By John Beaty
First Printing, December, 1951 Eleventh Printing April 1954
To the mighty company of American soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines whose graves are marked by white crosses
far from home this book is dedicated with the solemn pledge that the
Christian civilization of which they were the finest flower shall not
The Iron Curtain Over
Lt. Gen, George E. Stratemeyer,
USAF (ret.), says:
"I congratulate you on your book
and the service you have performed for our country. If my health
would permit it I would go on a continuous lecture tour gratis and
preach your book and recommendations. My "Iron Curtain Over America"
will be on loan continuously and I intend to recommend its reading
in every letter I write.
Lt. Gen. Edward M. Almond, USA.
"It is an inspiration to me to find an
author with the courage and energy to research and to secure the
publication of such information as you have assembled in order that the
poorly informed average American may know wherein the real threats to
our Country lurk. Your book is a magnificent contribution to those who
would preserve our American ideals."
"I think it ought to be
compulsory reading in every public school in America."
Senator William A. Langer, former
Chairman, Judiciary Committee.
Vice Admiral T. G. W. Settle, U.S.N.
"The Iron Curtain Over America" is
a most pertinent and excellently presented treatise on the cancer on
our national set-up. "I hope this book has had, and will have, the
widest possible dissemination, particularly to our leaders-in
Washington, and in industry and the press, -- and that our leaders
who are "uncontaminated" will have their serious attention engaged
Lt, General P. A. Del Valle, USMC
" I am impelled to write to you to
express my admiration of your great service to the Nation in writing
this truly magnificent book. No American who has taken the oath of
allegiance can afford to miss it, and I heartily recommend it as an
honest and courageous dispeller of the fog of propaganda in which
most minds seem to dwell."
The author of The Iron Curtain Over
America has written, or collaborated on, a dozen books. His texts have
been used in more than seven hundred colleges and universities, and his
historical novel, Swords in the Dawn, published originally in New York,
had London and Australian editions, and was adopted for state-wide use
in the public schools of Texas. His education (M.A., University of
Virginia; Ph.D., Columbia University; post-graduate study, University of
Montpellier, France), his travel in Europe and Asia, and his five years
with the Military Intelligence Service in World War II rounded out the
background for the reading and research (1946-1951) which resulted in
The Iron Curtain Over America.
the Reader…………………………………. 4
The Teutonic Knights and Germany………………... 7
Russia and the Khazars…………………………..….. 16
The Khazars Join the Democratic Party……………. 35
“The Unnecessary War”………………………………. 46
The Black Hood of Censorship…………………………. 60
The Foreign Policy of the Truman Administration..… 80
Does the National Democratic Party Want War….….. 112
Cleaning the Augean Stables……………………….….. 122
America Can Still Be Free……………………………. 136
Added by Gnostic Liberation Front:
List of Americans in the Venona papers
Proven Spies for the Soviets
To The Reader
Many authors of books on the current
world scene have been White House confidants, commanders of armies, and
others whose authority is indicated by their official or military
titles. Such authors need no introduction to the public. A Prospective
reader is entitled, however, to know something of the background and
experience of an unknown or little-known writer who is offering a
comprehensive volume on a great and important subject.
In the spring of 1926, the author was
selected by the Albert Kahn Foundation to investigate and report on
world affairs. Introduced by preliminary correspondence and provided
with numerous letters of introduction to persons prominent in
government, politics, and education, he gained something more than a
tourist's reaction to the culture and institutions, the movements and
the pressures in the twenty-nine countries which he visited. In several
countries, including great powers, he found conditions and attitudes
significantly different from the conception of them which prevailed in
the United States. Though previously successful in deposing of his
writings, he was unable, however, to get his observations on the world
situation published, except as the Annual Report of the Foundation and
in his friendly home special foreign correspondent, and in the Southwest
Review, in whose files his "Race and Population, Their Relation to World
Peace" can still be seen as a virtual prognosis of the oncoming war.
After his return to America in the
autumn of 1927, the author kept abreast of world attitudes by
correspondence with many of the friends he had made in his travels and
by rereading French, German, and Italian news periodicals, as well as
certain English language periodicals emanating from Asia. World trends
continued to run counter to what the American people were allowed to
know, and a form of virtual censorship blacked out efforts at imparting
information. For instance, though the author's textbooks continued to
sell well and though his novel Swords in the Dawn (1937) was favorably
received, his book Image of Life (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1940 ), which
attempted to show Americans the grave world-wide significance of the
degradation of their cultural standards, was granted, as far as he
knows, not a single comment in a book review or a book column in New
York. Indeed, the book review periodical with the best reputation for
full coverage failed to list Image of Life even under "Books Received".
In 1940 - as our President was
feverishly and secretly preparing to enter World War II and publicly
denying any such purpose - the author, a reserve captain, was "alerted,"
and in 1941 was called to active duty in the Military Intelligence
Service of the War Department General Staff. His first assignment was to
write, or help write, short pamphlets on military subjects, studies of
several campaigns including those in Western Europe and Norway, and
three bulletins on the frustration of an enemy's attempts at sabotage
In 1942, the author became a major
and Chief of the Historical Section (not the later Historical Branch of
the War Department Special Staff). In his new capacity, he supervised a
group of experts who prepared a current history of events in the various
strategically important areas of the world. Also, he was one of the two
editors of the daily secret "G-2 Report," which was issued each noon to
give persons in high places, including the White House, the world
picture as it existed four hours earlier. While Chief of the Historical
Section, the author wrote three widely circulated studies of certain
phases of the German - Russian campaign.
In 1943 - during which year he was
also detailed to the General Staff Corps and promoted to lieutenant
colonel the author was made Chief of the Interview Section. In the next
three years he interviewed more than two thousand persons, most of whom
were returning from some high mission, some delicate assignment, or some
deed of valor - often in a little-known region of the world. Those
interviewed included military personnel in rank from private first class
to four stars, diplomatic officials from vice-consuls to ambassadors and
special representatives of the President, senators and congressmen
returning from overseas investigations, missionaries, explorers,
businessmen, refugees, and journalists - among the latter, Raymond
Clapper and Ernie Pyle, who were interviewed between their next to the
last and their last and fatal voyages. These significant people were
presented sometimes individually but usually to assembled groups of
officers and other experts from the various branches of G-2, from other
General Staff divisions, from each of the technical services, and from
other components interested in vital information which could be had by
interview perhaps six weeks before being received in channeled reports.
In some cases the author increased his knowledge of a given area or
topic by consulting documents suggested during an interview. Thus, from
those he interviewed, from those specialists for whom he arranged the
interviews, and from study in which he had expert guidance, he had a
unique opportunity for learning the history, resources, ideologies,
capabilities, and intentions of the great foreign powers. In its most
essential aspects, the picture was terrifyingly different from the
picture presented by our government to the American people!
After the active phase of the war
was over, the author was offered three separate opportunities of further
service with the army - all of them interesting, all of them flattering.
He wished, however, to return to his home and his university and to
prepare himself for trying again to give the American people the world
story as he had come to know it; consequently, after being advanced to
the rank of colonel, he reverted to inactive status, upon his own
request, in December, 1946. Twice thereafter he was recalled for a
summer of active duty: in 1947 he wrote a short history of the Military
Intelligence Service, and in 1949 he prepared for the Army Field Forces
an annotated reading list for officers in the Military Intelligence
From 1946 to 1951 the author devoted
himself to extending his knowledge of the apparently diverse but
actually interrelated events in the various strategic areas of the
present-day world. The goal he set for himself was not merely to uncover
the facts but to present them with such a body of documented proof that
their validity could not be questioned. Sustaining quotations for
significant truths have thus been taken from standard works of
reference; from accepted historical writings; from government documents;
from periodicals of wide public acceptance or of known accuracy in
fields related to America's foreign policy; and from contemporary
writers and speakers of unquestioned standing.
The final product of a long period of
travel, army service, and study is The Iron Curtain Over America. The
book is neither memoirs nor apology, but an objective presentation of
"things as they are." It differs from many other pro-American books
principally in that it not only exhibits the external and internal
dangers which threaten the survival of our country, but shows how they
developed and why they continue to plague us.
The roads we "travel so briskly lead
out of dim antiquity" said General James G. Harbord, and we must study
the past "because of its bearing on the living present" and because it
is our only guide for the future. The author has thus turned on the
light in certain darkened or dimmed out year tremendously significant
phases of the history of medieval and modern Europe. Since much
compression was obligatory, and since many of the facts will to most
readers be wholly new and disturbing, Chapters I and II may be described
as "hard reading." Even a rapid perusal of them, however, will prepare
the reader for understanding better the problems of our country as they
are revealed in succeeding chapters.
In The Iron Curtain Over America
authorities are cited not in a bibliography or in notes but along with
the text to which they are pertinent. The documentary matter is enclosed
by parentheses, and many readers will pass over it. it is there,
however, for those who wish its assurance of validity, for those who
wish to locate and examine the context of quoted material, and
especially for those who wish to use this book as a springboard for
In assembling and documenting his
material, the author followed Shakespearean injunction, "nothing
extenuate, nor set down aught in malice." Writing with no goal except to
serve his country by telling the truth, fully substantiated, he has
humbly and reverently taken as his motto, or text, a promise of Christ
the Saviour as recorded in the Gospel According to Saint John (VIII,
And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The
Truth Shall Make You Free.
Only an informed American people can
save America - and they can save it only if all those, to whom it is
given to know, will share their knowledge with others.
Teutonic Knights and Germany
For more than a thousand years a
fundamental problem of Europe, the source, seat, and historic guardian
of Western civilization, has been to save itself and its ideals from
destruction by some temporary master of the men and resources of Asia.
This statement implies no criticism of the peoples of Asia, for Europe
and America have likewise produced leaders whose armies have invaded
Since the fall of the Roman Empire of
the West in 476 A.D., a principal weakness of Western Europe has been a
continuing lack of unity. Charlemagne (742-814) - who was crowned
Emperor of the West in Rome in 800 - gave the post-Roman European world
a generation of unity, and exerted influence even as far as Jerusalem,
where he secured the protection of Christian pilgrims to the shrines
associated with the birth, the ministry, and the crucifixion of Christ.
Unfortunately, Charlemagne's empire was divided shortly after his death
into three parts (Treaty of Verdun, 843). From two of these France and
Germany derived historic boundaries - and a millennium of wars fought
largely to change them!
After Charlemagne's time, the first
significant power efforts with a continent-wide common purpose were the
Crusades (1096-1291). In medieval Europe the Church of Rome, the only
existing international organization, had some of the characteristics of
a league of nations, and it sponsored these mass movements of Western
Europeans toward the East. In fact, it was Pope Urban II, whose great
speech at Clermont, France, on November 26, 1095, initiated the surge of
feeling which inspired the people of France, and of Europe in general,
for the amazing adventure. The late medieval setting of the epochal
speech is re-created with brilliant detail by Harold Lamb in his book,
The Crusades: Iron Men and Saints (Doubleday, Doran & Co., inc., Garden
City, New York, 1930, Chapters VI and VII ).
The Pope crossed the Alps from
schism-torn Italy and, Frenchman himself, stirred the people of France
as he rode among them. In the chapel at Clermont, he first swayed the
men of the church who had answered his summons to the meeting; then,
surrounded by cardinals and mail-clad knights on a golden-canopied
platform in a field by the church, he addressed the multitude:
You are girded knights, but you are
arrogant with pride. You turn upon your brothers with fury, cutting down
one the other. Is this the service of Christ? Come forward to the
defense of Christ.
The great Pope gave his eager audience
some pertinent and inspiring texts from the recorded words of Jesus
For where two or three are
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them
(The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Chapter XVIII, Verse 20).
And every one that hath
forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or
wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a
hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life (Saint Matthew,
Chapter XIX, Verse 29).
To the words of the Saviour, the Pope
added his own specific promise:
Set forth then upon the way to the
Holy Sepulcher. . . and fear not. Your possessions here will be
safeguarded, and you will despoil the enemy of greater treasures. Do not
fear death, where Christ laid down His life for you. If any should lose
their lives, even on the way thither, by sea or land, or in where Christ
laid down His life for you. If any should lose their lives, even on the
way thither, by sea or land, or in strife with the pagans, their sins
will be requited them. I grant this to all who go, by the power vested
in me by God (Harold Lamb, op.cit., P.42).
Through the long winter, men scanned
their supplies, hammered out weapons and armor, and dreamed dreams of
their holy mission. In the summer that followed, they "started out on
what they called the voyage of God" ( Harold Lamb, op. cit., p. VII) As
they faced East they shouted on plains and in mountain valleys, "God
Back of the Crusades there was a
"mixture of motives" (Encyclopedia Britannica, Fourteenth Edition, Vol.
VI, p. 722). The immediate goal of those who made the journey was the
rescue of the tomb of Christ from the non-Christian power which then
dominated Palestine. Each knight wore a cross on his outer garment and
they called themselves by a Latin name Cruciati (from crux, cross), or
soldiers of the cross, which is translated into English as Crusaders. A
probable ecclesiastical objectives were the containment of Mohammedan
power and the protection of pilgrims to the Holy Land (Encyc. Brit.,
Vol. VI, p.722
Inspired by the promise of an eternal
home in heaven, alike for those who might perish on the way and those
who might reach the Holy Sepulcher, the Crusaders could not fail. Some
of them survived the multiple perils of the journey and reached
Palestine, where they captured the Holy City and founded the Latin
Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099). In this land, which they popularly called
Outremer or Beyond The Sea, they established the means of livelihood,
built churches, and saw children and grandchildren born. The Latin
Kingdom's weaknesses, vicissitudes, and final destruction by the
warriors of Islam, who had been driven back but not destroyed,
constitute a vivid chapter of history - alien, however, to the subject
matter of The Iron Curtain Over America.
Many of the Crusaders became
members of three military religious orders. Unlike the Latin Kingdom,
these orders have survived, in one form or another, the epoch of the
great adventure, and are of significant interest in the middle of the
twentieth century. The Knights Hospitalers - or by their longer title,
the Knights of the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem were
"instituted" upon an older charitable foundation by Pope Paschal II in
1113 (Encyc. Brit. Vol. XIX, pp. 836-838). The fraternity of the Knights
Templars (Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon) was
founded not as a Hospital but directly as a military order about 1119,
and was installed by Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem, in a building known
as the "Temple of Solomon" - hence the name Templars (Encyc. Brit., Vol.
XXI, pp. 920-924). Both Hospitalers and Templars are fairly well known
to those who have read such historical novels as The Talisman by Sir
The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem
maintained its rule for nearly a hundred years, 1099-1187 (see Lamb, op.
cit., and The Crusade: The World's Debate, by Hilaire Belloc, Cassell
and Company, Ltd., London, 1937). Still longer the Crusaders held Acre
on the coast of Palestine. When their position on the mainland became
untenable, the Templars moved to the island of Cyprus, which was the
seat of its Grand Master at the time of its dissolution (1306-1312) as
an international military brotherhood. The Hospitalers move to the
island of Rhodes, where their headquarters buildings - visited and
studied by the author still stand in superb preservation facing the
waters of the Inland Sea. From Rhodes, the Knights of the Hospital moved
to Malta hence their later name, Knights of Malta - and held sovereignty
on that famous island until 1798.
The two principal Mediterranean
orders and their history, including the assumption of some of their
defense functions by Venice and then by Britain, do not further concern
us. It is interesting to note, however, as we take leave of the Templars
and the Hospitalers, that the three Chivalric Orders of Crusaders are in
some cases the direct ancestors and in other cases have afforded the
inspiration, including the terminology of knighthood, for many of the
important present-day social, fraternal, and philanthropic orders of
Europe and America. Among these are the Knights Templar, which is
"claimed to be a lineal descendant" of the Crusade order of similar
name; the Knights of Pythias, founded in 1864; and the Knights of
Columbus, founded in 1882 (quotation and dates from Webster's New
International Dictionary, Second Edition, 1934, p. 1370).
The third body of medieval
military-religious Crusaders was the Knighthood of the Teutonic Order.
This organization was founded as a hospital in the winter of 1190-91 -
according to tradition, on a small ship which had been pulled ashore
near Acre. Its services came to be so highly regarded that in March,
1198, "the great men of the army and the [Latin] Kingdom raised the
brethren of the German Hospital of St. Mary to the rank of an Order of
Knights" (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XXI, pp. 983-984). Soon, however, the Order
found that "its true work lay on the Eastern frontiers of Germany"
(Encyc. Brit., Vol. XXI, p. 894). Invited by a Christian Polish Prince
(1226) to help against the still unconverted Prussians, a body of
knights sailed down the Vistula establishing blockhouses and pushed
eastward to found Koenigsburg in 1255. In 1274, a castle was established
at Marienburg and in 1309 the headquarters of the Grand Master was
transferred (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIV, p. 886) from Venice to this remote
border city on the Nojat River, an eastern outlet of the Vistula (The
Rise of Brandenburg-Prussia to 1786, by Sidney Bradshaw Fay, Henry Holt
and Company, New York, 1937)
It was to the Teutonic Order that
the Knight of Chaucer, famous Canterbury Tales belonged (Sections from
Chaucer, edited by Clarence Griffin Child, D. C. Heath & Co., Boston,
1912, p. 150). Chaucer's lines (prologue to the Canterbury Tales, II.,
Ful ofte tyme he hadde the bord
bigonne Aboven alle naciouns in Pruce tell us that this Knight
occupied the seat of Grand Master, presumably at the capital,
Marienburg, and presided over Knights from the various nations
assembled in "Puce" (Prussia) to hold the pagan East at bay. In his
military-religious capacity Chaucer's Knight "fought for our faith"
in fifteen battles, including those in Lithuania and in Russia
(Prologue, II., 54-63).
The Teutonic Knights soon drove
eastward, or converted to Christianity, the sparsely settled native
Prussian people, and assumed sovereignty over East Prussia. They
encouraged the immigration of German families of farmers and artisans,
and their domain on the south shore of the Baltic became a
self-contained German state, outside the Holy Roman Empire. The
boundaries varied, at one time reaching the Gulf of Finland (see
Historical Atlas, by William R. Shepherd, Henry Holt and Company, New
York, 1911, maps 77, 79, 87, 99, 119). "The hundred years from 1309 to
1409 were the Golden Age of the Teutonic Knights, Young nobles from all
over Europe found no greater honor than to come out and fight under
their banner and be knighted by their Grand Master" (Fay, op. cit., pp.
32-33). As the years passed, the function of the Teutonic Knights as
defenders, or potential defenders, of the Christian West remained
Those who founded the Teutonic
Order on the hospital ship in Palestine spoke German and from the
beginning most of the members were from the various small states into
which in medieval times the German people were divided. As the Crusading
spirit waned in Europe, fewer Knights were drawn from far-off lands and
a correspondingly larger number were recruited from nearby German
kingdoms, duchies, and other autonomies.
Meanwhile, to Brandenburg, a neighbor
state to the west of the Teutonic Order domain, the Emperor Sigismund
sent as ruler Frederick of Hohenzollern and five years later made him
hereditary elector. "A new era of prosperity, good government, and
princely power began with the arrival of the Hohenzollerns in
Brandenburg in the summer of 1412" (Fay, op. cit., pp. 7-9).
After its Golden Age, the Teutonic
Order suffered from a lack of religious motivation, since all nearby
peoples including the Lithuanians had been converted. It suffered, too,
from poor administration and from military reverses. To strengthen their
position, especially against Poland, the Knights elected Albert of
Hohenzollern, a cousin of the contemporary elector Joachim I (rule,
1499-1535), as Grand Master in 1511. Unlike Chaucer's Knight, a lay
member who was the father of a promising son, Albert was a clerical
member of the Teutonic Order. He and his elector cousin were both great
grandsons of Frederick. the first Hohenzollern elector (Fay, op. cit.,
In most German states in the first
quarter of the sixteenth century, "things were not right," "there was
discontent deep in men's hearts," and "existing powers," ecclesiastical
as well as lay, "Abused their trust." The quoted phrases are from an
essay, "Luther and the Modern Mind" (The Catholic World, October 1946)
by Dr. Thomas P. Neill, who continues:
This was the stage on which Luther
appeared when he nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door at
Wittenberg on Halloween of 1517. The Catholic Church had come on
sorry days, and had there been no Luther there would likely have
been a successful revolt anyway. But there was a Luther.
The posting of the famous
"ninety-five theses" by Martin Luther foreshadowed his break, complete
and final by the spring of 1522, with the Church of Rome. Since the
church in Germany was temporarily at a low ebb, as shown by Dr. Neill,
Luther's controversy with its authorities won him "the sympathy and
support of a large proportion of his countrymen" (Encyc. Brit., Vol.
XIV, p. 944).
The outcome was a new form of
Christianity, known later as Protestantism, which made quick headway
among North Germans and East Germans. Its adherents included many
Teutonic Knights, and their German chief was interested. Still nominally
a follower of the Church of Rome, Albert visited Luther at Wittenberg in
1523. "Luther advised: ‘Give up your vow as a monk; take a wife; abolish
the order; and make yourself hereditary Duke of Prussia’". (Fay, op.
cit., p. 38). The advice was taken.
Thus since a large proportion of its
members and its chief had embraced Protestantism, the Knighthood severed
its slender tie with the Church of Rome. In the words of the
Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. I, p. 522), "Albert of Hohenzollern, last
Grand Master of the Teutonic Order" became "first Duke of Prussia."
In this manner the honorable and
historic heritage of extending Christianity in the lands south of the
Baltic passed from a military-religious order to a Germany duchy.
Prussia and not the Teutonic Order now governed the strategically vital
shore land of the southeast Baltic, between the Niemen and Vital shore
land of the southeast Baltic, between the Niemen and Vistula rivers.
Proud of their origin as a charitable
organization and proud of being a bulwark of Christianity, first
Catholic and then Protestant, the people of Prussia, many of them
descended from the lay knights, developed a "strong sense of duty and
loyalty." From them came also" many of the generals and statesmen who
helped to make Prussia great..." (Fay, op.cit., p. 2)
This duchy of Prussia was united
with Brandenburg in 1618 by the marriage of Anna, daughter and heiress
of the second Duke of Prussia, to the elector, John Sigismund
(Hohenzollern). Under the latter's grandson, Frederick William, the
"Great Elector" (reign, 1640-1688), Brandenburg-Prussia became second
only to Austria among the member states of the Holy Roman Empire some of
its territory, acquired from the Teutonic Order, extending even beyond
the loose confederation and it was "regarded as the head of German
Protestantism." (Encyc. Brit., Vol. IV, p. 33 and passim).
By an edict of the Holy Roman Emperor,
the state of Brandenburg-Prussia became the kingdom of Prussia in 1701;
the royal capital was Berlin, which was in the heart of the old province
of Brandenburg. Under Frederick the Great (reign, 1740-1768), Prussia
became one of the most highly developed nations of Europe. A century
later, it was the principal component of the German Empire which the
Minister-President of Prussia, Otto von Bismarck, caused to be
proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles (January 18, 1871).
Prussia's historic function,
inherited from the Teutonic Order of standing as a bastion on the Baltic
approach to Europe, was never fully forgotten by the west. The
Hohenzollern monarchy was the strongest Protestant power on the
continent and its relations with the governments of both England and
America were intimate and friendly. The royal family of England several
times married into the Prussian dynasty. Frederick William II of
Brandenburg-Prussia, later to be Frederick, first King of Prussia (see
preceding paragraph) helped William of England of Orange, the archenemy
of Louis XIV of France, to land in England, where he became (1688)
co-sovereign with his wife, Mary Stuart, and a friend and helper of the
American colonies. It was a Prussian Baron, Frederick William von
Steuben, whom General George Washington made Inspector General (May,
1778), responsible 1815 Prussian troops under Field Marshal von Bluecher
helped save Wellington's England from Napoleon. In 1902 Prince Henry of
Prussia, brother of the German Emperor, paid a state visit to the United
States and received at West Point, Annapolis, Washington, and elsewhere,
as royal a welcome as was ever accorded to a foreign visitor by the
government of the United States. The statue of Frederick the Great,
presented in appreciation, stood in front of the main building of the
Army War College in Washington during two wars between the countrymen of
Frederick of Hohenzollern and the countrymen George Washington, an
evidence in bronze of the old Western view that fundamental
relationships between peoples should survive the temporary disturbances
occasioned by wars.
The friendly relationships between
the United States and Germany existed not only on the governmental level
but were cemented by close racial kinship. Not only is the basic blood
stream of persons of English descent very nearly identical with that of
Germans; in addition, nearly a fourth of the Americans of the early
twentieth century were actually of German descent (Chapter IV, below).
Thus, in the early years of the
twentieth century the American people admired Germany. It was a strong
nation, closely akin; and it was a Christian land, part Protestant and
part Catholic, as America had been part Catholic since the Cavaliers
leave to Virginia and the Puritans to New England. Moreover, the old
land of the Teutonic Knights led the world in music, in medicine, and in
scholarship. The terms Prussia and Prussian, Germany and German had a
most favorable connotation.
Then came World War I (1914), in
which Britain and France and their allies were opposed to Germany and
her allies. Since the citizens of the United States admired all three
nations they were stunned at the calamity of such a conflict and were
slow in taking sides. Finally (1917), and to some extent because of the
pressure of American Zionists (Chapter III, below), we joined the
Entente group, which included Britain and France. The burden of a great
war was accepted by the people, even with some enthusiasm on the
Atlantic seaboard, for according to our propagandists it was a war to
end all wars. It was pointed out, too, that Britain among the world's
great nations was closest to us in language and culture, and that France
had been traditionally a friend since the Marquis of Lafayette and the
Count of Rochambeau aided General Washington.
With a courage fanned by the newly
perfected science of propaganda, the American people threw themselves
heart and soul into defeating Germany in the great "war to end all
wars." The blood-spilling the greatest in all history and between men of
kindred race was ended by an armistice on November 11, 1918, and the
American people entertained high hopes for lasting peace. Their hopes,
however, were soon to fade away. With differing viewpoints, national and
personal, and with the shackles of suddenly revealed secret agreement
between co-belligerents. President Woodrow Wilson, Prime Minister David
Lloyd George, Premier Georges Clemenceau of France, and Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando of Italy had much difficulty in agreeing on the terms
of peace treaties (1919), The merits or shortcomings of which cannot in
consequence be fully chalked up to any one of them.
It remains indisputable, however, that
in what they agreed to in the treaty made with Germany at Versailles
(June 28, 1919) and in the treaty made with Austria at St. Germain
(September10, 1919) the four American delegates, dominated by President
Wilson, departed at least to some extent from our tradition of humane
treatment of a defeated enemy.
The heavily populated German nation
was deprived of much territory, including vital mineral areas and a
"Polish Corridor" which, under the terms of the treaty, separated the
original duchy of Prussia from the rest of the country. Germany was
deprived also of its merchant fleet and was saddled with an impossible
load of separations. As a consequence, the defeated country was left in
a precarious position which soon produced an economic collapse. The
Austro Hungarian Empire, ancient outpost of the Teutonic peoples and of
Western Christian civilization on the Danube Valley invasion route from
Asia, was destroyed at St. Germain. The result was the serious general
economic dislocation to be expected from the collapse of an imperial
government, and the inevitable dire distress to the people, especially
in the capital city of Vienna (population over 2,000,000), which was
left with little sustaining territory, except scenic and historic
mountains. Moreover, although Austro-Hungary was broken up under the
theory that its people should be put into small pigeon-hole nations on
racial and linguistic considerations, the new Czechoslovakia state was
given 3,500,000 persons of German blood and speech.
In this treatment of Germany and
Austria our leaders not merely set up conditions conducive to the
extreme distress of millions of people; they also by those same
conditions flouted the recognized principles of sound military and
national policy, for the strategic use of victory demands that the late
enemy be drawn into the victor's orbit as friend and ally. As one
example of the strategic use of victory, our War of 1812, with Britain,
was followed by an earnest bilateral effort at the solution of mutual
problems by the Monroe Doctrine (1823) in the field of international
relations, and by the crumbling of unused forts on the U.S. Canadian
border. As a second example, Britain's war with South Africa, which
ended in 1902, was followed by such humanity and fairness that a
defeated people, different in speech and culture, became an ally instead
of an enemy in the great war which began only twelve years later in
The crash in Germany came in 1923,
when German money lost its value. There was terrible suffering among the
people everywhere and especially in the cities and industrial areas. As
the mark's purchasing power approached zero, a widow would realize from
her husband's life insurance "just enough to buy a meal" ("Inflation
Concerns Everyone," by Samuel B. Pettengill, Reader's Digest, October,
1951). "Berlin in 1923 was a city of despair. People waited in the alley
behind the Hotel Adlon ready to pounce on garbage cans immediately they
were placed outside the hotels kitchen." A cup of coffee "cost one
million marks one day, a million and a half the next and two million the
day following" (Drew Pearson, March 22, 1951).
In hunger and desperation, many
Germans blamed their troubles on Jews, whom they identified with
Communism. "The fact that certain Jews, such as Kurt Eisner, Toller, and
Levine, had been leaders of Communist Movements [1918, 1919]. . .gave
the conservatives the opportunity of proclaiming that the Jews were
responsible for the national misfortunes and disorders" (Universal
Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 366,367). The German attitude was
intensified by the new power German Jews acquired in the terrible year
1923 from using funds derived from rich race-conscious Jews in other
countries and by an inrush of Jews from the destroyed Austro-Hungarian
Empire and from the East. "Some of those Eastern European Jews took an
active part in the speculation which was rampant in Germany because of
the unstable currency and the shortage of commodities" (America's Second
Crusade, by William Henry Chamberlin, Henry Regnery Company, 1950, pp.
30, 31). The influx from the East had also the effect of reviving the
viewpoint of certain earlier Germans that Jews were not assimilable but
were really invaders. "In 1880 the learned but fanatical Professor
Treitschke's phrase, 'Die Juden sind unser Unglueck' [The Jews are our
misfortune], gained currency all through the German empire" (H. Graetz,
Popular History of the Jews, Vol. VI, by Max Raisin, The Jordan
Publishing Co., New York, 1935, p. 162). Also, "according to
Grattenauer's Wider die Juden (1803), the Jews of Germany were, as early
as that period, regarded as 'Asiatic Immigrants' " (Univ. Jew. Encyc.,
Vol. I, p 341).
This fateful German-Jewish tension was
destined to have a major role in the history of the United States, and
will be dealt with further in subsequent chapters.
The Immediate result of the events
of 1923 was an increase of Jewish power in the Reich. "Bled white" in
World War I, like Britain and France, Germany bent to its economic
tragedy without significant resistance, but the resentment of the people
at being starved and humiliated (as they believed) by a minority of less
than one percent smoldered like live coals awaiting almost any fanning
into flame. Our usual helping hand so generously extended in the
Japanese earthquake tragedy of 1923 and in other calamities -- was
withheld, while this small group increased its control (for some idea of
the extent of the control by Jews in the city of Berlin five years after
Hitler assumed power, see the Reader's Digest for May, 1938, p. 126).
After 1919, anti-German propaganda in
the United States did not cease, as was strategically desirable, but was
continued unremittingly in the press and by the new opinion-controlling
medium, the radio. Americans were taught to hate Germany and Germans and
to loathe Prussia and Prussians, not any longer as a war-time
"psychological" attack, but as a permanent attitude.
The task of the propagandists was made
easier by the appearance on the world's stage (1933) of the demagogue
Adolph Hitler, whose assumption of the combined offices of Chancellor
and President of Germany (Chapter IV, below), under the alien and
repugnant title of "Fuehrer," shocked the sensibilities of the American
people who were accustomed to a Republican form of government with the
still effective checks and balances of the Legislative, Executive, and
In 1936, Britain was making efforts
to establish workable arrangements with Germany. Symbolically, and with
much publicity, a thousand German war veterans were entertained in
England by a thousand British war veterans. A naval ratio, most
favorable to Britain, had been agreed upon. The President of the United
States, Franklin D. Roosevelt
, had in his first year of office (1933)
recognized the Communist Government of Russia (Chapter III, Below), but
was otherwise "isolationist" in his general attitude toward Europe. Then
on October 5, 1937, in Chicago, he made an about-face (Chapter IV,
below), in his famous "Quarantine" speech against Germany. Though his
sudden "fears" had no foundation in facts--as known then or as
discovered later--our policy was charted, and England, forced to a
decision, became a partner in our anti-German action. With no
enthusiasm, such as was generated in 1919, the American people soon
found themselves (December, 1941) involved in a second and even more
frightful World War against two of our former allies, Japan and Italy,
and against our World War I opponent, Germany (see Chapters IV and V,
The propagandists against Germany and
the German people did not cease, however, with Hitler's defeat and death
(1945) and the resultant effacement of his government and his policies.
After Hitler, as before Hitler, these propagandists did not allow the
American public to realize the strategic fact that a country like an
individual needs friends and that a permanent destructive attitude
toward a nation because of a former ruler is as stupid, for instance, as
a hatred for the people of an American state because of an unpopular
Thus, instead of correcting our error
of 1919 and making certain at the end of World War II to draw a properly
safeguarded but humanely treated Germany definitely into our orbit, we
adopted in 1945 an intensified policy of hate, denied the Germans a
peace treaty more than six years after the suspension of active warfare,
and took additional steps (Chapters IV, VI, and VIII, below) which could
have had no other purpose -- concealed of course, even from some of
those who furthered it -- than the final destruction of Germany.
Woodrow Wilson, despite the terrible
and still largely undocumented pressures upon him, had at least
preserved Prussia at the close of World War I. Franklin Roosevelt,
however, tossed it from his failing hands to the minority (see Chapter
II) who, with converts to their Marxist concept of statism, had
succeeded the Romanov Czars as masters of Russia. With Malta lost in
1798 and Prussia destroyed in 1945, the temporal state-structures of the
Crusaders and their successors ceased to exist.
Under the preaching of
Urban II, most
of the Western World had developed a frenzy of unity; under Roosevelt
II, or rather under those who manipulated him, it did so again. The goal
this time, however, was not the defense of Europe or the rescue of the
tomb of Christ; the goal, on the contrary, was a monstrous surrender of
the Western heritage of Christian civilization. Yes, it was actually the
United States of America which was mainly responsible for destroying the
successor state to the Teutonic Knights and for delivering the ruins,
with the hegemony of Europe, to the Soviet Union, The new Communist
power of our creation.
The facts outlined in this chapter
have – as will be shown in following chapters – a significant bearing on
the present mid century- world struggle between Communism and Western
And The Khazars
Having traced the Knighthood of the
Teutonic Order from its origin to its dissolution as a
military-religious brotherhood, and having noted the development of
successor sovereignties down to the obliteration of Prussia in 1945, we
must turn back more than a thousand years, to examine another thread --
a scarlet one -- in the tangled skein of European history.
In the later years of the dimly
recorded first millennium of the Christian era, Slavic people of several
kindred tribes occupied the land which became known later as the north
central portion of European Russia. South of them between the Don and
Volga rivers and north of the lofty Caucasus Mountains lived a people
known to history as Khazars (Ancient Russia, by George Vernadsky, Yale
University Press, 1943, p. 214). These people had been driven westward
from Central Asia and entered Europe by the corridor between the Ural
Mountains and the Caspian Sea. They found a land occupied by primitive
pastoral people of a score or more of tribes, a land which lay beyond
the boundaries of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent under Trajan
(ruled, 98-117 A.D.), and also beyond the boundaries of the Byzantine
Empire (395-1453). By slow stages the Khazars extended their territory
eventually to the Sea of Azov and the adjacent littoral of the Black
Sea. The Khazars were apparently a people of mixed stock with Mongol and
Turkic affinities. "Around the year 600, a Belligerent tribe of
half-Mongolian people, similar to the modern Turks, conquered the
territory of what is now Southern Russia. Before long the kingdom
[khanate] of the Khazars, as this tribe was known, stretched from the
Caspian to the Black Sea. Its capital, Ityl, was at the mouth of the
Volga River" (A History of the Jews, by Solomon Grayzel, Philadelphia,
The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947).
In the eighth or ninth century of our
era, a khakan (or chagan, roughly equivalent to tribal chief or
primitive king) of the Khazars wanted a religion for his pagan people.
Partly, perhaps, because of incipient tension between Christians and the
adherents of the new Mohammedan faith (Mohammed died in 632,) and partly
because of fear of becoming subject to the power of the Byzantine
emperor or the Islamic caliph (Ancient Russia, p.291), he adopted a form
of the Jewish religion at a date generally placed at c. 741 A.D., but
believed by Vernadsky to be as late as 865. According to the Universal
Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. VI, pp. 375-377), this chieftain, probable
Bulan, “called upon the representatives of Judaism, Christianity and
Mohammedanism to expound their doctrines before him. This discussion
convinced him that the Jewish faith was the most preferable, and he
decided to embrace it. Thereupon he and about 4,000 Khazars were
circumcised; it was only by degrees that the Jewish teachings gained a
foothold among the population."
In his History of the Jews (The
Jewish Publication Society of America, Vol. III, 1894, pp.140-141),
Professor H. Graetz gives further details:
A successor of Bulan, who bore the
Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first to make serious efforts to further
the Jewish religion. He invited Jewish sages to settle in his dominions,
rewarded them royally, founded synagogues and schools . . .caused
instruction to be given to himself and his people in the Bible and the
Talmud, and introduced a divine service modeled on the ancient
After Obadiah came a long series of
Jewish chagans, for according to a fundamental law of the state only
Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the throne.
The significance of the term "ancient
communities" cannot be here explained. For a suggestion of the
"incorrect exposition" and the "tasteless misrepresentations" with which
the Bible, i.e., the Old Testament, was presented through the Talmud,
see below in this chapter, the extensive quotation from Professor
Also in the Middle Ages, Viking
warriors, according to Russian tradition by invitation, pushed from the
Baltic area into the low hills west of Moscow. Archaeological
discoveries show that at one time or another these Northmen penetrated
almost all areas south of Lake Ladoga and West of the Kama and Lower
Volga rivers. Their earliest, and permanent, settlements were north and
east of the West Dwina River, in the Lake Ilmen area. and between the
Upper Volga and Oka rivers, at whose junction they soon held the famous
trading post of Nizhni-Novgorod (Ancient Russia, p. 267).
These immigrants from the North and
West were principally "the 'Russ' -- a Varangian tribe in ancient annals
considered as related to the Swedes, Angles, and Northmen" (Encyclopedia
Britannica, Vol. XIX, p. 712). From the local Slavic tribes, they
organized (c. 862) a state, known subsequently from their name as
Russia, which embraced the territory of the upper Volga and Dnieper
rivers and reached down the latter river to the Black Sea (An
Introduction to Old Norse, by E. V. Gordon, Oxford University Press,
1927, map between pp. xxiv-xxv) and to the Crimea. Russ and Slav were of
related stock and their languages, though quite different, had common
Indo-Germanic origin. They accepted Christianity as their religion.
"Greek Orthodox missionaries, sent to Russ [i.e. "Russia"] in the 860's
baptized so many people that shortly after this a special bishop was
sent to care for their needs" (A History of the Ukraine, by Michael
Hrushevsky, Yale University Press, 1941, p. 65).
The "Rus" (or "Russ") were absorbed
into the Slav population which they organized into statehood. The people
of the new state devoted themselves energetically to consolidating their
territory and extending its boundaries. From the Khazars, who had
extended their power up the Dnieper Valley, they took Kiev, which "was
an important trading center even before becoming, in the 10th cent., the
capital of a large recently Christianized state" (Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, p. 381). Many Varangians (Rus) had settled among
the Slavs in this area (the Ukraine), and Christian Kiev became the seat
of an enlightened Westward-looking dynasty, whose members married into
several European royal houses, including that of France.
The Slavs, especially those in the
area now known as the Ukraine, were engaged in almost constant warfare
with the Khazars and finally, by 1016 A.D., destroyed the Khazar
government and took a large portion of Khazar territory. For the gradual
shrinking of the Khazar territory and the development of Poland,
Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and other Slavic states, see the
pertinent maps in Historical Atlas, by William R. Shepherd (Henry Holt
and Company, New York, 1911). Some of the subjugated Khazars remained in
the Slav-held lands their khakans had long ruled, and others "migrated
to Kiev and other parts of Russia" (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol.
VI, p. 377), probably to a considerable extent because of the
dislocations wrought by the Mongols under Genghis Khan (1162-1227), who
founded in and beyond the old Khazar khanate the short-lived khanate of
the Golden Horde. The Judaized Khazars underwent further dispersion both
northwestward into Lithuanian and Polish areas and also within Russia
proper and the Ukraine. In 1240 in Kiev "the Jewish community was
uprooted, its surviving members finding refuge in towns further west"
(Univ. Jew. Encyc., Vol. VI, p. 382) along with the fleeing Russians, when
the capital fell to the Mongol soldiers of Batu, the nephew of Genghis
Khan. A short time later many of these expelled Jews returned to Kiev.
Migrating thus, as some local power impelled them, the Khazar Jews
became widely distributed in Western Russia. Into the Khazar khanate
there had been a few Jewish immigrants -- rabbis, traders, refugees --
but the people of the Kievan Russian state did not facilitate the entry
of additional Jews into their territory. The rulers of the Grand Duchy
of Moscow also sought to exclude Jews from areas under its control.
"From its earliest times the policy of the Russian government was that
of complete exclusion of the Jews from its territories" (Univ. Jew.
Encyc. Vol. I, p. 384). For instance, "Ivan IV [reign,1533-1584] refused
to allow Jewish merchants to travel in Russia" (op. cit., Vol. I,
Relations between Slavs and the
Judaized Khazars in their midst were never happy. The reasons were not
racial -- for the Slavs had absorbed many minorities -- but were
ideological. The rabbis sent for by Khakan Obadiah were educated in and
were zealots for the Babylonian Talmud, which after long labors by many
hands had been completed on December 2, 499. In the thousands of
synagogues which were built in the Khazar khanate, the imported rabbis
and their successors were in complete control of the political, social,
and religious thought of their people. So significant was the Babylonian
Talmud as the principal cause of Khazar resistance to Russian efforts to
end their political and religious separatism, and so significant also
are the modern sequels, including those in the United States, that an
extensive quotation on the subject from the great History of the Jews,
by Professor H. Graetz (Vol. II, 1893, pp. 631 ff.) is here presented:
The Talmud must not be regarded as an
ordinary work, composed of twelve volumes; it possesses absolutely no
similarity to any other literary production, but forms, without any
figure of speech, a works of its own, which must be judged by its
peculiar laws. .
The Talmud contains much that is
frivolous of which it treats with great gravity and seriousness; it
further reflects the various superstitious practices and views of its
Persian birthplace which presume the efficacy of demoniacal medicines,
of magic, incantations, miraculous cures, and interpretations of dreams.
. . It also contains isolated instances of uncharitable judgments and
decrees against the members of other nations and religions, and finally
it favors an incorrect exposition of the scriptures, accepting, as it
does, tasteless misrepresentations.
More than six centuries lie petrified
in the Talmud. . . Small wonder then, that. . .the sublime and the
common, the great and the small, the grave and the ridiculous, the altar
and the ashes, the Jewish and the heathenish, be discovered side by
side. . .
The Babylonian Talmud is especially
distinguished from the Jerusalem or Palestine Talmud by the flights of
thought, the penetration of mind, the flashes of genius, which rise and
vanish again. . .It was for this reason that the Babylonian rather than
the Jerusalem Talmud became the fundamental possession of the Jewish
race, its life breath, its very soul. . . nature and mankind, powers and
events, were for the Jewish nation insignificant, non-essential, a mere
phantom; the only true reality was the Talmud.
Not merely educated by the Talmud but
actually living the life of its Babylonian background, which they may
have regarded with increased devotion because most of the Jews of
Mesopotamia had embraced Islam, the rabbi-governed Khazars had no
intention whatever of losing their identity by becoming Russianized or
Christian. The intransigent attitude of the rabbis was increased by
their realization that their power would be lost if their people
accepted controls other than Talmudic. These controls by rabbis were
responsible not only for basic mores, but for such externals as the
peculiarities of dress and hair. It has been frequently stated by
writers on the subject that the "ghetto" was the work not of Russians or
other Slavs but of rabbis.
As time passed, it came about that
these Khazar people of mixed non-Russian stock, who hated the Russians
and lived under Babylonian Talmudic law, became known in the western
world, from their place of residence and their legal-religious code, as
In Russian lands after the fall of
Kiev in 1240, there was a period of dissension and disunity. The
struggle with the Mongols and other Asiatic khanates continued and from
them the Russians learned much about effective military organization.
Also, as the Mongols had not overrun Northern and Western Russia
(Shepherd, op.cit., Map 77), there was a background for the resistance
and counter-offensive which gradually eliminated the invaders. The
capital of reorganized Russia was no longer Kiev But Moscow (hence the
terms Moscovy and Muscovite). In 1613 the Russian nobles (boyars),
desired a more stable government than they had had, and elected as their
czar a boy named Michael Romanov, whose veins carried the blood of the
grand dukes of Kiev and the grand dukes of Moscow.
Under the Romanovs of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, there was no change in attitude toward the
Judaized Khazars, who scorned Russian civilization and stubbornly
refused to enter the fold of Christianity. "Peter the Great [reign,
1682-1725] spoke of the Jews as 'rogues and cheats' " (Popular History
of the Jews, by H. Graetz, New York, The Jordan Publishing Co., 1919,
1935, Vol. VI by Max Raisin, p. 89). "Elizabeth [reign, 1741-1762]
expressed her attitude in the sentence: 'From the enemies of Christ, I
desire neither gain nor profit' " (Univ. Jew. Encyc., Vol. I, p. 384).
Under the Romanov dynasty (1613-1917)
many members of the Russian upper classes were educated in Germany, and
the Russian nobility, already partly Scandinavian by blood, frequently
married Germans or other Western Europeans. Likewise many of the
Romanovs, themselves - in fact all of them who ruled in the later years
of the dynasty - married into Western families. Prior to the nineteenth
century the two occupants of the Russian throne best known in world
history were Peter I, the Great, and Catherine II, the Great. The former
- who in 1703 gave Russia its "West window," St. Petersburg, later known
as Petrograd and recently as Leningrad - chose as his consort and
successor on the throne as Catherine I, [reign, 1725-1727]a captured
Marienburg (Germany) servant girl whose mother and father were
respectively a Lithuanian peasant woman and a Swedish dragoon.
Catherine II, the Great, was a German princess who was proclaimed
reigning Empress of Russia after her husband, the ineffective Czar Peter
III, "subnormal in mind and physique" (Encyc. Brit., Vol. V, p. 37),
left St. Petersburg. During her thirty-four years as Empress, Catherine,
by studying such works as Blackstone's Commentaries, and by
correspondence with such illustrious persons as Voltaire, F. M. Grimm
Frederick the Great, Dederot, and Maria-Theresa of Austria, kept herself
in contact with the West (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIX, p. 718 and passim).
She chose for her son, weak like his father and later the "madman" Czar
Paul I [reign, 1796-1801], a German wife.
The nineteenth century czars were
Catherine the Great's grandson, Alexander I [reign, 1801-1825 -- German
wife]; his brother, Nicholas I [reign, 1825-1855 -- German wife, a
Hohenzollern]; his son Alexander II [reign 1855-1881- German wife]; and
his son Alexander III [reign, 1881-1894- Danish wife]; his son, Nicholas
II [reign, 1894-1917 -- German wife], who was murdered with his family
(1918) after the Communists seized power (1917) in Russia.
Though many of the Romanovs,
including Peter I and Catherine II, had far from admirable characters --
a fact well advertised in American books on the subject -- and though
some of them including Nicholas II were not able rulers, a general
purpose of the dynasty was to give their land certain of the advantages
of Western Europe. In the West they characteristically sought alliances
with one country or another, rather than ideological penetration.
Like, their Slavic overlords, the
Judaized Khazars of Russia had various relationships with Germany. Their
numbers from time to time, as during the Crusades, received accretions
from the Jewish communities in Germany - principally into Poland and
other areas not yet Russian; many of the ancestors of these people,
however, had previously entered Germany from Slavic lands. More
interesting than these migrations was the importation from Germany of an
idea conceived by a prominent Jew of solving century-old tension between
native majority population and the Jews in their midst. In Germany,
while Catherine the Great was Empress of Russia, a Jewish scholar and
philosopher named Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) attracted wide and favor
able attention among non-Jews and a certain following among Jews. His
conception of the barrier between Jew and non-Jew, as analyzed by
Grayzel (op. cit., p. 543), was that the "Jews had erected about
themselves a mental ghetto to balance the physical ghetto around them."
Mendelssohn's objective was to lead the Jews "out of this mental ghetto
into the wide world of general culture - without, however, doing harm to
their specifically Jewish culture." The movement received the name
Haskalah, which may be rendered as "enlightenment." Among other things,
Mendelssohn wished Jews in Germany to learn the German language.
The Jews of Eastern Europe had from
early days used corrupted versions of local vernaculars, written in the
Hebrew alphabet (see "How Yiddish Came to be," Grayzel, op. cit., p.
456), just as the various vernaculars of Western Europe were written in
the Latin alphabet, and to further his purpose Mendelssohn translated
the Pentateuch -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy --
into standard German, using however, the accepted Hebrew alphabet
(Grayzel, op. cit., p. 543). Thus in one stroke he led his readers a
step toward Westernization by the use of the German Language and by
offering them, instead of the Babylonian Talmud, a portion of scripture
recognized by both Jew and Christian.
The Mendelssohn views were developed
in Russia in the nineteenth century, notably by Isaac Baer Levinsohn
(1788-1860), the "Russian Mendelssohn." Levinsohn was a scholar who,
with Abraham Harkavy, delved into a field of Jewish history little known
in the West, namely "the settlement of Jewish history little known in
the West, namely "the settlement of Jews in Russia and their
vicissitudes furring the dark ages. . . Levinsohn was the first to
express the opinion that the Russian Jews hailed not from Germany, as is
commonly supposed, but from the banks of the Volga. This hypothesis,
corroborated by tradition, Harkavy established as a fact" (The Haskalah
Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin, Philadelphia, The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1913, 1914, p. 17).
The reigns of the nineteenth century
Czars showed a fluctuation of attitudes toward the Jewish "state within
a state" (The Haskalah Movement, p. 43). In general, Nicholas I had been
less lenient than Alexander I toward his intractable non-Christian
minority, but he took an immediate interest in the movement endorsed by
the highly respected Levinsohn, for he saw in “Haskalah” an opportunity
for possibly breaking down the separatism of the Judaized Khazars. He
put in charge of the project of opening hundreds of Jewish schools a
brilliant young Jew, Dr. Max Lilienthal. From its beginning, however,
the Haskalah movement had had bitter opposition among Jews in Germany -
many of whom, including the famous Moses Hess (Graetz-Raisin, op.cit.,
Vol. VI,. PP. 371 ff.), became ardent Jewish nationalists - and in
Russia the opposition was fanatical. "The great mass of Russian Jewry
was devoid of all secular learning, steeped in fanaticism, and given to
superstitious practices" (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol. VI, P. 112), and
their leaders, for the most part, had no notion of tolerating a project
which would lessen or destroy their control. These leaders believed
correctly that the new education was designed to lessen the authority of
the Talmud, which was the cause, as the Russians saw it, "of the
fanaticism and corrupt morals of the Jews." The leaders of the Jews also
saw that the new schools were a way "to bring the Jews closer to the
Russian people and the Creek church" (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol. VI,
p. II6). According to Raisin, "the millions of Russian Jews were averse
to having the government interfere with their inner and spiritual life"
by "foisting upon them its educational measures. The soul of Russian
Jewry sensed the danger lurking in the imperial scheme" (op. cit., p.
117). Lilienthal was in their eyes "a traitor and informer," and in
1845, to recover a modicum of prestige with his people, he "shook the
dust of bloody Russia from his feet" (Graetz-Raisin, op.cit., Vol. VI,
p. 117). Thus the Haskalah movement failed in Russia to break down the
separatism of the Judaized Khazars.
When Nicholas I died, his son
Alexander II [reign, 1855-1881] decided to try a new way of winning the
Khazar minority to willing citizenship in Russia. He granted his people,
including the Khazars, so many liberties that he was called the "Czar
By irony, or nemesis, however, his
"liberal regime" contributed substantially to the downfall of Christian
Russia. Despite the ill-success of his Uncle Alexander's "measures to
effect the 'betterment' of the 'obnoxious' Jewish element" (Univ. Jew.
Encyc., Vol. I, p. 384), he ordered a wholesale relaxation of oppressive
and restraining regulations (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., p. 124) and Jews
were free to attend all schools and universities and to travel without
restrictions. The new freedom led, however, to results the "Liberator"
had not anticipated.
Educated, and free at last to
organize nationally, the Judaized Khazars in Russia became not merely an
indigestible mass in the body politic, the characteristic "state within
a state, " but a formidable anti-government force. With non-Jews of
nihilistic or other radical tendencies - the so-called Russian
"intelligentsia"- they sought in the first instance to further their
aims by assassinations (Modern European History, by Charles Downer
Hazen, Holt, New York, p. 565). Alexander tried to abate the hostility
of the "terrorists" by granting more and more concessions, but on the
day the last concessions were announced "a bomb was thrown at his
carriage. The carriage was wrecked, and many of his escorts were
injured. Alexander escaped as by a miracle, but a second bomb exploded
near him as he was going to aid the injured. He was horribly mangled,
and died within an hour. Thus perished the Czar Liberator" (Modern
European History, p. 567).
