The Khazarian Mafia and the Building of Ukraine: We Were Warned 70 Years Ago

April 16, 2022

VT: This is a massive read but more vital today as we face world war 3 at the hands of the Khazarian Mafia and their shills Biden and Johnson than at any time in our history.

These idiots sunk a Russian nuclear armed strategic command ship in international waters with over 500 onboard as part of their “end times” strategy.

It took them years but they turned over half of the Christian world into Moloch worshipping evangelists who embrace child sacrifice like it’s Sunday dinner.

It’s all about population reduction….taking the world down to the 800 million needed to provide slave labor for the overlords who have hidden for over 2300 years.

Ukraine is all about the occult. Netflix has give us a look at the Slavonic history of the occult Khazarians, the root of non-Semtic Jews but other obscure Slavic people’s as well and their old gods, the worshippers of Moloch and his incarnations that embraced a following north of the Black Sea (when it formed)…

This is what the world’s intellectuals, academics, and leaders all knew 70 years ago. How many know it today?

“The Khazar Jew‘s frequent equating of anti-Communism with so-called anti-semitism is unfortunate in many ways. In the first place, it is most unfair to loyal American Jews. Charges of anti-Semitism are absurd; moreover, because the Khazar Jew is himself not a Semite (Chapter II, above).

The blood of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob flows not at all (or to a sporadic degree, as from immigrant merchants, fugitives, etc.) in the veins of the Jews who have come to America from Eastern Europe. On the contrary, the blood of Old Testament people does flow in the veins of Palestine Arabs and others who live along the shores of the eastern Mediterranean.

Palestinians, true descendants of Old Testament people, are refugees today from the barbarity of non-Semitic Khazars, who are the rapers, not the inheritors, of the Holy Land!

Charges of anti-Semitism are usually made by persons of Khazar stock, but sometimes they are parroted by shallow people or people who bend to pressure in Protestant churches, in educational institutions, and elsewhere. Seeking the bubble reputation in the form of publicity, or lured by thirty pieces of silver, many big-time preachers have shifted the focus of their thinking from the everlasting life of St. John III, 16, to the no-man spake openly of him of St. John VII, 13.

In their effort to avoid giving offense to non-Christians, or for other reasons, many preachers have also placed their own brand of social-mindedness over individual character, their own conception of human welfare over human excellence, and, in summary, pale sociology over Almighty God (quotes from This morning by John Temple Graves, Charleston S.C., News and Courier, February 10, 1951).

Introduction by Gordon Duff

The text below is, at times, semi-literate and extreme. However, as you move into the 20th century, it becomes lucid and compelling. Much is focused on “the Jews” and, on the whole, there is some balance here, though some language may offend. For that, I apologize.

However, several dozen concepts presented here, along with historical narratives that are, for the most part, supported with adequate sourcing, provide a look at World War I and World War II that now fits what we have long begun to accept, that both wars were needless. On the author:

“Dr. Beaty taught English at Southern Methodist University from 1919 to 1957. He earned his Ph.D. from Columbia University with post-graduate study at the University of Montpellier, France. A worldly man, Beaty served five years in military intelligence during WWII, rounding out his insider’s knowledge. His fingers were on the pulse of what ailed us then as now.”

Read with care, as always.
Gordon Duff

Review from Amazon.com:

This book is unique in that it not only discusses the internal decay and the external disasters which threaten the life of American people (in fact, of ALL the people), but diagnoses the growing cancer of which they are merely the symptoms.

Going behind the iron curtain of propaganda, censorship, and deception, the author, former Colonel of the Military Intelligence Service, gives to the reader the first comprehensive documented account of the origin, the scope, and the intentions of the “insidious forces working from within,” which are seeking to destroy Western civilization.

“An honest and courageous dispeller of the fog of propaganda in which most minds seem to dwell.” – Lt. General P. A. Del Valle, USMC (ret.) “I think it ought to be compulsory reading in every public school in America.” – Senator William A. Langer, former Chairman, Judiciary Committee

“This book is a magnificent contribution to those who would preserve our American ideals.” – Lt. Gen. Edward M. Almond, USA (ret.)

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.

To the Reader

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

Lt. Gen. Edward M. Almond, USA. (ret.), says: It is an inspiration to me to find an author with the courage and energy to research and to secure the publication of such information as you have assembled in order that the poorly informed average American may know wherein the real threats to our Country lurk.

Your book is a magnificent contribution to those who would preserve our American ideals. I think it ought to be compulsory reading in every public school in America. Senator William A. Langer, former Chairman, Judiciary Committee.

Vice Admiral T. G. W. Settle, U.S.N. (ret.), says: The Iron Curtain Over America is a most pertinent and excellently presented treatise on 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 dispeller 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 the Dawn, published originally in New York, had London and Australian editions and was adopted for state-wide use in the public schools of Texas. His education (M.A., University of Virginia; Ph.D., Columbia University; post-graduate study, University of Montpellier, France ), his travel in Europe and Asia, and his five years with the Military Intelligence Service in World War II rounded out the background for the reading and research (1946-1951) which resulted in The Iron Curtain Over America.

To The Reader…

Many authors of books on the current world scene have been White House confidants, commanders of armies, and others whose authority is indicated by their official or military titles. Such authors need no introduction to the public, A Prospective reader is entitled, however, to know something of the background and experience of an unknown or little-known writer who is offering a comprehensive volume on a great and important subject.

In the spring of 1926, the author was selected by the Albert Kahn Foundation to investigate and report on world affairs. Introduced by preliminary correspondence and provided with numerous letters of introduction to persons prominent in government, politics, and education, he gained something more than a tourist‘s reaction to the culture and institutions, the movements, and the pressures in the twenty-nine countries which he visited. In several countries, including great powers, he found conditions and attitudes significantly different from the conception of them which prevailed in the United States.

Though previously successful in deposing of his writings, he was unable, however, to get his observations on the world situation published, except as the Annual Report of the Foundation and in his friendly home special foreign correspondent, and in the Southwest Review, in whose files his ―Race and Population, Their Relation to World Peace can still be seen as a virtual prognosis of the oncoming war.

After his return to America in the autumn of 1927, the author kept abreast of world attitudes by correspondence with many of the friends he had made in his travels and by rereading French, German, and Italian news periodicals, as well as certain English 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 censorship blacked out efforts at imparting information.

For instance, though the author‘s textbooks continued to sell well and though his novel Swords in the Dawn (1937) was favorably received, his book Image of Life (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1940 ), which attempted to show Americans the grave worldwide 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, as alert, and in 1941 was called to active duty in the Military Intelligence Service of the War Department General Staff. His first assignment was to write, or help write, short pamphlets on military subjects, studies of several campaigns including those in Western Europe and Norway, and three bulletins on the frustration of an enemy‘s attempts at sabotage 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, including the White House, the world picture as it existed four hours earlier. While Chief of the Historical Section, the author wrote three widely circulated studies of certain phases of the German – Russian campaign.

In 1943 – during which year he was also detailed to the General Staff Corps and promoted to lieutenant colonel the author was made Chief of the Interview Section. In the next three years, he interviewed more than two thousand persons, most of whom were returning from some high mission, some delicate assignment, or some deed of valor – often in a little-known region of the world.

Those interviewed included military personnel in rank from private first class to four stars, diplomatic officials from vice-consuls to ambassadors and special representatives of the President, senators and congressmen returning from overseas investigations, missionaries, explorers, businessmen, refugees, and journalists – among the latter, Raymond Clapper and Ernie Pyle, who were interviewed between their next to the last and their last and fatal voyages.

These significant people were presented sometimes individually but usually to assembled groups of officers and other experts from the various branches of G-2, from other General Staff divisions, from each of the technical services, and from other components interested in vital information which could be had by interview perhaps six weeks before being received in channeled reports. In some cases, the author increased his knowledge of a given area or topic by consulting documents suggested during an interview.

Thus, from those he interviewed, from those specialists for whom he arranged the interviews, and from a study in which he had expert guidance, he had a unique opportunity for learning the history, resources, ideologies, capabilities, and intentions of the great foreign powers. In its most essential aspects, the picture was terrifyingly different from the picture presented by our government to the American people!

After the active phase of the war was over, the author was offered three separate opportunities of further service with the army – all of them interesting, all of them flattering. He wished, however, to return to his home and his university and to prepare himself for trying again to give the American people the world story as he had come to know it; consequently, after being advanced to the rank of colonel, he reverted to inactive status, upon his 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 himself was not merely to uncover the facts but to present them with such a body of documented proof that their validity could not be questioned.

Sustaining quotations for significant truths have thus been taken from standard works of reference; from accepted historical writings; from government documents; 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 apologies, but an objective presentation of things as they are. It differs from many other pro-American books principally in that it not only exhibits the external and internal dangers which threaten the survival of our country but shows how they developed and why they continue to plague us.

The roads we travel so briskly lead out of dim antiquity said General James G. Harbord, and we must study the past because of its bearing on the living present and because it is our only guide for the future.

The author has thus turned on the light in certain darkened or dimmed out year tremendously significant phases of the history of medieval and modern Europe. Since much compression was obligatory, and since many of the facts will to most readers be wholly new and disturbing, Chapters I and II may be described as hard reading. Even a rapid perusal of them, however, will prepare the reader for understanding better the problems of our country as they are revealed in succeeding chapters.

In The Iron Curtain Over America, authorities are cited not in a bibliography or in notes but along with the text to which they are pertinent. The documentary matter is enclosed by parentheses, and many readers will pass over it. It is there, however, for those who wish its assurance of validity, for those who wish to locate and examine the context of quoted material, and especially for those who wish to use this book as a springboard for further study.

In assembling and documenting his material, the author followed Shakespearean injunction, nothing extenuating, 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.

ATTENTION READERS

We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy

Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.

