Pearl Harbor: Was Willkie Chosen by Spy Ring to Protect FDR in 1940?
Surprise: It's not the Soviets! Well... They're Involved of Course.
There’s something weird about the 1940 Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Willkie.
Here’s the nicest photo I could find of Wendell Lewis Willkie:
Here are some bullet-pointed facts that don’t quite add up for the 1940 Republican nominee for President.
He was a Democrat until late 1939. He ran for President as a Republican in 1940.
He was discussed, in 1937, as a possible Democrat Presidential candidate for 1940.
There were multiple ‘isolationist’ candidates in 1938-1940 who were vying for the nomination to challenge Roosevelt’s legacy.
FDR was signaling to many parties that he was not going to run for an unprecedented third-term in 1940.
Willkie was not supported by the party’s prior nominee, Herbert Hoover. Hoover was supporting Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.
Willkie won even though he did not compete in the 1940 Presidential primaries.
I don’t trust polling at any time in history, but here’s the polling from the showing Willkie’s rise, in red, at the extreme right. You’ll notice he comes out of nowhere to rise high in the supposed polling.
His nomination went through five rounds of balloting at the 1940 GOP Convention in Philadelphia. Willkie: 429, Taft: 377, Dewey: 57. Willkie refused to make a deal with Taft to make him the Vice Presidential choice and create a unified convention.
Willkie’s positions were directly at odds with most of the 1940 Republican Party platform.
His running mate, Sen. Charles McNary of Oregon, once previously described Willkie as a “tool of Wall Street” interests.
In 1944, Willkie was in negotiations with FDR to create a new third party with the stated goal of ‘combining the left-wings of both major parties.’
FDR let Willkie know that he wanted him to become the first Secretary General of the United Nations, a role that eventually went to Alger Hiss.
Willkie’s 1940 running mate, Senator Charles McNary, died the same year as Willkie in 1944. McNary died on Feb. 25, 1944 and Willkie died on October 8, 1944. This is the only time in American politics that a potential Presidential candidate AND his Vice President died during the term they would have served in.
He was well-known among political and media elites to be carrying on a long-term affair with Irita Van Doren, the longtime editor of the Nation magazine, which has never had a single drop of sympathy for Republicans.
He was made Chairman of the 20th Century Fox movie studio on April 9, 1942. One of the projects Fox was touting during his Chairmanship was the film adaptation of his book, “One World.” It appears that after Willkie’s death, the film was never made. The picture’s potential was publicly praised by Isidor F. Stone, prominent journalist of the time who was later revealed to be a paid Soviet agent.
He made a September 1942 trip to the Soviet Union at the direction of FDR. While there, he toured the infamous Kolyma prison camps in eastern Siberia, where political prisoners were being worked to death mining gold for the Soviet Union.
While in the Soviet Union, in September 1942, he met with Soviet General Secretary Joseph Stalin personally and had some sort of secret meeting. One relevant quote from the Sept. 28, 1942 Boston Globe at page 5: “Willkie was naturally not at liberty to divulge the more serious statements Stalin had made to him.”
On November 9, 1942, he argued the case of Schneiderman v. United States for free, arguing on behalf of a Communist whose citizenship had been revoked, William Schneiderman, who was the Secretary of the California Communist Party. He won on a 5-3 vote. Amusingly, Justice Frankfurter, who was very friendly with Communist agents and personally importing Communist propaganda, was in the dissent.
Willkie took the Schneiderman case over from Robert W. Kenny, who defended many Communists, Communist organizations, and film industry individuals accused of being Communist agents.
Willkie supported FDR in imposing a ‘peacetime draft’ for the country.
Willkie proposed even higher taxes than FDR wanted, allowing FDR to be the ‘moderate’ or ‘conservative’ in contrast.
The more you look into the background of the 1940 Republican candidate, the weirder the facts become.
Willkie’s physiognomy also looks ‘off’ to me. He looks untrustworthy. He also looks like a chronic alcoholic. He was apparently notorious for his drinking.
The dark color under the eyes is probably due to the alcoholism. He has the eyes of a drunk. I can only let your mind wander as to the source of the prominent cold sore.