Some of those involved in earlier
attempts to assassinate Alexander II were of Jewish Khazar background
(see The Anarchists by Ernest Alfred Vizetelly, John Lane, London and
New York, 1911, p. 66). According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia,
the "assassination of Alexander II in which a Jewess had played a part"
revived a latent "anti-Semitism." Resentful of precautions taken by the
murdered Czar's son and successor, Alexander III, and also possessing a
new world plan, hordes of Jews, some of them highly educated in Russian
universities, migrated to other European countries and to America. The
emigration continued (see below) under Nicholas II. Many Jews remained
in Russia, however, for "in 1913 the Jewish population of Russia
amounted to 6,946,000 (Univ. Jew. Encyc., Vol. IX, p. 285).
Various elements of this restless
aggressive minority nurtured the amazing quadruple aims of international
Communism, the seizure of power in Russia, Zionism, and continued
migration to America, with a fixed purpose to retain their nationalistic
separatism. In many instances, the same individuals were participants in
two or more phases of the four-fold objective.
Among the Jews who remained in
Russia, which then included Lithuania, the Ukraine (A History of the
Ukraine, Michael Hrushevsky, Yale University Press, 1941, passim), and
much of Poland, were the founders of the Russian Bolshevik party:
In 1897 was founded the Bond, the
union of Jewish workers in Poland and Lithuania. . . They engaged in
revolutionary activity upon a large scale, and their energy made them
the spearhead of the Party (Article on "Communism" by Harold J. Laski,
Encyc. Brit., Vol. III, pp 824-827).
The name Bolsheviki means majority
(from Russian bolshe, the larger) and commemorates the fact that at the
Brussels-London conference of the party in late 1902 and early 1903, the
violent Marxist program of Lenin was adopted by a 25 to 23 vote, the
less violent minority or "Mensheviki” Marxists fading finally from the
picture after Stalin's triumph in October, 1917. It has been also stated
that the term Bolshevik refers to the "larger" or more violent program
of the majority faction. After (1918) the Bolsheviki called their
organization the Communist Party.
The Zionist Jews were another group
that laid its plan in Russia as a part of the new reorientation of
Russian Jewry after the collapse of Haskalah and the assassination
(1881) of Alexander II. "On November 6, 1884, for the first time in
history, a Jewish international assembly was held at Kattowitz, near the
Russian frontier, where representatives from all classes and different
countries met and decided to colonize Palestine. . ."(The Haskalah
Movement in Russia, p. 285). For a suggestion of the solidarity of
purpose between the Jewish Bund, which was the core of the Communist
Party, and early Zionism, see Grayzel (op. cit., p. 662). "Henceforth a
heightened sense of race-consciousness takes the place formerly held by
religion and is soon to develop into a concrete nationalism with Zion as
its goal" (Graetz-Raisin, Vol. p. 168).
In Russia and abroad in the late
nineteenth century, not only Bundists but other Khazar Jews had been
attracted to the writings of Karl Marx (1818-1883), partly, it seems,
because he was Jewish in origin. "On both paternal and maternal sides
Karl Marx was descended from rabbinical families" (Univ. Jew. Encyc.,
Vol. VII, p. 289).
The Marxian program of drastic
controls, so repugnant to the free western mind, was no obstacle to the
acceptance of Marxism by many Khazar Jews, for the Babylonian Talmud
under which they lived had taught then to accept authoritarian dictation
on everything from their immorality to their trade practices. Since the
Talmud contained more than 12,000 controls, the regimentation of Marxism
was acceptable -- provided the Khazar politician, like the Talmudic
rabbi, exercised the power of the dictatorship.
Under Nicholas II, there was no
abatement of the regulations designed, after the murder of Alexander II,
To curb the anti-government activities of Jews; consequently, the "
reaction to those excesses was Jewish support of the Bolsheviks. .
."(Univ. Jew. Encyc., Vol. I, p. 286.) The way to such support was easy
since the predecessor organization of Russian Communism was the Jewish
"Bund." Thus Marxian Communism, modified for expediency, became an
instrument for the violent seizure of power. The Communist Jews,
together with revolutionaries of Russian stock, were sufficiently
numerous to give the venture a promise of success, if attempted at the
right time. After the rout of the less violent faction in 1903, Lenis
remained the leader.
The blow fell in the fateful year,
1917, when Russia was staggering under defeat by Germany -- a year
before Germany in turn staggered to defeat under the triple blows of
Britain, France, and the United States. "The great hour of freedom
struck on the 15th of March, 1917," when "Czar Nicholas's train was
stopped" and he was told "that his rule was at an end. . . Israel, in
Russia, suddenly found itself lifted out of its oppression and
degradation" (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 209).
At this moment Lenin appeared on the
scene, after an absence of nine years (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIII, p. 912).
The Germans, not realizing that he would be anything more than a
trouble-maker for their World War I enemy, Russia, passed him and his
party (exact number disputed -- about 200?) in a sealed train from
Switzerland to the Russian border. In Lenin's sealed train, "Out of a
list of 165 names published, 23 are Russian, 3 Georgian, 4 Armenian, 1
German, and 128 Jewish" (The Surrender of an Empire, Nesta H. Webster,
Boswell Printing and Publishing Company, Ltd., 10 Essex St., London,
W.C.2, 1931, p. 77). "At about the same time, Trotsky arrived from the
United States, followed by over 300 Jews from the East End of New York
and joined up with the Bolshevik Party" (op. cit., p. 73).
Thus under Lenin, whose birth-name
was Ulianov and whose racial antecedents are uncertain, and under Leon
Trotsky, a Jew, whose birth -name was Bronstein, a small number of
highly trained Jews from abroad, along with Russian Judaized Khazars and
non-Jewish captives to the Marxian ideology, were able to make
themselves masters of Russia. "Individual revolutionary leaders and
Sverdlov -- played a conspicuous part in the revolution of November,
1917, which enabled the Bolshevists to take possession of the state
apparatus" (Univ. Jew. Encyc., Vol. IX, p.668). Here and there in the
Universal Jewish Encyclopedia other Jews are named as co-founders of
Russian Communism, but not Lenin and Stalin. Both of these, however, are
said by some writers to be half-Jewish. Whatever the racial antecedents
of their top man, the first Soviet commissariats were largely staffed
with Jews. The Jewish position in the Communist movement was well
understood in Russia. "The White Armies which opposed the Bolshevik
government linked Jews and Bolsheviks as common enemies" (Univ. Jew
Encyc., Vol. I, p. 336).
Those interested in the ratio of Jews
to others in the government in the early days of Communist rule in
Russia should, if possible, see Les derniers jours des Romanof (The Last
Days of the Romanovs) by Robert Wilton, long the Russian correspondent
of the London Times. A summary of its vital passages is included in the
"foreword to Third Edition" of The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern
World (Brown and Nolan , Limited Waterford, Dublin, Belfast, Cork,
London, 1939, 1947) by Rev. Denis Fahey, a well-known Irish professor of
philosophy and Church history. Professor Fahey gives names and
nationality of the members of the Council of Peoples Commissars, the
Central Executive Committee, and the Extraordinary Commissions, and in
summary quotes from Wilton as follows:
According to the data furnished by
the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik
State. . . there were in 1918-1919, 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11
Armenians, 35 Letts, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 3 Poles, 3
Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews.
As the decades passed by -- after the
fateful year 1917 -- Judaized Khazars kept a firm hand on the helm of
the government in the occupied land of Russia. In due time they built a
bureaucracy to their hearts' desire. The government - controlled
Communist press "issued numerous and violent denunciations of
anti-Semitic episodes, either violence or discriminations." Also, "in
1935 a court ruled that anti-Semitism in Russia was a penal offense"
(Univ. Jew Encyc., Vol. I, p. 386). Among top-flight leaders prominent
in the middle of the twentieth century. Stalin, Kaganovich, Beria,
Molotov, and Litvinoff all have Jewish blood, or are married to
Jewesses. The latter circumstance should not be overlooked, because from
Nero's Poppaea (Encyclopedia Italiana, Vol. XXVII, p. 932; also, The
Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, David McKay ,
Philadelphia, n.d., pp. 8, 612, 616) to the Montreal chemist's woman
friend in the Canadian atomic espionage trials (Report of the Royal
Commission, Government Printing Office, Ottawa, Canada, 1946, $1.00) the
influence of a certain type of wife -- or other closely associated woman
-- has been of utmost significance. Nero and Poppaea may be allowed to
sleep - if their crimes permit - but Section III, 11, entitled "RAYMOND
BOYER, Montreal," in the Report of the Canadian Royal Commission should
be read in full by all who want facts on the subject of the corruption
of scientists, and others working on government projects. In the Soviet
Embassy records, turned over to Canadian authorities by Ivor Gouzinko,
was Col. Zabotin's notebook which contained the following entries (pp.
375 and 397 respectively):
Frenchman. Noted chemist, about 40
years of age. Works in McGill University, Montreal. Is the best of the
specialists on VV on the American Continent. Gives full information on
explosives and chemical plants. Very rich. He is afraid to work. (Gave
the formula of RDX, up to the present there was no evaluation from the
Jewess -- works as a co-worker in the
International Bureau of Labour. A lady friend of the Professor.
In view of the facts furnished above
as to the racial composition of the early Communist bureaucracy, it is
perhaps not surprising that a large portion of the important foreign
efforts of the present government of Russia are entrusted to Jews.
This is especially notable in the
list of current or recent exercisers of Soviet power in the satellite
lands of Eastern Europe. Anna Rabinsohn Pauker, Dictator of Rumania;
Matyas Rakosi, Dictator of Hungary; Jacob Berman, Dictator of Poland;
D.M. Manuilsky, Dictator of the Ukraine; and many other persons highly
placed in the governments of the several Eastern European countries are
all said to be members of this new Royal Race of Russia.
Of Eastern European origin are the
leaders of late nineteenth century and twentieth century political
Zionism which flowered from the already recorded beginnings at Kattowitz
in 1884. Born at Budapest, Hungary, was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904),
author (1896) of Der Judenstatt (The Jews' State), who presided over the
"Zionist Congress," which "took place at Basel, Switzerland, on August
29, 30, and 31, 1897" (Univ. Jew. Encyc., Vol. II, p. 102). Dr. Chaim
Weizmann, the head of political Zionism at the moment at the moment of
its recourse to violence, was born in Plonsk, Poland. Since these top
leaders are Eastern Europeans, it is not surprising that most of the
recent immigrants into Palestine are of Soviet and satellite origin and
that their weapons have been largely from the Soviet Union and from
Soviet-controlled Czechoslovakia (see below, Chapter VI).
As a number of writers have pointed out, political Zionism entered its
violent phase after the discovery of the incredibly vast mineral wealth
of Palestine. According to "Zionists Misleading World with Untruths for
Palestine Conquest," a full-page article inserted as an advertisement in
the New York Herald Tribune (January 14, 1947), "an independent Jewish
state in Palestine was the only certain method by which Zionists could
acquire complete control and outright ownership of the proven Five
Trillion Dollar ($5,000,000,000,000) chemical and mineral wealth of the
Dead Sea." The long documented article is signed by R. M. Schoendorf,
"Representative of Cooperating Americans of the Christian Faiths"; by
Habib I. Katibah, "Representative of Cooperating Americans of Arab
Ancestry"; and by Benjamin H. Freedman, "Representative of Cooperating
Americans of the Jewish Faith," and is convincing. Irrespective,
however, of the value of the Dead Sea minerals, the oil flow of Middle
Eastern wells. Also in 1951, oil was “discovered” in the Negeb Desert,
an area for which “Israel” authorities had so much fervor that they
seized it (see Chapter VI, b, below).
The dominance of the motive of
self-aggrandizement in political Zionism has been affirmed and denied;
but it is difficult for an observer to see any possible objective apart
from mineral wealth or long range grand strategy, including aggression
(see Chapters VI and IX, below), in a proposal to make a nation out of
an agriculturally poor, already overpopulated territory the size of
Vermont. The intention of aggression at the expense of Moslem peoples,
particularly in the direction of Iraq and Iran, is suggested also by the
fact that the Eastern European Jews, adherents to the Babylonian Talmud,
had long turned their thoughts to the lands where their sages lived and
where most of the native Jewish population had embraced the Moslem
faith. Any possible Zionist religious motive such as the hope of heaven,
which fired the zeal of the Crusaders, is apparently ruled out by the
nature of Judaism, as it is generally understood. "The Jewish religion
is a way of life and has no formulated creed, or articles of faith, the
acceptance of which brings redemption or salvation to the believer. . ."
(opening words, p. 763, of the section on "Doctrines." in Religious
Bodies: 1936, Vol. II, Part I, Denominations A to J, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Jesse H, Jones. Secretary, Bureau of Census, Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.).
The secret or underground overseas
efforts of Khazar-dominated Russia apparently have been entrusted
principally to Jews. This is especially true of atomic espionage. The
Report of the Royal Commission of Canada, already referred to, shows
that Sam Carr (Cohen), organizer for all Canada; Fred Rose (Rosenberg),
organizer for French Canada, and member of the Canadian Parliament from
a Montreal constituency; and Germina (or Hermina) Rabinowich, in charge
of liaison with U. S. Communists, were all born in Russia or satellite
lands. In this connection, it is important to stress the fact that the
possession of a Western name does not necessarily imply Western European
stock. In fact, the maneuver of name-changing frequently disguises an
individual's stock or origin. Thus the birth-name of John Gates, editor
of the Communist Daily Worker was Israel Regenstreif. Other name
changers among the eleven Communists found guilty by a New York jury in
October, 1949, included Gil Green -- born Greenberg; Gus Hall -- born
Halberg; and Carl Winter -- born Weissberg; (For details on these men
and the others, see the article, "The Trial of the Eleven Communists,"
by Sidney Shalett, Reader's Digest, August, 1950, pp. 59-72.) Other
examples of name-changing can be cited among political writers, army
officers, and prominent officials in the executive agencies and
departments in Washington. Parenthetically, the maneuver of acquiring a
name easily acceptable to the majority was very widely practiced by the
aliens prominent in the seizure of Russia for Communism, among the
name-changers being Lenin (Ulianov), Trotsky (Bronstein), and Stalin (Dzugashvili),
The principal founders of state Communism.
The United States Government refused
Canada's invitation early in 1946 to cooperate in Canada's investigation
of atomic spies, but in 1950 when (despite "red herring" talk of the
Chief Executive) our atomic spy suspects began to be apprehended, the
first was Harry Gold, then Abraham Brothman, and Miriam Moskowitz.
Others were M. Sobell, David Greenglass, Julius Rosenberg, and Mrs.
Ethel Rosenberg (not to be confused with Mrs. Anna Rosenberg). Various
sentences were given. Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg received the death penalty
(See Atom Treason, by Frank Britton, Box 15745, Crenshaw Station, Los
Angeles 8, California). As of early May, 1952, however, the sentence had
not been carried out and a significant portion of the Jewish press was
campaigning to save the Rosenbergs. Referring to Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg, Samuel B. Gach, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the
California Jewish Voice ("Largest Jewish Circulation in the West") wrote
as follows in his issue of April 25, 1952: "We deplore the sentence
against the two Jews and despise the cowardly Jewish judge who passed
same . . . " In March, 1951, Dr. William Perl of the Columbia University
Physics Department was arrested "on four counts of perjury in connection
with the crumbling Soviet atomic spy ring. . .Perl whose father was born
in Russia, . . .had his name changed from Utterperl [Mutterperl?] to
Perl" in 1945 (Washington Times-Herald, March 15, 1951). For further
details on these persons and others, see "Atomic Traitors, " by
Congressman Fred Busbey of Illinois in the June, 1951, number of
National Republic. Finally, the true head of Communism in America was
found not to be the publicly announced head, but the Jew, Gerhardt
Eisler, who, upon detection "escaped" from America on the Polish S. S.
"Batory," to a high position in the Soviet Government of East Germany
(Communist Activities Among Aliens and National Groups. part III,
Government printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1950, p. A121).
Very pertinent to the subject under
consideration is a statement entitled "Displaced Persons: Facts vs.
Fiction," made in the Senate of the United States on January 6, 1950, By
Senator Pat McCarran, Democrat of Nevada, Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee. Senator McCarran said in part: "Let it be remembered that the
Attorney General of the United States recently testified that an
analysis of 4,984 of the more militant members of the Communist Party in
the United States showed that 91.4 percent of the total were of foreign
stock or were married to persons of foreign stock."
With more than nine-tenths of our
"more militant" Communists thus recruited from or allied to "foreign
stock" and with that "stock: totaling perhaps not more than 10,000,000
or one-fifteenth of our nation's population, a little recourse to
mathematics will suggest that the employment of an Eastern European or
other person of recent alien extraction or connection is one hundred and
fifty times more likely to yield a traitor than is the employment of a
person of native stock!
An "authoritative" Jewish point of
view toward Soviet Russia is explained in the Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia in the concluding paragraphs on Karl Marx. According to
this source, Jews "recognize the experience of the Soviet Union, home of
6,000,000 Jews, as testimony of the Marxist position on the question of
national and racial equality." The Encyclopedia comments further on the
"striking fact that the one country which professes official allegiance
to Marxian teachings is the one where anti-Semitism has been outlawed
and its resurgence rendered impossible by the removal of social and
economic inequalities" (Vol. VIII, p. 390). In The Jewish People Face
the Post-War World by Alexander Bittelman (Morning Freiheit Association,
35 East12th Street, New York 3, N. Y., 1945, p. 19) the affection of a
considerable body of American Jews for the Soviet Union is considerable
body of American Jews for the Soviet Union is expressed dramatically:
If not for the Red Army, there would
be no Jews in Europe today, nor in Palestine, nor in Africa; and in the
United States, the length of our existence would be counted in days. . .
THE SOVIET UNION HAS SAVED THE JEWISH PEOPLE. Therefore, let the
American Jewish masses never forget our historic debt to the Saviour of
the Jewish people -- the Soviet Union.
Be it noted, however, that Mr..
Bittelman admits indirectly that he is not speaking for all American
Jews, particularly when he assails as "reactionary" the "non-democratic
forced in Jewish life . . . such as the Sulzbergers, Rosenwalds, and
Lazarons" (p. 9). In addition to ideology, another factor in the
devotion to their old homelands of so many of the newer American Jews of
Eastern European source is kinship. According to The American Zionist
Handbook, 68 to 70% of United States Jews have relations in Poland and
the Soviet Union.
Quite in harmony with the Bittleman
attitude toward the Soviet was the finding of the Canadian Royal
Commission that Soviet Russia exploits fully the predilection of Jews
toward Communism: "It is significant that a number of documents from the
Russian Embassy specifically note 'Jew' or 'Jewess' in entries on their
relevant Canadian agents or prospective agents, showing that the Russian
Fifth Column leaders attached particular significance to this matter"
(The Report of the Royal Commission, p. 82).
In view of the above-quoted statement
of a writer for the great New York publication, the Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia, which is described on its title-page as "authorative," and
in view of the findings of the Canadian Royal Commission, not to mention
other facts and testimonies, it would seem that no one should be
surprised that certain United States Jews of Eastern European origin or
influence have transmitted atomic or other secrets to the Soviet Union.
Those who are caught, of course, must suffer the fate of spies, as would
happen to American espionage agents abroad; but, in the opinion of the
author, the really guilty parties in the United States are those
Americans of native stock who, for their own evil purposes, placed the
pro-Soviet individuals in positions where they could steal or connive at
the stealing of American secrets of atomic warfare. This guilt, which in
view of the terrible likely results of atomic espionage is really
blood-guilt, cannot be sidestepped and should not be overlooked by the
The presence of so many high-placed
spies in the United States prompts a brief reference to our national
habit (a more accurate term than policy) in regard to immigration. In
December 2, 1832, President Monroe proclaimed, in the famous Doctrine
which bears his name, that the American government would not allow
continental European powers to "extend their system" in the United
States. At that time and until the last two decades of the nineteenth
century, immigration brought us almost exclusively European people whose
ideals were those of Western Christian civilization; these people became
helpers in subduing and settling our vast frontier area; they wished to
conform to rather than modify or supplant the body of traditions and
ideals summed up in the word "America."
After 1880, however, our immigration
shifted sharply to include millions of persons from Southern and Eastern
Europe. Almost all of these people were less sympathetic than
predecessor immigrants to the government and the ideals of the United
States and a very large portion of them were non-Christians who had no
intention whatever of accepting the ideals of Western Christian
civilization, but had purposes of their own. These purposes were
accomplished not by direct military invasion, as President Monroe
feared, but covertly by infiltration, propaganda, and electoral and
financial pressure (Chapters I, III, IV, V, VI, VII). The average
American remained unaware and unperturbed.
Among those who early foresaw the
problems to be created by our new immigrants was General Eisenhower's
immediate predecessor as President of Columbia University. In a small
but extremely valuable book, The American As He Is, President Nicholas
Murray Butler in 1908 called attention to "the fact that Christianity in
some one of its many forms is a dominant part of the American nature."
Butler, then at the zenith of his intellectual power, expressed fear
that our "capacity to subdue and assimilate the alien elements brought .
. . by immigration may soon be exhausted." He concluded accordingly that
"The dangers which confront America will come, if at all, from within"
Statistics afford ample reasons for
President Butler's fears "The new immigration was comprised
preponderantly of three elements: the Italians, the Slavs, and the Jews"
(The immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States,
Government Printing office, Washington, D. C., p. 236). The Italians and
the Slavs were less assimilable than immigrants from Northern and
Western Europe, and tended to congregate instead of distributing
themselves over the whole country as the earlier Northern European
immigrants had usually done.
The assimilation of Italians and
Slavs was helped, however, by their belonging to the same parent
Indo-Germanic racial stock as the English-German-Irish majority, and
above all by their being Christians -- mostly Roman Catholics -- and
therefore finding numerous co-religionists not only among fully
Americanized second and third generation Irish Catholics but among old
stock Anglo-American Catholics descending from Colonial days. Quite a
few persons of Italian and Slavic stock were or became Protestants,
chiefly Baptists - among them being ex-Governor Charles Poletti of New
York and ex-Governor Harold Stassen of Minnesota. The new Italian and
Slavic immigrants and their children soon began to marry among the old
stock. In a protracted reading of an Italian language American
newspaper, the author noted that approximately half of all recorded
marriages of Italians were to persons with non-Italian names.
Thus in one way or another the new
Italian and Slavic immigrants began to merge into the general American
pattern. This happened to some extent everywhere and was notable in
areas where the newcomers were not congregated - as in certain urban and
mining areas - but were dispersed among people of native stock. With
eventual complete assimilation by no means impossible, there was no need
of a national conference of Americans and Italians or of Americans and
Slavs to further the interests of those minorities.
With the new Jewish immigrants,
however, the developments were strikingly different - and quite in line
with the fears of President Butler. The handful of Jews, mostly
Sephardic (Webster's New International Dictionary, 1934, p. 2281) and
German, already in this country (about 280,000 in 1877, Religious
Bodies, op. cit., above), were not numerous enough to contribute
cultural guidance to the newcomers (see Graetz-Raisin, Vol. VI, Chapter
IV, a "American Continent," A "The Sephardic and German Periods," B "The
Russian Period"). These newcomers arrived in vast hordes -- especially
from territory under the sovereignty of Russia, the total number of
legally recorded immigrants from that country between 1881 and 1920
being 3,237,079 (The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the
United States, p. 817), most of them Jews. Many of those Jews are now
referred to as Polish Jews because they came from that portion of Russia
which had been the kingdom of Poland prior to the "partitions" of
1772-1795 (Modern History, by Carl L. Becker, Silver Burdett Company,
New York, p. 138) and was the Republic of Poland between World War I and
World War II. Accordingly New York City's 2,500,000 or more Jews (op.
cit., p. 240).
Thus by sheer weight of numbers, as
well as by aggressiveness the newcomer Jews from Eastern Europe pushed
into the background the more or less Westernized Jews, who had migrated
or whose ancestors had migrated to America prior to 1880 and had become
for the most part popular and successful merchants with no inordinate
interest in politics. In striking contrast, the Eastern European Jew
made himself "a power to be reckoned with in the professions, the
industries, and the political parties" (Graetz-Raisin, op. cit., Vol.
VI, p. 344).
The overwhelming of the older
Americanized Jews is well portrayed in The Jewish Dilemma by Elmer
Berger (The Devin Adair Company, New York, 1945). Of the early American
Jews, Berger writes: "Most of these first 200,000 came from Germany.
They integrated them selves completely" (op. cit., P. 232). This
integration was not difficult; for many persons of Jewish religion
Western Europe in the nineteenth century not only had no racial or
ethnic connection with the Khazars, but were not separatists or Jewish
nationalists. The old contentions of their ancestors with their
Christian neighbors in Western Europe had been largely overlooked on
both sides by the beginning of the nineteenth century, and nothing stood
in the way of their full integration into national life. The American
kinsmen of these Westernized Jews were similar in outlook.
But after 1880 and "particularly in
the first two decades of the twentieth century, immigration to the
United States from Eastern Europe increased rapidly." The Eastern
European immigrant Jews "brought with them the worn out concept of 'a
Jewish people'" (op. cit., p. 233). Soon these newcomers of nationalist
persuasion actually exerted influence over the old and once
anti-nationalist organization of American Reform Judaism. "In the winter
of 1941-42 the Central Conference of American Rabbis had endorsed the
campaign to organize a Jewish Army. The event indicated the capitulation
of the leadership of Reform Judaism to Jewish Nationalism." Many
American-minded Jews protested, but "the voices were disorganized and
therefore could by safely ignored" (op. cit., p. 242). American Jewry
"had succumbed to the relentless pressure of the Zionist."
With the domination of American Jewry
by Judaized Khazars and those who travel with them, the position of
American Jews who wished to be Americans became most unhappy. The small
but significant group which met at Atlantic City in June, 1942, to lay
the foundations for an organization of "Americans whose religion is
Judaism," were at once pilloried. "Charges" of being " 'traitors,'
Quislings,' betrayers were thundered" from the synagogues of America and
"filled the columns of the Jewish press" (op. cit., p. 244). Many were
silenced or won over by the pressure and the abuses -- but not all.
Those brave Jews who are persecuted because they are not hostile to the
American way of life should not be confused with those Jews who
persecute them, as Mr. Berger shows, but should on the other hand
receive the sympathy of all persons who are trying to save Christian
civilization in America.
Since the predominant new Jews
consider themselves a superior people (Race and Nationality as Factors
in American Life, by Henry Pratt Fairchild, The Ronald Press Company,
New York, 1947, p. 145), and a separate nationality (op. cit., p. 140),
assimilation appears now to be out of the question. America now has
virtually a nation within the nation, and an aggressive
culture-conscious nation at that.
The stream of Eastern Europeans was
diminished in volume during World War I, but was at flood level again in
1920. At last the Congress became sufficiently alarmed to initiate
action. The House Committee on Immigration, in its report on the bill
that later became the quota law of 1921, reported:
There is a limit to our power of
assimilation. . .the processes of assimilation and amalgamation are slow
and difficult. With the population of the broken parts of Europe headed
this way in ever-increasing numbers, why not peremptorily check the
stream with this temporary measure, and in the meantime try the unique
and novel experiment of enforcing all of the immigration laws on our
statutes? . . .
Accordingly, the 67th Congress
"passed the first quota law, which was approved on May 19, 1921,
limiting the number of any nationality entering the United States to 3
percent of the foreign-born of that nationality who lived here in 1910.
Under this law, approximately 350,000 aliens were permitted to enter
each year, mostly from Northern and Western Europe" (The Immigration and
Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 56).
The worry of the Congress over
unassimilated aliens continued and the House Congress over unassimilable
aliens continued and the House Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization of the Sixty-eighth Congress reported that it was
"necessary to the successful future of our nation to preserve the basic
strain of our population" and continued (op. cit., p. 60) as follows:
Since it is the axiom of political
science that a government not imposed by external force is the visible
expression of the ideals, standards, and social viewpoint of the people
over which it rules, it is obvious that a change in the character or
composition of the population must inevitably result in the evolution of
a form of government consonant with the base upon which it rests. If,
therefore, the principle of individual liberty, guarded by a
constitutional government created on this continent nearly a century and
a half ago, is to endure, the basic strain of our population must be
maintained and our economic standards preserved.
…the American people do not concede
the right of any foreign group in the United States, or government
abroad, to demand a participation in our possessing, tangible or
intangible, or to dictate the character of our legislation.
The new law "changed the quota basis
from 1910 to 1890, reduced the quotas from 3 to 2 percent, provided for
the establishment of permanent quotas on the basis of national origin,
and placed the burden of proof on the alien with regard to his
admissibility and the legality of his residence in the United States."
It was passed by the Congress on May 15, and signed by President Calvin
Coolidge on May 26, 1924. The new quota system was still more favorable
relatively to the British Isles and Germany and other countries of
Northern and Western Europe and excluded "persons who believe in or
advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the
United States." Unfortunately, within ten years, this salutary law was
to be largely nullified (see Chapters VI and VII, below) by
misinterpretation of its intent and by continued scandalous
maladministration, a principal worry of the Congress (as shown above) in
1921 and continuously since (op. cit., p. 65 and passim).
By birth and by immigration either
clandestine or in violation of the intent of the "national origins" law
of 1924, the Jewish population of the U. S. increased rapidly. The
following official Census Bureau statement is of interest: "In 1887
there were at least 277 congregations in the country and 230,000 Jews;
in 1890, 533 congregations and probably 475,000 Jews; in 1906, 1700
congregations and about 1,775,000 Jews; in 1916, 1900 congregations and
about 3,300,000 Jews; in 1926, 3,118 permanent congregations and
4,081,000 Jews; and in 1936, 3,728 permanent congregations and 4,641,184
Jews residing in the cities, towns and villages in which the
congregations were located" (Religious Bodies, p. 763). On other
religions, the latest government statistics are mostly for the year
1947, but for Jews the 1936 figure remains (The Immigration and
Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 849). As to the total
number of Jews in the United States the government has no exact figures,
any precise figures beyond a vague "over five million" being impossible
because of incomplete records and illegal immigration. The Committee on
the Judiciary of the Senate (op. cit., P. 842), however, accepts the
World Almanac figure of 15,713,638 Jews of religious affiliation in the
world and summarizes thus: "statistics indicate that over 50 percent of
the World Jewish population is now residing in the Western Hemisphere"
(op. cit., p, 21 ), i.e., at least 8,000,000. Since some three-fourths
of a million Jews live in other North and South American countries
besides the United States, the number of Jews known to be in the United
States may be placed at a minimum of about 7,250,000. Jews unaffiliated
with organizations whose members are counted, illegal entrants, etc.,
may place the total number in the neighborhood of 10,000,000. This
likely figure would justify the frequently heard statement that more
than half of the Jews of the world are in the United States.
Percentage-wise this is the
government summary (op. cit., p.241) of Jewish population in the United
In 1937, Jews constituted less than 4
percent of the American people, but during the 7-year period following
(1937-43), net Jewish immigration to the United States ranged between 25
and 77 percent of total net immigration to this country. For the 36-year
period, 1908-43, net Jewish immigration constituted 14 percent of the
total. The population of the Jewish population has increased
twenty-one-fold during the same period.
The above government figures require
elucidation. The figures include only those Jews connected with an
organized Jewish congregation and, as a corollary, exclude the vast
number of Jews, illegal entrants and others, who are not so connected,
and hence not officially listed as Jews. The stated increase of Jews by
2100 percent since 1877 is thus far too small because non-Congregational
Jews are not counted. Moreover, since the increase of 300 percent in the
total population includes known Jews, who increased at the rate of 2100
percent, the increase in population of non-Jews is far less than the 300
percent increase of the total population.
This powerful and rapidly growing
minority -- closely knit and obsessed with its own objectives which are
not those of Western Christian civilization -- will in subsequent
chapters be discussed along with other principal occupants of the stage
of public affairs in America during the early 1950's Details will come
as a surprise to many readers, who are the unwitting victims of
censorship (Chapter V, below). Valuable for its light on the global
projects of political Zionism, with especial reference to Africa, is
Douglas Reed's Somewhere South of Suez (Devin-Adair Company, New York,
1951). After mentioning that the "secret ban" against publishing the
truth on "Zionist Nationalism," which he holds "to be allied in its
roots to Soviet Communism," has grown in his adult lifetime "from
nothing into something approaching a law of lese majesty at some
absolute court of the dark past," Mr. Reed states further that "the
Zionist Nationalists are powerful enough to govern governments in the
great countries of the remaining West!" He concludes further that
"American Presidents and British Prime Ministers, and all their
colleagues," bow to Zionism as if venerating a shrine.
The subject-matter of a book can be
best determined not by its preface but by its index. It is believed that
an examination of the index of The Iron Curtain Over America will show a
unique completeness in the listing of names and subjects bearing upon
the present peril of our country. In brief, The Iron Curtain Over
America presents in complete detail – along with other matters – the
problems created in the United States by a powerful minority possessed
of an ideology alien to our traditions and fired by an ambition which
threatens to involve us in the ruin of a third world-wide war. The next
chapter deals with the aboveboard infiltration of Judaized Khazars, and
other persons of the same ideology, into the United States Democratic
KHAZARS JOIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The triumphant Khazars, aided by
other "converts" to Communism, strengthened their grasp on prostrate
Russia by a succession of "purges" in which many millions of Russians
lost their lives, either by immediate murder or in the slow terror of
slave labor camps. These purges do not concern us here except as a
sample of what Soviet rule would bring to America, namely, the slaying
of 15,000,000 persons on a list already prepared by name and category
(statement to the author by a former-high ranking international
Communist who has deserted "Stalinism"). The lecture, Matt Cvetic, a
former F. B. I. undercover agent, gives, more recently, a much higher
figure; he states that almost all men and women over thirty, having been
found too old for "re-education," would be slaughtered. For details,
write to Borger News-Herald, Borger, Texas, asking reprint of "We Owe a
Debt" (April 16, 1952) by J.C. Phillips.
Even as they subjected the Russian
people to a rule of terror, the
new rulers of Russia promptly and
effectively penetrated the countries of Western Europe and also Canada
and (as shown in Chapter II) the United States. For their fateful choice
of our country as a goal of their major though not yet completely and
finally successful endeavor, there were several reasons.
In the first place, with its mutually
advantageous capital labor relations, its enormous productivity, and its
high standard of living, the United States of America was an existing
visible refutation of the black Soviet lie that their Communist
dictatorship did more than our Republic for the workingman. The idea
that the "capitalistic" democracies (Britain and America) were
formidable obstacles to the spread of Communism and had to be destroyed
was expressed, many times by Soviet leaders and notably by Stalin in his
great address (Moscow, March 10, 1939) to the 18th Congress of the
Communist Party. This elaborate official statement of Soviet policy was
made before the outbreak of World War II, and nearly three years before
our involvement, and was trumpeted rather than hidden under a bushel. It
can therefore be safely predicated that our State Department, with its
numerous staffs, offices, bureaus, and divisions, was promptly aware of
the contents of this speech and of the Soviet goal of overthrowing our
The second reason for large scale
Communist exploitation of the United States was our traditional lack of
any laws prohibiting or regulating immigration into the United States
and our negligence or politics in enforcing immigration laws when they
had been passed (Chapter II, above). "The illegal entry of aliens into
the United States is one of the most serious and difficult problems
confronting the Immigration and Naturalization Service. . . Since the
end of World War II the problem of illegal entry has increased
tremendously . . . There is ample evidence that there is an alarmingly
large number of aliens in the United States in an illegal status. Under
the alien registration act of 1940 some 5,000,000 aliens were registered
"(The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, pp.
The third principal reason for the
Communist exploitation of the United States was the absence of any
effective policy regarding resident foreigners even when their
activities are directed toward the overthrow of the government. Thus in
1950 several hundreds of thousands of foreigners, among the millions
illegally in this country, were arrested and released for want of
adequate provisions for deporting them.
As shown in Chapter II, above,
persons of Khazar background or traditions had entered the United States
in large numbers in the waves of immigration between 1880 and the
outbreak of World War I in 1914. The Soviet seizure of Russia took place
in 1917, however, and the hey-day for Communist-inclined immigrants from
Eastern Europe was the five-year period between the end of World War I
(1919) and the passage of the 1924 law restricting immigration. Recorded
immigrants to this country in that brief span of time amounted to
approximately three million and large numbers of the newcomers were
from, Eastern Europe. Most significantly, with Communism in power in
Russia, many of the new immigrants were not only ideologically hostile
to the Western Christian civilization of which America was the finest
development, but were actual agents of the new Rulers of Russia
Conspicuous among these was
Sidney Hillman [ a hard line communist - Editor ], who had turned from his
"Rabbinical education" (Who Was Who in America, Vol. II, p. 254) to
political activities if international scope. Twenty-two years before
Franklin Roosevelt gave orders to "clear everything with Sidney,"
similar orders were given American Communists by Lenin himself, Hillman
being at that time President of the Russian-American Industrial
Corporation at 103 E. Fourteenth St., New York (article by Walter Trohan
and photostat in Washington Times-Herald, October 29, 1944).
Surely a relatively small number of
Khazar immigrants from Russia came as actual Soviet agents; not all of
them came was confirmed Marxists; and some of them have doubtless
conformed to the traditional American mores. The contrary is neither
stated nor implied as a general proposition. The fact remains, however,
that the newer immigrants, to an even greater degree than their
predecessors of the same stock, were determined to resist absorption
into Western Christian civilization and were determined also to further
their aims by political alignment and pressure.
In the first three decades of the
twentieth century, few of the several million non-Christian immigrants
from Eastern Europe were attracted to the Republican Party, which was a
majority party with no need to bargain for recruits. The Democratic
Party, on the contrary, was in bad need of additional voters. It had
elected Woodrow Wilson by a huge electoral majority in 1912 when the
Republican Party was split between the followers of William Howard Taft
and those of Theodore Roosevelt, but the Democratic popular vote was
1,413,708 less than the combined Taft and Roosevelt votes. In fact,
between 1892 (Cleveland's election over Harrison) and 1932 (F.D.
Roosevelt's election over Hoover), the Democratic candidate had pooled
more presidential popular votes than the Republican candidate (9,129,606
to 8,538,221) only once, when Woodrow Wilson was elected (1916) to a
second term on the slogan, "He kept us out of war." In all the other
elections, Republican majorities were substantial. Applying arithmetic
to the popular vote of the seven presidential elections from 1904 to
1928 inclusive (World Almanac, 1949, p. 91), it is seen that on the
average, the Democrats, except under extraordinary circumstances, could
not in the first three decades of the twentieth century count on as much
as 45% of the votes.
In addition to its need for more
votes, the Democratic Party had another characteristic which appealed to
the politically minded Eastern European newcomers and drew to its ranks
all but a handful of those who did not join a leftist splinter party.
Unlike the Republican Party, which still had a fairly homogeneous
membership, the Democratic Party was a collection of several groups.
"The Democratic Party is not a political party at all; it's a marriage
of convenience among assorted bedfellows, each of whom hates most of the
other" (William Bradford Huie in an article, "Truman's Plan to Make
Eisenhower President," Cosmopolitan, July, 1951, p. 31).
In the early part of the twentieth
century the two largest components of the Democratic Party were the
rural Protestant Southerners and the urban Catholic Northerners, who
stood as a matter of course for the cardinal principles of Western
Christian civilization, but otherwise had little in common politically
except an opposition, chiefly because of vanished issues, to the
Republican Party. The third group, which had been increasing rapidly
after 1880, consisted of Eastern Europeans and other "liberals," best
exemplified perhaps by the distinguished Harvard Jew, of Prague stock,
Louis Dembitz Brandeis, whom President Woodrow Wilson, for reasons not
yet fully known by the people, named to the United States Supreme Court.
This man, at once so able, and in his legal and other attitudes so far
to the left for the America of 1916, deserves attention as a symbol of
the future for the Democratic Party, and through that party, for
According to the Universal Jewish
Encyclopedia, there was an "historical battle" in the Senate in regard
to "Brandeis' 'radicalism'," and "his alleged 'lack of judicial
temperament'." These alleged qualities provoked opposition to the
nomination by seven former presidents of the American Bar Association,
including ex-Secretary of State Elihu Root and ex-President William
Despite the opposition, the
nomination was confirmed by the Senate in a close vote on June 5, 1916.
This was one of the most significant days in American history, for we
had, for the first time since the first decade of the nineteenth
century, an official of the highest status whose heart's interest was in
something besides the United States -- an official, moreover, who
interpreted the Law not as the outgrowth of precedent, but according to
certain results desired by the interpreter.
The entire article on Justice
Brandeis in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. II, pp. 495-499)
should be read in full, if possible. Here are a few significant
During the World War,
occupied himself with a close study of the political phases of Jewish
affairs in every country. Since that time his active interest in Jewish
affairs has been centered in Zionism . . .In 1919, he visited Palestine
for political and organizational reasons . . . he has financed various
social and economic efforts in Palestine.
As a justice, Mr. Brandeis:
Never worried about such academic
perplexities as the compatibility of Americanism with a minority culture
or a Jewish homeland in Palestine. . . Breaking away from the accepted
legal catechisms, he thoroughly and exhaustively probed the economics of
each and every problem presented. . . The truth of his conviction that
our individualistic philosophy could no longer furnish an adequate basis
for dealing with the problems of modern economic life, in now generally
recognized. . . he envisages a co-operative order. . .
that the Constitution must be given liberal construction.
This may be taken as the beginning of
the tendency of our courts to assume by judicial decisions the function
of legislative bodies.
There is testimony, also, to the
influence of Brandeis over Wilson as a factor in America's entry into
World War I and its consequent prolongation with terrible blood losses
to all participants, especially among boys and young men of British,
French, and German stock. Although Britain had promised self-rule to the
Palestine Arabs in several official statements by Sir Henry MacMahon,
the High Commissioner for Egypt, by Field Marshal Lord Allenby,
Commander in Chief of British Military forces in the area, and by others
(The Surrender of An Empire, by Nesta H. Webster, Boswell Printing and
Publishing Co., Ltd., 10 Essex St., London, W.C. 2, 1931, pp. 351-356),
President Wilson was readily won over to a scheme concocted later in
another compartment of the British government. This scheme, Zionism,
attracted the favor of the Prime Minister, Mr. David
Lloyd George, who,
like Wilson, had with prominent Jews certain close relations, one of
which is suggested in the Encyclopedia Britannica article (Vol. XIX, p.
4) on the first Marquess of Reading (previously Sir Rufus Daniel
Isaacs). Thus, according to S. Landman, in his paper "Secret History of
the Balfour Declaration" (World Jewry, March 1, 1935), after an
"understanding had been arrived at between Sir Mark Sykes and Weizmann
and Sokolow, it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice
Brandeis that the British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine
in return for active Jewish sympathy and support in U.S.A. for the
allied cause so as to bring about a radical pro-ally tendency in the
United States." An article, "The Origin of the Balfour Declaration" (The
Jewish Chronicle, February 7, 1936), is more specific. According to this
source, certain "representatives of the British and French Governments"
had been convinced that "the best and perhaps the only way to induce the
American President to come into the war was to secure the co-operation
of Zionist Jewry by promising them Palestine." In so doing "the Allies
would enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful force of
Zionist Jewry in America and elsewhere." Since President Wilson at that
time "attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of Mr.
Justice Brandeis," the Zionists worked through him and "helped to bring
power of Brandeis over
President Wilson is indicated several times in the book, Challenging
Years, The Autobiography of Stephen Wise (G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York,
1949). Rabbi Wise, for instance, spoke of Wilson's "leaning heavily, as
I well know he chose to do, on Brandeis" (p.187), and records a
surprising remark by the supposedly independent minded World War I
President. To Rabbi Wise, who spoke of Zionism and the plans for
convening " the first session of the American Jewish Congress," Wilson
said (p. 189): "Whenever the time comes, and you and Justice Brandeis
feel that the time is ripe for me to speak and act, I shall be ready."
The authenticity of these statements,
which are well documented in the sources from which they are quoted,
cannot be doubted. Full evaluation of President Wilson will have to wait
until the secret archives of World War I are opened to the Public.
Meanwhile, however, the management of the war in such a way as to bleed
Europe to death casts persistent reflections upon the judgment if not
the motives of President Wilson and Prime Minister David
Lloyd George of
Great Britain. Their bloody victory and their failure in peace stand in
strong contrast to Theodore Roosevelt's dramatic success in ending,
rather than joining, the great conflict (1904-1905) between Russia and
After the eight-year rule of
President Wilson, the Democratic Party was retired from office in the
election of 1920. For the next twelve years (March 4, 1921-March 4,
1933), the three diverse groups in the Party - Southern Protestants,
Northern Catholics, and Brandeis-type "liberals," - were held loosely
together by leaders who helped each other toward the day of victory and
the resultant power and patronage. Tactfully accustomed to ask no
questions of each other, these leaders, still mostly Southern
Protestants and Northern Catholics, did not ask any questions of the
Party's rapidly increasing contingent of Eastern Europeans.
the astute twentieth century
immigrants of Eastern European origin continued to join the Democratic
Party, in which everybody was accustomed to strange bedfellows, and in
which a largely non-Christian third force was already well entrenched.
Parenthetically, the best description of the National Democratic party
as it existed from the time of Franklin Roosevelt's first term and on
into the early 1950's is probably that of Senator Byrd of Virginia.
Speaking at Selma, Alabama, on November 1, 1951 (AP dispatch), he
described the party as a "heterogeneous crowd of Trumanites" and added
that the group, "if it could be called a party, is one of questionable
ancestry, irresponsible direction and predatory purposes."
Woodrow Wilson, who was definitely
the candidate of a minority party, was elected in the first instance by
a serious split in the Republican Party. By constant reinforcement from
abroad, however, the "third force" of Eastern Europeans and associates
of similar ideology was instrumental in raising the Democratic Party
from a minority to a majority status. Some daring leaders of the alien
or alien-minded wing conceived the idea of being paid in a special way
for their contributions to victory.
Their price, carefully concealed from
the American people, including of course many lesser figures among the
Eastern Europeans, was the control of the foreign policy of the United
At a glance, the achievement of such
an objective might seem impossible. In fact, however, it was easy,
because it happens under our practice that the entire electoral vote of
a State goes to the candidate whose electors poll a majority of the
popular votes of the State. With the population of older stock somewhat
evenly divided between the Republican and Democratic parties, a
well-organized minority can throw enough votes to determine the
recipient of the electoral vote of a state. " The States having the
largest numbers of Jews are New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New
Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, California, and Michigan" (The Immigration
and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 154). These, of
course, are the "doubtful" states with a large electoral vote.
Thus, when the ship of patronage came
in with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932, the Democrats
of the old tradition, whether Southern Protestants or Northern
Catholics, wanted dams, bridges, government buildings, and other
government-financed projects in their districts; wanted contracts for
themselves and their friends; and wanted also a quota of safe tenure
positions, such as federal judgeships. Neither group of old-time
Democrats had many leaders who specialized in languages or in the
complex subject matter of "foreign affairs," and neither group objected
to the seemingly modest interest of certain of the party's Eastern
European recruits for jobs of sub-cabinet rank in Washington.
The first spectacular triumph of the
non-Christian Eastern European Democrats was Roosevelt's recognition,
less than nine months after his inauguration, of the Soviet government
of Russia. A lengthy factual article, "Moscow's RED LETTER DAY in
American History," by William La Varre in the American Legion Magazine
(August, 1951), gives many details on our strange diplomatic move which
was arranged by "Litvinoff, of deceitful smiles" and by "Henry
Morgenthau and Dean Acheson, both protégés of Felix Frankfurter."
Incidentally, Litvinoff's birth-name was Wallach and he also used the
Finkelstein. Three of the four persons thus named by Mr. La Varre as
influential in this deal were of the same non-Christian stock or
association -- and the fourth was Dean Acheson, "who served as law clerk
of Justice Louis D. Brandeis" (U.S. News and World Report, November 9,
1951) before becoming famous as a "Frankfurter boy" (see below, this
chapter). The principal "Frankfurter boy" is the subject of a most
important article in the American Mercury magazine (11, East 36th
Street, New York 16, N.Y.., 10 copies for $1.00) for April, 1952. Thee
author, Felix Wittner, says in part:
Acheson's record of disservice to the
cause of freedom begins at least nineteen years ago when he became one
of Stalin's paid American lawyers. Acheson was on Stalin's payroll even
before the Soviet Union was recognized by the United States.
Mr. La Varre's article should be read
in full, among other things for its analyses of F.D. Roosevelt's
betrayal of Latin America to penetration by Communism. Bearing on the
basic question of the recognition of the Soviet, here are significant
The very special agent from Moscow,
Commissar of all the Red Square's nefarious international machinations,
chief of the Kremlin's schemes for communizing the American hemisphere,
sat victoriously at the White House desk at midnight, smiling at the
President of the United States.
For fifteen deceitful years the
corrupt Kremlin had tried to obtain a communist base, protected by
diplomatic immunities, within the United States; four Presidents -
Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover - had refused to countenance
Moscow's pagan ideology or its carriers. But here, at last, was a
President the communists could deal with.
Many patriotic, well-informed Americans, in the old Department of State,
in the American Legion, and in the American Federation of Labor, had
begged Franklin Roosevelt not to use his new leadership of the United
States for the aggrandizement of an evil, dangerous and pagan guest --
but to send him back to Moscow, red with the blood of the Commissar's
own countrymen, without a handshake.
But Franklin Roosevelt, piqued with
the power of his new office, stimulated by the clique of Marxian and
Fabian socialists posing as intellectuals and liberals -- and by
radicals in labor unions, universities, and his own sycophant
bureaucracy -- had signed his name to the Kremlin's franchise. Without
the approval of Congress, he made an actual treaty with the Soviets,
giving them the right to establish a communist embassy and consulates in
the United States, with full diplomatic hospitalities and immunities to
Stalin's agents, the bloody bolsheviki. . .
November 16, 1933 - at midnight! That
is a date in American history our children will long have tragic cause
to remember. That was the day Soviet Foreign Commissar Maxim Litvinov,
plunderer of Estonia and the Kremlin’s first agent for socializing
England, sat down with Franklin Roosevelt, after Dean Acheson and Henry
Morgenthau had done the spadework of propaganda, and made the deal that
has led the American people, and our once vast resources, into a social
and economic calamity to the very brink, now, of national and
international disaster. . .
One of the greatest concentrations of
factual information, wise analyses, police records and military
intelligence ever to pile up spontaneously on one subject in Washington,
all documenting the liabilities of dealing with the Kremlin, had no
effect on Franklin Roosevelt. He had appointed Henry Morgenthau and Dean
Acheson, both protégés of Felix Frankfurter, to "study" trade
opportunities between the U.S.S.R. and the United States, and he praised
their report of the benefits to come to all U.S. citizens from Soviet
The record shows that Cordell Hull,
upon the receipt of this authentic document disclosing the Soviet's
continuing duplicity, sent a note of protest to Moscow, but President
Roosevelt could not be persuaded to withdraw his diplomatic recognition.
He began, instead, the "reorganization" of the State Department in
Washington and the dispatching -- to far, isolated posts -- of its
anti-communist career officers.
The Roosevelt-Stalin Deal, of
November, 1933, has been so costly to us, as a nation and as a
hemisphere, that the full appraisal of our losses and liabilities will
not be known for several generations. The Kremlin's gains within the
United States and communism's cost to us is only now, in 1951 - after
eighteen years of suffering a Soviet embassy in our Capital, and its
agents to roam the States - coming to public consciousness.
It has truly been a costly era of
mysterious friendship for an appeasement of the devil, of un-American
compromises with deceit and pagan ideologies. Some of its protagonists
are now dead, their graves monuments to our present predicament, but
others, again mysteriously, have been allowed to step into their
Under the sort of government
described by Mr. La Varre in his Legion article,
large numbers of
recently arrived and recently naturalized citizens and their
ideological associates were infiltrated by appointment, or by civil
service, into the State Department, the presidential coterie, and other
sensitive spots in the government. Among those who feathered their
Washington nests in this period were not only leftist East Europeans,
but actual Communist converts or "sell-outs" to the Communist party
among native Americans. The solicitude of President F. D. Roosevelt for
America's Communists was constant, as was shown in his steady opposition
to proposed curbs upon them. Ex-Congressman Martin Dies, former Chairman
of the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities,
bears witness in lectures (one of them heard by the author, 1950) that
he was several times summoned to the White House by President Roosevelt
and told -- with suggestions of great favors to come -- that he must
stop annoying Communists (see Chapter IV). To the unyielding Dies,
Roosevelt’s climactic argument was "We need those votes!" A speech (May
17, 1951) on a similar theme by Mr. Dies has been published by the
American Heritage Protective Committee (601 Bedell Building, San
Antonio, Texas, 25 cents). Another speech by Mr. Dies, "White House
Protects Communists in Government," was inserted (September 22, 1950) in
the Congressional Record by Congressman Harold H. Velde of Illinois.