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 has crowned Emperor of the West in Rome in 800 – gave the post-Roman European world a generation of unity, and exerted influence even as far as Jerusalem, where he secured the protection of Christian pilgrims to the shrines associated with the birth, the ministry, and the crucifixion of Christ. Unfortunately, Charlemagne‘s empire was divided shortly after his death into three parts (Treaty of Verdun, 843). From two of these France and Germany derived historic boundaries – and a millennium of wars fought largely to change them!

After Charlemagne‘s time, the first significant power efforts with a continent-wide common purpose were the Crusades (1096-1291). In medieval Europe, the Church of Rome, the only existing international organization, had some of the characteristics of a league of nations, and it sponsored these mass movements of Western Europeans toward the East. In fact, it was Pope Urban II, whose great speech at Clermont, France, on November 26, 1095, initiated the surge of feeling which inspired the people of France, and of Europe in general, for the amazing adventure. The late medieval setting of the epochal speech is re-created with brilliant detail by Harold Lamb in his book, The Crusades: Iron Men and Saints (Doubleday, Doran & Co., inc., Garden City, New York, 1930, Chapters VI and VII).

The Pope crossed the Alps from schism-torn Italy and, Frenchman himself, stirred the people of France as he rode among them. In the chapel at Clermont, he first swayed the men of the church who had answered his summons to the meeting; then, surrounded by cardinals and mail-clad knights on a golden-canopied platform in a field by the church, he addressed the multitude:

You are girded knights, but you are arrogant with pride. You turn upon your brothers with fury, cutting down on the other. Is this the service of Christ? Come forward to the defense of Christ. The great Pope gave his eager audience some pertinent and inspiring texts from the recorded words of Jesus 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 Christ laid down His life for you. If any should lose their lives, even on the way thither, by sea or land, or in where Christ laid down His life for you. If any should lose their lives, even on the way thither, by sea or land, or in strife with the pagans, their sins will be requited them. I grant this to all who go, by the power vested in me by God (Harold Lamb, op.cit., P.42).

Through the long winter, men scanned their supplies, hammered out weapons and armor, and dreamed dreams of their holy mission. In the summer that followed, they “started out on what they called the voyage of God” ( Harold Lamb, op. cit., p. VII)

As they faced the 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 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. Probable ecclesiastical objectives were the containment of Mohammedan power and the protection of pilgrims to the Holy Land (encyc. Brit., Vol. VI, p.722)

Inspired by the promise of an eternal home in heaven, alike for those who might perish on the way and those who might reach the Holy Sepulcher, the Crusaders could not fail. Some of them survived the multiple perils of the journey and reached Palestine, where they captured the Holy City and founded the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099).

In this land, which they popularly called Outremer or Beyond The Sea, they established the means of livelihood, built churches, and saw children and grandchildren born. The Latin Kingdom‘s weaknesses, vicissitudes, and final destruction by the warriors of Islam, who had been driven back but not destroyed, constitute a vivid chapter of history – alien, however, to the subject matter of The Iron Curtain Over America.

Many of the Crusaders became members of three military religious orders. Unlike the Latin Kingdom, these orders have survived, in one form or another, the epoch of the great adventure, and are of significant interest in the middle of the twentieth century. The Knights Hospitalers – or by their longer title, the Knights of the Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem were ―instituted upon an older charitable foundation by Pope Paschal II in 1113 (Encyc. Brit. Vol. XIX, pp. 836-838).

The fraternity of the Knights Templars (Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon) was founded not as a Hospital but directly as a military order about 1119 and was installed by Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem, in a building known as the ―Temple of Solomon – hence the name Templars (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XXI, pp. 920-924). Both Hospitalers and Templars are fairly well known to those who have read such historical novels as The Talisman by Sir 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 dissolution (1306-1312) was an international military brotherhood. The Hospitalers move to the island of Rhodes, where their headquarters buildings – visited and studied by the author still stand in superb preservation facing the waters of the Inland Sea. From Rhodes, the Knights of the Hospital moved to Malta hence their later name, Knights of Malta – and held sovereignty on that famous island until 1798.

The two principal Mediterranean orders and their history, including the assumption of some of their defense functions by Venice and then by Britain, do not further concern us. It is interesting to note, however, as we take leave of the Templars and the Hospitalers, that the three Chivalric Orders of Crusaders are in some cases the direct ancestors and in other cases have afforded the inspiration, including the terminology of knighthood, for many of the important present-day social, fraternal, and philanthropic orders of Europe and America. Among these are the Knights Templar, which is claimed to be a lineal descendant of the Crusade order of similar name; the Knights of Pythias, founded in 1864; and the Knights of Columbus, founded in 1882 (quotation and dates from Webster‘s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, 1934, p. 1370).

The third body of medieval military-religious Crusaders was the Knighthood of the Teutonic Order. This organization was founded as a hospital in the winter of 1190-91 – according to tradition, on a small ship that 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 Koenigsberg 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 Najat River, an eastern outlet of the Vistula (The Rise of Brandenburg-Prussia to 1786, by Sidney Bradshaw Fay, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1937).

It was to the Teutonic Order that the Knight of Chaucer, 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 assembled in Puce (Prussia) to hold the pagan East at bay.

In his military-religious capacity, Chaucer‘s Knight fought for our faith in fifteen battles, including those in Lithuania and in Russia (Prologue, II., 54-63).

The Teutonic Knights soon drove eastward, or converted to Christianity, the sparsely settled native Prussian people, and assumed sovereignty over East Prussia. They encouraged the immigration of German families of farmers and artisans, and their domain on the south shore of the Baltic became a self-contained German state, outside the Holy Roman Empire.

The boundaries varied, at one time reaching the Gulf of Finland ( see Historical Atlas, by William R. Shepherd, Henry Holt, and Company, New York, 1911, maps 77, 79, 87, 99, 119). The hundred years from 1309 to 1409 were the Golden Age of the Teutonic Knights, Young nobles from all over Europe found no greater honor than to come out and fight under their banner and be Knighted by their Grand Master (Fay, op. cit., pp. 32-33).

As the years passed, the function of the Teutonic Knights as defenders, or potential defenders, of the Christian West remained unchanged.

Those who founded the Teutonic Order on the hospital ship in Palestine spoke German and from the beginning, most of the members were from the various small states into which in medieval times the German people were divided. As the Crusading spirit waned in Europe, fewer Knights were drawn from far-off lands and a correspondingly larger number were recruited from nearby German kingdoms, duchies, and other autonomies.

Meanwhile, to Brandenburg, a neighbor state to the west of the Teutonic Order domain, Emperor Sigismund was sent as ruler Frederick of Hohenzollern and five years later made him a 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 discontent deep in men‘s hearts, and existing powers, ecclesiastical as well as lay, abused their trust. The quoted phrases are from an essay, Luther and the Modern Mind (The Catholic World, October 1946) by Dr. Thomas P. Neill, who continues:

This was the stage on which Luther appeared when he nailed his ninety-five theses to the church door at Wittenberg on Halloween of 1517. The Catholic Church had come on sorry days, and had there been no Luther there would likely have been a successful revolt anyway. But there was a Luther.

The posting of the famous ninety-five theses by Martin Luther foreshadowed his break, complete and final by the spring of 1522, with the Church of Rome. Since the church in Germany was temporarily at a low ebb, as shown by Dr. Neill, Luther‘s controversy with its authorities won him ―the sympathy and support of a large proportion of his countrymen‖ (Encyc. Brit., Vol. XIV, p. 944).

The outcome was a new form of Christianity, known later as Protestantism, which made quick headway among North Germans and East Germans. Its adherents included many Teutonic Knights, and their German chief was interested. Still nominally a follower of the Church of Rome, Albert visited Luther at Wittenberg in 1523. ―Luther advised: Give up your vow as a monk; take a wife; abolish the order, and make yourself hereditary Duke of Prussia. (Fay, op. cit., p. 38). The advice was taken.

Thus since a large proportion of its members and its chief had embraced Protestantism, the Knighthood severed its slender tie with the Church of Rome. In the words of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. I, p. 522), ―Albert of Hohenzollern, the last Grand Master of the Teutonic Order became ―the first Duke of Prussia.

In this manner, the honorable and historic heritage of extending Christianity in the lands south of the Baltic passed from a military-religious order to a German duchy. Prussia and not the Teutonic Order now governed the strategically vital shoreland of the southeast Baltic, between the Niemen and Vital shoreland of the southeast Baltic, between the Niemen and Vistula rivers.

Proud of their origin as a charitable organization and proud of being a bulwark of Christianity, first Catholic and then Protestant, the people of Prussia, many of them descended from the lay knights, developed a strong sense of duty and loyalty. From them came also many of the generals and statesmen who helped to make Prussia great. . . (Fay, op.cit., p. 2)

This duchy of Prussia was united with Brandenburg in 1618 by the marriage of Anna, daughter, and heiress of the second Duke of Prussia, to the elector, John Sigismund (Hohenzollern). Under the latter‘s grandson, Frederick William, the Great Elector (reign, 1640-1688), Brandenburg-Prussia became second only to Austria among the member states of the Holy Roman Empire some of its territory, acquired from the Teutonic Order, extending even beyond the loose confederation and it was regarded as the head of German Protestantism (Encyc. Brit., Vol. IV, p. 33 and passim).

By an edict of the Holy Roman Emperor, the state of Brandenburg-Prussia became the kingdom of Prussia in 1701; the royal capital was Berlin, which was in the heart of the old province of Brandenburg. Under Frederick the Great (reign, 1740-1768), Prussia became one of the most highly developed nations of Europe. A century later, it was the principal component of the German Empire which the Minister-President of Prussia, Otto von Bismarck, caused to be proclaimed in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles (January 18, 1871).

Prussia‘s historic function, inherited from the Teutonic Order of standing as a bastion on the Baltic approach to Europe, was never fully forgotten by the west. The Hohenzollern monarchy was the strongest Protestant power on the continent and its relations with the governments of both England and America were intimate and friendly.

