History Lies. A start at debunking [NRO interviews Larry Schweikart]

Larry Schweikart, previously co-author of A Patriot’s History of the United States, is author of the new (released today) 49 Liberal Lies About American History (That You Probably Learned in School). A professor of history at the University of Dayton, he takes some opening-day questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez, in the hopes of undoing some of the lies early in the school year.

Larry Schweikart: You know, publishers do have cost restraints. The original version was the size of The Historical Statistics of the United States. So we allowed for volume 2, 3, 4, . . . .

Schweikart: This one is quirky, and I admit that textbooks stay away from it — but it’s certainly out there. It began with a liberal, Charles Beard, a Marxist historian. For Marxist historians, every war is the fault of the capitalist class in either England or the United States. You know that. Anyway, over the past 20 years, it has morphed into a conspiracy thesis held by radicals of all political stripes, including a lot of Libertarians. Most recently, it was the subject of a couple of books that spend hundreds of pages asserting that Roosevelt “knew” in advance about the attack without producing one single shred of proof. Ultimately, at the critical point when actual evidence is required, they leap to a line such as, “Roosevelt almost certainly would have received this radio transmission,” or something to that effect. Bottom line: The Japanese maintained strict radio silence, the code breakers didn’t break the pre-December 1941 codes until 1944, and Pearl Harbor, like 9/11, was a failure of intelligence, not a conspiracy by patriotic Americans to drag us into a war.

Schweikart: I don’t think “defending” is an accurate description of the entry. It is, pure and simple, revealing that a) Prohibition was not unpopular when passed — it was a Constitutional amendment, after all, and that entails phenomenal agreement among the electorate; b) it was not the work of “fundamentalist, back-woods hicks” who wanted to “impose their morality” on the rest of us — but rather was most heavily supported by the kinds of “Progressive” urban reformers that your colleague Jonah Goldberg called “liberal fascists”; and c) it did have some positive health effects, which I think are undeniable. Certainly a ban on all cigarette smoking also would have such effects, and we shouldn’t deny the benefits in defense of the more important liberties that were at risk.

Lopez: Is everything this generation of teachers knows about JFK coming from Oliver stone?

textbooks — I examined identified Lee Harvey Oswald as a “Marine,” a “deranged Marine,” a “former Marine,” or some such reference to his military service. But that was entirely irrelevant to his motivation for killing JFK, which was his Communism. Yet fewer than half even identified him as a “communist” or “Marxist.” I think it’s clear that they view the assassination as the result of an American “militaristic” character. While few of them take the next step and directly say JFK was assassinated at the orders of Lyndon Johnson, most leave the issue open with phrases such as “no one knows” what really happened.

Lopez: The Mexican and Spanish-American wars weren’t imperialist efforts drummed up by “corporate interests”? Next you are going say that the Iraq war is about more than oil! Where do you get this stuff?

Schweikart: We tend to forget that real issues existed at different times in history. “54, 40, or Fight!” or “Free Silver at 16:1” sound silly now, but entire political movements were affected by these ideas. So, too, with both the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. In each case, there were real issues at stake (genuine bloodshed in the former, and what was thought to be a Spanish bombing of a U.S. ship in the latter). Neither was a “spur of the moment” war, but rather war had been building, over numerous issues, over many years in each case. It’s true some “business interests” wanted war with Spain — but many others did not, fearing the competition. Nine times out of ten, narrow economic interests are not the cause of a war.

Schweikart: I hope so. Joe’s timing was a little off — the Communists who were definitely in the administration had mostly been purged (but not entirely) — and his methods were heavy handed. But then, like now, the press was substantially against him, and the Democrats (all except Jack Kennedy and his family!) were opposed to him, because he made them look bad. The undeniable point, though, is that almost all those he tabbed as “Communists” or “Communist sympathizers” were at least that, and often outright agents of the U.S.S.R.

Lopez: Will American students ever learn anything good about Christopher Columbus?

