Although this book was first published in 1951, the predicament that America found itself in then is exactly the predicament America is STILL in today.
 
America has been bled-out, literally and figuratively, by the Communist Jews for over 100 years since Henry Ford's warning... While America remains a ship of fools.  
 
      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 die.
 
 
 
CONTENTS:

To the Reader

I. The Teutonic Knights and Germany
 
 
II. Russia and the Khazars
 
 
III. The Khazars Join the Democratic Party
 
 
IV. The "Unnecessary" War [WWII]
 
 
V. The Black Hood of Censorship

VI. The Foreign Policy of the Truman Administration

VII. Does the National Democratic Party Want War

VIII. Cleaning the Augean Stables

IX. America Can Still Be Free

Acknowledgements
 
 

CLICK ON THIS TEXT TO SEE PDF COPY OF IRON CURTAIN OVER AMERICA...

 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
The Iron Curtain
Over America

by John Beaty
Copyright 1952 by John Beaty
 
 
Page 1 Preface

The Iron Curtain Over America

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 continuos lecture tour gratis
and preach your book and recommendations. My Iron Curtain Over America will be on loan continuous-
ly and I intend to recommend its reading in every letter I write.

Lt. Gen. Edward M. Almond, USA. (ret.), says: It is an inspiration to me to find an author with the cou-
rage 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. (ret.), says: 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 by it.

Lt, General P. A. Del Valle, USMC (ret), says:  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 despeller
of the fog of propaganda in which most minds seem to dwell.
 
 
 
John Beaty... The author of The Iron Curtain Over America has written, or collaborated on, a dozen books.
His texts ave been used in more than seven hundred colleges and universities, and his historical novel,
Swords in he 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 read-
ing and research (1946-1951) which resulted in The Iron Curtain Over America.
 
 
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 in-
troduction 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 introduc-
tion to persons prominent in government, politics, and education, he gained something more than a tour-
ist‘s reaction to the culture and institutions, the movements and the pressures in the twenty-nine coun-
tries which he visited. In several countries, including great powers, he found conditions and attitudes sig-
nificantly 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 situa-
tion 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.

 
Page 2
 
After his return to America in the autumn of 1927, the author kept abreast of world attitudes by corres-
pondence with many of the friends he had made in his travels and by rereading French, German, and Ital-
ian news periodicals, as well as certain English language4 periodicals emanating from Asia. World trends
continued to run counter to what the American people were allowed to know, and a form of virtual censor-
ship 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, hes 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 deny-
ing 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 West-
ern Europe and Norway, and three bulletins on the frustration of an enemy‘s attempts at sabotage and
subversion.

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, in-
cluding 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 cam-
paign.

In 1943 - during which year he was also detailed to the General Staff Corps and promoted to lieutenant co-
lonel 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 ambassa-
dors and special representatives of the President, senators and congressmen returning from overseas in-
vestigations, 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 voyag-
es. These significant people were presented sometimes individually but usually to assembled groups of of-
ficers 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 sex weeks before being received in channeled reports. In some cases the author in-
creased 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 pic-
ture 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 sto-
ry as he had come to know it; consequently, after being advanced to the rank of colonel, he reverted to in-
active status, upon his won 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 Reserve.

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 him-
self 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;
 
 
Page 3
 
 
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 pla-
gue 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 lo-
cate and examine the context of quoted material, and especially for those who wish to use this book as a
springboard for further study.

In assembling and documenting his material, the author followed Shakespearean injunction, nothing ex-
tenuate, 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, 32):
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.
 
 
Page 4

 
Chapter I
The 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 other continents.

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 deveded 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 organi-
zation, 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 Je-
sus Christ:

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (The
Gospel According to Saint Mattew, 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 Chr-
ist 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 wills it.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

 
Page 5

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 Mo-
hammedan 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 mul-
tiple 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 direct-
ly 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 Hospita-
lers and Templars are fairly well known to those who have read such historical novels as The Talisman by
Sir Walter Scott.

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 time of its disso-
lution (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 pre-
servation 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 de-
fense 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 Com-
pany, New York, 1937).
 
 
Page 6

It was to the Teutonic Order that the Knight of Chaucer, edited by Clarence Griffin Child, D. C. Heath &
Co., Boston, 1912, p. 150). Chaucer‘s lines (prologue to the Canterbury Tales, II., 52-53): 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 as-
sembled 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 Prus-
sian people, and assumed sovereignty over East Purssia. 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 unchanged.

Those who founded the Teutonic Order on the hospital ship in Palestine spoke German and from the be-
ginning 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.

Meanwile, to Brandenburg, a neighbor state to the west of the Teutonic Order domain, the Emperor Si-
gismund sent as ruler Prederick 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., Passim).

In most German states in the first quarter of the sixteenth century, things were not right, there was dis-
content 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 Hallowe‘en 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 fi-
nal 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 Ger-
man chief was interested. Still nominally a follower of the Church of Rome, Albert visited Luther at Wit-
tenberg 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.
 
 
Page 7

In this manner the honorable and historic heritage of extending Christianity in the lands south of the Bal-
tic 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 Catho-
lic 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 grand-
son, Frederickk William, the Great Elector (reign, 1640-1688), Brandenburg-Prussia became second on-
ly 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 Ger-
man 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
Fredirick the Great (reign, 1740-1768), Prussia became one of the most highly developed nations of Eu-
rope. 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 ap-
proach 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 pa-
ragraph) helped William of England of Orange, the archenemy of Louis XIV of France, to land in England,
where he became (1688) co-soverign 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 Pruce 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 Hohenzol-
len and the countrymen George Washington, an evidence in bronze of the old Western view that funda-
mental 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 calam-
ity 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 At-
lantic 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
 
 
Page 8

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 them-
selves 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.
 
 
Page 9

Chapter II
Russia 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 oblitera-
tion 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 kin-
dred 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, con-
quered 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 primi-
tive king) of the Khazars wanted a religion for his pagan people. Partly, perhaps, because of incipient ten-
sion 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 Fernadsky to be as late as 865. According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. VI,
pp. 375-377), This chieftain, 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 teach-
ings gained a foothold among the population.
 
 
This 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 ef-
forts 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
communities.

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 in-
correct 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
Graetz.

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 :ale
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).
 
 
Page 10

These immigrants from the North and West were principally ―the Russ‘—a Varangian tribe in ancient an-
nals considered as related to the Swedes, Angles, and Nothmen (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 Rus [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 10 th cent., the capital of a large re-
cently 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 war-
fare 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, Li-
thuania, 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 re-
mained 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 re-
fuge 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 be-
came widely distributed in Western Russia. Into the Khazar khanate there had been a few Jewish immi-
grants 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 (Unic.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, p.384).

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 abso-
lutely 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
 
 
Page 11

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 heathe-
nish, 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 rea-
son 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 na-
tion 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 Is-
lam, the rabbi-governed Khazars had no intention whatever of losing their identity by becoming Russia-
nized 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 Rus-
sians and lived under Babylonian Talmudic law, became known in the western world, from their place of
residence and their legal-religious code, as Russian Jews.

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 gradu-
ally eliminated the invaders. he 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 Chris-
tianity. 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 oc-
cupants 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 Lithua-
nian 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 Em-
press, 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.
 
 
Page 12

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]; 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 Crusadesk 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 be-
tween 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 vernacu-
lars of Western Europe were written in the Latin alphabet, and to further his purpose Mindelssohn trans-
lated 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 Baby-
lonian 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 Levin-
sohn (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 lit-
tle 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, Har-
kavy established as a fact (The Haskalah Movement on Russia, by Jacob S. Raisin, Philadelphia, The Jew-
ish 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 Alexan-
der I toward his intractable non-Christian minority, but he took an immediate interest in the movement
endorsed by 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 Germa-
ny 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 fana-
ticism 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-Raisen, op. cit., Vol. VI, p.
II6). According to Raisin, the millions of Russian Jews were averse to having the government interfere
 
 
Page 13

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 hes 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 li-
berties that he was called the ―Czar Liberator.
 
 
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 obnox-
ious‘ 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 in-
digestible 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 intelli-
gentsia they sought in the first instance to further their aims by assassinations (Modern European Histo-
ry, by Charles Downer Hazen, Holt, New York, p. 565). Alexander tried to abate the hostility of the terror-
ists 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 es-
caped 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 suc-
cessor, 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 internation-
al 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 Lithrania, the Ukraine (A History of the
Ukraine, Michael Hrushevsky, Yale University Press, 1941, passim), and much of Poland, were the found-
ers 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 re-
fers 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 re-orientation of Rus-
sian 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
 
 
Page 14

frontier, where representatives from all classes and different countries met and decided to colonize Pales-
tine. . .(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 at-
tracted 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, to-
gether 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 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 15 th 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 Khazan and non-Jewish captives to the Marxian ideology, were able
to make themselves masters of Russia. Individual revolutionary leaders and Sverdlov played a conspi-
cuous part in the revolution of November, 1917, which enabled the Bolshevists to take possession of the
state apparatus (Univ. Jew. Encyd., 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 move-
ment was well understood in Russia. The White Armies which opposed the Bolslshvik 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. Dinis 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 Commis-
sions, and in summary quotes from Wilton as follows:
 
 
Page 15

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 Pop-
paea (Encyclopedia Italiana, Vol. XXVII, p. 932; also, The Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by Wil-
liam 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 work-
ing 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 respective-
ly): Professor 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 formu-
la of RDX, up to the present there was no evaluation from the boss.)

Contact
1. Freda
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; Ja-
cob 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 Zion-
ism which flowered from the already recorded beginnings at Kattowitz in 1884. Born at Budapest, Hun-
gary, 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 (Un-
iv. 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 Euro-
peans, it is not surprising that most of the recent immigrants into Palestine are of Soviet and satellite ori-
gin and that their weapons have been largely from the Soviet Union and from Soviet-controlled Czechoslo-
vakia (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 Zion-
ists 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
 
 
Page 16

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 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 ob-
jective 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 di-
rection of Iraq and Iran, is suggested also by the fact that the Eastern European Jews, adherents to the Ba-
bylonian 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 Ju-
daism, as it is generally understood. The Jewish religion is a way of life and has no jormulated 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 Docu-
ments, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.).

The secret or underground overseas efforts of Khazar-dominated Russia apparently have been intrusted
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 (Rosen-
berg), organizer for French Canada, and member of the Canadian Parliament from a Montreal constituen-
cy; 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 West-
ern 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 ex-amples 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
(Dzygasgvuku), The principal founders of state Communism.

