[CTRL] Fwd: The Iron Curtain Over America

[Colleen Jones]

This item is worth reading; many chapters I reproduce one and selected
chapters than follow which remain in this collection.

It was McArthur who said Old Soldiers Never Die, they just fade
away.......that is the only line I remember or even heard that Irecall
from this address yet my brother in law on Joint Chief of Staff was
there while he delivered this most famous but forgotten
speech.....nobody much paid any attention - at the time I was so young I
was more interested in social activities.

A bible code I have came right out of the Geneva Conference.....Pentagon
stuff.....Gideon's Spies, the 300.....words like people are assimilated
but seldom really understood....a Tower of Babel, but who pulls the
strings and this plan I simply called in 1967 in my research The Master
Plan for Murder Keyed to the Stars and he Testaments....

On Guard always, America.....our guard has been down and while we slept,
the enemy operates from within.

Colleen

Following One Chapter of Many Worth Reading......See attachment for
remainder.

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 Christian denominations. There are those who, in one
way or another, intrude their stooges into many of our high military and
executive offices. Effective in any evil purpose is the current menace
of censorship, analyzed 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 politic," an ideologically hostile "nation
within the nation," has through history proved the spearhead of
conquerors. The alien dictators of Rumania, Hungary, Poland, and other
Eastern European countries have been discussed in Chapter II. Throughout
history members of an unassimilated minority have repeatedly been used
as individual spies -- as when the Parthians used Jews in Rome as spies
while the Romans used Jews in Parthia for the same purpose. Recent
instances of espionage -- discussed above in Chapter II -- involved the
theft of atomic secrets from both Canada and the United States.
In addition to working individually for the enemies of his country, the
unassimilated alien has often worked 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 Persians with all the men they could
muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was
in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the
Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre (op. cit., p.
81).
Mr. Parkes concludes that it "would not be surprising if the accusation
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
conquerors 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:
The Jews of Africa, who at various times had emigrated thither from
Spain, and their unlucky co-religionists of the Peninsula, made common
cause with the Mahometan conqueror, Tarik, who brought over from Africa
into Andalusia an army eager for the fray. After the battle of xeres
(July, 711), and the death of Roderic, the last of the visigothic kings,
the victorious Arabs pushed onward, and were everywhere supported by the
Jews. In every city that they conquered, the Moslem generals were able
to leave but a small garrison of their own troops, as they had need of
every man for the subjection of the country; 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 treasure which they had carried
off.
Finally when Musa Ibn-Nosair. the Governor of Africa, brought a second
army into Spain and conquered other cities, he also delivered them into
the custody of the Jews.
The "miseries" which prompted the Jews of Spain to treason are explained
by Professor Graetz. King Sisebut was annoyingly determined to convert
them to Christianity, and among the "miseries" inflicted by King
Reccared "the most oppressive of all was the restraint touching the
possession of slaves. Henceforward 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 toward a degraded standard of personal
conduct, an indifference to the traditional doctrines of Christianity,
and a sympathy for Marxism or Communism. American parents must evolve
and make successful a positive -- not a negative -- counter-movement in
favor of the mores of Western civilization, or that civilization will
fall. It is well known that the Communists expend their greatest effort
at capturing the young; but in this most vital of all fields those
Americans who are presumably anti-Communistic have -- at least up to the
summer of 1952 -- made so little effort that it may well be described as
none at all.
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
fatally drawn. Despite the hostile aliens who exert power in Washington;
despite the aid and succor given them by uninformed, hired, or subverted
persons of native stock; despite the work of the "romantics, bums, and
enemy agents" (Captain Michael Fielding, speech before Public Affairs
Luncheon Club, Dallas, Texas, March 19, 1951) who have directed our
foreign policy in recent years, there is a chance for 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 Communism. 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.
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 MacArthur in his speech before the
Massachusetts Legislature on July 25, 1951: This evil force, with
neither spiritual base nor moral standard, rallies the abnormal and
sub-normal elements among our citizenry and applies internal pressure
against all things we hold decent and all things that we hold right --
the type of pressure which has caused many Christian nations abroad to
fall and their own cherished freedoms to languish in the shackles of
complete suppression.
