The Plot to overthrow FDR.

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Link (to article pasted)

History Channel Documentary

Wikipedia mentioned it, barely.

American Liberty League

THE BUSINESS PLOT TO OVERTHROW ROOSEVELT

In the summer of 1933, shortly after Roosevelt's "First 100 Days," America's richest businessmen were in a panic. It was clear that Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Roosevelt had to be stopped at all costs.

The answer was a military coup. It was to be secretly financed and organized by leading officers of the Morgan and Du Pont empires. This included some of America's richest and most famous names of the time:

Irenee Du Pont - Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League, the organization assigned to execute the plot.

Grayson Murphy - Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks.

William Doyle - Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup.

John Davis - Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan.

Al Smith - Roosevelt's bitter political foe from New York. Smith was a former governor of New York and a codirector of the American Liberty League.

John J. Raskob - A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. In later decades, Raskob would become a "Knight of Malta," a Roman Catholic Religious Order with a high percentage of CIA spies, including CIA Directors William Casey, William Colby and John McCone.

Robert Clark - One of Wall Street's richest bankers and stockbrokers.

Gerald MacGuire - Bond salesman for Clark, and a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion. MacGuire was the key recruiter to General Butler.

The plotters attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead the coup. They selected him because he was a war hero who was popular with the troops. The plotters felt his good reputation was important to make the troops feel confident that they were doing the right thing by overthrowing a democratically elected president. However, this was a mistake: Butler was popular with the troops because he identified with them. That is, he was a man of the people, not the elite. When the plotters approached General Butler with their proposal to lead the coup, he pretended to go along with the plan at first, secretly deciding to betray it to Congress at the right moment.

What the businessmen proposed was dramatic: they wanted General Butler to deliver an ultimatum to Roosevelt. Roosevelt would pretend to become sick and incapacitated from his polio, and allow a newly created cabinet officer, a "Secretary of General Affairs," to run things in his stead. The secretary, of course, would be carrying out the orders of Wall Street. If Roosevelt refused, then General Butler would force him out with an army of 500,000 war veterans from the American Legion. But MacGuire assured Butler the cover story would work:

"You know the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspapers. We will start a campaign that the President's health is failing. Everyone can tell that by looking at him, and the dumb American people will fall for it in a second…"

The businessmen also promised that money was no object: Clark told Butler that he would spend half his $60 million fortune to save the other half.

And what type of government would replace Roosevelt's New Deal? MacGuire was perfectly candid to Paul French, a reporter friend of General Butler's:
"We need a fascist government in this country… to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers, and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight."
Indeed, it turns out that MacGuire travelled to Italy to study Mussolini's fascist state, and came away mightily impressed. He wrote glowing reports back to his boss, Robert Clark, suggesting that they implement the same thing.

If this sounds too fantastic to believe, we should remember that by 1933, the crimes of fascism were still mostly in the future, and its dangers were largely unknown, even to its supporters. But in the early days, many businessmen openly admired Mussolini because he had used a strong hand to deal with labor unions, put out social unrest, and get the economy working again, if only at the point of a gun. Americans today would be appalled to learn of the many famous millionaires back then who initially admired Hitler and Mussolini: Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, John and Allen Dulles (who, besides being millionaires, would later become Eisenhower's Secretary of State and CIA Director, respectively), and, of course, everyone on the above list. They disavowed Hitler and Mussolini only after their atrocities grew to indefensible levels.

The plot fell apart when Butler went public. The general revealed the details of the coup before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, which would later become the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee. (In the 50s, this committee would destroy the lives of hundreds of innocent Americans with its communist witch hunts.) The Committee heard the testimony of Butler and French, but failed to call in any of the coup plotters for questioning, other than MacGuire. In fact, the Committee whitewashed the public version of its final report, deleting the names of powerful businessmen whose reputations they sought to protect. The most likely reason for this response is that Wall Street had undue influence in Congress also. Even more alarming, the elite-controlled media failed to pick up on the story, and even today the incident remains little known. The elite managed to spin the story as nothing more than the rumors and hearsay of Butler and French, even though Butler was a Quaker of unimpeachable honesty and integrity. Butler, appalled by the cover-up, went on national radio to denounce it, but with little success.

Butler was not vindicated until 1967, when journalist John Spivak uncovered the Committee's internal, secret report. It clearly confirmed Butler's story:

In the last few weeks of the committee's life it received evidence showing that certain persons had attempted to establish a fascist organization in this country…

There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned and might have been placed in execution if the financial backers deemed it expedient…

MacGuire denied [Butler's] allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made to General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principle, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various form of veterans' organizations of Fascist character.