The United States Government refused Canada‘s invitation early in 1946 to cooperate in Canada‘s investi-
gation 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, Cali-
fornia). 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, Sa-
muel 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 Co-
lumbia 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 n these persons and others, see Atomic Traitors, by Congressman Fred Busbey
of Illinois in the June, 951, number of National Republic. Finally, the true head of
Communism in America was found not to be he publicly announced head, but the Jew, Gerhardt Eisler,
who, upon detection escaped from America n 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, . A121).
 
 
Page 17

Very pertinent to the subject under consideration is a statement entitled Displaced Persons: Facts vs. Fic-
tion, 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 for-
eign 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 Encyc-
lopedia in the concluding paragraphs on Karl Marx. According to this source, Jews recognize the expe-
rience 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 ex-
pressed 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. Ac-
cording 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 signifi-
cant 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 Cana-
dian 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 se-
crets 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 American people.

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 Mo-
nroe 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
 
 
Page 18

settling our vast frontier area; they wished to conform to rather than modify or supplant the body of tradi-
tions 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 gov-
ernment 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 Eisen-
hower‘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 ele-
ments 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 congre-
gate instead of distributing themselves over the whole country as the earlier Northern European immi-
grants 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 Ameri-
canized second and third generation Irish Catholics but among old stock Anglo-American Catholics des-
cending 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 Ameri-
can 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 con-
ference 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 {resident Butler. The handful of Hews, 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 Rus-
sian 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
 
 
Page 19

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 cen-
tury not only had no racial or ethnic connection with the Khazars, but were not separatists or Jewish na-
tionalists. 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 Unit-
ed 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 Ju-
daism 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 thun-
dered 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 per-
sons 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 nov-
el experiment of enforcing all of the immigration laws on our statutes?

Accordingly, the 67 th 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 nationali-
ty 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 unassimila-
ble 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 re-
 
 
Page 20

sult 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 gov-
ernment abroad, to demand a participation in our possessing, tangible or intangible, or to dic-
tate the character of our legislation.

The new law changed the quota basis from 1910 to 1890, reduced the quotas from 3 to 2 percent, pro-
vided 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 conti-
nuously 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 1936, 3,118 permanent congregations and
4,641,184 Jews residing in the cities, towns and villages in which the congregations were located (Reli-
gious 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 im-
migration. 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 in-
dicate 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 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 state-
ment 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
States:

In 1937, Jews constituted less than 4 percent of the American people, but during the 7-year pe-
riod 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 in-
creased 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
 
 
Page 21

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 Some-
where 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 ma-
jesty 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 fur-
ther that ―American Presidents and British Prime Ministers, and all their colleagues, bow to Zionism as if
venerating a shrine.
 
 
Page 22

Chapter III
The 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 Commun-
ist 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 effec-
tively penetrated the countries of Western Europe and also Canada and (as shown in Chapter II) the Unit-
ed States. For their fateful choice of our country as a goal of their major though not yet completly and fi-
nally 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 dictstorship 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 18 th 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 predi-
cated 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 capitalist democracy.
 
 
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 en-
forcing 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 Natu-
ralization Service. . . Since the end of World War II the problem of illegal entry has increased tremendous-
ly . . . 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 Immi-
gration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, pp. 629,630).
 
 
The third principal reason for the Communist exploitation of the United States was the absence of any ef-
fective 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 Eu-
rope. 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, who
had turned from his Rabbinical education (Who Was Who in America, Vol. II, p. 254) to political activi-
ties 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).
 
 
Page 23

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 Amer-
ican mores. The contrary is neither stated nor implied as a general propositional. The fact remains, how-
ever, 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 be-
tween 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, bet3ween 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 (Worked 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 po-
litical 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, Cosmo-
politan, July, 1951, p. 31).

In the early part of the twentieth century the two largest components of the Democratic Party were the ru-
ral 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
America.

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 Howard Taft.

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 dec-
ade of the nineteenth century, an official of the highest status whose heart‘s interest was in something be-
sides 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 quotations: During the World War, Brandeis occupied
himself with a close study of the political phases of Jewish affairs in every country. Since that time his ac-
tive 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 Ameri-
canism with a minority culture or a Jewish homeland in Palestine. . . Breaking away from the accepted le-
 
 
Page 24

gal catechisms, he thoroughly and exhaustively probed the economics of each and every problem pre-
sented. . . The truth of his conviction that our individualistic philosophy could no longer furnish an ade-
quate basis for dealing with the problems of modern economic life, in now generally recognized. . . he en-
visages a co-operative order. . . Brandeis feels 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 func-
tion 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 Pa-
lestine 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 Read-
ing (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 be-
tween 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 sympa-
thy 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 in-
to 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 America in.

The strange 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 in-
stance, 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 Japan.

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 North-
ern Catholics, did not ask any questions of the Party‘s rapidly increasing contingent of Eastern Europeans.

Thus the astute twentieth century immigrants of Eastern European origin continued to join the Democrat-
ic Party, in which everybody was accustomed to strange bedfellows, and in which a largely non-Christian
third force was already well intrenched. 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 de-
 
 
Page 25

scribed 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 States.

At a glance, the achievement of such an objective might seem impossible. In fact, however, it was easy, be-
cause 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 con-
tracts 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 recogni-
tion, 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 Lit-
vinoff, of deceitful smiles and by Henry Morgenthau and Dean Acheson, both proteges of Felix Frankfur-
ter. 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 as-
sociation 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 36 th Street, New York 16, N.Y.., 10 copies for $1.00) for April, 1952. Thee au-
thor, 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 betray-
al of Latin America to penetration by Communism. Bearing on the basic question of the recognition of the
Soviet, here are significant quotations:

The very special agent from Moscow, Commissar of all the Red Square‘s nefarious international machina-
tions, 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 diplo-
matic 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
 
 
Page 26

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 em-
bassy 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 Amer-
ican people, and our once vast resources, into a social and economic calamity to the very brink, now, of na-
tional and international disaster.

One of the greatest concentrations of factual information, wise analyses, police records and military intel-
ligence ever to pile up spontaneously on one subject in Washington, all documenting the liabilities of deal-
ing with the Kremlin, had no effect on Franklin Roosevelt. He had appointed Henry Morgenthau and Dean
Acheson, both proteges 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 friend-
ship.

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 conscious-
ness.

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 mo-
numents to our present predicament, but others, again mysteriously, have been allowed to step into their
strategic places.

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 appoint-
ment, 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 lec-
tures (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 Herit-
age 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 Con-
gressional Record by Congressman Harold H. Velde of Illinois.

The government was infiltrated with risks‖from the above described grooups 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 sensi-
tive government positions without the formality of having them wait for citizenship, and without any in-
 
 
Page 27

vestigation of their reasons for leaving Europe. The way for this infiltration was paved by an executive or-
der 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 inex-
perience 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 admin-
istrations 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 op-
portunity 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 (Li-
berty, 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 pow-
er 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 (Sep-
tember, 1942), entitled The Facts About Jews in Washington, Jews were by 1942 conspicuously numer-
ous 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 Rosen-
berg 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 Nation-
al 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 archfoe of Marshal Petain –
who have recently held defense portfolios in the British and French cabinets respectively. Just as in Amer-
ica 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 At-
tlee, 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).
 
 
Page 28

A few persons of Eastern European origin or background or associated with persons of such back-
ground 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 Roosvelt‘s top-flight adviser on legal
and other matters. In the formation of our national policies his influence is almost universally rated as su-
preme. 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 in-
dividuals 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 Press-
man; David Niles, long 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 Pear-
son‘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 rep-
resentative 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, 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 Pres-
ident‘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 Rehabilita-
tion 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 associ-
ation 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; posi-
tions 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 signi-
ficance 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 per-
sons 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?
 
 
Page 29

Chapter IV
The Unnecessary War

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 ask-
ing 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 coun-
try 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 nay 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 deci-
sion 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 na-
tive 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, hos-
tile 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 ven-
ture 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 condi-
tions 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 al-
ternatives (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 Hit-
ler was made both President and Chancellor (August 19 th ). 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.
 
 
Page 30

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 per-
sons of prominence in the city of New York and elsewhere. Their appeal was not in vain.

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 Au-
gust 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 specific instructions:

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 Czechoslovkia and other lands as far flung as Fin-
land 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, de-
scribed 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 dwin-
dle 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 Ger-
man 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 his-
torical novel, Swords in the Dawn). Special trains brought in school children from as far as northern Nor-
way. Whether from sincerity or from a desire to create a good impression, visitors were shown every cour-
tesy. 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. Untermey-
er‘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 Uni-
versity Press, 1946, p. 183).
 
 
Page 31

Some sinister underground deal must have been consummated within two months, however, for in a
speech in Chicago on October 5 th the President made an about-face, which was probably the most com-
plete 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 ad-
ministration the 100 percent unconditional support of the Communist party provided Roosevelt adopted
a hands-off policy toward Communism. Incidentally, this Democratic-Communist collaboration was open-
ly 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 me-
thod and time, really necessary. It was perfectly obvious that the President referred to Japan and Germa-
ny. 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 Presi-
dent 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 Vik-
ing Press, New York, 1951, pp. 121-122).

Censorship, governmental and other (Chapter V), was tight in America by 1937. It had blocked out the rea-
sons 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, ac-
cording 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 fre-
quently 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.
 
 
Page 32

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 Illustrirte Zeitung for November 25, 1936), which were already
more than ample for the size and resources of the country, and soon became colossal.

Thus by desperate measures, advertised to the world in the phrase guns instead of butter, Hitler pre-
pared 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 rejec-
tion 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 Amer-
ican 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). De-
tails cannot be here presented.

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 una-
ble 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 fawn-
ing 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 Di-
aries, 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 Bessasrabia 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 Ohil and Winston
Churchill. Senator Taft‘s radio address of June 29, 1941, a few days after Hitler invaded Russia, included
the following passage:

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 dis-
closure of Russian needs. To spread the four freedoms throughout the world we will ship air-
planes 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 if 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 sligh-
test danger that the people of this country would ever embrace Bundism or Nazism. But Com-
munism 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 Roose-
velt‘s silly infatuation for Stalin and the accompanying mania for serving the interests of world Commun-
ism. ―It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid the culture and independence of the
 
 
Page 33

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 ac-
cording 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 ex-
cept 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 be-
tween 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 stra-
tegically 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 procla-
mation (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, ex-
plains the superficial reason for Roosevelt‘s siding with the Stalinites on the choice of a strategically insig-
nificant 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 Jew-
ish 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 sur-
rendered 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 trea-
sures.

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 re-
sumed.

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 de-
livered 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 fin-
ger points toward Russian atrocities, Thus Truman approved one of the greatest mass deportations in his-
tory, which for sheer cruelty is a dark page in the annals of history.
 
