Adolf Hitler 20 April 1889 – 30 to April 1945) was a Diabolic Mountebank and an insane totalitarian despot, the same as his ally, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (1879-1953) known by his self chosen name of Joseph Stalin. Both of them, along with Mao Tse-Tung, were responsible for unimaginable numbers of people brutally murdered and all sorts of other crimes also. What this article shows, however, is that so much attention is focused on Hitler alone (by the conniving of the Zio-Communist cabal) that it overshadows and overtly and subvertly ON PURPOSE covers up the crimes of Zionist and Judeo-Masonic and Jew and Zio-Communist and British and American Royalist Imperialist maniacs. THEY ARE ALL CONDEMNED BY GOD and we must condemn them all as well.
"Kaiser Bill went up the hill to take a peek at France. Kaiser Bill came down the hill with bullets in his pants."
"Our first clue should have been the way Adolph Hitler has been vilified for the past sixty years. We hear nothing of the genocidal Joe Stalin who starved or slaughtered 30 to 40,000,000 Russians (mostly Christians); or Mao Tse Tung who allegedly murdered in various ways 50,000,000 Chinese. Nope. Adolph Hitler was the 'devil incarnate' according to books, movies, plays, school history, and today. . . the beat goes on stronger and more vehement than ever."
To him Senator Joseph McCarthy, in his oration before the Senate on June 14, 1951 (a carefully documented indictment which is a major reference-source in this matter) attributed "the planned steady retreat from victory which commenced long before World War 2 ended" and the fact that America, having power to tip the balance, operated between the policies advocated by Mr. Churchill and the Soviet dictator Stalin "almost invariably in support of the Russian line".
In view of the vast consequences which General Marshall's interventions produced, the circumstances of his original elevation are of interest. President Roosevelt appointed him chief of Staff in 1939 over the heads of twenty major generals and fourteen senior brigadiers (six years earlier his nomination to general, being adversely reported on by the Inspector General, had been barred by the then Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur).
One of General Marshall's earliest acts was, in 1940, to ask Senator James F. Byrnes (an intimate of Mr. Bernard Baruch) to propose an amendment to an 'army estimates bill' authorizing the Chief of Staff to override seniority rules in favour of younger officers held by him to be " of unusual ability".
Senator Byrne's amendment, then adopted, provided that "in time of war or national emergency. . . any officer of the Regular Army may be appointed to higher temporary grade. . .", and under this empowerment General Marshall during 1940 made 4,088 promotions, among them that of the fifty-year old Colonel Dwight Eisenhower, who then had no battle or command experience but within three years was to become Supreme Allied Commander.
The combination of General Marshall and General Eisenhower was decisive in shaping the outcome of the war in 1945.
Immediately after Pearl Harbour and the American entry into the war in December 1941, the Soviet propagandists in Moscow and in the West began loud clamour for the Western allies to invade Europe forthwith.
Mr. Churchill, when he saw President Roosevelt soon after Pearl Harbour, had obtained general agreement that an invasion before 1943, at the earliest, was a military impossibility. By April 1942 General Eisenhower, at General Marshall's instruction, had prepared a plan for an invasion in 1942, and Mr. Roosevelt had been persuaded to cable Mr, Churchill in this sense (The Hinge of Fate).
General Marshall, with Mr. Hopkins, then went to London and was told by Mr. Churchill that a disaster on the French coast due to a hasty and reckless invasion was probably "the only was in which we could possibly lose the war" (Mr. Sherwood).
General Marshall, in view of his appointment, was presumably entitled to be regarded as the best military brain in the United States. What he proposed was in fact that the only great fighting ally, at the time, should commit suicide and that the war should be lost, at all events for England.
Mr. Churchill said that if such an attempt were made the Channel would be turned into a "river of Allied blood" but in truth it would have been three-fourths British blood: the American Commander in the British Isles, later asked what forces he could contribute, "pointed out that all we could count on using would be the 34th division then in Ireland".
General Clark added that even this one division lacked anti-aircraft support, tanks and training (the first American troops to engage in combat, in North Africa late in 1942, proved to be quite unready for battle). The leading American military critic, Mr. Hanson W Baldwin, later wrote, "In retrospect it is now obvious that our concept of invading Western Europe in1942 was fantastic".
In spite of all this General Marshall, on return to Washington, proposed to President Roosevelt that the United States "withdraw from the war in Europe unless the British acceded to his plan" (Secretary Stimson).
General Marshall was sent again to England to see Mr. Churchill (he brusquely refused to stay at Chequers). His plan then collapsed under the weight of General Mark Clark's report from Ireland, that he could put only one untrained and under-equipped division into the venture. But the proposal, and the threat, had been made, and all that followed later in the war must be considered in the light of this action of the highest military officer in the United States.
In the spring of 1942 the Germans still had 1,300,000 troops in France and the Low Countries, and the Western allies had no comparable force to throw against them, even if they had possessed air superiority, landing craft, amphibious vehicles, and invasion-training. Mr Roosevelt had to withdraw from General Marshall's menacing plan, and England for the third time in that war, survived a mortal danger.
The war went on through 1942 and 1943, while British, and later American armies crushed the Germans in North Africa, and then the decisive turn in the war came. The Western Allies were ready to strike: how and where were they to strike? At that juncture General Marshall's second great intervention determined the outcome of the war.
Mr. Churchill's own account, and the narratives of all other authorities, agree that he was from first to last consistent, at all events in his major issue. He was the only man among the Western leaders with great military and political experience, and he clearly saw that the war would bring neither true victory nor peace if the revolutionary state [Soviet Union], the aggressor at the war's start, were enabled to spread deep into Europe. He desired that military operations should be so conducted that it should not extend beyond, or far beyond its natural frontiers.
In this controversy his great antagonist proved to be General Marshall more than president Roosevelt, whose state of health in the last year of the war may have incapacitated him from clear thought, unless he was simply the helpless captive of the pressures around him.
Mr. Churchill desired to strike from the south as well as from the north and to bring the Balkan and Central European countries under Allied occupation before they could pass merely from Hitlerist enslavement into that of the Red armies; this policy would have led to true victory, have given the world a prospect of peace for the rest of the 20th Century and have largely fulfilled the original "aims" of the war, among which "liberation" was the greatest.
General Marshall was resolved to concentrate on the invasion of France and to leave the whole of Eastern, central and the Balkan Europe to the armies of the revolutionary state, and Mr. Roosevelt, whether clear-minded or confused, pursued this policy to the bitter end which the world saw at Yalta, where "defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory".
The struggle continued for eighteen months, but the die was cast, as events proved, at the first Quebec Conference of August 1943, when the Anglo-American armies, having completed the conquest of North Africa, had returned to Europe and were driving the German armies out of Italy.
At Quebec, under General Marshall's insistence, the decision was taken to withdraw troops from Italy for a secondary invasion of France, auxiliary to the main invasion of Normandy. This meant the disruption of Field Marshal Alexander's Allied force in Italy (which after the capture of Rome had become a "tremendous fighting-machine... with horizons unlimited", General Clark), halting the advance there, and, above all, abandoning all idea of a thrust from Italy across the Adriatic which would have carried the Allied armies to Vienna, Budapest and Prague.
This would have altered the entire post-war picture to the advantage of the West and of peace; a glance at the map will make the matter plain to any in favour of the invasion of Southern France, a dispersion of military strength even graver in its consequences than that of British armies to Palestine in the First War.
