Fidel Castro's 1994 Characterization of U.S. Political System Revisited

Former Cuban President Fidel Castro and supporters in 1994

In a January 28, 1994 speech in Havana--which the U.S. corporate media wasn't too interested in broadcasting--then-Cuban President Fidel Castro described the U.S. Power Elite's two-party political system in the following way:

"The United States also has one party, because the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are more alike than two drops of water.

"The empire is a single-party structure...The empire's role of world police is determined by a single-party structure. Just look at what's happening now, in 1994, now that the cold war is over and there's no socialist bloc, the Pentagon's funds haven't been touched, its budget hasn't been cut by so much as a red cent. Why else would it need such enormous armed forces if not to act as a world police force, if not to intervene worldwide. It's crystal-clear; the U.S. government cuts everything but the defense budget. It is truly incredible, completely bereft of logic, and after it has said the cold war is over. It looks like it is getting ready for a hot war against the Third World countries. That's why it wants military bases all over the place, because it wants to intervene everywhere..."

In the same speech, Castro also asserted that "because Cuba stands firm, because Cuba defends its sovereignty, because Cuba defends its independence, Cuba must be punished, blockaded, starved into surrender, blown up from within, so as to wipe out even the memory of Cuba because the U.S. government won't forgive Cuba for the way our heroic people have stood firm for the last 35 years." Castro also complained in 1994 that "they invade us through their mass media, they make us see not what we are interested in seeing but what they want us to see" and "through the transnational news agencies they control almost all the news and they give their self-interested versions of what is happening in the world." 

How Super-Rich in USA Block Radical Democratization Of U.S. Society

In his 1975 book, More Power Than We Know: The People's Movement Toward Democracy, long-time U.S. antiwar Movement organizer and 1960's Chicago 8 Conspiracy Trial Defendant Dave Dellinger indicated how Super-Rich folks in the USA [like Multi-Billionair Oligarch Bill Gates in 21st-century, for example] block the creation of a radically democratized society in the United States:

"...The persons who rob through banks are enabled to throw their weight around in ways that would make a feudal baron envious...They can use some of their stolen money to set up tax-exempt foundations, which often play a more decisive role in determining public policy and implementation of the law than either elected officials or the courts. They can serve as trustees of both private and state universities...They can buy a string of newspapers and radio and television stations and see that the news is filtered to the public in accord with their private standards of public policy...By their ownership of the media they can decide which members of the Movement are accepted as national spokesmen [or spokeswomen] and which get favorable or unfavorable publicity. They can decide which Movement activities are sympathetically reported and which caricatured and condemned, which aspirants for office have their name and faces constantly in public view, an absolute pre-condition for a successful campaign. In these and other ways they can exercise grossly undemocratic influence on both the Establishment and the forces that oppose it..." 

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Conclusion

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

In an October 19, 1945, headlined "Germans Indicted In Massacre Of 11,000 Poles In Katyn Forest," for example, the New York Times reported that "if the" July 1941 "crime was committed after the date when the Germans overran their last resting place it could not have been committed by the Russians" and "the Germans overran the Katyn Forest in 1941."

Then in a March 12, 1946 article, headlined "Pravda Denounces Churchill's Speech As Threat Of War," the New York Times reported that the then-Soviet Union's Pravda newspaper declared in an editorial:

"What does the proposal of Churchill come to? The formation of an Anglo-American military alliance that would assure Anglo-American rule throughout the world...and make a policy of force the dominant factor in the development of the world...

"...Churchill convulsively grabs for the coat-tails of Uncle Sam...in the hope that an Anglo-American military alliance would enable the British Empire, although in the role of a junior partner, to continue the policy of imperialist expansion..."

But in its October 16, 1946 issue, the New York Times printed an article about what eventually happened to some of the Nuremberg Trial defendants, following their convictions of war crimes and crimes against humanity, headlined "Goering Ends Life By Poison, Ten Others Hanged;" and which included the following names of the ten German war criminals who were hanged: "Joachim von Ribbentrop, former Foreign Minister; Field Marshal Gen. Wilhelm Keitel, chief of the German High Command; Ernst Kaltenbrunner, head of the Gestapo; Alfred Rosenberg, Minister for Occupied Territories; Hans Frank, who led in the killing of thousands of Poles; Wilhelm Frick, former Minister of the Interior; Julius Streicher, leader of Nazi anti-Semitism; Fritz Sauckel, director of the German General Staff; Col. Gen. Alfred Jodl, head of the German General Staff; and Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who sold out Austria..."