 
Page 34

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 lat-
est 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 produc-
tion line. The menace which the Nazi underwater fleet constituted during World War II is still remem-
bered by residents along the Atlantic coast who saw oil tankers, merchant ships, and even a troop trans-
port 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 Rus-
sia 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 ideo-
logically 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 an-
xious 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 Ger-
many
for no formulated purpose beyond pleasing the dominant Eastern European element and allied ele-
ments 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 compre-
hensive 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 state-
ment I hate war,‘ he was eager to get into the fighting since that would insure a third term. The most no-
torious 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 moth-
ers 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?
 
 
Page 35

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 simul-
taneously 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 attache 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 of-
ficials from the three principal kinds of Democrats (Chapter III) were actuated by and gave voice to differ-
ent 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 de-
mands, 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 re-
garded 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 descent. 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 prolon-
gers 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 kill-
ing 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 ―as-
saults were welcome since it gives you additional opportunity to kill your hated enemy in large num-
bers. 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 13, 1944).

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 civiliza-
tion. 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 Ameri-
ca. 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 out destanced all other immigration and as of 1950 ―the Ger-
mans 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
 
 
Page 36

on killing was, of course, that the Germans whom we were to kill rather than merely defeat had ex-
actly 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 ma-
jority 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 As-
sistant 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 For-
eign 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 State.

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 true American.

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 dis-
closed by David A. Morse, head of the International Labor Office 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 Germa-
ny, 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 confe-
rence by President Roosevelt at Casablanca on January 24, 1943. . . President Roosevelt went into the
press conference in which he as-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 implemintation of the Morgenthau Plan, an
implementation which allowed widespread looting and violence‖by desplaced 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. Reor-
ganization 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 (Macmil-
lan, 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
 
 
Page 37

equalled 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 be-
cause their food stocks and transportation systems had been largely destroyed by American air bombard-
ment; 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, para-
graph 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 for-
mer 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 de-
stroying 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 al-
ready 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 cer-
tain 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 themselves! 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 sex years after the German surrender, had no other ap-
parent 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 per-
sonal virtues, are personae non grade 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, unnecessarly cruel in its prolongation, in-
defensible in the double-crossing of our ally Britain, criminal in our surrender of our own strategic securi-
ty 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
possible? The answer is the subject of the next chapter.
 
 
Page 38

Chapter V
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 sim-
ilar 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 destiny.

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 secu-
rity 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 num-
ber 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
Chapter IV. 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), Ambas-
sador 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 Govern-
ment, ordered the hiding of all intelligence reports unfavorable to the Soviets, and the dissemination only
of lies and communist propaganda?

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
 
 
Page 39

a summary of this section: Fundamental to any assumption about the relation of public opinion to politi-
cal action is this vital consideration: It is not only what the people think, but the soundness of their opi-
nion 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 in-
terventionist, with any conscience whatever, would contend that the American public was candidly or suf-
ficiently 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 information.

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, 941, 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 he 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 tatement 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.

(b) Almost, if not wholly, as indefensible as the secret maneuvering toward war, was the wholesale decep-
tion of the American people by suppressing or withholding facts on the eve of the presidential election of
1944.
 
Three examples are here given.

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 par-
ties 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 ex-
treme 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 Roosevelt electors!

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 be-
fore the election, went to Europe and learned that ammunition was being rationed to our troops. It ap-
parently 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, Washing-
ton 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
 
 
Page 40

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 phys-
ical 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 phy-
sician, 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.

(c) 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 sensa-
tional 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 Intelli-
gence 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 af-
ter 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 inde-
pendence. . . 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 assign-
ments 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
 
 
Page 41

somehow, just because some of those career diplomats aren‘t in accord with what they know I think (pp.
204-205).

The above passages not only throw light on the enormity of the offinse against America of preventing the
testimony of General Hurley, but give on the Deaprtment of State a testimony that cannot be regarded as
other than expert.

(d) 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 Washing-
ton. 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 drasti-
cally 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 out-
come 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 censor-
ship.

The day after the President‘s executive order, Some 250 members of the Associated Press Managing Edi-
tors 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 broa-
dened 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 presi-
dential 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 cancerted action to deal with censorship imposed by some
of their advertisers. See pp. 90-93.)

(e) 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 in-
dignant 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
 
 
Page 42

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 sug-
gested that you write to your own Congressman or to one of your Senators for an up-to-date list of these
publications. 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 de-
nied them, has to resort to such a means to stir the public into a demand for the cleanup of the executive
branch of our government!

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 © books. These examples
are merely samples and in no case are to be considered a coveraage 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.
(a) 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 hur-
ried; 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 jour-
nalist who did the re-wording! Thus, when Field Marshall von Mackensen died, a Teletype dispatch de-
scribed 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 re-
vealed 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 correspon-
dent told the author that the correspondent‘s paper, a liberal sheet which was a darling of our govern-
ment, 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 de-
signed, 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 con-
tains an analysis of the dim-out in the United States on the German reaction to the naming of General Ei-
senhower, 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 dis-
tortion or falsification in certain sections of the press and by certain radio commentators. This was the
 
 
Page 43

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 Wil-
liam 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 Com-
munist 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 out-
come prompts the question: May the advertiser not need the periodical more than the periodical needs the
advertiser?

(b) 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 unoffi-
cial censorship may be gained, however, from the vicissitudes of one film which has engaged the public in-
terest because it is based on a long-recognized classic by the most popular novelist of the English-speaking
world.

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 ex-
plained 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 informa-
tive broadcast of a dialogue (Facts Forum Radio Program, WFAA, Dallas, January 11, 1952) between Mr.
 
 
Page 44

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 help-
ful documents, and recommends a boycott of motion pictures which are written by Communists, pro-
duced 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 imperative.

With reference to new books, a feature article, Why You Buy Books That Sell Communism, by Irene Cor-
bally 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 busi-
ness. 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 or-
dered and studied in full and will accordingly not be analyzed here (American Legion Magazine, 580 Fifth
Avenue, New York 18, New York; 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 Carl-
son, in The Freeman for January 14, 1952.

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 coinci-
dence, 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 reviewerss, 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, Cen-
sorship, 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 pub-
lic a ruinous program in China, see A Guidebook to 10 Years of Secrecy in OurChina Policy, a speech by
Senator Owen Brewster of Maine (June 5, 1951). The tables on pp. 12 and 13 of Senator Brewster‘s re-
printed 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 Kit-
tredge (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:
 
 
Page 45

One thing is clear, however: The Merchant of Venice is no anti-Semitic document; Shakespeare was not at-
tacking the Jewish people when he gave Shylock the villain‘s role. If so, he was attacking the Moors in Ti-
tus Andronicus, the Spaniards in Much Ado, the Italians in Cymbeline, the Viennese in Measure for Meas-
ure, the Danes in Hamlet, the Britons in King Lear, the Scots in Macbeth, and the English in Richard the
Third.

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 didactic-
ism (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 pa-
triotism. 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 au-
thor 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 book plates on the pretense that copper is needed for war is the smartest way to sup-
press 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 book plates in America would not fight one
minor engagement. But people do not know that, They do not even know that book plates have been or-
dered 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.., p. xxiii).

No criticism of the translators, editors, and publishers is here implied. They may have merely bent to pres-
sure 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 Ameri-
can 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-
 
 
Page 46

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). Professor Barnes defines the historical
craft‘s term revisionism as the readjustment of historical writing to historical facts relative to the back-
ground 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 author-
ities for the fact that the actual causes and merits of this conflict were very close to the reverse of the pic-
ture 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 [1951] 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 in-
trigue 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 calamity.

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, whatev-
er 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 out-
lets not only refuse to market critical books in this field but also threaten blackout ultimatum.

Bruce Barton (San Antonio Light, April 1, 1951) expresses the same opinions in condensed form and dra-
matic 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 be-
comes conditioning the public mind. Killing people is peace. To be for America First is to be an undesira-
ble 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.

(d) The propagation of Marxism and other alien ideas is accomplished not only by persons in those busi-
nesses 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 institu-
tions. The penetration is especially notable in the book-selecting personnel of bookstores, libraries,
schools, and colleges.

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
 
 
Page 47

history texts examined by the author. 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 (Su-
perintendent 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, 81 st Congress, Part 3, pp. A8 and A9) as being not
merely subversive but Communist:
 
 
Abrahm Lincoln School, Chicago, Ill.
 
American League Against War and Fascism
 
American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born
 
American Peace Mobilization
 
American Russian Institute (of San Francisco)
 
American Slav Congress
 
American Youth for Democracy
 
Civil Rights Congress and its affiliates
 
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 1935)
 
Ohio School of Social Sciences
 
People‘s Educational Association
 
Philadelphia School of Social Science and Art
 
Photo League (New York City)
 
Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade
 
Walt Whitman School of Social Science, Newark. N.J.
 
Washington Bookshop Association
 
Wisconsin Conference on Social Legislation
 
Workers Alliance

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 minace that may lurk behind an innocent
 
 
Page 48

name, read the Committee‘s Report on the Congress of American Women (October 23, 1949, Superin-
tendent 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, Con-
stantine Brown (The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., December 27, 1948), The Kremlin men rely on sub-
version 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 re-
ceived 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 per-
fect 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. McCloy. 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 Know-
land, 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 general election?

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 Commun-
ism 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 Ameri-
cans 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 nformation 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 bai-
ter,‖ 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 Segion 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 in-
teresting to recall that in the 1940 campaign the third term presidential candidate made much sport of
 
 
Page 49

Martin, Barton, and Fish. At a conference of Democrats at Denver, Colorado, launching the 1952 cam-
paign, Secretary of Agriculture Brannan recalled the success of the phrase and suggested for a similar
smear in 1952 the off-key quartet of Taft and Martin, McCarthy and Cain. Would an opposing candi-
date 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 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 ab-
surd, moreover, because the Khazar Jew is himself not a Semite (Chapter II, above). The blood of Abra-
ham, 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 sum-
mary, pale sociology over Almighty God (quotes from This morning by John Temple Graves, Charles-
ton 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 pre-
sumably 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
(18 East 48 th 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
 
(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 lasting peace.
 
 
Page 50

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 darkness.
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 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 cen-
sorship 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 Amer-
ica (Vol. 25), Mrs. Rosenberg‘s interests include Mental Hygiene. Can it be that her strong effort for lo-
wering 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 century? 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, April, 1949.

The issue so alive in American hearts of using the draft, or universal military training, for sinister politi-
cal 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 de-
fense, 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 pro-
posal 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 Mili-
tary 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.
 
 
 
Page 51
 
 
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.