The government was infiltrated with
"risks" from the above described groups of Eastern Europeans and with
contaminated native Americans, but those were not all. After the
beginning of World War II, so-called "refugees" immediately upon arrival
in this country were by executive order introduced into sensitive
government positions without the formality of having them wait for
citizenship, and without any investigation of their reasons for leaving
Europe. The way for this infiltration was paved by an executive order
providing specifically that employment could not be denied on the
grounds of race, creed, or national origin.
Since no form of investigation could
be made by the United Stated in the distant and hostile areas from which
these refugees came, and since their number contained persons
sympathetic to the Soviet Union, this executive order was a potential
and in many instanced a realized death blow to security.
Almost as if for a double check
against security, the control of security measures in the new atom
projects was not entrusted to the expert F.B.I., but to the atomic
officials themselves. In view of their relative inexperience in such
matters and in view of the amazing executive order so favorable to alien
employees, the atomic officials were probably less to blame for the
theft of atomic secrets than the "left-of-center" administrations which
appointed them. Among those admitted to a proper spot for learning
atomic secrets was the celebrated alien, the British subject -- but not
British-born -- Klaus Fuchs. Other atomic spies, all aliens or of alien
associations, were named in Chapter II.
Next to the atomic energy employees,
the United Public Workers of America offered perhaps the best
opportunity for the theft of secrets vital to the U.S. defense. This
union included a generous number of people of Eastern European stock or
connections, among them Leonard Goldsmith and Robert Weinstein,
organizers of Panama Canal workers, and both of them said to have
definite Communist affiliations (Liberty, May, 1948). This union --
whose chief bloc of members was in Washington -- was later expelled
(March 1, 1950) by the C.I.O. on charges of being Communist-dominated
("Directory of Labor Unions in the United States," Bulletin No. 980,
U.S. Dept. of Labor, 1950. 25c). However, if the U.S. Government has
shown any signs of being as particular about its employee (see Tydings
Committee Report, U.S. Senate, 1950) as the C.I.O. is about its members,
the fact has escaped the attention of the author.
As the years passed, the infiltration
of Eastern Europeans into the government had swelled to a torrent. Many
of these persons, of course, were not Communists and were not
sympathetic with Communist aims. As repeated elsewhere in this book, the
contrary is neither stated nor implied. the author's purpose is simply
to show that persons of Eastern European stock, or of an ideology not
influential in the days of the founding and formative period of our
country, have in recent years risen to many of the most strategic spots
in the Roosevelt-Truman Democratic Party and thereby to positions of
great and often decisive power in shaping the policy of the United
States. The subject was broached by W. M. Kiplinger in a book,
Washington Is Like That (Harper and Brothers, 1942). According to a
Reader's Digest condensation (September, 1942), entitled "The Facts
About Jews in Washington," Jews were by 1942 conspicuously "numerous" in
government agencies and departments concerned with money, labor, and
justice. The situation stemmed from the fact that "non-Jewish officials
within government, acting under the direction of the President," were
"trying to get various agencies to employ more Jews. . ."
The influence of persons of Eastern
European origin, or of related origin or ideology, reached its peak
(thus far) with Mr. Milton Katz at the helm of U.S. policy in Europe (to
mid -1951) with Mrs. Anna Rosenberg in charge of the manpower of the
U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Corps; with Mr. Manly Fleischman as
Administrator of the Defense Production Administration; and with Mr.
Nathan P. Feinsinger (New York Times, August 30, 1951) as Chairman of
the Wage Stabilization Board. :Likewise, in October, 1948, when
President Truman appointed a "committee on religious and moral welfare
and character guidance in the armed forces," he named as Chairman "Frank
L. Weil, of New York, a lawyer, and President of the National Jewish
Welfare Board" (New York Times, October 28, 1948).
It is interesting to note the
prominence of persons of Khazar or similar background or association in
the Socialist minority government of the United Kingdom, and in French
polities, beginning with Leon Blum. Among them are the Rt. Hon. Emanuel
Shinwell and Minister Jules Moch - arch-foe of Marshal Pétain - who have
recently held defense portfolios in the British and French cabinets
respectively. Just as in America the non-Christian characteristically
joins the Democratic Party, so in Britain he joins the leftist Labor
Party. Thus the British House of Commons, sitting in the summer of 1951,
had 21 Jews among its Labor members and none among its Conservative
members. Whatever his racial antecedents, Mr. Clement Attlee, long
leader of the British "Labor" Party and Socialist Prime Minister
(1945-1951) has for many years received international notoriety as a
Communist sympathizer. For instance, he visited and praised the "English
company" in the international Communist force in the Spanish Civil War
(see photograph and facsimile in The International Brigades, Spanish
Office of Information, Madrid, 1948, p. 134).
A few persons of Eastern European origin or background -- or associated
with persons of such background -- in positions high or strategic, or
both, have already been named by the author, and others, when their
prominence demands it, will be named in the pages which follow. The
author hereby assures the reader -- again -- that no reflection of any
kind is intended and that he has no reason for believing that any of
these people are other than true to their convictions.
First on any list of Americans of
Eastern European origin should be the Vienna-born Felix Frankfurter, who
in the middle twentieth century appears to have replaced "the stock of
the Puritans" as the shining light and symbol of Harvard University.
After leaving his professorship in the Harvard Law School, Dr.
Frankfurter became a Supreme Court Justice and President Franklin
Roosevelt’s top-flight adviser on legal and other matters. In the
formation of our national policies his influence is almost universally
rated as supreme. "I suppose that Felix Frankfurter . . . has more
influence in Washington than any other American" wrote Rev. John P.
Sheerin, Editor of The Catholic World (March, 1951, p. 405), and the
Chicago Tribune, owned by the Presbyterian Colonel Robert R. McCormick,
has voiced a similar opinion. In fact, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is
frequently referred to by those who know their way around Washington as
the "President" of the United States. In a recent "gag" the question "Do
you want to see a new picture of the President of the United States? is
followed up by showing a likeness of Frankfurter.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter is
influential not only in counsel but in furthering the appointment of
favored individuals to strategic positions. The so-called "Frankfurter’s
boys' include Mr. Acheson, with whom the justice takes daily walks,
weather permitting (New York Times, January 19, 1949); Alger Hiss; Lee
Pressman; David Niles, long a senior assistant to President Truman;
Benjamin V. Cohen, Counsellor of the Department of State; David
Lilienthal, long Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission John J.
McCloy, Joe Rauh, Nathan Margold; Donald Hiss, brother to Alger, and
"now a member of the Acheson law firm"; Milton Katz; and former
Secretary of War Robert Patterson, "a hundred per cent Frankfurter
employee" (all names and quotes in this paragraph are from Drew
Pearson's syndicated column, February 1, 1950).
A powerful government figure, the
Russian-born Isador Lubin, was frequently summoned by President F. D.
Roosevelt for the interpreting of statistics ("send for Lube"); and was
subsequently a United States representative to the UN (article in New
York Times, August 8, 1951). Leo Pasvolsky, Russian-born, was long a
power in the Department of State, being, among other things, “executive
director Committee on Postwar Program and "in charge of international
organization and security affairs," 1945-1946 (Who's Who in America,
Vol. 26, 1950-51, p. 2117). Among others very close to Roosevelt II were
Samuel Rosenman, who as "special counsel" was said to write many of the
President's speeches; Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury and
sponsor of the vicious Morgenthau, Plan; and Herbert Lehman, Director
General (1943 to 1946) of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation
Administration (UNRRA), most of whose funds - principally derived from
the U.S. - were diverted to countries which were soon to become Soviet
satellites as a result of the Yalta and Potsdam surrenders.
Strategic positions currently or
recently held by persons of Eastern European origin, or ideological
association with such people, include a number of Assistant
Secretaryships to members of the Cabinet, among them incumbents in such
sensitive spots as Defense, Justice (Customs and Solicitor General's
Office) and Labor; the governorships of vital outposts such as Alaska
(three miles from Russia) and the Virgin Islands (near the Panama
Canal); appointments in the Executive Office of the President of the
United States; positions in organizations devoted to international trade
and assistance; membership on the Atomic Energy Commission; and
membership, which may best be described as wholesale, in the U.S.
delegation to the United Nations.
The number of persons of Eastern
European origin or connection in appointive positions of strategic
significance in our national government is strikingly high in proportion
to the total number of such persons in America. On the contrary, in
elective positions, the proportion of such persons is strikingly below
their numerical proportion to the total population. The question arises;
Does the high ratio of appointed persons of Eastern European origin or
contacts in United States strategic positions reflect the will of the
U.S. people? If not, what controlling will does it reflect?
In a speech before the Dallas, Texas
Alumni Club of Columbia University on Armistice Day, 1950, General of
the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower stated that as Supreme Commander in Europe
he made a habit of asking American soldiers why they were fighting the
Germans and 90% of the boys said they a had no idea. Very significantly,
General Eisenhower did not offer members of his Alumni Group any precise
answer to his own question. The high point of his speech was a statement
of his hope that Columbia might become the fountain-head for widely
disseminated simple and accurate information which will prevent our
country from ever again "stumbling in war" at "the whim of the man who
happens to be president" (notes taken by the author, who attended the
Alumni Club meeting, and checked immediately with another Columbian who
was also present).
The American soldier is not the only
one who wondered and is still wondering about the purposes of World War
II." Winston Churchill has called it "The Unnecessary War." In view of
our legacy of deaths, debt, and danger, Churchill's term may be
considered an understatement.
Before a discussion of any war,
whether necessary or unnecessary, a definition of the term war is
desirable. For the purposes of this book, war may be defined, simply and
without elaboration, as the ultimate and violent action taken by a
nation to implement its foreign policy. The results, even of a
successful war, are so horrible to contemplate that a government
concerned for the welfare of its people will enter the combat phase of
its diplomacy only as a last resort. Every government makes strategic
decisions, and no such decision is so fruitful of bitter sequels as a
policy of drift or a policy of placating a faction - which has money or
votes or both - and it is on just such a hybrid policy of drift and
catering that our foreign policy has been built.
A commonly made and thoroughly sound
observation about our foreign policy beginning with 1919 is that it
creates vacuums -- for a hostile power to fill. The collapsed Germany of
1923 created a power vacuum in the heart of Europe, but Britain and
France made no move to fill it, perhaps because each of them was more
watchful of the other than fearful of fallen Germany. The United States
was far-off; its people of native stock, disillusioned by the bursting
of Woodrow Wilson's dream bubbles, were deposed to revert to their old
policy of avoiding foreign entanglements; and its numerous new Eastern
European citizens, hostile to Germany, were watchfully awaiting a second
and final collapse of the feeble republic born of the peace treaty of
1919. The new Soviet dictatorship, finding Marxism unworkable and slowly
making it over into its later phases of Leninism and Stalinism, was as
yet too precariously established for a westward venture across Poland.
As a result, Germany moved along
stumblingly with more than a dozen political parties and a resultant
near-paralysis of government under the Socialist President Friedrich
Ebert to 1925 and then, with conditions improving slightly, under the
popular old Prussian Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, who was
President from 1925 to 1933.
Meanwhile two of Germany's numerous
political parties emerged into definite power -- the Communists, many of
whose leaders were of Khazar stock, and the National Socialist German
Workers Party, which was popularly called Nazi from the first two
syllables of the German word for "National." Faced with harsh
alternatives (testimony of many Germans to the author in Germany), the
Germans chose the native party and Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor.
The date was January 30, 1933, five
weeks before Franklin Roosevelt's first inauguration as President of the
United States; but it was only after the aged President von Hindenburg's
death (on August 2) that Hitler was made both President and Chancellor
(August 19th). Differences between the rulers of the United States and
Germany developed quickly. Hitler issued a series of tirades against
Communism, which he considered a world menace, whereas Roosevelt
injected life into the sinking body of world Communism (Chapter III,
above) by giving full diplomatic recognition to Soviet Russia on
November 16, 1933, a day destined to be known as "American-Soviet
Friendship Day" by official proclamation of the State of New York.
Sharing the world spotlight with his
anti-Communist words and acts, was Hitler's domestic policy, which in
its early stages nay be epitomized as "Germany for the Germans," of whom
in 1933 there were some 62,000,000. Hitler's opponents, more especially
those of non-German stock (510,000 in 1933 according to the World
Almanac, 1939), were unwilling to lose by compromise any of their
position of financial and other power acquired in large degree during
the economic collapse of 1923, and appealed for help to persons of
prominence in the city of New York and elsewhere. Their appeal was not
In late July, 1933, an International
Jewish Boycott Conference (New York Times, August 7, 1933) was held in
Amsterdam to devise means of bringing Germany to terms. Samuel
Untermeyer of New York presided over the Boycott Conference and was
elected President of the World Jewish Economic Federation. Returning to
America, Mr. Untermeyer described the planned Jewish move against
Germany as a "holy war . . . a war that must be waged unremittingly"
(speech over WABC, as printed in New York Times of August 7, 1933). The
immediately feasible tactic of the "economic boycott" was described by
Mr. Untermeyer as of the "economic boycott" was described by Mr.
Untermeyer as "nothing new," for "President Roosevelt, whose wise
statesmanship and vision are the wonder of the civilized world, is
invoking it in furtherance of his noble conception of the relations
between capital and labor." Mr. Untermeyer gave his hearers and readers
It is not sufficient that you buy no
goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or
shopkeeper who sells any German made goods or who patronizes German
ships and shipping.
Before the Boycott Conference
adjourned at Amsterdam, arrangement was made to extend the boycott to
"include France, Holland, Belgium, Britain, Poland and Czechoslovakia
and other lands as far flung as Finland and Egypt" (New York Times,
August 1, 1933). In connection with the boycott, the steady anti-German
campaign, which had never died down in America after World War I, became
suddenly violent. Germany was denounced in several influential New York
papers and by radio.
The public became dazed by the
propaganda, and the U.S. Government soon placed on German imports the
so-called "general" tariff rates as against the "most favored" status
for all other nations. This slowed down but did not stop the German
manufacture of export goods, and the U.S. took a further step, described
as follows in the New York Times (June 5, 1936): "Already Germany is
paying general tariff rates because she has been removed by Secretary of
State Cordell Hull from the most favored nation list . . . Now she will
be required to pay additional duties . . . it was decided that they
would range from about 22 to 56 per cent." There were protests.
According to the New York Times (July 12, 1936): "importers and others
interested in trade with Germany insisted yesterday that commerce
between the two countries will dwindle to the vanishing point within the
next six months." The prediction was correct.
An effort of certain anti-German
international financial interests was also made to "call" sufficient
German treasury notes to "break" Germany. The German government replied
successfully to this maneuver by giving a substantial bonus above the
current exchange rate for foreigners who would come to Germany, exchange
their currency for marks, and spend the marks in Germany. Great
preparations were made for welcoming strangers to such gatherings as the
"World Conference on Recreation and Leisure Time" (Hamburg, August,
1936), one of whose programs, a historic pageant on the Auszen-Alster,
was attended by the author (who was visiting northern European museums
and coastal areas in the interest of his historical novel, Swords in the
Dawn). Special trains brought in school children from as far as northern
Norway. Whether from sincerity or from a desire to create a good
impression, visitors were shown every courtesy. As a result of the
German effort and the money bonus afforded by the favorable exchange,
retired people, pensioners, and tourists spent enough funds in the Reich
to keep the mark stable.
But this German financial victory in
1936, though it prevented an immediate currency collapse, did not solve
the problem of 62,000,000 people (69,000,000 by 1939) in an area
approximately the size of Texas being effectively denied export trade.
Through Secretary of State Cordell
Hull and other officials President Roosevelt sponsored Mr. Untermeyer's
economic war against Germany, but he still adhered, in his public
utterances, to a policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of
foreign nations. In two speeches in the summer of 1937 he voiced "our
entanglements" (American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 - 1940, by
Charles A. Beard, Yale University Press, 1946, p. 183).
Some sinister underground deal must
have been consummated within two months, however, for in a speech in
Chicago on October 5th the President made an about-face, which was
probably the most complete in the whole history of American foreign
policy. Here are two excerpts from the famous "Quarantine" speech:
Let no one imagine that America will
escape, that America may expect mercy, that this Western Hemisphere will
not be attacked! . . .
When an epidemic of physical disease
starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of
the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the
spread of the disease.
This pronouncement, so inflammatory,
so provocative of war, caused unprecedented consternation in the United
States (see Beard, op. cit., pp. 186 ff.). Most outspoken in opposition
to the "quarantine" policy was the Chicago Tribune. Violently
enthusiastic was the New Masses, and Mr. Earl Browder promised the
administration the "100 percent unconditional support of the Communist
party" provided Roosevelt adopted a hands-off policy toward Communism.
Incidentally, this Democratic-Communist collaboration was openly or
covertly to be a factor in subsequent United States foreign and domestic
policy to and beyond the middle of the twentieth century. "I welcome the
support of Earl Browder or any one else who will help keep President
Roosevelt in office," said Harry S. Truman, candidate for Vice
President, on October 17, 1944 (National Republic, May, 1951, p. 8).
Far more numerous than denouncers or
endorsers of the "quarantine" speech of 1937 were those who called for
clarification. This, however, was not vouchsafed -- nor was it, apart
from possible details of method and time, really necessary. It was
perfectly obvious that the President referred to Japan and Germany. With
the latter country we had already declared that "no quarter" economic
war recommended by the President of the World Jewish Economic
Federation, and now in unquestionably hostile terms our President
declared a political war. In his diary, Secretary of Defense James
Forrestal recorded that he was told by Joseph P. Kennedy, our Ambassador
to Britain, that Prime Minister Chamberlain "stated that America and the
world Jews had forced England into the war" (The Forrestal Diaries, ed.
by Walter Millis, The Viking Press, New York, 1951, pp. 121-122).
Censorship, governmental and other
(Chapter V), was tight in America by 1937. It had blocked out the
reasons for Mr. Roosevelt's public change of policy between summer and
autumn, and it blacked out the fact that the President's threatening
attitude caused Germany to make, and make a second time, an appeal for
peace. These appeals did not become known to the American public for
more than ten years. Here is the story, summarized from an article by
Bertram D. Hulen in the New York Times of December 17, 1948:
In 1937 and again in 1938 the German
government made "a sincere effort to improve relations with the United
States, only to be rebuffed." The U.S. Government's alleged reason was
"a fear of domestic political reactions in this country unfavorable to
the Administration." Germany was told that the American public would not
tolerate a conference. Some officials favored exploring the German offer
"after the congressional elections in the fall" (1938). The sequel, of
course, is that the Roosevelt administration blocked Germany's further
efforts for peace by withdrawing our ambassador from Berlin and thus
peremptorily preventing future negotiations. Germany then had to recall
her Ambassador "who was personally friendly toward Americans" and,
according to the New York Times, "was known in diplomatic circles here
at the time to be working for international understanding in a spirit of
good will." Here, to repeat for emphasis, is the crux of the matter: The
whole story of Germany's appeal for negotiations and our curt refusal
and severance of diplomatic relations was not published in 1937 or 1938,
when Germany made her appeals, but was withheld from the public until
ferreted out by the House Committee on Un-American Activities after
World War II and by that committee released to the press more than ten
years after the facts were so criminally suppressed. Parenthetically, it
is because of services such as this on behalf of truth that the
Committee on Un-American Activities has been so frequently maligned . In
fact, in our country since the 1930's there seems little question that
the best criterion for separating true Americans from others is a
recorded attitude toward the famous Martin Dies Committee.
Economically strangled by an
international boycott headed up in New York, and outlawed politically
even to the extent of being denied a conference, the Germans in the late
1930's faced the alternatives of mass unemployment from loss of world
trade or working in government-sponsored projects. They accepted the
latter. The workers who lost their jobs in export businesses were at
once employed in Hitler's armament industries (see the special edition
of the Illustrierte Zeitung for November 25, 1936), which were already
more than ample for the size and resources of the country, and soon
Thus by desperate measures,
advertised to the world in the phrase "guns instead of butter," Hitler
prepared to cope with what he considered to be the
British-French-American-Soviet "encirclement." Stung by what he
considered President Roosevelt's insulting language and maddened by the
contemptuous rejection of his diplomatic approaches to the United
States, he made a deal (August, 1939) against Poland with the Soviet
Union, a power he had taught the German people to fear and hate! With
the inevitability of a Sophoclean tragedy, this betrayal of his own
conscience brought him to ruin -- and Germany with him. Such is the
danger which lurks for a people when they confide their destiny to the
whims of a dictator!
The war which resulted from Franklin
D. Roosevelt's policy is well remembered, especially by those American
families whose sons lie beneath white crosses - at home or afar. Its
pre-shooting phase, with all the weavings back and forth, is analyzed in
Professor Beard's volume, already referred to. Its causes are the
subject of Frederick R. Sanborn's Design for War (Devin-Adair, New York,
1951). Its progress is surveyed in William Henry Chamberlin's America's
Second Crusade (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1950). Details cannot be
This much, however, is evident. With
some secret facts now revealed and with the foul picture now nearing
completion, we can no longer wonder at a clean trustful young soldier or
an honorable general being unable to give a satisfactory reason for our
part in promoting and participating in World War II.
As the "unnecessary war" progressed,
we adopted an increasingly horrible policy. Our government's fawning
embrace of the Communist dictator of Russia, and his brutal philosophy
which we called "democratic," was the most "unnecessary" act of our
whole national history, and could have been motivated only by the most
reprehensible political considerations - such, for instance, as holding
the 100 percent Communist support at a price proposed by Mr. Browder.
Among those who learned the truth and remained silent, with terrible
consequences to himself and his country, was James V. Forrestal. In an
article, "The Forrestal Diaries," Life reveals (October 15, 1951) that
in 1944 Forrestal wrote thus to a friend about the "liberals"
I find that whenever any American
suggests that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he
is apt to be called a [profane adjective deleted] fascist or
imperialist, while if Uncle Joe suggests that he needs the Baltic
Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the
Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid and
generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is
so explicit in what he wants.
Among those who saw our madness, and
spoke out, were Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio and Winston Churchill.
Senator Taft's radio address of June
29, 1941, a few days after Hitler invaded Russia, included the following
How can anyone swallow the idea that
Russia is battling for democratic principles? Yet the President on
Monday announced that the character and quantity of the aid to await
only a disclosure of Russian needs. . . To spread the four freedoms
throughout the world we will ship airplanes and tanks and guns to
Communist Russia. But no country was more responsible for the present
war and Germany's aggression than Russia itself. Except for the Russian
pact with Germany there would have been no invasion of Poland. Then
Russia proved to be as much of an aggressor as Germany. In the name of
democracy we are to make a Communist alliance with the most ruthless
dictator in the world. . .
But the victory of Communism in the
world would be far more dangerous to the United States than the victory
of Fascism. There has never been the slightest danger that the people of
this country would ever embrace Bundism or Nazism . . . But Communism
masquerades, often successfully, under the guise of democracy (Human
Events, March 28, 1951).
The Prime Minister of Britain, the
Right Honorable Winston Churchill, was alarmed at President Roosevelt's
silly infatuation for Stalin and the accompanying mania for serving the
interests of world Communism. "It would be a measureless disaster if
Russian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence of the ancient
states of Europe," he wrote on Oct. 21, 1942, to the British Foreign
Secretary, Anthony Eden. Churchill also wanted an invasion of the
Balkans, which Roosevelt and Marshall opposed apparently to please
Stalin (Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New
York, 1946, passim). This is no place and the author assumes no
competence for analyzing the strategy of individual campaigns; but
according to Helen Lombard's While They Fought (Charles Scribner's Sons,
p. 148) General Marshall stated to a Congressional Committee that the
"purpose" of the Italian campaign was to draw "German forces away from
the Russian front," and according to the same source General Mark Clark
when questioned "about American political aims" found himself " obliged
to state that his country was seeking nothing except ground in which to
bury her dead." Such being true, one may wonder why -- except for the
furtherance of Stalin's aims the forces devoted to strategically
unimportant Italy, the winning of which left the Alps between our armies
and Germany, were not landed, for instance, in the Salonika area for the
historic Vardar Valley invasion route which leads without major
obstacles to the heart of Europe and would have helped Stalin defeat
Hitler without giving the Red dictator all of Christian Eastern Europe
as a recompense.
It is widely realized now that
Churchill had to put up with much indignity and had to agree to many
strategically unsound policies to prevent the clique around Roosevelt
from prompting him to injure even more decisively Britain's world
position vis-a-vis with the Soviet Union. Sufficient documentation is
afforded by General Elliott Roosevelt's frank and useful As He Saw It,
referred to above. Determined apparently to present the truth
irrespective of its bearing on reputations, the general (p. 116) quotes
his father's anti-British attitude as expressed at Casablanca: "I will
work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is
not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan . . . that will aid
or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions." This was the day
before Roosevelt's "Unconditional Surrender" proclamation (Saturday,
January 23, 1943). The next day Roosevelt again broached the subject to
his son, telling him the British "must never get the idea that we're in
it just to help them hang on to the archaic, medieval Empire ideas."
This attitude toward Britain, along
with a probably pathological delight in making Churchill squirm,
explains the superficial reason for Roosevelt's siding with the
Stalinites on the choice of a strategically insignificant area for the
Mediterranean front. As implied above, the deeper reason, beyond
question, was that in his frail and fading condition he was a parrot for
the ideas which the clique about him whispered into his ears, with the
same type of flattery that Mr. Untermeyer had used so successfully in
initiating the Jewish boycott. No reason more valid can be found for the
feeble President's interest in weakening the British Empire while
strengthening the Soviet Empire -- either in the gross or in such
specific instances as the Roosevelt and implemented by Eisenhower, was
well summarized in a speech, "It Is Just Common Sense to Ask Why We
Arrived at Our Present Position," by Congressman B. Carroll Reece of
Tennessee in the House of Representatives on March 19, 1951
(Congressional Record, pp. A 1564 to A 1568):
…We could have easily gotten to
Berlin first. But our troops were first halted at the Elbe. They were
then withdrawn from that river in a wide circle -- far enough westward
to make Stalin a present of the great Zeiss optical and precision
instrument works at Jena, the most important V-1 and V-2 rocket
laboratory and production plant in Nordhausen, and the vital underground
jet plant in Kahla. Everywhere we surrendered to the Soviets intact
thousands of German planes, including great masses of jet fighters ready
for assembly, as well as research centers, rocket developments,
scientific personnel, and other military treasures.
When it was all over, a large part of
the formidable Russian militarism of today was clearly marked "Made in
America" or "donated by America from Germany." But where Roosevelt left
off President Truman resumed.
At Potsdam, Truman maintaining intact
Roosevelt's iron curtain of secret diplomacy, played fast and loose with
American honor and security. He agreed to an enlargement of the
boundaries of a Poland already delivered by Roosevelt and Churchill to
Russian control through addition of areas that had for centuries been
occupied by Germans or people of German origin. Some 14,000,000 persons
were brutally expelled from their homes with the confiscation of
virtually all their property. Only 10,000,000 finally reached the
American, French, and British zones of Germany. Four million
mysteriously disappeared, though the finger points toward Russian
atrocities, Thus Truman approved one of the greatest mass deportations
in history, which for sheer cruelty is a dark page in the annals of
At Potsdam, Truman also sanctioned
Russian acquisition of Eastern Germany, the food bin of that nation
before the war. It then became impossible for the remaining German
economy in British, French, and American hands to feed its people.
Germany, like Japan, also went on our bounty rolls.
Like Roosevelt, Truman did not
neglect to build up Russian military strength when his opportunity came
at Potsdam. He provided her with more factories, machines, and military
equipment though at the time he attended Potsdam Truman knew that
through lend-lease we had already dangerously expanded Russia's military
might and that, in addition, we had given the Soviets some 15,000 planes
- many of them our latest type - and 7,000 tanks.
But at Potsdam Truman gave to Russia
the entire zone embracing the Elbe and Oder Rivers. excepting Hamburg,
which lies within the British zone. Naval experts had known from the
early days of World War II that it was along these rivers and their
tributaries that the Germans had set up their submarine production line.
The menace which the Nazi underwater fleet constituted during World War
II is still remembered by residents along the Atlantic coast who saw oil
tankers, merchant ships, and even a troop transport sunk within sight of
our shores. Convoy losses during the early years of the war were
tremendous. And special defensive methods had to be devised by our Navy
to get our supplies across the Atlantic.
But in spite of this, the President
agreed at Potsdam to deliver to Russia the parts [of Germany containing]
plants sufficient for her to fabricate hundreds of submarines. In
addition to this, he agreed to give to Russia 10 of the latest
snorkel-tube long-range German submarines for experimental purposes.
Why did Churchill consent to the
initiation of such a program? Why did he allow Roosevelt to give an
ideologically hostile power a foothold as far West as the Elbe River,
which flows into the North Sea?
Since Churchill was
characteristically no weak-kneed yes-man (witness his "blood and tears"
speech which rallied his people in one of their darkest hours),
Roosevelt and his clique must have confronted him with terrible
alternatives to secure his consent to the unnatural U.S. decisions in
the last months of the war. Wrote George Sokolsky in his syndicated
column of March 22, 1951, "The pressure on him (Churchill) from
Roosevelt, who was appeasing Stalin, must have been enormous. . . But
why was Roosevelt so anxious to appease Stalin? And also at Potsdam why
was Truman so ready to adopt the same vicious policy which, as a former
field grade officer of the army, he must have known to be wrong?
A study of our Presidential
"policies" from 1933, and especially from 1937, on down to Potsdam,
leads to a horrible answer.
To one who knows something of the
facts of the world and knows also the main details of the American
surrender of security and principles at Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam, and
other conferences, three ghastly purposes come into clear focus:
(1) As early as 1937, our
government determined upon war against Germany for no formulated purpose
beyond pleasing the dominant Eastern European element and allied
elements in the National Democratic Party, and holding "those votes," as
Roosevelt II put it (Chapter III, above).
The President's determination to get
into war to gratify his vanity of having a third term of office is
touched on by Jesse H. Jones, former Secretary of Commerce and head of
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, in his book, Fifty Billion
Dollars (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1951). In this comprehensive
and carefully documented volume, which is obligatory background reading
on U.S. politics in the years 1932-1945, Mr. Jones, throws much light on
Roosevelt, the "Total Politician. "On Roosevelt's desire for getting
into World War II, these (p. 260) are Mr. Jones's words: "Regardless of
his oft repeated statement 'I hate war,' he was eager to get into the
fighting since that would insure a third term." The most notorious
instance of the President's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character was his
unblushing promise, as he prepared for intervention, that there would be
no war. The third-term candidate's "again and again and again and again"
speech (Boston, October 30, 1940) is invariably quoted, but even more
inclusive was his broadcast statement of October 26 that no person in a
responsible position in his government had "ever suggested in any shape,
manner, or form the remotest possibility of sending the boys of American
mothers to fight on the battlefields of Europe. " We are thus confronted
by a dilemma. Was Roosevelt the scheming ruiner of his country or was he
a helpless puppet pulled by strings from hands which wielded him beyond
any power of his to resist?
A continuing lack of any policy
beyond the corralling of minority votes blighted the entire world effort
of our devoted and self-sacrificing soldiers, and frustrated the hopes
of those of our lower echelon policy-makers who were trying to salvage
something useful to civilization from our costly world-wide war. Our
diplomatic personnel, military attaches, and other representatives
abroad were confused by what they took to be rudderless drifting. In one
foreign country diametrically opposed statements were issued
simultaneously by heads of different U.S. missions. In Washington, the
Office of War information issued under the same date line completely
conflicting instructions to two sets of its representatives in another
Asiatic country. A United States military attaché with the high rank of
brigadier general made an impassioned plea (in the author's hearing) for
a statement of our purposes in the war; But, asking the bread of
positive strategic policy, he got the stone of continued confusion. Some
of the confusion was due to the fact that officials from the three
principal kinds of Democrats (Chapter III) were actuated by and gave
voice to different purposes; most of it, however, resulted from the
actual lack of any genuine policy except to commit our troops and write
off casualties with the smoke of the President's rhetoric. Yes, we were
fighting a war, not to protect our type of civilization or to repel an
actual or threatened invasion, but for Communist and anti-German votes.
Thus when our ailing President went to Yalta, he is said to have carried
no American demands, to have presented no positive plans to counter the
proposals of Stalin. In his feebleness, with Alger Hiss nearby, he
yielded with scarcely a qualm to the strong and determined Communist
leader. For fuller details see the carefully documented article,
"America Betrayed at Yalta," by Hon. Lawrence H. Smith, U.S.
Representative from Wisconsin (National Republic, July, 1951).
(2) The powerful Eastern
European element dominant in the inner circles of the Democratic Party
regarded with complete equanimity, perhaps even with enthusiasm, the
killing of as many as possible of the world-ruling and Khazar-hated race
of "Aryans" (Chapter II); that is, native stock Americans of English,
Irish, Scotch, Welsh, German, Dutch, Scandinavian, Latin, and Slavic
This non-Aryan power bloc therefore
indorsed "Unconditional Surrender" and produced the Morgenthau Plan (see
below), both of which were certain to stiffen and prolong the German
resistance at the cost of many more American lives, much more desolation
in Germany, and many more German lives -- also "Aryan," The plans of the
prolongers of the war were sustained by those high Democratic
politicians who saw nothing wrong in the spilling of blood in the
interest of votes.
Unfortunately, President Roosevelt
became obsessed with the idea of killing Germans (As He Saw It, pp.
185-186) rather than defeating Hitler, and reportedly set himself
against any support of anti Hitler elements in Germany. Perhaps taking
his cue from his Commander-in-Chief -- a term Roosevelt loved -- General
Mark Clark told American soldiers of the Fifth Army that German
"assaults" were "welcome" since "it gives you additional opportunity to
kill your hated enemy in large numbers."
The general drove the point home. "It
is open season on the Anzio bridgehead," he continued, "and there is no
limit to the number of Germans you can kill" (New York Times, February
Such a sentiment for men about to
make the supreme sacrifice of their lives has -- in the author's opinion
-- an unnatural ring to ears attuned to the teachings of Christianity.
Such a stress on "killing" or "kill" rather than on a "cause" or on
"victory" is definitely at variance with the traditions of Western
Christian civilization. It is also costly in the life blood of America,
for "killing" is a two-edged sword. An enemy who would surrender in the
face of certain defeat will fight on to the end when truculently
promised a "killing" -- and more Americans will die with him.
The underlying philosophy of
"killing" was incidentally hostile to the second largest racial strain
in America. Germans have from the beginning been second only to the
English and Scotch in the make-up of our population.
"In 1775 the Germans constituted
about 10 percent of the white population of the colonies" (The
Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States," p. 233).
The total of Dutch, Irish, French "and all others" was slightly less
than the Germans, the great bulk of the population being, of course, the
English-speaking people from England, Scotland, and Wales.
In the first three quarters of the
nineteenth century "German immigration outdistanced all other
immigration" and as of 1950 "the Germans have contributed over 25
percent of the present white population of the United States.
The English element -- including
Scots, North Irish, and Welsh -- alone exceeds them with about 33
percent of the present white population. The Irish come third with about
15 percent" (op. cit., p. 233).
Thus in his desire for shedding
German blood, apart from military objectives, Roosevelt set himself not
against an enemy government but against the race which next to the
English gave America most of its life-blood. The general merely copied
his "commander-in-chief." Another tragic factor in any announced stress
on "killing" was, of course, that the Germans whom we were to "kill"
rather than merely "defeat" had exactly as much to do with Hitler's
policies as our soldiers in Korea have to do with Acheson's policies.
Why did the thirty-four million
Americans of German blood make no loud protest? The answer is this: in
physical appearance, in culture, and in religion, Protestant or
Catholic, they were so identical with the majority that their
amalgamation had been almost immediate. In 1945 there was a great strain
of German Blood in America, but there was no significant vote-delivering
body of political "German-Americans."
Meanwhile, the ships which took
American soldiers to kill Germans and meet their own death in Europe
brought home "refugees" in numbers running in many estimates well into
seven figures. According to Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge
Long (testimony before House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Nov. 26,
1943), the number of officially admitted aliens fleeing "Hitler's
persecution" had reached 580,000 as early as November 1943. Those
refugees above quotas were admitted on "visitors' visas."
These facts were released by
Congressman Sol Bloom, Democrat of New York, Chairman of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, on December 10 (article by Frederick
Barkley, New York Times, Dec. 11, 1943). On December 11, Congressman
Emanuel Celler, Democrat of New York, complained that Mr. Long was, in
all the State Department, the man "least sympathetic to refugees,' and
added indignantly that United States ships had returned from overseas
ports "void of passengers" (New York Times, December 12, 1943).
Incidentally, in 1944 Mr. Long ceased to be Assistant Secretary of
The influx of refugees continued. So
great was the number of these people that even with the closing of
thousands of American homes by ear casualties, the housing shortage
after the war was phenomenal. For the lack of homes available to
veterans, some writers blamed capital, some blamed labor, and some found
other causes; but none, to the knowledge of the author, counted the
homes which had been preempted by "refugees," while our soldiers were
fighting beyond the seas. By 1951 the situation showed no amelioration,
for on August 20 Senator Pat McCarran, chairman of a Senate
sub-committee on internal security, said that "possibly 5,000,000 aliens
had poured into the country illegally, creating a situation 'potentially
more dangerous' than an armed invasion" (AP dispatch in New York Times,
August 20,1951). This statement should be pondered thoughtfully by every
And there are more aliens to come. On
September 7, 1951, a "five-year program for shifting 1,750,000 of
Europe's 'surplus' population to new homes and opportunities in the
Americas and Australia was disclosed" by David A. Morse, head of the
International Labor Office of the UN (New York Times, Sept. 8, 1951).
Needless to say, few of those
1,750,000 persons are likely to be accepted elsewhere than in the United
States (for data on Mr. Morse, see Economic Council Letter, No. 200,
October 1, 1948, or Who's Who in America, 1950-1951). Congressman Jacob
K. Javits of New York's Twenty-first District, known to some as the
Fourth Reich from the number of its "refugees" from Germany, also wishes
still more immigrants. In an article, "Let Us Open the Gates" (New York
Times Magazine, July 8, 1951), he asked for ten million immigrants in
the next twenty years.
(3) Our alien-dominated
government fought the war for the annihilation of Germany, the historic
bulwark of Christian Europe (Chapter I, above). The final phase of this
strategically unsound purpose sprouted with the cocky phrase
"Unconditional Surrender," already mentioned. It was "thrown out at a
press conference by President Roosevelt at Casablanca on January 24,
1943. . . President Roosevelt went into the press conference in which he
'ad-libbed' the historic phrase" (Raymond Gram Swing in "Unconditional
Surrender," The Atlantic Monthly, September 1947). According to General
Elliott Roosevelt, the President repeated the phrase, "thoughtfully
sucking a tooth" (As He Saw It, p. 117), and added that "Uncle Joe might
have made it up himself."
Our foul purpose of liquidating
Germany flowered with the implementation of the Morgenthau Plan, an
implementation which allowed "widespread looting and violence" by
"displaced persons" and brought Germans to the verge of starvation,
according to Prof. Harold Zink, who served as American Editor of the
Handbook for Military Government, in Germany in 1944 and was
subsequently Consultant on U.S. Reorganization of German Government,
U.S. Troop Control Council for Germany, 1944-1945 (Who's Who in America,
Vol. 25, 1948-1949, p. 2783).
In his book, American Military
Government in Germany (Macmillan, 1947, pp. 106 and 111), Prof. Zink
writes as follows:
The Germans were forced to furnish
food for the displaced persons at the rate of 2,000 calories per day
when they themselves could have only 900-1100 calories. . . The amount
available for German use hardly equaled the food supplied by the Nazis
at such notorious concentration camps as Dachau. . . most of the urban
German population suffered severely from lack of food.
The hunger at Dachau was war-time inhumanity by people who were
themselves desperately hungry because their food stocks and
transportation systems had been largely destroyed by American air
bombardment; but the quotation from Professor Zink refers to peace-time
inhumanity, motivated by vengeance partly in its conception and even
more so in its implementation (see Potsdam Agreement, Part III,
paragraph 156 in Berlin Reparations Assignment, by Ratchford and Ross,
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, p. 206).
Why did inhumanity in Germany go on?
Because "a little dove," according to President Roosevelt, "flew in the
Presidents window and roused him against a "too 'easy' treatment of the
Germans," the "little dove" being "actually Secretary Morgenthau's
personal representative in the ETO" (Zink, op. cit., pp. 131-132)!
Further testimony to the President's
desire for an inhuman treatment of "German people" is found in former
Secretary of State that James F. Byrnes's book, Speaking Frankly (Harper
and Brothers, New York, 1947). The President stated to his Secretary of
State that the Germans "for a long time should have only soup for
breakfast, soup for lunch and soup for dinner" (p. 182).
The fruits of the Morgenthau Plan
were not all harvested at once. The persistence of our mania for
destroying the historic heart of Germany was shown vividly in 1947. With
Prussia already being digested in the maw of the Soviet, the Allied
Control Council in Berlin (March 1) added a gratuitous insult to an
already fatal injury when it "formally abolished" Prussia, the old
homeland of the Knights of the Teutonic Order.
This could have had no other motive
than offending Germans unnecessarily for the applause of certain
elements in New York. It was also a shock to all Christians. Catholic or
Protestant, who have in their hearts the elementary instincts of
Christ-like Mercy (St. Matthew, V. 7), or know in spite of censorship
the great facts of the history of Europe (Chapter I).
Our policy of terrifying the Germans
spiritually, and ruining them economically, is understandable only to
one who holds his eye in focus upon the nature if the High Command of
the National Democratic Party. Vengeance and votes were the sire and dam
of the foul monster of American cruelty to the Germans.
In the accomplishment of our base
purpose there was also a strange pagan self-immolation, for we would not
let the West Germans all the way die and spent approximately a billion
dollars a year (high as our debt was -- and is) to provide for our
captives the subsistence they begged to be allowed to earn for
Our wanton dismantling of German
industrial plants in favor of the Soviet as late as 1950 and our hanging
of Germans as late as 1951 (Chapter V,c), more than six years after the
German surrender, had no other apparent motive than the alienation of
the German people. Moreover, as the years pass, there has been no
abandonment of our policy of keeping in Germany a number of
representatives who, whatever their personal virtues, are personae non
gratae to the Germans (Chapters III and VI).
Our many-facetted policy of
deliberately alienating a potentially friendly people violates a
cardinal principle of diplomacy and strategy and weakens us immensely to
the advantage of Soviet Communism.
The facts and conclusions thus far
outlined in this chapter establish fully the validity of Churchill's
phrase "The Unnecessary War." The war was unnecessary in its origin,
unnecessary cruel in its prolongation, indefensible in the
double-crossing of our ally Britain, criminal in our surrender of our
own strategic security in the world, and all of this the more monstrous
because it was accomplished in foul obeisance before the altar if anti
Christian power in America.
The facts and conclusions outlined in
this chapter raise the inevitable question: "How were such things
The answer is the subject of the
BLACK HOOD OF CENSORSHIP
Over his head, face, and neck the
medieval executioner sometimes wore a loose-fitting hood of raven black.
The grim garment was pierced by two eye-holes through which the wearer,
himself unrecognized, caused terror by glancing among the onlookers
while he proceeded to fulfill his gruesome function. In similar fashion
today, under a black mask of censorship, which hides their identity and
their purpose, the enemies of our civilization are at once creating fear
and undermining our Constitution and our heritage of Christian
civilization. In medieval times the onlookers at least knew what was
going on, but in modern times the people have no such knowledge.
Without the ignorance and wrong
judging generated by this hooded propaganda, an alert public and an
informed Congress would long since have guided the nation to a happier
The black-out of truth in the United
States has been effected (I) by the executive branch of the national
government and (II) by non-government power.
In the mention of government censorship, it is not implied that our
national government suppresses newspapers, imprisons editors, or in
other drastic ways prevents the actual publication of news which has
already been obtained by periodicals. It is to be hoped that such a
lapse into barbarism will never befall us.
Nevertheless, since the mid-thirties,
a form of censorship has been applied at will by many agencies of the
United States government. Nothing is here said against war-time
censorship of information on United States troop movements, military
plans, and related matters. Such concealment is necessary for our
security and for the surprise of the enemy, and is a vital part of the
art of war. Nothing is said here against such censorship as the
government's falsification of the facts about our losses on December 7,
1941, at Pearl Harbor (Pearl Harbor, The Story of the Secret War, by
George Morgenstern, The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1947), though the
falsification was apparently intended to prevent popular hostility
against the administration rather than to deceive an enemy who already
knew the facts.
Unfortunately, however, government
censorship has strayed from the military field to the political. Of the
wide-spread flagrant examples of government blackout of truth before,
during, and after World War II the next five sections (a to e) are
intended as samples rather than as even a slight survey of a field, the
vastness of which is indicated by the following:
Congressman Reed (N.Y., Rep.) last
week gave figures on the number of publicity people employed in all the
agencies of the Government. "According to the last survey made," he
said, "there were 23,000 permanent and 22,000 part-time" (From "Thought
Control," Human Events, March 19, 1952).
Our grossest censorship concealed the Roosevelt administration's
maneuvering our people into World War II. The blackout of Germany's
appeal to settle our differences has been fully enough presented in
Strong evidence of a similar
censorship of an apparent effort of the administration to start a war in
the Pacific is voluminously presented in Frederic R. Sanborn's heavily
documented Design for War (already referred to). Testimony of similar
import has been furnished by the war correspondent, author, and
broadcaster, Frazier Hunt. Addressing the Dallas Women's Club late in
1950, he said, "American propaganda is whitewashing State Department
mistakes . . .the free American mind has been sacrificed. . . We can't
resist because we don't have facts to go on."
For a startling instance of the
terrible fact of censorship in preparing for our surrender to the Soviet
and the part played by Major General Clayton Bissell, A.C. of S., G-2
(the Chief of Army Intelligence), Ambassador to Moscow W. Averell
Harriman, and Mr. Elmer Davis, Director of the Office of War
Information, see Lane, former U.S. Ambassador to Poland (The American
Legion Magazine, February, 1952). There has been no official answer to
Mr. Lane's question:
Who, at the very top levels of the
United States Government, ordered the hiding of all intelligence reports
unfavorable to the Soviets, and the dissemination only of lies and
Professor Harry Elmer Barnes's
pamphlet, "Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War by Popular Demand in 1941?
(Freeman's Journal Press, Cooperstown, New York, 1951, 25c) furnishes an
important observation on the fatal role of government censorship in
undermining the soundness of the public mind and lists so well the
significant matters on which knowledge was denied the people that an
extensive quotation is here used as a summary of this section:
Fundamental to any assumption about
the relation of public opinion to political action is this vital
consideration: It is not only what the people think, but the soundness
of their opinion which is most relevant. The founders of our democracy
assumed that, if public opinion is to be a safe guide for statecraft,
the electorate must be honestly and adequately informed. I do not
believe that any interventionist, with any conscience whatever, would
contend that the American public was candidly or sufficiently informed
as to the real nature and intent of President Roosevelt's foreign policy
from 1937 to Pearl Harbor. Our public opinion, however accurately or
inaccurately measured by the polls, was not founded upon full factual
Among the vital matters not known
until after the War was over were:
(1) Roosevelt's statement to
President Benes in May, 1939, that the United States would enter any war
to defeat Hitler; (2) the secret Roosevelt-Churchill exchanges
from 1939 to 1941; (3) Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France
and Poland to resist Hitler in 1939; (4) the fact that the
Administration lawyers had decided that we were legally and morally in
the War after the Destroyer Deal of September, 1940; (5)
Ambassador Grew's warning in January, 1941, that, if the Japanese should
ever pull a surprise attack on the United States, it would probably be
at Pearl harbor, and that Roosevelt, Stimson, Knox, Marshall and Stark
agreed that Grew was right; (6) the Anglo-American Joint-Staff
Conferences of January-March, 1941; (7) the drafting and approval
of the Washington Master War Plan and the Army-Navy Joint War Plan by
May, 1941; (8) the real facts about the nature and results of the
Newfoundland Conference of August, 1941; (9) the devious
diplomacy of Secretary Hull with Japan; (10) Konoye's vain appeal
for a meeting with Roosevelt to settle the Pacific issues; (11)
Roosevelt's various stratagems to procure an overt act from Germany and
Japan; (12) Stimson's statement about the plan to maneuver Japan
into firing the first shot; (13) the idea that, if Japan crossed
a certain line, we would have to shoot; (14) the real nature and
implications of Hull's ultimatum of November 26, 1941; and (15)
the criminal failure to pass on to Admiral Kimmel and General Short
information about the impending Japanese attack.
If the people are to be polled with
any semblance of a prospect for any intelligent reaction, they must know
what they are voting for. This was conspicuous not the case in the years
before Pearl Harbor.
Almost, if not wholly, as
indefensible as the secret maneuvering toward war, was the wholesale
deception of the American people by suppressing or withholding facts on
the eve of the presidential election of 1944. Three examples are here
First of all, the general public got
no hint of the significance of the pourparlers with the "left," which
led to the naming of the same slate of presidential electors by the
Democratic, American Labor, and Liberal parties in New York - a deal
generally credited with establishing the fateful grip (Executive Order
of December 30, 1944) of Communists on vital power-positions in our
government. Incidentally the demands of the extreme left were
unassailable under the "We need those votes" political philosophy; for
Dewey, Republican, received 2,987,647 votes to 2,478,598 received by
Roosevelt, Democrat -- and Roosevelt carried the state only with the
help of the 496,236 Liberal votes, both of which were cast for the
As another example of catering to
leftist votes, the President arrogantly deceived the public on October
28, 1944, when he "boasted of the amplitude of the ammunition and
equipment which were being sent to American fighting men in battle." The
truth, however, was that our fighting men would have sustained fewer
casualties if they had received some of the supplies which at the time
were being poured into Soviet Russia in quantities far beyond any
current Soviet need. It was none other than Mrs. Anna Rosenberg, "an
indispensable and ineradicable New Deal ideologist, old friend of Mrs.
Roosevelt" who, about a month before the election, "went to Europe and
learned that ammunition was being rationed" to our troops. "It
apparently did not occur to Mrs. Rosenberg to give this information to
the people before election day." After the election and before the end
of the same tragic November, the details were made public, apparently to
stimulate production (all quotes from Westbrook Pegler's column "Fair
Enough," Nov. 27, 1944, Washington Times-Herald and other papers).
A third example of apparent
falsification and deception had to do with President Roosevelt's health
in the summer and autumn of 1944. His obvious physical deterioration was
noted in the foreign press and was reported to proper officials by
liaison officers to the White House (personal knowledge of the author).
Indeed, it was generally believed in 1944, by those in a position to
know, that President Roosevelt never recovered from his illness of
December, 1943, and January, 1944, despite a long effort at
convalescence in the spring weather at the "Hobcaw Barony" estate of his
friend Bernard Baruch on the South Carolina coast. The imminence of the
President's death was regarded as to certain that, after his nomination
to a fourth term, Washington newspaper men passed around the answer
"Wallace" to the spoken question "Who in your opinion will be the next
president?' Former Postmaster General James A. Farley has testified that
Roosevelt "was a dying man" at the time of his departure for Yalta
(America Betrayed at Yalta," by Congressman Lawrence H. Smith, National
Republic, July, 1951). The widespread belief that Roosevelt was
undergoing rapid deterioration was shortly to be given an appearance of
certitude by the facts of physical decay revealed at the time of his
death, which followed his inauguration by less than three months.
Nevertheless, Vice Admiral Ross T.
McIntire, Surgeon-General of the Navy and Roosevelt's personal
physician, was quoted thus in a Life article by Jeanne Perkins (July 21,
1944, p. 4) during the campaign: "The President's health is excellent. I
can say that unqualifiedly."
In World War II, censorship and falsification of one kind or another
were accomplished not only in high government offices but in lower
echelons as well. Several instances, of which three are here given, were
personally encountered by the author.
(1) Perhaps the most glaring
was the omission, in a War Department report (prepared by tow officers
of Eastern European background), of facts uncomplimentary to Communism
in vital testimony on UNRRA given by two patriotic Polish-speaking
congressmen (both Northern Democrats) returning from an official mission
to Poland for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. An investigation was
initiated but before it could be completed both officers had been
separated from the service.
(2) News was slanted as much
as by a fifty-to-one pro-Leftist ratio in a War Department digest of
U.S. newspaper opinion intended, presumably, to influence thought
including the thought of U.S. soldiers. For example, the leftist PM
(circulation 137,000) in one issue (Bureau of Publications Digest, March
14, 1946) was represented by 616 columnar inches of quoted matter in
comparison with 35 1/2 columnar inches from the non-leftist N.Y.
World-Telegram (circulation 389,257). There was also a marked regional
slant. Thus in the issue under consideration 98.7 percent of the total
space was given to the Northeastern portion of the United States, plus
Missouri, while only 1.3 percent was given to the rest of the country,
including South Atlantic States. Gulf States, Southwestern States,
Prairie States, Rocky Mountain States, and Pacific Coast States.