Not to get too gross, but even in the prominent retouched fancy photos of the age, once you notice the cold sores, you can’t un-see them.
If he had lived, the late great actor J.T. Walsh would have been a great person to play him in a film adaptation.
Anyway, I first ran across Willkie with a critical eye when I was researching FDR’s Vice President Henry Wallace’s trip to Kolyma in May 1944. By 1948, it became clear that Wallace, as the sitting Vice President, had visited Soviet death camps while they were in operation.
His written defense, “Where I Was Wrong” in the 1950 issue of LOOK magazine, revealed a notable argument in his defense: Willkie did it first in 1942.
Here’s the relevant excerpt, with Wallace deflecting to blaming Willkie, about visiting a Soviet death camp while it was in operation:
The Wallace/Willkie visiting the Soviet Union during the war, and making a stop at GULAG death camps, just seemed off.
I then came to learn that there’s a theory that British intelligence used their operatives to swing the nomination to Willkie to prevent a nomination by Robert Taft. This is notably mentioned in Thomas Mahl’s 1998 work, “Desperate Deception” about British intelligence’s work in America prior to the second world war. The British were so worried about FDR losing in 1940 that they controlled domestic opposition to ensure that anti-war Americans had no effective choice to avoid the European war. They nominated a compromised, flawed, sickly, Democrat attorney who agreed with FDR on everything of substance.
I’ll admit the theory is a bit of a stretch, but boy how it lines up. It seems crazy until you think about the stakes involved. The entire British Empire was broke and desperate in 1940. They were being forced to the peace table with Germany and that meant the end of Empire, and also the end of their buddies in the Soviet Union.
To illustrate just how rare this Willkie out-of-nowhere candidacy is, I made the following quick chart for GOP Presidential candidates since 1900. On it, I noted what prominent positions the candidates had, as Republicans, prior to running for office, and for the two party-switchers (Trump and Reagan), how many years prior to running as a Republican that they publicly switched.
The point of this graph is to illustrate two key points: 1) How rare it is to have a true ‘dark horse’ candidate come out of nowhere and seize the nomination, and 2) How rare it is to have party-switchers become nominees. Eisenhower is an outlier here, but then again he was extremely well-known from the Second World War and that Ike didn’t switch as much as his partisan affiliation became known. Eisenhower was an unknown who became a Republican, he wasn’t a defector. In that way I think he’s the exception that proves the rule: he was being actively courted by both parties to run, in a similar way to Willkie in the late 30s, but with the important imprimatur as having been the Supreme Allied Commander. Common is the story of otherwise liberal Democrats who nevertheless proudly kept their “I like IKE” pins.
Men who win wars are understandably held in high esteem.
Willkie is the only nominee without a prior prominent elected or appointed role. Willkie is ALSO the only nominee who was a party-switcher walking into the role as nominee. Eisenhower was ‘non-partisan’ after all. That might feel like a technicality but it’s half the switch when you’re coming from neutral to one side, rather than trying to justify to the electorate why you’re making a hard switch from one side to the other.
My point in all of this is to say that I don’t think Willkie was legitimately chosen. I believe Willkie was pushed by unseen forces to control the opposition. Willkie was a foil to protect Roosevelt in 1940. It’s the embodiment of a classic, supposedly-from-Lenin quote, ‘the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.’
Here’s the chart of past Presidential candidates by year, identified also by their prior executive/federal experience and whether they were, and when they were, a party-switcher.