Page 52

Chapter VI
The Foreign Policy Of The Truman Administration

For many of President Truman‘s early mistakes in foreign policy, he cannot rightly be blamed. As a Sena-
tor 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 igno-
rant 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 conferences.

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 De-
partment 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 diplo-
mats. 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 bloo-
dy and self-aggrandizing dialectic materialism, a state-religion of which he was philosopher, pontiff, and
commander-in-chief.

President Truman brought the war to a quick close. His early changes in the cabinet were on the whole en-
couraging. 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 (Chap-
ter IV) that anti-American brains were busy in our top echelon. Our subsequent course was equally ruin-
ous. 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. More-
over, 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 materiel 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 hierarchy. 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 finally Czechoslovakia.
This foul doctrine of the left coalition and its well-known results of infiltrating Communists into key posi-
tions in the governments of Eastern Europe will not be discussed here, since the damage is one beyond re-
pair as far as any possible immediate American action is concerned. Discussion here is limited to our fas-
tening 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 be-
fore 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
 
 
Page 53

China‘s enemy (see United States Relations With China With Special Reference to the Period 1944-1949,
Department of State, 1949, p. 25 and passim).

When the violent phase of our already initiated political war against Japan began with the Pearl Harbor at-
tack 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. Unfortu-
nately, 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,). 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 vitupera-
tive 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. 55). 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 unfa-
vorable 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 equiv-
alent 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 ver-
sus Chinese anti-Communist sentiment, and an ambassador at odds with his subordinates, President Roo-
sevelt sent General Patrick J. Hurley to Chungking as his Special Representative with the mission of pro-
moting harmonious relations between Generalissimo Chiang and General Stilwell and of performing cer-
tain 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 Gen-
eral 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 pre-
venting the collapse of the National Government did not represent the policy of the United States.
 
 
Page 54

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 Ameri-
can 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 Com-
mander 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 inter-
view. 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-Communnist. The Presi-
dent 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 es-
tablished 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 De-
partment snared for Communism the states of Eastern Europe. He was accordingly paid off by the mi-
shandling 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 na-
tions was $3.65) when some arms were sent; and munerous 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 kettle black. For essential background ma-
terial, 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 Com-
 
 
Page 55
 
 
mander-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 President.

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 So-
viet 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 develop-
ment of Siberia east of Lake Baikal would probably make the Manchurian area more or less self-sufficient.

Here are the more significant of the Wedemeyer recommendations:

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 ar-
rangements be made whereby China can purchase military equipment and supplies (particularly motor
maintenance parts), from the United States. 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 in-
structors—in case the Wedemeyer program was accepted.

But General Wedemeyer had reported that which his superiors did not wish to hear. His fate was a dis-
charge from diplomacy and an exile from the Pentagon. Moreover, the Wedemeyer Report was not re-
leased until August, 1949. Meanwhile, in the intervening two years our pro-Communist policy of with-
drawing assistance from Chiang, while the Soviet rushed supplies to his enemies, had tipped the scales in
favor of tushed supplies to his enemies, had tipped the scales in favor of those enemies, the Chinese Com-
munists.

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 materiel at a rate com-
petently 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 vir-
 
 
Page 56

tually 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 be-
lieve. 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 Pollitburo report (This Week. September 30, 1951) the member-ship 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 pol-
icy 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 docu-
ment 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 repudiat-
ing! It is hard to see how the anonymous writer of such a paper could be regarded as other than a scound-
rel. 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 an-
nounced 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
 
 
Page 57

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 10, 1950).

These sentiments must have appealed to Governor Thomas E. Dewey, of New York, for at Princeton Uni-
versity 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 Department consultant.
 
 
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 suc-
ceeded 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 De-
partment policy had been instructed by Secretary Acheson to minimize the strategic importance of For-
mosa.
 
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 Com-
munism 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 De-
wey, 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-confessidly ignorant of the matter, that the
Communists of China would become angry with the Soviet. The sequel is outlined in section (d) below.

Our second great mistake in foreign policy, unless votes in New York and other Northern cities are its mo-
tivation, 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 sa-
tisfaction 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 com-
pleted 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 be-
came 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 split-
ting of Palistine, 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
 
 
Page 58

our sponsorship and reject the proposed new member. On Wednesday, November 26, 1947, our proposi-
tion 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 No-
vember 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 persu-
asion has now been brought to bear on home governments . . . the result of today‘s vote appeared to de-
pend on what United States representatives were doing in faraway capitals (from an article by Thomas J.
Hamilton, New York Times, November 28, 1947).

The result of our pro-Israeli pressures, denounced in some instances by representatives of the govern-
ments 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 coun-
tries 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 ommunists raised their battle cry of solidarity forever as they marched. . .
The parade and rally were eld 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 Palestine.
The grand marshal of the parade was Ben Gold, president of the Com-
munist-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 quota-
tions 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 nev-
er have been available.

Mr. Bilby found that the balance sheet read much in Russia‘s favor and found his conclusion, evi-
denced in numerous ways, in editorials in the Hebrew press praising the Soviet Union, and also in pub-
lic pronouncements of political and governmental leaders. 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
 
 
Page 59

the day were settled. 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 an-
nounced 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 sym-
pathy, Isreali 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 Al-
manac, 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, de-
tached from the French Air Force, were assassinated this afternoon [September 17], within the Israeli-held
area of Jerusalem.

Also, according to the New York Times, Reuters quoted a Stern Group spokesman in Tel Aviv as having
said, Iam satisfied that it has happened‘. A United Nations truce staff announcemint confirmed the fact
that Count Bernadotte had been killed by two Jewish irregulars, who also killed the United Nations se-
nior observer, Col. Andre 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 Unit-
ed Nations mediator was by no means favorable. It was an election year and Dewey droned on about uni-
ty 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
 
 
Page 60

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: Pres-
ident Truman, by granting immediate recognition to Israel, led the world in extending friendship and wel-
come 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 Pres-
ident Truman, played a leading role in the adoption of the resolution of Nov. 29, 1947, by The United Na-
tions 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 the-
reof 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 Gar-
den to more than 16,000 persons brought there under the auspices of the Liberal Party, the President ig-
nored 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 secure.
 
The President continuued:

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 civi-
lization.
 

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 explanation of his conception of best traditions and highest standards of Western civilization.

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 history.

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 (Chap-
ter II, above). This claim is thus exactly as valid as if the same or some other horde should claim the Unit-
ed States in 3350 A.D. on the basis of having adopted the religion of the American Indian! 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
 
 
Page 61

380,000, four-fifths of this being due to immigration. This made the Jews 31 percent of the total popula-
tion (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 six-
teen of the county size subdivisions of Palestine and outnumbering the Jews in population in fifteen of the
sixteen subdivisions (UN Presentations 574, and 573, November, 1947).

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 Presi-
dent Roosevelt‘s promise to Ibn Saud, of Americans with military training. How many U.S. army person-
nel, reserve, retired, or on leave, secretly participated is not known. Robert Conway, writing from Jerusa-
lem on January 19, 1948, said:
 
 
More than 2,000 Americans are already serving in Haganah, the Jewish
Defense Army, highly placed deplomatic 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 memori-
al to Colonel Marcus a letter from President Truman . . . extoled the heroic roles played by Colonel Mar-
cus 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 Aus-
tin, 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 ef-
fectively 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 States. 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 As-
sembly 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, explor-
ers, and archaeologist and businessmen for all these decades. Up to the moment when the Palestine prob-
lem 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
 
 
Page 62

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 Asia-
tic 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 dis-
patch 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 reserva-
tions 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 repeated-
ly (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 government document. The article in the World Almanac is headed Re-
ligious Population of the World. A corresponding item, with the title, Population, Worldwide, by Reli-
gious 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 de-
crease 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 Germany. As to the Jews in East-
ern European lands temporarily overrun by Hitler‘s troops, the great majority retreated ahead of the Ger-
man armies into Soviet Russia. Of these, many came later to the U.S., some moved to Palestine, some un-
questionably 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 Hitl-
ler‘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 of Russia.

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 de-
lay reconciliation in Western Europe; and the claim, even though assumed under duress by a West Ger-
man government, would almost certainly be paid, directly or indirectly, by the United States. 

 
 
Page 63

 
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 homes?

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 dhow 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 reinforcments to
Israel apart from stragglers from the Arab world and a possible mere handful from elsewhere can
come only from Soviet and satellite lands. Ifso, they will come on permission of and by arrangement with
some Communist dictator (Chapter II, above). 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 frontier?

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 other-
wise, to save the Middle East and its oil from the Soviet. In fact, if spurred on by a full-scale Zionist propa-
ganda 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 Soveit trap is being pre-
pared. 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 Arabia.
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 an-
swer 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 Hock-
ing 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 left-
ist-infested State Department, the chance seems about the same as the chance of the Moslem voting popu-
lation 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 re-
gard 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 secu-
rity of the United States.

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 time. 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 Christian West! The Morgenthau plan for re-
viving human slavery by its provision for forced labor outside Germany after the war (William Henry
Regnery Company, Chicago, 1950, p. 210) was the basic document for these monstrous decisions. It seems
 
 
Page 64

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 in-
to 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 pur-
poses, 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 as-
sumed 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 com-
missions as officers in the Army of the United States. Unfortunately, not all refugee Jews were of admira-
ble 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 falsifica-
tions 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 tak-
en by Germans as proof of Hitler‘s contention (heard by many Americans as a shortwave song) that Amer-
ica 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 per-
formed in carrying out the orders of their superiors. 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 ef-
fect that in the third World War England will furnish the navy, France the foot soldiers, America the air-
planes, and Germany the war-criminals. In addition to lacking the solid foundation
of legal precedent our war trials afforded a classic example of he law‘s delay. Seven German soldiers,
ranging in rank from sergeant to general, were executed as lates June 7, 1951, Whatever these men and
those executed before them may or may not have done, the long elay had two obvious
results, five years of jobs for the U.S. bureaucrats involved and a continuing irrita-
tion 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 Gegenelt Bolshewismus(Against World Communism)
on placards and parade banners while Franklin Rooseveltwas 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 investi-
gate Communism in the War Department, he testified that Communism was not a decisive factor in grant-
ing 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 Un-
ion 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 discus-
sion 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
 
 
Page 65

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 West-
ern 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. Brttenwieser, 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 deri-
sion 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 cir-
culation in Germany, if any at all, and Germans are forced to judge America by its actions and its person-
nel. 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 com-
ander 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 Com-
mander in Germany during the hideous atrocities perpetrated upon the German people by displaced per-
sons after the surrender (Chapter IV, above). There is testimony to General Eisenhower‘s lack of satisfac-
tion 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 Cru-
sade, 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 juice.
 