Needless to say, the survival of America's democracy is not an automatic or sure thing. Americans need to remain vigilant against all enemies... both foreign and domestic.
Yet another conspiracy, except this one is more reality than conspiracy. Wow, has this nation been teetering on the edge of corporate dominance for so long?

Once again, the Du Pont family is involved. There was an article posted here a while back showing the Du Pont family ties to having Cannabis outlawed as it was a direct competitor to their chemical business interests. Preposterous!?

I guess the modern MO is to just dominate the airwaves with both misleading propaganda and news that is selectively filtered to support business interests while giving the impression of objectivity.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,509
OBJECTIVE reality
Extremely interesting. Although the military aspect is missing, for audacity it rivals the current antics of Machiavellian plotters like Karl Rove and evil billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife.

Anybody familiar with Sherlock Holmes? Remember how Professor Moriarty is described as the hidden instigator behind all sorts of crimes? Well, I've read no less than four books recently about Bush and/or Clinton, and in each of them, Scaife appears, Moriarty-like, hidden in the background yet very much involved in conspiracies such as the one to take down Clinton's presidency.

Xtremehkr said:
Yet another conspiracy, except this one is more reality than conspiracy. Wow, has this nation been teetering on the edge of corporate dominance for so long?
It's been in danger of it even longer. Behold, one of my all-time favorite quotes:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign...until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.
You would think that was said by someone like FDR, but get a load of who saw it coming long before then: Abraham Lincoln (1864).
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
skunk said:
Keep going: things get even more interesting when Alcoa comes into the picture. And Prescott Bush, of course.
This one's good, too:
http://www.sumeria.net/health/npoi1.html
Long, but worth a read. Intriguing involvement of a certain D Rumsfeld.
I can't keep track of all the products on the market that are detrimental to my health anymore. That's an outrageous link, it really shows how out of touch Americans are with things that really matter to them.

Jared Diamonds latest book, Collapse, covers why societies have failed. Most of it comes down to poisoning the enviroment in which you exist. Poisoning the people within your society is even worse than that.

Can you imagine what kind of information is not known when you consider corporate Americas apparant willingness to ignore the harmful side effects of their products in favor of making more profit.

What is worse is that a lot of people seem to prefer not knowing what is goos and what is bad for them. I remember when I posted the link about Poly Vinyl, which is clearly dangerous, according to documents from the industry. People were reading it down to be less dangerous than what it is. Can denial be a psychological condition that afflicts entire societies?
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
skunk said:
Absolutely. Look at any wartime state, anywhere, anytime.
I can't disagree there, I don't know if it is exactly the same as being in denial about things that are so detrimental to your own health.

War in the western world is, for the most part, fought overseas and doesn't really affect most of the populous. Foreign people in foreign countries die while we look great because our military stomps all that comes before us.

But when it comes to our own health and well being?

To a certain extent, it proves the idea that most people are born to be lead, and the real difference is made through who does the leading.

But then again, it may come down to what kind of culture is established.I think it comes down more on the cultural side. The left has not done as good a job as the right when it comes to establishing why they believe in their ideals, despite the protests of the right.

The old cliche "rather the devil you know" comes to mind.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
Xtremehkr said:
War in the western world is, for the most part, fought overseas and doesn't really affect most of the populous. Foreign people in foreign countries die while we look great because our military stomps all that comes before us.
Well, if you consider Europe as constituting the "west", then this is hardly true, historically. The US is unique in having the safety of two oceans, and of never fighting a foreign power on our own soil since independence (except the mexicans). As such, I feel that Europeans are more aware, and therefore more apprehensive about war, it's realities/effects, and our less apt to use it as an option, at least these days (after WWI and II).
But then again, it may come down to what kind of culture is established.I think it comes down more on the cultural side. The left has not done as good a job as the right when it comes to establishing why they believe in their ideals, despite the protests of the right.
It is cultural, but also psychological. In general terms, the right caters to greed, fear, apathy, pride,avarice, exclusivity and the individual, which take little effort to embrace. The left tends to cater to inclusion, understanding, hope, the whole and critical thought. These take much more effort to embrace.