(3) Late in 1945 the former
Secretary of War, Major General Patrick D. Hurley, resigned as
Ambassador to China to tell the American government and the American
people about Soviet Russia's ability to "exert a potent and frequently
decisive influence in American politics and in the American government,
including the Department of Justice" (for details, see Chapter VI, a).
General Hurley was expected to reveal "sensational disclosures" about
certain members of the State Department's Far Eastern staff in
particular (quoted passages are from the Washington Times-Herald,
December 3, 1945); but he was belittled by high government agencies
including the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate,
and large sections of the press connived to smother his message. A
scheduled Military Intelligence Service interview arranged with General
Hurley by the author was canceled by higher authority. Be it said for
the record, however, that the colonels and brigadier generals
immediately superior to the author in Military Intelligence were eager
seekers for the whole intelligence picture and at no transmit the order
just referred to.
Incidentally the brush-off of General
Hurley suggests that the leftist palace guard which was inherited from
the Roosevelt administration had acquired in eight months a firmer grip
on Mr. Truman that it ever had on the deceased president until he
entered his last months of mental twilight. Roosevelt's confidence in
Hurley is several times attested by General Elliott Roosevelt in As He
Saw It. In Tehran the morning after the banquet at the Russian Embassy
the President said: I want you to do something for me, Elliott. Go find
Pat Hurley, and tell him to get to work drawing up a draft memorandum
guaranteeing Iran's independence. . . I wish I had more men like Pat, on
whom I could depend. The men in the state Department, those career
diplomats . . .half the time I can't tell whether I should believe them
or not (pp. 192-193).
At the second Cairo Conference the
President told his son:
That Pat Hurley. . . He did a good
job. If anybody can straighten out the mess of internal Chinese
politics, he's the man. . . Men like Pat Hurley are invaluable. Why?
Because they're loyal. I can give him assignments that I'd never give a
man in the State Department because I can depend on him. . . Any number
of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages
to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those
career diplomats aren't in accord with what they know I think (pp.
The above passages not only throw
light on the enormity of the offense against America of preventing the
testimony of General Hurley, but give on the Department of State a
testimony that cannot be regarded as other than expert.
With the passing of the years,
government censorship has become so much more intensive that it was a
principal topic of the American Society of Newspaper Editors at its
meeting (April 21, 1951) in Washington. Here is an excerpt (The Evening
Star, Washington, April 21, 1951) from the report of the Committee on
Freedom of Information: Most Federal offices are showing exceptional
zeal in creating rules, regulations, directives, classifications and
policies which serve to hide, color or channel news. . .
We editors have been assuming that no
one would dispute this premise: That when the people rule, they have a
right to know all their Government does. This committee finds appalling
evidence that the guiding credo in Washington is becoming just the
opposite: That it is dangerous and unwise to let information about
Government leak out in any unprocessed form.
In spite of this protest, President
Truman on September 25, 1951, extended government censorship drastically
by vesting in other government agencies the authority and obligation to
classify information as "Top Secret," "Secret," and "Confidential" a
right and a responsibility previously enjoyed only, or principally, by
the departments of State and Defense. Again the American Society of
Newspaper Editors made a protest (AP, September 25, 1951). The President
assured the public that no actual censorship would be the outcome of his
executive order. To anyone familiar with the use of "Secret" and
"Confidential" not for security but for "playing safe" with a long or
not fully understood document, or for suppressing information, the new
order cannot, however, appear as other than a possible beginning of
drastic government-wide censorship.
The day after the President's
executive order, "Some 250 members of the Associated Press Managing
Editors Association" voiced their fears and their determination to fight
against the "tightening down of news barriers" (AP, Sept. 1, 1951). Kent
Cooper, executive director of the Associated Press, and a well-known
champion of the freedom of the press, said: "I'm really alarmed by what
is being done to cover up mistakes in public office"
The reaction, after the censorship
order was several weeks old, was thus summarized by U.S. News and World.
Report (October 19,1951):
Newspaper men and others deeply fear
that this authority may be broadened in application, used to cover up
administrative blunders and errors of policy, to conceal scandals now
coming to light, or to hide any information unfavorable to the
administration, especially as the presidential campaign draws near.
It is to be hoped that the newspapers
of the country will keep the issue alive in the minds of the American
people. (It is to be hoped also that they will take concerted action to
deal with censorship imposed by some of their advertisers. See pp.
During World War II, the Congress of the United States was the victim of
censorship to almost as great a degree as the general public. By virtue
of his official position, the author was sent by his superiors to brief
members of the Congress about to go abroad, and he also interviewed them
on their return from strategic areas. He found them, including some
Northern Democrats, restive at the darkness of censorship and indignant
at the extension of UNRRA without any full knowledge of its
significance. With regard to secret data, the Congress was really in an
awkward position. Because several Senators and Representatives,
including members of the most sensitive committees, were indiscreet
talkers and because of the possibility that some, like the Canadian
Members of Parliament, Fred Rose (Rosenberg), might be subversive, the
Congress could make no demands for full details on secret matters. The
alternative was the twilight in which patriotic Senators and
Representatives had to work and vote.
Alarmed by the threat of Communism,
however, the Congress has made investigations and published a number of
pamphlets and books (Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing
Office, Washington 25, D.C.) intended to acquaint the American people
with the danger to this country from Communists in general as well as
from those imbedded in the departments and agencies of the government.
It is suggested that you write to your own Congressman or to one of your
Senators for an up-to-date list of these publications. One of a series
of ten-cent books (see below in this chapter) is actually entitled "100
Things You Should Know About Communism and Government." How pathetic and
how appalling that a patriotic Congress, denied precise facts even as
the people are denied them, has to resort to such a means to stir the
public into a demand for the cleanup of the executive branch of our
Censorship, however, has by no means
been a monopoly of the administration. Before, during, and since World
War II, amid ever-increasing shouts about the freedom of the press, one
of the tightest censorships in history has been applied by
non-government power to the opinion-controlling media of the United
States. A few examples follow under (a) newspapers, (b) motion pictures,
and (c) books. These examples are merely samples and in no case are to
be considered a coverage of the field. The subject of the chapter is
concluded by observations on three other subjects (d, e, f) pertinent to
the question of censorship.
Newspaper censorship of news is
applied to some extent in the selection, rejection, and condensation of
factual AP, UP, INS, and other dispatches. Such practices cannot be
given blanket condemnation, for most newspapers receive from the
agencies far more copy than they can publish; a choice is inevitably
hurried; and selection on the basis of personal and institutional
preferences is legitimate -- provided there is no blackout of important
news. The occasional use of condensation to obscure the point of a news
story is, however, to be vigorously condemned.
Still worse is a deliberate news
slanting, which is accomplished by the " editing" - somewhere between
fact and print - of such dispatches as are printed. During World War II
the author at one time had under his supervision seven War Department
teletype machines and was astounded to learn that dispatches of the news
agencies were sometimes re-worded to conform to the policy or the
presumed policy of a newspaper, or to the presumed attitude of readers
or advertisers, or possibly to the prejudices of the individual
journalist who did the re-wording! Thus, when Field Marshall von
Mackensen died, a teletype dispatch described him as the son of a
"tenant farmer." This expression, presumably contrary to the accepted
New York doctrine that Germany was undemocratic, became in one great New
York morning paper "son of a minor landholder" and in another it became
"son of a wealthy estate agent." It is not here implied that the
principal owners of these papers knew of this or similar instances. The
changed dispatches, however, show the power of the unofficial censor
even when his infiltration is into minor positions.
The matter of securing a
substantially different meaning by changing a word or a phrase was, so
far as the author knows, first brought to the attention of the general
public late in 1951 when a zealous propagandist substituted "world" for
"nation" in Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address! The revamping of Lincoln's
great words "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of
freedom" would have made him a "one worlder," except for the fact that
some Americans knew the Gettysburg Address by heart! Their protests not
only revealed the deception in this particular instance, but brought
into daylight a new form of falsification that is very hard to detect -
except, of course, when the falsifiers tamper with something as well
known as the Gettysburg Address!
Occasionally during World War II the
abuse of rewriting dispatches was habitual. One foreign correspondent
told the author that the correspondent's paper, a "liberal" sheet which
was a darling of our government, virtually threw away his dispatches,
and wrote what they wished and signed his name to it. Be it said to this
man's credit that he resigned in protest.
Sometimes the censorship is effected
not by those who handle news items, but by the writer. Thus the known or
presumed attitude of his paper or its clientele may lead a correspondent
to send dispatches designed, irrespective of truth, to please the
recipients. This practice, with especial emphasis on dispatches from
West Germany, was more than once noted by the newsletter, Human Events
(1710 Rhode Island Avenue, N W., Washington 6, D.C.) during the year
1950. See the issue of December 20, 1950, which contains an analysis of
the dim-out in the United States on the German reaction to the naming of
General Eisenhower, the first implementer of the Morgenthau Plan, as
Supreme Commander of our new venture in Europe.
In the early summer of 1951, the
American public was treated to a nation-wide example of the form of
distortion or falsification in certain sections of the press and by
certain radio commentators. This was the presentation as fact of the
individual columnist's or commentator's thesis that General MacArthur
wanted war, or wanted World War III, or something of the sort -- a
thesis based on the General's request for the use of Nationalist Chinese
troops as allies and for the removal of the blindfold which prevented
his even reconnoitering, much less bombing, the trans-Yalu forces of the
enemy armies, vastly more numerous than his own (see Chapter VI, d,
Below), who were killing his men. The presentation of such a thesis is a
writer's privilege, which should not be denied him, but it should be
labeled as a viewpoint and not as a fact.
One powerful means of effecting
censorship in the United States was mentioned as early as 1938 by
William Allen White, nationally known owner and editor of the Emporia
(Kansas) Gazette, in a speech at the University of Pennsylvania. These
are his words: The new menace to the freedom of the press, a menace to
this country vastly more acute than the menace from government, may come
through the pressure not of one group of advertisers, but a wide sector
of advertisers. Newspaper advertising is now placed somewhat, if not
largely, through nationwide advertising agencies . . . As advisers the
advertising agencies may exercise unbelievably powerful pressure upon
newspapers. . . (Quoted from Beaty's Image of Life, Thomas Nelson and
Sons, New York, 1940).
Details of the pressure of
advertisers on newspaper publishers rarely reach the public. An
exception came in January, 1946, when the local advertising manager of
the Washington Times-Herald wrote in his paper as follows: "Under the
guise of speaking of his State Department career in combination with a
preview of FM and Television Broadcasting, Mr. Ira A. Hirschmann today,
at a meeting of the Advertising Club of Washington at the Statler Hotel,
asked the Jewish merchants to completely boycott the Times-Herald and
the New York Daily News." It is interesting to note that Mrs. Eleanor M.
Patterson, the owner of the Times-Herald, published the following
statement "I have only this comment to make: This attack actually has
nothing to do with racial or religious matters. It is merely a small
part of a planned, deliberate Communist attempt to divide and destroy
the United States of America." She refused to yield to pressure, and
before long those who had withdrawn their advertisements asked that the
contracts be renewed. The outcome prompts the question: May the
advertiser not need the periodical more than the periodical needs the
Propaganda attitudes and activities
in the United States motion picture output cannot be adequately
discussed here. The field is vast and the product, the film, cannot,
like the files of newspapers or shelves of books, be consulted readily
at an investigator's convenience. Some idea of the power of organized
unofficial censorship may be gained, however, from the vicissitudes of
one film which has engaged the public interest because it is based on a
long-recognized classic by the most popular novelist of the
As originally produced, the J. Arthur
Rank motion picture, Oliver Twist, was said to be faithful to the text
of the Dickens novel of that name. The picture was shown in Britain
without recorded disorder, but when it reached Berlin, "the Jews and
police fought with clubs, rocks and fire-hoses around the Karbel theater
in Berlin's British sector." The door of the theater was "smashed by
Jewish demonstrators who five times broke through police cordon
established around playhouse." These things happened although "not once
in the picture. . . was Fagin called a Jew," Needless to say, the Jews
prevailed over the Berlin police and the British authorities, and the
exhibitors ceased showing the film (all quotes from the article, "Fagin
in Berlin Provokes a Riot." Life, March 7, 1949, pp. 38-39).
The barring of Mr. Rank's Oliver
Twist from its announced appearance (1949) in the United States is
explained thus by Arnold Forster in his book, A Measure of Freedom
(Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1950, p. 10) : American movie distributors
refused to become involved in the distribution and exhibition of the
motion picture after the Anti-Defamation League and others expressed the
fear that the film was harmful. The Rank Organization withdrew the
picture in the United States.
Finally it was announced in the
spring of 1951 that the British film "after seventy-two eliminations"
and with a prologue by Dr. Everett R. Clinchy of the National Conference
of Christians and Jews might be "accepted as a filming of Dickens
without anti-semitic intentions" (Dallas Morning News). But is there any
Charles Dickens left anywhere around?
On the question of Communism in
Hollywood, there is available in pamphlet form a remarkably informative
broadcast of a dialogue (Facts Forum Radio Program, WFAA, Dallas,
January 11, 1952) between Mr. Dan Smoot of Dallas and the motion picture
star, Adolphe Menjou. Replying dramatically to a series of questions
climatically arranged, Mr, Menjou begins with Lenin's "We must capture
the cinema," shows Americans their "incredible ignorance" of Communism,
lists Congressional committees which issue helpful documents, and
recommends a boycott of "motion pictures which are written by
Communists, produced by Communists, or acted in by Communists," - the
term Communists including those who support the Communist cause. For a
free copy of this valuable broadcast, write to Facts Forum, 718
Mercantile Bank building, Dallas, Texas. See also Red Treason in
Hollywood by Myron C. Fagan (Cinema Educational Guild, P. O. Box 8655,
Cole Branch, Hollywood 46, California), and do not miss "Did the Movies
Really Clean House?" in the December, 1951, American Legion Magazine.
Censorship in the field of books is
even more significant than in periodicals, motion pictures, and radio
(not here considered), and a somewhat more extended discussion is
With reference to new books, a
feature article, "Why You Buy Books That Sell Communism," by Irene
Corbally Kuhn in the American Legion Magazine for January, 1951, shows
how writers on the staffs of two widely circulated New York book review
supplements are influential in controlling America's book business. To
school principals, teachers, librarians, women's clubs -- indeed to
parents and all other Americans interested in children, who will be the
next generation -- this article is necessary reading. It should be
ordered and studied in full and will accordingly not be analyzed here
(American Legion Magazine, 580 Fifth Avenue, New York 18, New York 10
cents per copy; see also "The Professors and the press" in the July,
1951, number of this magazine). Important also is "A Slanted Guide to
Library Selections," by Oliver Carlson, in The Freeman for January 14,
Dealing in more detail with books in
one specific field, the China theater, where our wrong policies have
cost so many young American lives, is an article entitled "The
Gravediggers of America, Part I," "The Book Reviewers Sell Out China,"
by Ralph de Toledano (The American Mercury, July, 1951, pp. 72-78. See
also Part II in the August number). Mr. de Toledano explains that
America's China policy -- whether by coincidence or as "part of a
sharply conceived and shrewdly carried out plan" -- has led to the fact
that "China is Russia's" Mr. de Toledano then turns his attention to the
State Department: Meanwhile the real lobby - the four-plus propagandists
of a pro-Communist line in Asia - prospered. Its stooges were able to
seize such a stranglehold on the State Department's Far Eastern division
that to this day, as we slug it out with the Chinese Reds, they are
still unbudgeable. Working devotedly at their side has been a
book-writing and book-reviewing cabal.
With regard to books, book reviewers,
and book-reviewing periodicals, Mr. de Toledano gives very precise
figures. He also explains the great leftist game in which one
pro-Communist writer praises the work of another -- and old practice
exposed by the author of The Iron Curtain Over America in the chapter,
"Censorship, Gangs, and the tyranny of Minorities" in his book Image of
Life (pp. 146-147) : Praise follows friendship rather than merit. Let a
novelist, for instance, bring out a new book. The critic, the
playwright, the reviewers, and the rest in his gang hail it as the book
of the year. Likewise all will hail the new play by the playwright --
and so on, all the way around the circle of membership. Provincial
reviewers will be likely to fall in step. The result is that a gang
member will sometimes receive national acclaim for a work which deserves
oblivion, whereas a nonmember may fail to receive notice for a truly
excellent work. Such gangs prevent wholly honest criticism and are bad
at best, but they are a positive menace when their expressions of mutual
admiration are poured forth on obscene and subversive books.
For still more on the part played by
certain book-reviewing periodicals in foisting upon the American public
a ruinous program in China, see "A Guidebook to 10 Years of Secrecy in
Our China Policy," a speech by Senator Owen Brewster of Maine (June 5,
1951). The tables on pp. 12 and 13 of Senator Brewster's reprinted speeh
are of especial value.
The unofficial arbiters and censors
of books have not, however, confined themselves to contemporary texts
but have taken drastic steps against classics. Successful campaigns
early in the current century against such works as Shakespeare's play,
The Merchant of Venice, are doubtless known to many older readers of The
Iron Curtain Over America. The case of Shakespeare was summed up
effectively by George Lyman Kittredge (The Merchant of Venice, by
William Shakespeare, edited by George Lyman Kittredge, Ginn and Company,
Boston, 1945, pp. ix-x), long a professor of English in Harvard
University: One thing is clear, however: The Merchant of Venice is no
anti-Semitic document; Shakespeare was not attacking the Jewish people
when he gave Shylock the villain's role. If so, he was attacking the
Moors in Titus Andronicus, the Spaniards in Much Ado, the Italians in
Cymbeline, the Viennese in Measure for Measure, the Danes in Hamlet, the
Britons in King Lear, the Scots in Macbeth, and the English in Richard
Much more significant than attacks on
individual masterpieces, however, was a subtle but determined campaign
begun a generation ago to discredit our older literature under charges
of Jingoism and didacticism (Image of Life, Chapter III). For
documentary indication of a nation-wide minority boycott of books as
early as 1933, write to the American Renaissance Book Club (P. O. Box
1316, Chicago 90, Illinois).
Still it was not until World War II
that the manipulators of the National Democratic Party hit on a really
effective way of destroying a large portion of our literary heritage and
its high values of morality and patriotism. Since most classics have a
steady rather than a rapid sale and are not subject to quick reprints
even in normal times, and since many potential readers of these books
were not in college but in the armed forces, few editions of such works
were reprinted during the war. At this juncture the government ordered
plates to be destroyed on all books not reprinted within four years. The
edict was almost a death blow to our culture, for as old books in
libraries wear out very few of them can be reprinted at modern costs for
printing and binding. Thus, since 1946 the teacher of advanced college
English courses has had to choose texts not, as in 1940, from those
classics which he prefers but from such classics as are available. The
iniquitous practice of destroying plates was reasserted by "Directive
M-65, dated May 31, 1951, of the National Production Authority," which
provides that "plates which have not been used for more than four years
or are otherwise deemed to be obsolete" must be delivered "to a scrap
metal dealer" (letter to the author from Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,
June 15, 1951). In this connection, Upton Close wrote (Radio Script,
August 12, 1951) that he "was a writer on the Orient who stood in the
way of the Lattimore-Hiss gang and Marshall's giving of China to the
Communists," and that such an order "wiped out" all his books on China
and Japan. Mr. Close continued as follows: The order to melt bookplates
on the pretense that copper is needed for war is the smartest way to
suppress books ever invented. It is much more clever than Hitler's
burning of books. The public never sees the melting of plates in private
foundries. All the metal from all the bookplates in America would not
fight one minor engagement. But people do not know that. They do not
even know that bookplates have been ordered melted down!
Censorship is applied even to those
classics which are reprinted.
Let us look at only one author who
lived long ago, Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1340-1400). In both of the two
fluent and agreeable verse translations at hand as this is written, the
fact that the Knight belonged to the Teutonic Order (Chapter I) is
eliminated in the wording. Perhaps this is excusable, for the translator
into verse faces many difficulties. Of different import, however, are
the omissions in two other editions. The Haeritage Press edition of the
Canterbury Tales omits with no explanation the "Tale of the Prioress,"
the one in which Chaucer, more than 550 years ago, happened to paint --
along with the several Gentile poisoners and other murderers of his
stories - one unflattering portrait, a version of the popular ballad
"Sir Hugh and the Jew's Daughter," of one member of the Jewish race, and
that one presumably fictitious! Professor Lumiansky's edition (Simon and
Schuster, 1941, preface by Mark Van Doren) of the Canterbury Tales
likewise omits the Prioress's tale, and tells why: "Though anti-Semitism
was a somewhat different thing in the fourteenth century from what it is
today, the present-day reader has modern reactions in literature no
matter when it was written. From this point of view the Prioress's story
of the little choir-boy who is murdered by the Jews possesses an
unpleasantness which over shadows its other qualities" (op.cit., p.
No criticism of the translators,
editors, and publishers is here implied. They may have merely bent to
pressure as so many other publishers and so many other publishers and so
many periodicals have done -- to the author's certain knowledge. One
cannot, however, escape the question as to what would happen to American
and English literature if persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German,
Italian or other decent, took the same attitude toward "defamation" of
persons of their "races," including those who lived more than 500 years
ago! There would be no motion pictures or plays, and except for
technical treatises there would be no more books.
One of the most horrible results of
the types of censorship illustrated above is the production, by writers
without honor, of works which will "pass" the unofficial censor. The
result is a vast output of plays, non-fiction prose, and especially
novels, worthless at best and degraded and subversive at the worst,
which will not be reviewed here.
Time and space must be given,
however, to the blackout of truth in history. Fortunately the way has
been illuminated by Professor Harry Elmer Barnes in his pamphlet The
Struggle Against the Historical Blackout (Freeman's Journal Press,
Cooperstown, N.Y. 1951, 50 cents). Professor Barnes defines the
historical craft's term "revisionism" as the "readjustment of historical
writing to historical facts relative to the background and causes of the
First World War" and later equates the term "revisionism" with "truth."
After mentioning some of the
propaganda lies of World War I and the decade thereafter and citing
authorities for the fact that "the actual causes and merits of this
conflict were very close to the reverse of the picture presented in the
political propaganda and historical writings of the war decade,"
Professor Barnes states - again with authorities and examples - that by
1928 "everyone except the die-hards and bitter-enders in the historical
profession had come to accept revisionism, and even the general public
had begun to think straight in the premises."
Unfortunately, however, before the
historical profession had got to be as true to history as it was prior
to 1914, World War II was ushered in and propaganda again largely
superseded truth in the writing of history. Here are several of
Professor Barnes's conclusion: If the world policy of today 
cannot be divorced from the mythology of the 1940's a third World War is
inevitable. . .
History has been the chief
intellectual casualty of the second World War and the cold war which
followed. . .many professional historians gladly falsify history quite
voluntarily. . .
Why? To get a publisher, and to get
favorable reviews for their books? The alternative is either oblivion or
the vicious attack of a "smearbund," as Professor Barnes puts it, if
unofficial censors "operating through newspaper editors and columnists,
'hatchet-men book reviewers, radio commentators, pressure group intrigue
and espionage, and academic pressures and fears." The "powerful vested
political interest" is strong enough to smother books by a truthful
writer. "Powerful pressure groups have also found the mythology helpful
in diverting attention from their own role in national and world
Professor Barnes is not hopeful of
the future: Leading members of two of the largest publishing houses in
the country have frankly told me that, whatever their personal wishes in
the circumstances, they would not feel it ethical to endanger their
business and the property rights of their stockholders by publishing
critical books relative to American foreign policy since 1933. And there
is good reason for their hesitancy. The book clubs and the main sales
outlets for books are controlled by powerful pressure groups which are
opposed to truth on such matters. These outlets not only refuse to
market critical books in this field but also threaten blackout
Bruce Barton (San Antonio Light,
April 1, 1951) expresses the same opinions in condensed form and
dramatic style. and adds dome of the results of the "historical
blackout": We have turned our backs on history; we have violated the
Biblical injunction, "remove not the ancient landmarks"; we have lost
our North Star. We have deliberately changed the meaning of words. . .
More and more bureaucracy, tighter and tighter controls over Freedom and
Democracy. Lying to the people becomes conditioning the public mind.
Killing people is peace. To be for America First is to be an undesirable
citizen and a social outcast. . . Crises abroad that any student of
history would normally anticipate, hit the State Department and the
Pentagon as a complete surprise.
Thus the study of falsified history
takes its toll even among fellow-workers of the falsifiers.
The propagation of Marxism and other
alien ideas is accomplished not only by persons in those businesses
which control public opinion but also by the actual infiltration of
aliens, or their captives among Americans of old stock, into the
periodical selecting and book-selecting staffs of a wide variety of
institutions. The penetration is especially notable in the
book-selecting personnel of bookstores, libraries, schools, and
The National Council for American
Education (1 Maiden Lane, New York 38, N.Y.) is effectively showing the
grip which persons tolerant of Communism and hostile to the American
government have upon U.S. universities, and is also exposing
Communist-inclined textbooks used in schools and colleges. Needless to
say, such great facts of history as those outlined in Chapters I and II,
above, have not been found in school history texts examined by the
The menace is recognized by our own
United States Congress, which offers a pertinent booklet entitled "100
Things You Should Know About Communism and Education" (Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 10 cents). The
question of Communist workers in the ranks of American clergy is not to
be taken up here. Suffice it to say that many well-meaning but gullible
members of the clergy have been lured into various "American" and
"National" and other well sounding conferences, councils, and
committees, many (but not all) of which are subversive.
In this connection, persons favorable
to Western Christian civilization should be warned about carelessly
joining an organization, even though it has an innocent-sounding or
actually a seemingly praiseworthy name. The following organizations by
their names suggest nothing subversive, yet each of them is listed by
the Senate of the United States ("Hearings before the Subcommittee in
Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, United
States Senate," 81st Congress, Part 3, pp. A8 and A9) as being not
merely subversive but Communist:
Abraham Lincoln School, Chicago, Ill.
American League Against War and
American Committee for Protection of
American Peace Mobilization
American Russian Institute (of San
American Slav Congress
American Youth for Democracy
Civil Rights Congress and its
Congress of American Women
Council for Pan-American Democracy
Jefferson School of Social Science,
New Youk City
Jewish Peoples Committee
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee
League of American Writers
Nature Friends of America (since
Ohio School of Social Sciences
People's Educational Association
Philadelphia School of Social Science
Photo League (New York City)
Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln
Walt Whitman School of Social
Science, Newark. N.J.
Washington Bookshop Association
Wisconsin Conference on Social
Each of the above-named organizations is also listed, along with many
others, in the valuable book, Guide to Subversive Organizations and
Publications (May 14, 1951), issued by the House Committee on
Un-American Activities (82nd Congress). As one example of the menace
that may lurk behind an innocent name, read the Committee's "Report on
the Congress of American Women" (October 23, 1949, Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C.).
The patriotic American should not be
deceived by the fact that there is on pressure-group censorship on the
open expression of pro-Communist views (witness the continued
publication of the official Communist Party organ, The Daily Worker, New
York) or on gross indecency, pseudo-Freudian or other (witness some
titles on your drugstore rack of 25-cent books). The obvious lack of
censorship in these fields merely helps conceal it else-where. "Corrupt
and conquer" is an ancient adage. Thus, according to the columnist,
Constantine Brown (The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., December 27,
1948), "The Kremlin men rely on subversion and immorality. The only
reason they have not plunged the world into another blood bath is that
they hope moral disintegration will soon spread over the western world."
The Kremlin masters are right. Men
cannot live by bread, by science, by education, or by economic might. As
Washington knew, when he was found on his knees in prayer at Valley
Forge, they can live only by a body of ideals and a faith in which they
believe. These things our unofficial censors would deny us.
To all "censorships," governmental
and other, there is an obvious corollary. As long as information
received by the public -- including those who poll public opinion -- is,
in vital aspects, incomplete and is often distorted for propaganda
purposes, the most well-intentioned polls intended to reflect public
opinion on foreign affairs or domestic affairs are to be relied on only
with extreme caution.
The perhaps unavoidable "leading
question" tendency in certain types of opinion polls has rarely been
illustrated better than in an article "What the GOP Needs to Win in
1952" by George Gallup in the September 25, 1951, issue of Look.
Legitimately laying aside for the purposes of the article the commonly
mentioned Republican presidential possibilities, Eisenhower, Dewey,
Taft, Stassen, and Warren, "the American Institute of Public Opinion. .
. chose nine Americans who might be dark horses in the GOP race."
The poll people have, of course, a
perfect right to choose such questions as they wish and to select names
of individuals about whom to ask questions. The nine chosen in the poll
under discussion were Paul G. Hoffman, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Charles
E. Wilson (of General Electric), James Bryant Conant, Robert Patterson,
James H. Duff, Margaret Chase Smith, Alfred E. Driscoll, and John J.
Five of these are or have been
functionaries under the New Deal and scarcely one of them is a
Republican in the historical sense of the term. More-over, in dealing
with the possibility of appealing to independent voters, why was no
mention made of Senators Mundt, Brewster, Bridges, Martin, Bricker,
Jenner, Capehart, Dirksen, Ecton, Millikin, Nixon, and Knowland, all of
whom have drawn praise outside the Republican party?
As to "independent" voters of leftist
leanings, they may storm into precinct conventions or vote in Republican
primaries to force the choice of a candidate to their liking, but how
many will vote for the Republican nominee, and, especially, how many
will vote for non-leftist candidates for the Senate and the House in the
Several of the instances of
censorship mentioned in this Chapter call attention to the deplorable
fact that many persons in the United States who have fought Communism
aggressively with facts have been branded as anti-Semitic. Under this
form of censorship, it is permissible to rail vaguely against Communism
in the abstract, particularly if unnamed Communists are denounced along
with "Fascists," "Nazis," and "America Firsters"; But a speaker who
calls by name the foreign-born organizers of Communistic atomic
espionage in Canada 1946), or mentions the common alien background of
the first group of Americans convicted of atomic espionage (1950, 1951)
is, in the experience of the author, subject to a vicious heckling from
the floor and to other forms of attempted intimidation on the charge of
anti-Semitism. For information on Communist tactics, every American
should read "Menace of Communism," a statement of J. Edgar Hoover,
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, before the Committee on
Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, March 26, 1947.
Mr. Hoover said in part: Anyone who opposes the American Communist is at
once branded as a "disrupter," a "Fascist," a "Red baiter," or a "Hitlerite,"
and becomes the object of a systematic campaign of character
assassination. This is easily understood because the basic tactics of
the Communist Party are deceit and trickery.
See also, "Our New Privileged Class,"
by Eugene Lyons (The American Legion Magazine, September, 1951).
The label of anti-Semitic is tossed
not only at those who mention Jewish Communists by name; it is tossed
also at the opponent of American involvement in the program of political
Zionism and an opponent of the Morgenthau plan, see Arnold Forster's A
Message of Freedom (pp. 62 to 86). In this connection, it is interesting
to recall that in the 1940 campaign the third term presidential
candidate made much sport of "Martin, Barton, and Fish." At a conference
of Democrats at Denver, Colorado, launching the 1952 campaign, Secretary
of Agriculture Brannan recalled the success of the phrase and suggested
for a similar smear in1952 the "off-key quartet" of "Taft and Martin,
McCarthy and Cain." Would an opposing candidate dare crack back with
humorous jibes at "Frankfurter, Morgenthau, and Lehman?" Your answer
will reveal to you something you should know as to who wields power in
the United State.
A zealous approach to securing the
co-operation of Gentiles is shown in an article, "Glamorous Purim
Formula: Exterminate Anti-Semitic Termites.," by Rabbi Leon Spitz (The
American Hebrew, 1, 1946): " American Jews . . . must come to grips with
our contemporary anti-Semites. We must fill our jails with anti-Semitic
gangsters. We must fill our insane asylums with anti-Semitic lunatics. .
The Khazar Jew's frequent equating of
anti-Communism with so-called "anti-Semitism" is unfortunate in many
ways. In the first place, it is most unfair to loyal American Jews.
Charges of "anti-Semitism" are absurd, moreover, because the Khazar Jew
is himself not a Semite (Chapter II, above) The blood of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob flows not at all (or to a sporadic degree, as from
immigrant merchants, fugitives, etc.) in the veins of the Jews who have
come to America from Eastern Europe. On the contrary, the blood of Old
Testament people does flow in the veins of Palestine Arabs and others
who live along the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. Palestinians,
true descendants of Old Testament people, are refugees today from the
barbarity of non Semitic Khazars, who are the rapers - not the
inheritors - of the Holy Land!
Charges of "anti-Semitism" are
usually made by persons of Khazar stock, but sometimes they are parroted
by shallow people, or people who bend to pressure in Protestant
churches, in educational institutions, and elsewhere. Seeking the bubble
reputation in the form of publicity, or lured by thirty pieces of
silver, many "big-time" preachers have shifted the focus of their
"thinking" from the "everlasting life" of St. John III, 16, to the "no
man spake openly of him" of St. John VII, 13.
In their effort to avoid giving
offense to non-Christians, or for other reasons, many preachers have
also placed their own brand of "social-mindedness over individual
character," their own conception of "human welfare over human
excellence," and, in summary, "pale sociology over Almighty God" (quotes
from "This morning" by John Temple Graves, Charleston S.C., News and
Courier, February 10, 1951).
Similar forces inimical to Western
Christian civilization are at work in England. In that unhappy land,
worn out by wars and ridden almost to death by Attlee's socialist
government (1945-1951), the "Spring 1950 Electoral Register" form
dropped the traditional term "Christian name" for the new "Forename"
presumably inoffensive to British Jews, Communists, atheists and other
non-Christians. In America, of course, "Christian name" and "Family
name" have long since yielded to "first," "middle," and last." These
instances are trivial, if you like but though mere straws, they show the
way the wind is blowing.
Realizing the vast penetration of
anti-Christian power -- communist, atheist, and what not -- into almost
every thought-influencing activity in America, a commendable
organization known as The Christophers (18East 48th St., New York 17,
New York) has suggested a Christian counter-penetration into vital spots
for shaping the future of our children and our land. Here in their own
words, with emphasis supplied by their own italics, is a statement of
the purpose of the Christopher: Less than 1% of humanity have caused
most of the world's recent major troubles. This handful, which hates the
basic truth on which this nation is founded, usually strives to get into
fields that touch the lived of all people: (1) education, (2)
government, (3) the writing end of newspapers, magazines,
books, radio, motion pictures and television, (4) trade unions,
(5) social service, and (6) library work.
If another 1% go (or encourage others
to go) as Christophers or Christ-bearers into these same 6 fields and
work as hard to restore the fundamental truth which the other 1% are
working furiously to eliminate, we will soon be on the high road to
Each Christopher works as an
individual. He takes out no membership, attends no meetings, pays no
dues. Tens of thousands have already gone as Christ-bearers into the
marketplace. Our aim is to find a Million. Positive, constructive action
is needed. "It is better to light one candle than to curse the
The Christophers publish "News Notes"
(monthly, free of charge). By these notes (circulation 700,000) and by
several books including Careers That Change Your World and Government Is
Your Business, their effort has already made substantial progress, Their
movement is worthy of support and imitation. Be it noted that the
Christophers are not "anti-" anything. Their program is positive - they
are for Christian civilization.
This chapter may well by closed by a
reference to the most far-reaching plan for thought-control, or
censorship of men's minds, ever attempted in the United States. Mrs.
Anna Rosenberg's triumphal entry into the Pentagon in late 1950 was not
her first. With the administration's blessing, she appeared there once
before to present a plan for giving each World War II soldier an
ideological disinfecting before releasing him from service, she to be
inculcated. Fortunately (or unfortunately, according to viewpoint) all
general officers in the Pentagon were summoned to hear Mrs. Rosenberg,
and their unconcealed disgust, along with the humorous and devastating
attack of the Washington Times-Herald, killed the proposal, A recent
account of Mrs. Rosenberg's "scheme to establish re-orientation camps
for American soldiers at the close of the World War II, on the theory
they would be unfit to resume their normal lives at home" appeared in
the Washington Times-Herald for November 13, 1950.
The public is entitled to know what
facts have been blacked out and what ideological doctrines have been
inculcated in propaganda fed to our soldiers by the foreign-born Mrs.
Rosenberg while in the manpower saddle in the wider field of our unified
Department of Defense. In a song by William Blake used in their
successful campaign in 1945, British Socialists pledged that they would
not abstain from "mental fight" until they had made "Jerusalem" of
England (Time, November 5, 1951). According to Who's Who in America
(Vol. 25), Mrs. Rosenberg's interests include "Mental Hygiene."
Can it be that her strong effort for
lowering the draft age to eighteen was due to the known fact that boys
of that age are more susceptible than older boys to propaganda? Who is
it that has enjoyed the highest military position held by woman since
Joan of Arc led the French armies against the English in the fifteenth
For a partial answer, see the article
on Mrs. Rosenberg in the Reader's Digest of February, 1951. For a
portrait of another modern woman who has wielded power over armed men,
see the similar article on Anna Rabinsohn Pauker in the same magazine,
The issue - so alive in American
hearts - of using the draft, or universal military training, for
sinister political propaganda was bluntly stated by Major General
William B. Ruggles, Editor-in-Chief of the Dallas Morning News, on March
3, 1951: "If the nation is to draft or even to enlist its manpower in
national defense, the nation owes some sort of guarantee to the cannon
fodder that it will not be sacrificed to forward devious methods of
foreign policy or of war policy that somebody in high office is
unwilling to lay on the line. They [U. S. soldiers] face the hazards of
death with sublime courage. But they have a right to demand that their
own leaders must not stack the cards or load the dice against them."
In 1952, however, the
"thought-controllers" grew bolder. "The Pentagon received a jolt in the
past week when it scanned a proposal from the State Department that the
Army should install political officers. One to each unit down to the
regimental level." (Human Events, April 9, 1952).
Comparing the startling proposal with
the Soviet use of "political commissars," Human Events states further
that "the current daring attempt . . .to gain control over the minds of
youths in uniform" is "embodied in the bill for Universal Military
Training, which was shaped and supported by Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Anna Rosenberg."
Surely censorship is at its peak in
America today. We must pass quickly into a thought-dictatorship which
out-Stalins Stalin - or begin now to struggle as best we can for our
ancient liberties of political freedom and freedom of thought.
In the temple in ancient Jerusalem,
Christ said: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free" (St. John, VIII, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, wrote recently: "Communism can be defeated only by the
truth" (The Educational Forum, May, 1950).
To become free then we must demand
the truth from a government which spends monthly a king's ransom in
propaganda to cover its mistakes and sugar-coat its policies. We must
achieve, also, a relaxation of that unofficial censorship which perverts
our school books, distorts our histories and our classics, and denies us
vital facts about world affairs.
OF THE TRUMAN ADMINISTRATION
For many of President Truman's early
mistakes in foreign policy, he cannot rightly be blamed. As a Senator he
had specialized in domestic problems and was not at any time a member of
the Foreign Relations Committee. Nor had he by travel scholarship built
up a knowledge of world affairs. Elevated to second place on the
National Democratic ticket by a compromise and hated by the pro-Wallace
leftists around Franklin Roosevelt, he was snubbed after his election to
the Vice-Presidency in 1944 and was wholly ignorant of the tangled web
of our relations with foreign countries when he succeeded to the
Presidency on April 12, 1945 -- midway between the Yalta and Potsdam
Not only was Mr. Truman inexperienced
in the field of foreign affairs; it has since been authoritatively
stated that much vital information was withheld from him by the
hold-over Presidential and State Department cabals. This is not
surprising in view of the deceased President's testimony to his son
Elliott on his difficulty (Chapter V) in getting the truth from "the men
in the State Department, those career diplomats." Significantly, the new
President was not allowed to know of his predecessors reputed despair at
learning that his wisecracks and blandishing smiles had not induced
Stalin to renounce the tenets of bloody and self-aggrandizing dialectic
materialism, a state-religion of which he was philosopher, pontiff, and
President Truman brought the war to a quick close. His early changes in
the cabinet were on the whole encouraging. The nation appreciated the
inherited difficulties under which the genial Missourian labored and
felt for him a nearly unanimous good will.
In the disastrous Potsdam Conference
decisions (July 17-August 2, 1945), however, it was evident (Chapter IV)
that anti-American brains were busy in our top echelon.
Our subsequent course was equally
ruinous. Before making a treaty of peace, we demobilized -- probably as
a part of the successful Democratic-leftist political deal of 1944 - in
such a way as to reduce our armed forces quickly to ineffectiveness.
Moreover, as one of the greatest financial blunders in our history, we
gave away, destroyed, abandoned, or sold for a few cents on the dollar
not merely the no longer useful portion of our war matériel but many
items such as trucks and precision instruments which we later bought
back at market value!
These things were done in spite of
the fact that the Soviet government, hostile to us by its philosophy
from its inception, and openly hostile to us after the Tehran
conference, was keeping its armed might virtually intact.
Unfortunately, our throwing away of
our military potential was but one manifestation of the ineptitude or
disloyalty which shaped our foreign policy. Despite Soviet hostility,
which was not only a matter of old record in Stalin's public utterances,
but was shown immediately in the newly launched United Nations, we
persisted in a policy favorable to world nomination by the Moscow
Among the more notorious of our
pro-Soviet techniques was our suggesting that "liberated" and other
nations which wanted our help should be ruled by a coalition government
including leftist elements. This State Department scheme tossed one
Eastern European country after another into the Soviet maw, including
This foul doctrine of the left
coalition and its well-known results of infiltrating Communists into key
positions in the governments of Eastern Europe will not be discussed
here, since the damage is one beyond repair as far as any possible
immediate American action is concerned. Discussion here is limited to
our fastening of the Soviet clamp upon the Eastern Hemisphere in three
areas still the subject of controversy.
These are (a) China, (b)
Palestine, and (e) Germany. The chapter will be concluded by some
observations (d) on the war in Korea.
(a) The Truman policy on China can be understood only as the
end-product of nearly twenty years of American-Chinese relations.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt a deep attachment to the Chiangs
and deep sympathy for Nationalist Chins -- feelings expressed as late as
early December, 1943, shortly after the Cairo Declaration (November 26,
1943), by which Manchuria was to be "restored" to China, and just before
the President suffered the mental illness from which he never recovered.
It was largely this friendship and
sympathy which had prompted our violent partisanship for China in the
Sino-Japanese difficulties of the 1930's and early 1940's More
significant, however, than our freezing of Japanese assets in the United
States, our permitting American aviators to enlist in the Chinese army,
our gold and our supplies sent in by air, by sea, and by the Burma road,
was our ceaseless diplomatic barrage against Japan in her role as
China's enemy (see United States Relations With China With Special
Reference to the Period 1944-1949, Department of State, 1949, p. 25 and
When the violent phase of our already
initiated political war against Japan began with the Pearl Harbor attack
of December 7, 1941, we relied on China as an ally and as a base for our
defeat of the island Empire. On March 6, 1942, Lieutenant General Joseph
W. Stilwell "reported to Generalissimo Chiang" (op. cit., p. xxxix).
General Stilwell was not only
"Commanding General of United States Forces in the China-Burma-India
Theater" but was supposed to command "such Chinese troops as
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek might assign him" (op. cit., p. 30) and in
other ways consolidate and direct the Allied war effort. Unfortunately,
General Stilwell had formed many of his ideas on China amid a coterie of
leftists led by Agnes Smedley as far back as 1938 when he, still a
colonel, was a U.S. military attache in Hankow, China (see The China
Story, by Freda Utley, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1951, $3.50).
It is thus not surprising that
General Stilwell quickly conceived a violent personal animosity for the
anti-Communist Chiang (Saturday Evening Post, January 7, 14, 21, 1950).
This personal feeling, so strong that it results in amazing vituperative
poetry (some of it reprinted in the post), not only hampered the Allied
war effort but was an entering wedge for vicious anti-Chiang and
pro-Communist activity which was destined to change completely our
attitude toward Nationalist China.
The pro-Communist machinations of
certain high placed members of the Far Eastern Bureau of our State
Department and of their confederates on our diplomatic staff in
Chungking (for full details, see The China Story) soon became obvious to
those in a position to observe. Matters were not helped when "in the
spring of 1944, President Roosevelt appointed Vice-President Henry A.
Wallace to make a trip to China" (United States Relations With China, p.
Rebutting what he considered Mr.
Wallace's pro-Communist attitude, Chiang "launched into a lengthy
complaint against the Communists, whose actions, he said, had an
unfavorable effect on Chinese morale. . .The Generalissimo deplored
propaganda to the effect that they were more communistic than the
Russians" (op. cit., p. 56).
Our Ambassador to China, Clarence E.
Gauss, obviously disturbed by the Wallace mission and by the
pro-Communist attitude of his diplomatic staff, wrote as follows (op.
cit., p. 561) to Secretary Hull on August 31, 1944: …China should
receive the entire support and sympathy of the United States Government
on the domestic problem of Chinese Communists. Very serious consequences
of China may result from our attitude. In urging that China resolve
differences with the Communists, our Government's attitude is serving
only to intensify the recalcitrance of the Communists. The request that
China meet Communist demands is equivalent to asking China's
unconditional surrender to a party known to be under a foreign power's
influence (the Soviet Union).
With conditions in China in the
triple impasse of Stilwell Chiang hostility, American pro-Communist
versus Chinese anti-Communist sentiment, and an ambassador at odds with
his subordinates, President Roosevelt sent General Patrick J. Hurley to
Chungking as his Special Representative "with the mission of promoting
harmonious relations between Generalissimo Chiang and General Stilwell
and of performing certain other duties" (op. cit., p. 57).
Ambassador Gauss was soon recalled
and General Hurley was made Ambassador. General Hurley saw that the
Stilwell-Chiang feud could not be resolved, and eventually the recall of
General Stilwell from China was announced.
With regard, however, to our
pro-Communist State Department representatives in China, Ambassador
Hurley met defeat.
On November 26, 1945, he wrote
President Truman, who had succeeded to the Presidency in April, a letter
of resignation and gave his reasons:
…The astonishing feature of our
foreign policy is the wide discrepancy between our announced policies
and our conduct of international relations, for instance, we began the
war with the principles of the Atlantic Charter and democracy as our
goal. Our associates in the war at that time gave eloquent lip service
to the principles of democracy. We finished the war in the Far East
furnishing lend-lease supplies and using all our reputation to undermine
democracy and bolster imperialism and Communism. . .
…it is no secret that the American
policy in China did not have the support of all the career men in the
State Department. . . Our professional diplomats continuously advised
the Communists that my efforts in preventing the collapse of the
National Government did not represent the policy of the United States.
These same professionals openly advised the Communist armed party to
decline unification of the Chinese Communist Army with the National Army
unless the Chinese Communists were given control. . .
Throughout this period the chief
opposition to the accomplishment of our mission came from the American
career diplomats in the Embassy at Chungking and in the Chinese and Far
Eastern Divisions of the State Department.
I requested the relief of the career
men who were opposing the American policy in the Chinese Theater of war.
These professional diplomats were returned to Washington State
Department as my supervisors, some of these same career men whom I
relieved have been assigned as advisors to the Supreme Commander in Asia
(op. cit., pp. 581-582).
President Truman accepted General
Hurley's resignation with alacrity. Without a shadow of justification,
the able and patriotic Hurley was smeared with the implication that he
was a tired and doddering man, and he was not even allowed to visit the
War Department, of which he was former Secretary, for an interview.
This affront to a great American
ended our diplomatic double talk in China. With forthrightness, Mr.
Truman made his decision. Our China policy henceforth was to be
definitely pro-Communist. The President expressed his changed policy in
a "statement made on December 15, 1945.
Although the Soviet was pouring
supplies and military instructors into Communist-held areas, Mr. Truman
said that the United States would not offer "military intervention to
influence the courses of any Chinese internal strife."
He urged Chiang's government to give
the Communist "elements a fair and effective representation in the
Chinese National Government." To such a "broadly representative
government" he temptingly hinted that "credits and loans" would be
forthcoming (op. cit., pp. 608-609).
President Truman's amazing desertion
of Nationalist China, so friendly to us throughout the years following
the Boxer Rebellion (1900), has been thus summarized (NBC Network, April
13, 1951), by Congressman Joe Martin: President Truman, on the advice of
Dean Acheson, announced to the world on December 15, 1925, that unless
communists were admitted to the established government of China, aid
from America would no longer be forthcoming.
At the same time, Mr. Truman
dispatched General Marshall to China with orders to stop the mopping up
of communist forces which was being carried to a successful conclusion
by the established government of China.
Our new Ambassador to China, General
of the Army George C. Marshall, conformed under White House directive
(see his testimony before the Combined Armed Services and Foreign
Relations Committees of the Senate, May, 1951) to the dicta of Relations
Combined Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate,
May, 1951) to the dicta of the State Department's Communist-inclined
camarilla, and made further efforts to force Chiang to admit Communists
to his Government in the "effective" numbers, no doubt, which Mr. Truman
had demanded in his "statement" of December 15.
The great Chinese general, however,
would not be bribed by promised "loans" and thus avoided the trap with
which our State Department snared for Communism the states of Eastern
Europe. He was accordingly paid off by the mishandling of supplies
already en route, so that guns and ammunition for those guns did not
make proper connection, as well as by the eventual complete withdrawal
of American support as threatened by Mr. Truman.
For a full account of our scandalous
pro-Communist moves in denying small arms ammunition to China; our
charging China $162.00 for a bazooka (whose list price was $36.50 and
"surplus" price to other nations was $3.65) when some arms were sent;
and numerous similar details, see The China Story, already referred to.
Thus President Truman, Ambassador
Marshall, and the State Department prepared the way for the fall of
China to Soviet control. They sacrificed Chiang, who represented the
Westernized and Christian element in China, and they destroyed a
friendly government, which was potentially our strongest ally in the
world -- stronger even than the home island of maritime Britain in this
age of air and guided missiles.
The smoke-screen excuse for our
policy -- namely that there was corruption in Chiang's government -- is
beyond question history's most glaring example of the pot calling the
For essential background material,
see Shanghai Conspiracy by Major General Charles A. Willoughby, with a
preface by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur (Dutton, 1952).
General Ambassador Marshall became
Secretary of State in January, 1947. On July 9, 1947, President Harry S.
Truman directed Lieutenant General Albert C. Wedemeyer, who had served
for a time as "Commander-in-Chief of American Forces in the Asian
Theater" after the removal of Stilwell, to "proceed to China without
delay for the purpose of making an appraisal of the political, economic,
pathological and military situations -- current and projected."
Under the title, "Special
Representative of the President of United States," General Wedemeyer
worked with the eight other members of his mission from July 16 to
September 18 and on September 19 transmitted his report (United States
Relations with China, pp. 764-814) to appointing authority, the
In a section of his Report called
"Implications of 'No Assistance' to China or Continuation of 'Wait and
See ' Policy," General Wedemeyer wrote as follows: To advise at this
time a policy of "no assistance" to China would suggest the withdrawal
of the United States Military and Naval Advisory Groups from China and
it would be equivalent to cutting the ground from under the feet of the
Chinese Government. Removal of American assistance, without removal of
Soviet assistance, would certainly lay the country open to eventual
Communist domination. It would have repercussions in other parts of
Asia, would lower American prestige in the Far East and would make
easier the spread of Soviet influence and Soviet political expansion not
only in Asia but in other parts of the world.
Here is General Wedemeyer's
conclusion as to the strategic importance of Nationalist China to the
United States: Any further spread of Soviet influence and power would be
inimical to United States strategic interests. In time of war the
existence of an unfriendly China would result in denying us important
air bases for use as staging areas for bombing attacks as well as
important naval bases along the Asiatic coast. Its control by the Soviet
Union or a regime friendly to the Soviet Union would make available for
hostile use a number of warm water ports and air bases. Our own air and
naval bases in Japan, Ryukyus and the Philippines would be subject to
relatively short range neutralizing air attacks. Furthermore, industrial
and military development of Siberia east of Lake Baikal would probably
make the Manchurian area more or less self-sufficient.
Here are the more significant of the
It is recommended: That the United
States provide as early as practicable moral, advisory and material
support to China in order to prevent Manchuria from becoming a Soviet
satellite, to bolster opposition to Communist expansion and to
contribute to the gradual development of stability in China. . .
That arrangements be made whereby
China can purchase military equipment and supplies (particularly motor
maintenance parts), from the United States.
That China be assisted in her efforts
to obtain ammunition immediately…
The [sic] military advice and
supervision be extended in scope to include field forces training
centers and particularly logistical agencies.
Despite our pro-Communist policy in
the previous twenty months, the situation in China was not beyond repair
at the time of the Wedemeyer survey.
In September, 1947, the "Chiang
government had large forces still under arms and was in control of all
China south of the Yangtze River, of much of North China, with some
footholds in Manchuria" (W. H. Chamberlin, Human Events, July 5, 1950).
General Wedemeyer picked 39 Chinese
divisions to be American-sponsored and these were waiting for our
supplies and our instructors -- in case the Wedemeyer program was
But General Wedemeyer had reported
that which his superiors did not wish to hear. His fate was a discharge
from diplomacy and an exile from the Pentagon.
Moreover, the Wedemeyer Report was
not released until August, 1949.
