Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

Red Pattern of World Conquest

by Eric D. Butler

Is it Now Too Late To Defeat Communism?

The incredible story of how the Communist conspiracy has in less than the average person's lifetime, from 1903 until the present time, advanced to the stage where it now stands within reach of its final objective - World Conquest.


During 1959 and 1960 I gave a number of lectures on International Affairs, with particular reference to International Communism, to a large number of secular and religious groups throughout Australia. As I pointed out in these lectures, most commentaries upon International Communism are largely superficial and completely ignore important historical events which had a vital bearing upon the rapid advance of the Communist conspiracy. For example, although the decisive role of the Roosevelt Administration in assisting the Communist advance has been exhaustively examined by a number of competent and well-known American writers, this fact has been generally ignored outside America.

Towards the end of 1960 it was suggested to me by a number of people that I should publish the notes of my lecture on the growth of International Communism in booklet form. When I started to work on these notes I soon realised that it was essential that I expand them sufficiently to refer to the most important of the source material I had drawn upon.

The Bibliography at the back of this booklet provides a list of books which deal comprehensively with some of the events which I have necessarily only dealt with briefly. Although this book does not pretend to be more than a brief outline of the major features of the Communist advance since 1903, it is felt that it will meet a real need at this present critical time in human affairs. For the average busy person with little time or inclination to seek out and to study source hooks, it is hoped that it will provide an outline of the consistent policies which have produced the threat to his very existence.

The perversion of real history is one of the greatest evils of these totalitarian times. Unless the individual possesses some knowledge of real history, he cannot possibly know how the present world situation developed. Still less can he know whether he can do anything about it. Although this book relates a grim story, it does point to the fact that the individual possesses the power to bring the story to a happier ending than appears likely at the moment.

By the effective demonstration of the truth that he is more than "matter in motion", that he is primarily a spiritual being, the individual can change the course of events and end the long series of victories by the policies of materialism.
But time for action is short.
ERIC D. BUTLER, Melbourne, March, 1961.

An increasing demand for this booklet makes it necessary to publish another edition, the fourth. Although the booklet has been subjected to a great deal of critical examination throughout the English-speaking world, no major errors of fact have been detected. Some minor corrections have been made. Many have admitted that they were annoyed when they first realised that President Franklin Roosevelt had consistently pursued a pro-Communist foreign policy and was not the type of man presented by the myth-makers. Others have complained that I have been unfair and biased in my treatment of Roosevelt.
But since writing my booklet I have read the most authoritative work yet published on Roosevelt's foreign policy, Roosevelt's Road To Russia, by George N. Crocker. (Regnery, Chicago, 1959.)
This study leaves no doubt that Roosevelt consistently pursued a pro-Communist foreign policy right up until the time of his death. Events over the past six months have unfortunately demonstrated that the Communist program for world conquest is still being steadily advanced.
ERIC D. BUTLER. Melbourne, November, 1961.

Since publishing the last edition of this booklet, further revealing light has been shed on the real President Roosevelt and his contribution towards expanding International Communism. The publication of The Cardinal Spellman Story, by Father Robert I. Gannon, deals the Roosevelt myth a devastating blow. Father Gannon deals extensively with Cardinal Spellman's wartime diaries.
As Military Vicar during the war, Cardinal Spellman was intimately associated with Roosevelt. His diary reveals that one evening after they were sitting around in the White House, Roosevelt told Cardinal Spellman that the Pope was too worried about Communism, and went on to say, "Russia has need of protection. She has been invaded twice, you know. That is why we shall give her part of Poland and recompense Poland with a part of Germany."
Cardinal Spellman's protest that it was "immoral to uproot people like that" had no effect upon Roosevelt. Roosevelt made it clear that he took it as inevitable that Russia would take control of part of Europe.
"The magnificent economic achievement" of the Soviet could not be overlooked. He hoped that in ten to twenty years European influences would bring the Russians to be less barbarian. He hoped finally that the Europeans would live well together with the Russians, that the Russians would get 40 per cent. of the capitalist regime and that the capitalists will retain only 60 per cent, of their system. Apparently he was repeating the opinion of the Communist leader Litvinoff.