The effects of each on a society are obvious.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
blackfox said:
Well, if you consider Europe as constituting the "west", then this is hardly true, historically. The US is unique in having the safety of two oceans, and of never fighting a foreign power on our own soil since independence (except the mexicans).
Ahem. 1812.
As such, I feel that Europeans are more aware, and therefore more apprehensive about war, it's realities/effects, and our less apt to use it as an option, at least these days (after WWI and II).
Exactly right.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Let me add a whole lot of context then so as not to confuse anyone.

Recent wars, fought by western nations, are mostly outside of where the populous exists.

Europe has not fought itself in quite some time. As far as I know, no living American has seen major conflict fought within our borders.

Since WW2 I don't think most of europe has seen major conflict within its borders, most of the fighting has been done outside of that.

Really, I don't know why you think that the war of 1812 would be relevant to how people feel about war today. It's been 60 years since a foreign nation attacked the US and every war or conflict since (and there have been numerous ones) has been outside of the mainland.

This is basically true for Europe as well.

Meaning that, most people alive today in western nations have very little experience with what it is like to be in a war zone, as experienced when your nation is made into a battlefront.

I realize that Europe is more experienced with the horrors of war. Europeans have, for the most part (examples like the Falklands I guess), stopped fighting eachother.

However, Europe still gets involved in conflicts outside of its borders. Not Iraq, but many others yes. Even as we speak, France is having some problems with a current/former colony isn't it?

In modern times, western populations enjoy the comfort of having wars fought in areas other than their own, that seperation from the horror of war not being experienced first hand probably leads to a certain amount of apathy, no?

You could go back historically (and did) but how is that relevant?
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
Xtermehkr,

History is always relevant. The legacy of WWI and II weigh heavily on European attitudes with regards to war, even if those with direct experience are growing fewer with each passing year. Europe also saw the rise of every political system known to man, and the relative horrors of each, from absolute monarchies to fascism. As such, generally, their political systems are pluralistic as to prevent/mitigate such abuses of power.

The Balkans are in Europe. Granted, those in the UK, or even Germany would not have direct experience in a war zone, but would likely be more aware of the realities next door and of the possible consequences to their way of life depending on the outcome, or if it should spread. This is somewhat analgous to their being a war in Illinois. If you lived in Iowa, or California, you would not be in the war zone, but you can bet you'd pay attention.

Is there apathy in Europe? Sure. 1st world countries are generally fairly stable and this breeds a degree of apathy about political affairs. Nevertheless, US sensibilities are profoundly different, both by degree and character, as we have yet to experience either the horrors of war or of that of despotic political systems directly on our soil, so we have an uncommon amount of naivete/idealism.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
blackfox said:
Xtermehkr,

History is always relevant..
Yes, it is always relevant to something, though not every historical event is relevant to every situation.

blackfox said:
The legacy of WWI and II weigh heavily on European attitudes with regards to war, even if those with direct experience are growing fewer with each passing year. Europe also saw the rise of every political system known to man, and the relative horrors of each, from absolute monarchies to fascism. As such, generally, their political systems are pluralistic as to prevent/mitigate such abuses of power.
The World Wars have not stopped Europe from going to war. They have stopped lessened the degree to which European nations fight eachother.

I do believe that Europe has learned from its political mistakes however and is doing a much better job in that department. The US had a head start in that department, having been able to learn from Europes mistakes, but is failing in other areas that were not forseen in time.


blackfox said:
The Balkans are in Europe. Granted, those in the UK, or even Germany would not have direct experience in a war zone, but would likely be more aware of the realities next door and of the possible consequences to their way of life depending on the outcome, or if it should spread. This is somewhat analgous to their being a war in Illinois. If you lived in Iowa, or California, you would not be in the war zone, but you can bet you'd pay attention.
My point is that people are more apathetic to war when it is not a daily reality that they are physically faced with. Which is much more common in modern western nations.

blackfox said:
Is there apathy in Europe? Sure. 1st world countries are generally fairly stable and this breeds a degree of apathy about political affairs. Nevertheless, US sensibilities are profoundly different, both by degree and character, as we have yet to experience either the horrors of war or of that of despotic political systems directly on our soil, so we have an uncommon amount of naivete/idealism.
Not the point I was making. Are there differences between the US and Europe? yes. Would Germany and France have helped in Iraq if they had been guaranteed contracts to rebuild it, probably. The UK, Spain and Poland (among others) joined the effort.