 
All in all, sending General Eisenhower to persuade the West Germans to let bygones by 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 Washing-
ton! 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 So-
viet 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 ele-
ven billion dollars worth of German divisions used against Stalin, six is a very small number for any mili-
tary 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. San-
 
 
Page 66

born, 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 in-
tend that war to begin either with a disaster or a helter-skelter retreat (The Freeman, July 2, 1951). 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 oth-
er 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 traf-
fic (U. S. News and World Report, January 24, 1951). Rising, however, to the challenge of our four addi-
tional divisions (1951), the Soviet took positive action. Here is the story (AP dispatch from Berlin in Wash-
ington 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 artillery vehicles.

The Soviet got busy not only in transportation but in personnel and equipment. According to Drew Mid-
dleton (New York Times, August 17, 1951), All tewnty-six divisions of the Soviet group of armies in East-
ern Germany are being brought to full strength for the first time since 1946. Also, a stream of newly pro-
duced tanks, guns, trucks, and light weapons is flowing to divisional and army bases. There were reports
also if the strengthening of satellite armies.

These strategic moves followed our blatantly announced plans to increase our forces in Germany. Moreo-
ver, 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 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 Ger-
many 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 re-
cent years.

(c) 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 25, 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 Commun-
ist 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 Chi-
nese 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 out-
side 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
 
 
Page 67
 
 
United States troops from Japan into that unhappy peninsula, without the authority of Congress, to meet
the Communist invasion.

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 Ko-
rean 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 ad-
vised 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 Gen-
eral 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 Ko-
rea. 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 drop-
ping 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 intercept-
ing supplies which were being sent from Britain and the United States to the Chinese Communists. Re-
peated 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 Com-
mons (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 withhold-
ing 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 Cali-
fornia—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 mate-
riel. 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 Commun-
ist forces assembled on the Korean border to watch our operations. Despite our State Department‘s as-
sumption that the Chinese Communists would not fight, those armies seized the moment of their rein-
forcement 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 instrumen-
tal in precipitating the Chinese Communist attack upon us whin victory in Korea was in our grasp.
 
 
Page 68

Here then, in summary, was the situation when the Chinese Communists crossed the Yalu River in No-
vember, 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 troops.

These truths, which cannot be questioned by anyone, constitute a second barrage of evidence that the sha-
pers 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 ac-
cepted the services of Chiang‘s troops, we would have also secured the great diplomatic advantage of ren-
dering 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 38 th 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 facil-
ities 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 Mas-
sachusetts, former Speaker of the House, to ask pointedly in his Lincoln Day Speech in New York (Febru-
ary 12, 1951): What are we in Korea for—to win or to lose ?

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 suc-
cessor, our top echelon executives took no chances. Before a Floridan audience, the veteran radio com-
mentator, 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
 
 
Page 69
 
 
 
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 comittees of the Senate.

The millions of words of testimony before the combined Senate committees resulted in no action. The vo-
lume 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 vi-
tal decisions to men with the mental processes of the secretaries of State and Defense. After the MacAr-
thur investigation the American people (i) knew more about our casualties in Korea; (ii) learned of the De-
fense 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 UN member.

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, in-
cluding 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 his dismissal. 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 Rela-
tions 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. oreover, the death of Chinese Communist soldiers will cause no
significant ill-effects on Chinese orale, for the Chinese Communist authorities publish neither
the names of the dead nor any statistics on their losses.
 
 
Page 70

(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 re-
velation 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 Con-
gressman 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 Commun-
ism, were suppressed until July, 1949. The report on Korea was denied to the public until yester-
day. 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 thir-
ty-eighth parallel, the manpower advantage was in our favor, if we had used it. But the sound We-
demeyer 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 available.
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 un-
der 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 materiel, 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
 
 
Page 71

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 perti-
nent 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 declara-
tion 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 sham-
bles 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
peace). 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 Com-
mander 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 ar-
mies 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 sav-
ing 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
buddies.

What they cannot understand, though, is the strange apathy of the people back home. As they lis-
ten 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 hus-
bands 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.
 
 
Page 72

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 Lebannon 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 offi-
cials 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
a 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 38 th Parallel and helps it in the Strait of Formosa; which worships aggression in Palestine and con-
demns 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.
 
 
Page 73


Chapter VII
Does 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 propaganda. 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 de-
vious 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 citi-
zen takes his position more or less unconsciously against his own people and against the truth—and there-
by, 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 te-
nure in office, would our leaders go that far? Despite the pervasive influence of censorship, many Ameri-
cans 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 prop-
aganda at that time, due to the global nature of the war, was don‘t swap horses when crossing a stream.
In this fake propaganda he succeeded in getting himself elected once again.

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 elec-
tions 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.
 
 
Page 74

We shall examine in order (a) the testimony of mathematics; (b) the temptation of the bureaucracy-
builder; and © 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 Democrat-
ic 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 plen-
ty 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, Feb-
ruary 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 can chart his mad ourse. Nevertheless, these controls
and this centralization of bureaucratic power urged by Mr. ruman as a Fair Deal program are so dear
to many socialistically inclined Democrats, Eastern uropeans 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 socialist bureaucracy. The blood
sacrifice, moreover, will not be made by those young male immigrants who are arriving from East-
ern 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 Ma-
cArthur 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 totalita-
rian rule with its suppression of those personal liberties which have formed the foundation stones
to our political, economic and social advance to national greatness.

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 pa-
triotic American, Alfred E. Smith of New York . At the first annual banquet of the American Liber-
ty League (New York Times, January 26, 1936) Governor Smith said:

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
 
 
Page 75

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 re-
sources 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 Demo-
cratic Party into a Socialist Party. Since this was said during Franklin Roosevelt‘s first term, Gov-
ernor 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 American people.

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 establishing them.
(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, Tru-
man 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 indi-
vidual 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 de-
tails 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 immi-
grants have joined the Democratic Party. Let us suppose that our present annual crop of immi-
grants 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 con-
servative. 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 occa-
sioned 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 fig-
ure, 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
 
 
Page 76

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 be-
came well-armed with weapons of Soviet or satellite origin, and were able to take care of them-
selves by killing native Arabs or expelling them from their homes. Those Judaized Khazars arriv-
ing in the United States lost no time in forming an Association of Jewish Refugees and Immi-
grants from Poland (New York Times, March 29, 1944), which at once began to exert active polit-
ical 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, of $800,000,000 in profit on the N.Y. Stock Exchange in the Spring of 1945, to say noth-
ing 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 sev-
eral 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. 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 intance native Americans per-
form 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 en-
titled 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 pur-
poses; 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 dis-
placed 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 commit-
tee 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 Dis-
 
 
Page 77

placed 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 immi-
grant. Senator McCarran‘s findings were supported by overwhelming testimony. To cite one in-
stance, Mr. Edward M. Slazek, a former assistant selectorfor 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 (Wash-
ington Times-Herald)
 
 
 
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 espe-
cial 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, 81 st 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 agi-
tation to the end that the best German houses be cleared of their occupants and placed at the dis-
posal 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 York (May 10, 1952) states that the most important people in-
volved, 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 ter-
ritory 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 fru-
strated, 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.
 
 
Page 78

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 juris-
diction 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 Con-
gress 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 refu-
gees ? 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 probably lose?

(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 hun-
dred 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 East-
ern 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 conceivable.

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. With-
out reserves from Asia, however, the Soviet strength in the European theater in 1951 was esti-
mated by General Bonner Fellers as 175 divisions some 25 Soviet‘s favor also is the nature and ex-
tent of Soviet territory, which is characterized by miles and miles of marshes in summer and im-
penetrable snow in winter. The vast inhospitable areas of Russia caused even the tremendous Eu-
rope-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 oper-
ate 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? Ameri-
cans, 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 con-
tains 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 Rus-
sia have decided that they must accomplish the eventual extermination of 150,000,000 Chi-
nese to reduce Chinese population, now between 450,000,000 and 475,000,000, to more ma-
nageable 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
 
 
Page 79

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. state-
ment 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 po-
lice 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 materiel 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 re-
gimes!

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 pre-
pared 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 other.

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 young lives:

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 pre-
cious young life in the furtherance of sinister political purposes.
 
 
Page 80

 
CHAPTER VII
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 depart-
ments, 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 scoun-
drels from our government? There are three principal ways: (a) by a national election; (b) by the constitu-
tional 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 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 presi-
dent and vice-president represent compromises and it is hard to get a clear-cut choice as between Demo-
crats and Republicans. 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 Wil-
liam Schneiderman, State Chairman of the Communist Party of California and a member of the Alternate
National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States. 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 citizinship
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 pri-
mary election in 1948 in a close contest from Harold Stassen, who endorsed anti-Communist legislation.
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 Rever-
comb 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 coali-
tion 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
Southern.
 
 
Page 81

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 cer-
tainly be acclaimed by the great body of the people, those who acclaimed General MacArthur on his re-
turn from Tokyo. 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 me-
thods 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 policy. The author thus summed up the in-
fluence 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 ground. This fact was startlingly illu-
strated 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, and patriotism.

The use of the letter for political purposes by organized groups is illustrated by the fact that a cer-
tain 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 dis-
approves of the policy or measure endorsed by the letters, they raise the question of his being pos-
sibly 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 opposi-
tion and expressed themselves in letters to Washington on the dismissal of General MacArthur.
In addition to writing letters to the President and his staff and to one‘s own senators and con-
gressmen, 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 (Superin-
tendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).

The patriotic citizen should not let his or her letter writing stop with letters to officials in Wash-
ington. Letters along constructive lines should be sent to other influential persons such as teach-
ers, 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 com-
munism, are inundated by letters and telegrams of calumny and vilification (his words to the au-
 
 
Page 82

thor 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 ques-
tion of influencing executive action through pressure upon Congressional committees and, in ex-
treme 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 Con-
gress.

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, Sena-
tor 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. De-
spite 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 19, 1949). Thus with no Republican opposition to attract possible
votes from the Democratic majority, the committee vote on Acheson‘s confirmation was unanimous! Pa-
renthetically, 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 doubt-
ful 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 Rela-
tions. 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 Appropr-
iations has, however, made a great record in safeguarding what it believes to be the public interest. For ex-
ample, in 1946 the senior Republican member of this vital Senate Committee was instrumental in achiev-
ing the Congressional elimination from the State Department budget of $4,000,000 ear marked 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 im-
itated 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).n 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 the committee.
 
 
Page 83
 
 
For evidence, compare the volume entitled Hearings Regarding Communism in the United States Gov-
ernment, 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 over.

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 Lowen-
thal. 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
next. At least one, Max Lowenthal, is an intimate friend of President Trumen, 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 ques-
tions.