Schweikart: Maybe that Columbus, Ohio, was named for him? Poor old Chris has been the subject of entire multidisciplinary symposia. Slowly, but surely, the word is getting out that Native Americans were nowhere near as numerous as historians and anthropologists once thought; that they suffered from most of the diseases once thought to be “introduced” by the Europeans long before Chris ever dipped his toe in the Caribbean, and that they killed each other off far faster than the Spaniards ever could.

Lopez: What’s one lie about women in American history that maybe Sarah Palin can take on?

Schweikart: Women not only had numerous legal rights in early American society (and throughout history) but the U.S. has been light years ahead of most of the rest of the world in elevating the position of women. American women, for example, had the right to vote almost 100 years ago that is still denied females in many parts of the earth today, and which the French didn’t enjoy until after World War II.

Schweikart: Yes. They make it seem like a “gun culture” ginned up a fairy tale. The argument, provided in a book called Arming America, claimed that few early Americans had guns, and that the idea that they did was entirely a concoction of a post-Civil War “gun culture.” This is beyond silly. Other than a Bible, virtually every American home that wasn’t in a “big city” had at least one musket or rifle, and they valued them so much that one reason militias were equipped with state weapons was because individuals didn’t want to bring “Old Betsy” to the war and risk damaging their own weapon!

Lopez: What’s a contemporary liberal lie that you can easily see becoming a new myth of history?

Schweikart: Unfortunately — and the reason I included it — the notion that there were no terrorists or WMDs in Iraq prior to 2003 will likely become a staple of U.S. college textbooks. The good news is that sales of these textbooks is following the same trendline as subscriptions of the New York Times, so perhaps fewer students will read them.

Lopez: What’s the worst lie in your estimation? Schweikart: Certainly the lie that terrorists were not behind the 9/11 attacks is not only incomprehensible, but at its root, it is evil. I don’t see this one taking root in too many of the textbooks . . . but all it takes is a couple.

Schweikart: I don’t “defend” Richard Nixon — I say quite clearly that he engaged in obstruction of justice for ordering the CIA to interfere with the FBI investigation. What I do defend him of is the charge that he originally planned and authorized the DNC Watergate break-in. I side with G. Gordon Liddy in arguing that this came from elsewhere in the White House, and the evidence seems to point to John Dean’s office. We can’t be sure, but Dean has been unable to prove in court that Liddy is lying about this.

Schweikart: You’d be surprised. I quote several textbooks gushing about the tremendous strides against poverty made by the Great Society. When these books mention Charles Murray’s Losing Ground or bother to suggest that people actually criticized the Great Society, they follow up with an extensive apology for its failure to eradicate poverty. It seems, according to them, the motivations were good, the programs were sound, but somehow along the way racist Republicans must have done something to undercut it. The sections in lie #28 dealing with the Contract With America reveal the extent to which the authors almost unanimously seek to discredit the substance of welfare reform — while at the same time praising Bill Clinton for signing it!

Lopez: Do you actually think you’ll get anyone to believe George Bush didn’t steal the 2000 election?

Schweikart: Right now, it’s so recent of an event that textbooks usually show a photo and admit that Muslim terrorists flew the planes into the buildings. But they quickly follow up by noting that the “cause” of their “rage” was likely poverty or oppression by the U.S., and that only “understanding” or “communication” can stop future “misunderstandings.” One of my entries shows unequivocally that terrorists are uniformly well-to-do, educated, and completely clear about their goals, which do not involve “understanding” or “communication,” but murder and death in the name of Allah. To my knowledge, I’m one of the few professors who routinely recognizes 9/11 by showing the excellent HBO special, 9/11: In Memoriam, to my classes. Most students tell me they have not seen these images in their entirety, and almost all say they had never seen the people leaping out of the buildings.