As it has happened there it can happen here. Our need for patriotic
fervor and religious devotion was never more impelling. There can be no
compromise with atheistic communism -- no half way in the preservation
of freedom and religion. It must be all or nothing. We must unite in the
high purpose that the liberties etched upon the design of our life by
our forefathers be unimpaired and that we maintain the moral courage and
spiritual leadership to preserve inviolate that bulwark of all freedom,
our Christian faith.
We must (iii) effect a genuine clean-up of our government (Chapter VIII)
removing not only all those who can be proved to be traitors, but also
all those whose policies have for stupidity or bad judgment been
inimical to the interests of our country.
Following the removal of Acheson -- and Marshall, who resigned in
September, 1951 -- and any successor appointees tarred by the same
stick, and following the removal of the cohorts of alien-minded,
indifferent, or stupid people in 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 government. Even if general war breaks out, a successful outcome
will be more likely if the steps are taken -- as far as possible under
such circumstances as may 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
foreign 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 Transactions, 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," according to Senator Hugh Butler of
Nebraska, a member of the Finance Committee, in a speech in the Senate
on June 1, 1951 (Human Events, June 6, 1951). See also "In Washington
It's Waste As Usual" by Stanley 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 defensively, which is based not on a political
party's need of votes, but on the safety of America; (c) a study of the
United Nations Organization and a decision that the American people can
trust; and (d) a factual recognition of and exploitation of the cleavage
between the Soviet government and the Russian people. A final
sub-chapter (e) constitutes a brief conclusion 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 surveillance 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 incidentally to the 472,170 hangers-on (figures based on J.
Edgar Hoover's estimated ten collaborators for each actual member) to
destroy our transportation and communications systems and 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 engaged in strategic work, often unknown to the leaders of those
unions? (see "100 Things You Should Know About Communism and Labor," 10
cents, 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
America's internal security. Last year his agents probed into 74,799
such cases" (Victor Riesel's syndicated column, April 3, 1952).
Director Hoover of the F.B.I. is aware of the danger, In an interview
(UP dispatch, March 18, 1951) he said: "The 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 labor. It is
the Communists whose strategy dictates that they must above all capture
the trade unions before they can seize power in any country (p. 2).
If anyone, after reading the above statements by the two men in America
best situated to know, is still inclined to think our internal danger
from 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, issue of the Saturday Evening
Post. According to this source:
. . . .The communist fifth column in the American labor movement has cut
its losses and has completed 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
(University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1950, $3.75). A West
Point graduate, a General Staff Corps colonel in the Military
Intelligence Service in the 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 Modern 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 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 instance, Mr. Meany
testified (op. cit., p.3) that some of the anti-Communist success of the
American Federation 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"
Truman -- 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. Matthew, VII, 16). There have been
large and poisonous harvests from our government-intrenched Communists.
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 before General MacArthur was dismissed
from his command in Korea, and from his responsibilities in Japan. The
pressure of Communists was not the only pressure upon the President for
the dismissal of General MacArthur. Stooges, fellow travelers, and dupes
helped. The significance of the Communist pressure cannot be doubted,
however, by anyone whose perusal of the Daily Worker has shown how many
times Communist demands have foreshadowed Executive action (see "The
Kremlin War on Douglas MacArthur," by Congressman Daniel A. Reed, of New
York National Republic, January, 1952).
Here follow some indications of recent fruitful Communist activity
within our government -- indications which should be studied in full by
any who are still doubters. Late in 1948 an article by Constantine Brown
was headlined in the Washington Evening Star as follows: "Top Secret
Documents Known to Reds Often Before U.S. Officials Saw Them." "Army
Still Busy Kicking Out Reds Who Got In During the War," the Washington
Times-Herald headlined 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 Committee's Report
on Espionage in the Government" (New York Times, December 31, 1948; or,
from your Congressman).