The secondary, southern invasion offered no military advantage to justify this decision which was obviously political; the document on which General Marshall based his arguments in favour of it at the Quebec Conference reveals this. It was called "Russia's Position" and was ascribed to "a very high-level United States military estimate" (Mr. Sherwood), which indicates General Marshall himself. It said:
"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. . .Here the overriding "policy" laid down in respect of Lend-Lease deliveries reappears in respect of military operations: it is that of unconditional surrender to the paramountcy of Soviet aims and interests.
Since Russia is the decisive factor in the war, she must be given every assistance and every effort must be made to obtain her friendship. Likewise, since without question she will dominate Europe on the defeat of the Axis, it is even more essential to develop and maintain the most friendly relations with Russia".
Stalin had opposed the thrust through the Balkans and averred that "the only direct way of striking at the heart of Germany was through the heart of France"; the "high level military estimate" produced at Quebec in fact propounded Stalin's plan.
The document, as the reader will see, twice states an assumption as a fact, namely, that after the war "Russia's position in Europe will be dominant. . . without question she will dominate Europe".
That was precisely the question which in 1943, had yet to be decided by nearly two more years of military operations, and Mr. Churchill's policy was designed to prevent the very thing that was stated as an accomplished fact. He wished to see the Soviet victorious; but not "dominating" Europe. He was overborne, and at that moment in 1943 the Second World War, by means of political decisions taken in secrecy, was politically lost to the West.
This was General Marshall's most momentous intervention. Mr. Churchill, though he never criticized General Marshall, refers cryptically to him in his war memoirs, and in Triumph and Tragedy mourned the lost opportunity.
General Mark Clark, in 1943 the American Commander in Italy, in 1950 wrote,
"If we switched our strength from Italy to France, it was obvious to Stalin. . . that we would turn away from Central Europe.General Mark Clark (a brilliant American soldier who was subsequently relegated to secondary commands and resigned from the Army) says "blunder" and "mistake", but the document above quoted and many other sources now available show that the decision was neither blunder nor mistake in the ordinary sense of those words: that is, an error made in miscalculation of the consequences.
Anvil (the invasion of Southern France) led into a dead-end street. It was easy to see why Stalin favoured Anvil. . .
After the fall of Rome, Kesselring's army could have been destroyed if we had been able to shoot the works in a final offensive Across the Adriatic was Yugoslavia. . . and beyond Yugoslavia were Vienna, Budapest and Prague. . .
After the fall of Rome we 'ran for the wrong goal', both from a political and a strategical standpoint. . .
Save for a high level blunder that turned us away from the Balkan States and permitted them to fall under Red Army control, the Mediterranean campaign might have been the most decisive of all in post-war history. . .
A campaign that might have changed the whole history of the relationships between the Western World and Soviet Russia was permitted to fade away. . .
The weakening of the campaign in Italy. . . was one of the outstanding political mistakes of the war."
The consequences were foreseen and were intended; that is now beyond doubt. The decision was political, not military, and it was made by the men who formed the group around the president. It was, in the field of military operations, the exact parallel of the decision taken in respect of Lend-Lease operations: to subordinate all other considerations to the interest of the revolutionary state. (Soviet Union).
Thus the war, which could have been ended -- probably in 1944 by the Allied liberation of the countries overrun by Hitler, leaving the Soviet state within the natural Russian boundaries or a little more, and Europe in balance -- dragged on through 1944 into 1945; while the German armies in Italy were given respite and the wasteful invasion of Southern France lent no impetus to the main invasion of Normandy.
The shape which the war took in its last ten months then was that dictated by the Soviet Government and superimposed on Western military strategy through its agent in the American Government, the man known as Harry Dexter White. Being dead, he cannot testify, but he is commonly held by the best authorities known to me to have been the author of the plan, for the destruction of Germany and the abandonment of Europe to Soviet "domination", which is known to posterity as the "Morgenthau plan".
[Note: We must be clear now that no 'one' man planned for the "destruction of Germany and the abandonment of Europe to Soviet domination". Harry Dexter White was just another cog in the wheel (a minion of the Talmudic priesthood), who took orders from his higher-ups, who took orders from theirs, who. . . you know the rest. JP]
Under the shadow of this plan (as will be seen) the Western armies gradually broke their way through to the edge of Germany. To the last moment Mr. Churchill (who had been defeated by General Marshall in his earlier plea to have the right arm of the Allied armies strike through the Balkans at "the soft underbelly" of the enemy) strove to make good something of what had been lost by a massive, last-minute thrust of the left arm to Berlin and beyond. The story is told both in his and in General Eisenhower's memoirs.
General Eisenhower describes his refusal of Field Marshall Montgomery's proposal, late in 1944, to strike hard with all available forces for Berlin. He considers that the idea was too risky, or reckless; earlier in his book he gently criticizes Montgomery for being too cautious.
He continued through the following months with a sprawling general advance which left the Red Armies time to press into Europe, and in March 1945 (when the Yalta Conference was over and the Soviet intention to annex, rather than liberate, Rumania and Poland had already been shown, and President Roosevelt was cabling formal protests to Stalin) General Eisenhower informed the Soviet dictator by direct cable of his plan, marking it "Personal to Marshal Stalin".
Its communication to Stalin before it had even been endorsed by the Allied Chiefs of Staff brought angry protest from Mr. Churchill, who to the last strove to save what could yet be saved from the fiasco which was being prepared by urging that at least Vienna, Prague and Berlin be taken.
[Churchill was far too indebted to and under control of his handlers to even harbor a thought that his squeaks of protest would be considered. It does, however, leave lingering doubt in the minds of the undiscerning. JP]
This was all in vain. General Marshall, in Washington, notified London that he fully approved both General Eisenhower's "strategic concept" and his "procedure in communicating with the Russians".
Thereafter the Allied advance in the West was, in fact, arranged to receive Soviet approval, and British counsel was disregarded. General Eisenhower had informed Stalin directly on March 28 that he would stop short of Vienna. On April 14 he informed the Chiefs of Staff that he would stop seventy miles short of Berlin, on the Elbe line, adding "if you agree, I propose to inform Marshal Stalin"; as British objections had already been overridden, the first three words were but a matter of form.
[Note: In his West Point yearbook, Eisenhower was labled "the terrible Swedish Jew". His hatred of Germany and the German people along with his collusion with the Bolshevik/Jew-controlled U.S.S.R, seem to confirm that he was -- a Jew. - JP]
There still remained Prague, capital of captive Czechoslovakia. General Eisenhower advised Stalin that he would advance to Prague "if the situation required"; he had substantial forces standing idle on the Czech border. Stalin replied (May 9, 1945) requesting General Eisenhower "to refrain from advancing the Allied forces in Czechoslovakia beyond the . . . Karlsbad, Pilsen and Budweis line".
General Eisenhower at once ordered his General Patton to halt on that line.
Thus "the hideous bisection" of Europe was brought about; to this description of it Mr. Churchill added the platitudinous comment, "it cannot last".