And in a December 12, 1948 article, headlined "Tojo And 6 Others Hanged By Allies As War Criminals," the New York Times listed the following names of the Japanese war criminals who were hanged: Hideki Tojo, former dictator of Japan; Koki Hirota, former Premier of Japan; General Kenji Doihara; General Iwane Matsui; General Akira Muto; Seishiro Itagati, former War Minister; and General Hitaro Kimwa. (end of article)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Part 9

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

In a February 14, 1945 article, headlined "RAF Hits Dresden Heavy Night Blow," for example, the New York Times reported that "The RAF...sent 1,400 aircraft over Germany last night and delivered a smashing blow to Dresden in support of the Red Army's drive on that city;" and in a February 17, 1945 article, the New York Times also noted that "The German-controlled Scandinavian Telegraph Bureau said today that 70,000 persons had been killed in this week's Allied bombings of Dresden."

Then, on March 16, 1945, the New York Times published an article that was headlined "Giant Tokyo Fires Blackened B-29's;  while on April 13, 1945, the New York Times published an article that was headlined "President Roosevelt Is Dead." And on May 1, 1945, the New York Times published an article headlined "Mussolini and Mistress Hang."

But in a May 2, 1945 article, headlined "Hitler Dead In Chancellery, Nazis Say Admiral In Charge," the New York Times next reported that "Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz, proclaiming himself the new Fuehrer by Hitler's appointment, said that the war would continue."

In a May 8, 1945 article the New York Times next reported that 4 million were killed at Oswiecim in Poland from 1939 to 1944 according to the Soviet Union's Extraordinary State Commission's findings. And around five weeks before Democratic U.S. President Harry S. Truman ordered the U.S. war machine to drop atomic bombs on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August 1945, the New York Times published an article on July 2, 1945 which indicated in its headline that in Japan "4,000 Tons Of Fire Missiles Bring Ruin To Four Enemy Cities." (end of part 9)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Part 8

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate..

On August 11, 1943, for example, in an article headlined "Russia Still Asks For Second Front," the New York Times reported that "many believe Allies have the power to open big drive, yet are not willing to do so;" while a September 16, 1943 article in the New York Times was headlined "Mussolini `Sets Up New Kind of Regime'."

Then, on May 7, 1944, the New York Times published an article headlined "Gandhi's Release Widely Approved."

An article, written in Geneva, Switzerland by Daniel T. Brigham, headlined "Inquiry Confirms Nazi Death Camps: 1,715,000 Jews Said To Have Been Put To Death By Germans" (which may not have been featured much on the front page of the NYC-based newspaper) was also published in the New York Times on July 3, 1944.

Then, on July 21, 1944, the New York Times printed an article headlined "Fuehrer `Bruised;' Bomb Wounds 13 State Officers, One Fatality;" and on July 23, 1944, a New York Times article was headlined "Red Army Drives Show No Signs Of Flagging; German Debacle Worse Than That Of Russians In First Month Of War."

In its August 6, 1944 issue, the New York Times next printed an article headlined "Partisans Claim Much of Warsaw."

But on October 4, 1944, the New York Times published an article headlined "Warsaw Gives Up After 63-Day Fight Losses Put Above 300,000."  (end of part 8)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited; Part 7

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

In a June 13, 1942 article, for example, headlined "Gandhi Seeks To Oust U.S.-British Forces," the New York Times reported from New Delhi, India that "Mohandas K. Gandhi is about to unleash a large-scale `quit India' campaign in which American as well as British forces will be urged to get out of India immediately." And in an August 9, 1942 article, headlined "21 Seized In India," the New York Times reported that "Mohandas K. Gandhi and other Indian Nationalist leaders were arrested today within a few hours after the All-India Congress party had approved a resolution authorizing a mass campaign of civil disobedience to support its demands for immediate Indian independence."

Then, in a November 25, 1942 article by Jame MacDonald, a London-based reporter (that may not have been emphasized on the front page of the New York City-based newspaper), headlined "Himmler Program Kills Polish Jews: Slaughter Of 250,000 In Plan To Wipe Out Half In Country This Year Is Reported," the New York Times stated:

"...Polish authorities gave out statistics showing that up to Oct. 1 [1942] about 250,000 Polish Jews had been killed under the Himmler program, put into effect this year...Declaring that the Nazi program to reduce the number of Jews in Poland by 50 per cent this year was a `first-step toward complete liquidation,' the report said:

"`...The Germans have mobilized a special battalion under the command of S.S. men...The victims when caught are driven to a square where old people and cripples are selected, taken to a cemetery and shot there...The remainder are loaded into goods trucks [freight cars] at a rate of 150 to a truck that normally holds 40...The doors are sealed...

"`Whenever the trains arrive half the people are dead. Those surviving are sent to special camps at Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibar [in Southeastern Poland]. Once there the so-called settlers are mass-murdered...'"

And on December 18, 1942 the New York Times published an article headlined "11 Allies Condemn Nazi War On Jews: United Nations Issue Joint Declaration Of Protest On `Cold-Blooded Extermination;'" while on February 11, 1943 the New York Times pushed an article headlined "Gandhi Starts Fast To Protest Arrest."