The royal family of England several times married into the Prussian dynasty. Frederick William II of Brandenburg-Prussia, later to be Frederick, the first king of Prussia (see preceding paragraph) helped William of England of Orange, the archenemy of Louis XIV of France, to land in England, where he became (1688) co-sovereign with his wife, Mary Stuart, and a friend and helper of the American colonies.

It was a Prussian Baron, Frederick William von Steuben, whom General George Washington made Inspector General (May 1778), responsible for 1815 Prussian troops under Field Marshal von Bluecher helped save Wellington‘s England from Napoleon. In 1902 Prince Henry of Prussia, brother of the German Emperor, paid a state visit to the United States and received at West Point, Annapolis, Washington, and elsewhere, as royal a welcome as was ever accorded to a foreign visitor by the government of the United States.

The statue of Frederick the Great, presented in appreciation, stood in front of the main building of the Army War College in Washington during two wars between the countrymen of Frederick of Hohenzollern and the countrymen George Washington, evidence in bronze of the old Western view that fundamental relationships between peoples should survive the temporary disturbances occasioned by wars.

The friendly relationships between the United States and Germany existed not only on the governmental level but were cemented by close racial kinship. Not only is the basic bloodstream 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, medicine, and scholarship. The terms Prussia and Prussian, Germany and German had a most favorable connotation.

Then came World War I (1914), in which Britain and France and their allies were opposed to Germany and her allies. Since the citizens of the United States admired all three nations they were stunned at the calamity of such a conflict and were slow in taking sides. Finally (1917), and to some extent because of the pressure of American zionists (Chapter III, below), we joined the Entente group. which included Britain and France.

The burden of a great war was accepted by the people, even with some enthusiasm on the Atlantic seaboard, for according to our propagandists, it was a war to end all wars. It was pointed out, too, that Britain among the world‘s great nations was closest to us in language and culture, and that France had been traditionally a friend since the Marquis of Lafayette and the Count of Rochambeau aided General Washington.

With courage fanned by the newly perfected science of propaganda, the American people threw themselves, heart and soul, into defeating Germany in the great ―war to end all wars. The blood-spilling the greatest in all history and between men of the 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.

ATTENTION READERS

To his radio audience Dr, Malik of Lebanon spoke, in part, as follows:

MR. MALIK: The United States has had a great history of very friendly relations with the Arab peoples for about one hundred years now. That history has been built up by faithful missionaries, educators, explorers, and archaeologist and businessmen for all these decades. Up to the moment when the Palestine problem began to be an acute issue, the Arab peoples had a genuine and deep sense of love and admiration for the United States. Then, when the problem of Palestine arose, with all that problem involved, by way of what we would regard as one-sided partiality on the part of the United States with respect to Israel, the Arabs began to feel that the United States was not as wonderful or as admirable as they had thought it was. The result has been that at the present moment there is a real slump in the affection and admiration that the Arabs have had towards the United States. This slump has affected all the relations between the United States and the Arab world, with diplomatic and non-diplomatic. And at the present moment I can say, much to my regret, but it is a fact that throughout the Arab world, perhaps at no time in history has the reputation of the United States suffered as much as it has at the present time. The Arabs, on the whole, do not have sufficient confidence that the United States, in moments of crises, will not make decisions that will be prejudicial to their interests. Not until the United States can prove in actual historical decision that it can withstand certain inordinate pressures that are exercised on it from time to time and can really stand up for what one might call elementary justice in certain matters, would the Arab people really feel that they can go back to their former attitude of genuine respect and admiration for the United States.

Thus the mess of pottage of vote-garnering in New York and other doubtful states with large numbers of Khazar Zionists has cost us the loyalty of twelve nations, our former friends, the so-called Arab and Asiatic block in the UN!

It appears also that the world‘s troubles from little blood-born Israel are not over. An official Israeli view of Germany was expressed in Dallas, Texas, on March 18, 1951, when Abba S. Eban was talking in Dallas about Israel to the United States and Israel‘s representative at the United Nations, stated that Israel resents the rehabilitation of Germany. Ambassador Eban visited the Texas city in the interest of raising funds for taking 200,000 immigrants this year, 600,000 within the next three years (Dallas Morning News, March 13, 1951) to the small state of Palestine, or Israel. The same day that Ambassador Eban was talking in Dallas about Israel‘s resentment at the rehabilitation of Germany, a Reuters dispatch of March 13, 1951 from Tel Aviv (Washington Times-Herald) stated that notes delivered yesterday [March 12] in Washington, London, and Paris and to the Soviet Minister at Tel Aviv urge the occupying powers of Germany not to hand over full powers to any German government without express reservations for the payment of reparations to Israel in the sum of $1,500,000,000.

This compensation was said to be for 6,000,000 Jews killed by Hitler. This figure has been used repeatedly (as late as January, 1952 Israeli broadcast heard by the author), but one who consults statistics and ponders the known facts of recent history cannot do other than wonder how it is arrived at. According to Appendix VII, Statistics on Religious Affiliation, of The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States (A Report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, 1950), the number of Jews in the world is 15,713,638.

The World Almanac, 1949, p. 289, is cited as the source of the statistical table reproduced on p. 842 of the government document. The article in the World Almanac is headed Religious Population of the World. A corresponding item, with the title, Population, Worldwide, by Religious Beliefs is found in the World Almanac for 1940 (p. 129), and in it the world Jewish population is given as 15,319,359. If the World Almanac figures are correct, the world‘s Jewish population did not decrease in the war decade, but showed a small increase.

Assuming, however, that the figures of the U.S. document and the World Almanac are in error, let us make an examination of the known facts. In the first place, the number of Jews in Germany in 1939 was about 600,000, by some estimates considerably fewer, and of these, as shown elsewhere in this book, many came to the United States, some went to Palestine, and some are still in Germany.

As to the Jews in Eastern European lands temporarily overrun by Hitler‘s troops, the great majority retreated ahead of the German armies into Soviet Russia. Of these, many came later to the U.S., some moved to Palestine, some unquestionably remained in Soviet Russia and may be a part of the Jewish force on the Iranian frontier, and enough remained in Eastern Europe or have returned from Soviet Russia to form the hard core of the new ruling bureaucracy in satellite countries (Chapter II ). It is hard to see how all these migrations and all these power accomplishments can have come about with a Jewish population much less than that which existed in Eastern Europe before World War II.

Thus the known facts on Jewish migration and Jewish power in Eastern Europe tend, like the World Almanac figures accepted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, to raise a question as to where Hitler got the 6,000,000 Jews he is said to have killed. This question should be settled once and for all before the United States backs any Israeli claims against Germany. In this connection, it is well to recall also that the average German had no more to do with Hitller‘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 delay reconciliation in Western Europe; and the claim, even though assumed under duress by a West German government, would almost certainly be paid, directly or indirectly, by the United States.

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 otherwise, to save the Middle East and its oil from the Soviet. In fact, if spurred on by a full-scale Zionist propaganda campaign in this country our State Department (pp. 232-233), following its precedent in regard to Israel, might be expected to support the Soviet move.

To sum it up, it can only be said that there are intelligence indications that such a Soveit trap is being prepared. 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 answer was given by The Freeman (August 13, 1950), which stated that all we need to do to insure the friendship of the Arab and Moslem peoples is to revert to our traditional American attitudes toward peoples who, like ourselves, love freedom. This is true because the moslem faith is founded partly upon the teachings of Christ. Also, Anti-Arab Policies Are Un-American Policies, says William Ernest Hocking in The Christian Century (Is Israel A Natural Ally‘? September 19, 1951).

Will we work for peace and justice in the Middle East and thus try to avoid World War III ? Under our leftist-infested State Department, the chance seems about the same as the chance of the Moslem voting population and financial power surpassing those of the Zionists during the next few years in the State of New York!

(c) The Truman administration‘s third great mistake in foreign policy is found in its treatment of defeated Germany. In China and Palestine, Mr. Truman‘s State Department and Executive Staff henchmen can be directly charged with sabotaging the future of the United States; for despite the surrender at Yalta the American position in those areas was still far from hopeless when Roosevelt died in April, 1945. With regard to Germany, however, things were already about as bad as possible, and the Truman administration is to be blamed not for creating but for tolerating and continuing a situation dangerous to the future security of the United 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 reviving 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 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 purposes, he was soon their captive.

From the point of view of the future relations of both Germans and Jews and of our own national interest, we made a grave mistake in using so many Jews in the administration of Germany. Since Jews were assumed not to have any Nazi contamination, the Jews who remained in Germany after the Nazi regime were available for use by military government (Zink: American Military Government in Germany, p. 136).

Also, many Jews who had come from Germany to this country during the war were sent back to Germany as American officials of rank and power. Some of these individuals were actually given on-the-spot commissions as officers in the Army of the United States. Unfortunately, not all refugee Jews were of admirable character. Some had been in trouble in Germany for grave non-political offenses and their repatriation in the dress of United States officials was a shock to the German people. There are testimonies of falsifications by Jewish interpreters and of acts of vengeance, The extent of such practices is not here estimated, but in any case the employment of such large numbers of Jews, whether of good report, or bad, was taken by Germans as proof of Hitler‘s contention (heard by many Americans as a shortwave song) that America is a Jewish land, and made rougher our road toward reconciliation and peace.

ATTENTION READERS

A major indelible blot was thrown on the American shield by the Nuremberg war trials in which, in clear violation of the spirit of our own Constitution, we tried people under ex post facto laws for actions performed in carrying out the orders of 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 effect that in the third World War England will furnish the navy, France the foot soldiers, America the airplanes, and Germany the war-criminals. In addition to lacking the solid foundation of legal precedent our war trials afforded a classic example of 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 irritation of the German people, an irritation desired by Zionists and Communists.