General Eisenhower five years later claimed that he alone was responsible for these three fatal decisions:
"I must make one thing clear. Your question seems to imply that the decision not to march into Berlin was a political decision. On the contrary, there is only one person in the world responsible for that decision. That was I. There was no one to interfere with in the slightest way".This statement was made in reply to a question at a dinner of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on March 3, 1949. The questioner said:
"the picture in the post-war period might have been different. . . Had our political leaders. . . refrained from interfering with you in going through your regular military procedure of taking as much as our armies might take. . . don't you think the postwar picture might have been different?"General Eisenhower's statement cannot have been true, even if he thought it was. The order to hold back the Allied advance until the Red armies had taken possession of Germany and Central Europe, with its three chief capitals, obviously followed the "policy" which, demonstrably, governed Lend-Lease that of giving preference to the demands of the Soviet state over all other allies, and even over the needs of America itself.
For that matter, General Eisenhower's own naval aide and biographer, Captain Harry C. Butcher, specifically states that when General Eisenhower (against Mr. Churchill's protest) opened direct communication with Moscow about the halting-line for the Allied advance, the question of "boundaries and areas to be occupied had gone beyond the sphere of military headquarters".
General Eisenhower's actions clearly followed a predetermined political plan agreed at the highest level; by the time he became president its consequences were plain to see and he might have felt "haunted" by President Roosevelt's example (as Mr. Roosevelt was always "haunted" by that of President Wilson).
Mr. Churchill supplied (on May 11, 1953) the conclusive comment on this military outcome of the Second War, which was the second great "disenchantment" for troops who thought themselves victorious:
"If our advice had been taken by the United States after the armistice in Germany, the Western Allies would not have withdrawn from the front line which their armies had reached to the agreed occupation lines, unless and until agreement had been reached with Soviet Russia on the many points of difference about the occupation of enemy territories, of which the German zone is only, of course, a part. Our view was not accepted and a wide area of Germany was handed over to Soviet occupation without any general agreement between the three victorious powers".Thus the policy followed in the transfer of arms, wealth and goods and in the conduct of military operations during the Second War served to "extend" the revolution. One other way remained in which this process of extension could be advanced through the war; by the capitulation of Western state policy, at the highest political level, in the pourparlers and conferences of leaders which were held as the military picture unfolded.
The feelings of readers might be needlessly harrowed if the story of all these meetings (Atlantic, Cairo, Casablanca, Teheran, Yalta) were told. The contrast between the initial declaration of high purposes and the final surrender to all the abominations initially denounced, is shown bleakly enough if the first (the Atlantic meeting) and the last (the Yalta Conference) are briefly described.
The "Atlantic Charter" was preceded by President Roosevelt's third post-election oration, on January 6, 1941, when he told an America not yet at war that he "looked forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms. . . freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear".
Then the Atlantic Charter of August 14, 1941, the joint product of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, reproduced the phraseology with which students of the Protocols of 1905 had long been familiar (one wonders if the "premier-dictators" ever read them).
It stated "certain basic principles", said to govern the "respective policies" of America and Britain, on which the two signatories "base their hopes for a better future for the world"; the first of these was "no aggrandizement, territorial or otherwise", and the next, "no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned".
The third principle was "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and the wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to all those who have been forcibly deprived of them".
The retreat from these lofty purposes followed in the Casablanca and Teheran Conferences of 1943 (at Teheran Stalin was present, and was included in the "Declaration" as being "dedicated. . . to the elimination of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance"), and culminated at Yalta in February 1945, just three and a half years after the "Atlantic Charter".
At the time of this conference the Anglo-American armies were being held back in Europe so that the Red armies might embed themselves deep in the heart of Europe.
The far fall of Western diplomacy (if the word is not too genteel) from its earlier high estate was made brutally clear by the Yalta meeting, and perusal of the records might make today's Westerner long for old days when plenipotentiaries and ambassadors, in formal dress and conscious of their responsibilities, gathered in dignity to arrange the affairs of nations after a war: in comparison with the Congress of Vienna and Berlin, the Yalta conference looks somewhat like a smoking-concert in a pothouse.
The Western leaders, on the refusal of the Soviet dictator to leave his domains, foregathered with him in the Crimea; in dealings with Asiatics, this is -- from the start -- a surrender. The American president and his intimate, Mr. Hopkins, were dying men, and in Mr. Roosevelt's case this was apparent from the news-reel pictures which the masses saw; I recall the exclamation of shock that sprang from an audience among which I sat.
Some of the leading dignitaries were accompanied by relatives, so that the affair took on the look of a family excursion, a rather pleasant escape from the burdensome trammels of war. But much the worst feature of all was that the visitors were subjected to (and many of them fell victim to) one of the oldest tricks in negotiation known to wily Asiatic mankind: plying with liquor. A high delegate, Major General Laurence S. Kuter, who represented the United States Army Air Force, says:
"The first course at breakfast was a medium-sized tumbler containing . . Crimean brandy.On top of all this, the dying President Roosevelt arrived at Yalta as the signatory of the "Morgenthau Plan", drafted by a Soviet agent in his own Treasury Department (Mr. Harry Dexter White); and was accompanied by another Soviet agent, later exposed and convicted, Mr. Alger Hiss of his State Department, who at this vital moment was the president's special adviser about "political affairs".
Following the opening toasts and the brandy there were repeated servings of caviar and vodka. . .
Then assorted cold cuts were served. . . and with them, a white wine. . .
Finally, small hard Crimean apples and with them bountiful glasses of a quite sweet Crimean champagne. . .
The final course of this breakfast consisted of tall thin tumblers of boiling hot tea with which brandy was served in snifter. That was just breakfast! How could any man with his stomach full of the above described stuffings make one rational or logical decision in relationship to the welfare of the United States of America. . .
Elliot Roosevelt, who went with his father to the conference, said that "practically everyone was drunk".
As to dinner in the evening, Mr. Charles E. Bohlen, who was present as Assistant Secretary of State and interpreter to President Roosevelt, says of one such meal that"Marshal Stalin acted as host. The atmosphere of the dinner was most cordial, and forty-five toasts in all were drunk".
[Note: A book titled "Bitter Harvest" gives documented details of the so-called 'Morgenthau Plan'. It was a plan that declared the intentions to wipe Germany and Germans from the face of the earth. See ordering info in the Resources section. - JP]
In effect, therefore, the Soviet government was represented on two sides of the three-sided table, and the outcome of the conference was the logical result.
Up to the very eve of the meeting Mr. Churchill continued his effort to save something of Central Europe and the Balkans from the fate to which they were abandoned at Yalta. When he met President Roosevelt at Malta, on the way to Yalta, he once more proposed some operation from Mediterranean; General Marshall, in the tone of his threat of 1942, then "announced that if the British plan were approved. . . he would recommend to Eisenhower that he had no choice but to be relieved of his command" (Mr. Sherwood).
A month before the meeting at Yalta Mr. Churchill cabled to President Roosevelt, "At the present time I think the end of this war may well prove to be more disappointing than was the last".
He had come a long way from the "finest hour" of 1940, during which year, on acceding to the prime ministership, he wrote, "power in a nation crisis, when a man believers he knows what orders should be given is a blessing". He now knew how little true power the "premier-dictators" have and could only hope, at the utmost, to salvage a little from the ruins of victory, which at moment was being thrown away just before it was won.
What he knew, and told President Roosevelt, was all unknown to the embroiled masses. That complete control of the press, of which the Protocols arrogantly boast, prevented the truth from reaching them, and they were being swept along from day to day on a high tide of inflamed enthusiasm for the great "victory" which they were about to gain.