On March 2, 1943, the New York Times then published an article, headlined "Save Doomed Jews, Huge Rally Pleads: 21,000 Filled Madison Square Garden Rally, in which it reported that a message was read from Chief Rabbi J.H. Hertz of Great Britain at this rally which said:

"It is appalling to think that whole of mid-European Jewry stands on brink of annihilation and that millions of Jewish men, women and children have already been slaughtered with fiendish cruelties which baffle belief, but equally appalling is the fact that those who proclaim the Four Freedoms have so far done very little to secure even the freedom to live for 6,000,000 of their Jewish fellow  men by readiness to rescue those who might still escape Nazi torture and butchery..."

Then March 3, 1943, the New York Times published an article headlined "Gandhi Fast Ends, Aim Not Achieved;" and on July 26, 1943 the New York Times published an article headlined "Mussolini Ousted With Fascist Cabinet." (and of part 7)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Part 6

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

In a December 5, 1941 article, headlined "Australia Girds For Pacific War," for example, the New York Times reported from Melbourne, Australia that "a War Cabinet meeting in which service chiefs participated has completed comprehensive plans to put Australia on a new emergency footing if war spreads to the Pacific."

And in a December 7, 1941 article, headlined "Japanese Herald `Supreme Crisis': U.S. Is Held Aggressive, Press Intimates Efforts For Negotiated Settlement May Soon Be Abolished," the New York Times reported that "Japan indicated early today that she was on the verge of abandoning efforts to achieve a settlement of Pacific issues by diplomatic negotiation at Washington."

Then in a December 8, 1941 article, headlined "Tokyo Acts First," the New York Times noted that "Japan went to war against the United States and Britain today with air and sea attacks against Hawaii, followed by a formal declaration of hostilities."

But in another December 8, 1941 article, headlined "Japan Wars On U.S. And Britain: Makes Sudden Attack On Hawaii," the New York Times stated:

"Sudden and unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor and other United States possessions in the Pacific early yesterday by the Japanese air force and navy plunged the United States and Japan into active war...There were unconfirmed reports that German raiders participated in the attacks...The news of these surprise attacks fell like a bombshell on Washington. President Roosevelt immediately ordered the country and the Army and Navy onto a full war footage...

"...The White House took over control of the bulletins, and the Navy Department, therefore, said it could not discuss the matter or answer any questions how the Japanese were able to penetrate the Hawaiian defenses or appear without previous knowledge of their presence in those waters..."

And in a third December 8, 1941 article, headlined "Hull Denounces Tokyo `Infamy': Brands Japan `Fraudulent' In Preparing Attack While Carrying On Parleys, the New York Times stated:

"Japan was accused by Secretary of State Hull of making a `treacherous and utterly unprovoked attack' upon the United States and of having been `infamously false and fraudulent' by preparing for the attack while conducting diplomatic negotiations with the professed desire of maintaining peace.

"But even before he knew of that attack, Mr. Hull had vehemently brought the diplomatic negotiations to a virtual end with an outburst against Admiral Kichisaburo Nomura, the Japanese Ambassador, and Saburo Kurusi, special envoy, because of the...reply they delivered to his document of November 26...

"...Japan charged that the United States was `conspiring' with Great Britain in the Far East...The document revealed definitely that the Japanese Premier had sought to meet President Roosevelt last August [1941] for a conference, but that this was refused..."

Then, in a June 8, 1942 article, headlined "West Coast Finishes Removing Japanese; 100,000 Sent Inland, Leaving Only The Incapacitated," the New York Times reported that "except for a handful of ill or otherwise incapacitated persons and a still smaller number considered irreplaceable in their work, not one of about 100,000 Japanese remained at liberty today in that roughly 150 mile-wide strip of the three coast states and Arizona which was their home when war began..." (end of part 6)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Part 5

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

In its July 27, 1941 issue, for example, the New York Times published an article from Tokyo, dated July 26,1941, by Otto Touschus which stated:

"Within a few hours after President Roosevelt's order freezing Japanese assets and credits in the United States was announced, the Japanese Government retaliated by freezing the assets and credits of American and Philippine nations and corporations within the Japanese Empire...Therewith...has begun an open economic war between the United States and the British Empire on the one hand and the Japanese Empire...It risks, in the words of the ultra-nationalist Nicki Nichi...but `one step from armed warfare.'...As regards the American and British freezing orders, it is generally admitted here that it is bound to have a crippling effect on Japan's trade..."

And in a September 21, 1941 article, headlined "Aim Of President Is War, Nye Says," the New York Times stated:

"Senator Gerald P. Nye appealed last night to `all loyal Americans' to oppose President Roosevelt's foreign policy program...on the grounds that it represented a deliberate attempt by the President and British leaders to involve this country against its will in the war...."