Meanwhile, in the intervening two
years our pro-Communist policy of withdrawing assistance from Chiang,
while the Soviet rushed supplies to his enemies, had tipped the scales
in favor of those enemies, the Chinese Communists.
Needless to say, under Mr. Dean
Acheson, who succeeded Marshall as Secretary of State (January, 1949),
our pro-Soviet policy in China was not reversed!
Chiang had been holding on somehow,
but Acheson slapped down his last hope. In fact, our Secretary of State
- possibly by some strange coincidence - pinned on the Nationalist
Government of China the term "reactionary" (August 6, 1949), a term
characteristically applied by Soviet stooges to any unapproved person or
policy, and said explicitly that the United States would give the
Nationalist Government no further support.
Meanwhile, the Soviet had continued
to supply the Chinese Communists with war matériel at a rate competently
estimated at eight to ten times the amount per month we had furnished -
at the peak of our aid - to Chiang's Nationalists.
Chiang's troops, many of them without
ammunition, were thus defeated, as virtually planned by our State
Department, whose Far Eastern Bureau was animated by admirers of the
North Chinese Communists.
But the defeat of Chiang was not the
disgrace his enemies would have us believe. His evacuation to Formosa
and his reorganization of his forces on that strategic island were far
from contemptible achievements.
Parenthetically, as our State
Department's wrong-doing comes to light, there appears a corollary
re-evaluation of Chiang. In its issue of April 9, 1951, Life said
editorially that "Now we have only to respect the unique tenacity of
Chiang Kai Shek in his long battle against Communism and take full
advantage of whatever the Nationalists can do now to help us in this
struggle for Asia."
It should be added here that any idea
of recognizing Communist China as the representative government of China
is absurd. According to a Soviet Politburo report (This Week. September
30, 1951) the membership of the Chinese Communist Party is 5,800,000.
The remainder of China's 450,000,000 or 475,000,000 people, in so far as
they are actually under Communist control, are slaves.
But -- back to the chronology of our
"policy" in the Far East.
On December 23, 1949, the State
Department sent to five hundred American agents abroad (New York
Journal-American, June 19, 1951, p. 18) a document entitled "Policy
Advisory Staff, Special Guidance No. 38, Policy Information Paper --
Formosa." As has been stated in many newspapers, the purpose of this
policy memorandum was to prepare the world for the United States plan
for yielding Formosa (Taiwan, in Japanese terminology) to the Chinese
Communists. Here are pertinent excerpts from the surrender document
which, upon its release in June, 1951, was published in full in a number
of newspapers: Loss of the island is widely anticipated, and the manner
in which civil and military conditions there have deteriorated under the
Nationalists adds weight to the expectation. . .
Formosa, politically, geographically,
and strategically is part of China in no way especially distinguished or
important. . .
Treatment: … All material should be
used best to counter the impression that. . .its [Formosa's] loss would
seriously damage the interests of the United States or of other
countries opposing Communism [and that] the United States is responsible
for or committed in any way to act to save Formosa. . .
Formosa has no special military
significance. . . China has never been a sea power and the island is of
no special strategic advantage to Chinese armed forces.
This State Department policy paper
contains unbelievably crass lies such as the statement that the island
of Formosa is, in comparison with other parts of China, "in no way
especially distinguished or important" and the claim that the island
would be "of no special strategic advantage" to its Communist
conquerors. It contains an unwarranted slam at our allies, the Chinese
Nationalists, and strives to put upon our ally Britain the onus for our
slight interest in the island -- an interest the "policy memorandum" was
It is hard to see how the anonymous
writer of such a paper could be regarded as other than a scoundrel.
No wonder the public was kept in
ignorance of the paper's existence until the MacArthur investigation by
the Senate raised momentarily the curtain of censorship!
In a "Statement on Formosa" (New York
Times, January 6, 1950), President Truman proceeded cautiously on the
less explosive portions of the "Policy Memorandum," but declared Formosa
a part of China -- obviously, from the context, the China of Mao
Tse-Tung -- and continued: "The United States has no desire to obtain
special rights or privileges or to establish military bases on Formosa
at this time. Nor does it have any intention of utilizing its armed
forces to interfere in the present situation."
The President's statement showed a
dangerous arrogation of authority, for the wartime promises of the dying
Roosevelt had not been ratified by the United States Senate, and in any
case a part of the Japanese Empire was not at the personal disposal of
an American president. More significantly, the statement showed an
indifference to the safety of America or an amazing ignorance of
strategy, for any corporal in the U.S. army with a map before him could
see that Formosa is the virtual keystone of the U.S. position in the
Pacific. It was also stated by our government "a limited number of arms
for internal security."
Six days later (January 12, 1950) in
an address at a National Press Club luncheon, Secretary Acheson
announced a "new motivation of United States Foreign policy," which
confirmed the President's statement a week before, including
specifically the "hands off" policy in Formosa.
Acheson also expressed the belief
that we need not worry about the Communists in China since they would
naturally grow away from the Soviet on account of the Soviet's
attaching" North China territory to the great Moscow-ruled imperium
(article by Walter H. Waggoner, New York Times, January 13, to January
These sentiments must have appealed
to Governor Thomas E. Dewey, of New York, for at Princeton University on
April 12 he called for Republican support of the Truman-Acheson foreign
policy and specifically commended the appointment of John Foster Dulles
(for the relations of Dulles with Hiss, see Chapter VIII) as a State
Mr. Acheson's partly concealed and
partly visible maneuverings were thus summed up by Walter Winchell
(Dallas Times Herald, April 16, 1951):
These are the facts. Secretary
Acheson . . . is on record as stating we would not veto Red China if she
succeeded in getting a majority vote in the UN. . . As another step,
Secretary Acheson initiated a deliberate program to play down the
importance of Formosa.
Mr. Winchell also mentioned Senator
Knowland's "documentary evidence" that those who made State Department
policy had been instructed by Secretary Acheson to "minimize the
strategic importance of Formosa."
All of this was thrown into sharp
focus by President Truman when he revealed in a press conference (May
17, 1951) that his first decision to fire General MacArthur a year
previously had been strengthened when the Commander in Japan protested
in the summer of 1950 that the proposed abandonment of Formosa would
weaken the U.S. position in Japan and the Philippines!
"No matter how hard one tries," The
Freeman summarized on June 4, 1951, "there is no way of evading the
awful truth: The American State Department wanted Marxist Communists to
win for Marxism and Communism in China." Also, The Freeman continued,
"On his own testimony, General Marshall supported our pro-Marxist China
policy with his eyes unblinkered with innocence."
Thus, in the first half of 1950, our
Far Eastern policy, made by Acheson and approved by Truman and Dewey,
was based on (1) the abandonment of Formosa to the expected conquest by
Chinese Communists, (2) giving no battle weapons to the Nationalist
Chinese or to the South Koreans, in spite of the fact that the Soviet
was known to be equipping the North Koreans with battle weapons and with
military skills, (3) the mere belief- at least, so stated - of our
Secretary of State, self-confessedly ignorant of the matter, that the
Communists of China would become angry with the Soviet. The sequel is
outlined in section (d) below.
(b) Our second great mistake in foreign policy -- unless votes in
New York and other Northern cities are its motivation -- was our
attitude toward the problem of Palestine.
In the Eastern Mediterranean on the
deck of the heavy cruiser, U.S.S. Quincy, which was to bring him home
from Yalta, President Roosevelt in February, 1945, received King Ibn
Saud of Saudi Arabia. According to General Elliott Roosevelt (As He Saw
It, p. 245): "It had been Father's hope that he would be able to
convince Ibn Saud of the equity of the settlement in Palestine of the
tens of Thousands of Jews driven from their European homes."
But, as the ailing President later
told Bernard Baruch, "of all the men he had talked to in his life, he
had got least satisfaction from this iron-willed Arab monarch."
General Roosevelt concludes thus:
"Father ended by promising Ibn Saud that he would sanction no American
move hostile to the Arab people." This may be considered the four-term
President's legacy on the subject, for in less than two months death had
completed its slow assault upon his frame and his faculties.
But the Palestine Problem, like the
ghost in an Elizabethan drama, would not stay "down."
In the post-war years (1945 and
after), Jewish immigrants mostly from the Soviet Union or satellite
states poured into the land once known as "Holy." These immigrants were
largely Marxist in outlook and principally of Khazar antecedents. As the
immigration progressed, the situation between Moslems and this new type
of Jew became tense.
The vote-conscious American
politicians became interested. After many vacillations between
"non-partition" which was recommended by many American Jewish
organizations and highly placed individual Jews, the United States -
which has many Zionist voters and few Arab voters - decided to sponsor
the splitting of Palestine, which was predominantly Arab in population,
into Arab and Jewish zones.
In spite of our lavish post-war
tossing out of hundreds of millions and sometimes billions to almost any
nation - except a few pet "enemies" such as Spain - for almost any
purpose, the United Nations was inclined to disregard our sponsorship
and reject the proposed new member. On Wednesday, November 26, 1947, our
proposition received 25 votes out of 57 (13 against, 17 abstentions, 2
absent) and was defeated. Thus the votes had been taken and the issue
seemed settled. But , no!
Any reader who wishes fuller details
should by all means consult the microfilmed New York Times for November
26-30, and other pertinent periodicals, but here are the highlights: The
United Nations General Assembly postponed a vote on the partition of
Palestine yesterday after Zionist supporters found that they still
lacked an assured two-thirds majority (article by Thomas J. Hamilton,
New York Times, November 27, 1947).
Yesterday morning Dr. Aranha was
notified by Siamese officials in Washington that the credential of the
Siamese delegation, which had voted against partition in the Committee,
had been canceled (November 27, 1947).
Since Saturday [November 22] the
United States Delegation has been making personal contact with other
delegates to obtain votes for partition. . . The news from Haiti . . .
would seem to indicate that some persuasion has now been brought to bear
on home governments . . . the result of today's vote appeared to depend
on what United States representatives were doing in faraway capitals
(from an article by Thomas J. Hamilton, New York Times, November 28,
The result of our pro-"Israeli"
pressures, denounced in some instances by representatives of the
governments who yielded, was a change of vote by nine nation: Belgium,
France, Haiti, Liberia, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, New Zealand,
Paraguay, and the Philippines. Chile dropped -- to "not voting" -- from
the pro-"Israeli" twenty-five votes of November 26, and the net gain for
U.S.-"Israeli" was 8. Greece changed from "not voting" to "against,"
replacing the dismissed Siamese delegation, and the "against" vote
remained the same, 13, Thus the New York Times on Sunday, November 30,
carried the headline "ASSEMBLY VOTES PALESTINE PARTITION; MARGIN IS
33-13; ARABS WALK OUT. . . "
The Zionist Jews of Palestine now had
their seacoast and could deal with the Sovietized Black Sea countries
without further bother from the expiring British mandate. The selection
of immigrants of which over-populated "Israel" felt such great need was
to some extent, if not entirely, supervised by the countries of origin.
For instance, a high "Israeli"
official visited Bucharest to coordinate with the Communist dictator of
Rumania, Ana Rabinsohn Pauker, the selection of immigrants for "Israel."
"Soviet Bloc Lets Jews Leave Freely
and Take Most Possessions to Israel," The New York Times headlined
(November 26, 1948) a UP dispatch from Prague.
The close ties between Communism and
"Israel" were soon obvious to any penetrating reader of the New York
Times. A notable example is afforded in an article (March 12, 1948) by
Alexander Feinberg entitled "10,000 in Protest on Palestine Here: Throng
Undaunted by Weather Mustered by Communist and Left-Wing Labor Leaders."
Here is a brief quotation from this significant article: Youthful and
disciplined Communists raised their battle cry of "solidarity forever"
as they marched. . .The parade and rally were held under the auspices of
the United Committee to Save the Jewish State and the United Nations,
formed recently after the internationally minded Communists decided to
"take over" an intensely nationalistic cause, the partition of
The grand marshal of the parade was
Ben Gold, president of the Communist-led International Fur and Leather
Workers Union, CIO.
With the Jewish immigrants to
Palestine came Russian and Czechoslovak (Skoda) arms. "Israel Leaning
Toward Russia, Its Armorer," the New York Herald-Tribune headlined on
August 5, 1948. Here are quotations on the popularity of the Soviet in
"Israel" from Correspondent Kenneth Bilby's wireless dispatch from Tel
Aviv: Russian prestige has soared enormously among all political
factions. . . Certain Czech arms shipments which reached Israel at
critical junctures of the war, played a vital role in blunting the
invasion's five Arab armies. . . The Jews, who are certainly realists,
know that without Russia's nod, these weapons would never have been
Mr. Bilby found that "the balance
sheet" read "much in Russia's favor" and found his conclusion "
evidenced in numerous ways -- in editorials in the Hebrew press praising
the Soviet Union," and also "in public pronouncements of political and
Mr. Bilby concluded also that the
"political fact" of "Israeli" devotion to the Soviet might "color the
future of the Middle East" long after the issues of the day were
Parenthetically, the words of the
Herald-Tribune correspondent were prophetic. In its feature editorial of
October 10, 1951, the Dallas Morning News commented as follows on the
announced determination of Egypt to seize the Sudan and the Suez Canal:
Beyond question, the Egyptian move is concerned with the understandable
unrest stirred in the Arab world by the establishment of the new State
of Israel. The United Nations as a whole and Britain and the United
States in particular did that. The Moslem world could no more accept
equably an effort to turn back the clock 2,000 years than would this
country agree to revert to the status quo of 1776.
Showing contempt, and her true
colors, "Israel" voted with the Soviet Union and against the United
States on the question of admitting Communist China to the UN (broadcast
of Lowell Thomas, CBS Network, November 13, 1951). Thus were we paid for
the immoral coercion by which we got "Israel" into the United Nations --
a coercion which had given the whole world, in the first instance, a
horrible but objective and above-board example of the Truman
administration's conception of elections!
But back to our chronology. In 1948,
string with Soviet armor and basking in the sunshine of Soviet sympathy,
"Israeli" troops mostly born in Soviet-held lands killed many Arabs and
drove out some 880,000 others, Christian and Moslem.
These wretched refugees apparently
will long be a chief problem of the Arab League nations of the Middle
East. Though most Americans are unaware, these brutally treated people
are an American problem also, for the Arabs blame their tragedy in large
part on "the Americans -- for pouring money and political support to the
Israelis; Harry Truman is the popular villain" ("The Forgotten Arab
Refugees," by James Bell, Life, September 17, 1951).
With such great sympathy for the
Soviet Union, as shown above, it is not surprising "Israel," at once
began to show features which are extremely leftist -- to say the least.
For instance, on his return from "Israel," Dr. Frederick E. Reissig,
executive director of the Washington (D.C.) Federation of Churches,
"told of going to many co-operative communities. . . Land for each
'kibbutz' - as such communities are called - is supplied by the
government. Everything - more or less - is shared by the residents"
(Mary Jane Dempsey in Washington Times-Herald, April 24, 1951).
For fuller details, see "The Kibbutz"
by John Hersey in The New Yorker of April 19, 1952.
After the "Israeli" seizure of the
Arab lands in Palestine, there followed a long series of outrages
including the bombings of the British Officers' Club in Jerusalem, the
Acre Prison, the Arab Higher Command Headquarters in Jaffa, the
Semiramis Hotel, etc.
These bombings were by "Jewish
terrorists" (World Almanac, 1951).
The climax of the brutality in
"Israel" was the murder of Count Bernadotte of Sweden, the United
Nations mediator in Palestine! Here is the New York Times story (Tel
Aviv, September 18, 1948) by Julian Louis Meltzer: Count Folke
Bernadotte, United Nations Mediator for Palestine, and another United
Nations official, detached from the French Air Force, were assassinated
this afternoon [September 17], within the Israeli-held area of
Also, according to the New York
Times, "Reuters quoted a Stern Group spokesman in Tel Aviv as having
said, 'I am satisfied that it has happened'." A United Nations truce
staff announcement confirmed the fact that Count Bernadotte had been
"killed by two Jewish irregulars," who also killed the United Nations
senior observer, Col. André Pierre Serot, of the French Air Force.
Despite the fact that the murderers
were Jews, and that the murdered UN officers were from countries worth
no appreciable political influence in the United States, American
reaction to the murder of the United Nations mediator was by no means
favorable. It was an election year and Dewey droned on about "unity"
while Truman trounced the "do-nothing Republican 80th Congress."
For a month after the murders neither
of them fished in the putrid pond of "Israeli"-dominated Palestine.
Strangely enough, it was Dewey who
first threw in his little worm on a pinhook.
In a reply to a letter from the
Constantinople-born Dean Alfange, Chairman of the Committee which
founded the Liberal Party of the State of New York, May 19, 1944 (Who's
Who in America, Vol. 25, p. 44), Dewey wrote (October 22, 1948): "As you
know, I have always felt that the Jewish people are entitled to a
homeland in Palestine which would be politically and economically
stable. . . My position today is the same."
On October 24 in a formal statement,
Truman rebuked Dewey for "injecting foreign affairs" into the campaign
and -- to change the figure of speech -- raised the Republican
candidate's "six-spades" bid for Jewish votes by a resounding
"ten-no-trumps": So that everyone may be familiar with my position, I
set out here the Democratic platform on Israel: "President Truman, by
granting immediate recognition to Israel, led the world in extending
friendship and welcome to a people who have long sought and justly
deserve freedom and independence.
"We pledge full recognition to the
State of Israel. We affirm our pride that the United States, under the
leadership of President Truman, played a leading role in the adoption of
the resolution of Nov. 29, 1947, by The United Nations General Assembly
for the creation of a Jewish state.
"We approve the claim of the State of
Israel to the boundaries set forth in the United Nations' resolution of
Nov. 29 and consider that modifications thereof should be made only if
fully acceptable to the State of Israel.
"We look forward to the admission of
the State of Israel to the United Nations and its full participation in
the international community of nations. We pledge appropriate aid to the
State of Israel in developing its economy and resources.
"We favor the revision of the arms
embargo to accord to the State of Israel the right of self-defense" (New
York Times, of Oct. 25, 1948).
But the President had not said
enough. Warmed up, perhaps by audience contact, and flushed with the
prospect of victory, which was enhanced by a decision of the organized
leftists to swing -- after the opinion polls closed -- from Wallace to
Truman, he swallowed the "Israel" cause, line, sinker and hook -- the
hook being never thereafter removed. Here from the New York Times of
Oct. 29, 1948, is Warren Moscow's story: President Truman made his
strongest pro-Israel declaration last night. Speaking at Madison Square
Garden to more than 16,000 persons brought there under the auspices of
the Liberal Party, the President ignored the Bernadotte Report and
pledged himself to see that the new State of Israel be "large enough,
free enough, and strong enough to make its people self-supporting and
The President continued: What we need
now is to help the people of Israel and they've proved themselves in the
best traditions of hardy pioneers. They have created a modern and
efficient state with the highest standards of Western civilization.
In view of the Zionist record of
eliminating the Arab natives of Palestine, continuous bombings, and the
murder of the United Nations mediator, hardly cold in his grave, Mr.
Truman owes the American people a documented exposition of his
conception of "best traditions" and "highest standards of Western
Indeed, our bi-partisan endorsement
of Zionist aggression in Palestine -- in bidding for the electoral vote
of New York -- is one of the most reprehensible actions in world
The Soviet-supplied "Jewish" troops
which seized Palestine had no rights ever before recognized in law or
custom except the right of triumphant tooth and claw (see "The Zionist
Illusion," by Prof. W. T. Stace of Princeton University, Atlantic
Monthly, February, 1947).
In the first place the Khazar
Zionists from Soviet Russia were not descended from the people of Hebrew
religion in Palestine, ancient or modern,
and thus not being descended from Old
Testament People (The Lost Tribes, by Allen H. Godbey, Duke University
Press, Durham, N.C., 1930, pp. 257, 301, and passim), they have no
Biblical claim to Palestine.
Their claim to the country rests
solely on their ancestors' having adopted a form of the religion of a
people who ruled there eighteen hundred and more years before (Chapter
This claim is thus exactly as valid
as if the same or some other horde should claim the United States in
3350 A.D. on the basis of having adopted the religion of the American
For another comparison, the 3,500,000
Catholics of China (Time, July 2, 1951) have as much right to the former
Papal states in Italy as these Judaized Khazars have to Palestine!
(Bible students are referred to the Apocalypse, The Revelation of St.
John the Divine, Chapter II, Verse 9.)
Moreover, the statistics of both
land-ownership and population stand heavily against Zionist pretensions.
At the close of the first World War,
"there were about 55,000 Jews in Palestine, forming eight percent of the
population. . . .
Between 1922 and 1941, the Jewish
population of Palestine increased by approximately 380,000, four-fifths
of this being due to immigration. This made the Jews 31 percent of the
total population" (East and West of Suez, by John S. Badeau, Foreign
Policy Association, 1943, p. 46).
Even after hordes from Soviet and
satellite lands had poured in, and when the United Nations was working
on the Palestine problem, the best available statistics showed non-Jews
owning more land than Jews in all sixteen of the county size
subdivisions of Palestine and outnumbering the Jews in population in
fifteen of the sixteen subdivisions (UN Presentations 574, and 573,
The anti-Communist Arab population of
the world was understandably terrified by the arrival of Soviet-equipped
troops in its very center, Palestine, and was bitter at the presence
among them -- despite President Roosevelt's promise to Ibn Saud -- of
Americans with military training.
How many U.S. army personnel,
reserve, retired, or on leave, secretly participated is not known.
Robert Conway, writing from Jerusalem
on January 19, 1948, said: "More than 2,000 Americans are already
serving in Haganah, the Jewish Defense Army, highly placed diplomatic
sources revealed today."
Conway stated further that a "survey
convinced the Jewish agency that 5,000 Americans are determined to come
to fight for the Jewish state even if the U.S. government imposes loss
of citizenship upon such volunteers."
The expected number was 50,000 if no
law on forfeiting citizenship was passed by the U.S. Congress (N.Y. News
cable in Washington Times-Herald, January 20, 1948).
Among Americans who cast their lot
with "Israel" was David Marcus, a West Point graduate and World War II
colonel. Col. Marcus's service with the "Israeli" army was not revealed
to the public until he was "killed fighting with Israeli forces near
Jerusalem" in June, 1948.
At the dedication of a Brooklyn
memorial to Colonel Marcus a "letter from President Truman . . .
extolled the heroic roles played by Colonel Marcus in two wars" (New
York Times, Oct. 11, 1948).
At the time of his death, Colonel
Marcus was "Supreme commander of Israeli military forces on the
Jerusalem front" (AP dispatch, Washington Evening Star June 12, 1948).
The Arab vote in the united States is
negligible -- as the Zionist vote is not -- and after the acceptance of
"Israel" by the UN the American government recognized as a sovereign
state the new nation whose soil was fertilized by the blood of many
people of many nationalities from the lowly Arab peasant to the royal
Swedish United Nations, "mediator."
"You can't shoot your way into the
United Nations, "said Warren Austin, U.S. Delegate to the UN, speaking
of Communist China on January 24, 1951 (Broadcasts of CBS and NBC). Mr.
Austin must have been suffering from a lapse of memory, for that is
exactly what "Israel" did!
Though the vote of Arabs and other
Moslem peoples is negligible in the United States, the significance of
these Moslem peoples is not negligible in the world (see the map
entitled "The Moslem Block" on p. 78 of Badeau's East of Suez). Nor is
their influence negligible in the United Nations.
The friendly attitude of the United
States toward Israel's bloody extension of her boundaries and other acts
already referred to was effectively analyzed on the radio (NBC Network,
January 8, 1951) by the distinguished philosopher and Christian (so
stated by the introducer, John McVane), Dr, Charles Malik, Lebanese
Delegate to the United Nations and Minister of Lebanon to the United
Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon is not
to be confused with Mr. Jacob (Jakkov, Yakop) Malik, Soviet Delegate
with Andrei Y. Vishinsky to the 1950 General Assembly of the United
Nations (The United Nations - Action for Peace, by Marie and Louis
Zocca, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N. J., 1951).
To his radio audience Dr, Malik of
Lebanon spoke, in part, as follows:
MR. MALIK: The United States has had
a great history of very friendly relations with the Arab peoples for
about one hundred years now. That history has been built up by faithful
missionaries, educators, explorers, and archaeologist and businessmen
for all these decades. Up to the moment when the Palestine problem began
to be an acute issue, the Arab peoples had a genuine and deep sense of
love and admiration for the United States. Then, when the problem of
Palestine arose, with all that problem involved, by way of what we would
regard as one-sided partiality on the part of the United States with
respect to Israel, the Arabs began to feel that the United States was
not as wonderful or as admirable as they had thought it was.
The result has been that at the
present moment there is a real slump in the affection and admiration
that the Arabs have had towards the United States. This slump has
affected all the relations between the United States and the Arab world,
with diplomatic and non-diplomatic. And at the present moment I can say,
much to my regret, but it is a fact that throughout the Arab world,
perhaps at no time in history has the reputation of the United States
suffered as much as it has at the present time. The Arabs, on the whole,
do not have sufficient confidence that the United States, in moments of
crises, will not make decisions that will be prejudicial to their
interests. Not until the United States can prove in actual historical
decision that it can withstand certain inordinate pressures that are
exercised on it from time to time and can really stand up for what one
might call elementary justice in certain matters, would the Arab people
really feel that they can go back to their former attitude of genuine
respect and admiration for the United States.
Thus the mess of pottage of
vote-garnering in New York and other doubtful states with large numbers
of Khazar Zionists has cost us the loyalty of twelve nations, our former
friends, the so-called "Arab and Asiatic" block in the UN!
It appears also that the world's
troubles from little blood-born "Israel" are not over. An official
"Israeli" view of Germany was expressed in Dallas, Texas, on March 18,
1951, when Abba S. Eban was talking in Dallas about "Israel" to the
United States and "Israel's" representative at the United Nations,
stated that "Israel resents the rehabilitation of Germany."
Ambassador Eban visited the Texas
city in the interest of raising funds for taking "200,000 immigrants
this year, 600,000 within the next three years" (Dallas Morning News,
March 13, 1951) to the small state of Palestine, or "Israel."
The same day that Ambassador Eban was
talking in Dallas about "Israel's" resentment at the rehabilitation of
Germany, a Reuters dispatch of March 13, 1951 from Tel Aviv (Washington
Times-Herald ) stated that "notes delivered yesterday [March 12] in
Washington, London, and Paris and to the Soviet Minister at Tel Aviv
urge the occupying powers of Germany not to "hand over full powers to
any German government" without express reservations for the payment of
reparations to "Israel" in the sum of $1,500,000,000.
This compensation was said to be for
6,000,000 Jews killed by Hitler.
This figure has been used repeatedly
(as late as January, 1952 -- "Israeli" broadcast heard by the author),
but one who consults statistics and ponders the known facts of recent
history cannot do other than wonder how it is arrived at.
According to Appendix VII,
"Statistics on Religious Affiliation," of The Immigration and
Naturalization Systems of the United States (A Report of the Committee
on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, 1950), the number of Jews
in the world is 15,713,638. The World Almanac, 1949, p. 289, is cited as
the source of the statistical table reproduced on p. 842 of the
The article in the World Almanac is
headed "Religious Population of the World." A corresponding item, with
the title, "Population, Worldwide, by Religious Beliefs" is found in the
World Almanac for 1940 (p. 129), and in it the world Jewish population
is given as 15,319,359.
If the World Almanac figures are
correct, the world's Jewish population did not decrease in the war
decade, but showed a small increase.
Assuming, however, that the figures
of the U.S. document and the World Almanac are in error, let us make an
examination of the known facts.
In the first place, the number of
Jews in Germany in 1939 was about 600,000 - by some estimates
considerably fewer - and of these, as shown elsewhere in this book, many
came to the United States, some went to Palestine, and some are still in
As to the Jews in Eastern European
lands temporarily overrun by Hitler's troops, the great majority
retreated ahead of the German armies into Soviet Russia. Of these, many
came later to the U.S., some moved to Palestine, some unquestionably
remained in Soviet Russia and may be a part of the Jewish force on the
Iranian frontier, and enough remained in Eastern Europe or have returned
from Soviet Russia to form the hard core of the new ruling bureaucracy
in satellite countries (Chapter II).
It is hard to see how all these
migrations and all these power accomplishments can have come about with
a Jewish population much less than that which existed in Eastern Europe
before World War II.
Thus the known facts on Jewish
migration and Jewish power in Eastern Europe tend, like the World
Almanac figures accepted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, to raise a
question as to where Hitler got the 6,000,000 Jews he is said to have
killed. This question should be settled once and for all before the
United States backs any "Israeli" claims against Germany.
In this connection, it is well to
recall also that the average German had no more to do with Hitler's
policies; than the average American had to do with Franklin Roosevelt's
policies; that 5,000,000 Germans are unaccounted for - 4,000,000
civilians (pp. 70, 71, above) and 1,000,000 soldiers who never returned
from Soviet labor camps (p. 137); and that a permanent hostile attitude
toward Germany on our part is the highest hope of the Communist masters
In spite of its absurdity, however, the "Israeli" claim for reparations
from a not yet created country, whose territory has been nothing but an
occupied land through the entire life of the state of "Israel," may well
delay reconciliation in Western Europe; and the claim, even though
assumed under duress by a West German government, would almost certainly
be paid - directly or indirectly - by the United States. The likelihood
of our paying will be increased if a powerful propaganda group puts on
pressure in our advertiser-dominated press.
As to Ambassador Eban's 600,000 more
immigrants to "Israel": Where will these people go - unless more Arab
lands are taken and more Christians and Moslems are driven from their
And of equal significance: Whence
will Ambassador Eban's Jewish immigrants to "Israel" come?
As stated above, a large portion of
pre-war Germany's 600,000 Jews came, with other European Jews, to the
United States on the return trips of vessels which took American
soldiers to Europe. Few of them will leave the United States, for
statistics show that of all immigrants to this country, the Jew is least
likely to leave.
The Jews now in West Germany will
probably contribute few immigrants to "Israel," for these Jews enjoy a
preferred status under U.S. protection. It thus appears that Ambassador
Eban's 600,000 reinforcements to "Israel" - apart from stragglers from
the Arab world and a possible mere handful from elsewhere - can come
only from Soviet and satellite lands. If so, they will come on
permission of and by arrangement with some Communist dictator (Chapter
Can it be that many of the 600,000
will be young men with Soviet military training? Can it be that such
permission will be related to the Soviet's great concentration of Jews
in 1951 inside the Soviet borders adjacent to the Soviet-Iranian
Can it be true further that an army
in Palestine, Soviet-supplied and Soviet-trained, will be one horn of a
giant pincers movement ("Keil und Kessel" was Hitler's term) and that a
thrust southward into oil-rich Iran will be the other?
The astute Soviet politicians know
that the use of a substantial body of Jewish troops in such an operation
might be relied on to prevent any United States moves, diplomatic or
otherwise, to save the Middle East and its oil from the Soviet. In fact,
if spurred on by a full-scale Zionist propaganda campaign in this
country our State Department (pp. 232-233), following its precedent in
regard to "Israel," might be expected to support the Soviet move.
To sum it up, it can only be said
that there are intelligence indications that such a Soviet trap is being
The Soviet foreign office, however,
has several plans for a given strategic area, and will activate the one
that seems, in the light of changing events, to promise most in
realizing the general objective. Only time, then, can tell whether or
not the Kremlin will thrust with Jewish troops for the oil of Iran and
Thus the Middle East flames - in
Iran, on the "Israeli" frontier, and along the Suez Canal.
Could we put out the fires of revolt
which are so likely to lead to a full scale third World War?
A sound answer was given by The
Freeman (August 13, 1950), which stated that "all we need to do to
insure the friendship of the Arab and Moslem peoples is to revert to our
traditional American attitudes toward peoples who, like ourselves, love
freedom." This is true because the "Moslem faith is founded partly upon
the teachings of Christ." Also, "Anti-Arab Policies Are Un-American
Policies," says William Ernest Hocking in The Christian Century ("Is
Israel A 'Natural Ally'?" September 19, 1951).
Will we work for peace and justice in
the Middle East and thus try to avoid World War III ? Under our
leftist-infested State Department, the chance seems about the same as
the chance of the Moslem voting population and financial power
surpassing those of the Zionists during the next few years in the State
of New York!
(c) The Truman administration's third great mistake in foreign
policy is found in its treatment of defeated Germany.
In China and Palestine, Mr. Truman's
State Department and Executive Staff henchmen can be directly charged
with sabotaging the future of the United States; for despite the
surrender at Yalta the American position in those areas was still far
from hopeless when Roosevelt died in April, 1945.
With regard to Germany, however,
things were already about as bad as possible, and the Truman
administration is to be blamed not for creating but for tolerating and
continuing a situation dangerous to the future security of the United
At Yalta the dying Roosevelt, with
Hiss at his elbow and General Marshall in attendance, had consented to
the brutality of letting the Soviet use millions of prisoners of war as
slave laborers - one million of them still slaves or dead before their
We not only thus agreed to the
revival of human slavery in a form far crueler than ever seen in the
Western world; we also practiced the inhumanity of returning to the
Soviet for Soviet sanctuary in areas held by the troops of the once
The Morgenthau plan for reviving
human slavery by its provision for "forced labor outside Germany" after
the war (William Henry Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade, Henry
Regnery Company, Chicago, 1950, p. 210) was the basic document for these
monstrous decisions. It seems that Roosevelt initialed this plan at
Quebec without fully knowing what he was doing (Memoirs of Cordell Hull,
Vol. II) and might have modified some of the more cruel provisions if he
had lived and regained his strength. Instead, he drifted into the
twilight, and at Yalta Hiss and Marshall were in attendance upon him,
while Assistant Secretary of State Acheson was busy in Washington.
After Roosevelt's death the same
officials of sub-cabinet rank of high non-cabinet rank carried on their
old policies and worked sedulously to foment more than the normal amount
of post-war unrest in Western Germany. Still neglected was the sound
strategic maxim that a war is fought to bring a defeated nation into the
victor's orbit as a friend and ally.
Indeed, with a much narrower world
horizon than his predecessor, Mr. Truman was more easily put upon by the
alien-minded officials around him. To all intents and purposes, he was
soon their captive.
From the point of view of the future
relations of both Germans and Jews and of our own national interest, we
made a grave mistake in using so many Jews in the administration of
Germany. Since Jews were assumed not to have any "Nazi contamination,"
the "Jews who remained in Germany after the Nazi regime were available
for use by military government" (Zink: American Military Government in
Germany, p. 136).
Also, many Jews who had come from
Germany to this country during the war were sent back to Germany as
American officials of rank and power. Some of these individuals were
actually given on-the-spot commissions as officers in the Army of the
Unfortunately, not all refugee Jews
were of admirable character. Some had been in trouble in Germany for
grave non-political offenses and their repatriation in the dress of
United States officials was a shock to the German people.
There are testimonies of
falsifications by Jewish interpreters and of acts of vengeance, the
extent of such practices is not here estimated, but in any case the
employment of such large numbers of Jews -- whether of good report, or
bad -- was taken by Germans as proof of Hitler's contention (heard by
many Americans as a shortwave song) that America is a "Jewish land," and
made rougher our road toward reconciliation and peace.
A major indelible blot was thrown on
the American shield by the Nuremberg war trials in which, in clear
violation of the spirit of our own Constitution, we tried people under
ex post facto laws for actions performed in carrying out the orders of
Such a travesty of justice could have
no other result than teaching the Germans - as the Palestine matter
taught the Arabs - that our government had no sense of justice.
The persisting bitterness from this
foul fiasco is seen in the popular quip in Germany to the effect that in
the third World War England will furnish the navy, France the foot
soldiers, America the airplanes, and Germany the war-criminals.
In addition to lacking the solid
foundation of legal precedent our "war trials" afforded a classic
example of the "law's delay."
Seven German soldiers, ranging in
rank from sergeant to general, were executed as late as June 7, 1951.
Whatever these men and those executed
before them may or may not have done, the long delay had two obvious
results -- five years of jobs for the U.S. bureaucrats involved and a
continuing irritation of the German people -- an irritation desired by
Zionists and Communists.
The Germans had been thoroughly
alarmed and aroused against Communism and used the phrase "Gegen Welt
Bolshewismus" (Against World Communism") on placards and parade banners
while Franklin Roosevelt was courting it ("We need those votes").
Consequently the appointment of John
J. McCloy as High Commissioner (July 2,1949) appeared as an affront, for
this man was Assistant Secretary of War at the time of the
implementation of the executive order which abolishes rules designed to
prevent the admission of Communists to the War Department; and also,
before a Congressional Committee appointed to investigate Communism in
the War Department, he testified that Communism was not a decisive
factor in granting or withholding an army commission.
Not only McCloy's record (Chapter
VIII, c ) but his manner in dealing with the Germans tended to encourage
a permanent hostility toward America. Thus, as late as 1950, he was
still issuing orders to them not merely plainly but "bluntly" and
"sharply" (Drew Middleton in the New York Times, Feb, 7, 1950).
Volumes could not record all our
follies in such matters as dismantling German plants for the Soviet
Union while spending nearly a billion a year to supply food and other
essentials to the German people, who could have supported themselves by
work in the destroyed plants. For details on results from dismantling a
few chemical plants in the Ruhr, see "On the Record" by Dorothy
Thompson, Washington Evening Star, June 14, 1949.
The crowning failure of our policy,
however, came in 1950.
This is no place for a full
discussion or our attitude toward the effort of 510,000 Jews -
supported, of course, from the outside as shown in Chapter IV, above -
to ride herd on 62,000,000 Germans (1933, the figures were respectively
about 600,000 and 69,000,000 by 1939) or the ghastly sequels. It
appeared as sheer deception, however, to give the impression, as Mr.
Acheson did, that we were doing what we could to secure the cooperation
of Western Germany, when Mr. Milton Katz was at the time (his
resignation was effective August 19, 1951) our overall Ambassador in
Europe and, under the far from vigorous Marshall, the two top assistant
secretaries of Defense were the Eastern European Jewess, Mrs. Anna
Rosenberg, and Mr. Marx Leva !
Nothing is said or implied by the
author against Mr. Katz, Mrs. Rosenberg or Mr. Marx Leva, or others such
as Mr. Max Lowinthal and Mr. Benjamin J. Brittenwieser, who have been
prominent figures in our recent dealings with Germany, the former as
Assistant to Commissioner McCloy and the latter as Assistant High
Commissioner of the United States. As far as the author knows, all five
of these officials are true to their convictions. The sole point here
stressed is the unsound policy of sending unwelcome people to a land
whose good will we are seeking - or perhaps only pretending to seek.
According to Forster's A Measure of
Freedom (p. 86), there is a "steady growth of pro-German sentiment in
the super Patriotic press" in the United States. The context suggests
that Mr. Forster is referring in derision to certain pro-American sheets
of small circulation, most of which do not carry advertising. These
English-language papers with their strategically sound viewpoints can,
however, have no appreciable circulation in Germany, if any at all, and
Germans are forced to judge America by its actions and its personnel. In
both, we have moved for the most part rather to repel them than to draw
them into our orbit as friends.
If we really wish friendship and
peace with the German people, and really want them on our side in case
of another world-wide war, our choice of General Eisenhower as
Commander-in-chief in Europe was most unfortunate. He is a tactful,
genial man, but to the Germans he remains -- now and in history -- as
the Commander who directed the destruction of their cities with civilian
casualties running as high as a claimed 40,000 in a single night, and
directed the U.S. retreat from the out-skirts of Berlin.
This retreat was both an affront to
our victorious soldiers and a tragedy for Germany, because of the
millions of additional people it placed under the Soviet yoke, and
because of the submarine construction plants, guided missile works, and
other factories it presented to the Soviet. Moreover, General Eisenhower
was Supreme Commander in Germany during the hideous atrocities
perpetrated upon the German people by displaced persons after the
surrender (Chapter IV, above).
There is testimony to General
Eisenhower's lack of satisfaction with conditions in Germany in 1945,
but he made -- as far as the author knows -- no strong gesture such as
securing his assignment to another post. Finally, according to Mr..
Henry Morgenthau (New York Post, November 24, 1947), as quoted in Human
Events and in W. H. Chamberlin's America's Second Crusade, General
Eisenhower said: "The whole German population is a synthetic paranoid"
and added that the best cure would be to let them stew in their own
All in all, sending General
Eisenhower to persuade the West Germans to "let bygones be bygones"
(CBS, January 20, 1951), even before the signing of a treaty of peace,
was very much as if President Grant had sent General Sherman to Georgia
to placate the Georgians five years after the burning of Atlanta and the
march to the sea -- except that the personable Eisenhower had the
additional initial handicap of Mr. Katz breathing on his neck, and Mrs.
Anna Rosenberg in high place in the Department of Defense in Washington
The handicap may well be
insurmountable, for many Germans, whether rightly or not, believe Jews
are responsible for all their woes. Thus, after the Eisenhower
appointment, parading Germans took to writing on their placards not
their old motto "Gegen Welt Bolshewismus" but "Ohne mich" (AP despatch
from Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, February 4, 1951) which may be
translated "Leave me out."
In this Germany, whose deep war
wounds were kept constantly festering by our policy, our government has
stationed some six divisions of American troops. Why? In answering the
question remember that Soviet Russia is next door, while our troops,
supplies, and reinforcements have to cross the Atlantic! Moreover, if
the Germans, fighting from and for their own homeland, "failed with a
magnificent army of 240 combat divisions" (ex-President Herbert Hoover,
broadcast on "Our National Policies on This Crisis," Dec. 20, 1950) to
defeat Soviet Russia, what do we expect to accomplish with six divisions
Of course, in World War II many of
Germany's divisions were used on her west front and America gave the
Soviet eleven billion dollars worth of war matériel; still by any
comparison with the number of German divisions used against Stalin, six
is a very small number for any military purpose envisioning victory.
Can it be that the six divisions have
been offered by some State Department schemer as World War III's
European parallels to the "sitting ducks" at Pearl Harbor and the cockle
shells in Philippine waters? (See Chapter VII, d, below and Design for
War, by Frederick R. Sanborn, The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1951).
According to the military historian
and critic, Major Hoffman Nickerson, our leaders have some "undisclosed
purpose of their own, if they foresee war they intend that war to begin
either with a disaster or a helter-skelter retreat" (The Freeman, July
In any case the Soviet Union --
whether from adverse internal conditions, restive satellites, fear of
our atomic bomb stockpile, confidence in the achievement of its
objectives through diplomacy and infiltration, or other reasons -- has
not struck violently at our first bait of six divisions. But, under our
provocation the Soviet has quietly got busy.
For five years after the close of
World War II, we maintained in Germany two divisions and the Soviet
leaders made little or no attempt to prepare the East German
transportation network for possible war traffic (U. S. News and World
Report, January 24, 1951).
Rising, however, to the challenge of
our four additional divisions (1951), the Soviet took positive action.
Here is the story (AP dispatch from Berlin in Washington Times-Herald,
April 30, 1951): Russian engineers have started rebuilding the strategic
rail and road system from Germany's Elbe River, East German sources
disclosed today. The main rail lines linking East Germany and Poland
with Russia are being double-tracked, the sources said.
The engineers are rebuilding
Germany's highway and bridge network to support tanks and other heavy
The Soviet got busy not only in
transportation but in personnel and equipment. According to Drew
Middleton (New York Times, August 17, 1951), "All twenty-six divisions
of the Soviet group of armies in Eastern Germany are being brought to
full strength for the first time since 1946." Also, a "stream of newly
produced tanks, guns, trucks, and light weapons is flowing to divisional
and army bases." There were reports also if the strengthening of
These strategic moves followed our
blatantly announced plans to increase our forces in Germany. Moreover,
according to Woodrow Wyatt, British Undersecretary for War, the Soviet
Union had "under arms" in the summer of 1951 "215 divisions and more
than 4,000,000 men" (AP dispatch in New York Times, July 16, 1951). Can
it be possible that our State Department is seeking ground conflict with
this vast force not only on their frontier but on the particular
frontier which is closest to their factories and to their most
productive farm lands?
In summary, the situation of our
troops in Germany is part of a complex world picture which is being
changed daily by new world situations such as our long delayed accord
with Spain and a relaxing of the terms of our treaty with Italy. There
are several unsolved factors. One of them is our dependence - at least
in large part - on the French transportation network which is in daily
jeopardy of paralysis by the Communists, who are numerically the
strongest political party in France. Another is the nature of the peace
treaty which will some day be ratified by the government of West Germany
and the Senate of the United States - and thereafter the manner of
implementing that treaty.
As we leave the subject, it can only
be said that the situation of our troops in Germany is precarious and
that the question of our relations with Germany demands the thought of
the ablest and most patriotic people in America - a type not overly
prominent in the higher echelons of our Department of State in recent
(d) Having by three colossal "mistakes" set the stage for
possible disaster in the Far East, in the Middle East, and in Germany,
we awaited the enemy's blow which could be expected to topple us to
defeat. It came in the Far East.
As at Pearl Harbor, the attack came
on a Sunday morning -- June 2, 1950. On that day North Korean Communist
troops crossed the 38th parallel from the Soviet Zone to the recently
abandoned U.S. Zone in Korea and moved rapidly to the South. Our
government knew from several sources about these Communist troops before
we moved our troops out on January 1, 1949, leaving the South Koreans to
their fate. For instance, in March, 1947, Lieutenant General John R.
Hodge, U.S. Commander in Korea, stated "that Chinese Communist troops
were participating in the training of a Korean army of 500,000 in
Russian-held North Korea" (The China Story, p. 51).
Despite our knowledge of the armed
might of the forces in North Korea; despite our vaunted failure to arm
our former wards, the South Koreans; despite our "hands off" statements
placing Formosa and Korea outside our defense perimeter and generally
giving Communists the green light in the Far East; and despite President
Truman's statement as late as May 4, 1950, that there would be "no
shooting war," we threw United States troops from Japan into that
unhappy peninsula - without the authority of Congress - to meet the
Our troops from Japan had been
trained for police duty rather than as combat units and were "without
the proper weapons" (P.L. Franklin in National Republic, January, 1951).
This deplorable fact was confirmed officially by former Defense
Secretary, Louis Johnson, who testified that our troops in Korea "were
not equipped with the things that you would need if you were to fight a
hostile enemy. They were staffed and equipped for occupation, not for
war or an offensive" (testimony before combined Armed Services and
Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate, June, 1951, as quoted by U.
S. News and World Report, June 22, 1951, pp. 21-22). Our administration
had seen to it also that those troops which became our South Korean
allies were also virtually unarmed, for the Defense Department "had no
establishment for Korea. It was under the State Department at that time"
(Secretary Johnson's testimony).
Under such circumstances, can any
objective thinker avoid the conclusion that the manipulators of United
States policy confidently anticipated the defeat and destruction of our
forces, which Secretary Acheson advised President Truman to commit to
Korea in June, 1950?
But the leftist manipulators of the
State Department whether in that department or on the outside -- were
soon confronted by a miracle they had not foreseen. The halting of the
North Korean Communists by a handful of men under such handicaps was one
of the remarkable and heroic pages in history credit for which must be
shared by our brave front-line fighting men; their field commanders
including Major General William F. Dean, who was captured by the enemy,
and Lieutenant General Walton H. Walker, who died in Korea; and their
Commander-in-Chief, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.
The free world applauded what seemed
to be a sudden reversal of our long policy of surrender to Soviet force
in the Far East, and the United Nations gave its endorsement to our
administration's venture in Korea. But the same free world was stunned
when it realized the significance of our President's order to the U.S.
Seventh Fleet to take battle station between Formosa and the Chinese
mainland and stop Chiang from harassing the mainland Communists. Prior
to the Communist aggression in Korea, Chiang was dropping ammunition
from airplanes to unsubdued Nationalist troops (so-called "guerrillas"),
whose number by average estimates of competent authorities was placed at
approximately 1,250,000; was bombing Communist concentrations; was
making hit-and -run raids on Communist-held ports, and was intercepting
supplies which were being sent from Britain and the United States to the
Chinese Communists. Repeated statements by Britain and America that such
shipments were of no use to the Communist armies were demolished
completely by Mr. Winston Churchill, who revealed on the floor of the
House of Commons (May 7, 1951, UP dispatch) that the material sent to
the Chinese Communists included 2,500 tons of Malayan rubber per month!
Chiang's forces - despite frequent
belittlings in certain newspapers and by certain radio commentators -
were and are by no means negligible. His failure on the mainland had
resulted directly from our withholding of ammunition and other supplies
but, as shown above, he successfully covered his retreat to Formosa.
According to Major General Claire Chennault of the famed "Flying Tigers"
and Senator Knowland of California -- a World War II Major and member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee -- who investigated independently,
Chiang late in 1950 had about 500,000 trained troops on Formosa and
considerable materiel. The number was placed at 600,000 by General
MacArthur in his historic address to the two houses of the Congress on
April 19, 1951.
Our action against Chiang had one
effect, so obvious as to seem planned. By our order to the Seventh
Fleet, the Communist armies which Chiang was pinning down were free to
support the Chinese Communist forces assembled on the Korean border to
watch our operations. Despite our State Department's "assumption" that
the Chinese Communists would not fight, those armies seized the moment
of their reinforcement from the South, which coincided with the extreme
lengthening of our supply lines, and entered the war in November, 1950,
thirteen days after the election of a pro-Acheson Democratic congress.
In his appearance before the combined Armed Services and Foreign
Relations Committees of the Senate in May, 1951, General MacArthur
testified that two Chinese Communist armies which had been watching
Chiang had been identified among our enemies in Korea. Thus our policy
in the Strait of Formosa was instrumental in precipitating the Chinese
Communist attack upon us when victory in Korea was in our grasp.
Here then, in summary, was the
situation when the Chinese Communists crossed the Yalu River in
November, 1950: - We had virtually supplied them with the sinews of war
by preventing Chiang's interference with their import of strategic
materials. We had released at least two of their armies for an attack on
us by stopping Chiang's attacks on them. We not only, for "political"
reasons, had refused Chiang's offer of 33,000 of his best troops when
the war broke out ("How Asia's Policy Was Shaped: Civilians in the State
Department Are Dictating Military Strategy of Nation, Johnson confirms,"
by Constantine Brown, The Evening Star, Washington, June 16, 1951), but
even in the grave crisis in November, 1950, we turned down General
MacArthur's plea that he be allowed to "accept 60,000 of Chiang's
These truths, which cannot be
questioned by anyone, constitute a second barrage of evidence that the
shapers of our policy sought defeat rather than victory. Had General
MacArthur been permitted to use them, Chiang's loyal Chinese troops
would not only have fought Communists, but, being of the same race and
speaking the same or a related language, "would no doubt have been able
to induce many surrenders among the Red Chinese forces" (see "Uncle Sam,
Executioner," The Freeman, June 18, 1951). If we had accepted the
services of Chiang's troops, we would have also secured the great
diplomatic advantage of rendering absurd, and probably preventing, the
outcry in India, and possibly other Asiatic countries, that our
operation in Korea was a new phase of Western imperialism.
But this was not all that our State
Department and Presidential coterie did to prevent the victory of our
troops in Korea. Despite the fact that the United Nations on October 7,
1950, voted by a big majority for crossing the 38th parallel to free
North Korea, up to the Yalu River, we denied MacArthur's army the right
to use air reconnaissance for acquiring intelligence indications of the
Chinese Communist troops and facilities across that river. This amazing
denial of a commander's lives at last made clear to many Americans that
we were fighting for some other objective besides victory. Coming, as it
did, as one of a series of pro-Communist moves, this blindfolding of
General MacArthur prompted Representative Joe Martin of Massachusetts,
former Speaker of the House, to ask pointedly in his Lincoln Day Speech
in New York (February 12, 1951): "What are we in Korea for - to win or
The denial of the right to
reconnoiter and to bomb troop concentrations and facilities, after whole
Chinese armies were committed against us, was very close to treason
under the Constitutional prohibition (Article III, Section 3, paragraph
1) of giving "aid and comfort" to an enemy.
In-fact, if a refusal to let our
troops take in defense of their lives measures always recognized in
warfare as not only permissible but obligatory does not constitute "aid
and comfort" to the enemy, it is hard to conceive any action which might
be so construed. The pretense that by abstaining from reconnaissance and
from the bombing of enemy supply lines we kept the Soviet out of the war
makes sense only to the very ignorant or to those in whose eyes our
State Department can do no wrong. A country such as the Soviet Union
will make war when the available materiel is adequate, when its troops
have been trained and concentrated for the proposed campaign, and when
the government decides that conditions at home and abroad are favorable
-- not when some of its many cats-paws are bombed on one side or the
other of an Asiatic river.
The only logical conclusion,
therefore -- and a conclusion arrived at by a whole succession of proofs
-- is that for some reason certain people with influence in high places
wanted heavier American casualties in Korea, the final defeat of our
forces there, and the elimination of MacArthur from the American scene.
But once again, MacArthur did not
fail. Once again, under terrible odds, MacArthur first evaded and then
stopped the enemy - an enemy sent against him by the Far Eastern policy
of Truman and Acheson.
According to General Bonner Fellers
(UP, Baltimore, Md., May 11, 1952, New York Times), the Chinese field
commanders in Korea in the Spring of 1951 were desperate and " could not
hold out much longer." Apparently not wanting victory, the
Truman-Acheson-Marshall clique acted accordingly.