The Communist offensive has been maintained everywhere during the past twelve months, with the West always on the defensive. U.N.O. has continued to serve revolutionary purposes by its brutal aggression against the anti-Communist Congo province of Katanga, which seceded from the chaos resulting from the central government's policies, and its agreement to assist Dr. Soekarno and his Communist backers to push the Dutch out of West New Guinea.
It appeared for a moment that the West was taking a strong stand when President John Kennedy blockaded Cuba and ordered Soviet nuclear missiles out. But Kennedy's promise not to invade Cuba was later seen by matured students of Communist dialectics as a major victory for the Communists, who were concerned that America might, under mounting American public pressure, invade Cuba and destroy their forward revolutionary base in the Western Hemisphere.
They achieved their objective of protection by carting nuclear weapons to Cuba and then carting them away again.
ERIC D. BUTLER Melbourne, November, 1962.


International Communism is one of the great issues of our times. It dominates domestic politics and economics. Every day our newspapers, radios and television sets keep the Communist question before us as we are told of the latest statements by the Communist leaders, or of their numerous activities as they maintain a constant offensive against the non-Communist world.
One great danger is that many people are developing a cynical attitude, resulting from a feeling of hopelessness, as they see no apparent end to the struggle in their own lifetime. Another danger is the fact that many still clutch at any straw of apparent salvation, allow themselves to be drawn into "peace" movements and similar Communist-sponsored activities, and generally believe, or hope, that some form of "peaceful co-existence" is possible between the Communist and non-Communist worlds.

These people ignore the fact that the doctrine of "historical inevitability" is one of the major dynamics of the Communist revolution, and that when Mr. Khrushchev told the Western nations that he would "bury them", he means exactly what he said. The Communist leaders believe that Communism is destined to conquer the whole world. But, much more important, they believe that their final objective is now within near reach.

Those who think that we are exaggerating the Communist challenge are invited to honestly face the significance of the following facts: When Lenin established the first Bolshevik Party just after the dawn of this century, in 1903, he had only seventeen supporters. If we had been present when this handful of revolutionaries proclaimed their mission to give practical expression to the theories of Karl Marx and Engels, how we would have smiled at the thought of such a group overthrowing Western Civilization, and of eventually conquering the whole world. Let us remember that this was before the first great disaster of this century, the first World War. Europe had known comparative peace for a long time. The British Empire was strong and maintained law and order over a large area of the world, and the general picture appeared to support the view of those who felt that civilization would be progressively expanded.

But Lenin proposed to subvert and to overthrow traditional civilization. And further, he outlined how this revolution could be advanced. Fourteen years after establishing the first Bolshevik Party, Lenin and a mere 40,000 supporters conquered Russia and consolidated it as the base of world revolution. And today, only 58 years after the creation of Lenin's first party in 1903, the Marxist-Leninists not only directly control approximately one thousand million human beings, but they have highly disciplined supporters in every non-Communist country, many of them secret Communists in positions of influence, while enormous influence is wielded through numerous forms of propaganda. In the whole of recorded human history there is nothing comparable with the rate of expansion of Communism

. From 1917 until the present time, the Communists have enslaved people at the average rate of approximately one million every two weeks. The most dramatic Communist advances took place during and after the last world war. As we will see in this story of Communist expansion, the Communists were the major victors of the Second World War. The war in Europe finished with the Communists controlling the whole of Eastern Europe from the Baltic States in the North to the Balkans in the South. Further expansion Westwards took place when Czechoslovakia also passed under Communist control.
The war in Asia finished with the Communists controlling Manchuria as the necessary first step towards the conquest of China. Having taken China, increasing pressure has been successfully applied in what was once French Indo-China. Tibet has been raped, while Communist influence in the sub-continent of India is enormous.
In Indonesia the Communist Party is the strongest and best organised single group. Communist penetration into the Middle East has helped keep the major oil-bearing area for Europe in increasing ferment, while in Africa the Communists are making spectacular gains as the passions of primitive native peoples are whipped up and exploited. With the Castro revolution in Cuba, Communism has now established a geographical base in the Western Hemisphere, within 90 miles of America's coastline, and from Cuba the whole of Latin America is being inflamed by the Communist offensive. The Communists hold the initiative everywhere and they have every reason for confidence.

Communism does indeed appear to be "historically inevitable" and the non-Communist world to be doomed.

If we draw a graph showing the rate of Communism expansion over 58 years, and if we assume that the rate of expansion continues, we can accurately predict the date by which the Communists will have achieved their objective. Our graph shows that date to be between 1970 and 1973. And this coincides with the known fact that Communists have a timetable which aims at complete world conquest by approximately 1973.