Mr. Churchill's "power" was quite impotent to alter that. A few months earlier (August 23, 1994) he had asked his Minister of Information, "is there any stop on the publicity for the facts about the agony of Warsaw, which seem from the papers, to have been practically suppressed?" (Triumph and Tragedy). The enquiry sounds genuine, and in that case Mr. Churchill was ignorant of what any independent journalist could have told him, that such facts were "practically suppressed." He does not record what answer he received, if any.
The power which the revolution had gained in the infested West was enough to prevent the publication of facts like these during the Second War, and Mr. Churchill's enquiry of his Ministers of Information vanished into air. The "agony of Warsaw" came just three years after Mr. Roosevelt signed the " declaration of principles" stating that he wished " to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them".
Such was the background to the Yalta Conference where, at his first meeting with Stalin, President Roosevelt, a man on the grave's edge , told the Soviet dictator that he "was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshall Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army".
The word "again" alludes to the Teheran Conference of December 1943, where, Stalin had proposed such a toast and Mr. Churchill had angrily protested and left the room. Thereon President Roosevelt had suggested that only 49,500 be shot, and his son, Elliott, in convivial mood, had expressed that hope that "hundreds of thousands" would be mown down in battle; "Uncle Joe", beaming with pleasure, then had risen from his seat to embrace Mr. Elliott Roosevelt.
Mr. Roosevelt wished by his prompting of Stalin to annoy Mr. Churchill (whom by 1945 he apparently regarded as an adversary); he had told his son Elliott at Teheran, "Trouble is, the P.M. is thinking too much of the postwar, and where England will be; he's scared of letting the Russians get too strong"), and made this plain to Stalin by saying he would "now tell him something indiscreet, since he would not wish to say it in front of Prime Minister Churchill".
Among the things which were not told in front of Mr. Churchill was this:
"The President said he felt that the armies were getting close enough to have contact between, and he hoped General Eisenhower could communicate directly with the Soviet staff rather than through the Chiefs of Staff in London and Washington as in the past" (February 4,1945).Here is the explanation for the fate of Vienna, Berlin, and Prague; in March, April, and May General Eisenhower, in the messages accordingly sent direct to Moscow of which Mr. Churchill complained, submitted his plan of advance and agreed to halt the Allied armies west of these capitals.
Stalin did not again propose the shooting of 50,000 Germans. The Yalta records suggest that he showed some reserve towards Mr. Roosevelt's private proposals to him (which included one that the British should give up Hong Kong), and the picture of him which emerges from these papers is, that of a more dignified, and in spoken words at least more scrupulous man, than the president!
The reasons may be, on the one hand, that Mr. Roosevelt's talk was so callous and cynical that it produces a feeling of repugnance in the reader; on the other, even Stalin may have hesitated to believe that the American president would go as far as he had in supporting Soviet aggrandizement and have suspected some trap, so that he showed more than his usual reserve. In any case, the murder of millions appears, in these particular pages, rather less repellent than his visitor.
The supreme test of Western honour at Yalta lay in the treatment of Poland. The invasion of Poland by the Soviet and Nazi states in partnership had begun the Second War; it was clearly the country chiefly covered by Mr. Roosevelt's and Mr. Churchill's declaration of 1941 (the Atlantic Charter) that "sovereign rights and self-government" must be "restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them".
At the time of the Yalta Conference, when the European war had only ten weeks to run, Poland had in fact been abandoned to the revolution; that was implicit in the desertion of the Warsaw Poles and as explicit as it could be in Mr. Roosevelt's order to General Eisenhower to subordinate his plan of advance to Soviet wishes. This meant that Poland, and with it all the European countries east and south-east of Berlin, would in fact be annexed to the Soviet or incorporated in the area of the revolution.
Though Mr. Churchill had not given up the last hope of averting it, the imminence of this annexation was apparent at Yalta, and the final degradation of the west lay in the acceptance of it, at the end even by Mr. Churchill.
For acceptance it was: the pretence that merely half of Poland's territory would be abandoned to the Soviet, that Poland would be "compensated" by amputations from Germany, and that "free elections" would be held in the state thus produced, was abhorrent when everyone knew that all of Poland, and half of Germany from which Poland was to be "compensated", were to pass alike from Nazi enslavement into Communist enslavement, and that the Allied armies were to be held back to ensure this.
Thus when Mr. Roosevelt asked leave to "bring up Poland" he had abandoned the high "principles" of the Atlantic Charter. He began by saying "there are six or seven million Poles in the United States", thus intimating that for him the only problem was that of votes in American elections, not Poland, and then he proposed the amputation of Poland along the Curzon line, adding the strange remark that "Most Poles, like the Chinese, want to save face" (many observers of this period noted that he was sometime incoherent, and he did not explain how the loss of Polish territory would save the Polish face).
Mr. Roosevelt had been well briefed for this proposal. Mr. Edward Stettinius, who was normally his Secretary of State at the time but seems to have had no part in forming policy, records that "the President asked me to get a lawyer to consult with him over the wording of the Polish boundary statement; I called Alger Hiss".
Mr. Churchill was left alone to make the last protest on behalf of the original "principles" and objects of the Second World War:
"This is what we went to war against Germany for: that Poland should be free and sovereign. Everyone here knows the result to us, unprepared as we were, and that it nearly cost us our life as a nation.(later, when the pressure of Mr. Roosevelt and Stalin were proving too strong for him)
Great Britain had no material interest in Poland. Her interest is only one of honour because we drew the sword for Poland against Hitler's brutal attack. Never could I be content with any solution that would not leave Poland as a free and independent state". . .
"It would be said that the British Government had given way completely on the frontiers, had accepted the Soviet view and had championed it. . .But in the end he signed (and later Polish troops, the first to fight Hitler, remained mourning in their quarters while the great "Victory Parade" was held in London).
Great Britain would be charged with forsaking the cause of Poland . . . "
Thus the deed was done, and instead of freedom of speech and worship, freedom from want and fear, the peoples of Eastern Europe were abandoned to the secret police and concentration regime which Hitler had first introduced there on the night of the Reichstag ire.
It would seem that nothing worse than this could be done, and yet one even worse thing was done. Under the "Protocol on German Reparations" the basic device of Soviet terrorism, slave labour, was approved and extended to the conquered peoples, for this document authorized "the three governments" to obtain reparation from Germany in the form of "the use of German labour".
Under some subsidiary agreement the Western Allies agreed to regard all Russian prisoners as "deserters", to be driven back to the Soviet state. All these matters read soberly on paper; the picture of their results for human beings appears in such words as those of Rev. James B. Chuter, a British Army chaplain and one of 4,000 prisoners from a disintegrated German prisoner-of-war camp who made their way towards the advancing Allies in 1945:
"Along the eastern bank of the river Mulde was encamped a great multitude. . . This was the end of the journey for the tens of thousands of refugees who had passed us. The Mulde was the agreed line at which the Americans halted and to which the Russians would advance.Such was the outcome of the Second World War, and the agreement which sanctified it all, (in which Stalin's signature was added to those of the two signatories of the Atlantic Charter of 1941) said, "By this declaration we reaffirm our faith in the principles of the Atlantic Charter".