The Germans had been thoroughly alarmed and aroused against Communism and used the phrase 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 investigate Communism in the War Department, he testified that Communism was not a decisive factor in granting or withholding an army commission. Not only McCloy‘s record (Chapter VIII, c ) but his manner in dealing with the Germans tended to encourage a permanent hostility toward America. Thus, as late as 1950, he was still issuing orders to them not merely plainly but bluntly and sharply (Drew Middleton in the New York Times, Feb, 7, 1950).

Volumes could not record all our follies in such matters as dismantling German plants for the Soviet Union while spending nearly a billion a year to supply food and other essentials to the German people, who could have supported themselves by work in the destroyed plants. For details on results from dismantling a few chemical plants in the Ruhr, see On the Record by Dorothy Thompson, Washington Evening Star, June 14, 1949. The crowning failure of our policy, however, came in 1950. This is no place for a full discussion or our attitude toward the effort of 510,000 Jews—supported, of course, from the outside as shown in Chapter IV, above—to ride herd on 62,000,000 Germans (1933, the figures were respectively about 600,000 and 69,000,000 by 1939) or the ghastly sequels. It appeared as sheer deception, however, to give the impression, as Mr. Acheson did, that we were doing what we could to secure the cooperation of Western Germany, when Mr. Milton Katz was at the time (his resignation was effective August 19, 1951) our overall Ambassador in Europe and, under the far from vigorous Marshall, the two top assistant secretaries of Defense were the Eastern European Jewess, Mrs. Anna Rosenberg, and Mr. Marx Leva ! Nothing is said or implied by the author against Mr. Katz, Mrs. Rosenberg or Mr. Marx Leva, or others such as Mr. Max Lowinthal and Mr. Benjamin J. 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 derision to certain pro-American sheets of small circulation, most of which do not carry advertising. These English-language papers with their strategically sound viewpoints can, however, have no appreciable circulation in Germany, if any at all, and Germans are forced to judge America by its actions and its personnel. In both, we have moved for the most part rather to repel them than to draw them into our orbit as friends.

If we really wish friendship and peace with the German people, and really want them on our side in case of another world-wide war, our choice of General Eisenhower as Commander-in-chief in Europe was most unfortunate. He is a tactful, genial man, but to the Germans he remains—now and in history—as the comander who directed the destruction of their cities with civilian casualties running as high as a claimed 40,000 in a single night, and directed the U.S. retreat from the out-skirts of Berlin. This retreat was both an affront to our victorious soldiers and a tragedy for Germany, because of the millions of additional people it placed under the Soviet yoke, and because of the submarine construction plants, guided missile works, and other factories it presented to the Soviet. Moreover, General Eisenhower was Supreme Commander in Germany during the hideous atrocities perpetrated upon the German people by displaced persons after the surrender (Chapter IV, above). There is testimony to General Eisenhower‘s lack of satisfaction with conditions in Germany in 1945, but he made, as far as the author knows, no strong gesture such as securing his assignment to another post. Finally, according to Mr.. Henry Morgenthau (New York Post, November 24, 1947), as quoted in Human Events and in W. H. Chamberlin‘s America‘s Second Crusade, General Eisenhower said: The whole German population is a synthetic paranoid and added that the best cure would be to let them stew in their own 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 Washington! The handicap may well be insurmountable, for many Germans, whether rightly or not, believe Jews are responsible for all their woes. Thus, after the Eisenhower appointment, parading Germans took to writing on their placards not their old motto Gegen Welt Bolshewismus but ―Ohne mich (AP despatch from Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, February 4, 1951) which may be translated ―Leave me out.

In this Germany, whose deep war wounds were kept constantly festering by our policy, our government has stationed some six divisions of American troops. Why? In answering the question remember that Soviet Russia is next door, while our troops, supplies, and reinforcements have to cross the Atlantic!

Moreover, if the Germans, fighting from and for their own homeland, failed with a magnificent army of 240 combat divisions (ex-President Herbert Hoover, broadcast on Our National Policies on This Crisis, Dec. 20, 1950) to defeat Soviet Russia, what do we expect to accomplish with six divisions ? Of course, in World War II many of Germany‘s divisions were used on her west front and America gave the Soviet eleven billion dollars worth of German divisions used against Stalin, six is a very small number for any military purpose envisioning victory. Can it be that the six divisions have been offered by some State Department schemer as World War III‘s European parallels to the sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor and the cockle shells in Philippine waters ? (see Chapter VII, d, below and Design for War, by Frederick R. Sanborn, The Devin-adair Company, New York, 1951). According to the military historian and critic, Major Hoffman Nickerson, our leaders have some undisclosed purpose of their own, if they foresee war they intend that war to begin either with a disaster or a helter-skelter retreat (The Freeman, July 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 other reasons, has not struck violently at our first bait of six divisions. But, under our provocation the Soviet has quietly got busy.

For five years after the close of World War II, we maintained in Germany two divisions and the Soviet leaders made little or no attempt to prepare the East German transportation network for possible war traffic (U. S. News and World Report, January 24, 1951). Rising, however, to the challenge of our four additional divisions (1951), the Soviet took positive action. Here is the story (AP dispatch from Berlin in Washington Times-Herald, April 30, 1951):

Russian engineers have started rebuilding the strategic rail and road system from Germany‘s Elbe River, East German sources disclosed today. The main rail lines linking East Germany and Poland with Russia are being double-tracked, the sources said. The engineers are rebuilding Germany‘s highway and bridge network to support tanks and other heavy artillery vehicles.

ATTENTION READERS

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

These strategic moves followed our blatantly announced plans to increase our forces in Germany. Moreover, according to Woodrow Wyatt, British Undersecretary for War, the Soviet Union had under arms in the summer of 1951, 215 divisions and more than 4,000,000 men (AP dispatch in New York Times, July 16, 1951). Can it be possible that our State Department is seeking ground conflict with this vast force not only on their frontier but on the particular frontier which is closest to their factories and to their most productive farm lands?

In summary, the situation of our troops in Germany is part of a complex world picture which is being changed daily by new world situations such as our long delayed accord with Spain and a relaxing of the terms of 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 recent 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 Communist troops before we moved our troops out on January 1, 1949, leaving the South Koreans to their fate. For instance, in March, 1947, Lieutenant General John R. Hodge, U.S. Commander in Korea, stated that Chinese Communist troops were participating in the training of a Korean army of 500,000 in Russian-held North Korea (The China Story, p. 51).

Despite our knowledge of the armed might of the forces in North Korea; despite our vaunted failure to arm our former wards, the South Koreans; despite our hands off statements placing Formosa and Korea outside our defense perimeter and generally giving Communists the green light in the Far East; and despite President Truman‘s statement as late as May 4, 1950, that there would be no shooting war, we threw United States troops from Japan into that unhappy peninsula, without the authority of Congress, to meet the 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 Korean allies were also virtually unarmed, for the Defense Department had no establishment for Korea. It was under the State Department at that time (Secretary Johnson‘s testimony).

Under such circumstances, can any objective thinker avoid the conclusion that the manipulators of United States policy confidently anticipated the defeat and destruction of our forces, which Secretary Acheson advised President Truman to commit to Korea in June, 1950?

But the leftist manipulators of the State Department, whether in that department or on the outside, were soon confronted by a miracle they had not foreseen. The halting of the North Korean Communists by a handful of men under such handicaps was one of the remarkable and heroic pages in history credit for which must be shared by our brave front-line fighting men; their field commanders including Major General William F. Dean, who was captured by the enemy, and Lieutenant General Walton H. Walker, who died in Korea; and their Commander-in-Chief, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.

The free world applauded what seemed to be a sudden reversal of our long policy of surrender to Soviet force in the Far East, and the United Nations gave its endorsement to our administration‘s venture in Korea. But the same free world was stunned when it realized the significance of our President‘s order to the U.S. Seventh Fleet to take battle station between Formosa and the Chinese mainland and stop Chiang from harassing the mainland Communists.

Prior to the Communist aggression in Korea, Chiang was dropping ammunition from airplanes to unsubdued Nationalist troops (so-called guerrillas), whose number by average estimates of competent authorities was placed at approximately 1,250,000; was bombing Communist concentrations; was making hit-and-run raids on Communist-held ports, and was intercepting supplies which were being sent from Britain and the United States to the Chinese Communists.

Repeated statements by Britain and America that such shipments were of no use to the Communist armies were demolished completely by Mr. Winston Churchill, who revealed on the floor of the House of Commons (May 7, 1951, UP dispatch) that the material sent to the Chinese Communists included 2,500 tons of Malayan rubber per month!

Chiang‘s forces, despite frequent belittlings in certain newspapers and by certain radio commentators, were and are by no means negligible. His failure on the mainland had resulted directly from our withholding of ammunition and other supplies but, as shown above, he successfully covered his retreat to Formosa.

According to Major General Claire Chennault of the famed Flying Tigers and Senator Knowland of California—a World War II Major and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who investigatedindependently, Chiang late in 1950 had about 500,000 trained troops on Formosa and considerable materiel. The number was placed at 600,000 by General MacArthur in his historic address to the two houses of the Congress on April 19, 1951.

Our action against Chiang had one effect, so obvious as to seem planned. By our order to the Seventh Fleet, the Communist armies which Chiang was pinning down were free to support the Chinese Communist forces assembled on the Korean border to watch our operations. Despite our State Department‘s assumption that the Chinese Communists would not fight, those armies seized the moment of their reinforcement from the South. which coincided with the extreme lengthening of our supply lines, and entered the war in November, 1950, thirteen days after the election of a pro-Acheson Democratic congress.

In his appearance before the combined Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate in May, 1951, General MacArthur testified that two Chinese Communist armies which had been watching Chiang had been identified among our enemies in Korea. Thus our policy in the Strait of Formosa was instrumental in precipitating the Chinese Communist attack upon us whin victory in Korea was in our grasp.