On April 10, 1951, General Douglas MacArthur's was dismissed from his
Far Eastern command. With MacArthur's successor, our top echelon
executives took no chances. Before a Florida audience, the veteran radio
commentator, H. V. Kaltenborn, spoke as follows: "General Ridgeway told
me in answer to my query as to why we can't win that he was under orders
not to win" (Article by Emilie Keyes, Palm Beach Post, Jan. 30, 1952).
The frantic dismissal of a great
general who was also a popular and successful ruler of an occupied
country caused a furor all over America. The General was invited to
address the two houses of the Congress in joint session and did so on
April 19, 1951. During the same hour, the President conferred, as he
said later, with Dean Acheson, without turning on radio or television -
and Mrs. Truman was at a horse race.
General MacArthur's speech will
forever be a classic in military annals and among American State papers.
It was followed shortly by an investigation of the circumstances leading
to his dismissal - an investigation by the combined Armed Services and
Foreign Relations committees of the Senate.
The millions of words of testimony
before the combined Senate committees resulted in no action.
The volume of questions and answers
was so vast that few people or none could follow all of it, but certain
good resulted -- even over and above the awakening of the more alert
Americans to the dangers of entrusting vital decisions to men with the
mental processes of the secretaries of State and Defense.
After the MacArthur investigation the
American people (i) knew more about our casualties in Korea; (ii)
learned of the Defense Department's acceptance of the idea of a bloody
stalemate, and (iii) got a shocking documentary proof of the ineptitude
or virtual treason of our foreign policy. These three topics will be
developed in the order here listed.
(i) By May 24, 1951 -- eleven months
after the Korean Communist troops crossed the 38th parallel -- our own
publicly admitted battle casualties had reached the recorded total of
69,276, a figure much larger than that for our casualties during the
whole first full year (1942) of World War II (U. S. News and World
Report, April 17, 1951, p. 14).
On the subject of our casualties,
Senator Bridges of New Hampshire, senior Republican member of the Armed
Services Committee of the Senate, revealed the further significant fact
that as of April, 1951, Americans had suffered "94.6 per cent of all
casualties among United Nations forces aiding South Korea" (UP dispatch
from Chicago, April 11, 1951). Parenthetically, the second United
Nations member in the number of casualties in Korea was our Moslem
co-belligerent, the Republic of Turkey. The casualties of South Korea
were not considered in this connection since that unhappy land was not a
Moreover, on May 24, 1951, General
Bradley revealed in his testimony before the combined Armed Services and
Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate that non-battle casualties,
including the loss of frozen legs and arms, which had not been included
in lists issued to the public, totaled an additional 72,679 casualties,
among them 612 dead.
With such terrible casualties
admitted and published, President Truman's glib talk of "avoiding war"
by a "police action" in Korea appeared to more and more people to be
nothing but quibbling with a heartless disregard of our dead and wounded
men and their sorrowing relatives. Our battle casualties passed 100,000
by mid-November, 1951.
(ii) Before his dismissal, General
MacArthur stressed his conviction that the only purpose of war is
victory. In direct contrast, Secretary of Defense Marshall admitted to
the Congress, in seeking more drastic draft legislation, that there was
no foreseen end to our losses in Korea - a statement undoubtedly
coordinated with the State Department.
This acceptance of a bloody stalemate
with no foreseeable end horrified MacArthur, who is a Christian as well
as a strategist, and prompted a protest which was a probable factor in
The Marshall "strategy in Korea" was
summed up succinctly by U. S. News and World Report (April 20, 1951) as
a plan "to bleed the Chinese into a mood to talk peace." This
interpretation was confirmed by General Marshall, who was still
Secretary of Defense, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services and
Foreign Relations Committees on May 7, 1951.
What an appalling prospect for
America -- this fighting a war our leaders do not want us to win, for
when every possible drop of our blood has been shed on Korean soil the
dent in China's 475,000,000 people (population figures given by Chinese
Communist mission to the UN) will not be noticeable. This is true
because on a blood-letting basis we cannot kill them as fast as their
birth rate will replace them. Moreover, the death of Chinese Communist
soldiers will cause no significant ill-effects on Chinese morale, for
the Chinese Communist authorities publish neither the names of the dead
nor any statistics on their losses.
(iii) Terrible for its full and final
exposure of our government's wanton waste of young American lives and of
our State Department's destruction of our world position, but fortunate
for its complete revelation of treason or the equivalent in high places
in our government, a second installment of the Wedemeyer Report (a,
above) was given to the public on May 1, 1951, possibly because of the
knowledge that the MacArthur furor would turn the daylight on it anyhow.
The full text of the Wedemeyer Report on Korea, as issued, was published
in the New York Times for May 2, 1951.
The report was condensed in an
editorial (Washington Daily News, April 10, 1951) which Congressman
Walter H. Judd of Minnesota included in the Congressional Record (May
2,1951, pp. A2558-2559).
Here is a portion of the Daily News
editorial with a significant passage from the Wedemeyer Report: The
[Wedemeyer] reports, which presented plans to save China and Manchuria
from Communism, were suppressed until July, 1949. The report on Korea
was denied to the public until yesterday. It contained this warning: The
Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean people's (Communist) army of
approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized
constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. . .The
withdrawal of American military forces from Korea would. . . result in
the occupation of South Korea either by Soviet troops, or, as seems more
likely, by the Korean military units trained under Soviet auspices."
Those units, General Wedemeyer said, maintained active liaison "with the
Chinese Communists in Manchuria."
This was written nearly 4 years ago.
To meet this threat, General
Wedemeyer recommended a native force on South Korea, "sufficient in
strength to cope with the threat from the North," to prevent the
"forcible establishment of a Communist government."
Since 70 percent of the Korean
population was in the American occupation zone south of the
thirty-eighth parallel, the manpower advantage was in our favor, if we
had used it.
But the sound Wedemeyer proposal was
ignored, and, when the predicted invasion began, American troops had to
be rushed to the scene because sufficient South Korean troops were not
The State Department was responsible
for this decision.
Thus a long-suppressed document, full
of warning and of fulfilled prophecy, joined the spilled blood of our
soldiers in casting the shadow of treason upon our State Department.
"U.N. forces, under present restraints, will not be able to win" said
U.S. News and World Report, on June 8, 1951. IN fact, by their
government's plan they were not allowed to win! Here's how The Freeman
(June 4, 1951) summed up our Korean war:
So whenever the Chinese Communists
feel that they are getting the worse of it, they may simply withdraw,
rest, regroup, rearm -- and make another attack at any time most
advantageous to themselves. They have the guarantee of Messrs. Truman,
Acheson, and Marshall that they will be allowed to do all this
peacefully and at their leisure; that we will never pursue them into
their own territory, never bomb their concentrations or military
installations, and never peep too curiously with our air reconnaissance
to see what they are up to.
The truce conference between the
Communists and the representatives of the American Far East commander,
General Matthew B. Ridgway was protracted throughout the summer and
autumn of 1951 and into April, 1952, when General Mark Clark of Rapido
River notoriety succeeded (April 28) to the military command once held
by Douglas MacArthur! Whatever its outcome may be under General Clark,
this conference has so far had one obvious advantage for the Communists;
it has given them time in which to build up their resources in matériel,
particularly in tanks and jet planes, and time to bring up more troops -
an opportunity capable of turning the scales against us in Korea, since
a corresponding heavy reinforcement of our troops was forbidden under
our new policy of sending four divisions to Germany!
The potential disaster inherent in
our long executive dawdling, while our troops under the pliant Ridgway
saw their air superiority fade away, should be investigated by Congress.
In letters to public officials and to the press and in resolutions
passed in public meetings, the American people should demand such an
investigation. Congress should investigate the amount of pre-combat
training given our fliers: the question of defective planes; and crashes
in the Strategic Air Command under General LeMay and others, as well as
the decline under President Truman of our relative air strength in Korea
and the world.
For amazing pertinent facts, see
"Emergency in the Air," by General Bonner Fellers, in Human Events,
January 23, 1952.
A peace treaty with Japan (for text,
see New York Times, July 13, 1951) was proclaimed at San Francisco on
September 8, 1951, after the dismissal of General MacArthur.
This treaty ratified the crimes of
Yalta under which, in defiance of the Atlantic Charter and of every
principle of self-interest and humanity, we handed to the Soviet the
Kurile Islands and placed Japan perilously in the perimeter of Soviet
power. Moreover, the preamble to the treaty provides that Japan shall
"strive to realize the objectives of the universal declaration of human
rights." Since this declaration is intended to supersede the U.S.
Constitution, the Senate's ratification of the treaty (Spring of 1952)
is thought by many astute political observers to foreshadow UN meddling
within our boundaries (see Human Events, December 26, 1951) and other
violations of our sovereignty. On April 28, 1952 Japan, amid a clamor of
Soviet denunciation, became a nation again. At best, the new Japan,
sorely overpopulated and underprovided with food and other resources
cannot for many years be other than a source of grave concern to our
country. This is our legacy from Hiss, Acheson, and Dulles!
And what of the South Koreans, a
people we are ostensibly helping? Their land is a bloody shambles and
three million of them are dead. it was thus that we joined Britain in
"helping" Poland in World War II.
The best comment is a haunting phrase
of the Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus, "Ubi solitudinem
faciunt, pacem appellant" ("Where they create a wasteland, they call it
Thus with no visible outcome but a
continuing bloody stalemate, and continuing tragedy for the South
Koreans, more and more clean young Americans are buries under white
crosses in Korea.
Perhaps the best summary of our
position in Korea was given by Erle Cocke, Jr., National Commander of
the American Legion, after a tour of the battle lines in Korea ("Who Is
Letting Our GI's Down?" American Legion Magazine, May, 1951): Our
present-day Benedict Arnolds may glibly argue that it is necessary to
keep Chiang and his armies blockaded on Formosa, but these arguments
make no sense to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have to
do the fighting and dying. They see in Chiang's vast armies a way of
saving some of the 250 lives that are being needlessly sacrificed each
week because certain furtive people expound that Chiang isn't the right
sort of person, and therefore we cannot accept his aid. Our fighting men
are not impressed by these false prophets because they haven't forgotten
that these same people not long ago were lauding Mao's murdering hordes
as "agrarian reformers."
For the life of them - and "life" is
meant in a very literal sense - they can't understand why our State
Department and the United Nations make it necessary for them to be
slaughtered by red armies which swarm down on them from a territory
which our own heads of Government make sacrosanct. . .
Agents of the Kremlin, sitting in the
councils of the United Nations in Washington and elsewhere, must laugh
up their sleeves at our utter idiocy. But you may be sure that our GI's
are not amused. They see the picture as clearly as the Soviet agents do,
but, unlike our stateside leaders, they see the results of this criminal
skulduggery in the blood they shed and in the mangled corpses of their
What they cannot understand, though,
is the strange apathy of the people back home. As they listen to radio
reports of what is happening thousands of miles to the east of them,
they are puzzled. Isn't the American public aware of what is going on?
Don't they realize that their sons and husbands and sweethearts are
fighting a ruthless enemy who has them at a terrible disadvantage,
thanks to stupid or traitorous advisors and inept diplomacy?
This brings us to Delegate Warren
Austin's statement (NBC, January 20, 1951) that the UN votes with us
"usually 53 to 5" but runs out on us when the question rises of
substantial help in Korea. The reader is now ready for and has probably
arrived at the truth. The free nations vote with us because we are
obviously preferable to the Soviet Union as a friend or ally, for the
Soviet Union absorbs and destroys its allies.
But according to the Lebanon delegate
to the United Nations, quoted above, the nations of Asia are withholding
their full support of U.S. Policy because they are pained and bewildered
by it. They do not understand a foreign policy which (a) applauds the
landing of Russian-trained troops on a Palestine beachhead and amiably
tolerates the bloody "liquidation" of natives and UN officials and (b)
goes to war because one faction of Koreans is fighting another faction
of Koreans in Korea.
The failure to see any sense in
United States policy is not confined to the nations of Asia. In France,
our oldest friend among the great powers, there is confusion also. Thus
a full-page cartoon in the conservative and dignified L'Illustration
(issue of January 20, 1951) showed Stalin and Truman sitting over a
chess board. Stalin is gathering in chessmen (U.S. Soldiers' lives)
while Truman looks away from the main game to fumble with a deck of
cards. Stalin asks him: "Finally, my friend, won't you tell me exactly
what game we are playing?" ("Enfin, mon cher, me direz-vous à quos nous
jouons exactement?"). This quip should touch Americans to the quick.
Exactly what game are we playing?
How can Lebanon or France, or any
nation or anybody, understand a policy which fights Communism on the
38th Parallel and helps it in the Strait of Formosa; which worships
aggression in Palestine and condemns it in Korea? In the Philadelphia
Inquirer (April 6, 1951) the matter was brilliantly summed up in the
headline of a dispatch from Ivan H. Peterman: "U.S. Zig-Zag Diplomacy
Baffles Friend and Foe."
Meanwhile, amid smirking complacency
in the State Department, more and more of those young men who should be
the Americans of the Future are buried beneath white crosses on an
endless panorama of heartbreak ridges.
THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY WANT WAR?
Since the suspension of the Age of
Honor in 1933, those few patriotic Americans who as linguists, astute
historians, or intelligence officers have been privileged to look behind
our iron curtain of censorship have had the shock of many times seeing
the selfish wishes of a gang or a minority placed ahead of the welfare
of the United States.
The attempts of those writers and
speakers who have tried to share the truth with their fellow citizens
have, however, been largely in vain. Publishers and periodicals
characteristically refuse to print books and articles that present vital
whole truths. Patriotic truth-tellers who somehow achieve print are
subject to calumny. "I have been warned by many," said General MacArthur
in his speech to the Massachusetts Legislature in Boston (July 25,
1951), "that an outspoken course, even if it be solely of truth, will
bring down upon my head ruthless retaliation - that efforts will be made
to destroy public faith in the integrity of my views - not by force of
just argument but by the application of the false methods of
Those who have occasion to read
leftist magazines and newspapers know the accuracy of the warnings
received by General MacArthur.
Why is the average American deceived
by such propaganda?
He has been taught, in the various
and devious ways of censorship, to see no evil except in his own kind,
for on radio and in the motion picture the villain is by regular routine
a man of native stock. Ashamed and bewildered, then, the poor American
citizen takes his position more or less unconsciously against his own
people and against the truth - and thereby, against the traditions of
Western Christian civilization, which are, or were, the traditions of
the United States.
It must not be forgotten for a
moment, however, that it was the Saviour himself who said, "ye shall
know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
The average citizen of native stock
needs nothing so much as to experience the purifying joy of realizing,
of knowing, that he is not the villain in America. When the slackening
of censorship allows him to enjoy the restored freedom of seeing himself
as a worthy man -- which he is -- he will learn, also, something about
the forces which have deceived him in the last forty or fifty years.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn
from the facts stated in Chapter VI is that our foreign policy has had
no steadfast principal aims apart from pleasing -- as in its Palestine
and German deals -- the Leftists, largely of Eastern European origin,
who control the National Democratic Party.
Can this be true? If a war should
seem necessary to please certain Democrats, to establish controls, and
to give the party an indefinite tenure in office, would our leaders go
Despite the pervasive influence of
censorship, many Americans think so. A member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, Congressman Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin, charged
in 1951 that President Truman, Secretary Acheson, and General Marshall -
at that time Secretary of Defense - were "conjuring up another war."
In an article in National Republic
(May, 1951 Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee gave the history of
the Democratic Party as the "war party." This haunting terrible question
is expressed as follows by E. B. Gallaher in the Clover Business Letter
(Clover Mfg. Co., Norwalk, Conn.) for August, 1951: As we all should
know by this time, when the New Deal was about to crack up in 1941,
Roosevelt, to save his hide, deliberately got us into World War II in
order to give us something else to think about.
The propaganda at that time, due to
the global nature of the war, was "don't swap horses when crossing a
stream." On this fake propaganda he succeeded in getting himself elected
Now I wonder if history is not
repeating itself, this time in a slightly different form.
Could it be possible that Truman,
seeing the handwriting on the wall for his "Fair Deal" . . .
deliberately started the Korean war in order to insure himself of the
necessary power to become a dictator? If he could do this, the 1952
elections could become a farce, and his election would become assured.
Let us then objectively examine the
question "Does the National Democratic Party Want War?" Let it be noted
explicitly at the outset that the question refers to the controllers of
the National Democratic Party and not to the millions of individual
Democrats, Northern and Southern -- including many Senators,
Congressmen, and other officials -- whose basic patriotism cannot and
should not be challenged.
Their wrong judging is based on an
ignorance which is the product of censorship (Chapter V) and is not
allied to willful treason.
We shall examine in order (a) the
testimony of mathematics; (b) the temptation of the bureaucracy-builder;
and (c) the politician's fear of dwindling electoral majorities. The
chapter is concluded by special attention to two additional topics (d)
and (e) closely related to the question of safeguarding the Democratic
party's tenure by war.
(a) In the first half of this century, the United States had five
Republican presidents with no wars and three Democratic presidents with
three wars. Such a succession of eight coincidence under the laws of
mathematics would happen once in 256 times. Even if against such odds
this fact could be considered a coincidence, the Democrats are still
condemned by chronology. They have no alibi of inheriting these wars,
which broke out respectively in the fifth year of Woodrow Wilson, in the
ninth year of Franklin Roosevelt, and in the fifth year of Mr. Truman.
In each case there was plenty of time to head off a war by policy or
preparedness, or both. Mathematics thus clearly suggests that the
behind- the-scenes leaders of the Democratic Party have a strong
predilection for solving their problems and fulfilling their
"obligations" by war.
(b) A war inevitably leads to a rapid increase in the number of
controls. The first result of controls is the enlargement of the
bureaucracy. "Defense emergency gives the Democrats a chance to build up
for 1952. There are plenty of jobs for good party regulars" (U.S. News
and World Report, February 9, 1951). But just as an innocent-looking egg
may hatch a serpent, controls may produce a dictator, and once a
dictator is in power no one (as shown in the case of Hitler) can chart
his mad course. Nevertheless, these controls and this centralization of
bureaucratic power urged by Mr. Truman as a "Fair Deal" program are so
dear to many socialistically inclined "Democrats," Eastern Europeans and
others, that they may be willing to pay for them in young men's blood.
This sacrifice of blood for what you want is nothing startling. In the
Revolutionary War, for instance, our forefathers sacrificed blood for
national independence, and we need not be surprised that others are
willing to make the same sacrifice for what they want -- namely a
The blood sacrifice, moreover, will
not be made by those young male immigrants who are arriving from Eastern
Europe (see c below) as students or visitors or as undetected illegal
entrants. Many students and visitors have in the past found a way to
remain. Young immigrants in these categories who manage to remain and
the illegal entrants are likely to have passed the age of twenty-five
and probable exemption from the military draft before cognizance is
taken of their situation.
Newcomer aliens all too frequently
slip into jobs that might have been held by those who died in Korea!
Controls are usually introduced
somewhat gradually and with an accompaniment of propaganda designed to
deceive or lull the people. A return from absence gives an objective
outlook, and it is thus not surprising that on touring America, after
his years in the Far East, General Douglas MacArthur saw more clearly
than most people who remained in America the long strides we had made
toward collectivism. In his speech at Cleveland (AP dispatch in Richmond
Times-Dispatch, September 7, 1951) he testified that he had noted in
this country "our steady drift toward totalitarian rule with its
suppression of those personal liberties which have formed the foundation
stones to our political, economic and social advance to national
It is significant that another
American who stands at the utmost top of his profession arrived by a
different road at a conclusion identical with that of General MacArthur.
In a speech entitled "The Camel's Nose Is Under the Tent," before the
Dallas Chapter of the Society for the Advancement of Management on
October 10, 1951, Mr. Charles Erwin Wilson, President of General Motors
-- the largest single maker of armament in World War II -- gave
Americans a much-needed warning: "The emergency of the Korean war and
the defense program, however, is being used to justify more and more
government restrictions and controls. It is being used to justify more
and more policies that are inconsistent with the fundamentals of a free
society" (Information Rack Service, General Motors, General Motors
Bldg., Detroit, Michigan.)
The subject of bureaucratic controls
cannot be dropped without the testimony of an able and patriotic
American, Alfred E. Smith of New York. At the first annual banquet of
the American Liberty League (New York Times, January 26, 1936) Governor
Just get the platform of the
Democratic party and get the platform of the Socialist party and lay
them down on your dining-room table, side by side, and get a heavy lead
pencil and scratch out the word 'Democratic' and scratch out the word
'Socialist,' and let the two platforms lay there, and then study the
record of the present administration up to date.
After you have done that, make your
mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the
record, and you will have your hand on the Socialist platform. . . It is
not the first time in recorded history that a group of men have stolen
the livery of the church to do the work of the devil.
After protesting the New Deal's
"arraignment of class against class," and its draining the "resources of
our people in a common pool and redistributing them, not by any process
of law, but by the whims of a bureaucratic autocracy," Governor Smith
condemned the changing of the Democratic Party into a Socialist Party.
Since this was said during Franklin Roosevelt's first term, Governor
Smith is seen to have been not only a wise interpreter of the political
scene, but a prophet whose vigorous friendly warning was unheeded by the
In summary, let it be emphasized
again that wars bring controls and that some people in high places are
so fond of controls that a war may appear a desirable means for
(c) Finally, there is the Democratic
controller-politician's worry about the whittling down of his party from
a majority to a minority status in the national elections of 1948 and
1950. In each of these elections the Democratic failure to win a clear
majority was slight -- but significant. In 1948, Truman received less
than a majority of the popular vote cast (24,045,052 out of a total of
48,489,217), being elected by a suitable distribution of the electoral
vote, of which Henry Wallace the fourth man (Strom Thurmond was third)
received none, though his electors polled more than a million popular
votes (World Almanac, 1949, p.91). In 1950 the Democrats elected a
majority of members of the House of Representatives, but the total vote
of all Democratic candidates lacked .08 percent of being as large as the
total vote of all the Republicans. Again the Democratic Party remained
in power by the mere distribution of votes.
Here is where the grisly facts of
Eastern European immigration enter the electoral vote picture. As shown
in Chapter III, the great majority of these immigrants join the
Democratic Party. They also have a marked tendency to settle in populous
doubtful states - states in which a handful of individual votes may
swing a large block of electoral votes.
Moreover, the number of immigrants,
Eastern European and other, is colossal (Chapter II). For a short
account of the problem read "Displaced Persons: Facts vs. Fiction," a
statement by Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, in the Senate, January 6, 1950. Those interested in
fuller details should read The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of
the United States, referred to several times in Chapter II and elsewhere
in this book.
Let us now examine the significance
of the fact that almost all recent Eastern European immigrants have
joined the Democratic Party. Let us suppose that our present annual crop
of immigrants adds each year a mere third of a million votes to the
Democratic Party -- in gratitude for connivance at their admittance, if
for no other reason - and let us suppose also that in a "limited" war,
or because of "occupation" duties far from home, a half million
Americans of native stock each year are either killed or prevented from
becoming fathers because of absence from their wives or from the homes
they would have established if they were not at war.
The suggested figures of 300,000 and
500,000 are merely estimates, but they are extremely conservative. They
are based not - on a possible global war but on our present world
ventures only - including those in Korea, Japan, Okinawa, and Germany.
It thus appears that the combination of our loosely administered
immigration laws and our foreign policy is changing the basic nature of
our population at the rate of more than three-fourths of a million a
year. In case of a world-wide war, there would be a rapid rise of the
figure beyond 750,000.
To help in an understanding of the
significance of the decrease of the native population occasioned by ear
here are for comparison some population results suffered by our
principal opponent in World War II. In Germany boys expected to leave
school in 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 number respectively 836,000,
837,000, 897,000, 820,000 and 150,000. The final startling figure -
which is for boys only - reflects the birth drop because of full-scale
participation in World War II (Marion Doenhoff in European Supplement to
Human Events, September, 1950).
Even so, German soldiered were nearer
home and had more furloughs than will be possible for our men in Korea
or elsewhere overseas whether or not a full-scale World War III
develops. It is thus seen that a combination of war deaths and fewer
births among the native stock along with the immigration of leftist
aliens might appear to some manipulators of the national Democratic
Party as a highly desired way to a surer grip on power. To such people,
the boon of being a wheel in an ever-rolling Socialist machine might be
worth more than the lives of soldiers snuffed out in the undertakings of
Secretary of State Acheson, or successor of similar ideology.
(d) It is well to emphasize in this
connection that the American sympathy for "Jewish refugees," so
carefully whipped up in large segments of the press and the radio, is
mostly unjustified, as far as any hardship is concerned.
Those "refugees" who arrived in
Palestine were well-armed or soon became well-armed with weapons of
Soviet or satellite origin, and were able to take care of themselves by
killing native Arabs or expelling them from their homes.
Those Judaized Khazars arriving in
the United States lost no time in forming an "Association of Jewish
Refugees and Immigrants from Poland" (New York Times, March 29, 1944),
which at once began to exert active political pressure. Many refugees
were well-heeled with funds, portable commodities, or spoils from the
lands of their origin.
For instance, an article by the
Scripps Howard Special Writer, Henry J. Taylor, and an editorial in the
Washington Daily News (July 18, 1945) told of a clean-up by aliens "most
of whom live in New York”, of $800,000,000 in profit on the N.Y. Stock
Exchange in the Spring of 1945, "to say nothing of real estate
investments, commodity speculations, and private side deals," with no
capital gains tax because of their favored status as aliens.
The Congress soon passed legislation
designed to put such loopholes in our tax laws, but the politically
favored alien remains a problem in the field of tax collections. In
1951, for instance, patriotic U.S. Customs Service officials detected
several hundred thousands of dollars worth of diamonds in the hollow
shoe heels and in the hollow luggage frames of a group of "refugees"
(the Newsletter of the U.S. Custom Service as quoted in Washington
Newsletter by Congressman Ed Gossett, April 12, 1951).
In one way or another the average
arriving refugee is, in a matter of months or in a few years at most,
far better off economically than millions of native Americans whose
relative status is lowered by the new aliens above them - aliens for
whom in many instances native Americans perform menial work. This aspect
of immigration has long bothered American-minded members of Congress. A
report of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the
Sixty-eighth Congress (1924) expressed the following principle: "Late
comers are in all fairness not entitled to special privilege over those
who have arrived at an earlier date and thereby contributed more to the
advancement of the Nation" (The Immigration and Naturalization Systems
of the United States, p. 61).
The non-Christian alien of Eastern
European origin not only in many cases deserves no sympathy except of
course from those who cherish his ideological attachments and endorse
his political purposes; he is also often a problem. His resistance to
assimilation and his preferred nation-within-a-nation status have
already been discussed.
Another objectionable feature of
"displaced persons" -- suggested in the reference to smuggled diamonds
-- is their all-too-frequent lack of respect for United States law. A
large number of future immigrants actually flout our laws before
arriving in this country!
Investigating in Europe, Senator
McCarran found that such laws as we had on "displaced persons" were
brazenly violated. He reported to the Senate in a speech, "Wanted: A
Sound Immigration Policy for the United States" (February 28, 1950): I
have stated and I repeat, that under the administration of the present
act persons seeking the status of displaced persons have resorted to
fraud, misrepresentation, fictitious documents, and perjury in order to
qualify for immigration into the United States. A responsible employee
of the Displaced persons Commission stated to me that he believed
one-third of the displaced persons qualifying for immigration into the
United States had qualified on the basis of false and fraudulent
documents. . . A former official of Army Intelligence in Germany
testified before the full committee that certain voluntary agencies
advise displaced persons on how they might best evade our immigration
laws. . .What is more, I was advised by a high official of the inspector
general's office of the European command that they had "positive
evidence that two of the religious voluntary agencies had been guilty of
the forgery of documents in their own offices."
Senator McCarran quoted a letter
(September 9, 1949) from Sam E. Woods, which tells that the alleged
payment of "50 marks through the wife of the president of the Jewish
committee of the town" (Schwandorf, Bavaria), led to an investigation
which showed "that a number of displaced persons, who had already
departed for the United States, had previously caused their police
records in Schwandorf to be changed."
The Senator also gave evidence that
the head of the Displaced Persons Commission at Frankfurt in "direct
violation of the law" caused to be removed from files those documents
which would prevent the acceptance of a displaced person as an
Senator McCarran's findings were
supported by overwhelming testimony. To cite one instance, Mr. Edward M.
Slazek, a former "assistant selector" for the Displaced Persons
Commission in Germany, testified before a Senate Judiciary sub-committee
on immigration that he was fired because he protested the admission of
"fake DP's" through "wholesale fraud and bribery" (Washington
In view of findings and testimony,
Senator McCarran urged caution on the bill Hr. 4567 by Mr. Emanuel
Celler of New York, which provided for more Jewish immigrants, at Mr.
Truman's especial request. The president said his recommendations were
in favor of more "Catholics and Jews," but the Catholic World stated
editorially that Catholics were satisfied with the law as it was.
Senator McCarran's efforts did not
prevail. The Celler bill became Public Law 555, 81st Congress, when
signed by the President on June 16, 1950.
It raised from 205,000 to 415,744 the
number of "refugees" over and above quotas eligible legally to enter the
United States. (The McCarran-Walter bill, designed to regulate
immigration in the national interest, was vetoed by President Truman,
but became law when the Senate on June 27, 1952, followed the House in
overriding the veto.)
An additional serious aspect of
"displaced persons" is their disposition to cause trouble. Without
exception informed officials interviewed by the author as an
intelligence officer in 1945 advised caution on the indiscriminate
admission of "refugees," Jewish and other, in the period following VE
Day is furnished by Major Harold Zink, a former Consultant on U.S.
policy in Germany, in his book American Military Government in Germany
(Macmillan, 1947). After stating that "displaced persons gave military
government more trouble than any other problem" and mentioning the
agitation to the end that "the best German houses be cleared of their
occupants and placed at the disposal of the displaced persons,
especially the Jews," Professor Zink continues as follows (p.122):
Moreover, the displaced persons continued their under-ground war with
the German population. . . With German property looted, German lives
lost, and German women raped almost every day by the displaced persons,
widespread resentment developed among the populace, especially when they
could not defend themselves against the fire-arms which the displaced
persons managed to obtain.
Eastern European "displaced persons,"
their associates, and their offspring do not always lose, on arriving in
hospitable America, their tendency to cause trouble.
In a review of The Atom Spies by
Arthur Pilat (Putnam), The New Yorker (May 10, 1952) states that "the
most important people involved - Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass, the
Julius Rosenbergs, Harry Gold, and Morton Sobell - were not professional
spies and they weren't much interested in money." The review concludes
by emphasizing "the clear and continuing danger of having among us an
amorphous group of people who can be persuaded at any time to betray
their country for what they are told are super-patriotic reasons."
An understanding of Zionism as a
"super-patriotic" force with a focus of interest outside of and alien to
America -- can be had from an editorial signed by Father Ralph Gorman,
C.P., in The Sign (November, 1951): Zionism is not, at present at least,
a humanitarian movement designed to help unfortunate Jewish refugees. It
is a political and military organization, based squarely on race,
religion, and nation, using brute force against an innocent people as
the instrument for the execution of its policies. . .
The Israelis have already carved a
state out of Arab land and have driven 750,000 Arabs out of their homes
into exile. Now they look with covetous eyes on the rest of Palestine
and even the territory across the Jordan. . .
The Arabs are not fools. They realize
what is being prepared for them - with American approval and money. They
know that the sword is aimed at them and that, unless Zionist plans are
frustrated, they will be driven back step by step into the desert --
their lands, homes, vineyards, and farms taken over by an alien people
brought from the ends of the earth for this purpose.
Even worse in some aspects is a
political philosophy -- put into practice by "drives" to sell "Israeli"
bonds, nation-wide propaganda, etc. -- to the effect that "Israel is
supposed to have a unique jurisdiction over the 10,000,000 to 12,000,000
Jews who live in every country of the world outside it" (Mr. William
Zuckerman, reporting, in the Jewish Newsletter, on "the recent World
Zionist Congress held in Jerusalem," as quoted by Father Gorman).
In view of the passages just quoted,
why are America's leftists so anxious for many more "refugees" ? Can
there be any conceivable reason except for the eager anticipation of
their future votes ? Can there be any motives other than anti-American
in the opposition to the McCarran-Walter law (p. 166) ? Moreover, can
anyone believe that continued subservience to "Israeli" aims is other
than an invitation to war in the Middle East -- a war which we would
(e) Let us once more consider the
foreign policy which is responsible for our present peril.
Could it be that those who pull the
strings from hidden seats behind the scenes, want Americans to be killed
in Korea indefinitely and for no purpose; want the Arab world to turn
against us; want a few hundred thousand young Americans killed in
Germany, and want the reviving German state destroyed lest it somehow
become again (see Chapter I) a bulwark against the present pagan rulers
of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia? Such an eventuality, of course,
would be used to bring in from here and there as in World War II a great
new horde of politically dependable refugees - a boon to all leftists -
a boon so great that no further challenge to their power could be
In answering the question, "Do those
who pull the hidden strings really want war?" remember that the Soviet
manpower reserves are many times greater than ours; their birthrate is
nearly twice as high; they have millions of Chinese and other puppets
willing to fight for rice and clothing. Without reserves from Asia,
however, the Soviet strength in the European theater in 1951 was
estimated by General Bonner Fellers as "175 divisions some 25 of which
were armored” (Human Events, January 21, 1951).
In the Soviet's favor also is the
nature and extent of Soviet territory, which is characterized by miles
and miles of marshes in summer and impenetrable snow in winter. The vast
inhospitable areas of Russia caused even the tremendous Europe-based
armies of Napoleon and Hitler to bog known to ultimate defeat. The long
range Soviet strategic aim according to Stalin is to induce the United
States to follow a policy of self-destruction, and that goal can be best
accomplished by our engaging in extended land warfare far from home.
Here is testimony from a speech
recently delivered at Brown University by Admiral Harry E. Yarnell,
former Commander-in-Chief of the United States Asiatic fleet: To a
Russian war planner, the ideal situation would be a campaign against the
Allies in Western Europe, where their army can be used to the greatest
advantage, while their submarines can operate not far from home bases
against the supply lines from the United States to Europe.
Moreover in answering the question,
"Do those who pull the hidden strings want war?" Americans, and
particularly women, must remember, alas! that America is no longer "a
preeminently Christian and conservative nation," as General MacArthur
described it in a speech to the Rainbow Division (1937) as his career as
Chief of Staff of the Army was ending (MacArthur On War, by Frank C.
Waldrop, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1942). Americans who adhere
doggedly to the idea that traditional Christianity shall not disappear
from our land must beware of the fallacy of thinking that, because they
are merciful, other people are merciful.
Mercy toward all mankind is a product
of Christianity and is absent from the dialectic materialism of the New
Rulers of Russia, whose tentacles reach to so many countries.
Apart from Christ's Sermon on the
Mount, the most famous Passage on mercy in the English language is
Shakespeare's "The quality of mercy." It has been widely suppressed,
along with the teaching of the play, The Merchant of Venice, which
contains it (Chapter V, above).
It is thus well to reflect constantly
that Soviet leaders are moved by no consideration of humanity as the
term is understood in the Christian West. Instead of relieving a famine,
the rulers of Russia are reported to have let millions of Russians die
in order to restore in a given province, or oblast, according to Chinese
Nationalist sources -- and others -- the Chinese Communist "backed by
Russia" have decided that they must accomplish the "eventual
extermination of 150,000,000 Chinese" to reduce Chinese population, now
between 450,000,000 and 475,000,000, "to more manageable proportions"
(AP dispatch, Dallas Morning News, and other papers, March 12, 1951).
This is necessary, under the
Communist theory, if China is to be a strong country without the
permanent internal problem of hordes of people near starvation, or
likely to be so by the ravages of draught and flood.
This brings us again to the testimony
before Congress by Secretary of Defense Marshall (May 8 and following,
1951) that our purpose in Korea was to bleed the Chinese until they got
tired and cried halt.
For Chinese Communist leaders, who
"need" a population reduction of 150,000,000 people, there is only
delighted amusement in such U. S. official statements, intended to
justify our war policy and reassure the American public! Equally amusing
for them is the official U.S. statement that we are inflicting
casualties much greater than those we are sustaining.
Even apart from any Chinese Communist
population reduction policy, their present population is three times
ours, and they have no plans, as we have, to use elements of their
population to save Europe and "police" foreign areas!
The Kremlin laughter at our
acceptance of continuing American casualties under such an insane
motivation as bleeding the Chinese and at our waste of matériel must
have been even more hearty than that of the Chinese Communists. Yet
these appalling facts constituted the foreign policy of our top State
Department and Defense Department leaders under the Acheson and Marshall
It appears then that U.S. leftists,
including those who control the National Democratic Party want war,
Socialistic controls, and plenty of casualties, and not one fact known
to the author points to the contrary.
Full-scale war, of course, would be
edged into in devious ways with carefully prepared propaganda,
calculated to fool average Americans, including ignorant and deluded
basically patriotic people in the Democratic Party. There would, of
course, be an iron curtain of complete censorship, governmental and
Dazed by propaganda verbiage,
American boys will not understand -- any more than when talking to
General Eisenhower during World War II -- but they will give their fair
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
"Greater love hath no man than this,"
said the Saviour (St. John, XV,13), "that a man lay down his life for
his friends." But nowhere in scripture or in history is there a
justification for wasting precious young life in the furtherance of
sinister political purposes.
CLEANING THE AUGEAN STABLES
In ancient fable one of the giant
labors of Hercules was cleaning the labyrinthine stables of King Augeas
who possessed "an immense wealth of herds" (Encyc. Brit., II, 677) and
twelve sacred bulls. The removal of accumulated filth was accomplished
in the specified time and the story of difficulty successfully overcome
has been told through the ages for entertainment and for inspiration.
The modern significance of the
parable of Hercules may be thus interpreted. King Augeas is Mr. Truman.
The sacred bulls are those high and mighty individuals who control and
deliver the votes of minority blocs. The filth is the nineteen-year
accumulation of Communists and fellow-travelers in the various
departments, executive agencies, bureaus, and what not, of our
government. To clean out the filth, there can be but one Hercules -- an
aroused American people.
Exactly how can the American people
proceed under our laws to clean out subversives and other scoundrels
from our government? There are three principal ways: (a) by a national
election; (b) by the constitutional right of expressing their opinion;
and (c) by influencing the Congress to exercise certain powers vested in
the Congress by the Constitution, including the power of impeachment.
(a) A national election is the normal means employed by the people to
express their will for a change of policy. There are reasons, however,
why such a means should not be exclusively relied on. For one thing, a
man elected by the people may lose completely the confidence of the
people and do irreparable damage by bad appointive personnel and bad
policies after one election and before another.
In the second place, our two leading
parties consist of so many antagonistic groups wearing a common label
that candidates for president and vice-president represent compromises
and it is hard to get a clear-cut choice as between Democrats and
For instance, in the campaigns of
1940, 1944, and 1948 the Republicans offered the American voters Wendell
Willkie, and Thomas Dewey - twice! Willkie was a sincere but poorly
informed and obviously inexperienced "one worlder," apparently with a
soft spot toward Communism, or at least a blind spot, as evidenced in
his hiring or lending himself as a lawyer to prevent government action
against alleged Communists. Thus, among "the twelve Communist Party
leaders" arrested July 26, 1951), was William Schneiderman, "State
Chairman of the Communist Party of California and a member of the
Alternate National Committee of the Communist Party of the United
The preceding quotations are from the
New York Times (July 27, 1951), and the article continues: "With the
late Wendell L. Willkie as his counsel, Schneiderman defeated in the
Supreme Court in 1943 a government attempt to revoke his citizenship for
his political associations.
Schneiderman was born in Russia,"
Likewise, Governor Dewey of New York, campaigning on a "don't bother the
Communists" program, won the Oregon Republican presidential primary
election in 1948 in a close contest from Harold Stassen, who endorsed
Governor Dewey, largely avoiding
issues, except in this instance, moved on to nomination and to defeat.
The moral seems to be that the
American people see no reason to change from the Democratic Party to the
Republican Party with a candidate favorable to or indifferent to
Communism. With such a Republican candidate, a Democratic candidate may
be favored by some conservatives who rely on the more or less
conservative Democrats - who extend from Maryland in an arc through the
South around to Nevada - to block the extreme radicalism of a Democratic
administration. Governor Dewey followed the Roosevelt path not only in a
disinclination to combat Communism; in such matters as the "purge" of
Senator Revercomb of West Virginia, he showed evidence of a dictatorial
intention to which not even Roosevelt would have presumed.
Thus, however much one may hope for a
pair of strong, patriotic, and able Democratic candidates or a pair of
strong, patriotic, and able Republican candidates at the next election,
there is no certainty of a realized hope. There is likewise no certainty
of success in the move of a number of patriotic people in both parties
to effect a merger of American-minded Republicans and non-leftist
Democrats in time for a slate of coalition candidates in the next
presidential election. This statement is not meant to disparage the
movement, whose principal sponsor Senator Karl Mundt represents a state
(South Dakota) not in the Union during the Civil War and is therefore an
ideal leader of a united party of patriotic Americans both Northern and
Senator Mundt's proposal deserves
active and determined support, because it is logical for people who feel
the same way to vote together. Moreover, the defective implementation of
the Mundt proposal would certainly be acclaimed by the great body of the
people -- those who acclaimed General MacArthur on his return from
The stumbling-block, of course, is
that it is very hard for the great body of the people to make itself
politically effective either in policy or in the selection of delegates
to the national nominating conventions, since leaders already in office
will, with few exceptions, be reluctant to change the setup (whatever
its evil) under which they became leaders.
To sum up, a coalition team -- as
Senator Mundt proposes -- would be admirable. Nevertheless, other
methods of effecting a change of our national policy must be explored.
(b) A possible way for the American public to gain its patriotic ends is
by the constitution-protected right of petition (First Amendment). The
petition, whether in the form of a document with many signatures or a
mere individual letter, is far more effective than the average
individual is likely to believe. In all cases the letters received are
beyond question tabulated as straws in the wind of public opinion; and
to a busy Congressman or Senator a carefully prepared and
well-documented letter from a person he can trust may well be a guide to
The author thus summed up the
influence of letters in his book Image of Life (Thomas Nelson and Sons,
New York, 1940, pp. 207-208: It is perhaps unfortunate, but undeniably
true that letter-writers wield a powerful influence in America. Along
with the constant newspaper and magazine "polls" of citizens and voters,
letters are the modern politician's method of keeping his ear to the
This fact was startlingly illustrated
in 1939 by a high executive's issuing a statement justifying a certain
governmental stand by an analysis of the correspondence received on the
subject. Since the letter wields this influence, and since it is one of
the chief weapons of the organized minority, public-spirited citizens
should use it, too. They should write to members of state legislatures,
United States Congressmen and Senators, and other government officials
endorsing or urging measures which the writers believe necessary for the
good of the country. Similar letters of support should of course be
written to any others in or out of government service, who are under the
fire of minorities for courageous work in behalf of decency, morality,
nThe use of the letter for political
purposes by organized groups is illustrated by the fact that a certain
congressman (his words to the author in Washington) received in one day
more than 5,000 letters and other forms of communication urging him to
vote for a pending measure favorable to "Israel," and not one post card
on the other side!
Letters in great volume cannot be
other than effective. To any Congressman, even though he disapproves of
the policy or measure endorsed by the letters, they raise the question
of his being possibly in error in view of such overwhelming opposition
to his viewpoint. To a Congressman who believes sincerely -- as some do
-- that he is an agent whose duty is not to act on his own judgment, but
to carry out the people's will, a barrage of letters is a mandate on how
to vote. Apparently for the first time, those favoring Western Christian
civilization adopted the technique of the opposition and expressed
themselves in letters to Washington on the dismissal of General
In addition to writing letters to the
President and his staff and to one's own senators and congressmen, the
patriotic American should write letters to other senators and
congressmen who are members of committees concerned with a specific
issue (see c, below).
In this way, he will meet and
possibly frustrate the new tactics of the anti-American element which,
from its news-paper advertisements, seems to be shifting its controlled
letters from a writer's "own congressman and senators" to "committee
chairmen and committee members. "For the greater effectiveness which
comes from a knowledge of the structure of the government, it is
exceedingly important that each patriotic citizen possess or have access
to a copy of the latest Congressional Directory (Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., $1.50).
The patriotic citizen should not let
his or her letter writing stop with letters to officials in Washington.
Letters along constructive lines should be sent to other influential
persons such as teachers, columnists, broadcasters, and judges letting
them know the writer's views. Persons such as Judge Medina, who presided
in a fair and impartial manner over a trial involving charges of
communism, are inundated by letters and telegrams of calumny and
vilification (his words to the author and others at a meeting of the
Columbia Alumni in Dallas). To such officials, a few letters on the
other side are heartening.
Letters to newspapers are especially
valuable. Whether published or not, they serve as opinion-indicators to
a publisher. Those that are published are sometimes clipped and mailed
to the White House and to members of the Congress by persons who feel
unable to compose letters of their own. The brevity of these letters and
their voice-of-the-people flavor cause them also to be read by and thus
to influence many who will not cope with the more elaborate expressions
of opinion by columnist and editorial writers.
(c) As the ninth printing of The Iron Curtain Over America was being
prepared (summer of 1952) for the press, it became a fact of history
that President Truman would not succeed himself for the presidential
term, 1953-1957. The following pages of this chapter should therefore be
read not as a specific recommendation directed against Mr. Truman but as
a general consideration of the question of influencing executive action
through pressure upon Congressional committees and -- in extreme cases
-- by impeachment, with the acts and policies of Mr. Truman and his
chief officials used as illustrative material.
If the pressure of public opinion by
a letter barrage or otherwise is of no avail, because of already
existing deep commitments as a pay-off for blocs of votes or for other
reasons, there are other procedures.
The best of these, as indicated under
(b) above, is to work through the appropriate committees of the
Unfortunately the Foreign Affairs
Committee of the Senate has a majority of members willing to play along
with almost any vote-getting scheme.
It was only by the skillful
maneuvering of the Chairman, Senator Tom Connally of Texas, that the
Committee was prevented from passing during World War II a pro-Zionist
resolution on the Middle East which might have prejudiced the American
victory in the war.
Despite Mr. Acheson's record, every
Republican on the Committee approved the nomination of that "career man"
to be Secretary of State (telegram of Senator Tom Connally to the
author). See also the article by C.P.Trussell, New York Times, January
Thus with no Republican opposition to
attract possible votes from the Democratic majority, the committee vote
on Acheson's confirmation was unanimous! Parenthetically, a lesson is
obvious -- namely, that both political parties should in the future be
much more careful than in the past in according committee membership to
a Senator, or to a Representative, of doubtful suitability for sharing
the committee's responsibilities.
Despite one very unfortunate
selection, the Republican membership of the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs averages up better than the Republican membership of the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations. The House Committee is not so
influential, however, because of the Constitution's express vesting of
foreign policy in the Senate.
In contrast, however, the House
Appropriations Committee is under the Constitution more influential than
the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and might under public
pressure withhold funds (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9,
Paragraph 6) from a government venture, office, or individual believed
inimical to the welfare of the United States (see George Sokolshy's
syndicated column, Dallas Morning News and other papers, Jan. 23, 1951.
In the matter of appropriations, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
has, however, made a great record in safeguarding what it believes to be
the public interest.
For example, in 1946 the senior
Republican member of this vital Senate Committee was instrumental in
achieving the Congressional elimination from the State Department budget
of $4,000,000 earmarked for the Alfred McCormack unit - an
accomplishment which forced the exit of that undesired "Special
Assistant to the Secretary of State." There is no reason why this
thoroughly Constitutional procedure should not be imitated in the
1950's. The issue was raised for discussion by Congressman John Phillips
of California, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, in May,
1951 (AP dispatch in the Times-Herald, Dallas, May 14, 1951).
In mid-1950 the House Committee on
Un-American Activities seemed to need prodding by letters from persons
in favor of the survival of America. The situation was described thus in
a Washington Times-Herald (November 26, 1950) editorial entitled "Wake
the Watchman": The reason the committee has gone to sleep is that it is
now, also for the first time in its history, subservient to the
executive departments which have so long hid the Communists and fought
For evidence, compare the volume
entitled Hearings Regarding Communism in the United States Government -
Part 2, that record committee proceedings of Aug. 28 and 31, and Sept. 1
and 15, 1950, with the records of comparable inquiries any year from the
committee's origin in 1938 down to 1940 when the present membership took
The witnesses who appeared before the committee in these latest hearings
need no explaining. They were: Lee Pressman, Abraham George Silverman,
Nathan Witt, Charles Kramer, John J. Abt and Max Lowenthal. This
handsome galaxy represents the very distilled essence of inside
knowledge in matters that can help the people of this Republic
understand why we are now wondering where Stalin is going to hit us
At least one, Max Lowenthal, is an
intimate friend of President Truman, regularly in and out of side
entrances at the White House.
Perhaps that accounts -- of course it
does -- for the arrogant assurance with which Lowenthal spot in the
committees eye when he was finally brought before it for a few feeble
Incidentally, "Truman was chosen as
candidate for Vice President by Sidney Hillman, at the suggestion
(according to Jonathan Daniels in his recent book A man of Independence)
of Max Lowenthal" . . . ("The Last Phase," by Edna Lonigan, Human
Events, May 2, 1951).
In fairness to the present
membership, however, it is well to add that, from a variety of
circumstances, the Committee has suffered from a remarkable and
continuing turn-over of membership since the convening of the 81st
Congress in January, 1949.
New regulations -- passed for the
purpose by the Democratic 81st Congress, which was elected along with
President Truman in 1948 -- drove from the Committee two of its most
experienced and aggressive members: Mr. Rankin of Mississippi, because
he was Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Mr. Hebert of
Louisiana, because he was not a lawyer.
In January, 1949, the experienced
Congressman Karl Mundt of South Dakota left the House and his membership
on the Committee to take his seat in the Senate. Promotion to the Senate
(Dec. 1, 1950) likewise cost the Committee the services of Congressman
Richard Nixon of California, the member most active in the preliminaries
to the trial of Alger Hiss.
In the election of 1950,
Representative Francis Case of South Dakota was advanced to the Senate.
After a single term on the Committee, Congressman Burr P. Harrison of
Virginia became a member of the Ways and Means Committee on Un-American
Activities. Thus when the Committee was reconstituted at the opening of
the 82nd Congress in January, 1951, only one man, Chairman John S. Wood
of Georgia, had had ,more than one full two-year term of service and a
majority of the nine members were new.
The Committee, like all others, needs
letters of encouragement to offset pressure from pro-Communist elements,
but there were evidences in 1951 of its revitalization. On April 1,
1951, it issued a report entitled "The Communist Peace Offensive," which
it described as "the most dangerous hoax ever devised by the
international Communist conspiracy" (see Red-ucators in the Communist
Peace Offensive, National Council for American Education, 1 Maiden Lane,
New York38, N.Y.)
Moreover, in 1951 the committee was
again probing the important question of Communism in the motion picture
industries at Hollywood, California. Finally, late in 1951 the
Un-American Activities Committee issued a "brand new" publication, a
"Guide Book to Subversive Organizations," highly recommended by The
Americanism Division, The American Legion (copies may be had from the
National Americanism Division, The American Legion, 700 N. Pennsylvania
St., Indianapolis, Ind.; 25 cents; in lots of 25 or more, 15 cents. See,
also, pp. 101-103, above).
Fortunately, the Senate Judiciary
Committee is also accomplishing valuable work in the exposure of the
nature and methods of the Communist infiltration. Its work is referred
to, its chairman Senator McCarran of Nevada is quoted, and its documents
are represented by excerpts here and there in this book.
The Rules Committee of the House was
restored to its traditional power by the 82nd Congress in 1951 and may
also prove an effective brake on bills for implementing the dangerous
policies of an incompetent, poorly advised, or treasonable leadership in
the executive departments.
As a last resort, however, a
President of the United States or any other member of the Executive or
Judicial Branches of the government can be removed by impeachment.
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 5; Article I, Section 3, paragraph 6;
Article II, Section 4, paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution name the
circumstances under which, and provide explicitly the means by which, a
majority of the representatives and two-thirds of the senators can
remove a president who is guilty of "misdemeanors" or shows "inability"
to perform the high functions of his office.
Surely some such construction might
have been placed upon Mr. Truman's gross verbal attack (1950) upon the
United States Marine Corps, whose members were at the time dying in
Korea, or upon his repeated refusal to cooperate with Canada, with
Congress, or with the Courts in facing up to the menace of the 43,217
known Communists said by J. Edgar Hoover (AP dispatch, Dallas
Times-Herald, February 8, 1950) to be operating in this country, with
ten times that many following the Communist line in anti-American
propaganda and all of them ready for sabotage in vital areas if the
Soviet Union should give the word (AP dispatch Dallas Times-Herald,
February 8, 1950).