The Americans would let none save German military personnel and Allied prisoners of war cross the river. From time some desperate soul would fling himself into the flood in a vain attempt to escape from the unknown fury of the Russian arrival.
It was to avoid such incidents and to discourage them that the occasional splutter of American machine guns on the Western banks was heard. . . sounding, in that most frightening manner, a plain warning to all who thought to cross the river line".
This was the end of the Yalta Conference, but for a significant footnote. At a last "man-to-man" meeting between President Roosevelt and Stalin, on the eve of the president's departure to visit King Ibn Saoud, Stalin said, "the Jewish problem was a very difficult one, that they had tried to establish a national home for the Jews in Birobidzhan but that they had only stayed there two or three years and then scattered to the cities".
Then President Roosevelt, in the manner of a man who is a member of an exclusive club and is sure his host must also belong "said he was a Zionist and asked if Marshal Stalin was one".
This exchange produces on the reader the effect of two men getting down to the real business at last. Stalin replied that "he was one in principle but he recognized the difficulty".
In this passage, again, the Georgian bank-robber sounds more like a statesman and speaks more prudently than any Western leader of the last forty years, none of whom have admitted any 'difficulty' (Mr. churchill was wont to denounce any talk of "difficulty" as anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic).
This was not the whole conversation on the subject, although it is all that the official record discloses. On the same, last day of the full conference Stalin asked Mr. Roosevelt if he meant to make any concessions to King Ibn Saoud, and the President replied "that there was only once concession hi thought he might offer and that was to give him" (Ibn Saoud) "the six million Jews in the United States". (This last quotation is authentic but was expunged from the official record).
All the statements cited above, with the one exception, are taken from the official publications, "The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945", issued by the American State Department on March 16, 1955.
The newspapers next morning broke out in headlines, of which one in the Montreal Stat is typical:
"World Capitals Dismayed, Shocked over Disclosure of Yalta Secrets".This was nonsense; by 1955 the masses were apathetic about such things, having been brought by control of the press to the condition of impotent confusion foretold in the Protocols of 1905.
Historically regarded, the revelations of these Yalta documents are incriminating enough, but they are not complete. Much was expunged (I have given one example) and presumably it was the worst. In May 1953, under pressure from the United States Senate, the American State Department undertook to publish in unexpurgated form, by June 1956, the document of all twelve wartime conferences. Only the Yalta papers had been published by May 1956, and these in expurgated form.
Two State Department officials charged with preparing the papers for publication, Dr. Donald M. Dozer and mr. Bryton Barron, pressed for prompt and full publication and were dismissed and retired, respectively, early in 1956, in the face of President Eisenhower's statement in April 1955, "
I think that to hold secret any document of the war, including my own mistakes. . . is foolish. Everything ought to be given out that helps the public of the United States to profit from past mistakes and make decisions of the moment".
Mr. Barron, before his retirement, was “subjected to grueling brain-washing sessions to secure his consent to the deletion of important documents” and informed his superiors that the compilation they were preparing to issue would be a “distorted, incomplete, badly expurgated one that tends to shield the previous Administration and will mislead the American people”.
This history of the Yalta papers shows that, ten years after the Second World War, power was still in the hands of the essentially “foreign group” which during the war had been able to divert supplies, military operations and State policy to the purpose of “extending “ the revolution. They were still able to override the public undertakings of presidents and to frustrate the will of Congress; they still held the reins.
This meant that the revolution, which began with Mr. Roosevelt’s first presidency of 1933, had not been remedied in 1955, despite many exposures; and that, as this was the case, American energies in any third war could in the same way be diverted to promote the overriding plan for a communized world-society (Lenin’s third stage in the process). Once more the embroiled masses would fight to bring about results, the direct opposites of the causes held out to them at any new “Pearl Harbor”.
This undermining of the West was not confined to the United States; it was general throughout the Western world and this chapter dwells on the American case only because, in the conditions of today, the strength and wealth of America are so great that their use or misuse probably will decide the issue. A similar condition was shown to exist in the country, Britain, from which the great overseas nations originally sprang, and in the two greatest of these, Canada and Australia.
The first exposure came in Canada, immediately after the war’s end, and this is the only one of the four cases in which full governmental investigation and full public disclosure of the results followed; also, it lit the fuse in which time led to all the other exposures, in America, Australia and Britain.
A Russian, at the risk of his life; disclosed to the Canadian government the network of governmental information and espionage of which the Soviet Embassy at Ottawa was the center (despite the leading part taken by Russians in this process of warning Western politicians and the press continued to incite their peoples against “Russians”, not against the revolutionary conspiracy of which Russia was the captive).
The full public investigation, which would otherwise be surprising, seems to be accounted for by the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister of that day, Mr. Mackenzie King, although a wily politician, was in all else a simple man, more interested in communing with the spirit world than anything else. When he was convinced by documents of truth of Igor Gouzenko’s statements he saw that they revealed “as serious a situation as ever existed in Canada at any time” and flew at once to inform the American president (Mr. Roosevelt’s successor) and the British Prime Minister (then Mr. Clement Attlee) that this situation was shown by them to be “even more serious in the United States and England”.
At that time Mr. Whittaker Chamber’s documentary proof that Mr. Alger Hiss was the center of a Soviet network in the American State Department had been available to, but ignored by, two American presidents for six years, and three years later Mr. Truman was publicly to deride all such stories as “a Red herring”. The exposure of Mr. Hiss and his associates followed in a trial which was entirely the result of efforts by individual patriots (including Mr. Richard Nixon, a later Vice-President) to wring the truth from a reluctant government and to compel exposure.
In the sequence to the Hiss affair a mass of disclosures followed, which showed American government departments to have been riddled with Soviet agents at all levels. The literature of this period and subject is now too great even to summarize here, but it is conclusive, and much of it is official, though reluctant.
In England, for six years after the Canadian Prime Minister’s warning, nothing was done to remedy a condition revealed by the highest authority. Then in 1951 two Foreign Office officials, one of them a senior and rising young man, and both of them notorious characters who evidently had protected and advanced in their official careers by some powerful hand, suddenly disappeared.
It was known that they had fled to Moscow, fearing exposure on the Hiss model. For four more years British governments (Socialist and Conservative) refused all public investigation or any information beyond the bland statement that “all possible inquiries are being made”. Then in 1955 the British Foreign Office suddenly announced that the two men had been under suspicion of conveying secret information to the Soviet Government from 1949 (they disappeared in 1951).
This belated announcement was not spontaneous; it was extorted from the British government only by the fact that one more Russian, Vladimir Petrov of the Soviet Embassy at Canberra, had fled his captivity and had revealed that these two men, Burgess and Maclean, had been recruited as spies for the Soviet during their student days at Cambridge University twenty years earlier (1930-1935; this is the method, of capturing men in their unwary youth, on which the Weishaupt documents and the Protocols alike lay emphasis; the career of Alger Hiss affords an exact parallel in America).
Immediately after this tardy Foreign Office admission Burgess and Maclean were proudly paraded before international newspapermen in Moscow as officials of the Soviet Foreign Ministry (and immediately after that the Soviet leaders of the moment, Kruschev and Bulganin, were invited to pay a ceremonial visit to London).