PAST PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES, by year, experience, party-switch status
KEY: RfP = Ran for President previously; G = Governor; SoG = Son of a Governor; RfS = Ran for Senate; C = Congressman; S = Senator; VP = Vice President; Cab = Cabinet Member; SC = Supreme Court Member; Amb = Prominent Ambassador; MilG = Military General
2020 - Trump - RfP* - party switcher 5+ years prior to running in 2016 (~2011)
2016 - Trump - RfP* - party switcher 5+ years prior to running in 2016 (~2011)
2012 - Romney - G, RfP, SoG, RfS
2008 - McCain - S, RfP, C
2004 - Bush Jr - G, SoP
2000 - Bush Jr - G, SoP
1996 - Dole - S, RfVP, RfP, C, CGOP
1992 - Bush Sr - VP, C, CGOP, RfS
1988 - Bush Sr - VP, C, CGOP, RfS
1984 - Reagan - G, RfP - party switcher 14+ years prior to running in 1976 (~1962)
1980 - Reagan - G, RfP - party switcher 14+ years prior to running in 1976 (~1962)
1976 - Ford - VP, C
1972 - Nixon - VP, S, C, RfP
1968 - Nixon - VP, S, C, RfP
1964 - Goldwater - S
1960 - Nixon - VP, S, C
1956 - Eisenhower - MilG - unknown party affiliation 1+ years prior to running in 1952
1952 - Eisenhower - MilG - unknown party affiliation 1+ years prior to running in 1952
1948 - Dewey - G, DA, RfP
1944 - Dewey - G, DA, RfP
1940 - Willkie - party switcher less than 1 year prior to running in 1940 (late 1939)
1936 - Landon - G
1932 - Hoover - Cab
1928 - Hoover - Cab
1924 - Coolidge - VP, G
1920 - Harding - S
1916 - Hughes - SC, Cab, G, RfP
1912 - Taft - Cab, G
1908 - Taft - Cab, G
1904 - Roosevelt - VP, G, Cab
1900 - McKinley - G, C
I did the same thing for the Democrats and found similar results. There wasn’t a single post-college party-switcher who was allowed to be the Democrat nominee for President. And almost no one has run without federal experience. 1904’s Alton Parker is the only one without a federal resume, but he’d also been a lifelong Democrat.
2020 - Biden - S, VP, RfP
2016 - H. Clinton - S, RfP - party switcher in college 40+ years prior to running in 2008 (~1968)
2012 - Obama - S
2008 - Obama - S
2004 - Kerry - S
2000 - Gore - VP, S, C
1996 - B. Clinton - G
1992 - B. Clinton - G
1988 - Dukakis - G
1984 - Mondale - S
1980 - Carter - G
1976 - Carter - G
1972 - McGovern - S, C
1968 - Humphrey - VP, S
1964 - L. Johnson - VP, S, C, RfP
1960 - Kennedy - S, C
1956 - Stevenson - G, Amb
1952 - Stevenson - G, Amb
1948 - Truman - VP, S
1944 - F. Roosevelt - G, Cab
1940 - F. Roosevelt - G, Cab
1936 - F. Roosevelt - G, Cab
1932 - F. Roosevelt - G, Cab
1928 - Smith - G
1924 - Davis - C, Amb
1920 - Cox - G, C
1916 - Wilson - G
1912 - Wilson - G
1908 - Bryan - C
1904 - Parker
1900 - Bryan - C
Party-switching Presidential candidates are extremely rare. With the exception of Hillary Clinton’s conversion at Yale in 1968, it’s non-existent among Democrats. Almost every Presidential candidate has had significant federal experience prior to running on both sides.
I think even if you broke out the runners-up in the primaries for each year, by party, you would find the same result: the serious contenders would not be party-switchers, and would have significant federal or executive political experience.
Willkie also started his campaign about six weeks before the Republican convention. If I took the time, it would be interesting to note the average time that past Republican and Democrat candidates spent campaigning prior to their elections.
Willkie is not just an overall outlier, he’s an extreme anomaly.
The fact that he came out of nowhere in April 1940 to seize the party nomination in June 1940 is quite suspicious. It lends important context to the theory that the pro-Taft forces were assassinated in order to seat Willkie delegates to the convention.
Now, at this point, I would assume you’re thinking… this is some fine conjecture. You’ve laid out things that aren’t consistent, but the universe is filled with coincidences! You’re cherry-picking selective data and information to make a thesis that is, on some level, fundamentally unprovable. You’re just spinning ahistorical ‘conspiracy theories’
And you know, you might be right. I don’t know that we’ll ever get definitive proof, but there’s a lot of suspicious facts that don’t otherwise make sense. These things don’t seem to be coincidence.
What’s not in doubt is that the British were involved in massive pressure campaigns to affect domestic American public opinion. The British bragged about this in 1963.
They again bragged about doing this in 1976. The British government then declassified many of their files about this effort in 1999, published in book form here.