The matter of President Truman's
unwillingness to move against Communism came to a head with the passage
of the Internal Security Act of 1950. Under the title, "Necessity for
Legislation," the two Houses of Congress found as follows:
(1) There exists a world Communist
movement which, in its origins, its development, and its present
practice, is a world-wide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is, by
treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental and
otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other means deemed
necessary, to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the
countries throughout the world through the medium of a world-wide
Communist organization. . .
(12) The Communist network in the
United States is inspired and controlled in large part by foreign agents
who are sent into the United States ostensibly as attaches of foreign
legations, affiliates of international organizations, members of trading
commissions, and in similar capacities, but who use their diplomatic or
semi-diplomatic status as a shield behind which to engage in activities
prejudicial to the public security.
(13) There are, under our present
immigration laws, numerous aliens who have been found to be deportable,
many of whom are in the subversive, criminal, or immoral classes who are
free to roam the country at will without supervision or control. . .
(15) The Communist organization in
the United States, pursuing its stated objectives, the recent successes
of communist methods in other countries, and the nature and control of
the world Communist movement itself, present a clear and present danger
to the security of the United States and to the existence of free
American institutions, and make it necessary that Congress, in order to
provide for the common defense, to preserve the sovereignty of the
United States as an independent nation, and to guarantee to each State a
republican form of government, enact appropriate legislation recognizing
the existence of such world-wide conspiracy and designed to prevent it
from accomplishing its purpose in the United States.
A measure for curbing Communism in
the United States -- prepared in the light of the above preamble -- was
approved by both Senate and House.
It was then sent to the President.
What did he do?
He vetoed it.
Thereupon both Senate and House
(September 22, 1950) overrode the President's veto by far more than the
necessary two-thirds majorities, and the internal Security Act became
"Public Law 831 -- 81st Congress -- Second Session."
The enforcement of the law, of
course, became the responsibility of its implacable enemy, the head of
the Executive Branch of our government!
But the President's efforts to block
the anti-Communists did not end with that historic veto. "President
Truman Thursday rejected a Senate committee's request for complete files
on the State Department's loyalty-security cases on the ground that it
would be clearly contrary to the public interest" (AP dispatch,
Washington, April 3, 1952).
To what "public" did Mr. Truman
refer? The situation was summed up well by General MacArthur in a speech
before a joint session of the Mississippi legislature (March 22, 1952).
The general stated that our policy is "leading us toward a communist
state with as dreadful certainty as though the leaders of the Kremlin
themselves were charting our course."
In view of his veto of the Internal
Security Act and his concealment of security data on government
employees from Congressional committees, it is hard to exonerate Mr.
Truman from the suspicion of having more concern for leftist votes than
for the safety or survival of the United States. Such facts naturally
suggest an inquiry into the feasibility of initiating the process of
Another possible ground for
impeachment might be the President's apparent violation of the
Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11, which vests in
Congress the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and
reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." This
authority of the Congress has never been effectively questioned. Thus in
his "Political Observations" (1795) James Madison wrote "The
Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the
power of declaring a state of war" (quoted from "Clipping of Note," No.
38, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson,
New York). Subsequent interpreters of our basic State Paper, except
perhaps some of those following in the footsteps of Supreme Court
Justice Brandeis (Chapter III, above), have concurred.
It was seemingly in an effort to
avoid the charge of violating this provision of the Constitution that
President Truman, except for a reported occasional slip of the tongue,
chose to refer to his commitment of our troops in Korea as a "police
action" and not a war. Referring to the possibility of President
Truman's sending four additional divisions to Europe where there was no
war, Senator Byrd of Virginia said: "But if by chance he does ignore
Congress, Congress has ample room to exercise its authority by the
appropriations method and it would be almost grounds for impeachment"
(UP dispatch in Washington Times-Herald, March 15, 1951).
The distinguished editor and
commentator David Lawrence (U.S. News and World Report, April 20, 1951)
also brought up the question of impeachment: If we are to grow
technical, Congress, too, has some constitutional rights. It can impeach
President Truman not only for carrying on a war in Korea without a
declaration of war by Congress, but primarily for failing to let our
troops fight the enemy with all the weapons at their command.
The question of President Truman's
violation of the Constitution in the matter of committing our troops in
Korea has been raised with overwhelming logic by Senator Karl Mundt of
South Dakota. Article 43 of the United Nations charter, as the Senator
points out, provides that member nations of the UN shall supply armed
forces "in accordance with their respective constitutional processes."
Thus the starting of the Truman-Acheson war in Korea not only violated
the United States Constitution, but completely lacked United Nations
authority - until such authority was voted retroactively! (Washington
Times-Herald, May 17, 1951; also see Chapter VI, d, above.)
The House in the 81st Congress
several times overrode a Truman veto by more than the Constitutional
two-thirds vote. Even in that 81st Congress, more than five-sixths of
the Senators voted to override the President's veto of the
McCarran-Mundt-Nixon anti-Communist bill, which became Public Law 831.
With the retirement of Mrs. Helen
Douglas and other noted administration supporters, and Mr. Vito
Marcantonio, the 82nd Congress is probably
even less inclined than the
predecessor Congress to tolerate the Truman attitude toward the control
of subversives and might not hesitate in a moment of grave national
peril to certify to the Senate for possible impeachment for a violation
of the Constitution the name of a man so dependent on leftist votes or
so sympathetic with alien thought that he sees no menace - merely a "red
herring" - in Communism.
With the defeat of such “left of
center” men – to use a term which President Franklin Roosevelt applied
to himself – as Claude Pepper, Frank Graham, and Glen Taylor and such
administration henchmen as Millard Tydings, Scot Lucas, and Francis
Myers; with election from the House of new members such as Wallace F.
Bennett, John M. Butler, and Herman Welker, the Senate also might not
hesitate in a moment of grave national peril to make appropriate steps
toward impeachment under the Constitution.
Incidentally, a rereading of the Constitution of the United States is
particularly valuable to anyone who is in doubt as to the Supreme
importance of Congress, the President, and the Supreme court under the
basic law of the land. Whereas the Congress is granted specific
authority to remove for cause the President and any other executive or
Justice of the Supreme Court, neither the President nor the Supreme
Court has any authority whatsoever over the qualifications of the tenure
of office of a Senator or Representative.
Good books on the Constitution, both
by Thomas James Norton, are The Constitution of the United States, Its
Source and Its Application (World Publishing Company, Cleveland, 1940)
and Undermining The Constitution, A History of Lawless Government (The
Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1951).
In another valuable book, The Key to
Peace ( The Heritage Foundation, Inc., 75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago 1,
Illinois), the author, Dean Clarence Manion of Notre Dame Law School,
develops the idea that the key to peace is the protection of the
individual under our Constitution.
With reference again to impeachment,
an examination of the career of other high executives including the
Secretary of State might possibly find one or more of them who might
require investigation on the suspicion of unconstitutional misdemeanors.
Despite the bitter fruit of Yalta,
Mr. Acheson never issued a recantation. He never repudiated his
affirmation of lasting fidelity to his beloved friend, Alger Hiss, who
was at Yalta as the newly appointed State Department "Director of
Special Political Affairs."
Despite the Chinese attack on our
troops in Korea, Mr. Acheson never, to the author's knowing, admitted
the error, if not the treason, of the policy of his department's Bureau
of Far Eastern Affairs down to and including the very year of 1950, when
these Chinese Communists, the darlings of the dominant Leftists of our
State Department, attacked us in the moment of our victory over the
Communists of North Korea.
"What then will you do with the fact
that as concerning Soviet Russia, from Yalta to this day, every blunder
in American foreign policy has turned out to be what the Kremlin might
have wished this country to do?? All you can say is that if there had
been a sinister design it would look like this" (The Freeman, June 18,
General Marshall was at Yalta as
Chief of Staff of U.S. Army. According to press reports, he never
remembered what he was doing the night before Pearl Harbor. At Yalta, it
was not memory but judgment that failed him for he was the Superior
Officer who tacitly, if not heartily, approved the military deals along
the Elbe and the Yalu -- deals which are still threatening to ruin our
General Ambassador Marshall not only
failed miserably in China; Secretary of State Marshall took no effective
steps when a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, according to Senator
Ferguson of Michigan, handed him a memorandum stating in part; "It
becomes necessary due to the gravity of the situation to call your
attention to a condition that developed and still flourishes in the
State Department under the administration of Dean Acheson. It is evident
that there is a deliberate, calculated program being carried out not
only to protect communist personnel in high places but to reduce
security and intelligence protection to a nullity" (INS, Washington
Times-Herald, July 24, 1950).
The reference to Acheson was to
Undersecretary Acheson, as he then was. Unfortunately in late 1951, when
General Marshall ceased to be secretary of Defense, he was replaced by
an other man, Robert A. Lovett, who, whatever his personal views,
carried nevertheless the stigma of having been Undersecretary of State
from July, 1947, to January, 1949 (Congressional Directory, 82nd
Congress, 1st Session, p. 365), when our opposition in China was being
ruined under the then Secretary of State, George C. Marshall.
The pro-Soviet accomplishments of the
high-placed leftists and their dupes in our government are brilliantly
summed up by Edna Lonigan in Human Events (Sept. 8, 1948): Our
victorious armies halted where Stalin wished. His followers managed
Dumbarton Oaks, UN, UNRRA, our Polish and Spanish policies. They gave
Manchuria and Northern Korea to Communism. They demoted General Patton
and wrote infamous instructions under which General Marshall was sent to
China. They dismantled German industry, ran the Nuremberg trials and
even sought to dictate our economic policy in Japan. Their greatest
victory was the "Morgenthau Plan."
And the astounding thing is that
except for the dead (Roosevelt, Hillman, Hopkins, Winant) and Mr.
Morgenthau, and Mr. Hiss, and General Marshall, most of those chiefly
responsible for our policy as described above were still in power in
In Solemn truth, do not seven persons
share most of the responsibility for establishing the Communist grip on
the world? Are not the seven: (1) Marx, the founder of violent
Communism; (2) Engels, the promoter of Marx; (3, 4, 5)Trotsky, Lenin,
and Stalin; (6) Franklin D. Roosevelt, who rescued the tottering
Communist empire by recognition (1933), by the resultant financial
support, by his refusal to proceed against Communists in the United
States, and by the provisions of the Yalta Conference; and (7) Harry S.
Truman, who agreed at Potsdam to the destruction of Germany and
thereafter followed the Franklin Roosevelt policy of refusing to act
against Communists in the United States - the one strong nation which
remains as a possible obstacle to Communist world power?
In spite of the consolidation of
Stalin's position in Russia by Franklin Roosevelt and by Stalin's
"liquidation" of millions of anti-Communists in Russia after Roosevelt's
recognition, the Soviet Union in 1937 was stymied in its announced
program of world conquest by two road-blocks: Japan in the East and
Germany in the West.
These countries, the former the size
of California and the latter the size of Texas, were small for great
powers, and since their main fears were of the enormous, hostile, and
nearby Soviet Union, they did not constitute an actual danger to the
United States. The men around Roosevelt, many of them later around
Truman, not merely defeated but destroyed the two road-blocks against
the spread of Stalinist Communism! Again we come to the question: Should
the United States continue to use the men whose stupidity or treason
built the Soviet Union into the one great land power of the world?
In continuing to employ people who
were in office during the tragic decisions of Tehran, Yalta, and
Potsdam, are we not exactly as sensible as a hypothetical couple who
employ the same baby sitter who has already killed three of their
"By What Faith, Then, Can We Find
Hope in Those Whose Past Judgments So Grievously Erred? asked Senator
Ecton of Montana on September &, 1951. "Can We Trust the Future to Those
Who Betrayed the Past?" asked Senator Jenner of Indiana in a speech in
the Senate of the United States on September 19, 1950. Whatever the
cause of our State Department's performances, so tragic for America, in
1945 and thereafter (see also Chapter VI, above), the answer to Senator
Jenner's point blank question is an incontrovertible "No."
Congressmen, the patriotic elements
in the press, and the letter-writing public should continually warn the
President, however, that a mere shuffling around of the save old cast of
Yalta actors and others "Whose past judgments so grievously erred" will
not be sufficient. We must not again have tolerates of extreme leftism,
such as Mr. John J. McCloy, who was Assistant Secretary of War from
April, 1941, to November, 1945, and Major General Clayton Bissell, who
was A.C. of S.G.-2, i.e., the Army's Chief of Intelligence, from Feb. 5,
1944, "to the end of the war" (Who's Who in America, 1950-1951, pp. 1798
and 232). In February, 1945, these high officials were questioned by a
five-man committee created by the new 79th Congress to investigate
charges of communism in the War Department.
In the New York Times of February 28
(article by Lewis Wood), Mr. McCloy is quoted as follows: The facts
point to the difficulties of legal theory which are involved in taking
the position that mere membership in the Communist party, present or
past should exclude a person from the army or a commission. But beyond
any questions of legal theory, a study of the question and our
experience convinced me that we were not on sound ground in our
investigation when we placed emphasis solely on Communist affiliation.
According to some newspapers, Mr.
McCloy's testimony gave the impression that he did not care if 49% of a
man's loyalty was elsewhere provided he was 51% American. The validity
of Christ's "No man can serve two masters" was widely recalled to mind.
Edward N. Scheiberling, National Commander of the American Legion,
referring to Assistant Secretary of War McCloy's testimony, stated (New
York Times, March 2, 1945): That the Assistant Secretary had testified
that the new policy of the armed forces would admit to officer rank
persons 49 percent loyal to an alien power, and only 51 percent loyal to
the United States.
The Legion head asserted further:
Fifty-one percent loyalty is not enough when the security of our country
is at stake. . . The lives of our sons, the vital military secrets of
our armed forces must not be entrusted to men of divided loyalty.
The Washington Times-Herald took up
the cudgels against Mr. McCloy and he was shifted to the World Bank and
thence to the post of High Commissioner of Germany (Chapter VI, above).
With sufficient documentation to appear convincing, The Freeman as late
as August 27, 1951, stated that "Mr. McCloy seems to be getting and
accepting a kind of advice that borders on mental disorder."
General Bissell was moved from A.C.
of S., G-2 to U.S. Military Attaché at London. He received, a little
later, a bon voyage present of a laudatory feature article in the
Communist Daily Worker. Below the accompanying portrait (Daily Worker,
June 20, 1947) was the legend "Maj. Gen. Clayton Bissell, wartime head
of the U.S. Army Intelligence Corps, who defended Communist soldiers
from the attacks of Washington seat-warmers during the war."
What of the Congressional Committee?
Though it had been created and ordered to work by a coalition of
patriotic Republicans and Southern Democratic majority in the house
chose members to its "left-of -center" liking, and the committee
(Chairman: Mr. Thomason of Texas!) by a strict party vote of 3-2
expressed itself as satisfied with the testimony of McCloy and Bissell.
Surely the American public wants no
high officials tolerant of Communists or thanked by Communists for
Surely Americans will not longer be
fooled by another shuffling of the soiled New Deal deck with its red
aces, deuces, knaves, and jokers.
This time we will not be blinded by a
spurious "bipartisan" appointment of Achesonites whose nominal
membership in the Republican Party does not conceal an ardent
Americans surely will not, for
instance, tolerate actors like tweedle-dee Acheson right down the line
even to such an act as inviting Hiss to New York to become President of
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, of which Dulles was the
new Chairman of the Board. It might have been expected that with Hiss
away, his trouble in Washington would blow over - but it did not.
The reference to high-placed War
Department officials whose loyalty or judgment has been questioned by
some of their fellow Americans brings us to an evaluation of the
reception given in all parts of this nation to General MacArthur after
his dismissal by President Truman in April, 1951.
It seems that General MacArthur's
ovation was due not to his five stars, for half a dozen generals and
admirals have similar rank, but to his being a man of unquestioned
integrity, unquestioned patriotism, and - above all - to his being
avowedly a Christian.
Long before the spring crisis of 1951
General MacArthur was again and again featured in the obscure religious
papers of many Christian denominations as a man who asked for more
Christian missionaries for Japan and for New Testaments to give his
soldiers. MacArthur's devout Christianity was jeered in some quarters
but it made a lasting impression on that silent majority of Americans
who have been deeply wounded by the venality and treason of men in high
"I was privileged in Tokyo," wrote
John Gunther in The Riddle of MacArthur, "to read through the whole file
of MacArthur's communications and pronouncements since the occupation
began, and many of these touch, at least indirectly, on religious
themes. He Constantly associates Christianity with both democracy and
MacArthur is a Protestant, but to the
editor of the Brooklyn Tablet, a Catholic periodical, he wrote as
follows: Through daily contact with our American men and women who are
here engaged in the reshaping of Japan's future, there are penetrating
into the Japanese mind the noble influences which find their origin and
their inspiration in the American home. These influences are rapidly
bearing fruit, and apart from the great numbers who are coming formally
to embrace the Christian faith, a whole population is coming to
understand, practice and cherish its underlying principals and ideals.
To some people this language of
General MacArthur's may seem outmoded or antiquarian. The writings of
the more publicized American theologians - darlings of leftist
book-reviews - may indicate that the clear water of classical
Christianity is drying up in a desert of experimental sociology,
psychiatry, and institutionalized ethical culture. But such is not the
case. The heart of America is still Christian in its felt need of
redemption and salvation as well as in its fervent belief in the
Christianity in the historical, or
classical, sense is closely allied with the founding and growth of
America. It was the common adherence to some form of Christianity which
made it "possible to develop some degree of national unity out of the
heterogeneous nationalities represented among the colonists" of early
America (The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United
States, p. 231).
This acceptance of the tenets of
Christianity as the bases of our American society gave our people a body
of the basis of our American society gave our people a body of shared
ideals -- a universally accepted code of conduct.
Firmly rooted in Christianity was our
conception of honor, both personal and national. It was not until a
dominant number of powerful preachers and church executives got tired of
the church's foundation-stone, charity, and abandoned it to welfare
agencies - it was not until these same leaders transferred their loyalty
from the risen Christ to a new sort of leftist cult stemming from
national councils and conferences - that public morality declined to its
present state in America. But the people in the leftist-infiltrated
churches have by no means strayed as far as their leaders from the
mainstream of Christianity. The really Christian people in all
denominations wish to see restored in America the set of values, the
pattern of conduct, the code of honor, which constitute and unify
Western civilization and which once made ours a great and united
country. It was precisely to this starved sense of spiritual unity, this
desire to recover a lost spiritual heritage, that MacArthur the
Christian made an unconscious appeal which burst forth into an
enthusiasm never before seen in our country.
And so, when the Augean stables of our government are cleaned out, we
must, in the words of George Washington, "put only Americans on guard."
We must have as secretaries of State and Defense men who will go down
through their list of assistant secretaries, counselors. division
chiefs, and so on, and remove all persons under any suspicion of
Communism whether by ideological expression, association, or what not.
While danger stalks the world, we should entrust the destiny of our
beloved country to those and only those who can say with no reservation:
"This Is My Own, My Native Land!"
CAN STILL BE FREE
In the speech of his play King
John, Shakespeare makes a character say:
This England never did, nor never shall
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror
But when it first did help wound
In June, 1951, before the members of the Texas Legislature in Austin,
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur made a speech of which the above
quotation might have been the text. He said in part: I am concerned for
the security of our great nation, not so much because of any potential
threat from without, but because of the insidious force working from
within which, opposed to all of our great traditions, have gravely
weakened the structure and tone of our American way of life.
The “insidious forces working from within” and “opposed to all our great
traditions” are the first and most serious challenge that faces America.
There are those who seek to corrupt our youth that they may rule them.
There those who seek to destroy our unity by stirring up antagonism
among the various Christian denominations, There are those who, in one
way or another, intrude their stooges into many of our high military and
executive offices. Effective in any evil purpose is the current menace
of censorship, imposed not by those of alien origin and sympathy within
our country, but by alien-dominated agencies of the United Nations.
Moreover, and even more significant, it must not be forgotten that an
undigested mass in the “body politic,” an ideologically hostile “nation
within the nation,” has through history proved the spearhead of the
conquerors. The alien dictators of Rumania, Hungary Poland, and other
Eastern European countries have been discussed in Chapter II. Throughout
history members of an unassimilated minority have repeatedly been used
as individual spies – as when the Parthians used Jews in Rome while the
Romans used Jews in Parthia for the same purpose. Recent instances of
espionage – discussed above in Chapter II – involved the theft of atomic
secrets from both Canada and the United States.
In addition to working individually
for the enemies of his country, the unassimilated alien has often worked
According to A History of Palestine
from 135 A.D. to Modern Times, by James Parkes (Oxford University Press,
New York, 1909), Persians in 614 A.D. invaded Palestine, a part of the
Christian Roman Empire of the East, and took Jerusalem. Here is Mr.
There is no doubt that the…
Jews aided the Persians with all the men
they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once
Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took
place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this
massacre. (op. cit., p. 81).
Mr. Parkes concludes that it “would not be surprising if the accusation
Another famous betrayal of a country by its Jewish minority took place
in Spain. In his History of the Jews, already referred to, Professor
Graetz gives an account (Vol. III, p. 109) of coming of alien conquerors
into Spain, a country which had been organized by the Visgoths, a race
closely akin in blood to the English, Swedes, Germans and other peoples
of the North Sea Area:
The Jews of Africa, who at various times had emigrated thither from
Spain, and their unlucky co-religionists of the Peninsula, made common
cause with the Mahometan conqueror, Tarik, who brought over from Africa
into Andalusia an army eager for the fray. After the battle of Xeres
(July, 711), and the death of Roderic, the last of the Visigothic kings,
the victorious Arabs pushed onward, and were everywhere supported by the
Jews. In every city that they conquered, the Moslem generals were able
to leave but a small garrison of their own troops, as they had need of
every man for subjection of the country; they therefore confided them to
the safekeeping of the Jews. In this manner the Jews, who had but lately
been serfs, now became masters of the towns of Cordova, Granada, Malaga,
and many others. When Tarik appeared before the capitol, Toledo, he
found it occupied by a small garrison only, the nobles and clergy having
found safety in flight. While the Christians were in church, praying for
the safety of their country and religion, the Jews flung open the gates
to the victorious Arabs (Palm Sunday, 712), receiving them with
acclamations, and thus avenged themselves for the many miseries which
had befallen them in the course of a century since the time of Reccared
and Sisebut. The Capital also was entrusted by Tarik to the custody of
the Jews, while he pushed on in pursuit of the cowardly Visogoths, who
had sought safety in flight, for the purpose of recovering from them the
treasure which they had carried off.
Finally when Musa Ibn-Nosair, the Governor of Africa, brought a second
army into Spain and conquered other cities, he also delivered them into
the custody of the Jews.
The “miseries” which prompted the Jews of Spain to treason are explained
by Professor Graetz. King Sisebut was annoyingly determined to convert
them to Christianity, and among the “miseries” inflicted by King
Reccared “the most oppressive of all was the restraint touching the
possession of the slaves. Henceforward the Jews were neither to purchase
Christian slaves nor accept them as presents.” (History of the Jews,
Vol. III, p. 46) The newly Christianized east German Goths of Spain were
noted for their chastity, piety, and tolerance (Encyc. Brit., Vol. X, p.
551), but the latter quality apparently was not inclusive enough to
allow the wealthy alien minority to own the coveted bodies of
fair-haired girls and young men.
There is a lesson for Americans in
the solicitude of the Visigoths for their young. Americans of native
stock should rouse themselves from their half-century of lethargic
indifference and should study the set-up which permits the enslavement
of young people’s minds by forces hostile to Western Christian
civilization. Our boys and girls are propagandized constantly by books,
periodicals, motion pictures, radio, television and advertisements; and
from some of the things that they read and see and hear they are
influenced toward a degraded standard of personal conduct, an
indifference to the traditional doctrines of Christianity, and a
sympathy for Marxism or Communism. American parents must evolve and make
successful a positive – not a negative – counter – movement in favor of
the mores of Western civilization, or that civilization will fall. It is
well known that the Communists expend their greatest effort at capturing
the young; but in this most vital of all fields those Americans who are
presumably anti-Communistic have – at least up to the summer of 1952 –
made so little effort that it may well be described as none at all.
(Editors note: the author had no
knowledge of M-TV the new personal computer age, internet nor the
pornography and smut that is so prevalent in all. It is apparent few
took his warning to stop the Communist dream of just such a saturation
of pornography, perversion, and moral depravity, as it has occurred on a
massive scale rendering nearly a whole generation devoid of true
Christian morals so necessary for the preservation of our Republic).
Since President Franklin Roosevelt’s recognition of the Soviet masters
of Russia (November 16, 1933), the United States has consistently helped
to “wound itself” by catering to the “insidious forces working from
within” (Chapter II and III), who are “opposed to all our great
traditions” of Christian civilization.
These powerful forces have been
welcomed to our shores, have become rich and influential, and nothing
has been expected of them beyond a pro-American patriotism rather than a
hostile national separatism. In spite of all kindnesses, they have
indeed ever, stubbornly adhered to their purposes and have indeed
“gravely weakened the structure and tone of our American way of life.”
But the wealth of our land and the vitality of our people are both so
great that the trap has not yet been finally sprung; the noose has not
yet been fatally drawn. Despite the hostile aliens who exert power in
Washington; despite the aid and succor given them by uninformed, hired,
or subverted persons of native stock; despite the work of the
“romantics, bums and enemy agents” (Captain Michael Fielding, speech
before Public Affairs Luncheon Club, Dallas, Texas, March 19, 1951) who
have directed our foreign policy in recent years, there is a chance for
survival of America. A great country can bee conquered only if it is
inwardly rotten. We can still be free, if we wish.
Basic moves, as indicated in preceding chapters, are three:
We must (i) lift the iron-curtain of
censorship (Chapter V) which, not satisfied with falsifying the news of
the hour, has gone back into the past centuries to mutilate the classics
of our literature and to exclude from school histories such vital and
significant facts as those presented in Chapter I and II and above in
this chapter. A start towards this goal can be made by exercising some
of the Constitution-guaranteed rights discussed in chapter VIII, and by
subscribing to periodicals with a firm record of opposing Communism. The
reading of periodicals and books friendly to the American traditions not
only encourages and strengthens the publishers of such works, but makes
the reader of them a better informed and therefore a more effective
instrument in the great cause of saving Western Christian Civilization.
We must (ii) begin in the spirit of humane Christian civilization to
evolve some method of preventing our inassimilable mass of aliens and
alien-minded people from exercising in this country a power over our
culture and our lives out of all proportion to the number of the
minority, and to prevent this minority from shaping, against the general
national interest, our policies on such vital matters as war and
immigration. The American Legion seems to be working toward leadership
in this vital matter. The movement should be supported by other
veterans’ organizations, women’s clubs, luncheon clubs, and other groups
favorable to the survival of America. In the great effort, no individual
should fail; for there is no such thing as activity by a group, a club
or even a legion, except as a product of the devoted zeal of one or more
Our danger from internal sources hostile to our civilization was the
subject of a warning by General MacArthur in his speech before the
Massachusetts Legislature on July 25, 1951: This evil force, with
neither spiritual base nor moral standard, rallies the abnormal and
sub-normal elements among our citizenry and applies internal pressure
against all things we hold decent and all things that we hold right –
the type of pressure which has caused many Christian nations abroad to
fall and their own cherished freedoms to languish in the shackles of
As it has happened there it can happen here. Our need for patriotic
fervor and religious devotion was never more impelling. There can be no
compromise with atheistic communism – no half way in the preservation of
freedom and religion. It must be all or nothing.
We must unite in the high purpose that the liberties etched upon the
design of our life by our forefathers be unimpaired and that we maintain
the moral courage and spiritual leadership to preserve inviolate that
bulwark of all freedom, our Christian faith.
We must (iii) effect a genuine clean-up of our government (Chapter VIII)
removing not only all those who can be proved to be traitors, but also
all those whose policies have for stupidity or bad judgment been
inimical to the interests of our country.
Following the removal of Acheson – and Marshall, who resigned in
September, 1951 – and any successor appointees tarred by the same stick,
and following the removal of the cohorts of alien-minded, indifferent,
or stupid people in the hierarchies and in other government agencies and
departments, the chances of a third world-wide war will be materially
lessened, because our most likely attacker relies on such people,
directly or indirectly as the case may be, to perform or permit acts of
espionage and sabotage. The chances of a world-wide war will be greatly
lessened if four relatively inexpensive steps are taken by our
government. Even if general war breaks out, a successful outcome will be
more likely if the steps are taken – as far as possible under such
circumstances as may exist.
The word inexpensive is purposely
used. It is high time that our government counts cost, for, as Lenin
himself said, a nation can spend itself into economic collapse as surely
as it can ruin itself by a wrong foreign policy.
The one horrible fact of World War II was the killing of 256,330
American men and seriously wounding of so many others. But the cost in
money is also important to the safety of America. According to Life
magazine’s History of World War II, that war cost us $350,000,000,000
(Christopher Notes, No. 33, March, 1951). Also – and it is to be hoped
that there is some duplication – the “Aid Extended to All Foreign
Countries by the U.S.” from July 1, 1940 to June 30, 1950 was
$80,147,000,000 (Office of Foreign Transactions, Department of
Commerce). This staggering figure is for money spent. The “cost from
July 1, 1940 down to and including current proposals for overseas
assistance add up to $104 billions,” according to Senator Hugh Butler of
Nebraska, a member of the finance Committee, in a speech in the Senate
on June 1, 1951 (Human Events, June 6, 1951). Thus Stalin’s confidence
in and reliance on America’s collapse from organic spending as
explicitly stated in his great March 10, 1939 address to the 18th
Congress of the Communist Party could be prophetic.
Let us turn to the four relatively inexpensive steps – in addition to
the preservation, or restoration, of our financial integrity – for
saving America. These steps – which can be taken only after the clean-up
of our department of State and Defense and our Executive agencies – are
(a) the frustration of the plans of Communists actually in the United
States; (b) the adoption of a foreign policy, diplomatically and
defensively, which is based not on a political party’s need of votes,
but on the safety of America; (c) a study of the United Nations
Organization and a decision that the American people can trust; and (d)
a factual recognition of and exploitation of the cleavage between the
Soviet government and the Russian people. A final sub-chapter (e)
constitutes a brief conclusion The Iron Curtain Over America.
(a) For our reconstituted, or rededicated, government the first step, in
both immediacy and importance, is to act against Communism not in Tierra
del Fuego or Tristan da Cunha, but in the United States. Known
Communists in this country must, under our laws, be at once apprehended
and either put under surveillance or deported; and independent Soviet
secret police force, believed by some authorities to be in this country
in the numbers estimated at 4,000, must be ferreted out. Unless these
actions are taken, all overseas adventures against Communists are worse
than folly, because our best troops will be away from home when the
Soviet give word to the 43,217 Communists known to the F.B.I., to the
4,000, and incidentally to the 472,170 hangers-on (figures based on J.
Edgar Hoover’s estimated ten collaborators for each actual member) to
destroy our transportation and communications systems and industrial
potential. If the strike of a few railroad switchmen can virtually
paralyze the country, what can be expected from a sudden unmasked Red
army of half a million, many of them slyly working among the labor
unions engaged in strategic work, often unknown to the leaders of those
unions? (See “100 Things You Should Know About Communism and Labor,”
10cents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.) The menace is not
hypothetical. “Apparently there’s like spy business in this country.
For, according to the F.B.I Director J. Edgar Hoover, the bureau shortly
will investigate 90,000 separate instances of threats to America’s
internal security. Last year his agents probed into 74799 such cases”
(Victor Riesel’s syndicated column, April 3, 1952).
Director Hoover of the F.B.I is aware of the danger. In an interview (UP
dispatch, March 18, 1951) he said: The Communists are dedicated to the
overthrow of the American system of government… the destruction of
strategic industries – that is the Communist blueprint of violent
attack.” Secretary-Treasurer George Meany of the American Federation of
Labor bears similar testimony (“The Last Five Years,” by George Meany,
A.F. of L. Bldg. Washington 1, D.C., 1951):
…It is the Communists who have made the ranks of the labor their
principal field of activity. It is the Communists who are hypocritically
waging their entire unholy fight under the flag of world labor. It is
the Communists whose strategy dictates that they must above all capture
the trade unions before they can seize power in any country (p.2).
If anyone, after reading the above statements by the two men in America
best situated to know, is still inclined to think our internal danger
from infiltration of Soviet Communism into labor a fantasy, he should
read “Stalinists Still Seek Control of Labor in Strategic Industries” in
the February 24, 1951, issue of the Saturday Evening Post. According to
…The communist fifth column in the American labor movement has cut its
losses a and has completed its regrouping. It now claims to have 300,000
to 400,000 followers. Aside from Bridges’ own International
Longshoreman’s and Warehousemen’s Union, some of the working-alliances
members are in such strategic spots as the United Electrical Workers;
Mines, Mills and Smelter Workers; United Public Workers; and the
American Communications Association.
For a full analysis of the strength, the methods, and the weapons of the
Communists in a country they plan to capture, see The Front is
Everywhere: Militant Communism in Action, by William R. Kintner
(University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1950, $3.75). A West
Point graduate, a General Staff Corps colonel in the Military
Intelligence Service in the late phase of World War II, and a Doctor of
Philosophy in the field in which he writes, Colonel Kintner is rarely
qualified for his effectively accomplished task. His bibliography is a
good guide for speakers, writers, and others, who require fuller facts
Another essential background work is
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin: Soviet Concepts of War” in Makers of Modern
Strategy, edited by Edward Mead Earle (Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1943).
The ratio of Actual Communists and
other disgruntled elements of the total population in Russia of 1917 and
the America of the middle of the twentieth century have often been
compared and are strikingly similar. As of 1952, the American position
is stronger than that of the Russian government of 1917 in that we have
not just suffered a major military defeat. Our position is weaker,
however, in the extent to which our administration is not only tolerant
of but infiltrated with persons hostile to our traditions. Our actions
against U.S. Communists must then include those in government. If
inclined to doubt that communists are entrenched in government, do not
forget the C.I.O., prior to the Tydings investigation, expelled its
United Public Workers union (Abram Flaxer, president) for being
Communist-dominated! And note the name “United Public Workers” in the
Post list quoted above!
Once more, let it be stressed that
the removal of Communists from their strategic spots in the government
must take precedence over everything else, for government Communists are
not only able to steal secret papers and stand poised for sabotage; they
are also often in positions where they prevent actions against
Communists outside the government. For instance, Mr. Meany testified
(op. cit., p. 3) that some of the anti-communist success of the American
Federation of Labor has accomplished “despite opposition even from some
of our government agencies and departments.”
If any reader is still inclined to
doubt the essential validity – irrespective of proof in a court of law
with judge or judges likely to have been appointed by “We need those
votes” Roosevelt or “Red Herring” Truman – of the charges of Senator
Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, arch-enemy of Tydings whitewash, or is
inclined to question the judgment of the C.I.O. in its expulsion of
Communists, he should ponder the test formulated by Christ in ancient
Palestine: Ye shall know them by their fruits” (St Matthew, VII, 16).
There have been large and poisonous harvests from government-entrenched
Communists. The most deadly, including atomic espionage and pro-Soviet
foreign policy, have been analyzed above (Chapter II, IV, VI). More
recent was the successful Communist Daily Worker campaign for the
removal of General MacArthur – a campaign culminating in an
across-the-page headline on April 9, 1951, just before General MacArthur
was dismissed from his command in Korea, and from his responsibilities
in Japan. The pressure of the Communists was not the only pressure upon
the President for the dismissal of General Macarthur. Stooges, fellow
travelers, and dupes helped. The significance of the Communist pressure
cannot be doubted, however, by anyone whose perusal of the Daily Worker
has shown how many times Communist demands have foreshadowed Executive
action (see “The Kremlin War on Douglas MacArthur,” by Congressman
Daniel A Reed, of New York, National Republic, January, 1952).
Here follow some indications of recent fruitful Communist activity
within our government – indications which should be studied in full by
any who are still doubters. Late in 1948 an article by Constantine Brown
was headlined in the Washington Evening Star as follows : “Top Secret
Documents Known to Reds Often Before U.S. Officials Saw Them.” “Army
Still Busy Kicking Out Reds Who Got In During the War”, the Washington
Times-Herald headlined on February 11, 1950, the article, by William
Edwards, giving details on Communist-held positions in the “orientation
of youthful American soldiers.” “When are We Going to Stop Helping
Russia Arm?” was asked by O.K. Armstrong and Fredric Sondern. Jr. in
December, 1950, Readers Digest. “How U.S. Dollars Armed Russia” is the
title of an article by Congressman Robert B. Chiperfield of Illinois, a
member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (National Republic, 511
Eleventh St. N. W. 7 D.C., February, 1951). See the Congressional
Record, or write to the senators concerned, for an account of the
successful efforts of Senator Herbert F. O’Conor of Maryland and Senator
John J. Williams of Delaware in breaking up the scandal of our
officially permitting – and by our blockade actually aiding – the
furnishing of supplies to Chinese Communists when their government
troops were at the time killing our young men in Korea! See also the
full “Text of House Un-American Activities Committee’s Report on
Espionage in the Government” (New York Times, December 31, 1948; or from
If existing laws against Communism – including the Internal Security law
whose passage over the President’s veto was discussed in Chapter VIII –
are inadequate, appropriate new laws should be recommended by the
Department of Justice for dealing with the Communist menace within the
Congress. Advance approval of the laws by the Department of Justice is
desirable, so that no flaws in the laws’ coverage can later be alleged
by an enforcement official. If the Justice Department will not at once
provide the text of a needed law, the judiciary committees of the two
Houses are amply able to do so, and should proceed on their own. If any
administration, present or future, flouts the anti-subversive laws
passed by Congress, the Congress should take necessary action –
including impeachment, if other efforts fail – to secure the enforcement
of the laws.
Unless action is soon taken against U.S. Communists (despite any “We
need those votes” considerations), our whole radar defense and our bomb
shelters are wasted money and effort, for there is no way of surely
preventing the importation of atom bombs or unassembled elements of them
across some point on our 53,904 detailed tidal shoreline (exclusive of
Alaska, whose detailed tidal shoreline furnishes another 33,904 miles)
except to clean out possible recipients of the bombs whether operating
in government agencies or elsewhere in the United Stated. We would by no
means be the first country to take steps against Communists. Progress In
this direction in Spain and Canada is elsewhere mentioned. Also, “the
Communist Party has been outlawed in the Middle East Countries” except
in “Israel” (Alfred M. Lilienthal, Human Events, August 2, 1950).
As a conclusion to this section of the last of The Iron Curtain Over
America, let it be stressed that American People in every city block, in
every rural village, and on every farm must be vigilant in the matter of
opposing Communism and in persuading the government to take effective
measures against it. “There has been a tremendous amount of false
information disseminated in the world as to the alleged advantages of
Communism,” said General Wedemeyer to his summation of his
recommendations to the MacArthur Committee of the Senate (U.S. News and
World Report, June 22,1951). “People all over the world are told that
Communism is really the people’s revolution and that anyone opposing it
is a reactionary or a Fascist or imperialist. Because of the prominence
of the Jews in Communism from the Communist Manifesto (1848) to the
atomic espionage trials (1950, 1951), anti-communist activity is also
frequently referred to erroneously as anti-Semitic (see Chapters II,
III, and V). This propaganda-spread view that Communism is “all right”
and that those who oppose it are anti-Semitic, or “”reactionaries” of
some sort, may be circulated in your community by an actual member of
the Communist Party. More likely, it is voiced by a deluded teacher,
preacher, or other person who has believed the subtle but lying
propaganda that has been furnished to him. Be careful not to hurt the
ninety percent or more American-minded teachers (Educational Guardian,1
Maiden Lane, New York,7, New York, July, 1951, p.2) and a probably
similar majority of preachers; but use our influence to frustrate the
evil intent of the “two or five or ten percent of subverters.” Draw your
inspiration from Christ’s words, “For this cause I came into the world”
(St. John 18:37) and let the adverse situation in your community inspire
you to make counter efforts for Western Christian civilization. Never
forget that the basic conflict in the world today is not between the
Russian people and the American people but Communism and Christianity.
Work then also, for the friendly operation of all Christian
denominations in our great struggle for the survival of the Christian
West. Divided we fall!
(b) In the second place, our foreign military policy must be entirely
separated from the question of minority votes in the United States and
must be based on the facts of the world as known by our best military
scholars and strategists. That such has not been the case since 1933 has
been shown above (Chapter VI) in the analysis of our official attitudes
toward China, Palestine, and Germany. Additional testimony of the utmost
authority is furnished by General Bonner Fellers. In reviewing Admiral
Ellis M. Zacharias’s book Behind Closed Doors (Putnam’s New York,
$3.75), the former intelligence officer General Fellers states: “Behind
Closed Doors reveals that we have embarked upon a military program which
our leaders know to be unsound, yet they are unwilling to tell the
American people the truth!” (The Freeman, October 30, 1950)
This statement prompts a mention of the fact that a colonelcy is the
highest rank attainable from the United States Army (similarly, a
captaincy in the Navy). By a regulation inherited from the days when the
total number of general officers was about twenty-five, all appointments
to the general rank from one-star Brigadier to five-star General of the
Army are made by the President of the United States (so also for the
corresponding ranks in the Navy). It is obvious that merit is a factor
in the choice of generals and admirals as field and fleet commanders.
Merit is surely a factor also for many staff positions of star-wearing
rank. Just as surely, however, the factor of “political dependability”
also enters into selection of those high-ranking staff officers who make
policy and are allowed to express opinions. “The conclusion is
inescapable that our top military Commanders today are muzzled. They do
not dare to differ within the civilian side of military questions for
fear of being removed or demoted” (from “Louis Johnson’s Story is
Startling,” by David Lawrence, The Evening Star, Washington, June 18,
1951). In view of such testimony derived from a farmer Secretary of
Defense, it must be concluded that it was to a large extent a waste of
time for the Senate to summon generals and admirals close to the throne
in Washington in the year 1951 for analysis of Truman-Acheson policies.
The following passage from the great speech of General MacArthur before
the Massachusetts Legislature (July 25, 1951) is highly pertinent: Men
of significant stature in the national affairs appear to cower before
the threat of reprisal if the truth be expressed in criticism of those
in higher public authority. For example, I find in existence a new and
dangerous concept that the members of our armed forces owe primary
allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority
of the executive branch of Government, rather than to the country and
its Constitution which they are sworn to defend.
If the Congress wants to learn other aspects of a strategic or logistic
situation besides the administration’s viewpoint, it must summon not
agents and implementers of the administration’s policy, but
non-political generals, staff officers below star-rank, and retired
officers, Regular. National Guard, and Reserve. Competent officers in
such categories are not hard to find. There are also a number of
patriotic Americans with diplomatic experience. In an address over three
major networks (April 13,1951) Representative Joseph W. Martin, Jr.,
Republican leader in the House, named seven generals including Kruger,
Whitney, Chennault, and Wedemeyer: seven admirals including King,
Halsey, Yarnell, and Denfeld; four Marine Corps generals, and ten
diplomats including Hurley - all of the twenty-eight expert in one way
or another on the Far East and none of them close to the Washington
throne where Far East policy decisions have come from the plans and
thinking of persons such as John Carter Vincent, John S. Service, Owen
Lattimore, Philip C. Jessup, Lauchlin Currie, Dean G. Acheson, and their
No attempt can be here made to analyze the complex structure of our
foreign relations. Nowhere are any guesses made as to future national
policy. No attempt is made to enter into details in the fields of
logistics and manpower, and no suggestions will be made on the tactics
or strategy of a particular operation, for such decisions are the
responsibility of informed commanders on the scene.
A few words are indicated, however, in our choice of the two allied
subjects of gasoline and distance from a potential enemy as factors in
the defense of the West.
This matter of gasoline is most significant in our choice of areas for
massing troops against a possible thrust from the Soviet. Of the world’s
supply, it was estimated in 1950 by petroleum experts that the U.S. and
friendly nations controlled 93%, whereas the Soviet controlled 7%. The
fighting of a war on the Soviet perimeter (Korea or Germany) would
appear thus as an arrangement – whether so intended or not – to give the
Soviet leaders a set-up in which their limited supply of gasoline and
oil would not be an obstacle.
Beyond question, the Soviet maintains at all times sufficient gasoline
reserves for a sudden thrust into close-at-hand West Germany. But the
Soviet almost certainly does not have enough gasoline for conquering,
for instance, a properly armed Spain which, because of its distance from
Soviet supply sources and because of its water and mountain barriers,
has in the age of guided missiles superseded Britain as the fortress of
This fact, inherent in the rise of the significance of the air arm,
prompts an analysis of the Roosevelt and Truman attitudes towards Spain.
Through Franklin Roosevelt tolerated benignly the bitter anti-Franco
statements of his Communist and other leftist supporters, he maintained
more or less under cover a friendly working arrangement by which during
World War II we derived from Spain many advantages superior to those
accorded by Spain to the Axis countries. Adequate details of Spain’s
help to America in World War II can be had in a convincing article, “Why
Not a Sensible Policy Toward Spain?” by Congressman Dewey Short of
Missouri (Readers Digest, May, 1949). The reader interested in still
further details should consult the book, Wartime Mission in Spain (The
Macmillian Company, New York) by Professor Carlton J. H. Hayes, who
served as our Ambassador to Spain from May, 1942, to March, 1945.
To one of the many ways in which Spain helped us, the author of The Iron
Curtain Over America can bear personal testimony. When our aviators flew
over France they were instructed, if shot down, to make their way to
Spain. If Franco had been pro-Hitler, he would have returned them to the
Germanys. If he had been neutral, he would have interned. If friendly,
he would have turned them over to the United States to give our leaders
their priceless intelligence information and to fly again. That is
precisely what Franco did; and it was to the office this writer, then
Chief of the Interview Section in the Military Intelligence service,
that a representative number of these flyers reported when flown to
Washington via Lisbon from friendly Spain.
The principle trouble with Spain, from the point of view of our
influential Leftists, seems to be that there are no visible Communists
in that country and no Marxists imbedded in the Spanish government. Back
in 1943 (February 21) Franco wrote as follows to Sir Samuel Hoare,
British Ambassador to Spain: “Our alarm at Russian advances is common
not only to neutral nations, but also to all those people in Europe who
have not yet lost their sensibilities and their realization of the
peril… Communism is an enormous menace to the whole world and now that
it is sustained by the victorious armies of a great country all those
not blind must wake up.” More on the subject can be found in Frank
Waldrop’s article, “What Fools We Mortals Be,” in the Washington
Times-Herald for April 17, 1948.
It is not surprising perhaps that, just as there are no visible
Communists in Spain, an anti-Spanish policy has long been one of the
main above-board activities of U. S. Communists and fellow travelers.
Solicitude for the leftist votes has, as a corollary, influenced our
policy towards Spain. For America’s unjustified tendency “to treat Spain
as a leper,” not from “any action on the part of Spain in the past or
present” but for the “winning of electoral votes,” see “Britain and an
American-Spanish Pact,” by Cyril Falls, Chichele Professor of History of
War in Oxford University (The Illustrated London News, August 4, 1951).
The following anti-Franco organizations have been listed as Communist by
the U. S. Attorney General (see the Senate report, Communist Activities
Among Aliens and National Groups, Part III, p.A10):
Abraham Lincoln Brigade
Action Committee to Free Spain Now
Comite Coordinator Pro Republica
North American Committee to Aid
North American Spanish Committee
United Spanish Aid Committee
Another cause of the anti-Spanish propaganda of American leftists is the
fact that Spain – aware of History’s bloody records of treason of
ideologically unassimilated minorities – has not complicated its
internal problems by admitting hordes of so-called “refugees” from
The Same world forces which blocked our resumption of full diplomatic
relations with Spain have prevented the UN from inviting Spain to be a
member of that organization.
Whether Spain is in or out of that ill-begotten and seemingly expiring
organization may matter very little, but Spain in any defense of the
West matters decisively. “In allying itself with Spain the United States
would exchange a militarily hopeless position on the continent of Europe
for a very strong one” (Hoffman Nickerson: “Spain, the Indispensable
Ally,” The Freeman, November 19,1951). The way for friendship with Spain
was at last opened when the Senate, despite President Truman’s bitter
opposition, approved in August, 1950,a loan to that country, and was
further cleared on November 4, 1950, when the UN, although refusing to
lift the ban against Spain’s full entry into the United Nations,” did
vote to allow Spanish representation on certain “specialized agencies
such as the world health and postal organizations” (AP dispatch, Dallas
Morning News, November 5,1950). As to the loan authorized by Congress in
August, 1950, it was not until June 22, 1951, that the “White House and
State Department authorized the Export-Import Bank to let Spain buy
wheat and other consumer goods out of the $62,500,000 Spanish loan voted
by the Congress last year” Washington Post, June 23, 1951).
In his testimony to the combined Armed Service and Foreign Relations
Committee of the Senate on May 24, 1951 (AP dispatch from Washington)
Chief of Staff General Omar Bradley admits that “from a military point
of view” the Joint Chiefs would like to have Spain on our side. Finally,
the clamor of the public and the attitude of the military prevailed and
in July, 1951, the United States, to the accompaniment of a chorus of
abuse from Socialist governments of Britain and France (New York Times,
July 17, 1951), began official conversations with Spain on mutual
defense. On August 20, 1951, a military survey team,” which was
“composed of all three armed services,” left Washington for Spain (New
York Times, August 21, 1951)). This move toward friendly relations for
mutual advantage of the two countries not only has great potential
value, for Spain is the Mother Country for all Latin America from Rio
Grande to Cape Horn with the sole exception of Brazil. Spain is,
moreover, of all European countries, the closest in sympathy with the
Moslem World. Each year, for instance, it welcomes to Cordoba and Toledo
thousands of Moslem pilgrims. Peace between the Moslem and Christian was
a century-old fact until ended by the acts of Truman administration on
behalf of “Israel.” It will be a great achievement if our resumption of
relations with Spain leads to a renewal of friendly relations with the
Moslem world. We must be sure, however, that our military men in Spain
will not be accompanied by State Department and Executive agencies
vivandiéres, peddling the dirty wares of supervision and Communism.
(Human Events, August 8, 1951).
With the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean, and the lofty Pyrenees
Mountains as barriers; under the sheltering arm of distance; and above
all with no visible internal Communists or Marxists to sabotage our
efforts, we can – if our national defense so requires – safely equip
Spain’s eighteen well disciplined divisions, can develop airfields
unapproachable by hostile ground troops, and in the deep inlets and
harbors of Spain can secure safe ports for our navy and our merchant
fleet. Our strengthening of Spain, second only to our keeping
financially solvent and curbing Communists in this country, would
undoubtedly be a very great factor in the preventing the Soviet leaders
from launching an all-out war. Knowing that with distant
Pyrenees-guarded and American-armed Spain against them, they could not
finally win, they almost certainly would not begin.
Our strengthening of Spain’s army, potentially the best in Europe
outside of the Communist lands, would not only have per se a powerful
military value; it would also give an electric feeling of safety to the
really anti-Communist elements in other Western European countries. Such
near-at-hand reassurance of visible strength is sorely needed in France,
for that country since the close of World War II has suffered from the
grave internal menace of approximately 5,000,000 know Communists. In the
general elections of the members of the French National Assembly on June
17, 1952 the Soviet-sponsored Communist Party polled more than a fourth
of all votes cast (New York Times, June 19, 1951), and remained the
largest single political party in France. Moreover, Communists leaders
dominate labor in crucial French industries. “In France, the Communists
are still the dominate factor in the trade unions: (The Last Five
Years,” by George Meany, American Federation of Labor, Washington, D.
C., p.11). See also the heavily documented article, “French Communism,”
by Andre La Guerre in Life, January 29, 1951. With Communists so
powerful and so ready for sabotage or for actual rebellion, the France
of 1952 must be regarded as of limited value as an ally. As said above,
however, the dependability of France in the defense of the West would be
enhanced by United States aid to the military forces of Anti-Communist
With Spain armed, and with the Socialist government of Britain thrown
out by Mr. Churchill’s Conservative Party in the election of October 25,
1951, the spirit of Europe may revive. If not, it is to much to expect
America to save Europe forever, for “if 250 million people in Western
Europe, with industry far larger than that of Russia, cannot find a way
to get together and to build a basis for defense on land, then something
fundamental may be wrong with Western Europe.” (U. S. News and World
Report, June 22, 1951, p. 10). Perhaps the “wrong” is with our policy –
at least largely. For instance, deep in our policy and irrespective of
our official utterances, “Germany is written off as an ally” to avoid “
political liability in New York” (Frank C. Hanighen in Human Events,
February 7, 1951).
Spain, with its national barriers and the strategic position of its
territory astride the Strait of Gibraltar, could become one anchor of an
oil-and-distance defense arc. By their location and by their
anti-Communist ideology, the Moslem nations of the Middle East are the
other end of this potential crescent of safety. Friendship with these
nations would, like friendship with Spain, be a very great factor in
preventing a third world-wide war.
Among nations on the Soviet periphery, Turkey, mountainous and
military-minded, is pre-eminently strong. Perhaps because it would be an
effective ally, it long received the cold shoulder from our State
Department. Suddenly, however, in the autumn of 1951, Turkey, along with
Greece, was given a status similar to that of nations of Western Europe
(not including Spain) in the proposed mutual defense against Communism.