The Petrov disclosures brought about an investigation in Australia, the fourth country infested, by a Royal Commission of three judges. Of the entire series, only this investigation can be compared with the Canadian one of nine years earlier. It was fairly thorough and the public report (September 14, 1955) stated that the Soviet Embassy in Canberra from 1943 on “controlled and operated an espionage organization in Australia” and gave warning that Soviet intelligence agents were still operating in Australia through undercover agents entering the country as immigrants.
The Australian Foreign Minister, Mr. R. Casey, at that time stated that there was a “nest of traitors” among Australian civil servants. His words confirmed what Mr. Mackenzie King had said ten years before, and in that decade nothing truly effective had been done in any of the four great countries affected, or infected, to remedy the morally dangerous condition exposed.
A chief reason for this was that all the governmental, parliamentary and judicial investigations of the decade (with one exception) misinformed public opinion more than they informed it by concentrating on the issue of “espionage”, which in fact is a minor one. The fact that great countries try to obtain knowledge, through spies and agents, of military and other matters which other great countries try to keep secret is generally known so that the masses probably were not much moved even by the extent of espionage which was revealed; this, they told each other, was something for counter intelligence to handle.
Thus the investigations diverted public attention from the truly grave condition which was exposed. This was not the mere theft of documents, but the control of state policy at the highest level which was gained by the infestation of the Western countries. It was this that enabled arms, supplies, wealth, military operations and the conduct of Western politicians at top-level conferences all to be guided into a channel where they would produce the maximum gain, in territory and armed strength, for the revolutionary state.
Exposure of this condition came only in the Hiss trial and its numerous attendant investigations and disclosures. These showed that the revolution had its agents at the top-levels of political power, where they could direct State policy and the entire energies of nations; the two men both purveyed secret papers, but this was a small function auxiliary to their major accomplishment, which was to produce the map of and the situation in Europe with which the world is confronted today.
The names of Mr. Alger Hiss and Mr. Harry Dexter white are inseparable from that denouement. Mr. Hiss, from his university days in the 1930’s, rose as rapidly in the public service, under some protection, as Mr. Donald Maclean in the British one. He was denounced as a Soviet agent in 1939 by a fellow-Communist who awoke to his duty when the Communist state joined with Hitler in the attack on Poland, and the proof then lay disregarded for many years while two American presidents continued to advance him.
He was constantly at Mr. Roosevelt’s side (sometimes in separate meetings with Stalin) at Yalta and the abandonment of Eastern Europe to the revolution cannot be dissociated from his name; the disclosures about his activity made at his trial make that conclusion inescapable. After Yalta, and evidently as a sign of the espionage confidence placed in him by the international group which was in control of events during that confusion-period, he was made first Secretary General of the United Nations, which thus came into being at San Francisco in April 1945 under the directorship of an agent of the revolution.
The decisive part played by Hiss at Yalta is indicated by a few significant quotations. The nominal Secretary of State, Mr. Edward Stettinius, on the eve of Yalta instructed his State Department staff that “all memoranda for the President on topics to be discussed at the meeting of the Big Three should be in the hands of Mr. Hiss not later than Monday, January 15th.
In this way Hiss was put in charge of the State Department’s briefing papers for the President on all questions expected to arise at Yalta. Mr. James F. Byrnes, an earlier Secretary of State who was present at Yalta in a later capacity (director of the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion) says,
“So far as I could see, the President had made little preparation for the Yalta Conference…These papers prepared by the experts and professionals of the State Department expressed views about future relations with the Soviet which Mr. Roosevelt’s utterances at Yalta did not reflect, and as he had not looked at them this was natural. Mr. Hiss in fact made American policy at Yalta. Mr. Stettinius records Hiss’s presence “behind the President” at the formal conferences, and says that he himself always “conferred” with Hiss before and after these meetings.
Not until the day before we landed at Malta did I learn that we had on board a very complete file of studies and recommendations prepared by the State Department. Later when I saw some of these splendid studies I greatly regretted that they had not been considered on board ship. I am sure the failure to study them while en route was due to the President’s illness”.
The official, but expurgated American report of the Yalta Conference apparently was edited with an eye to the concealment of Hiss’s part; it contains only notes and jottings made by him which mean nothing when separated from their essential background: his membership in the conspiracy.
Mr. Bryton Barron (one of the two State Department historians whose refusal to “distort history” and “suppress official data” led to their dismissal, as earlier mentioned) at Chicago in February 1956 publicly stated that, if he were allowed, he could “relate incidents to demonstrate the power Alger hiss exercised… and how he operated at high levels”, adding that the official publication “failed to list many of his significant activities at that fateful conference”).
The name Alger Hiss is best known in this context, because of his public trial and conviction. The first authority in this question, Mr. Whittaker Chambers, thinks that the man known as “Harry Dexter White”, whom he calls “one of the most influential men on earth”, may have played an even greater part in shaping American State policy in the Soviet interest.
According to American newspapers, no birth certificate of any man called “Harry Dexter White” exists and none knows who he was! Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior (the only Cabinet officer to continue in office through nearly the entire twelve years of Mr. Roosevelt’s presidency), very soon after his appointment introduced “Harry Dexter White” (1934) into the United States Treasury.
His rise there (like Mr. Hiss’s in the State Department) was of the rapid kind which indicates influential backing. Immediately after Pearl Harbour he was invested with “full responsibility for all matters with which the Treasury Department has to deal having a bearing on foreign nations”, and later was appointed Assistant to the Secretary himself.
During all these years the man whose true identity apparently will never be known was a Soviet agent, and the proof was proffered to but refused by President Roosevelt. Mr. Whittaker Chambers states that he first received secret Treasury documents from Mr. White (for transmission to the Soviet Government) in 1935, and in 1939 (after the Hitler-Stalin alliance) was ready to produce the papers proving Mr. White’s (and Mr. Hiss’s) activities; these papers then had to be left in safe hiding by him for another nine years, when he brought them out to demolish Mr. Hiss’s libel action against himself.
From first to last, no governmental body would look at them. In 1941 the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Chambers and was given Mr. White’s name by him, but no action followed; the F.B.I. was equally unable to move any governmental authority to action in this matter, and the eventual exposure, through private agency, came only in 1948.
Mr. White’s first decisive intervention in American State policy came in 1941. According to two unimpeachable authorities (the Harvard Professors William Langer and S. Everett Gleason in The Undeclared War) he drafted the American ultimatum of November 26, by means of which Japan was “manoeuvred into firing the first shot” at Pearl Harbour (Secretary Stimson’s phrase). Thus his hand may be plainly traced in the initial act of America’s involvement in the Second War, as may Soviet prompting of it.
Having shaped the beginning, he also shaped the end of the Second War, in the interest of the same party, his masters. He is generally credited with the drafting of the “Morgenthau Plan”. In both cases, therefore, American State policy was fashioned by the United States Treasury, not by the State Department or the War Department, which, under the President, are the departments constitutionally responsible for the conduct of foreign policy in time of war; and at the Treasury, as has been shown, Mr. White was “fully responsible” for all matters bearing on foreign relations.
The general tendency in America since the Second War has been to point to Mr. White as the original author of these fateful actions. This may betoken reluctance to point a finger at the responsible Cabinet officer himself, Mr. Harry Morgenthau junior. Mr. Morgenthau originally appointed Mr. White, signed both the draft ultimatum to Japan of November 1941 and the draft plan for dismembering Germany of September 1944, and in both cases President Roosevelt acted on the plan submitted. It is therefore difficult to see how Mr. Morgenthau’s and Mr. White’s responsibility can be separated, and the most that might be assumed is that the directing brain was the pseudonymous Mr. Harry Dexter White’s.