But that is all besides the point, all I was saying is that in modern times, the populations of western nations are not as adversely affected by wars their nations enter into and this IMO makes those populations more apathetic to the situation. Sure, they may not agree with it, but it's not like they are worried to go outside for fear of being blown up.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
blackfox said:
as we have yet to experience either the horrors of war or of that of despotic political systems directly on our soil, so we have an uncommon amount of naivete/idealism.
I was going to make a silly crack about your experience of despotic political systems not being so remote, but really I wonder if your country's experience of war is that remote either: your Civil War was terribly costly and savage, your Indian Wars ditto, in other words, you should know better. Denial ain't just a river in Africa...
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
sorry. I guess I misconstrued your point. Considering the thread topic and your subsequent posts, I assumed:

lack of conflict/hardship in Western countries (including war) ---> increased apathy in political and social matters ---> exploitation of said attitudes by power bases (government/big business) towards increased centralization of power/resources/profits ---> destruction of democracy (except perhaps in name) --->fascism ---> we are all fuc*ed (except power centers).

Skunk, yes the civil war is an example I did not adequately address, and a relevant one also, as it was economically based. I guess so much time has gone by, and it's uniqueness as an internal war tread upn lightly, makes it difficult to reference for many.

As for political system(s), we have only had the one, and until recently, it functioned pretty good. Even now, we are not quite to the stage of direct comparison to the great despots of the modern era.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
Xtremehkr said:
Yes, it is always relevant to something, though not every historical event is relevant to every situation.
I don't think anyone was claiming that... :rolleyes:

The World Wars have not stopped Europe from going to war. They have stopped lessened the degree to which European nations fight each other.
That's a bit of a stretch. Apart from the civil war in Yugoslavia, what else has happened?

Not the point I was making. Are there differences between the US and Europe? yes. Would Germany and France have helped in Iraq if they had been guaranteed contracts to rebuild it, probably. The UK, Spain and Poland (among others) joined the effort.
No, a particular clique of leaders decided to act as a lynch-mob. Cowboy fantasy, that's all.

But that is all besides the point, all I was saying is that in modern times, the populations of western nations are not as adversely affected by wars their nations enter into and this IMO makes those populations more apathetic to the situation. Sure, they may not agree with it, but it's not like they are worried to go outside for fear of being blown up.
I think that was precisely Bin Laden's thinking.

And one gets the impression over here that all you over there are so worried you'll accept any loss of liberty or any denial of justice to feel safer.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
skunk said:
I don't think anyone was claiming that... :rolleyes:
He said "history is always relevant."


skunk said:
That's a bit of a stretch. Apart from the civil war in Yugoslavia, what else has happened?
European nations have participated in numerous conflicts since WW2. France was in Viet Nam before the US went in. The UK has helped the US extensively in many conflicts. Europe has not been involved in anywhere near the number of conflicts the US has, but Europe has not stopped going to war.

No, a particular clique of leaders decided to act as a lynch-mob. Cowboy fantasy, that's all.


skunk said:
I think that was precisely Bin Laden's thinking.
And one gets the impression over here that all you over there are so worried you'll accept any loss of liberty or any denial of justice to feel safer.
I was meaning along the lines of apathy affecting peoples resistence to letting the country go to war. And/or the amount of death and money people are willing to accept when it is not in their face. This latest war is being fought on credit, which also helps.

I think Bin Ladens goal was to bring the war to the US, to scare the public into paying enough attention to possibly get the US to withdraw its interests from the Middle East.

The results have been mixed. Bin Ladens attempts scared the public just enough to let the wrong people have way too much influence over the political process and to institute invasions on our privacy that they had wanted to institute anyway. The same people who Bin Laden was trying to get rid of, now have considerably more influence and control of politics here due to his attacks.

Bin Laden got American troops to target in Iraq, and probably support from more Middle Eastern nations who are scared of our presence there. Americans are much easier to reach in Iraq than they are here. And no matter what is claimed, the sheer cost of this war is going to hurt the nation.

The American public meanwhile, knows more about Oscar winners and American Idol than they do what is going on in politics. A lousy education system, a corporate controlled media and massive spending on propaganda has led to them being a confused bunch of sheep who equate supporting Bush with being a good christian.

I can't defend the 59 million people who voted for Bush.