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, Humen 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 81 st Congress in January, 1949. New regulations, passed for the purpose by the Democratic 81 st
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 pre-
liminaries to the trial of Alger Hiss. In the election of 1950, Representative Francis Case of South Dekota
was advanced to the Senate. After a single term on the Committee, Congressman Burr P. Harrison of Vir-
ginia became a member of the Ways and Means Committee on Un-American Activities. Thus whin the
Committee was reconstituted at the opening of the 82nd Congress in January, 1951, only one man, Chair-
man 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 in-
ternational Communist conspiracy (see Red-educators 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, Cali-
fornia. 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 Amer-
ican Legion (copies may be had from the National Americanism Division, The American Legion, 700 N.
Pennsylvania St., Indianapolis, Ind. 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 Judi-
cial 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 circums-
tances 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 per-
 
 
Page 84

form 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).

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, infil-
tration into other groups (governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any
other means deemed necessary, to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the coun-
tries throughout the world through the medium of a world-wide Communist organization. . .

(2) 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 pre-
judicial to the public security.

(3) There are, under our present immigration laws, numerous aliens who have been found to be de-
portable, many of whom are in the subversive, criminal, or immoral classes who are free to roam
the country at will without supervision or control. .
.

(4) The Communist organization in the United States, pursuing its stated objectives, the recent suc-
cesses of communist methods in other countries, and the nature and control of the world Com-
munist 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 inde-
pendent nation, and to guarantee to each State a republican form of government, enact appropri-
ate 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 Con-
gress—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 commit-
tee‘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 pub-
lic 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 em-
ployees 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 impeachment.

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 mar-
que and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. This authority of the Congress
 
 
Page 85

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-
Hudaon, New York). Subsequent interpreters of our basic State Paper, except perhaps some of those fol-
lowing 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 Presi-
dent 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 send-
ing 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 Re-
port, 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 Ko-
rea 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 members nations of the UN shall supply
armed forces in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. Thus the starting of the Tru-
man-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 81 st Congress several times overrode a Truman veto by more than the Constitutional
two-thirds vote. Even in that 81 st 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 Marcanto-
nio, 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 de-
pendent on leftist votes or so sympathetic with alien thought that he sees no menace, merely a red her-
ring, in Communism.

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 suspi-
cion of unconstitutional misdemeanors.espite 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 ommunists, the darlings of the dominant
Leftists of our State Department, attacked us in the moment of ur 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 he 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, 1951.)

General Marshall was at Yalta as Chief of Staff of U.S. Army. According to press reports, he never remem-
bered 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 country. General Ambassador Marshall
not only failed miserably in China; Secretary of State Marshall took no effective steps whin a Senate Ap-
propriations subcommittee, according to Senator Ferguson of Michigan, handed him a memorandum stat-
ing 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
 
 
Page 86

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 Acheon, 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 hav-
ing been Undersecretary of State from July, 1947, to January, 1949 (Congressional Directory, 82nd Con-
gress, 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 bril-
liantly 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 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. Mor-
genthau, and Mr. Hiss, and General Marshall, most of those chiefly responsible for our policy as described
above were still in power in June, 1952!

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 re-
mains 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 liquida-
tion 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 Pots-
dam, are we not exactly as sensible as a hypothetical couple who employ the same baby sitter who has al-
ready killed three of their children?

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 the-
reafter (see also Chapter VI, above), the answer to Senator Jenner‘s point blank question is an incontro-
vertible ―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 tolerators 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 79 th Congress to in-
vestigate charges of communism in the War Department.
 
 
Page 87

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 of-
ficer 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 do-
cumentation 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 Attache at London. He received, a little lat-
er, a bon voyage present of a laudatory feature article in the Communist Daily Worker. Below the accom-
panying 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 ex-
pressed 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
favors rendered.

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 me-too-
ism. 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 In-
ternational 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 Ma-
cArthur‘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 reli-
gious 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 places.

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
 
 
Page 88

touch, at least indirectly, on religious themes. He Constantly associates Christianity with both democracy
and patriotism.
 
 
MacArthur is a Protestant, but to the editor of the Brooklyn Tablet, a Catholic periodical, he wrote as fol-
lows:

Through daily contact with our American men and women who are here engaged in the reshap-
ing 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 bear-
ing 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 princip-
als 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 institutio-
nalized ethical culture. But such is not the case. The heart of America is still Christian in its felt need of re-
demption and salvation as well as in its fervent belief in the Resurrection.

Christianity in the historical, or classical, sense is closely allied with the founding and growth of America.
Et was the common adherence to some form of Christianity which made it possible to develop some de-
gree 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 domi-
nant 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, counsellors. 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!
 
 
Page 89


Chapter IX
America Can Still Be Free

In the closing 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 to wound itself.

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 forces 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 are those who seek to destroy our unity by stirring up antagonism among the various Chris-
tian 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, ana-
lyzed in Chapter V, and the even greater threatened menace of a far more drastic censorship imposed not
by those of alien origin and sympathy within our country, but 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 polit-
ic, an ideologically hostile nation within the nation, has through history proved the spearhead of con-
querors. 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 as spies while the Romans used
Jews in Parthia for the same purpose. Recent instances of espionage, discussed above in Chapter II, in-
volved 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 collectively.

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. Parkes‘s account: There is no doubt that the Jews aided the Per-
sians 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 tak-
en the lead in this massacre (op. cit., p. 81).r. Parkes concludes that it would not be surprising
if the accusation were true.
 
 
 
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 the coming of alien conque-
rors into Spain, a country which had been organized by the Visigothes, a race closely akin in blood to the
English, Swedes, Germans, and other peoples of the North Sea area:he Jews of Africa,
who at various times had emigrated thither from Spain, and their unlucky coreligionists 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 every-
where 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 the subjection of the country;

 
Page 90

they therefore confided them to the safekeeping of the Jews. In this manner the Jews who but lately had
been serfs, now became the masters of the towns of Cordova, Granada, Malaga, and many others. When
Tarik appeared before the capital, 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 intrusted by Tarik to
the cowardly Visigoths, who had sought safety in flight, for the purpose of recovering from them the trea-
sure 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 Sise-
but 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 slaves. Hencefor-
ward the Jews were neither to purchase Christian slaves nor to 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 America 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 to-
ward 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 posi-
tive, 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.

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 (Chapters 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 nationalist separatism. In
spite of all kindliness, they have, however 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 fatal-
ly 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 the survival of
America.
 
 
A great country can be 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 (Chapters, V) which, not satisfied with falsifying the news of
the hour, has gone back into past centuries to mutilate the classics of our literature and to exclude from
our school histories such vital and significant facts as those presented in Chapters I and II and above in
this chapter. A start toward 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 Com-
munism. The reading of periodicals and books friendly to the American tradition not only encourages and
strengthens the publisher 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.
 
 
Page 91

We must (ii) begin in the spirit of humane Christian civilization to evolve some method of preventing our
unassimilable 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 individuals.
Our danger from internal sources hostile to our civilization was the subject of a warning by General Ma-
cArthur 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 lan-
guish in the shackles of complete suppression.

As it has happened there it can happen here. Our need for patriotic fervor and religious devotion was nev-
er more impelling. There can be no compromise with atheistic communism, no half way in the preserva-
tion 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 cou-
rage 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 in-
imical 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 their 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 further lessened if four relatively inexpensive steps are taken by our govern-
ment. 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 then exist.

The word inexpensive is purposely used. It is high time that our government count costs, for, as Lenin
himself said, a nation can spend itself into economic collapse as surely as it can ruin itself by a wrong for-
eign policy.

The one horrible fact of World War II was the killing of 256,330 American men and the serious wounding
of so many others. But the cost in money is also important to the safety of America. According to Live
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 Trans-
actions, Department of Commerce). This staggering figure is for money spent. The costs from July 1,
1940, down to and including current proposals for such overseas assistance add up to $104 billions, ac-
cording to Senator Hugh Butler of Nebraska, a member of the Finance Committee, in a speech in the Se-
nate on June 1, 1951 (Human Events, June 6, 1951). See also In Washington It‘s Waste As Usual by Stan-
ley High (The Reader‘s Digest, July, 1951). Thus Stalin‘s confidence i and reliance on America‘s collapse
from orgiastic 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 then 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
departments 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 defen-
sively, 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 rec-
 
 
Page 92

ognition of and exploitation of the cleavage between the Soviet government and the Russian people. A fi-
nal sub-chapter (e) constitutes a brief conclusion to The Iron Curtain Over America.

For our reconstituted, to 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 surveil-
lance or deported; and the independent Soviet secret police force, believed by some authorities to by in
this country in numbers estimated at 4,000, and must be ferreted out. Unless these actions are taken, all
overseas adventures against Communism are worse than folly, because our best troops will be away from
home when the Soviet gives word to the 43,217 Communist known to the F.B.I. to the 4,000 and inciden-
tally 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 our industrial potential.

If the strike of a few railroad switchmen can virtually paralyze the country, what can be expected from a
suddenly unmasked Red army of half a million, many of them slyly working among the labor unions en-
gaged in strategic work, often unknown to the leaders of those unions? (see 100 Things You Should Know
About Communism and Labor, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.). The menace is
not hypothetical. Apparently there‘s no business like spy business in this country. For, according to F.B.I.
Director J. Edgar Hoover, the bureau shortly will investigate 90,000 separate instances if threats to Amer-
ica‘s internal security. Last year his agents probed into 74,799 such cases (Victor Riesel‘s syndicated col-
umn, 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 Communist 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-Treasure 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 labor their principal field of activity. It is the
Communists who are hypocritically waging their entire unholy fight under the flag of world la-
bor. It is the Communists whose strategy dictates that they must above all capture the trade un-
ions 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 in-
clined to think our internal danger from the infiltration of Soviet Communism into labor a fantasy, he
should read Stalinists Still Seeking Control of Labor in Strategic Industries in the February 24, 1951, is-
sue of the Saturday Evening Post. According to this source:

...The communist fifth column in the American labor movement has cut its losses and has com-
pleted its regrouping. It now claims to have 300,000 to 400,000 followers. Aside from Bridges'
own International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, some of the working-alliance
members are in such strategic spots as the United Electrical Workers; Mine, Mill 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 (Universi-
ty of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1950). A West Point graduate, a General Staff Corps co-
lonel in the Military Intelligence Service in the later 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 on Communism.

Another essential background work is Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin: Soviet Concepts of War in Makers of Mod-
ern Strategy, edited by Edward Mead Earle (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1943).
The ratios of actual Communists and other disgruntled elements of the total population in the 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 action
against U.S. Communists must then include those in government, If inclined to doubt that communists
are intrenched in government, do not forget that the C.I.O., prior to the Tydings investigation, expelled its

of our paying will be increased if a powerful propaganda group puts on pressure in our advertiser-
dominated press.