The genesis of the “Morgenthau Plan” for the dismemberment of Germany into petty provinces, the destruction of its industry and flooding of its mines and its reduction to the status of “a goat pasture” was described by another Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Fred Smith, in 1947.
He said it was first discussed at a meeting (at which he was present) between General Eisenhower, Mr. Morgenthau and Mr. White in the general’s mess tent in the south of England on August 7, 1944. Mr. White (says Mr. Smith) raised the subject of Germany; General Eisenhower said he would like to “see things made good and hard for them for a while…
the whole German population is a synthetic paranoid”; and Mr. White remarked, “We may want to quote you on the problem of handling the German people”, whereon General Eisenhower said he could do this. Mr. Morgenthau, on this basis, devised the “plan” and went to London to canvass it with Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden, then returned by air to America to put it before President Roosevelt.
Up to that point, says Mr. Smith, the State Department had not been informed of Mr. Morgenthau’s activities in the matter. Mr. Roosevelt had apparently had misgivings and formed a committee to develop the plan, in which committee the Secretaries of State and War at last joined Mr. Morgenthau of the Treasury.
The disclosure of the Morgenthau Plan before this committee “resulted in as violent an explosion as has ever occurred in the hallowed chambers of the White House”; Mr. Hull and Mr. Stimson both violently attacked it. Nevertheless, when President Roosevelt then went to Quebec to meet Mr. Churchill Mr. Morgenthau “happened” to be with him, and Mr. Hull and Mr. Stimson were left behind. Mr. Churchill records his surprise at that, but both he and Mr. Roosevelt then signed “the Morgenthau Plan”, which possibly might more accurately be called the White-Morgenthau plan.
Thus President Roosevelt (against the strong protests of his responsible Cabinet officers, Secretaries of State and of War) and Mr. Churchill (in contradiction of many declarations) approved a peace of vengeance. Both men later spoke as if they had not understood what they did. Mr. Churchill said he “regretted” his signature, but never explained how he came to give it (Mr. James F. Byrnes mildly comments that this is “difficult to understand”).
Mr. Roosevelt spoke as if he had inadvertently installed an inter-office memorandum without looking at it. He said he had yielded to the importunities of “an old and valued friend” (Mr. Sherwood), and this indicates Mr. Morgenthau; he also said that he was “frankly staggered” and “had no idea how he could have initialed this; he had evidently done so without much thought “ (Mr. Stimson).
The public masses were left to infer that error had been realized in time and that “the Morgenthau Plan” was abandoned; the factories were not blown up and the mines were not flooded. This was soothing-syrup, not truth. The spirit of the peace of vengeance, proposed in the White-Morgenthau plan, did prevail.
Mr. Morgenthau did not succeed with his proposal (the one jocularly made by Mr. Roosevelt to Stalin at Yalta) that “archcriminals” should be put to death by the military without provision for any trial, but the trials which were held remain a blot on Western justice. The bisection of Germany (which in fact was the bisection of Europe, friend or foe) was more perilous to the failure than any dismemberment of Germany into provinces.
Above all, the West, by approving slave labour, put the civilizing process of nineteen centuries into reverse. (Significantly, eleven years after the war’s end the United States Government withheld its adherence to an international convention, proposed by the International Labour Organization, outlawing forced labour; it was obviously debarred from adhering by its signature to the Yalta agreements).
Thus the ghost of “Harry White Dexter” still haunts the scene, for the shape which this Soviet agent and his associates gave to American government policy left the future of the West more troubled than it had ever been. When the war ended he was still rising in the esteem of American presidents, for he was appointed to preside over the second of the two great international planning conferences at which the future of the nation-states was to be submerged in that of an international directorate.
The first was the organizing conference of the United Nations, where Mr. Alger Hiss occupied the directorial chair. The second was the monetary conference at Bretton Woods, which set up the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Mr. White was the organizer of that pilot-conference and then was appointed American executive director of the International Monetary Fund. Thus the chief representative of the United States Government, at each of these preparatory meetings of the new international directorate, was a Soviet agent.
Before Mr. White received this last appointment (publicly announced by Mr. Roosevelt’s successor, Mr. Harry Truman, on January 23, 1946), the F.B.I. had several times given warning at the White House about Mr. White’s secret activities, the last time in a special message to the President’s personal military aide on November 8,1945, in which Mr. White was specifically named as a Soviet agent and spy.
After the President’s public announcement of Mr. White’s new appointment, the head of the F.B.I., Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, sent a further strong warning (February 1, 1946), saying that White, if his appointment were confirmed, “would have the power to influence in a great degree deliberations on all international financial arrangements”.
Despite this, Mr. White’s appointment was confirmed on May 1, 1946 (this history was made public by the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Herbert Brownell junior, on November 17, 1953); Mr. Truman’s reply made no reference to the warning of November 1945 and stated that he allowed White’s appointment to stand after consideration of the warning of February 1946).
In April 1947 (by which time the exposure of Mr. Hiss was drawing near) Mr. White resigned “for reasons of health”. In August of 1948, when the proof of his guilt was conclusive and was about to be made public, he was called before the Un-American Activities Committee of Congress and denied ever having been a member of the conspiracy.
He was then privately confronted with some of the most damning evidence (now all on record) and three days later was found dead, receiving a Jewish burial. No autopsy report is on record and the circumstances of his death remains as mysterious as his identity.
Nearly seven years later (January 3, 1955) the Internal Security Committee of the United States Congress reported:
1.“Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and their confederates in the Communist underground in Government, had power to exercise profound influence on American policy and the policies of international organizations during World War II and the years immediately thereafter; (this is the vital, and supremely dangerous “confusion-period” to which I earlier alluded; the later years of a war and the early years of its aftermath;
2.“They had power to exercise profound influence on the creation and operation of the United Nations and its specialized agencies;
3.“This power was not limited to their officially designated authority. It was inherent in their access to and influence over higher officials, and the opportunities they had to present or withhold information on which the policies of their superiors might be biased;
4.Hiss, White and a considerable number of their colleagues who helped make American foreign policy and the policies of international organizations during crucial years, have been exposed as secret Communist agents”.This might appear to record the good ending to a bad story, for at earlier times the discovery and publication of such a state of affairs by a parliamentary authority would have meant, first, impeachment proceedings and the like, and second, remedial action. In fact, as I can testify (for I was in America during many of these years) the remedial effect was very small, if any. The chief reason for this was that the entire process of investigation and disclosure was accompanied by the most violent press campaign against the investigators and disclosers, not against the culprits and conspiracy.
Here the history of the period after the French revolution, and of the ordeal-by-smearing suffered by Messrs. Morse, Barruel and Robison, repeated itself. If any future historian should examine the yellowing newspaper pages of these years he will find ten thousand abusive words directed against those who called for investigation and remedy for every one aimed at on exposed or convicted member of the conspiracy, he will find columns of praise for Mr. Hiss, for example, alongside columns of vituperation directed against the penitent agent, Mr. Whittaker Chambers, whose self-defence brought about Mr. Hiss’s conviction.