If existing laws against Communism -- including the Internal Security
law whose passage over the President's veto was discussed in Chapter
VIII -- are inadequate, appropriate new laws should be recommended by
the Department of Justice for dealing with the Communist menace within
the 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 Justice Department will not at once provide
the text of a needed law, the judiciary committees of the two Houses are
amply able to do so, and should proceed on their own. If any
administration, present or future, flouts the anti-subversive laws
passed by 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 agencies or elsewhere in the United States. We
would by no means by the first country to take steps against Communism.
Progress in this direction in Spain and Canada is elsewhere mentioned,
Also, "the Communist Party has been outlawed in the Middle East
countries" except in "Israel" (Alfred M. Lilienthal, Human Events,
August 2, 1950).
As a conclusion to this section of the last 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 advantages
of Communism," said General Wedemeyer in his summation of his
recommendations to the MacArthur Committee of the Senate (U.S. News and
World Report, June 22, 1951). "People all over the world are told that
Communism is really the people's revolution and that anyone opposing it
is a reactionary or a Fascist or imperialist." Because of the prominence
of Jews in Communism from the Communist Manifesto (1848) to the atomic
espionage trials (1950, 1951), anti-Communist activity is also
frequently referred to erroneously as anti-Semitic (see Chapters II,
III, and V). This propaganda-spread view that Communism is "all right"
and that those who oppose it are anti-Semitic, or "reactionaries" of
some sort, may be circulated in your community by an actual member of
the Communist Party. More likely, it is voiced by a deluded teacher,
preacher, or other person who has believed the subtle but lying
propaganda that has been furnished 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 subverters." 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 Christian 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 cooperation of all
Christian denominations in our great struggle for the survival of the
Christian West. Divided 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
scholars 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 utmost
authority is furnished by General Bonner Fellers. In reviewing Admiral
Ellis M. Zacharias's book Behind Closed Doors (Putnam's New York,
$3.75), the former intelligence officer General Fellers states; "Behind
Closed Doors reveals that we have embarked upon a military program which
our leaders know to be unsound, yet they are unwilling to tell the
American people the truth!" (The Freeman, October 30, 1950).
This statement prompts a mention of the fact that a 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 admirals as field
and fleet commanders. Merit is surely a factor also for many staff
positions of star-wearing rank. Just as surely, however, the factor of
"political dependability" also enters into the selection of those
high-ranking staff officers who make policy and are allowed to express
opinions. "The conclusion is inescapable that our top military
Commanders today are muzzled. They do not dare to differ with the
civilian side of military questions for fear of being removed or
demoted" (from "Louis Johnson's Story is Startling," by David Lawrence,
The Evening Star, Washington, June 18, 1951). In view of such testimony
derived from a 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
dangerous concept that the members of our armed forces owe primary
allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority
of the executive branch of Government, rather than to the country and
its Constitution which they are sworn to defend.
If the Congress wants to learn other aspects of a strategic or logistic
situation besides the administration's viewpoint, it must summon not 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) Representative 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 logistics and manpower, and no suggestions will be made on the
tactics or strategy of a particular commanders 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 conquering,
for instance, a properly armed Spain which, because of its distance, a
properly armed Spain which, because of its distance from Soviet supply
sources and because of its water and mountain barriers, has in the age
of guided missiles superseded Britain as the fortress of 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 superior to those
accorded by Spain to the Axis countries. Adequate details of Spain's
help to America in World War II can be had in a convincing article, "Why
Not a Sensible Policy Toward Spain?" by Congressman Dewey Short of
Missouri (Reader's Digest, May, 1949). The reader interested in still
further details should consult the book, Wartime Mission in Spain (The
Macmillan Company, New York) by Professor Carlton J. H. Hayes, who
served as our Ambassador to Spain from May, 1942, to March, 1945.
To one of the many ways in which Spain helped us, the author of The Iron
Curtain Over America can bear personal testimony. When our aviators flew
over France they were instructed, if shot down, to make their way to
Spain. If Franco had been pro-Hitler, he would have returned them to the
Germans. If friendly, he would have turned them over to the United
States to give our leaders their priceless intelligence information and
to fly again. That is precisely what Franco did; and it was to the
office of this writer, then Chief of the Interview Section in the
Military Intelligence Service, that a representative number of these
fliers reported 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.