Politico used this information as a way to try and buttress the crazed Russiagate theories against Donald Trump in 2016. The inconvenient historical truths are only useful to our mainstream narratives insofar as they serve to undermine current threats. Sometimes you can get glimmers of truth from ruling elites as they desperately weaponize hidden history from the past in order to fight their current political battles. It’s not often, but it’s occasionally useful to them.
A foreign government, worried that the public might be too ‘anti-war’ and would avoid a pending conflict, interfered in American politics to the point of dictating the flawed opposition candidate to the reigning President. They delegitimized a native political movement in order to protect their Empire, to prevent any kind of peace treaty, so that they would win a war they had declared.
I think many can agree with the results, even though it involved 60+ million dead, while still being concerned that foreign interference in elections to this extent where the stakes are this large was a very bad precedent to set. It also necessitated creating explicit bars on more than two-terms for the Presidency, the 22nd Constitutional Amendment. When the stakes are high enough, the money good enough, the powers interested enough, they will keep running flawed Presidents indefinitely.
War is good business for some. War built the British Empire, but war was now bankrupting it. Britain preferred to fight natives with technology centuries out of date, not continentals who could give them a more even fight. Britain and to a lesser extent Russia, even though at peace with Germany, needed America in the war. They were desperate, and picking Presidents was a small price to pay. If they were willing to go as far as this theory suggests, would they be willing to withhold advance intelligence of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor? Would they agree to help ‘baby them [Japan] along’ in order to politically buy time for America to enter the war? Our elites wanted a war, they had a variety of reasons for it.
They wanted war so badly that they were just looking for an excuse to get them to that result. Pearl Harbor would serve as that excuse.
The name of the British group in America was “British Security Co-Ordination” or “BSC.” It was a name chosen by none other than J. Edgar Hoover, who was directed to give the British all the cooperation they needed from the FBI by FDR. BSC was also a part of MI6, British intelligence. It was based out of Rockefeller Center during the war.
So, to recap the theory and the evidence:
Thesis:
Wendell Willkie was not legitimately chosen as the Republican nominee in 1940. Instead, it is most likely that he was chosen to be a ‘foil’ to FDR to ensure a third term for Roosevelt. The people most active behind this effort were probably agents of British intelligence.
Evidence supporting that thesis:
The facts as laid out above
The chart showing the unlikely path of Willkie as contrasted to the other Presidential candidates of both parties.
The admissions in 1962, 1976, 1999 by the British government admitting to engaging in espionage meant to undermine the anti-war movement of the period.
Most of Willkie’s archives, 500,000 items, are held at Indiana University in Bloomington. 2.75 linear feet are at Yale.
Politica | PEARL HARBOR SERIES:
Pt 17 - The Consequential Death of Ralph Williams in 1940
Pt 16 - John T. Flynn Wasn’t the Originator of the ‘Advance Warning’ Thesis
Pt 15 - Surviving Parents Want to Know How and Why
Pt 14 - Senior Soviet Amb. Toured Honolulu day before Pearl Harbor Attack
Pt 13 - No, White Men Probably Weren't Piloting Pearl Harbor Attack Planes
Pt 12 - FDR was Jap Oil 'Appeaser'... Until he Cut it Off a Week Later to Start a War
Pt 11 - A Week Prior to the Pearl Attack, Admirals Discuss "Offensive" Against Jap Fleet on the Move
Pt 10 - Fr. Aloysius Schmitt & John Austin aboard the sinking USS Oklahoma
Pt 9 - Weak Leads-- Pearl Military Judge Drafts Martial Law Before Attack
Pt 8 - Reporter Tells US Japs Will Attack After Midnight on Dec. 6th
Pt 7 - Toward a Taxonomy of Claims about “Advance Knowledge” of the Attack
Pt 6 - Japs Were Trying to Escape Panama on Dec. 2nd
Pt 5 - Yes, there was Warning of the Pearl Harbor Attack
Pt 4 - ‘Very Bitter’ Housewife in ‘45 Notes Flaws in the Official Story
Pt 3 - Lloyd’s of London Cancelled Insurance Policies in August 1941
Pt 2 - Tips About The Pearl Harbor Attack 77 Years Late
Pt 1 - Pearl Harbor Revisionism