But I don't think that it had anything to do with what I was saying. You seem to think that I am attacking Europe in some way, I did refer to all western nations though. Don't forget about Australia and New Zealand, or Canada. Though Canada pretty much stay out of things, and are somehow terrorism free!
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
Xtremehkr said:
European nations have participated in numerous conflicts since WW2. France was in Viet Nam before the US went in. The UK has helped the US extensively in many conflicts. Europe has not been involved in anywhere near the number of conflicts the US has, but Europe has not stopped going to war.
I thought you were talking about wars in Europe. My mistake. :eek:
 

aloofman

macrumors 68020
Dec 17, 2002
2,206
0
Socal
This is not "another conspiracy." It's an old conspiracy that failed. And businesses have had major sway a hell of a lot longer than that. There's a reason that patent rights and intellectual property are specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

What exactly does mentioning this story accomplish? To get the anti-globalization types in a lather? :rolleyes:
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,509
OBJECTIVE reality
Xtremehkr said:
I think Bin Ladens goal was to bring the war to the US, to scare the public into paying enough attention to possibly get the US to withdraw its interests from the Middle East.

The results have been mixed. Bin Ladens attempts scared the public just enough to let the wrong people have way too much influence over the political process and to institute invasions on our privacy that they had wanted to institute anyway. The same people who Bin Laden was trying to get rid of, now have considerably more influence and control of politics here due to his attacks.

Bin Laden got American troops to target in Iraq, and probably support from more Middle Eastern nations who are scared of our presence there. Americans are much easier to reach in Iraq than they are here. And no matter what is claimed, the sheer cost of this war is going to hurt the nation.
Bin Laden has said specifically that the purpose of his jihad is to force the American government to spend tons of money defending itself and chasing phantom threats all over the world, with the ultimate purpose of bankrupting us and thereby bringing down our capitalist system. In that respect, Bush must have surpassed bin Laden's wildest dreams. To bin Laden's ultimate benefit, Bush has:

  • increased the number of Middle East terroists by attacking Iraq for strategic access to its oil;
  • perpetuated a state of fear in the U.S.;
  • alienated the very allies that we need;
  • driven us into unsupportable debt with his tax cuts for his rich friends.

Yes, bin Laden has also helped the warmongers in this country rise to power, but aside from that, bin Laden pretty much owns Bush.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
That also kinda shows that these terrorists aren't brain surgeons either.

Attacking the world trade center was symbolic and all, but would hardly bring down the economy.

I don't want to post any ideas publically, but if you were a terrorist and wanted to bring down this economy, it's not hard to come up with ideas that are much easier to achieve and would be much more damaging to the economy.

Maybe that is why so much focus is on Iraq and other nations who had nothing to do with 9/11. This administration doesn't seem to be able to catch Bin Laden to save their lives.

Though one more big terrorist attack would hand the country to the administration on a platter.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
It's always good to know one's history, and this plot should be put in the context of very real sympathies of major sections of US business for fascism in the 30s. The ties of many, influential corporate leaders, like Henry Ford and others, to the Nazis and Italian fascists are seldom talked about but they were very real. Aside from the good history lesson, however, what is the purpose of this old conspiracy to a discussion of today's politics? A conspiracy implies a secret agenda, and this administration is pretty much out in the open with its plans to reorder the world.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Is it though? To bring freedom and liberty to the world? Is that really what we are doing?

Clear Skies? No Child Left Behind?

Everything is a lie with these people and it has been the most secretive administration ever.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
Xtremehkr said:
Is it though? To bring freedom and liberty to the world? Is that really what we are doing?

Clear Skies? No Child Left Behind?

Everything is a lie with these people and it has been the most secretive administration ever.
Every administration uses spin to sell its programs. This one has taken its spin to a level that recalls Orwell's newspeak, but that doesn't necessarily imply a conspiracy such as the one you cite. I wouldn't put anything passed these folks, but when we start talking about plans to do away with the elected government or elections we need more than just historical analogy. To do otherwise only lends credibility to the claims that the critics of this administration tend toward tin-foil hats as our choice in apparel.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
I wasn't necessarily applying that attempted coup to this situation. It was just an example of how such things are not beyond imagination.

People tend to scoff outright at any suggestion of massive behind the scenes manipulation of the public by politicians and corporations. Or at the suggestion that corporations would even consider doing something like this.

This Administration wants to maintain the illusion of Democracy, it works better that way. But through massive media manipulation and constant propaganda they are able to mislead the public. Look at where all of the funding comes from and the tactics used to swing public opinion.

That doesn't mean that they haven't infringed upon peoples freedoms and changed laws to suit their own desire to snoop into peoples private lives. Or that they are not thinking about changing laws within Congress that were designed to protect the minority.

This article was just an example that shows conspiracies happen, and they are not by any means rare.

Conservative interests have become a lot more sophisticated, they have spent $44 Billion on think tanks to figure out their current strategy after all. None of this has been an accident.