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 University (The Illustrated
London News, August 4, 1951).
The following anti-Franco organizations have been listed as Communist by
the U.S. Attorney General (see the Senate report, Communist Activities
Among Aliens and National Groups, Part III, p. a10):
Abraham Lincoln Brigade
Action Committee to Free Spain Now
Comite. Coordinator Pro Republica 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 History's bloody record of the treason of
ideologically unassimilated minorities -- has not complicated its
internal 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 prevented the UN from inviting Spain to be a
member of that organization.
Whether Spain is in or out of that ill-begotten and seemingly expiring
organization may matter very little, but Spain in any defense of the
West matters decisively. "In allying itself with Spain the United States
would exchange a militarily hopeless position on the continent of Europe
for a very strong one" (Hoffman Nickerson: "Spain, the Indispensable
Ally," The Freeman, November 19, 1951). The way for friendship with
Spain was at last opened when the Senate, despite President Truman's
bitter opposition, approved in August, 1950, a loan to that country, and
was further cleared on November 4, 1950, when the UN, though refusing to
lift the "ban against Spain's full entry into the United Nations," did
vote to allow Spanish representation on certain "specialized agencies
such as the world health and postal organizations" (AP dispatch, Dallas
Morning News, November 5, 1950). As to the loan authorized by Congress
in August, 1950, it was not until June 22, 1951, that the "White House
and State Department authorized the Export -- Import Bank to let Spain
buy wheat and other consumer goods out of the $62,500,000 Spanish loan
voted by 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 military
point of view" the Joint Chiefs would like to have Spain on our side.
Finally, the clamor of the public and the attitude of the military
prevailed and in July, 1951, the United States, to the accompaniment of
a chorus of abuse from the Socialist governments of Britain and France
(New York Times, July 17, 1951), began official conversations with Spain
on mutual defense. On August 20, 1951, a "military survey team," which
was "composed of all three armed services," left Washington for Spain
(New York Times, August 21, 1951). This move toward friendly relations
for 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 behalf of "Israel." It will be a great
achievement if our resumption of relations with Spain leads to a renewal
of friendly relations with the Moslem world. We must be sure, however,
that our military men in Spain will not be accompanied by State
Department and executive 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 sheltering arm of distance; and above
all with no visible internal Communists or Marxists to sabotage our
efforts, we can -- if our national defense so requires -- safely equip
Spain's eighteen well-disciplined divisions, can develop airfields
unapproachable by hostile ground troops, and in the deep inlets and
harbors of Spain can secure safe ports for our navy and our merchant
fleet. Our strengthening of Spain, second only to our keeping
financially solvent and curbing Communists in this country, would
undoubtedly be a very great factor in 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 members 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 Meany, American Federation of Labor, Washington, D.C., p.11). See
also the heavily documented article, "French Communism," by Andre La
Guerre in Life, January 29, 1951. With Communists so powerful and so
ready for sabotage or for actual rebellion, the France of 1952 must be
regarded as of limited value as an ally. As said above, however, the
dependability of France in the defense of the West would be enhanced by
United States aid to the military forces of anti-Communist Spain.
With Spain armed, and with the Socialist government of Britain thrown
out by Mr. Churchill's Conservative Party in the election of October 25,
1951, the spirit of Europe may revive. If not, it is too much to expect
America to save Europe forever, for "if 250 million people in Western
Europe, with industry far larger than that of Russia, cannot find a way
to get together and to build a basis for defense on land, then something
fundamental may be wrong with Western Europe," (U.S. News and World
Report, June 22, 1951, p. 10). Perhaps the "wrong" is with our policy --
at least largely. For instance, deep in our policy and irrespective of
our official utterances, "Germany is written off as an ally" to avoid
"political liability in New York" (Frank C. Hanighen in Human Events,
February 7, 1951).