In time this storm centred around the head of one Senator Joseph McCarthy (as in the earlier decade it raged over that of Mr. Martin Dies, until he was driven out of political life), and a new epithet was coined for the delusion of the masses. “McCarthyism” (the demand for investigation and remedy) was by endless iteration made to sound to them more repugnant than “sedition”.
Because of this the most significant moment in American history after the Second War was one in 1954, when the Senate censured Senator McCarthy. In 1952, for the first time in twenty years, the candidate nominated by the Republican party was elected, General Eisenhower.
The return to office, after two decades, elated the Republicans and General Eisenhower’s victory was very largely due to his undertaking to stamp out the Communist infiltration of government, which had been revealed to have occurred during the long Roosevelt administration and had been inherited by his successor.
In 1954 the new President allowed it to be known that he looked with disfavour on Senator McCarthy’s “methods” and thus implicitly gave his nod to the censure motion (the American Jewish Committee also imperiously demanded that the Senate approve it), which then carried. Senator McCarthy, like many before him, then began to fade from the political scene and the principle that “investigation” was pernicious was re-established.
Thus the American voter found that the apparent choice between candidates at a presidential election, gave him no true choice at all in the matter of combating sedition. With this censure motion, approved by the President of the day, all the investigations and exposures ended in sand. From that moment the agents of the conspiracy were implicitly left free to resume the burrowing process which resulted in the state of affairs represented, during the Second War, chiefly by Messrs. Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. It is this which makes the policy of America an incalculable and dangerous explosive force in any future war.
In the matter of sedition the “premier-dictators” of our time perform a function allotted to them by the Protocols of 1905, that major document of a conspiracy which such men as Harry Dexter White were demonstrably part. Protocol No. 19 says that when the super-government has been established sedition will be placed in the category of “thieving, murder and every kind of abomination and filthy crime” and adds that “we have done our best to obtain that the nation-states should not arrive at this means of contending with sedition. It was for this reason that through the Press and in speeches and indirectly… we have advertised that martyrdom alleged to have been accepted by sedition-mongers for the idea of the commonweal”.
Mr. Hiss was presented as a martyr, over a long period, in the press of the world, no matter what party; Senator McCarthy, who “arrived at this means of contending with sedition”, was presented as a brute. This control of the press, established in the last two decades, enables the conspiracy to stand between the nation-states and their with to root out sedition. The Protocols of 1905 foretold: “We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views”.
In America, which today is the key to the future of the West, the matter is further complicated by the existence of a body which is able to make drastic interventions in this field. The Supreme Court of the United States, by sitting in judgment on constitutional issues between the Federal Government and the forty-eight separate State Governments, frequently decides matters which in other parliamentary countries would be ones for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Moreover, the members of this court are political (which is to say, party) appointees, not necessarily professional jurists or men of any judicial training. The danger of political control of such a body is obvious, and it was made plain by a majority judgment handed down on April 2, 1956, when the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a Communist under the Pennsylvania State law against sedition.
In this judgment the Supreme Court stated that “the field of sedition” was that of Congress alone and that “no room has been left” for the State legislation or action against sedition. Forty-two of the forty-eight States at that time had sedition laws and this judgment, if not overridden by special act of Congress, will at a blow reduce the obstacles to sedition in America by the separate powers of those forty-two States, leaving, as the sole defence, the national administration, which had been repeatedly shown by the events of the preceding ten years to have been infested with seditionists This judgment, too, may be compared with the passage previously quoted from the Protocols.
Lastly, the Second War led to the revival of the League of Nations, which had sprung from the “League to Enforce Peace”. This body was obviously never an alliance of nations, but an instrument for the control of nations, to be wielded by whomever gained command of it. The conclusions of the Senate Committee quoted above testify to the part which Messrs. Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and their associates played in organizing and fashioning it.
Clearly, in their minds it was intended to “extend the revolution” universally, following Lenin’s dictum, and to become the “Super-Government” foreseen by the Protocols. The shadow of the universal concentration-camp regime looms already in its “Genocide Convention”, where the causing of “mental harm” is defined as a crime against unspecified “groups”.
What it will become depends on the future success or failure of the nation-states in “contending with sedition”. In the Second War, as in the first, all the “top-line leaders” and “premier dictators” appear from the start to have been secretly agreed in the resolve to set up a “world-organization” and to subordinate their nation-states to it. This was their own project, not that of their peoples, who were never consulted.
No nation has ever evinced a desire to sink its identity in some world-state, ruled by who knows whom. On the contrary, the continuing love of nationhood, despite all ordeals and defeats, is the clearest human feeling evinced by the 20th Century, and this clearly will increase until “the deception of nations” ends and the idea of obliterating nations collapses.
Nevertheless, the wartime leaders, free from all public supervision in their meetings, their cabled exchanges and their telephone talks, all through the war pressed on with the project for a new world order, which at the war’s end was to be found in the secretarial hands of Messrs. Hiss and White. Mr. Baruch’s biographer records that Mr. Roosevelt was busy with the idea long before he became president, and selected the name, “United Nations”. Mr. Baruch himself, the permanent advisor of presidents, was of cosmic ambition; the same biographer quotes him as saying on many occasions, “Of course we can fix the world”.
The absence of humility is the most striking thing about all these mortals. Mr. Churchill is as disappointing to the student, in this matter, as he is reassuring in that of the sorry end of the war in Europe, which he unquestionably tried to avert. In the matter of re-moulding the world he was as incorrigible as all the others, and the brave phrases he sometimes used (“I have not become His Majesty’s first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire”) are not easy to reconcile with his enthusiasm for a concept based on the eventual “liquidation” of all nation-states.
Thus, at a time when a disastrous end to the war then in progress was being prepared, these wartime leaders were busy with world-government notions. They could not or would not conduct the war to true victory, but they were ready to reorganize the world! “The questions of World Organization” (says Mr. Churchill in October 1944)” were now thrusting themselves upon all our minds”.
From faraway South Africa, once more, General Smuts raised his voice, saying that Soviet Russia must be included, and from Washington President Roosevelt agreed that the revolutionary state which had helped Hitler start the war must be “a fully accepted and equal member of any association of the Great Powers formed for the purpose of preventing international war”. Mr. Roosevelt foresaw a period of “differences” and “compromises” during which “the child” would learn how to toddle. Mr. Churchill comments that the child was “the World Instrument” and thenceforth this term seems to have been the favourite one among the wartime leaders.
In this way, through one more world war, the “league to enforce peace” again came into existence, and the agents of the conspiracy were numerously entrenched in the commanding posts of the central body and of its auxiliary agencies, as was to be expected in the circumstances now known; Messrs. Hiss and White were chiefs of a great clan. The first major act of the new “World Instrument” was in effect to give sanction to the revolution’s annexation of half Europe by electing the puppet-governments of the communized captive countries there to membership.
Thus in all fields Lenin’s dictum about the “extension” of the revolution through a second world war was fulfilled. This was not the result of the persuasion of peoples (in the two cases so far, those of Hungary in 1919 and of Spain, where nation-states have been allowed to fight Communism it was thrown out). It was the result of the infestation of the West by members of the conspiracy, of the virtual suspension of sedition laws which they were able to effect, and of the command of policy, supplies and military operations which they gained.
[End of Chapter - Reminder: The Controversy of Zion can be purchased from Omni Christian Book Club. Ordering information is at the bottom of the page in our Resources Library - JP]