Then, in a November 1, 1941 article, headlined "Reuben James Hit: First American Warship Lost In War Torpedoed West Of Iceland," the New York Times stated:

"The United States lost its first warship in the Battle of the Atlantic when the destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk last night west of Iceland while on convoy duty...Forty-four members of the crew had been rescued. It was without word, however, as to the fate of the other members of the crew of 120 officers and men which make up her complement..."

And on November 5, 1941, the New York Times published an article headlined "Japanese Ask U.S. To Reverse Stand Or Face Conflict."

But in a November 12, 1941 article, headlined "President Warns Nation Is Facing World War Again," the New York Times reported that "President Roosevelt declared in his address that this country may be forced by Germany into another war..."

Then on December 1, 1941, the New York Times published an article headlined "U.S. Principles Rejected By Japanese As `Fantastic.'"

Yet in a December 4, 1941 article, headlined "Singapore Doubts Japanese Threats: Arrival Of The British Fleet Is Expected To Cause Tokyo To Order General Retreat," the New York Times stated:

"Political observers here say the arrival of the British fleet brought powerful new pressure on the Japanese in connection with the Washington negotiations and believe it may be decisive in forcing Japan to drop her plans for new aggressions and to begin a general retreat."  (end of part 5)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Part 4

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

Seven weeks before German Imperialism's Nazi war machine invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, for example, the New York Times published an article, from Berne, Switzerland and dated May 1, 1941 by Daniel T. Brigham, headlined "Russia Reported Bolstering Lines: Said To Be Increasing Forces In Ukraine, Poland And Estonia Against Reich," which stated:

"...Russia was reported here today to be taking extensive steps for the immediate bolstering of already strong Soviet forces in the Ukraine, Poland and Estonia in preparation for a worsening of Russian-German relations in the near future, which, it is said, might even lead to war...Russian apprehension is further heightened by an increasingly acrimonious tone in the Axis press in reference to the Soviet Union..."

Then, in a May 28, 1941 article, headlined "A Call To Nation: President Takes Step Permitted Only When War Threatens," the New York Times stated:

"President Roosevelt tonight proclaimed that `an unlimited national emergency exists,'...The United States, he declared, will not permit Germany to dominate the high seas...

"The President...stated that, with further American naval units transferred...to the Atlantic, this government intended to assure war supplies reaching Britain...`The delivery of needed supplies to Britain is imperative,' he declared. `This can be done; it must be done; it will be done.'..."

And in an article from Ankara, Turkey that was dated May 29, 1941, headlined "Nazi Troops Pouring To Russian Borders" and published, 23 days before German imperialist troops attacked the Soviet Union, on May 30, 1941, the New York Times stated:

"Further confirmation was received from diplomatic sources today that the German High Command is withdrawing German troops from the Balkans and concentrating a formidable army on the Russian frontier in Rumania and Poland..."

Then, on June 14, 1941, Daniel T. Brigham sent another article from Berne, Switzerland, headlined "Clash Is Expected Soon, Germans Are Expected to Attack," that the New York Times published on June 15, 1941 (a week before the Soviet Union was attacked) which stated that "indications point to military action, probably along the Russian-German dividing line in Poland, within the next 10 days."

Yet a June 17, 1941 article by Walter Duranty was headlined "Soviet-Nazi Deal Held More Likely Than Clash Despite Rumours" by the New York Times; although part of this New York Times article stated:

"...I have just received an uncensored letter from a competent friend in Moscow, dated April 27 [1941], stating:

"`Various indications are that the Germans intend eastward action in June [1941]. Many folks here now take it very seriously.'...

"There are other items that appear to herald a speedy Russsian-German clash...The presence of German troops in Finland is admitted..."

And in a June 22, 1941 article from Ankara, Turkey that was written by C.L. Sulzberger on June 21, 1941 and headlined "Big Armies Mass On `Eastern Front': All Along Russian Frontiers Troop Movements Suggest Clash May Be Near," the New York Times stated:

"For some time rumors have circulated setting the actual date for war's outbreak...German troops have been filing through Slovakia from the West...Sano Mach, the Minister of Interior, announced at Bratislava that a `German liberation' of the Ukraine was imminent..."

Then, in a July 9, 1941 article written by its London reporter and headlined "Litvinoff Exhorts Britain To Invade: Former Commissar In A Radio Plea From Moscow Advises Quick Drive On Reich," the New York Times stated:

"In a radio appeal by Maxim Litvinoff, Russia tonight urged Great Britain to hurl her full weight against Germany in the West while the Red Army withstood the shock of the Nazi war machine in the East and thus force Adolf Hitler to wage war on two fronts.