Spain, with its national barriers and the strategic position of its
territory astride the Strait of Gibraltar, could become one anchor of an
oil-and-distance defense arc. By their location and by their
anti-Communist ideology, the Moslem nations of the Middle East are the
other end of this potential crescent of safety. Friendship with these
nations would, like friendship with Spain, be a very great factor in
preventing a third 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
Department. 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
result of a multitude of small efforts.
Between Spain and Turkey, the Mediterranean islands -- Majorca and
Minorca, Corsica and Sardinia, Sicily and Malta, Crete and Cyprus -- are
well 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 bastion. In relationship to the
Dardanelles, the Soviet oil fields, and the strategic
Aleppo-Baghdad-Cairo triangle, Cyprus's water-girt site is admirable,
Since its mountain ranges reach a height of more than 6,000 feet, and
are located like giant breastworks defending a broad interior plain, the
island might well become the location of underground 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 deeper 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 valuable article, General Fellers states further that a "small,
highly trained and mobile ground force, with adequate air protection and
support," can defend African air bases, which in turn could prevent the
crossing of the 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 unwilling to leave his territory,
entertained our rapidly declining President in the Soviet Embassy in a
grandiose gesture insulting alike to the Iranians and to our staff in
that country. Stalin's alleged reason that his embassy was the only safe
spot was in truth an astute face-raising gesture before the peoples of
Asia, for he displayed Roosevelt, the symbolic Man of the West, held in
virtual protective custody or house arrest by the Man of the East.
Details of the dinner in the Soviet Embassy to which Stalin invited
"Father and the P.M." are given by General 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 before 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 vestiges
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 disaster in the world's greatest
oil-producing area. In Iran or in an adjacent area, the Soviet may find
it necessary to strike for her gasoline and lubricants before any major
attempts can be 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 Union
-- 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 engineered
by the very American and British government officials who then shed
crocodile tears at the oil's probable loss to the West!
A major world fact in the early 1950's was the fall of 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
commanded no respect anywhere, for the Iranians were copying the home
program of the Socialist government of Britain! Britain's humiliation in
Iran was made graver by the long threatened but never carried out
dispatch of some 4,500 paratroopers to the oil fields -- a gesture which
was said to have stemmed from the Socialist Defense Minister at that
time, the Jewish statesman, Mr. Emanuel Shinwell (UP dispatch from
Tehran, May 25, 1951). Whether or not Mr. Churchill's government
(October, 1951) can save the situation is for the future to show. There
was no comfort for non-Communists in his speech before the two houses of
the U.S. Congress on January 17, 1952 -- a speech which called not for
peace with justice to the Moslems of the Middle East but for U.S.
troops!
The moral power of America as a mediator, like that of Britain, has
moved 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 displaced persons' camps, and are
not silent about the presence of American officers (Chapter VI, above)
commanding the troops which drove them from their homes. For details on
these hopeless 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 government
make it? "The Moslems, and those allied with them religiously and
sympathetically, compose almost 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 recorded in the
Congressional Record). In the Washington Times-Herald (Sept. 28, 1951),
Senator Malone of Nevada also called attention to the sound sense and
strategic advantage of having the Moslem world on our side.
The 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 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 instructions to
announce a changed policy which is long overdue. The present State
Department, stained with past errors, could not succeed even if it
should wish to succeed.
A changed policy implemented by new officials would almost certainly be
received by the Moslem world with cordiality and gratitude, for until
the Israel grab was furthered in this country America was throughout the
Middle East the least disliked and least feared 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 adjacent Moslem lands are a
vestibule which leads to Europe, to Asia, and to Africa.
In addition to building, primarily by honorable conduct and secondarily
by thoughtfully planned assistance, a strength crescent from Spain
through the Mediterranean and North Africa to the Middle East, other
significant agenda include a solution to our present problem in Korea
and plans for the safety of Japan, 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 America's planning at home and abroad.
