale of Some Not So Free Agents, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 1993 p. 505-535. The Wright citation is Wright, A., 1965, A Study of War, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

291. Lebow, R.N., Between Peace and War, 1981, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

292. Patrick James et al, The Influence of Domestic and International Politics on the President's Use of Force, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35: 1991 pp. 307-28.

293. Christopher Gelpi, Democratic Diversions: Governmental Structure and the Externalization of Domestic Conflict, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41 (2) 1997 pp. 255-282.

This site was designed with the
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now