Here then, in summary, was the situation when the Chinese Communists crossed the Yalu River in November, 1950: We had virtually supplied them with the sinews of war by preventing Chiang‘s interference with their import of strategic materials. We had released at least two of their armies for an attack on us by stopping Chiang‘s attacks on them. We not only, for political‖ reasons, had refused Chiang‘s offer of 33,000 of his best troops when the war broke out (How Asia‘s Policy Was Shaped: Civilians in the State Department Are Dictating Military Strategy of Nation, Johnson confirms, by Constantine Brown, The Evening Star, Washington, June 16, 1951), but even in the grave crisis in November, 1950, we turned down General MacArthur‘s plea that he be allowed to accept 60,000 of Chiang‘s troops.

These truths, which cannot be questioned by anyone, constitute a second barrage of evidence that the shapers of our policy sought defeat rather than victory. Had General MacArthur been permitted to use them, Chiang‘s loyal Chinese troops would not only have fought Communists, but, being of the same race and speaking the same or a related language, would no doubt have been able to induce many surrenders among the Red Chinese forces (see Uncle Sam, Executioner, The Freeman, June 18, 1951). If we had accepted the services of Chiang‘s troops, we would have also secured the great diplomatic advantage of rendering absurd, and probably preventing, the outcry in India, and possibly other Asiatic countries, that our operation in Korea was a new phase of Western imperialism.

But this was not all that our State Department and Presidential coterie did to prevent the victory of our troops in Korea. Despite the fact that the United Nations on October 7, 1950, voted by a big majority for crossing the 38th parallel to free North Korea, up to the Yalu River, we denied MacArthur‘s army the right to use air reconnaissance for acquiring intelligence indications of the Chinese Communist troops and facilities across that river.

This amazing denial of a commander‘s lives at last made clear to many Americans that we were fighting for some other objective besides victory. Coming, as it did, as one of a series of pro-Communist moves, this blindfolding of General MacArthur prompted Representative Joe Martin of Massachusetts, former Speaker of the House, to ask pointedly in his Lincoln Day Speech in New York (February 12, 1951): What are we in Korea for—to win or 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 successor, our top echelon executives took no chances. Before a Floridan audience, the veteran radio commentator, H. V. Kaltenborn, spoke as follows: General Ridgeway told me in answer to my query as to why we can‘t win that he was under orders not to win (Article by Emilie Keyes, Palm Beach Post, Jan. 30, 1952).

The frantic dismissal of a great general who was also a popular and successful ruler of an occupied country caused a furor all over America. The General was invited to address the two houses of the Congress in joint session and did so on April 19, 1951. During the same hour, the President conferred, as he said later, with Dean Acheson, without turning on radio or television… and Mrs. Truman was at a horse race.

General MacArthur‘s speech will forever be a classic in military annals and among American State papers. It was followed shortly by an investigation of the circumstances leading to his dismissal—an investigation by the combined Armed Services and Foreign Relations comittees of the Senate.

The millions of words of testimony before the combined Senate committees resulted in no action. The volume of questions and answers was so vast that few people or none could follow all of it, but certain good resulted—even over and above the awakening of the more alert Americans to the dangers of entrusting vital decisions to men with the mental processes of the secretaries of State and Defense. After the MacArthur investigation the American people (i) knew more about our casualties in Korea; (ii) learned of the Defense Department‘s acceptance of the idea of a bloody stalemate, and (iii) got a shocking documentary proof of the ineptitude or virtual treason of our foreign policy. These three topics will be developed in the order here listed.

(i) By May 24, 1951, eleven months after the Korean Communist troops crossed the 38th parallel, our own publicly admitted battle casualties had reached the recorded total of 69,276, a figure much larger than that for our casualties during the whole first full year (1942) of World War II (U.S. News and World Report, April 17, 1951, p. 14). On the subject of our casualties, Senator Bridges of New Hampshire, senior Republican member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, revealed the further significant fact that as of April, 1951, Americans had suffered 94.6 per cent of all casualties among United Nations forces aiding South Korea (UP dispatch from Chicago, April 11, 1951). Parenthetically, the second United Nations member in the number of casualties in Korea was our Moslem co-belligerent, the Republic of Turkey. The casualties of South Korea were not considered in this connection since that unhappy land was not a UN member.

ATTENTION READERS

Moreover, on May 24, 1951, General Bradley revealed in his testimony before the combined
Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate that non-battle casualties, including the loss of frozen legs and arms, which had not been included in lists issued to the public, totaled an additional 72,679 casualties, among them 612 dead.

With such terrible casualties admitted and published, President Truman‘s glib talk of avoiding war by a police action in Korea appeared to more and more people to be nothing but quibbling with a heartless disregard of our dead and wounded men and their sorrowing relatives. Our battle casualties passed 100,000 by mid-November, 1951.

(ii) Before his dismissal, General MacArthur stressed his conviction that the only purpose of war is victory. In direct contrast, Secretary of Defense Marshall admitted to the Congress, in seeking more drastic draft legislation, that there was no foreseen end to our losses in Korea, a statement undoubtedly coordinated with the State Department. This acceptance of a bloody stalemate with no foreseeable end horrified MacArthur, who is a Christian as well as a strategist, and prompted a protest which was a probable factor in 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 Relations Committees on May 7, 1951.

What an appalling prospect for America, this fighting a war our leaders do not want us to win, for when every possible drop of our blood has been shed on Korean soil the dent in China‘s 475,000,000 people (population figures given by Chinese Communist mission to the UN) will not be noticeable. This is true because on a blood-letting basis we cannot kill them as fast as their birth rate will replace them. 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.

(iii) Terrible for its full and final exposure of our government‘s wanton waste of young American lives and of our State Department‘s destruction of our world position, but fortunate for its complete revelation of treason or the equivalent in high places in our government, a second installment of the Wedemeyer Report (a, above) was given to the public on May 1, 1951, possibly because of the knowledge that the MacArthur furor would turn the daylight on it anyhow. The full text of the Wedemeyer Report on Korea, as issued, was published in the New York Times for May 2, 1951.

The report was condensed in an editorial (Washington Daily News, April 10, 1951) which Congressman Walter H. Judd of Minnesota included in the Congressional Record (May 2,1951, pp. A2558-2559). Here is a portion of the Daily News editorial with a significant passage from the Wedemeyer Report:

The [Wedemeyer ] reports, which presented plans to save China and Manchuria from Communism, were suppressed until July, 1949. The report on Korea was denied to the public until yesterday. It contained this warning:

The Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean people‘s (Communist) army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. . .The withdrawal of American military forces from Korea would. . . result in the occupation of South Korea either by Soviet troops, or, as seems more likely, by the Korean military units trained under Soviet auspices. Those units, General Wedemeyer said, maintained active liaison with the Chinese Communists in Manchuria.

This was written nearly 4 years ago.

To meet this threat, General Wedemeyer recommended a native force on South Korea, sufficient in strength to cope with the threat from the North, to prevent the forcible establishment of a Communist government.

Since 70 percent of the Korean population was in the American occupation zone south of the thirty-eighth parallel, the manpower advantage was in our favor, if we had used it. But the sound Wedemeyer proposal was ignored, and, when the predicted invasion began, American troops had to be rushed to the scene because sufficient South Korean troops were not 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 under General Clark, this conference has so far had one obvious advantage for the Communists; it has given them time in which to build up their resources in 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 in public meetings, the American people should demand such an investigation. Congress should investigate the amount of pre-combat training given our fliers: the question of defective planes; and crashes in the Strategic Air Command under General LeMay and others, as well as the decline under President Truman of our relative air strength in Korea and the world. For amazing pertinent facts, see Emergency in the Air, by General Bonner Fellers, in Human Events, January 23, 1952.

A peace treaty with Japan (for text, see New York Times, July 13, 1951) was proclaimed at San Francisco on September 8, 1951, after the dismissal of General MacArthur. This treaty ratified the crimes of Yalta under which, in defiance of the Atlantic Charter and of every principle of self-interest and humanity, we handed to the Soviet the Kurile Islands and placed Japan perilously in the perimeter of Soviet power. Moreover, the preamble to the treaty provides that Japan shall strive to realize the objectives of the universal declaration of human rights. Since this declaration is intended to supersede the U.S. Constitution, the Senate‘s ratification of the treaty (Spring of 1952) is thought by many astute political observers to foreshadow UN meddling within our boundaries (see Human Events, December 26, 1951) and other violations of our sovereignty.

On April 28, 1952 Japan, amid a clamor of Soviet denunciation, became a nation again. At best, the new Japan, sorely overpopulated and underprovided with food and other resources cannot for many years be other than a source of grave concern to our country. This is our legacy from Hiss, Acheson, and Dulles!

And what of the South Koreans, a people we are ostensibly helping? Their land is a bloody shambles and three million of them are dead. it was thus that we joined Britain in helping Poland in World War II. The best comment is a haunting phrase of the Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (Where they create a wasteland, they call it 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 Commander of the American Legion, after a tour of the battle lines in Korea (Who Is Letting Our GI‘s Down? American Legion Magazine, May, 1951):

Our present-day Benedict Arnolds may glibly argue that it is necessary to keep Chiang and his armies blockaded on Formosa, but these arguments make no sense to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have to do the fighting and dying. They see in Chiang‘s vast armies a way of saving some of the 250 lives that are being needlessly sacrificed each week because certain furtive people expound that Chiang isn‘t the right sort of person, and therefore we cannot accept his aid. Our fighting men are not impressed by these false prophets because they haven‘t forgotten that these same people not long ago were lauding Mao‘s murdering hordes as agrarian reformers.

For the life of them, and life is meant in a very literal sense, they can‘t understand why our State Department and the United Nations make it necessary for them to be slaughtered by red armies which swarm down on them from a territory which our own heads of Government make sacrosanct.