Page 93
 
 
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 to stand poised for sabotage; they
are also often in positions where they prevent action against Communists outside the government. For in-
stance, Mr. Meany testified (op. cit., p.3) that some of the anti-Communist success of the American Feder-
ation of Labor has been 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 Tru-
man, of the charges of Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, arch-enemy of the Tydings whitewash, or
is inclined to question the judgment of the C.I.O. in its expulsion of government Communists, he should
ponder the test formulated by Christ in ancient Palestine: Ye shall know them by their fruits (St. Mat-
thew, VII, 16). There have been large and poisonous harvests from our government-intrenched Commun-
ists. The most deadly, including atomic espionage and pro Soviet foreign policy, have been analyzed above
(Chapters 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 be-
fore General MacArthur was dismissed from his command in Korea, and from his responsibilities in Ja-
pan. The pressure of Communists was not the only pressure upon the President for the dismissal of Gen-
eral 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 MacAr-
thur, 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 of February 11, 1950, the article, by Willard 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 Frederic Sondern, Jr., in the 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., Washington 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 Commit-
tee‘s Report on Espionage in the Government (New York Times, December 31, 1948; or, from your Con-
gressman).

If existing laws against Communism, including the Internal Security law whose passage over the Presi-
dent‘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 United States. They will
surely be promptly passed by 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 Jus-
tice 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 the Congress, the Congress should take the 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-mile 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 agen-
cies or elsewhere in the United States. We would by no means by the first country to take steps against
 
 
Page 94

Communism. Progress in this direction in Spain and Canada is elsewhere mentioned, Also, the Commun-
ist 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 chapter 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 ad-
vantages of Communism, said General Wedemeyer in his summation of his recommendations to the Ma-
cArthur 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 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 fur-
nished him. Be careful not to hurt the ninety percent or more of American-minded teachers (Educational
Gardian, 1 Maiden Lane, New York 7, New York, July, 1951, p. 2) and a probably similar majority of
preachers; but use your influence to frustrate the evil intent of the two or five or ten percent of subver-
ters. Draw your inspiration from Christ‘s words, For this cause came I into the world (St. John, XVIII,
37) and let the adverse situation in your community inspire you to make counter efforts for Western Chris-
tian civilization. Never forget that the basic conflict in the world today is not between the Russian people
and the American people but between Communism and Christianity. Work then, also, for the friendly co-
operation of all Christian denominations in our great struggle for the survival of the Christian West. Di-
vided we fall!

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 scho-
lars and strategists. That such has not been the case since 1933 has been shown above (Chapter VI) in the
analyses of our official attitudes toward China, Palestine, and Germany. Additional testimony of the ut-
most authority is furnished by General Bonner Fellers. In reviewing Admiral Ellis M. Zacharias‘s book Be-
hind Closed Doors (Putnam‘s New York), the former intelligence officer General Fellers states; Be-
hind 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 colonel is the highest rank attainable in and 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 general rank from the one-star
Brigadier to the 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 ad-
mirals 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 the selection of those
high-ranking staff officers who make policy and are allowed to express opinions. The conclusion is ines-
capable that our top military Commanders today are muzzled. They do not dare to differ with the civilian
side of military questions for fear of being removed or demoted (from Louis Johnson‘s Story is Star-
tling, by David Lawrence, The Evening Star, Washington, June 18, 1951). In view of such testimony de-
rived from a former 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 an
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 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 dan-
gerous 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.
 
 
Page 95

If the Congress wants to learn other aspects of a strategic or logistic situation besides the administration‘s
viewpoint, it must summon not the 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 other patriotic
Americans with diplomatic experience. In an address over three major networks (April 13, 1951) Repre-
sentative Joseph W. Martin, Jr., Republican leader in the House, named seven generals including Kurger,
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 fellow travelers!

No attempt can be here made to analyze fully 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 lo-
gistics and manpower, and no suggestions will be made on the tactics or strategy of a particular com-
manders on the scene.

A few words are indicated, however, on 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 conquer-
ing, for instance, a properly armed Spain which, because of its distance, a properly armed Spain which, be-
cause 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 Europe.

This fact, inherent in the rise of the significance of the air arm, prompts an analyses of the Roosevelt and
Truman attitudes toward Spain. Though 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 su-
perior 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 Con-
gressman Dewey Short of Missouri (Reader‘s Digest, May, 1949). The reader interested in still further de-
tails should consult the book, Wartime Mission in Spain (The Macmillan Company, New York) by Profes-
sor 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 Germans. If friendly, he
would have turned them over to the United States to give our leaders their priceless intelligence informa-
tion and to fly again. That is precisely what Franco did; and it was to the office of this writer, then Chief of
the Interview Section in the Military Intelligence Service, that a representative number of these fliers re-
ported when flown to Washington via Lisbon from friendly Spain.
 
 
 
The principal 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.
 
 
Page 96

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 leftist votes has, as a corollary, influenced our policy toward Spain as a leper, not from any action on
the part of Spain in the past or the present not from any action on the part of Spain in the past or the
present but for the winning of electoral votes, see Britain and an American-Spanish Pact, by Universi-
ty (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 Espanola

North American Spanish Aid Committee

United Spanish Aid Committee

Another cause of the anti-Spanish propaganda of American leftists is the fact that Spain, aware of Histo-
ry‘s bloody record of the treason of ideologically unassimilated minorities, has not complicated its inter-
nal problems by admitting hordes of so-called refugees from Eastern Europe.

The same world forces which blocked our resumption of full diplomatic relations with Spain have pre-
vented 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 Au-
gust, 1950, a loan to that country, and was further cleared on November 4, 1950, when the UN, though re-
fusing to lift the ban against Spain‘s full entry into the United Nations, did vote to allow Spanish repre-
sentation 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 Congress
last year (Washington Post, June 23, 1951).

In his testimony to the combined Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate on May
24, 1951 (AP dispatch from Washington) Chief of Staff General, Omar Bradley admitted that from a mili-
tary 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 the Socialist governments of Britain and France (New York Times, July 17, 1951), be-
gan 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 the mutual advantage of the two countries not only has
great potential value in the field of defense; it has, if possible, an even greater diplomatic value, for Spain
is the Mother Country for all of Latin America from the 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
Moslem and Christian was a century-old fact until ended by the acts of the Truman administration of be-
half 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 agency vivandieres, peddling the dirty wares of
subversion and Communism (Human Events, August 8, 1951).

With the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean, and the lofty Pyrenees Mountains as barriers; under the shel-
tering arm of distance; and above all with no visible internal Communists or Marxists to sabotage our ef-
forts, we can, if our national defense so requires, safely equip Spain‘s eighteen well-disciplined divisions,
 
 
Page 97

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 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 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 known Communists. In the general election of mem-
bers of the French National Assembly June 17, 1951, 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, Communist leaders dominate labor in crucial French industries. In France,
the Communists are still the dominant factor in the trade unions (The Last Five Years, by George Mea-
ny, 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 Spain.
 
 
 
With Spain armed, and with the Socialist government of Britain thrown out by Mr. Churchill‘s Conserva-
tive Party in the election of October 25, 1951, the spirit of Europe may revive. If not, it is too much to ex-
pect 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 some-
thing 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 irrespec-
tive 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 worldwide 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 De-
partment. Suddenly, however, in the autumn of 1951, Turkey, along with Greece, was given a status similar
to that of the nations of Western Europe (not, however, 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 public
clamor in America as shown in the newspapers, especially in letters from the people, as heard on radio
from the patriotic commentators, and as reflected in polls of public opinion. This success of the people in
changing the national policy should hearten the average citizen to newer efforts in guiding his country to
sound policies. It is most essential for every individual to remember that every great achievement is the re-
sult 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 deployed and well fortified by nature, Perhaps the United States
should make some of them into impregnable value if an island fortress is shown by Malta‘s surviving the
ordeal of Axis bombing in World War II as we; as by Hitler‘s capture of Crete, an operation so costly in
time and materiel that it was a factor 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 bas-
tion. In relationship to the Dardanelles, the Soviet oil fields, and the strategic Aleppo-Baghdad-Cairo tri-
angle, 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
 
 
Page 98

the location of underground hangers and landing fields for a great air fortress. Others of the islands listed
above offer advantage 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 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 dee-
per the Red Army moves into this priceless strategic area, the more its supply lines can be disrupted by air
strikes (Africa and Our Security, by General Bonner Fellers, The Freeman, August 13, 1951). In his valu-
able article, General Fellers states further that a small, highly trained and mobile ground force, with ade-
quate air protection and support, can defend African air bases, which in turn could prevent the crossing
of the Mediterrranean 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 un-
willing to leave his territory, entertained our rapidly declining President in the Soviet Embassy in a gran-
diose 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 Elliott 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 be-
fore a firing squad, without a proper legal trial. . . !!!”

The impasse was resolved by the U.S. President:  Clearly there must be some sort of compromise, he
said, according to his son.  Perhaps we could say that instead of summarily executing fifty thousand war
criminals, we should settle on a smaller number. Shall we could say that instead of summarily executing
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, unquestionably very
tired and probably already too ill to know the full import of his words and acts, threw away the last vestig-
es of our government‘s respect for law, and for the Western Christian tradition. In return, our President
got nothing but the flattering of the Leftists around him and the gratification of a whim of his decline
which was to make Churchill scowl and Stalin smile! What a spectacle of surrender in the very capital of
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 out flow in another direction, the results
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 disas-
 
 
Page 99

ter in the world‘s greatest oil-producing area. In Iran or in an adjacent area, the Soviet may find it neces-
sary to strike for her gasoline and lubricants before any major attempts can be surely successful elsewhere.
The well-known leftism in our 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 Un-
ion, and the early predilection of Prime Minister Attlee (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 engi-
neered 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 British prestige in the Middle East, and the drawing of
the Soviet into the resultant vacuum. The Attlee government‘s protest on Iranian oil nationalization com-
manded no respect anywhere, for the Iranians were copying the home program of the Socialist govern-
ment 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, Mr. Emanuel Shinwell (UP dispatch
from Tehran, May 25, 1951). Whether or not Mr. Churchill‘s government (October, 1951) can save the situ-
ation 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 toward zero. Nearly a million
destitute Moslem 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 dis-
placed 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 refugees sent
to wandering and starving by our policy, see Alfred M. Lillienthal‘s Storm Clouds Over the Middle East, Human Events,
August 2, 1950.
 