"The former Soviet Foreign Commissar and longtime foe of the fascist dictators, implying that the moment was ripe for a British invasion of the Continent, said that the battle of Russia was forcing Herr Hitler to `withdraw more and more forces from the West to the East.'..." (end of part 4)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Part 3

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

In a July 21, 1940 article, for example the New York Times stated: 

"...If Great Britain can withstand Nazi attempts at conquest in the coming weeks until uncertain weather begins, United States production of all types of material and munitions for modern warfare will be sufficiently increased by spring to give the British tremendous, and perhaps decisive, supply aid, high Administration circles stated today...By May 10 of next year [1941], it will be possible to sell the British enough to meet their needs...With the Nazis threatening Great Britain, this country must spend every cent it can for defense as quickly as possible..."

And in a September 4, 1940 article, the New York Times stated:

"...Fifty United States destroyers were coming to help Great Britain...The British fleet at one stroke acquired fifty 1,200-ton destroyers as an offset to the 30 lost since the beginning of hostilities.

"These destroyers are badly needed at this stage of the war...The most open indication yet of Anglo-American cooperation...It provides timely reinforcement of the British Navy in the task of maintaining control of the Atlantic..."

But in a November 1, 1940 article, headlined "Nehru Seized In India For Pacifist Speech," the New York Times stated:

"Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, former president of the Indian Congress party, was arrested near Allahabad this evening after a meeting with Mohandas K. Gandhi.

"He was one of two men chosen by Mr. Gandhi to make anti-war speeches as part of the plan of limited civil disobedience...Pandit Nehru was arrested under the Defense of India Rules, charged with delivering an objectionable speech at Gorakhpur recently..."

Then, in a November 18, 1940 article, headlined "First Drafted Men Enter Army Today," the New York Times reported that "the Army will get its first drafted men tomorrow, two months and two days after President Roosevelt signed the Selective Service and Training Bill..."

Yet in a November 27, 1940 article, the New York Times noted:

"Admiral Kichisaburo Nomura...said today there was no issue between Japan and the United States that could not be solved without recourse to war...`There are few--if any--Japanese who want war with the United States.'...He said he viewed any possible United States embargo upon Japan as 'dangerous'..."

But in a February 16, 1941 article by Dean Dinwoody, headlined "Lease-Lend Bill Extends Wide Power Of President," the New York Times stated:

"Under the Constitution, the President has two great powers legislation cannot affect...:

"To conduct the foreign relations of the United States;

"To act as Commander-in-Chief...

"The latter power places in the President the supreme command over all the country's military forces and the sole authority to direct and employ these forces in time of peace and war. This authority of the President, however, is dependent upon the exercise by Congress of its complementary constitutional powers `to raise and support armies,' and `to provide and maintain a navy.'

"The constitutional power of the President to conduct foreign relations also is an exclusive power...which the administration is utilizing in support of its lease-lend bill..." (end of part 3)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Part 2

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

In a November 22, 1939 article, headlined "Gandhi Warns Britain On India's Role," for example, the New York Times noted that "Mohandas K. Gandhi told Britain bluntly today that...they could not participate in the" then-inter-imperialist "war against Germany unless they obtained in return `complete freedom for India...'" from being ruled by UK imperialism's government. And in a January 5, 1940 article (that, perhaps, may not have been featured on the New York City newspaper's front page), headlined "Jews Lay Torture To Nazis In Poland," the New York Times stated:

"...Jewish sources cite excerpts from reports by the German police in Lodz itself--excerpts, Jews say, that have been printed in the Schlesiche Zeitung of Breslau. The police are quoted as saying there have been wholesale executions in Lodz and at least 100 Jews shot. The German police, it is added, reported that 1,000 Jews surrounded a synagogue when the police wanted to search it and hundreds were killed when the police opened fire. The synagogue was burned..."

But in a May 11, 1940 article by Harold Denny, headlined "Allies See Victory In Low Countries: Military Leaders Emphasize Strength Of The Defenses Of Netherlands And Belgium," the New York Times stated:

"London, May 10--Though the scope and exact objectives of Germany's sudden invasion of the Low Countries cannot be defined this early, military leaders express complete confidence in the ability of the British and French to defeat Germany if the new operations takes the nature of a wheel into Northern France, such as Britain's little army faced in 1914.

"The German armies will meet far more effective opposition than they encountered in the last war..."

Then, after UK imperialism and French imperialism's allied military forces failed to defeat German imperialism's military forces in the Low Countries in May and June 1940, the New York Times, in a July 3, 1940 article, headlined "Gandhi Appeals To Britain To Seek Peace With Nazis," reported:

"Mohandas K. Gandhi tonight appealed to all Britons to cease hostilities with Germany and urged that they settle their differences with `non-violent methods.'

"The Indian Nationalist leader urged Britain not to enter `undignified competition with the Nazis in destructive power.'..."
(end of part 2)

`New York Times' Coverage of 1932 to 1948 History Revisited: Part 1

Between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times newspaper claimed to always be providing its readers with accurate information about what was going on during the 1932 to 1948 period of world history. But between 1932 and 1948, the New York Times sometimes printed articles that turned out to be historically accurate; and sometimes also printed articles that turned out to be historically inaccurate.