Agents of the Kremlin, sitting in the councils of the United Nations in Washington and elsewhere, must laugh up their sleeves at our utter idiocy. But you may be sure that our GI‘s are not amused. They see the picture as clearly as the Soviet agents do, but, unlike our stateside leaders, they see the results of this criminal skulduggery in the blood they shed and in the mangled corpses of their buddies.

What they cannot understand, though, is the strange apathy of the people back home. As they listen to radio reports of what is happening thousands of miles to the east of them, they are puzzled. Isn‘t the American public aware of what is going on? Don‘t they realize that their sons and husbands and sweethearts are fighting a ruthless enemy who has them at a terrible disadvantage, thanks to stupid or traitorous advisors and inept diplomacy?

This brings us to Delegate Warren Austin‘s statement (NBC, January 20, 1951) that the UN votes with us usually 53 to 5 but runs out on us when the question rises of substantial help in Korea.

The reader is now ready for and has probably arrived at the truth. The free nations vote with us because we are obviously preferable to the Soviet Union as a friend or ally, for the Soviet Union absorbs and destroys its allies.

But according to the 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 officials and (b) goes to war because one faction of Koreans is fighting another faction of Koreans in Korea.

The failure to see any sense in United States policy is not confined to the nations of Asia. In
France, our oldest friend among the great powers, there is confusion also. Thus a full-page cartoon in the conservative and dignified L‘Illustration (issue of January 20, 1951) showed Stalin and Truman sitting over a chess board. Stalin is gathering in chessmen (U.S. Soldiers‘ lives ) while Truman looks away from the main game to fumble with a deck of cards. Stalin asks him: Finally, my friend, won‘t you tell me exactly what game we are playing? (Enfin, mon cher, me direz-vous 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 38th Parallel and helps it in the Strait of Formosa; which worships aggression in Palestine and condemns it in Korea? In the Philadelphia Inquirer (April 6, 1951) the matter was brilliantly summed up in the headline of a dispatch from Ivan H. Peterman: U.S. Zig-Zag Diplomacy Baffles Friend and Foe.

Meanwhile, amid smirking complacency in the State Department, more and more of those young men who should be the Americans of the Future are buried beneath white crosses on an endless panorama of heartbreak ridges.

ATTENTION READERS

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 devious ways of censorship, to see no evil except in his own kind, for on radio and in the motion picture the villain is by regular routine a man of native stock. Ashamed and bewildered, then, the poor American citizen takes his position more or less unconsciously against his own people and against the truth—and thereby, against the traditions of Western Christian civilization, which are, or were, the traditions of the United States. It must not be forgotten for a moment, however, that it was the Saviour himself who said, ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. The average citizen of native stock needs nothing so much as to experience the purifying joy of realizing, of knowing, that he is not the villain in America. When the slackening of censorship allows him to enjoy the restored freedom of seeing himself as a worthy man, which he is, he will learn, also, something about the forces which have deceived him in the last forty or fifty years.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the facts stated in Chapter VI is that our foreign policy has had no steadfast principal aims apart from pleasing—as in its Palestine and German deals—the Leftists, largely of Eastern European origin, who control the National Democratic Party. Can this be true? If a war should seem necessary to please certain Democrats, to establish controls, and to give the party an indefinite tenure in office, would our leaders go that far? Despite the pervasive influence of censorship, many Americans think so. A member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin, charged in 1951 that President Truman, Secretary Acheson, and General Marshall, at that time Secretary of Defense, were conjuring up another war. In an article in National Republic (May, 1951 Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee gave the history of the Democratic Party as the war party.

This haunting terrible question is expressed as follows by E. B. Gallaher in the Clover Business Letter (Clover Mfg. Co., Norwalk, Conn.) for August, 1951:

As we all should know by this time, when the New Deal was about to crack up in 1941, Roosevelt, to save his hide, deliberately got us into World War II in order to give us something else to think about. The propaganda at that time, due to the global nature of the war, was don‘t swap horses when crossing a stream.

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 elections could become a farce, and his election would become assured.

Let us then objectively examine the question Does the National Democratic Party Want War? Let it be noted explicitly at the outset that the question refers to the controllers of the National Democratic Party and not to the millions of individual Democrats, Northern and Southern, including many Senators, Congressmen, and other officials, whose basic patriotism cannot and should not be challenged. Their wrong judging is based on an ignorance which is the product of censorship (Chapter V) and is not allied to willful treason.

We shall examine in order (a) the testimony of mathematics; (b) the temptation of the bureaucracy builder; and © the politician‘s fear of dwindling electoral majorities. The chapter is concluded by special attention to two additional topics (d) and (e) closely related to the question of safeguarding the Democratic party‘s tenure by war.

(a) In the first half of this century, the United States had five Republican presidents with no wars and three Democratic presidents with three wars. Such a succession of eight coincidence under the laws of mathematics would happen once in 256 times. Even if against such odds this fact could be considered a coincidence, the Democrats are still condemned by chronology. They have no alibi of inheriting these wars, which broke out respectively in the fifth year of Woodrow Wilson, in the ninth year of Franklin Roosevelt, and in the fifth year of Mr. Truman. In each case there was plenty of time to head off a war by policy or preparedness, or both. Mathematics thus clearly suggests that the behind- the-scenes leaders of the Democratic Party have a strong predilection for solving their problems and fulfilling their obligations by war.

(b) A war inevitably leads to a rapid increase in the number of controls. The first result of controls is the enlargement of the bureaucracy. Defense emergency gives the Democrats a chance to build up for 1952. There are plenty of jobs for good party regulars (U.S. News and World Report, February 9, 1951). But just as an innocent-looking egg may hatch a serpent, controls may produce a dictator, and once a dictator is in power no one 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 Eastern Europe (see c below) as students or visitors or as undetected illegal entrants. Many students and visitors have in the past found a way to remain. Young immigrants in these categories who manage to remain and the illegal entrants are likely to have passed the age of twenty-five and probable exemption from the military draft before cognizance is taken of their situation.

Newcomer aliens all too frequently slip into jobs that might have been held by those who died in Korea! Controls are usually introduced somewhat gradually and with an accompaniment of propaganda designed to deceive or lull the people. A return from absence gives an objective outlook, and it is thus not surprising that on touring America, after his years in the Far East, General Douglas MacArthur saw more clearly than most people who remained in America the long strides we had made toward collectivism. In his speech at Cleveland (AP dispatch in Richmond Times-Dispatch, September 7, 1951) he testified that he had noted in this country our steady drift toward totalitarian rule with its suppression of those personal liberties which have formed the foundation stones to our political, economic and social advance to national 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 patriotic American, Alfred E. Smith of New York . At the first annual banquet of the American Liberty League (New York Times, January 26, 1936) Governor 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 then study the record of the present administration up to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will have your hand on the Socialist platform. . . It is not the first time in recorded history that a group of men have stolen the livery of the church to do the work of the devil.

After protesting the New Deal‘s arraignment of class against class, and its draining the resources of our people in a common pool and redistributing them, not by any process of law, but by
the whims of a bureaucratic autocracy, Governor Smith condemned the changing of the Democratic Party into a Socialist Party. Since this was said during Franklin Roosevelt‘s first term, 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, Truman received less than a majority of the popular vote cast (24,045,052 out of a total of 48,489,217), being elected by a suitable distribution of the electoral vote, of which Henry Wallace the fourth man (Strom Thurmond was third) received none, though his electors polled more than a million popular votes (World Almanac, 1949, p.91). In 1950 the Democrats elected a majority of members of the House of Representatives, but the total vote of all Democratic candidates lacked .08 percent of being as large as the total vote of all the Republicans. Again the Democratic Party remained in power by the mere distribution of votes.

Here is where the grisly facts of Eastern European immigration enter the electoral vote picture. As shown in Chapter III, the great majority of these immigrants join the Democratic Party. They also have a marked tendency to settle in populous doubtful states, states in which a handful of individual votes may swing a large block of electoral votes. Moreover, the number of immigrants, Eastern European and other, is colossal (Chapter II). For a short account of the problem read Displaced Persons: Facts vs. Fiction, a statement by Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the Senate, January 6, 1950. Those interested in fuller details should read The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, referred to several times in Chapter II and elsewhere in this book.

Let us now examine the significance of the fact that almost all recent Eastern European immigrants have joined the Democratic Party. Let us suppose that our present annual crop of immigrants adds each year a mere third of a million votes to the Democratic Party—in gratitude for connivance at their admittance, if for no other reason, and let us suppose also that in a limited war, or because of occupation duties far from home, a half million Americans of native stock each year are either killed or prevented from becoming fathers because of absence from their wives or from the homes they would have established if they were not at war.

The suggested figures of 300,000 and 500,000 are merely estimates, but they are extremely conservative. They are based not, on a possible global war but on our present world ventures only, including those in Korea, Japan, Okinawa, and Germany. It thus appears that the combination of our loosely administered immigration laws and our foreign policy is changing the basic nature of our population at the rate of more than three-fourths of a million a year. In case of a world-wide war, there would be a rapid rise of the figure beyond 750,000.

To help in an understanding of the significance of the decrease of the native population occasioned by ear here are for comparison some population results suffered by our principal opponent in World War II. In Germany boys expected to leave school in 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 number respectively 836,000, 837,000, 897,000, 820,000 and 150,000. The final startling figure, which is for boys only, reflects the birth drop because of full-scale participation in World War II (Marion Doenhoff in European Supplement to Human Events, September, 1950).

Even so, German soldiered were nearer home and had more furloughs than will be possible for our men in Korea or elsewhere overseas whether or not a full-scale World War III develops. It is thus seen that a combination of war deaths and fewer births among the native stock along with the immigration of leftist aliens might appear to some manipulators of the national Democratic Party as a highly desired way to a surer grip on power. To such people, the boon of being a wheel in an ever-rolling Socialist machine might be worth more than the lives of soldiers snuffed out in the undertakings of Secretary of State Acheson, or successor of similar ideology.