Schweikart: Okay, I’ll give you that while “FDR Knew About Pearl Harbor” started with a liberal, it includes wackos of all stripes now, and that there are a few radical libertarians who still think Thomas Jefferson was a “small-government guy” (who proposed the largest “infrastructure” expenditure in American history, and who engaged in the first foreign war, without a declaration of war). But every one of these at times has been a mainstay of liberal groups. The challenge was to find quotations in textbooks (as opposed to slant, or a broad inference) that stated as much. And I guess that’s what surprised me, was that in so many cases, it wasn’t hard to find liberals flat-out stating their views. We read from one, for example, that the Rosenbergs were “convicted in a controversial trial . . . [and that] the controversy over their guilt has continued to the present day.” We see in another that “McCarthy never uncovered a single Communist agent in government,” and in another that “the state doctored evidence and witnesses changed testimony” in the Sacco-Vanzetti trial. Still another popular text says “the changes [whites produced on the frontier] were nearly as cataclysmic as those that occurred during the Ice Age” [!], or that “transcontinental railroad building was so costly and risky as to require government subsidies.” (So . . . how did James J. Hill do it without government subsidies?) We see of the Reagan tax cuts that they resulted in “slashing rates for the rich . . . [meaning] less money for federal programs,” when revenues for federal programs rose by more than 40 percent. They propagate utter nonsense such as the claim that Ronald Reagan’s election was due to massive “nonvoting,” or that Reagan’s supporters (none of them named Marc Rich) ushered in a “decade of greed.” They continue to perpetuate utter absurdity by claiming that Richard Nixon “escalated” the Vietnam War when he reduced troop levels there by 90 percent before he resigned. In short, I was a little depressed that it was so easy to pin the liberals down.

Schweikart: I’m doing my part. Many other excellent historians — Burton Folsom at Hillsdale, Bill Forstchen at Montreat, for example — are fighting these battles in the trenches every day. People who aren’t historians by training — Victor Davis Hanson and Paul Johnson — have provided more, and better, American history than 90 percent of the textbooks out there. So-called “popular” history — written by guys such as the late Stephen Ambrose — is steadily eroding the “scholarly” ediface. And one of the most reassuring developments is that on the micro level, there are dozens of good studies coming out every year that, taken together, undermine the traditional liberal scaffolding. But it’s a fight, and, like the Spartans, those who enter the Gates of Hell from our side better be prepared!

"I've read most of these, including the newer ones with supposedly "better" evidence. It's baloney. The only thing to remember is for "FDR to know" mean willing and active complicity by hundreds of cryptanalysts and radio men..."

Your comment focuses on what may or may not have been decrypted in time to inform US military leaders.

"The Myth of Pearl Harbor" does not depend on that argument at all. Instead, it focuses on what leaders like Roosevelt, Marshall and Churchill said and did in the months, weeks and days before December 7, 1941.

I'm satisfied that they fully expected a Japanese attack, and may even have known pretty well where and when.

By the way, the author George Victor is not ant-Roosevelt, far from it. He considers FDR a brilliant strategist, whose leadership brought victory in history's greatest war (55+ million dead) with a minimum cost in American lives.

My own opinion is that FDR deliberately "provoked" the Japanese by appearing weak while talking tough.

Again, I recommend the book. It may yet open your eyes and change your mind.

"Hmmm...somebody’s ignoring the Congress’ role in our lack or preparedness...and generally making us look like tinfoil hat central."

I think the only real debate since 12/7/41 has been: did FDR and Marshall know in advance of the coming Japanese attack, and if so, did they adequately warn the Pearl Harbor commanders? And if the commanders were warned, did they respond appropriately?

Some things are known beyond dispute. For example, Short and Kimmel did receive a "war warning" in the weeks before December 7, but responded in ways that afterward seem ridiculous. Understanding how and why this happened helps explain "what FDR knew, and when did he know it."

As for the tin foil hats, well, yes, we do have a few of those. But in every case I've seen, wiser voices step in to set the record straight. In this particular case, the record is a good deal more complex than implied by the words, "sneak attack."

And yet, we still have the idea at the core of it all that FDR believed the Congress would not declare war without a devestating defeat and major loss of life.

That alone requires a Reynolds Wrap beannie.

No one knew that Japanese torpedoes would function in Pearl Harbor, which was believed too shallow to defend against the threat.

The extent of the success of the Japanese attack need not have been predicted for the “Roosevelt knew” hypothesis to be entertained, only the likelihood that Roosevelt may have wished for the Japanese clearly to strike first.