In an August 16, 1932 article, headlined "Hitler Dictatorship In Reich Held Unlikely: Woodbridge Thinks Nazi Leader Cannot Seize Power--Sees Steadying Force in People," for example, the New York Times stated:

"Professor Frederick J.E. Woodbridge, Theodore Roosevelt Professor of American History at the University of Berlin for the last year, returned on the Holland-American liner Volendam yesterday and said the probability of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists gaining power in Germany was not strong. He said he did not think it possible for Hitler to seize power and that the Nazis would have to wait for a majority in the Reichstag..."

Then, in a January 31, 1933 article, headlined "Hitler Puts Aside Aim To Be Dictator," the New York Times stated:

"Adolf Hitler's acceptance of the German Chancellorship in a coalition with conservatives and nonpartisans marks a radical departure from his former demand that he be made `the Mussolini of Germany' as a condition to his assumption of government responsibility...

"...A group of Nazi industrialists in the Rhineland the Ruhr, who have been among Hitler's chief financial backers, have urged him to drop his uncompromising attitude and join the government. According to recent dispatches from Berlin, former Chancellor von Papen was the `friendly broker' between the National Socialists and this group of industrialists.

"Recent Berlin dispatches indicate also a deal between Papen and Hitler for the overthrow of General von Schleicher, who roused the displeasure of the Rhineland-Ruhr industrialist by his inclination to deal leniently with labor and to seek the support of the trade unions. In this policy, these industrialists foresaw the abandonment of the economic program laid down by Papen as Schleicher's predecessor in the Chancellorship.

"Outstanding is the dramatic element of Hitler's accession to power at the age of 43. The new Chancellor began as the son of poor parents in Austria. For  a long time he was not even a German citizen..."

And after German Imperialist Dictator Hitler ordered German Imperialism's war machine to invade Poland in early September 1939, the New York Times asserted that "following upon the sinking of the Athenia yesterday the United States took its first sweeping step to insure neutrality in the European war" by issuing a proclamation "establishing an arms embargo against present belligerents as required by our neutrality statute," in a September 5, 1939 article; and a September 10, 1939 article by an apparently white racist Columbia University Professor of History, Allan Nevins, headlined "Can Civilization Survive A World War?," was printed a few days later by the New York Times, which stated:

"There is danger that the depletion of European manhood, if pushed much further, will permanently weaken the Caucasian stock in its competition with black and yellow races; that Asia and Africa by sheer default of the present leaders will take a new rank in world affairs. European strength cannot withstand the drain of successive periods of butchery without exhaustion, and some of the resulting changes may go further than people of European blood will like to contemplate..."

In a September 12, 1939 article, headlined "Poles Unprepared For Blow So Hard," the New York Times also then stated:

"It is a mystery to both German and neutral military experts on the tour with the writer that the Poles made no provisions for second or third lines and that in retreat they did not make any attempt to throw up earthworks or dig trenches such as helped the Germans stop the Allies after the Marne retreat in 1914..." (end of part 1)

Revisiting Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton Administration's 2011 War for Regime Change in Libya: Part 2

In his 2016 book, Sowing Chaos: Libya In The Wake of Humanitarian Intervention, Paolo Sensini noted that as early as Feb. 28 [2011], “Hillary Clinton made her first reference to the prospect of exile for Qaddafi.” The same book also indicated how the media was apparently used by the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration to apparently fabricate a “humanitarian” justification for its late March 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn military attack in support of regime change in Libya:

“On Feb. 23 [2011]…the [anti-regime Libyan] rebels killed a number of loyalist civilians and military personnel. The video images of the bodies were falsely presented by the Western media as evidence of the massacre of 10,000 unarmed civilians, carried out by Qaddafi’s black mercenaries. More lies would soon be disseminated. Another video showed `mass graves’ on Tripoli’s beach. These alleged shocking images, it was discovered, recorded a routine task—the shifting of remains at the Sidi Hamed cemetery. These two stories were clearly propaganda stunts. This didn’t prevent Obama from thundering against intolerable levels of violence on Qaddafi’s part…

“…The satellite TV station, Al Arabiya, spread the news of 10,000 dead and at least 50,000 wounded or maimed in Libya…Reports appeared about Libyan airstrikes against Tripoli and Benghazi. There was talk also of `mass graves.’…Have we seen any photographs or video footage of the February [2011] massacre of thousands of people in Tripoli? None. Images of the Libyan air force bombing three districts of Tripoli? Not one witness was produced…The Russian armed forces monitoring the skies of Libya reported that they had no evidence of any Libyan airstrikes against civilians…