This apparently reluctant change of policy by our government toward
Greece and Turkey seems – like the sending of a military mission to
Spain – to have grown unquestionably from pubic clamor in America as
shown in the newspapers, especially in letters from the people, as heard
on the radio from the patriotic commentators, and as reflected in pools
of public opinion. This success of the people in changing national
policy should hearten the average citizen to newer efforts in the
guiding his country to sound policies. It is most essential for every
individual to remember that every great achievement is the result of a
multitude of small efforts.
Between Spain and Turkey, the Mediterranean islands – Majorca and
Minorca, Corsica and Sardinia, Sicily and Malta, Crete and Cyprus – are
well developed and well fortified by nature. Perhaps the United States
should make some of them into impregnable bases by friendly agreement
with their authorities. The incontestable value of an island fortress is
shown by Malta’s surviving the ordeal of Axis bombing in World War II as
well as by Hitler’s capture of Crete, in the German failure before
Moscow in the following December.
In the Eastern Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus (visited by the
author) is potentially a very strong bastion. In relationship to the
Dardanelles, the Soviet oil fields, and the strategic
Aleppo-Baghdad-Cairo triangle, Cyprus’s water-girt site is admirable.
Since its mountain ranges reach a height of more than 6,000 feet, and
are located like giant breastworks defending a broad interior plain, the
island might well become the location of underground hangars and landing
fields for a great air fortress. Others of the islands listed above
offer advantages of one sort or another to air or other forces.
South of the Mediterranean’s necklace of islands, lies Africa, the
ultimate key to the success or failure of the Western World in
preventing an aggressive move against Europe. It is air power in Africa,
in the great stretch of the hills and plains from Morocco to Egypt, that
might well be the major deterrent of any hostile move in Europe or in
the Middle East by the Soviet Union. “Air power offers the only
effective counter-measure against Russian occupation of the Middle East.
The deeper the Red Army moves into this priceless strategic area, the
more it supply lines can be disrupted by air strikes” (Africa and Our
Security,” by General Bonner Fellers, The Freeman, August 13, 1951). In
his valuable article, General Fellers states further that a “small,
highly trained and mobile ground force, with adequate air protection and
support,” can defend African air bases, which in turn could prevent the
crossing of the Mediterranean by hostile forces in dangerous numbers.
The Moslem lands of the Middle East
and North Africa (as sources of oil and as bases for long range bombers)
should by a proper diplomatic approach, be pulled positively and quickly
into the United States defense picture. Barring new inventions not yet
in sight, and barring disguised aid from our government (such as Truman
and Acheson gave the Chinese Communists in the Strait of Formosa), the
Soviet Union cannot win a world war without the oil of the Middle East.
Soviet delay in making overt moves in that theater may well have been
determined by gasoline reserves insufficient for the venture.
The Soviet squeeze upon Iran was initiated at the Tehran Conference,
where Stalin, who is said to be unwilling to leave his territory,
entertained our rapidly declining President in the Soviet Embassy in a
grandiose gesture insulting alike to the Iranians and to our staff in
that country. Stalin’s alleged reason that his embassy was the only safe
spot was in truth an astute face-raising gesture before the peoples of
Asia, for he displayed Roosevelt, the symbolic Man of the West, held in
virtual protective custody or house arrest by the Man of the East.
Details of the dinner in the Soviet
Embassy to which Stalin invited “Father and the P. M.” are given by
General Elliot Roosevelt in As He Saw It (pp.188, 189). Stalin proposed
that Germany’s “war criminals” be disposed of by firing squads “as fast
as we capture them, all of them, and there must be at least fifty
thousand of them.”
According to General Roosevelt, the proposal shocked Prime Minister
Churchill, who sprang quickly to his feet. “ ‘Any such attitude,’ he
said, ‘is wholly contrary to our British sense of Justice! The British
people will never stand for such mass murder… no one, Nazi or no, shall
be summarily dealt with before a firing squad, without a proper legal
The impasse was resolved by the U. S. President: “ ‘Clearly there must
be some sort of compromise,’ he said, accordingly to his son. “ ‘Perhaps
we could say that instead of summarily execution of fifty thousand war
criminals, we should settle on a smaller number. Shall we say forty-nine
thousand five hundred?’”
It was in this way, prophetic of the crime of Nuremberg, that President
Roosevelt, unquestionable very tired and probably already to ill to know
the full import of his words and acts, threw away the last vestiges of
our government’s respect for law, and for Western Christian tradition.
In return, our president got nothing but flattering of the leftists
around him and the gratification of a whim of decline which was to make
Churchill scowl and Stalin smile! What a spectacle of surrender in the
very capital of the strategically important and historic Persia!
Over all Stalin’s triumphs and Churchill’s defeats at Tehran was the
shadow of the derricks of the Iranian oil fields. Should the Abadan
refineries be shut down or their output flow in another direction, the
result would be felt around the world. These refineries are the largest
in the world, processing 550,000 barrels a day” (monthly Newsletter of
Representative Frances Bolton of Ohio, June, 1951). And what a sorry
figure America has played in this vital oil area from Tehran to 1951!
“Our Government’s Deplorable Performance in Iran Has Contributed to a
Great Disaster” was the sub-title of a Life editorial, How to Lose a
World” (May 21, 1951), on Acheson’s policy of doing nothing except “let
the pieces settle” after the expected disaster in the world’s greatest
oil-producing area. In Iran or in an adjacent area, the Soviet may find
it necessary to strike for her gasoline and lubricants before any major
attempts can be successful elsewhere.
The well-known leftism of the State Department – as indicated in many
ways, especially by the carefully documented testimony of Harold
Stassen; and the C. I. O. ’s expulsion of the United Public Workers
Union – and the early predilection of Prime Minister Atlee (1945-1951)
for Communism raise the inevitable fear that the oil crisis in Iran,
while publicly deplored by Britain and America, may well have been
engineered by the very American and British government officials who
then shed crocodile tears at the oil’s probable loss to the West!
A major world fact in the early 1950’s was the fall of the British
prestige in the Middle East, and drawing of the Soviet into the
resultant vacuum. The Attlee government’s protest on Iranian oil
nationalization commanded no respect anywhere, for the Iranians were
copying the home program of the Socialist government of Britain!
Britain’s humiliation in Iran was made graver by the long threatened but
never carried out dispatch of some 4,500 paratroopers to the oil fields
– a gesture which was said to have stemmed from the Socialist Defense
Minister at that time, the Jewish statesman Emanuel Shinwell (UP
dispatch from Tehran, May 25, 1951). Whether or not Mr. Churchill’s
government (October, 1951) can save the situation is for the future to
show. There was no comfort for non-Communists in his speech before the
two houses of the U. S. Congress on January 17, 1952 – a speech which
called not for peace with justice to the Moslems of the Middle East but
for U. S. troops!
The moral power of America as a mediator, like that of Britain, has
moved towards zero. Nearly a million destitute Moslems refugees from
Palestine – who have in their veins more of the blood of Biblical
peoples than any other race in the World today – are straggling here and
there in the Middle East or are in displaced persons’ camps, and are not
silent about the presence of American officers (Chapter VI, above)
commanding the troops which drove them from their homes, For details on
these hopeless refuges sent to wandering and starving by our policy, see
Alfred M. Lilienthal’s “Storm Clouds Over the Middle East,” Human
Events, August 2, 1950. The evil we did to Palestine may be our nemesis
in Iran and Egypt! The truth is that because of America’s sponsoring of
bloody little “Israel” – and Britain’s falling in line – the Moslem
Middle East resents the presence of the previously respected and admired
Anglo-Saxon powers (Mr. Churchill’s speech).
Moreover, the Zionists are not quiescent. The summer of 1951 saw clashes
on the “Israeli” frontiers and the exposure of the Zionist schemes in
other parts of the Middle East. Here is a sample:
Baghdad, Iraq, June 18 (AP) – Police said today they had discovered
large quantities of weapons and explosives in Izra Daoud Synagogue.
Military sources estimated it was enough to dynamite all Baghdad.
This was the latest discovery reported by police, who said yesterday
they found a large store of machine guns, bombs, and ammunition in the
former home of a prominent Jew.
After details of other discoveries the dispatch concludes, “Police said
the ammunition was stored by the Baghdad Zionist Society, which was
described as a branch of the World Zionist Organization” (New York
Times, June 19,1951).
In spite of our deserved low reputation in the Moslem world, American
counter-moves of some sort to save Middle East oil and the Suez Canal
are imperative. The proper approach is obvious, but will our government
make it? “The Moslems, and those allied with them religiously and
sympathetically, compose almost one-half of the world’s people who
control almost one-half of the world’s land area. We infuriated them
when we helped drive a million Arabs from their native lands in the
Middle East” (Newsletter of Congressman Ed Gossett of Texas, February 1,
1951). “The recapture of the friendship of 400,000,000 Moslems by the
United States, and its retention, may prove the deciding factor in
preserving world peace” (statement of Congressman Ed Gossett in the
House of Representatives June 12, 1951, as recorded in the Congressional
Record). In the Washington Times-Herald (Sept. 28, 1951), Senator Malone
of Nevada also called attention to the sound sense and strategic
advantage of having the Moslem world on our side.
The recaptured friendship with the Moslem is not only a question of acts
of justice on our part but is tied to the question of absolute vital oil
reserves, The oil of the Middle East is essential to preventing World
War III or to our winning it. In World War II we had gasoline rationing
with the oil of the Middle East on our side. What would we do in another
war, far more dependent on gasoline, with the Middle East on the other
side? And what would we do if the West should lose the Suez Canal?
The first move to prevent such a disaster – after cleaning out our State
Department as the American Legion Demanded by a vote of 2,881 to 131 at
it’s National Convention in Miami (October, 1951) – should be to send a
complete new slate of American diplomats to Moslem nations from Egypt
and Yemen to Iraq and Iran. These new diplomats should have instructions
to announce a changed policy which is long overdue. The present State
Department, stained with past errors, could not succeed even if it
should wish to succeed.
A changed policy implemented by new officials would almost certainly be
received by the Moslem world with cordiality and gratitude, for until
the Israel grab was furthered in this country America was throughout the
Middle East the least disliked and least feared foreign power. At the
close of the Second World War the Near East was friendly to the United
States and her Allies,” said Ambassador Kamil Bey Abdul Rahim of Egypt
(Congressional Record, June 13 1051) in an address delivered at
Princeton University on June 2, 1951. By 1952, however “a spirit of
resentment and even revolt against the Western democracies” was sweeping
through the Middle East. For the unfortunate fact of our having lost our
friends the Ambassador finds the reason in the “policy of the West”:
The Palestine question is an outstanding example of this policy.
Everyone knows that the serious injustice inflicted upon the Arabs in
Palestine has alienated them and undermined the stability of the area.
The West’s continued political and financial support of the Zionists in
Palestine is not helping the relations with the Near East, nor is it
strengthening the forces which are fighting communism there.
By being again honorable in our dealing with the Moslem nations and by
helping them, with a supply of long-range bombers or otherwise, to
defend their oil, for which we are paying them good money, and will
continue to pay them good money’ we could quickly create a situation
under which the Soviet can not hope to conquer the Middle East. Thus
lacking oil, the Soviet could not hope to conquer the world. It must not
be forgotten, too, that apart from oil in the Middle East has great
strategic significance. “Israel” and the adjacent Moslem lands are a
vestibule which leads to Europe, to Asia, and to Africa.
In addition to building, primarily by
honorable conduct and secondarily by thoughtfully planned assistance, a
strength crescent from Spain through the Mediterranean and North Africa
to our present problem in Korea and plans for safety of Japan, Formosa,
and the Philippines. But as Senator Jenner of Indiana has pointed, “We
cannot have peace in Asia if the negotiations are carried on by the men
of Yalta” (Human Events, May 30, 1951). Then there is Alaska, one of
those islands Little Diomede, is only three miles from and in sight of
an island, Big Diomede, belonging to Russia. Of the Soviet’s two Far
Eastern fronts, one is the hinterland of Vladivostok and the other is an
armed quadrilateral opposite Nome, Alaska. Here, according to the
military critic, Hanson Baldwin, is a garrison which “probably numbers
more than 200,000 men” (see article and map, New York Times, march 15,
1949). No specific suggestions are made here, but it seems obvious that
the defense of Alaska should receive priority over at least some of our
more far-flung global ventures.
In conclusion of this section, a warning is in order – a warning that
should be heeded in all America’s planning at home and abroad. In any
efforts at helping the world, the primary help we can give is to remain
solvent. A bankrupt America would be worse than useless to its allies.
Foreign military aid should, therefore with two associated principles.
We should cease mere political bureaucracy-building in this country and
cut to reasonable minimum our government’s home spending. We should
insist that foreign governments receiving our aid should also throw
their energies and resources into the common cause.
There is no more dangerous fallacy than the general belief that America
is excessively rich. Our natural resources are variously estimated at
being six percent to ten percent of the world’s total. These slender
resources are being more rapidly depleted than those of any other power.
Our national debt also is colossal beyond anything known in other parts
of the world. Can a spendthrift who is heavily in debt be properly
called a wealthy man? By what yardstick then are we a “rich” nation?
Fortunately a few Americans in high places are awake to the danger of a
valueless American dollar. General MacArthur, for instance, in his
speech before the Massachusetts Legislature gave the following warning:
The free world’s one great hope for survival now rests upon the
maintaining and preserving of our own strength. Continue to dissipate it
and that one hope is dead. If the American people would pass on the
standard of life and the heritage of opportunity they themselves have
enjoyed to their children and their children’s children they should ask
their representatives in government:
“What is the plan for the easing of the tax burden upon us? What is the
plan for bringing to a halt this inflationary movement which is
progressively and inexorably decreasing the purchasing power of our
currency, nullifying the protection of our insurance provisions, and
reducing those of fixed income to hardship and despair?”
(c) An early duty of a completely reconstituted Department of State will
be to advise the Congress and the American people on the United Nations
Launched in 1945 when our
government’s mania for giving everything to the Soviet was at its peak,
the United Nations got off to an unfortunate start. Our most influential
representative at San Francisco, “The Secretary-General of the United
Nations Conference on International Organization,” was none other than
Alger Hiss. It is not surprising, then, that United States leftists,
from pink to vermilion, found homes in the various cubicles of the new
organization. According to a personal statement to the author by the
late Robert Watt, American Federation of Labor leader and authority on
international affairs, all members except the chairman of one twenty-one
member U. S. contingent to the permanent UN staff were known Communists
or fellow travelers. These people and others of the same sort are for
the most part still UN harness.
Moreover, and as is to be expected, the work of our own delegation
cannot be impartially assessed as being favorable to the interest, or
even the survival, of the United States as a nation. Very dangerous to
us, for instance, is our wanton meddling into the internal affairs of
the other nations by such a program as the one we call land reform. “The
United States will make land reform in Asia, Africa, and Latin America a
main plank in its platform for world economic development. At the
appropriate time, the United States delegation [to the UN] will
introduce a comprehensive resolution to the Economic and Social Council
of the United Nations” (dispatch, August 1, by Michael L. Hoffman from
Geneva to the New York Times, August 2, 1951). Can anyone with any sense
think that our collection of leftists, etc., in the UN really know how
to reform the economic and social structure of three continents? Is not
the whole scheme an attack on the sovereignty of the nations whose land
we mean to “reform”? Does the scheme not appear to have been concocted
mainly if not solely to establish a precedent which will allow
Communists and other Marxists to “reform” land ownership in the United
Meanwhile, certain international bodies have not delayed in making their
plans for influencing the foreign and also the internal policies of the
United States. For instance, at the World Jewish Conference which met in
Geneva, Switzerland, on September 10, 1951, “far and away the most
important matter” was said to be an opposition to “the resurgence of
Germany as a leading independent power” (New York Times, September 10,
1951). The special dispatch to the New York Times continues as follows:
We are strongly and firmly opposed to the early emancipation of Germany
from Allied control and to German rearmament,” Dr. Maurice Perlzweig of
New York, who represents Western Hemisphere Jewish communities, said
Leaders expect to formulate and send to the Foreign Ministers of Western
Powers the specific views of the world Jewish community on the German
The above quotation shows an international effort to shape foreign
policy. At the same “congress,” attention was also given to exerting
influence within America: …Dr. Goldman said non-Zionists must learn to
contribute to some Zionist programs with which they did not agree.
“Non –Zionists should not be unhappy if some money is used for
Halutziuth [pioneering] training in the United States,” he told a press
conference. Zionists would be unable to accept any demand that no such
training be undertaken, he added.
How would outside power force its will upon the United States? The
day-by-day method is to exert economic pressure and to propagandizing
the people by the control of the media which shape public opinion
(Chapter V, above). At least one other way, however, has actually been
rehearsed. Full details are given by John Jay Daly in an article “U. N.
Seizes, Rules American Cities” in the magazine, National Republic
(September, 1951). As described by Mr. Daly, troops, flying the United
Nations flag – a blue rectangle similar to the blue rectangle of the
State of “Israel” – took over Culver City, Huntington Park, Inglewood,
Hawthorne, and Compton, California. The military “specialists” took over
the government in a surprise move, “throwing the mayor of the city in
jail and locking up the chief of police…and the chief of the fire
department…the citizens, by a proclamation posted on the front of City
Hall, were warned that the area had been taken over by the armed forces
of the United Nations.” If inclined to the view that this United Nations
operation – even though performed by U. S. troops – is without
significance, the reader should recall the United States has only
one-sixtieth of the voting power in the Assembly of the United Nations.
The present location of the UN headquarters not only within the United
States but in our most alien-infested great city would make easy any
outside interference intended to break down local sovereignty in this
country – especially if large numbers of troops of native stock are
overseas and if our own “specialists” contingents in the UN force should
be composed of newcomers to the country. Such troops might conceivably
be selected in quantity under future UN rule that its troops should
speak more than one language. Such a rule, which on its face might
appear reasonable, would limit American troops operating for the UN
almost exclusively to those who are foreign-born or sons of foreign-born
parents. This is true because few soldiers of old American stock speak
any foreign languages, whereas refugees and other immigrants and their
immediate descendants usually speak two – English, at least of a sort,
and the language of the area from which they or their parents came.
As has been repeatedly stated on the floors of Congress, the government
pamphlet, “Communists Activities Among Aliens and National Groups,”
p.A1), the presence of the UN within the United States has the actual –
not merely hypothetical –disadvantage of admitting to our borders under
diplomatic immunity a continuing stream of new espionage personnel who
are able to contact directly the members of their already established
networks within the country.
There are other signs that the UN organization is “useless” as John T.
Flynn has described in a Liberty network broadcast (November, 1951). The
formulation of the North Atlantic Defense Treaty or Security Alliance in
1949 was a virtual admission that the UN was dead as an influence for
preventing major aggression. American’s strong-fisted forcing of
unwilling nations to vote for admission of “Israel” dealt the UN a blow
as effective as Russia’s vetoes. Another problem to give Americans pause
is dangerous wording and possibly even more dangerous interpretation of
some articles in the UN Covenant. There is even a serious question of a
complete destruction of our sovereignty over our own land, not only by
interpretations of UN articles by UN officials (see The United Nations –
Action for Peace, by Marie and Louis Zocca, p. 56), but by judicial
decisions of the leftist-minded courts in this country. Thus in the case
of Se Fujii vs. the State of California “Justice Emmet H. Wilson decided
that an existing law of a state is unenforceable because of the United
Nations Charter” “These Days,” by George Sokolsky, Washington
Times-Herald and other papers, March 9, 1951). Lastly, and of great
importance, is the consistent UN tendency to let the United States, with
one vote in 60, bear not merely the principal burden of the organization
but almost all of the burden. Thus in the UN-sponsored operation in
Korea, America furnished “over 90% of the dead and injured” (broadcast
by Ex-President Herbert Hoover, December 20, 1950) among UN troops,
South Koreans being from the figures as South Korea is not a UN member
And as the months passed thereafter, the ratio of American causalities
continued proportionately high. By the middle of the summer of 1951 more
of our men had killed and wounded in Korea than the Revolutionary War,
the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War,
combined! It is thus seen that the United Nations organization has
failed miserably in what should be its main function – namely to
prevention or stopping war.
In view of the above entries on the loss side of the ledger, what has
the United Nations accomplished? A United States representative, Mr.
Harding Bancroft, furnished the answer in a spring of 1951 broadcast
(NBC, “The United Nations Is My Beat”). The three successes of the
Security Council cited by Mr. Bancroft were achieved in Palestine, the
Netherlands East Indies, and Kashmir. With what yardstick does Mr.
Bancroft measure success? Details cannot be given here, but surely the
aggregate of the results in the three areas cited cannot be regarded as
successful by anyone sympathetic with either Western Christian
Civilization or Moslem civilization.
Patriotic Americans should be warned, finally, against spurious attempts
to draw parallels between the United States Constitution and United
Nations regulations. The Constitution, with its first ten amendments,
was designed specifically to curb the power of the Federal government
and to safeguard the rights of states and individuals. On the other
hand, the United Nations appears to the goal of destroying many of the
sovereign rights of member nations and putting individuals in jeopardy
everywhere – particularly in the United States.
In view of all these matters, the American public is entitled to advice
on the UN from a new clean leadership in the Department of State. The
Augean stables of the UN are so foul that the removal of the filth from
the present organization might be too difficult. Perhaps the best move
would be to adjourn sine die. Then, like-minded nations on our side,
included the Moslem bloc – which a clean state Department would surely
treat honorably – might work out an agreement advantageous to the safety
and sovereignty of each other. Cleared of the booby traps, barbed wire,
poisonous portions, and bad companions of the present organization, the
new international body might achieve work of great value on behalf of
world peace. In the U. S. delegation to the new organization, we should
include Americans only – and no Achesonians or Hissites from the old. In
any case the Congress needs and the people deserve a full report on the
United Nations from a State Department which they can trust.
(d) Lastly, but very important, the clean-out of our government will
give us a powerful propaganda weapon against the masters of the Russian
people. We must not forget the iron curtain over America (Chapter V)
which has blacked out the truth that Russia (Chapter II) was founded by
the Russ, who were men of the West, men from Scandinavia, whence sprang
the whole Nordic race, including the great majority of all Western
Europeans. Even in Spain and northern Italy the people are largely
descended from Gothic ancestors who first passed from Sweden to the
Baltic Islands of Gotland (or Gothland, hence their name) and then
onward to their conquest and settlement of Southern and Western lands.
Consequently, we should never speak in a derogatory manner of Russia or
Russians. “Each time we attack ‘Russia or Russians’ when we mean the
Bolshevik hierarchy, or speak contemptuously of ‘Asiatic hordes,’ or
identify world communism as a ‘Slav menace,’ we are providing grist for
the Kremlin mills. Our press and pronouncements are fine-combed in
Moscow for quotations” (from “Acheson’s Gift to Stalin,” The Freeman,
August 27,1951). Should we or should we not send special messages to the
Esthonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians to whose independence President
Franklin Roosevelt – in one of his moods – committed himself? Should we
or should we not direct special appeals to White Russians and to the
Ukrainians? The latter people have plenty of reasons for hating the
rulers of Russia; for rebellion in January, 1918, by Jews who did not
want to be cut off from the Jews of Moscow and Leningrad was a principal
factor in the loss of the Ukraine’s old dream of independence (A History
of the Ukraine, Hrushevsky, p. 539 and passim). Decisions on the nature
of our propaganda to the people behind the Iron Curtain should be made
by patriotic Americans familiar with the current intelligence estimates
on the Soviet-held peoples, and not by persons addicted to the ideology
of Communism and concerned for minority votes!
We must never forget, moreover, that the Russian people are at heart
Christian. They were converted even as they emerged onto the stage of
civilized modern statehood, and Christianity is in their tradition – as
it is ours.
We must finally not forget that leaders in Russia since 1917 are not
patriotic Russians but are a hated coalition of renegade Russians with
the remnant of Russia’s old territorial and ideological enemy, the
Judaized Khazars, who for centuries refused to be assimilated either
with the Russian people or with Western Christian Civilization.
In view of the facts of history, from which this book has torn the
curtain of censorship, it is reasonable to assume that the true Russian
people are restive and bitter under the yoke and the goading of alien
and Iscariot rule. To this almost axiomatic assumption, there is much
testimony. In his book The Choice, Boris Shubb states that in Russia
“There is no true loyalty to Stalin-Beria-Malenkov in any significant
segment of the party, the state, the army, the police, or the people.”
In The Freeman (November 13, 1950) Rodney Gilbert says in an article
“Plan for Counter-Action”: “Finally, there is a Soviet Russian home
front, where we probably have a bigger force on our side than all the
Western world could muster.” According to the Catholic World (January,
1941): “The Russian mind being Christian bears no resemblance to the
official mind of the Politburo.” Likewise, David Lawrence (U. S. News
and World Report, December 25, 1950) says: We must first designate our
real enemies. Our real enemies are not the peoples of Soviet Russia or
the peoples of the so-called ‘Iron Curtain Countries’.” In Human Events
(March 28, 1951), the Readers Digest Editor Eugene Lyons quotes the
current Saturday Evening Post headline “Our enemies are the Red Tyrants
not their slaves” and with much documentation, as might be expected from
one who was six years a foreign correspondent in Soviet Union, reaches
the conclusion that “the overwhelming majority of the Soviet peoples
hate their rulers and dream of liberation from the Red yolk.” So,
finally, General Fellers testifies thus in his pamphlet “Thought War
Against the Kremlin” (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 25 cents):
“Russia, like the small nations under its heel, is in effect an occupied
country.” General Fellers recommended that our leaders should not “blame
the Russian people for the peace-wrecking tactics of the Kremlin
Clique,” but should make it clear that we “share the aspirations of the
Russians for freedom.” The general scoffs at the idea that such
propaganda is ineffective: “From wartime results we know that effective
broadcasts, though heard only by thousands, percolate to the millions.
Countries denied freedom of the press and speech tend to become huge
whispering galleries; suppressed facts and ideas often carry farther
than the official propaganda.”
What an opportunity for all of our propaganda agencies, including the
“Voice of America”! And yet there is testimony to the fact that our
State Department has steadily refused suggestions that its broadcasts
direct propaganda not against the Russian people but against their
enslaving leaders. The “Voice,” which is not heard in this country - at
least not by the general public – is said to be in large part an
unconvincing if not repelling air mosaic of American frivolities
presented an introduction to American “culture” – all to no purpose,
except perhaps to preëmpt from service to this country a great potential
propaganda weapon. The “Voice” appears also to have scant regard for the
truth. For instance, a CTPS dispatch from Tokyo on April 13 (Washington
Times-Herald, April 14, 1951) reported as follows:
A distorted version of the world reaction to Gen. MacArthur’s removal is
being broadcast by the Voice of America, controlled by the State
department, a comparison with independent reports showed today.
“Voice” listeners here got an impression of virtually unanimous approval
of President Truman’s action.
Sometimes the “Voice” is said actually to state the enslaved Russian
people that the United States has no interest in changing “the
government or social structure of the Soviet Union.” For carefully
documented details, see the feature article, “Voice of America Makes
Anti-Red Russians Distrust
U. S.; Serves Soviet Interests” in
the Williams Intelligence Summary for June 1951 (P. O. Box 868 Santa
Ana, California, 25¢ per copy,$3.00 per year) [Editors note, The
Communists within our government worked hard for the continuance of
Communism and demonizing of the American principles. You can also see
from these prices America’s dollar in the 1950’s was strong and still
bought a lot for a little.] Finally, it should be noted that in the
summer of 1951, there was a secret testimony to the Senate Committees
indicating “that Communist sympathizers have infiltrated the State
Department’s Voice of America Programs” (AP dispatch in Richmond
Times-Dispatch, July 10, 1951).
This apparently worse than useless “Voice of America” could, under a
cleaned-up State Department, become quickly useful and powerful. We
could use it to tell the Russian people that we know they were for
centuries in the fold of Christian civilization and that we look forward
to welcoming them back. We could say to the Russian people that we have
nothing against them and have under our laws removed from our government
leaders who for self-perpetuation in office or for other causes wanted a
big foreign war. We could then invite Russian hearers or the broadcast
to give thought to a similar step in their country. Such broadcasting,
if it did not actually bring about an overthrow of the present rulers,
would almost certainly give them enough concern to prevent their
starting war. Such broadcasts also would pave the way to assistance from
inside Russia in the tragic event that war should come. Broadcasts of
the new type should begin quickly, for the Soviet leaders have a thought
censorship, even as we have, and our task will be increasingly difficult
an each month sees the death of older people who will know the truth of
our broadcasts from personal pre-1917 experience.
(e) The patriotic people of America should not lose hope. They should
proceed with boldness, and joy in the outcome, for Right is on our side.
Moreover, they are a great majority, and such a majority can make its
will prevail any time it ceases to lick the boots of its captors.
One point of encouragement lies in the fact that things are not quite as
bad as they were. Most patriotic people feel that their country is in
the lowest depths in the early fifties. Conditions were even worse,
however, in 1944, and seems worse now only because the pro-American
element in the country is prevailing to the extent, at least, of turning
on a little light in dark places.
Unquestionably, 1944 was the most dangerous years for America. Our
President and civil and military coterie about him were busily tossing
our victory to the Soviet Union. In November the dying President was
elected by a frank and open coalition of Democratic and Communist
parties. The pilgrimage of homage and surrender to Stalin at Yalta
(February, 1950) was being prepared. The darkest day was the black
thirtieth of December when the Communists were paid off by the
termination of regulations which kept them out of the Military
Intelligence Service. The United States seemed dying of the world
epidemic of Red Fever.
But on January 3, 1945, our country rallied. The new Congress had barely
assembled when Mr. Sabath of Illinois moved that the rules of the
expiring Seventy-Eighth Congress be rules of the Seventy-Ninth Congress.
Thereupon, Congressman John Elliot Rankin, Democrat, of Mississippi,
sprang to his feet, and moved as an amendment that the expiring
temporary Committee on Un-American Activities be made a permanent
Committee of the House of Representatives. Mr. Rankin explained the
function of the proposed permanent committee as follows:
The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee,
is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the
extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in
the United States, (2) the diffusion within the United States of
subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign
countries or of domestic origin and attacks the principle of government
as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (3) and all other questions in
relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial
In support of his amendment to the Rule of the House, Mr. Rankin said:
The Dies committee, of the Committee on un-American Activities, was
created in 1938. It has done a marvelous work in the face of all the
criticism that has been hurled at its chairman and its members. I submit
that during these trying times the Committee on un-American Activities
has performed a duty second to none ever performed by any committee of
Today, when our boys are fighting to preserve American institutions, I
submit it is no time to destroy the records of that committee, it is no
time to relax our vigilance. We should carry on in the regular way and
keep this committee intact, and above all things, save those records.
Congressman Karl Mundt, Republican, of South Dakota, rose to voice his
approval of the Rankin amendment. There was maneuvering against the
proposal by Congressman Marcantonio of New York, Congressman Sabath of
Illinois, and other congressmen of similar views, but Mr. Rankin, a
skillful parliamentarian, forced the vote. By 208 to 186, with 40 not
voting, the Rankin amendment was adopted and the Committee on
Un-American Activities became a permanent Committee of the House of
Representatives (all details and quotations are from Congressional
Record, House, January 3, 1945, pages 10-15 –pages which deserve framing
in photostat, if the original is not available, for display in every
school building and veterans’ clubroom in America).
The American Communists and fellow-travelers were stunned. Apart from
violence, however, there was nothing they could do. Moves made as
“feelers” showed them they could nowhere with their hoped-for uprising
in South America, almost all of whose people were patriotic Americans.
Also, except for two widely separated and quickly dwindling incidents,
they got nowhere with their plans for a revolt in the army, Despite its
success at Yalta, and despite its continued influence with the American
Administration, the Soviet moved more cautiously. The Rankin amendment
gave the United States of America a chance to survive as a nation under
its Constitution. Is it then to be wondered at that Mr. Rankin has been
subject to bitter reprisals ever since by the Communists and
fellow-travelers and their dupes?
Though the Rankin amendment gave American its chance to live, the
recovery has been slow and there have been many relapses. This book The
Iron Curtain Over America, has diagnosed our condition in the
mid-century and has suggested remedies, the first of which must be
cleaning-out of the subversives in the executive departments and
agencies in Washington. The degree of infestation by the Communists, and
those indifferent to or friendly to Communism, in our bureaucracy in
Washington is staggering beyond belief. Details are increasingly
available to those who study the publications of the congressional
committees concerned with the problem. “Communist Propaganda Activities
in the United States,” a report published early in 1952 by the Committee
on the Judiciary, United States Senate, deals principally with Communist
propaganda carried on with the help of the Department of State and the
Department of Justice of the United States! The report (pp. v-ix)
climaxes a stinging rebuke of the State Department’s pro-Communist
maneuvers with this statement: The policy of the Department of State is
in effect an administrative nullification of established law.
One result of the “nullification” of existing law was the dissemination
in the United States in 1950 of more than 1,000,000 Communist books,
magazines, and other printed documents, 2,275 Soviet films, and 25,080
phonograph records (pp. 24-25). By a special Department of Justice
ruling these were dispatched individually “to state institutions,
universities or colleges, or to professors or other individuals,” with
no statement required on or with any of the parcels that they were sent
out for propaganda purposes or had emanated from the Soviet Union or
other Communist government! Is this what the American people want? It is
what they have been getting in Washington.
Following a removal of top leaders and their personal henchmen, there
will be no reason for despair even for the departments of State and
Defense. In the Department of State there are many whose records suggest
treason, there are also many workers of low and medium rank whose
tenacious patriotism has in a number of instances prevented a sell-out
of our country. These people will rally to new leadership. The same is
true in the Department of Defense. Except for a mere handful, committed
to wrong doing to cover their old sins of omission or commission, our
generals and admirals, like all other ranks, have the good of their
country at heart.
Disciplined by tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian
authority, our General Staff officers pursue a hated policy from which
there is for them no escape, for on one hand they do not wish to
denounce the administration and on the other they see no good end for
America in the strategically unsound moves they are ordered to make.
Below the appointed ranks, the civilian personnel, both men and women,
of such strategic agencies as Military Intelligence are with few
exceptions devoted and loyal and competent Americans. With our top state
and defense leadership changed, our policy shaped by patriots, our
working level Department of Defense staff will be able to furnish a
strategically sound program for the defense of this country, which must
stand not only for us and our children but as the fortress of Western
Meanwhile, patriotic state Department personnel face a ghastly dilemma.
If they remain, they are likely to be thought of as endorsing the wrong
policies of their superiors. If they resign, they are likely to see
their positions filled by persons of subversive leanings. Fortunately
for America, most of them have decided to stick to their posts and will
be there to help their new patriotic superiors, after a clean-up has
A clean-up I our government will give a new life not only to patriotic
Washington officials, civilian and military, but to our higher military
and naval officers everywhere. Their new spirit will bring confidence to
all ranks and to the American people. Once again, military service will
be a privilege and an honor instead of, as at present to most people, a
sentence to a period of slavery and possible death for a policy that has
never been stated and cannot be stated, for it is at best
vote-garnering, bureaucracy-building, control-establishing program of
A clean-out of our leftist-infected government will also have the great
virtue of freeing our people from the haunting nightmare of fear. Fear
will vanish with the Communists, the fellow-travelers, and the caterers
to their votes. For America is essentially strong. In the words of
General MacArthur in Austin:
This great nation of ours was never more powerful… it never had less
reason for fear. It was never more able to meet exacting tests of
leadership in peace or in war, spiritually, physically, or materially.
As it is yet unconquered, so it is unconquerable.
The great general’s words are true, provided we do not destroy
Therefore, with their country’s survival at heart, let all true
Americans – fearing no political factions and no alien minority or
ideology – work along the lines suggested in this book to the great end
that all men with Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam connections and all others
of doubtful loyalty to our country and to our type of civilization be
removed under law from policy-making and all other sensitive positions
in our government. In that way only can a start be made toward throwing
back the present tightly drawn iron curtain of censorship. In that way
only can we avoid the continuing interment of our native boys beneath
far-off white crosses, whether by inane blunderings or sinister
concealed purposes. In that way only can we save America.
Since The Iron Curtain Over America
developed out of many years of study, travel, and intelligence service,
followed by a more recent period of intensive research and consultation
with experts, the author is indebted in one way or another to hundreds
First of all, there is a lasting
obligation to his former teachers -- particularly his tutors,
instructors, and university professors of languages. The more exacting,
and therefore the most gratefully remembered, are Sallie Jones, Leonidas
R. Dingus, Oliver Holben, James S. McLemore, Thomas Fitz-Hugh, Richard
Henry Wilson, C. Alphonso Smith, William Witherle Lawrence, George
Philip Krapp, C. Pujadas, Joseph Delcourt, and Mauricae Grammont. Some
of these teachers required a knowledge of the history, the resources,
the culture, and the ideals of the peoples whose language they were
imparting. Their memories are green.
In the second place, the author is
deeply obligated to M. Albert Kahn and to the six trustees of the
American Albert Kahn Foundation -- Edward Dean Adams, Nicholas Murray
Butler, Charles D. Walcott, Abbott Lawrence Lowell, Henry Fairfield
Osborn, and Henry Smith Pritchett -- who chose him as their
representative abroad for 1926-27. Without the accolade of these men,
and the help of their distinguished Secretary, Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal,
The author might not have found the way, a quarter of century later, to
The Iron Curtain Over America.
In the third instance, the author
owes, of course, a very great debt to the many men and women who were
his fellow workers in the extensive field of strategic intelligence,
intelligence, and to those persons who came to his office for interview
from all parts of the world. This obligation is not, however, for
specific details, but for a general background of knowledge which became
a guide to subsequent study.
To friends and helpers in several
other categories, the author expresses here his deep obligation. A score
or more of senators and congressmen gave him information, furthered his
research, sent him needed government documents or photostats when
originals were not available, introduced him to valuable contacts and
otherwise rendered very important assistance, Certain friends who are
university professors, eminent lawyers, and political analysts, have
read and criticized constructively all or a part of the manuscript. The
staffs of a number of libraries have helped, but the author has leant
most heavily upon the Library of Congress, the Library of the University
of Virginia, and above all the Library of Southern Methodist University,
where assistance was always willing, speedy, and competent.
Finally, four secretaries have been
most patient and accurate in copying and recopying thousands of pages
bristling with proper names, titles of books and articles, quotations,
For a special reason, however, the
author will call the name of no one who has helped him since 1927.
“Smears” and reprisals upon eminent persons become well known, but for
one such notable victim, a thousand others in the government, in
universities, and even private citizenship, suffer indignities from
arrogant minority wielders of power of censorship and from their
hirelings and dupes. Reluctantly, then no personal thanks are here
expressed. The author’s friends know well his appreciation of their
help, and will understand.
To all the works cited and to all the
authorities quoted in The Iron Curtain Over America, the author owes a
debt which he gratefully acknowledges. For the use of copyrighted
excerpts over a few lines in length, he has received the specific
permission of the authors and publishers, and takes pleasure in
extending thanks to the following: The American Legion Magazine and
National Commander (1950-1951) Earle Cocke, Jr.; Professor Harry Elmer
Barnes; Mr. Bruce Barton and King Features Syndicate; The Christophers;
the Clover Business Letter; Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, Inc.; The Freeman;
The Embassy of Lebanon; Human Events; The New York Times; The Tablet;
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Company, Inc.; The Washington Daily
News; and the Washington Times-Herald. Further details including the
titles and names of the authors are given on the appropriate pages, in
order that those interested may know how to locate the cited work,
whether for purchase or perusal in a library.
Two newspapers and two magazines
deserve especial thanks. Because of a full coverage of news and the
verbatim reprinting of official documents, the current issues and the
thoroughly indexed bound or on microfilmed back numbers of the New York
Times were essential in the preparation of The Iron Curtain Over
America. The Washington Times-Herald was obligatory reading, too,
because of its coverage of the Washington scene, as well as the
international scene, with fearless uncensored reporting.
After careful checking for accuracy
and viewpoint, both the American Legion Magazine and Foreign Service,
the magazine of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, have published feature
articles by the author in the general field of the United States-Soviet
relations. Dedicated as it is to those veterans who gave their lives.
The Iron Curtain Over America may be considered as a token of gratitude
to our two great organizations of veterans for personal introductions to
their five million patriotic readers.
To one and all, then -- to
publishers, to periodical, and to people who have helped - to the dead
as well as to the living - to the few who have been named and to the
many who must remain anonymous - and finally to his readers, most of
whom he will never know except in the spiritual kinship of a great
shared mission of spreading the Truth, the author says thank you, from
the bottom of his heart!
Americans in the Venona papers
the free encyclopedia
declassified by Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Chairman of the
Commission on Government Secrecy, the
Venona project and its associated documentation,
contains codenames of several hundred individuals said
to be involved on differing levels with the
KGB and the
Many of the codenames have been identified by the
NSA and other academics and historians by using a
combination of circumstantial evidence, corroborating
defectors, direct surveillance, informants and a
number of other means.
Many academics and historians believe that most of the
following individuals were either clandestine assets
and/or contacts of the KGB, GRU and
Soviet Naval GRU..
The following list of
individuals is extracted in part from the work of
John Earl Haynes and
as well as others listed in the references below.
To what extent any
given individual named below was clandestinely involved
Soviet intelligence is a topic of
dispute, with a few scholars, most notably
Victor Navasky, skeptical of attempts to identify
individuals from codenames found in Venona.
targeted for recruitment remain uncorroborated as to it
being accomplished. These individuals are marked with an
United States Department of Agriculture;
Works Progress Administration;
Civil Liberties Subcommittee,
Senate Committee on Education and Labor; special
assistant to the United States Attorney General,
United States Department of Justice
United States Department of the Treasury,
supplied info to
Silvermaster group, went to
China after communist revolution and joined
Thomas Babin, Yugoslavia Section
Office of Strategic Services
Marion Bachrach, (*) congressional
office manager of Congressman
John Bernard of the
Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party
Joel Barr, United States
Army Signal Corps
Alice Barrows, United States Office of
Theodore Bayer, President, Russky
George Beiser, National Research
Establishment, Research and Development Board;
Cedric Belfrage, journalist;
British Security Coordination
Elizabeth Bentley, companion of
Jacob Golos of
Sound/Myrna group; turned
herself in to
FBI in 1945 leading to
unraveling of many Soviet spy rings
Marion Davis Berdecio,
Office of Naval Intelligence;
Office of the
Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs;
United States Department of State
Josef Berger, (*)
Democratic National Committee
Joseph Milton Bernstein,
Board of Economic Warfare
Walter Sol Bernstein, Hollywood
Screenwriter, listed on the
T.A. Bisson, Board of Economic Warfare
Thomas Lessing Black,
Bureau of Standards
United States Department of Commerce
Samuel Bloomfield, (*) Eastern
European Division, Research and Analysis Division,
Office of Strategic Services
Ralph Bowen, (*) United States
Department of State
chemist convicted for his role in the
General Secretary of the
Communist Party of the United States
Michael Burd, Head of Midland Export
Paul Burns, employee of
Norman Bursler, United States
Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division
James Michael Callahan
Frank Coe, Assistant Director,
Division of Monetary Research, United States
Department of the Treasury; Special Assistant to the
United States Ambassador in London; Assistant to the
Executive Director, Board of Economic Warfare;
Foreign Economic Administration,
went to China and joined government of
Lona Cohen, sentenced to 20 years;
subject of Hugh Whitemore's drama for stage and TV
Pack of Lies
Morris Cohen (Soviet spy) sentenced to
25 years; subject of Hugh Whitemore's drama for
stage and TV Pack of Lies
Eugene Franklin Coleman,
RCA electrical engineer
Anna Colloms, New York City
Judith Coplon, Foreign Agents
United States Department of Justice;
her convictions for espionage were overturned on
Lauchlin Currie, Administrative
President Roosevelt; Deputy
Administrator of Foreign Economic Administration;
Special Representative to China
United States Rubber Company;
United States Office of Scientific Research &
Eugene Dennis, General Secretary
Communist Party USA sentenced
to 5 years for advocating overthrow of U.S.
United States Congressman
from New York known to be paid by Soviets;
New York State Supreme Court
Justice; Vice Chair of
HUAC during hearings into the
Business Plot against
Martha Dodd, daughter of United States
Ambassador to Germany
William Dodd, Popular Front
William Dodd Jr., son of William Dodd,
United States Ambassador to Germany; Democratic
Laurence Duggan, head of United States
Department of State Division of American Republics
Frank Dziedzik, National Oil Products
Nathan Einhorn, Executive Secretary of
American Newspaper Guild
Max Elitcher, (*) Naval Ordinance
National Bureau of Standards
Jack Fahy, Office of the Coordinator
of Inter-American Affairs; Board of Economic
United States Department of the Interior
Linn Markley Farish, Liaison Officer
Yugoslav Partisan forces,
Office of Strategic Services
Edward Fitzgerald, War Production
Charles Flato, Board of Economic
Warfare; Civil Liberties Subcommittee, Senate
Committee on Education and Labor
Jane Foster, Board of Economic
Warfare; Office of Strategic Services; Netherlands
Boleslaw Gebert, National Officer of
Polonia Society of International Workers Order
Harrison George, senior CPUSA
leadership, editor of
Harold Glasser, Director, Division of
Monetary Research, United States Department of the
United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation
Administration; War Production
Board; Advisor on North African Affairs Committee;
United States Treasury Representative to the
Allied High Commission in Italy
Bela Gold, Assistant Head of Program
Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United
States Department of Agriculture; Senate
Subcommittee on War Mobilization; Office of Economic
Programs in Foreign Economic Administration
Harry Gold, sentenced to 30 years for
his role in the
Sonia Steinman Gold, Division of
Monetary Research United States Department of
United States House of Representatives
Select Committee on Interstate Migration; United
States Bureau of Employment Security
Elliot Goldberg, engineer for an oil
equipment company in New York
Jacob Golos, "main pillar" of
NKVD spy network,
Sound/Myrna group, he died in
the arms of
Gerald Graze, United States Department
David Greenglass, machinist at
Los Alamos sentenced to 15
years for his role in
Rosenberg ring; he was the
brother of executed
Ruth Greenglass, avoided prosecution
thanks to her husband's testimony against his sister
that he later admitted was perjured
Joseph Gregg, Office of the
Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; United States
Department of State
Theodore Hall, physicist at
Los Alamos during the
volunteered to spy for Soviets, never prosecuted
Maurice Halperin, Chief of Latin
American Division, Research and Analysis Section,
Office of Strategic Services; United States
Department of State
Kitty Harris, globe-trotting companion
of communist party boss
Standard Oil of California
University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory,
Alger Hiss, Director of the Office of
Special Political Affairs United States Department
of State, sentenced to 5 years for perjury
Donald Hiss, United States Department
of State; United States Department of Labor; United
States Department of the Interior
Harry Hopkins, advisor to President
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Rosa Isaak, Executive Secretary of the
Herman R. Jacobson, Avery
Bella Joseph, motion picture division
of Office of Strategic Services
Emma Harriet Joseph, (*) Office of
Julius Joseph, National Resources
Federal Security Agency;
Social Security Board;
Office for Emergency Management;
Labor War Manpower Commission; Deputy Chief, Far
Eastern section (Japanese Intelligence) Office of
David Karr, Office of War Information;
chief aide to journalist
Helen Grace Scott Keenan, Office of
the Co-ordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Office
of United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of
Axis War Criminals, Office of Strategic Services
Mary Jane Keeney, Board of Economic
Warfare; Allied Staff on Reparations;
Office of the Coordinator of Information
Alexander Koral, former engineer of
the municipality of New York
Samuel Krafsur, journalist
Charles Kramer, Senate Subcommittee on
Office of Price Administration;
National Labor Relations Board;
Senate Subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education;
Agricultural Adjustment Administration;
United States Senate Civil
Liberties Subcommittee, Senate Committee on
Education and Labor; Senate Labor and Public Welfare
Committee; Democratic National Committee
Christina Krotkova, Office of War
Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov
Stephen Laird, Hollywood Producer;
Time Magazine Reporter;
Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS)
Rudy Lambert, California Communist
party labor director and head of security
Trude Lash, United Nations
Human Rights Committee
Duncan Lee, counsel to General William
Donovan, head of Office of Strategic Services
Michael Leshing, superintendent of
Twentieth Century Fox film
Shell Oil Company
Harry Magdoff, Chief of the Control
Records Section of War Production Board and Office
of Emergency Management; Bureau of Research and
Statistics, WTB; Tools Division, War Production
Board; Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce,
United States Department of Commerce; Statistics
Works Progress Administration
William Malisoff, owner of United
Laboratories of New York
Hede Massing, journalist
James Walter Miller,
United States Post Office,
Office of Censorship
Robert Miller, Office of the
Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern
Division United States Department of State
Robert Minor, Office of Strategic
Leonard Mins, Russian Section of the
Research and Analysis Division of the Office of
Vladimir Morkovin, Office of Naval
Boris Moros, Hollywood Producer
Nicola Napoli, president of Artkino,
distributor of Soviet films
Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at
Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the
Central European Section of Office of Strategic
Services; First Chief of Research of the
Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal
Frank Oppenheimer, (*) physicist
Nicholas W. Orloff
Nadia Morris Osipovich
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
Langley Army Air Base;
Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory;
sentenced to 5 years for his role in the
Rosenberg ring of
Victor Perlo, chief of the Aviation
Section of the War Production Board; Head of Branch
in Research Section, Office of Price Administration
Department of Commerce; Division of Monetary
Research Department of Treasury;
Aleksandr N. Petroff,
William Pinsly, Curtiss-Wright
Aircraft, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory
William Plourde, engineer with Bell
Vladimir Pozner, head Russian Division
United States War Department
Lee Pressman Department of
Agriculture; Works Progress Administration; General
Congress of Industrial Organizations
Mary Price, stenographer for
Walter Lippmann of the
New York Herald
Esther Trebach Rand, United Palestine
Bernard Redmont, head of the Foreign
News Bureau Office of the Coordinator of
Peter Rhodes, Foreign Broadcasting
Monitoring Service, Allied Military Headquarters
London; Chief of the Atlantic News Service, Office
of War Information
Kenneth Richardson, World Wide
Ruth Rivkin, United Nations Relief and
Samuel Rodman, United Nations Relief
and Rehabilitation Administration
Allan Rosenberg, Board of Economic
Warfare; Chief of the Economic Institution Staff,
Foreign Economic Administration; Civil Liberties
Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Education and
Labor; Railroad Retirement Board; Councel to the
Secretary of the National Labor Relations Board
Julius Rosenberg, United States
Army Signal Corps
Laboratories, executed for role in
Ethel Rosenberg, executed for role in
Rosenberg ring based on
perjured testimony of her brother
Alfred Sarant, United States
Army Signal Corps
Young Communist League,
Los Alamos spy
Marion Schultz, chair of the United
Russian Committee for Aid to the Native Country
John Scott, Office of Strategic
Ricardo Setaro, journalist/writer
Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS)
Charles Bradford Sheppard, Hazeltine
George Silverman, Director of the
Bureau of Research and Information Services, US
Railroad Retirement Board;
Economic Adviser and Chief of Analysis and Plans,
Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Material and Services,
Greg Silvermaster, Chief Planning
Technician, Procurement Division, United States
Department of the Treasury; Chief Economist, War
Assets Administration; Director of the Labor
Division, Farm Security Administration; Board of
Reconstruction Finance Corporation
Department of Commerce
Morton Sobell, General Electric,
sentenced to 30 years at
Alcatraz for his role in the
Jack Soble, brother of
Robert Soblen, sentenced to 7 years
for his role in the
Robert Soblen, psychiatrist, sentenced
to life for espionage at
Sandia Lab, escaped to
IsraeI, committed suicide
Johannes Steele, journalist and radio
Alfred Kaufman Stern,
I. F. Stone, (*) journalist for
Anna Louise Strong, journalist for
The Atlantic Monthly,
Harper's, The Nation
Helen Tenney, Office of Strategic
Mikhail Tkach, editor of the
Ukrainian Daily News
Lud Ullman, delegate to United Nations
Charter meeting and
Bretton Woods conference;
Division of Monetary Research, Department of
Treasury; Material and Services Division, Air Corps
Irving Charles Velson,
Brooklyn Navy Yard;
American Labor Party
candidate for New York State Senate
George Vuchinich, 2nt. United States
Army assigned to Office of Strategic Services
Donald Wheeler, Office of Strategic
Services Research and Analysis division
Enos Wicher, Wave Propagation
Research, Division of War Research,
Harry Dexter White, Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury
Ruth Beverly Wilson
Ilya Wolston, United States Army
Flora Wovschin, Office of War
Information; United States Department of State
Jones Orin York
Daniel Zaret, United States Army
^ "Secrecy : The American Experience".
Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
Yale University Press;
b "Venona: Decoding
Soviet Espionage in America, Appendix A". John
Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1999.
^ "The Venona story". Robert L
Benson, National Security Agency Center for
^ "How VENONA was Declassified".
Robert L. Benson, Symposium of Cryptologic History;
^ "Tangled Treason". Sam Tanenhaus,
The New Republic; 1999.