In any efforts at helping the would. 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 be 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 resources 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. General MacArthur, for instance, in his
speech before the Massachusetts Legislature gave the following warning:
The free world's one great hope for survival now rests upon the
maintaining and preserving of our own strength. Continue to dissipate it
and that one hope is dead. If the American people would pass on the
standard of life and the heritage of opportunity they themselves have
enjoyed to their children and their children's children they should ask
their representatives in government:
"What is the plan for the easing of the tax burden upon us? What is the
plan for bringing to a halt this inflationary movement which is
progressively and inexorably decreasing the purchasing power of our
currency, nullifying the protection of our insurance provisions, and
reducing those of fixed income to hardship and despair?"
(c)
An early duty of a completely reconstituted Department of State will be
to advise the Congress and the American people on the United Nations.
Launched in 1945 when our government's mania for giving everything to
the Soviet was at its peak, the United Nations got off to an unfortunate
start. Our most influential representative at San Francisco, "The
Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference 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 except
the chairman of one twenty-one-member U.S. contingent to the permanent
UN staff were known Communists or fellow travelers. These people and
others of the same sort are for the most part still 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 introduce 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, September 10,
1951). The special dispatch to the New York Times continues as follows:
"We are strongly and firmly opposed to the early emancipation of Germany
from Allied control and to German rearmament," Dr. Maurice Perlzweig of
New York, who represents Western Hemisphere Jewish communities, said
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," attention 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 not agree.
"Non-Zionists should not be unhappy if some money is used for Halutziuth
[pioneering] training in the United States," he told a press conference.
Zionists would be unable to accept any demand that no such training be
undertaken, he added.
How would outside power force its will upon the United States? The
day-by-day method is to exert economic pressure and to 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 John Jay Daly in an article "U.N. Seizes,
Rules American Cities" in the magazine, National Republic (September,
1951). As described by Mr. Daly, troops flying the United Nations flag
-- a blue rectangle similar to the blue rectangle of the State of
"Israel" -- took over Culver City, Huntington Park, Inglewood,
Hawthorne, and Compton, California. The military "specialists" took over
the government in a surprise move, "throwing the mayor of the city in
jail and locking up the chief of police . . . and the chief of the fire
department . . . . The citizens, by a proclamation posted on the front
of City Hall, were warned that the area had been taken over by the armed
forces of the United Nations." If inclined to the view that this United
Nations operation -- even though performed by U.S. troops -- is without
significance, the reader should recall 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 conceivably
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 -- disadvantage 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
Alliance in 1949 was a virtual admission that the UN was dead as an
influence for preventing major aggression. 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 serious question of a complete destruction of our sovereignty
over our own land, not only by interpretations of UN articles by UN
officials (see The United Nations -- Action for Peace, by Marie and
Louis Zocca, p. 56), but by judicial decisions of 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 papers,
March 9, 1951). Lastly, and of great importance, is the consistent UN
tendency to let the United States, with one vote in 60, bear not merely
the principal burden of the organization but almost all of the burden.
Thus in the UN-sponsored operation in Korea, America furnished " Over
90% of the dead and injured" (broadcast by Ex-President Herbert Hoover,
December 20, 1950) among UN troops, South Koreans being 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 organization 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.
Bancroft measure success? Details cannot be given here, but surely the
aggregate of the results in the three areas cited cannot be regarded as
successful by anyone sympathetic with either Western Christian
civilization or Moslem civilization!
Patriotic Americans should be warned, finally, against spurious attempts
to draw parallels between the United States Constitution and United
Nations regulations. The Constitution, with its first ten amendments,
was designed specifically to curb the power of the Federal government
and to safeguard the rights of states and individuals. On the other
hand, the United Nations appears to 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 leadership in the Department of State. The
Augean stables of the UN are so foul that the removal of the filth from
the present organization might be too difficult. Perhaps the best move
would be to adjourn sine die. Then, like-minded nations on our side,
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 organization,
the new international body might achieve work of great value on behalf
of world peace. In the U.S. delegation to the new organization, we
should include Americans only -- and no Achesonians or Hissites from the
old. In any case the Congress needs and the people deserve a full report
on the United Nations from a State Department which they can trust.