(d) It is well to emphasize in this connection that the American sympathy for Jewish refugees, so carefully whipped up in large segments of the press and the radio, is mostly unjustified, as far as any hardship is concerned. Those refugees who arrived in Palestine were well-armed or soon became well-armed with weapons of Soviet or satellite origin, and were able to take care of themselves by killing native Arabs or expelling them from their homes. Those Judaized Khazars arriving in the United States lost no time in forming an Association of Jewish Refugees and Immigrants from Poland (New York Times, March 29, 1944), which at once began to exert active political pressure. Many refugees were well-heeled with funds, portable commodities, or spoils from the lands of their origin. For instance, an article by the Scripps Howard Special Writer, Henry J.

Taylor, of $800,000,000 in profit on the N.Y. Stock Exchange in the Spring of 1945, to say nothing of real estate investments, commodity speculations, and private side deals, with no capital gains tax because of their favored status as aliens.

The Congress soon passed legislation designed to put such loopholes in our tax laws, but the politically favored alien remains a problem in the field of tax collections. In 1951, for instance, patriotic U.S. Customs Service officials detected several hundred thousands of dollars worth of diamonds in the hollow shoe heels and in the hollow luggage frames of a group of refugees (the newsletter of the U.S. 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 perform menial work. This aspect of immigration has long bothered American-minded members of Congress. A report of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Sixtyeighth Congress (1924) expressed the following principle: Late comers are in all fairness not entitled to special privilege over those who have arrived at an earlier date and thereby contributed more to the advancement of the Nation (The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 61).

The non-Christian alien of Eastern European origin not only in many cases deserves no sympathy except of course from those who cherish his ideological attachments and endorse his political purposes; he is also often a problem. His resistance to assimilation and his preferred nation-within-anation status have already been discussed. Another objectionable feature of displaced persons, suggested in the reference to smuggled diamonds, is their all-too-frequent lack of respect for United States law. A large number of future immigrants actually flout our laws before arriving in this country! Investigating in Europe, Senator McCarran found that such laws as we had on displaced persons were brazenly violated. He reported to the Senate in a speech, Wanted: A Sound Immigration Policy for the United States (February 28, 1950):

I have stated and I repeat, that under the administration of the present act persons seeking the status of displaced persons have resorted to fraud, misrepresentation, fictitious documents, and perjury in order to qualify for immigration into the United States. A responsible employee of the Displaced persons Commission stated to me that he believed one-third of the displaced persons qualifying for immigration into the United States had qualified on the basis of false and fraudulent documents. . . A former official of Army Intelligence in Germany testified before the full committee that certain voluntary agencies advise displaced persons on how they might best evade our immigration laws. . .What is more, I was advised by a high official of the inspector general‘s office of the European command that they had positive evidence that two of the religious voluntary agencies had been guilty of the forgery of documents in their own offices.

ATTENTION READERS

Senator McCarran quoted a letter (September 9, 1949) from Sam E. Woods, which tells that the alleged payment of 50 marks through the wife of the president of the Jewish committee of the town (Schwandorf, Bavaria), led to an investigation which showed that a number of displaced persons, who had already departed for the United States, had previously caused their police records in Schwandorf to be changed. The Senator also gave evidence that the head of the Displaced Persons Commission at Frankfurt in direct violation of the law caused to be removed from files those documents which would prevent the acceptance of a displaced person as an immigrant. Senator McCarran‘s findings were supported by overwhelming testimony. To cite one instance, 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 (Washington 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 especial request. The president said his recommendations were in favor of more Catholics and Jews, but the Catholic World stated editorially that Catholics were satisfied with the law as it was. Senator McCarran‘s efforts did not prevail. The Celler bill became Public Law 555, 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 agitation to the end that the best German houses be cleared of their occupants and placed at the disposal of the displaced persons, especially the Jews, Professor Zink continues as follows (p.122):

Moreover, the displaced persons continued their under-ground war with the German population. With German property looted, German lives lost, and German women raped almost every day by the displaced persons, widespread resentment developed among the populace, especially when they could not defend themselves against the fire-arms which the displaced persons managed to
obtain.

Eastern European displaced persons, their associates, and their offspring do not always lose, on arriving in hospitable America, their tendency to cause trouble. In a review of The Atom Spies by Arthur Pilat (Putnam), The New York (May 10, 1952) states that the most important people involved, Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass, the Julius Rosenbergs, Harry Gold, and Morton Sobell, were not professional spies and they weren‘t much interested in money. The review concludes by emphasizing the clear and continuing danger of having among us an amorphous group of people who can be persuaded at any time to betray their country for what they are told are super-patriotic reasons.

An understanding of Zionism as a super-patriotic force with a focus of interest outside of and alien to America can be had from an editorial signed by Father Ralph Gorman, C.P., in The Sign (November, 1951):

Zionism is not, at present at least, a humanitarian movement designed to help unfortunate Jewish refugees. It is a political and military organization, based squarely on race, religion, and nation, using brute force against an innocent people as the instrument for the execution of its policies.

The Israelis have already carved a state out of Arab land and have driven 750,000 Arabs out of their homes into exile. Now they look with covetous eyes on the rest of Palestine and even the territory across the Jordan.

The Arabs are not fools. They realize what is being prepared for them—with American approval and money. They know that the sword is aimed at them and that, unless Zionist plans are frustrated, they will be driven back step by step into the desert, their lands, homes, vineyards, and farms taken over by an alien people brought from the ends of the earth for this purpose.

Even worse in some aspects is a political philosophy, put into practice by drives to sell Israeli bonds, nation-wide propaganda, etc., to the effect that Israel is supposed to have a unique 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 Congress held in Jerusalem, as quoted by Father Gorman).

In view of the passages just quoted, why are America‘s leftists so anxious for many more refugees ? Can there be any conceivable reason except for the eager anticipation of their future votes?

Can there be any motives other than anti-American in the opposition to the McCarran-Walter law (p. 166) ? Moreover, can anyone believe that continued subservience to Israeli aims is other than an invitation to war in the Middle East, a war which we would 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 hundred thousand young Americans killed in Germany, and want the reviving German state destroyed lest it somehow become again (see Chapter I) a bulwark against the present pagan rulers of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia? Such an eventuality, of course, would be used to bring in from here and there as in World War II a great new horde of politically dependable refugees—a boon to all leftists, a boon so great that no further challenge to their power could be 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. Without reserves from Asia, however, the Soviet strength in the European theater in 1951 was estimated by General Bonner Fellers as 175 divisions some 25 Soviet‘s favor also is the nature and extent of Soviet territory, which is characterized by miles and miles of marshes in summer and impenetrable snow in winter. The vast inhospitable areas of Russia caused even the tremendous Europe-based armies of Napoleon and Hitler to bog known to ultimate defeat. The long range Soviet strategic aim according to Stalin is to induce the United States to follow a policy of self destruction, and that goal can be best accomplished by our engaging in extended land warfare far from home. Here is testimony from a speech recently delivered at Brown University by Admiral Harry E. Yarnell, former Commander-in-Chief of the United States Asiatic fleet:

To a Russian war planner, the ideal situation would be a campaign against the Allies in Western Europe, where their army can be used to the greatest advantage, while their submarines can operate not far from home bases against the supply lines from the United States to Europe.

Moreover in answering the question, Do those who pull the hidden strings want war? Americans, and particularly women, must remember, alas ! that America is no longer a preeminently Christian and conservative nation, as General MacArthur described it in a speech to the Rainbow Division (1937) as his career as Chief of Staff of the Army was ending (MacArthur On War, by Frank C. Waldrop, Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1942). Americans who adhere doggedly to the idea that traditional Christianity shall not disappear from our land must beware of the fallacy of thinking that, because they are merciful, other people are merciful. Mercy toward all mankind is a product of Christianity and is absent from the dialectic materialism of the New Rulers of Russia, whose tentacles reach to so many countries. Apart from Christ‘s Sermon on the Mount, the most famous Passage on mercy in the English language is Shakespeare‘s The quality of mercy. It has been widely suppressed, along with the teaching of the play, The Merchant of Venice, which contains it (Chapter V, above).

It is thus well to reflect constantly that Soviet leaders are moved by no consideration of humanity as the term is understood in the Christian West. Instead of relieving a famine, the rulers of Russia are reported to have let millions of Russians die in order to restore in a given province, or oblast, according to Chinese Nationalist sources, and others, the Chinese Communist backed by Russia have decided that they must accomplish the eventual extermination of 150,000,000 Chinese to reduce Chinese population, now between 450,000,000 and 475,000,000, to more manageable proportions (AP dispatch, Dallas Morning News, and other papers, March 12, 1951).

This is necessary, under the Communist theory, if China is to be a strong country without the permanent internal problem of hordes of people near starvation. or likely to be so by the ravages of draught and flood.

This brings us again to the testimony before Congress by Secretary of Defense Marshall (May 8 and following, 1951) that our purpose in Korea was to bleed the Chinese until they got tired and cried halt. For Chinese Communist leaders, who need a population reduction of 150,000,000 people, there is only delighted amusement in such U. S. official statements, intended to justify our war policy and reassure the American public ! Equally amusing for them is the official U.S. statement that we are inflicting casualties much greater than those we are sustaining. Even apart from any Chinese Communist population reduction policy, their present population is three times ours, and they have no plans, as we have, to use elements of their population to save Europe and police foreign areas!

The Kremlin laughter at our acceptance of continuing American casualties under such an insane motivation as bleeding the Chinese and at our waste of 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 prepared propaganda, calculated to fool average Americans, including ignorant and deluded basically patriotic people in the Democratic Party. There would, of course, be an iron curtain of complete censorship, governmental and 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 precious young life in the furtherance of sinister political purposes.