 
The evil we did in Palestine may be our nemesis in Iran and in 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 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 descovery 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 gov-
ernment make it? The Moslems, and those allied with them religiously and sympathetically, compose al-
most one-half of the worlds people who control almost one-half of the world‘s land area. We infuriated
them when we helped to 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 of Texas in the House of Representatives, June 12, 1951, as record-
ed in the Congressional Record). In the Washington Times-Herald (Sept. 28, 1951), Senator Malone of Ne-
vada also called attention to the sound sense and strategic advantage of having the Moslem world on our
side.he recapture of friendship with the Moslem is not only a question of acts of justice on our part but is tied
to the question of absolutely vital oil reserves. The oil of the Middle East is essential to our preventing
World War III or to our winning it. In World War II we had gasoline rationing with the oil of the Middle

 
Page 100
 
 
East on our side. What would we do in another war, far more dependent on gasoline, with the Middle East
oil 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 its National Convention in Miami (October, 1951), should be to
send a completely new slate of American diplomats to the Moslem nations from Egypt and Yemen to Iraq
and Iran. These new diplomats should be unsullied, square shooting Americans and should have instruc-
tions 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 through-
out the Middle East the least disliked and least feared great foreign power. At the close of the Second
World War the Near East was very friendly to the United States and her allies, said Ambassador Kamil
Bey Abdul Rahim of Egypt (Congressional Record, June 12, 1951) 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 the Middle East has great strategy significance. ―Israel‖ and the adja-
cent 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 assis-
tance, a strength crescent from Spain through the Mediterranean and North Africa to the Middle East,
other significant agenda include a solution to our present problem in Korea and plans for the safety of Ja-
pan, Formosa, and the Philippines. But as Senator Jenner of Indiana has pointed out, 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 whose islands, Little Diomede, belonging to Russia. Of the Soviet‘s two Far Eastern
fronts, one is the hinterland of Vladivostol 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 here
made, but it seems obvious that the defense of Alaska should receive priority over at least some of our
more far-flung global ventures.

In the conclusion of this section, a warning is in order, a warning that should be heeded in all of Ameri-
ca‘s planning at home and abroad. 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 e granted, therefore,
with two associated principles. We should cease mere political bureaucracy- building
in this country and cut to a reasonable minimum our government‘s home spending. We should insist
that foreign governments receiving our aid should also throw their own energies and resources into the
common cause.

There is no more dangerous fallacy than the general belief that America is excessively rich. Our natural re-
sources are variously estimated at being from 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. Gener-
al MacArthur, for instance, in his speech before the Massachusetts Legislature gave the following warning:
 
 
Page 101

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 in-
flationary movement which is progressively and inexorably decreasing the purchasing power of our cur-
rency, nullifying the protection of our insurance provisions, and reducing those of fixed income to hard-
ship 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 of 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 ex-
cept 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 in 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 other nations by such a program as the one
Asia, Africa, and Latin America a main plank in its platform for States delegation [to the UN] will intro-
duce a comprehensive resolution to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations‖ (despatch,
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 States?

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, Sep-
tember 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 today.

Leaders expect to formulate and send to the Foreign Ministers of Western powers the specific views of the
world Jewish community on the German question.
 
 
The above quotation shows an international effort to shape foreign policy. At the same Congress, atten-
tion was also given to exerting influence within America: Dr. Goldmen said non-Zionists
must learn to contribute to some Zionist programs with which they did ot 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 propagandize 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
 
 
Page 102

John Jay Daly in an article U.N. Seizes, Rules American Cities in the magazine, National Republic (Sep-
tember, 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, throw-
ing 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 op-
eration, even though performed by U.S. troops, is without significance, the reader should recall that 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 specialist
contingents in the UN force should be composed of newcomers to the country. Such troops might conceiv-
ably be selected in quantity under a 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, among others by Senator Pat McCarran on April
25, 1949 (see the government pamphlet, Communist Activities Among Aliens and National Groups, p.
A1), the presence of the UN within the United States has the actual, not merely hypothetical, disadvan-
tage of admitting to our borders under 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 it in a Liberty
network broadcast (November, 1951). The formulation of the North Atlantic Defense Treaty or Security Al-
liance in 1949 was a virtual admission that the UN was dead as an influence for preventing major aggres-
sion. America‘s strong-fisted forcing of unwilling nations to vote for the admission of Israel dealt the UN
a blow as effective as Russia‘s vetoes. Another problem to give Americans pause is the dangerous wording
and possibly even more dangerous interpretation of some articles in the UN Covenant. There is even a se-
rious 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 leftist-minded courts in this country. Thus in the case of Sci 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 pa-
pers, 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 in-
jured (broadcast by Ex-President Herbert Hoover, December 20, 1950) among UN troops, South Koreans
being excluded from the figures as South Korea is not a UN member. And as the months passed thereafter,
the ratio of American casualties continued proportionately high. By the middle of the summer of 1951
more of our men had been killed and wounded in Korea than in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812,
the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War, combined! It is thus seen that the United Nations or-
ganization has failed miserably in what should be its main function, namely the prevention or stopping of
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. Ban-
croft 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 civiliza-
tion or Moslem civilization!
 
 
Page 103

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 amend-
ments, 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 have the goal of destroying
many of the sovereign rights of the member nations and of 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 leader-
ship 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, including 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 potions, and bad companions of the present or-
ganization, 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 His-
sites from the old. In any case the Congress needs and the people deserve a full report on the United Na-
tions from a State Department which they can trust.

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 Russia, 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 ances-
tors who first passed from Sweden to the Baltic island 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 the Russians
when we meanthe 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 pronounce-
ments 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 Ukrainians? These latter people have
plenty of reasons for hating the rulers of Russia; for a 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). Eeci-
sions 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 Soviet-held peoples, and not by persons ad-
dicted 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
in ours.

We must finally not forget that leaders in Russia since 1917 are not patriotic Russians but are a hated coa-
lition of renegade Russians with the remnants of Russia‘s old territorial and ideological enemy, the Ju-
daized Khazars, who for centuries refused to be assimilated either with the Russian people or with West-
ern 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 Is-
cariot 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 the Soviet Russian home front, where
we probably have a bigger force in our side than all of 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
 
 
Page 104

the peoples of the so-called Iron Curtain Countries‘. In Human Events (March 28, 1951), the Reader‘s
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 the Soviet Union, reaches the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of
the Soviet peoples hate their rulers and dream of liberation from the red yoke. 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 re-
commends 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 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 of not
repelling air mosaic of American frivolities presented as an introduction to American culture, all to no
purpose, except perhaps to preempt from service to this country a great potential propaganda weapon.

The Voice appears also to have scant regard for truth, For instance, a CTPS dispatch from Tokyo on April
13 (Washington Times-Herald, April 14, 1951) reported as follows:

A distorted version of world reaction to Gen. MacArthur‘s removal is being broadcast by the Voice of
America, controllers 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 to the enslaved Russian people that the United States has
no interest in changing the government or social structure of the Soviet Union. For carefully docu-
mented 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, Califor-
nia).
 
 
Finally, it should be noted that in the summer of 1951, there was
secret testimony to 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).
 
 
The apparently worse than useless Voice of America could, under a cleaned-up State Department, be-
come 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 those leaders who for self-perpetuation in office or for other cause wanted a big foreign war.
We could then invite Russian hearers of the broadcast to give thought to a similar step in their country.
Such broadcasting, if it did not actually bring about the overthrow of the present rulers, would almost cer-
tainly give them enough concern to prevent their starting a 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 as 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 their 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, how-
ever, in 1944, and seem 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 year for America. Our President and the civil and military
coterie about him were busily tossing our victory to the Soviet Union. In November the dying Democratic
 
 
Page 105

and Communist parties. The pilgrimage of homage and surrender to Stalin at Yalta (February, 1945) was
being prepared. The darkest day was the black thirtieth of December when the Communists were paid off
by the termination of regulations which had 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. Sabbath of
Illinois moved that the rules of the expiring Seventy-Eighth Congress be the rules of the new Seventy-
Ninth Congress. Thereupon, Congressman John Elliott 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 subver-
sive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic
origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution,
and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would and Congress in any necessary re-
medial legislation.

In support of his amendment to the Rules of the house, Mr. Rankin said:

The Dies committee, or 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
at its members. I submit that during these trying times the Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties has performed a duty second to none ever performed by any committee of this House.
Today, when our boys are fighting to preserve American institutions, I submit it is no time to de-
stroy 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 amend-
ment. There was maneuvering against the proposal by Congressman Marcantonio of New York, Con-
gressman Sabath of Illinois, and other congressmen of similar views, but Mr. Rankin, a skillful parliamen-
tarian, forced a 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‘ club rooms 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 get nowhere with their hoped-for
uprising in the American South, 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 ar-
my. Despite its successes 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 Communists and fellow-travelers and their dupes?

Though the Rankin amendment gave America 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 a cleaning-out of the subversives in the ex-
ecutive departments and agencies in Washington. The degree of infestation by Communists, and those in-
different to or friendly to Communism, in our bureaucracy in Washington is staggering beyond belief. De-
tails are increasingly available to those who study the publications of the congressional committees con-
cerned with the problem. Communist Propaganda Activities in the United States, a report published ear-
ly 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
 
 
Page 106

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 effict an administrative nullification of an 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 some 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 sug-
gest treason, but there are also many workers of low and medium rank whose tenacious patriotism has in
a number if instances prevented a sell-out of our country. These people will rally to a 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 end good for America in the strategically unsound moves they
are ordered to make. Below the appointive ranks, the civilian personnel, both men and women, of such
strategic agencies as Military Intelligence are with few exceptions devoted and loyal and competent Amer-
icans. 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 Christian civili-
zation.

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 been ef-
fected.

A clean-up in 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 ramks 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 a vote-garnering, bureaucracy-building, control-
establishing program of expediency.

A clean-out of our leftist-infested 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 the 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 ourselves.

Therefore, with their country‘s survival at heart, let all true Americans, fearing no political faction 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 govern-
ment. 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
 
 
Page 107

white crosses, whether by inane blundering or for sinister concealed purposes. In that way only can we
save America.

Page 108

Acknowledgments

Since The Iron Curtain Over America developed out of many years of study, travel, and intelligence ser-
vice, followed by a more recent period of intensive research and consultation with experts, the author is
indebted in one way or another to hundreds of people.

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 Del-
court, and Mauricae Grammont. Some of these teachers required a knowledge of the history, the re-
sources, 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 Ameri-
can 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 representa-
tive 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 de-
tails, 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 gov-
ernment 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 Con-
gress, 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 pa-
tient and accurate in copying and recopying thousands of pages bristling with proper names, titles of
books and articles, quotations, and dates.

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!

The End