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 ancestors 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 mean
the Bolshevik hierarchy, or speak contemptuously of 'Asiatic hordes,' or
identify world communism as a 'Slav menace,' we are providing grist for
the Kremlin mills. Our press and pronouncements are fine-combed in
Moscow for quotations" (from "Acheson's Gift to Stalin," The Freeman,
August 27, 1951). Should we or should we not send special messages to
the Esthonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians to whose independence
President franklin Roosevelt -- in one of his moods -- committed
himself? Should we or should we not direct special appeals to White
Russians and to 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). Eecisions 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 addicted to the ideology of Communism and concerned for minority
votes!
We must never forget, moreover, that the Russian people are at heart
Christian. They were converted even as they emerged onto the stage of
civilized modern statehood, and Christianity is in their tradition -- as
it is in ours.
We must finally not forget that leaders in Russia since 1917 are not
patriotic Russians but are a hated coalition of renegade Russians with
the remnants of Russia's old territorial and ideological enemy, the
Judaized Khazars, who for centuries refused to be assimilated either
with the Russian people or with Western Christian civilization.
In view of the facts of history, from which this book has torn the
curtain of censorship, it is reasonable to assume that the true Russian
people are restive and bitter under the yoke and the goading of alien
and Iscariot rule. To this almost axiomatic assumption, there is much
testimony. In his book The Choice, Boris Shubb states that in Russia
"There is no true loyalty to Stalin-Beria-Malenkov in any significant
segment of the party, the state, the army, the police, or the people."
In The Freeman (November 13, 1950) Rodney Gilbert says in an article
"Plan for Counter-Action": "Finally, there is 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 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 recommends 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
documented details, see the feature article, "Voice of America Makes
Anti-Red Russians Distrust U.S.; Serves Soviet Interests" in the
Williams Intelligence Summary for June, 1951 (P.O. Box 868, Santa Ana,
California, 25 cents per copy, $3.00 per year). 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, become quickly useful and powerful. We
could use it to tell the Russian people that we know they were for
centuries in the fold of Christian civilization and that we look forward
to welcoming them back. We could say to the Russian people that we have
nothing against them and have under our laws removed from our government
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 certainly 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,
however, 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 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 Rn-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee,
is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the
extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in
the United States, (2) the diffusion within the United States of
subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign
countries or of 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
remedial 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
Activities 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 destroy the records of that committee, it is no
time to relax our vigilance. We should carry on in the regular way and
keep this committee intact, and above all things, save those records.
Congressman Karl Mundt, Republican, of South Dakota, rose to voice his
approval of the Rankin amendment. There was maneuvering against the
proposal by Congressman Marcantonio of New York, Congressman Sabath of
Illinois, and other congressmen of similar views, but Mr. Rankin, a
skillful parliamentarian, forced 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 army. 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 executive departments and
agencies in Washington. The degree of infestation by Communists, and
those indifferent to or friendly to Communism, in our bureaucracy in
Washington is staggering beyond belief. Details are increasingly
available to those who study the publications of the congressional
committees concerned with the problem. "Communist Propaganda Activities
in the United States," a report published early in 1952 by the Committee
on the Judiciary, United States Senate, deals principally with Communist
propaganda carried on with the help of the Department of State and the
Department of Justice of the United States! The report (pp. v-ix)
climaxes a stinging rebuke of the State Department's pro-Communist
maneuvers with this statement:
The policy of the Department of State is in 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 suggest
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 Americans. With our top state
and defense leadership changed, our policy shaped by patriots, our
working level Department of Defense staff will be able to furnish a
strategically sound program for the defense of this country, which must
stand not only for us and our children but as the fortress of Western
Christian civilization.
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 effected.
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 government. In that way only can a start be made toward throwing
back the present tightly drawn iron curtain of censorship. In that way
only can we avoid the continuing interment of our native boys beneath
far off white crosses, whether by inane blundering or for sinister
concealed purposes. In that way only can we save America.
- Return to table of contents - Return to articles page - Return to main
page

---

http://www.usaor.com/users/ipm/contents.html

---