“What about the seaside mass graves story? What we saw was a cemetery, Sidi Hamed, with individual (!) graves. The contents of the graves had been moved well before the crisis erupted. It was a routine operation…The remains are shifted to make room for new graves. Such operations take place every one or two decades…What of the massacres that Qaddafi is said to have ordered in eastern Libya in February [2011]? No evidence of these either. Not one image of these alleged massacres (not even a shaky, blurred shot) has been produced…When the revolt broke out, the police resisted the attack on their buildings…Some of the `rebel’ groups…used heavy arms to attack police stations…

“We owe the military action to a media campaign on a grand scale…The lies had to be repeated incessantly…Ghassan Bin Jiddo—director of Al Jazeera’s office in Beirut--…was disgusted at the conduct of his colleagues. He submitted his resignation on Apr. 23, 2011, accusing Al Jazeera of conducting a massive campaign of falsification of the facts…Bin Jiddo’s complaints above all addressed the manner in which the reports coming out of Libya were distorted and manipulated…Following Bin Jiddo’s lead, other colleagues quit their jobs…The Western press failed to relay this story…

“…The story of the 10,000 protesters slaughtered by Qaddafi went mainstream globally. The impression for most people was that the story was true, despite the absence of video footage, photographs or other tangible proof.

“Despite the lack of convincing evidence…the European Union and the United States immediately…called for military intervention to halt the slaughter.

“They had not even a second’s worth of footage to back them up. The reports were pure propaganda…”

Yet on March 3, 2011, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Democratic President Obama issued a statement which asserted that “Colonel Qaddafi needs to step down from power and leave.”

But even after the Democratic Obama-Biden-Clinton administration ended the “Operation Odyssey Dawn” phase of its 2011 war for regime change in Libya on March 31, 2011, the Libyan “rebels” that it was illegally supporting were still unable to overthrow the Libyan government that Qaddafi still led.So, not surprisingly, according to Paolo Sensini’s Sowing Chaos: Libya In The Wake of Humanitarian Intervention book, “American government officials told the Washington Post (March 30, 2011) on condition of anonymity that, `President Obama has issued a secret finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups.'”

Yet the same book also observed that “a FOIA document reveals” then-U.S. Secretary of State and later 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary “Clinton was aware in March 2011 that, on a routine basis, the rebel militias in Libya summarily executed captured fighters as pro-government mercenaries,” in violation of international law.

Nelson Mandela and Libyan leader whose regime Democratic Party leaders helped overthrow 

(end of part 2)

In The Pay of Foundations: How U.S. power elite foundations fund a `parallel left' media network--Part 22

Democracy Now! Funder and Ex-LBJ Special Assistant/Press Secretary Moyers with LBJ

In The Pay of Foundations—Part 22

How U.S. power elite and liberal establishment foundations fund a “parallel left” media network of left media journalists and gatekeepers. 

In his 1969 book, The Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson, a Princeton University Professor of History named Eric Goldman described the historical role that 21st-century Democracy Now! funder Bill Moyers played within the White House in the 1960s Vietnam War Era during the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson in the following way:

“…With the confidence and affection of President Johnson…he was in a freewheeling position. He carried on some activities like…determining who was to meet with the President…He also supervised the planning of presidential trips and had a good deal to do with determining not only where President Johnson went but how he projected himself. But the Moyers role was sweeping well beyond. He was…writing a number of important speeches and heavily editing the drafts others prepared.

“Increasingly Moyers sat in on presidential conferences and talked for long hours alone with President Johnson…The President…permitted Bill Moyers to assume increasingly the role of chief of staff…This meant that Moyers delegated many of the tasks within the White House; often spoke in the name of the President to officials from the Vice-President on down and to powerful people outside the government; sometimes okayed or vetoed proposals of varying importance without consulting the Oval Office; had a hand—on occasion, a decisive hand—in making many top-level appointments; and was likely to be called by the President for long talks about developments…”

Schumann Foundation Prez Moyers: Gave Democracy Now! $1.5 Million Since 2004

But during the period when Democracy Now! funder Moyers was also the Johnson White House Press Secretary, then-New York Times columnist James Reston asserted, in a Jan. 7, 1966 New York Times article, that the Johnson “White House misleads public by not being completely truthful with newsmen,” according to the New York Times Index 1966 book. In addition, Moyers apparently attempted to manage news coverage of the Johnson White House’s actions and manipulate public opinion in the USA as LBJ’s press secretary by planting questions for some corporate media Establishment journalists to ask President Johnson during LBJ’s White House press conferences. According to page 579 of the New York Times Index 1966 book a Jan. 11, 1966 New York Times article reported the following:

“Press Secretary Moyers says press conferences are designed to serve `convenience of President, not convenience of press,’ TV interview; says they are device to let President say what is on his mind; defends `planting’ questions with newsmen beforehand; admits he plants questions…”

Although Moyers officially remained LBJ’s White House Press Secretary until late January 1967, in April 1966 Moyers moved from the White House press office to an office in the West Executive wing of the Johnson White House where (according to an entry, related to an Apr. 3, 1966 New York Times article, on page 573 of New York Times Index 1966), the Democracy Now! funder was “seen influencing Johnson more than anyone else;” and his “ability to understand Johnson and satisfy his wishes,” as LBJ escalated U.S. military intervention in Vietnam, was “noted.” The same New York Times Index 1966 entry for Apr. 3, 1966 also noted that Moyers “handles day-to-day decision-making” in the Johnson White House. 