ATTENTION READERS

CHAPTER VIII
Cleaning the Augean Stables

In ancient fable one of the giant labors of Hercules was cleaning the labyrinthine stables of King Augeas who possessed an immense wealth of herds (Encyc. Brit.,II, 677) and twelve sacred bulls. The removal of accumulated filth was accomplished in the specified time and the story of difficulty successfully overcome has been told through the ages for entertainment and for inspiration.

The modern significance of the parable of Hercules may be thus interpreted. King Augeas is Mr. Truman. The sacred bulls are those high and mighty individuals who control and deliver the votes of minority blocs. The filth is the nineteen-year accumulation of Communists and fellow-travelers in the various departments, executive agencies, bureaus, and what not, of our government. To clean out the filth, there can be but one Hercules—an aroused American people.

Exactly how can the American people proceed under our laws to clean out subversives and other scoundrels from our government? There are three principal ways: (a) by a national election; (b) by the constitutional right of expressing their opinion; and (c) by influencing the Congress to exercise certain powers vested in the Congress by the Constitution, including the power of impeachment.

A national election is the normal means employed by the people to express their will for a change of policy. There are reasons, however, why such a means should not be exclusively relied on.

For one thing, a man elected by the people may lose completely the confidence of the people and do irreparable damage by bad appointive personnel and bad policies after one election and before another.

In the second place, our two leading parties consist of so many antagonistic groups wearing a common label that candidates for president and vice-president represent compromises, and it is hard to get a clear-cut choice as between Democrats and 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 William Schneiderman, State Chairman of the Communist Party of California and a member of the Alternate National Committee of the Communist Party of the United 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 primary 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 Revercomb of West Virginia, he showed evidence of a dictatorial intention to which not even Roosevelt would have presumed.

Thus, however much one may hope for a pair of strong, patriotic, and able Democratic candidates or a pair of strong, patriotic, and able Republican candidates at the next election, there is no certainty of a realized hope.

There is likewise no certainty of success in the move of a number of patriotic people in both parties to effect a merger of American-minded Republicans and non-leftist Democrats in time for a slate of coalition candidates in the next presidential election. This statement is not meant to disparage the movement, whose principal sponsor Senator Karl Mundt represents a state (South Dakota) not in the Union during the Civil War and is therefore an ideal leader of a united party of patriotic Americans both Northern and Southern.

Senator Mundt‘s proposal deserves active and determined support, because it is logical for people who feel the same way to vote together. Moreover, the defective implementation of the Mundt proposal would certainly be acclaimed by the great body of the people, those who acclaimed General MacArthur on his return from 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 methods of effecting a change of our national policy must be explored.

(b) A possible way for the American public to gain its patriotic ends is by the constitution-protected right of petition (First Amendment). The petition, whether in the form of a document with many signatures or a mere individual letter, is far more effective than the average individual is likely to believe. In all cases the letters received are beyond question tabulated as straws in the wind of
public opinion; and to a busy Congressman or Senator a carefully prepared and well documented letter from a person he can trust may well be a guide to policy. The author thus summed up the influence of letters in his book Image of Life (Thomas Nelson and Sons, New York, 1940, pp. 207-208: It is perhaps unfortunate, but undeniably true that letter-writers wield a powerful influence in America. Along with the constant newspaper and magazine polls of citizens and voters, letters are the modern politician‘s method of keeping his ear to the ground. This fact was startlingly illustrated in 1939 by a high executive‘s issuing a statement justifying a certain governmental stand by an analysis of the correspondence received on the subject. Since the letter wields this influence, and since it is one of the chief weapons of the organized minority, public-spirited citizens should use it, too. They should write to members of state legislatures, United States Congressmen and Senators, and other government officials endorsing or urging measures which the writers believe necessary for the good of the country. Similar letters of support should of course be written to any others in or out of government service, who are under the fire of minorities for courageous work in behalf of decency, morality, and patriotism.

The use of the letter for political purposes by organized groups is illustrated by the fact that a certain congressman (his words to the author in Washington) received in one day more than 5,000 letters and other forms of communication urging him to vote for a pending measure favorable to Israel, and not one post card on the other side!

Letters in great volume cannot be other than effective. To any Congressman, even though he disapproves of the policy or measure endorsed by the letters, they raise the question of his being possibly in error in view of such overwhelming opposition to his viewpoint. To a Congressman who believes sincerely, as some do, that he is an agent whose duty is not to act on his own judgment, but to carry out the people‘s will, a barrage of letters is a mandate on how to vote. Apparently for the first time, those favoring Western Christian civilization adopted the technique of the opposition and expressed themselves in letters to Washington on the dismissal of General MacArthur.

In addition to writing letters to the President and his staff and to one‘s own senators and congressmen, the patriotic American should write letters to other senators and congressmen who are members of committees concerned with a specific issue (see c, below ).

In this way, he will meet and possibly frustrate the new tactics of the anti-American element which, from its newspaper advertisements, seems to be shifting its controlled letters from a writer‘s own congressman and senators to committee chairmen and committee members. For the greater effectiveness which comes from a knowledge of the structure of the government, it is exceedingly important that each patriotic citizen possess or have access to a copy of the latest Congressional Directory (Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.).

The patriotic citizen should not let his or her letter writing stop with letters to officials in Washington. Letters along constructive lines should be sent to other influential persons such as teachers, columnists, broadcasters, and judges letting them know the writer‘s views. Persons such as Judge Medina, who presided in a fair and impartial manner over a trial involving charges of communism, are inundated by letters and telegrams of calumny and vilification (his words to the author and others at a meeting of the Columbia Alumni in Dallas). To such officials, a few letters on the other side are heartening.

Letters to newspapers are especially valuable. Whether published or not, they serve as opinion-indicators to a publisher. Those that are published are sometimes clipped and mailed to the White House and to members of the Congress by persons who feel unable to compose letters of their own. The brevity of these letters and their voice-of-the-people flavor cause them also to be read by and thus to influence many who will not cope with the more elaborate expressions of opinion by columnist and editorial writers.

(c) As the ninth printing of The Iron Curtain Over America was being prepared (summer of 1952) for the press, it became a fact of history that President Truman would not succeed himself for the presidential term, 1953-1957. The following pages of this chapter should therefore be read not as a specific recommendation directed against Mr. Truman but as a general consideration of the question of influencing executive action through pressure upon Congressional committees and, in extreme cases, by impeachment, with the acts and policies of Mr. Truman and his chief officials used as illustrative material.

If the pressure of public opinion by a letter barrage or otherwise is of no avail, because of already existing deep commitments as a payoff 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 Congress.

Unfortunately the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate has a majority of members willing to play along with almost any vote-getting scheme. It was only by the skillful maneuvering of the Chairman, Senator Tom Connally of Texas, that the Committee was prevented from passing during World War II a pro-Zionist resolution on the Middle East which might have prejudiced the American victory in the war.

Despite Mr. Acheson‘s record, every Republican on the Committee approved the nomination of that career man to be Secretary of State (telegram of Senator Tom Connally to the author. See also the article by C.P.Trussell, New York Times, January 19, 1949). Thus with no Republican opposition to attract possible votes from the Democratic majority, the committee vote on Acheson‘s confirmation was unanimous!

Parenthetically, a lesson is obvious, namely, that both political parties should in the future be much more careful than in the past in according committee membership to a Senator, or to a Representative, of doubtful suitability for sharing the committee‘s responsibilities.

Despite one very unfortunate selection, the Republican membership of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs averages up better than the Republican membership of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The House Committee is not so influential, however, because of the Constitution‘s express vesting of foreign policy in the Senate.

In contrast, however, the House Appropriations Committee is under the Constitution more influential than the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and might under public pressure withhold funds (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 6) from a government venture, office, or individual believed
inimical to the welfare of the United States (see George Sokolshy‘s syndicated column, Dallas Morning News and other papers, Jan. 23, 1951. In the matter of appropriations, the Senate Committee on Appropriations has, however, made a great record in safeguarding what it believes to be the public interest. For example, in 1946 the senior Republican member of this vital Senate Committee was instrumental in achieving the Congressional elimination from the State Department budget of $4,000,000 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 imitated in the 1950’s.

The issue was raised for discussion by Congressman John Phillips of California, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, in May, 1951 (AP dispatch in the Times-Herald, Dallas, May 14, 1951). In mid-1950, the House Committee on Un-American Activities seemed to need prodding by letters from persons in favor of the survival of America. The situation was described thus in a Washington Times-Herald (November 26, 1950) editorial entitled Wake the Watchman: The reason the committee has gone to sleep is that it is now, also for the first time in its history, subservient to the executive departments which have so long hid the Communists and fought the committee.

For evidence, compare the volume entitled Hearings Regarding Communism in the United States Government, Part 2, that record committee proceedings of Aug. 28 and 31, and Sept. 1 and 15, 1950, with the records of comparable inquiries any year from the committee‘s origin in 1938 down to 1940 when the present membership took 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 Lowenthal. This handsome galaxy represents the very distilled essence of inside knowledge in matters that can help the people of this Republic understand why we are now wondering where Stalin is going to hit us 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 questions.

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 81st Congress, which was elected along with President Truman in 1948, drove from the Committee two of its most experienced and aggressive members: Mr. Rankin of Mississippi, because he was Chairman of the Committee on Veterans‘ Affairs, and Mr. Hebert of Louisiana, because he was not a lawyer.

Tuesday 4 June 2024

The Khazarian Mafia and the Building of Ukraine: We Were Warned 70 Years Ago

This is what the world’s intellectuals, academics, and leaders all knew 70 years ago. How many know it today?

ATTENTION READERS

ATTENTION READERS

ATTENTION READERS

ATTENTION READERS

ATTENTION READERS

ATTENTION READERS

ATTENTION READERS

ATTENTION READERS

ATTENTION READERS

No comments:

Post a Comment

Iamthefaceoftruuth

Search This Blog