So, if he "knew" then he could have gone to Congress with evidence of a Japanese attack, but didn't do so. Do you really think that makes sense?

Tell you what...Go ahead and post here any actual evidence you have that FDR knew in advance that the Japanese planned to attack Pearl Harbor. Let's see it.

You misunderstand me; it is not my position that Roosevelt knew the Japanese had targeted Pearl Harbor, only that he knew a Japanese military response against the U.S. was approaching certainty.

I would argue that he discounted the likelihood of an attack on Pearl Harbor, since it was believed to be too shallow for Japanese torpedo attack. Almost all the planning focused on the premise that the initial Japanese attack would fall on the Philippines, which is why MacArthur was ordered to prepare for such an attack.

You are accusing Short and Kimmel of murdering 3,000 of their men. You need to have some serious evidence to back such a thing up.

I particularly enjoy the ideaof the "expected surprise attack" that wouldn't have been a surprise, because Japan's declaration of war was supposed to be delivered before the bombs started falling.

which is why MacArthur was ordered to prepare for such an attack.

And yet he did not do so. How does that fit with the conspiracy theory?

I'll rephrase my earlier question: Go ahead and post here any actual evidence you have that FDR knew in advance that we would be attacked by the Japanese.

The "war warning" was extremely generic, and everybody and his BROTHER thought it was meant for the Philippines, which in itself damns MacArthur, who failed to prepare adequately for the attack everyone thought was coming. It's as if we "knew" the 9/11 terrorists were going to strike Disney World, and a month after 9/11, they did and Disney World was still unprepared.

Most important, no one . . . NO ONE . . . thought a Japanese fleet would dare cross the ocean to engage the 7th fleet head on. Remember, they firmly believed the carriers would be there right up until the very last intel came in from a spy saying the carriers were out. Such a fight against the ships in harbor, PLUS the three carriers, would have been incredibly damaging for the Japanese. Which is why it worked---it was so phenomenally audacious that no one ever expected it.

On November 27, a telegram was sent to Pacific commanders notifying them that negotiations with the Japanese had evidently collapsed, and that hostilities were possible, but if they did occur, Japan should be seen to act first.

MacArthur additionally received orders that in the event of hostilities the Orange Plan should be followed. He, however had his own ideas, and even after notified of the attack on Pearl Harbor, made no moves to implement the Orange Plan for the Philippines, preferring fatally to believe that the Filipino and American forces could repel the Japanese from their initial landing zones.

MacArthur’s failure to prepare for an attack indicates nothing other than that MacArthur thought he knew better than Washington.

Yes, hostilites were possible. That doesn’t mean FDR knew anything. Any time you can no longer negotiate with a militaristic power you must prepare for hostilities.

Where is the evidence that FDR knew something that he failed to pass on to our fighting men for their preparedness?

Yes, hostilites were possible. That doesn’t mean FDR knew anything. Any time you can no longer negotiate with a militaristic power you must prepare for hostilities.

Where is the evidence that FDR knew something that he failed to pass on to our fighting men for their preparedness?

"And yet, we still have the idea at the core of it all that FDR believed the Congress would not declare war without a devestating defeat and major loss of life.
That alone requires a Reynolds Wrap beannie."

Do you not know the history of that time?
You don't remember that in 1940, FDR ran for reelection to his third term, and what did he solemnly promise the American people?

Come on! You should be able to repeat this by heart:

"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
- FDR, Speech in Boston, October 30, 1940.

Here's another along that same vein:

"And I can cite to you many, many other examples of rumors that have been started in the same rumor factory, all of them untrue, but every one of them tending to make people believe that this country is going to war.

Your President says this country is not going to war."
FDR - Remarks at Buffalo, New York November 2, 1940

"And yet, we still have the idea at the core of it all that FDR believed the Congress would not declare war without a devestating defeat and major loss of life."

There are a number of examples of German U-boats sinking US ships in the Atlantic, which got Roosevelt all excited, but Congress was unmoved.

Most important point: there is no evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- that FDR or any other American, expected the massive damage that Japanese were able to inflict on Dec 7.

So, I think they expected some kind of attack, but not what they got.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.