According to the book Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam Papers that David Barrett edited, for example, a file labeled "Meeting Notes File, Box 1," at the LBJ Library in Texas contains a copy of a Feb. 10, 1965 document, titled "Summary Record of NSC Meeting No. 548…Cabinet Room, 2:10 P.M. Re: Vietnam," which includes a reference to Democracy Now! funder Bill Moyers and states the following:

“…Secretary McNamara said that Ambassador Taylor, the Joint Chiefs and the Department of Defense recommended a retaliatory strike today at daylight. He explained to the President the targets in North Vietnam which could be hit today…The President stressed the importance of preventing any leaks to newspapers…In response to the President’s questions, Secretary McNamara said about 130 planes would be used in the strike recommended for approval…The President asked whether all those present agreed we should launch a retaliatory strike…The President received affirmative answers when he asked Director McCone, Secretary Dillon, and Director Rowan whether they agreed with the recommended strike plan. MR. MOYERS said he thought the strike should be made to meet domestic public opinion requirements…”

A file labeled "Reference File, Vietnam, Box 1" at the LBJ Library also contains a copy of an Apr. 27, 1965 memo that Bill Moyers wrote to "The President" in which the longtime president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy Foundation that funds Democracy Now! stated:

"Goodwin and I have heard reports that the State Department is going to do another White Paper on Vietnam.

“We think this one should be much better—and much more effective—than the last one. We would like to write it (as, in fact other White Papers in the past were prepared in the White House, the one on Cuba, being the most prominent example).

"This paper should not be an effort to `fool' people.  It should be honest, straightforward--strongly buttressed by facts--and designed to appeal to liberals and intellectuals, those people who have the most problem right now with our position in South Vietnam."

Another file labeled "Meeting Notes, File, Box 1" at the LBJ Library also contains a copy of a Sept. 19, 1965 "Memorandum for the record, re: Luncheon Meeting with the President, Ball, McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Raborn, MOYERS and Califano," which includes the following reference to Democracy Now! funder Bill Moyers:

“MOYERS said that we had been too defensive in our public handling of the tear gas situation, that we should remind the world that the Viet Cong slit throats and bomb children and that any human being in one of the Vietnam caves would prefer to cry from tear gas rather than be killed by hand grenades…”

Another interesting reference to Moyers is contained in a file labeled "NS File, M. Bundy Files, Memos to President, Box 2," at the LBJ Library.  In a Feb. 2, 1965 memo to "The President," re: "A Deputy or Potential Successor in my office," the now-deceased former National Security Affairs Advisor and Ford Foundation President McGeorge Bundy wrote:

“Some weeks ago you asked me who should take over if, for any reason, I was no longer on this job, and I told you I had thought some about it.

“The ideal man for this job is BILL MOYERS…”

According to a 1991 book, Film and Propaganda In America: A Documentary History, Volume IV: 1945 and After that Lawrence Suid edited, a file related to John Wayne's pro-war Sixties movie, The Green Berets, at the LBJ Library also contains an interesting April 21, 1966 letter from Bill Moyers to John Wayne, in which Democracy Now! funder Moyers wrote:

“Dear Mr. Wayne:

"…We are grateful for your continuing support of the President's policy to put an end to aggression in Vietnam.

"Best wishes,

"Sincerely,

"BILL MOYERS

"Special Assistant to the President."

And a de-classified transcript of a taped Johnson White House Oval Office conversation between LBJ and Democracy Now! funder and long-time Schumann Foundation/Schumann Center for Media and Democracy President Moyers that took place at 9:15 p.m. on M 13, 1965 reveals what Moyers said to LBJ prior to McGeorge Bundy’s appearance at a campus teach-in to argue in defense of the Johnson administration’s escalation of U.S. military intervention in Vietnam:

“I just hate for the President’s representative to be debating with that bunch of…a lot of (them) will be kooks, a lot of them are just misguided zealots. It just sort of demeans our position. I don’t think the White House ever has to debate. I think if—you don’t make decisions by debating. You make your decisions and then history will justify them. You can’t get out and debate in favor of support for them.

“I’m certain Mac [McGeorge Bundy] will control his temper. If he were to lose it once, it would be bad…” (end of part 22)