# The 1933 Plot to Overthrow FDR



## Curt Chiarelli (Aug 16, 2007)

In July and November of 1933 a group of ultra-wealthy corporate elitists headed by the DuPont family financed a plot to overthrow President Franklin Delano Rooseveldt, abolish the constitution and establish a fascist form of government. They contacted retired Marine Corp General Smedley Darlington Butler to head the _coup de tat_. Only problem is, they completely misjudged the cut of the man's jib . . . .

Although some individuals would like to delude themselves to think otherwise, this is not some subversive liberal agitprop, but historical *fact*. In light of current events, it's certainly true that history (even the supressed stuff) does have a way of repeating itself. 

You can read the riveting story of how one man's integrity forever shaped the future of American history. One can only wonder where men of such character can be found nowadays:

The Plot to Sieze the White House by Jules Archer


----------



## mosaix (Aug 16, 2007)

Never knew about this, Curt but it has interesting parallels with a similar plot to overthrow the Labour government of Harold Wilson here in the UK in 1968.

Cecil King was a British Newspaper and magnate and, with Peter Wright an MI5 agent, he approached retired army officers and Lord Mountbatten who had links both with the Royal family and the military. It came to naught, but all he had to do was resign as chairman of the International Publishing Corporation. If it had been a union leader plotting to overthrow a Conservative government he would have been hung (treason is the the only offence in the UK that still carries the penalty of capital punishment).

Many people in the UK thought then, and still think now, that the Conservative Party has an inalienable right to rule and overthrowing a Labour government is one's duty. This attitude is still seen today, thinly disguised, in the right wing tabloid newspapers.


----------



## blacknorth (Aug 7, 2009)

mosaix said:


> Many people in the UK thought then, and still think now, that the Conservative Party has an inalienable right to rule and overthrowing a Labour government is one's duty. This attitude is still seen today, thinly disguised, in the right wing tabloid newspapers.



That's true. Of course, there are more ways than one of skinning a cat. I think we've already seen a coup, led by bankers. Their next move is to sell off the BBC, NHS and the Welfare State.

Neil Kinnock's famous speech, _I warn you not to be poor or hungry or young or old_, never seemed so pertinent. I genuinely fear for the future.


----------



## Wiglaf (Aug 7, 2009)

Was this before or after FDR's Supreme Court stacking attempt?  I can't read the link right now as it is too long.  Nor do I have time to check dates right now.  Maybe later when I have more time.


----------



## Pyar (Aug 7, 2009)

If you read *The Man In the High Castle*, his assassination is the premise to much of what happens in the story.


----------



## Rosebery (Aug 12, 2009)

mosaix said:


> Many people in the UK thought then, and still think now, that the Conservative Party has an inalienable right to rule and overthrowing a Labour government is one's duty. This attitude is still seen today, thinly disguised, in the right wing tabloid newspapers.



Really? That's news to me. 

Considering Labour's victory in the past three elections, there can't be that many people who feel it their duty to overthrow Labour governments. 

As for the tabloid press, they too backed Labour not so long ago and, as far as I know, have never advocated the toppling of a left wing government by any means other than via the ballot box. This is not so much backing the inalienable right to rule of the Conservatives as participating in the democratic process. 

Labour have always been at pains to stress their patriotic credentials and reassure voters that they can govern in the nation's interests. There was once a sizeable chunk of society who considered a Labour government anathema: the 1923 election (which Labour won) abounded with accusations that Labour was preparing to nationalise women. The 1924 election (which Labour lost) was dominated by the publication of the suspect Zinoviev letter, which was used as proof that Labour was plotting a socialist coup. 

However, I can't help but feel that those who find Labour utterly unpalatable have always been a minority and no longer make up a significant part of the electorate - the 1997 election suggests that most Tory voters will, under some circumstances, vote Labour. 

Having said this, I still think Labour are headed for defeat. Not because many voters oppose the party governing in principle, but because they find its record in government uninspiring (to put it mildly).


----------



## blacknorth (Aug 16, 2009)

The Labour Party remained out of power for a generation between 1979 and 1997 - in order to gain power it had to abandon much of the left-leaning policy and principle which had guided it from inception. The Party signed up to a neo-liberal agenda under Blair and witnessed the Murdoch press and various corporate interests support its election campaign. Hence the '97 landslide. At that point the Labour Party was no longer a danger to the status quo - there was no reason to bring a Labour Government down, it had been fully co-opted.

Personally, I'm dismayed by the corprorate agenda the Party has pursued through PFI and privatisation. UK voters no longer have a choice between right and left, simply further corporate governence of a colour decided upon by a small number of floating voters in marginal constituencies. It's a travesty of democratic principle. We need some form of proportional representation and we need legislation to keep what remains of the public sector (the NHS, for example) safe from the profit motive which is destroying us all, and destroying the planet.

I simply cannot believe that the human spirit is a perpetual motion machine for corporate interests.


----------



## Rosebery (Aug 16, 2009)

blacknorth, just because a large section of the electorate found Labour's socialist policies abhorrent does not mean they thought the Conservatives had an inalienable right to rule.

You are right to point out 1997 as a turning point - when Labour won 43% of the popular vote - but in 1945, when Labour was significantly to the Left of where it is now, the party won close to 50% of the popular vote, including many former Tory voters (even Enoch Powell voted Labour). 

The Labour/Tory division of British politics which began around 1924 tipped the electoral scales in favour of the Conservatives (they needed fewer votes to win seats) and exaggerated their dominance. This situation has now been reversed and Labour need fewer votes to win seats, allowing for a comfortable majority in 2005 with only a 3% lead in the popular vote. This was the major roadblock to a Lib/Lab electoral reform pact - Labour had nothing to gain and everything to lose. 

You are right to point out that the parties have drawn closer together, denying the voter a real choice between left and right, but you will find that Labour has always gravitated towards the centre - despite the odd exception (e.g. 1945-51) - precisely in order to win first past the post majorities. The first Labour governments were an exercise in moderation with very little left wing legislation at all and no progressive finance (though these were minority administrations). 

That said, there are significant differences between the major parties and a gulf has opened up over economic policy since the credit crunch. I think Labour is headed for defeat and, in opposition, will have to rethink its political positioning. The New Labour wave is over. But I'm not overly pessimistic. The party has the ability to reform and win elections - it has done so in the past and may well do so again in the future.


----------



## Tirellan (Aug 17, 2009)

blacknorth said:


> The Labour Party remained out of power for a generation between 1979 and 1997 - in order to gain power *it had to abandon much of the left-leaning policy and principle which had guided it from inception*.


 
And which had made it unelectable.


----------



## blacknorth (Aug 18, 2009)

Tirellan said:


> And which had made it unelectable.



Sorry, but I don't agree - Labour could have been elected in '97 on a much more left-wing ticket given the country was so disenchanted with Tory sleaze and with Major/Lamont's handling of the IMF crisis, and the economy in general. But it seems to be part of the tragedy of the moderate left that it misses its chance every time and ends up in the thrall either of the Unions, as in the 70's, or the City, as is happening now. I read an interesting comment on a political blog recently - it's strange we need laws to protect us from Unions, but a gentleman's agreement to protect us from bankers.

Also, the right-wing media scare-mongering about the Labour Party before Blair was akin to Senator McCarthy territory - the treatment meted out to Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock was embarrassing and inhuman. 'Would the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights,' was the Sun's last headline before the 92 election. 

I don't wish to argue with you as I don't want to derail the OP's thread further. But I am rather to the Left in matters political.


----------

