I’m unsure if I commented on this blog or another, but I want anyone who may be paying attention to this conversation that I have investigated Charles Higham’s sources and it turns out he had far *more* evidence of American collaboration with Nazi Germany – not less.

Yes, he was poor on the footnoting but ultimately, I can attest that his argument is stronger than ever. I will be posting a follow up to my book review sometime within the next few months.

There are piles and piles of documents (that he is responsible for getting declassified through the Freedom of Information Act – thank you very much) that he did not even use for his book. This information presents a powerful picture of corporations who knew what they were doing before, during, and after the war.

Since my name was mentioned in this discussion, I figure the readers of this blog might want to know where I currently stand on this issue.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum

I don’t think that poor old Walter was really the issue: he was and remained a vector for conventional liberal opinion. Why he had an audience is more interesting, and why that audience found his death significant. I suppose his image fit somehow into a story about their own lives, and why they stand for all that is good.

Much of Cronkite’s prestige derived from Ed Murrow’s, and probably ultimately from Murrow’s broadcasts from London during the Battle of Britain and Blitz.

I stand by my statement that there are probably no records of Standard Oil of New Jersey shipments of oil to Germany anytime after December 1941. If cut out shipments did occur, I can’t find evidence that they were material in terms of volume, and more importantly, that such shipments represented any kind of U.S. policy. If such things happened, the US Treasury was probably trying to track it and suppress it as part of our economic warmaking.

Higham’s book seems to be read and reviewed mainly by crackpots, Communists, and, as best I can tell, Jewish writers interested in Holocaust reparations. A review by one professional historian (Jason Weixelbaum) complained about its tabloid style and its sloppy documentation for sensational claims.

He should have called for a change of strategy and tactics, not the end. He should have said he didn’t know what had happened in Tet or what it might mean. He was a newscaster and he should have stuck to the news.

And I’m sure he found somethings out. In 1968. Before the changes Mr Sorley extolled.

And if I look at the testimony of observers who were in the war zone for several years, such as John Swain or Francois Bizot I have to conclude that they were a) anticommunist, b) in despair about the way the war was run.

So I can’t see why Cronkite should not also have despaired about the way the war was run.

And a wise man who has concluded that victory is unlikely should cut his losses.

When U.N. food supplies go to North Korean the crates are burned with words something this effect, of “A gift from the U.N.”

The North Koreans accept this and tell their hostage population, “Look, even America sends tributes to the dear leader”

Prag, you’re using logic in the same way, the only difference is you don’t have a gun to our heads say, “You’ll believe it or else…”

What to make of Obama’s quote in his weekly radio address???

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/whoops_obama_forgets_who_controlled_congress_in_2007_and_2008/