Dr. Marek Stanislaw Korowicy, who defected from the Polish Communist delegation to the United Nations, gave evidence before the House Un-American Activities Committee on September 24, 1953.
He said that the Soviet master plan calls for world conquest between 1970 and 1980. Dr. Korowicy made it clear that the Communist leaders were confident that they could achieve their objective by "the progressive destruction of the cultural, economic and political foundations of the free world".
A major military conflict was not desired, as this could endanger Communist strategy.
Dr. Korowicy said that the Communists regarded the United Nations as one of the most important instruments for maintaining their ideological offensive against the West. He then made the significant observation that "The greatest defeat short of war for the Communists would be the loss of diplomatic relations with the West".

No amount of wishful thinking can alter the grim realities of the present situation. Only by first facing the truth can we work for salvation from the threat confronting us. The first and main essential is to understand how the present situation came about. Unless we are clear about this, we cannot know what is necessary to avert the final disaster.

When we come to consider how the Communist conspiracy has made such startling progress in such a comparatively short period in human history, there are only two alternative explanations.
The first explanation, and the one which fits in with the Communist ideological offensive, is what can be described as the village idiot theory: that events "just happen" and that individuals are not responsible. The basic Communist doctrine is that the development of Communism and the disintegration of "capitalism" are "historically inevitable".
If this view is accepted, then it strikes right at the heart of the Christian view that the individual is not at the mercy of trends" and that he can alter the course of events if he has the will to do so.

Furthermore, if Communism has within the span of less than one person's lifetime reached the stage where it is on the verge of achieving its ultimate objective of world conquest because of "trends", or because the non-Communist world has through sheer bad luck been represented by the wrong kind of politicians, then clearly the position is hopeless and we should passively await our fate.

But if we face the alternative explanation of the plight of the world, that events are in the main the results of policies stemming from philosophies and pursued consciously by individuals, then only can we see that there is legitimate hope.

Real history is not a series of disconnected episodes, but is crystallised politics. We must therefore traverse briefly the 58 years of Communist expansion and note the principal steps by which the Communists have steadily advanced towards their objective.

Many will be shocked to see how the real history of those 58 years is very different from that generally accepted. They will see how political leaders they have been taught to revere have beeen either conscious or unconscious dupes of the Communist conspiracy.
It is not pretended that the following highly condensed survey of the red pattern of World conquest deals with all aspects of a vast subject. But it does seek to clearly mark the main stream of the flow of events concerning Communist expansion. Once it is clearly grasped that this flow of events has been produced by the consistent actions of individuals holding a complete, although evil philosophy, then it can be seen that other individuals, holding strongly to an alternative philosophy, can successfully challenge the present flow of events and produce a flow in the opposite direction.

Back in 1925 Stalin said that when war came, "We shall be forced to enter into it. But we must enter it last". (Quoted in Stephan T. Possony's A Century of Conflict, Regnery, 1953.)

The inter-relationship between war and revolution was constantly stressed by the Communist leaders, but this basic aspect of Communist strategy was almost completely ignored in the non-Communist countries, with the result that a revolutionary organisation which welcomed war to further its objectives, was able to create widespread movements which helped weaken the non-Communist countries militarily. Nothing could be more typical of the complete cynicism of the Communist tacticians, than their encouragement of pacifism everywhere as part of their grand strategy for war.
The Communists only eased their anti-war campaigns in France and England for a short period in the thirties when they feared that war might start before they were ready to exploit it. They did not want Germany to be too strong in relationship to the other nations.
The Communists' close interest in the possible use of Germany as a means of advancing the revolution was evident right from the time that Lenin and his associates had established in Russia a base for World Revolution. Lenin originally thought that his programme for world revolution would be initiated through revolution in Germany, but he quickly altered his strategy when he saw that he had misjudged the situation in Germany.

It is vital to a full understanding of our story that we draw attention to the fact that Lenin realised in 1920 that immediate victory in the West was impossible and that he then stressed the importance of the Communists directing their main efforts on China and the colonial countries.

Lenin crystallised his strategy in his famous observation that the shortest route to London and Paris was through Peking.

He also said that the European Powers could be best attacked through their colonies.

When Lenin died Stalin took over his strategy. Although top priority was given to China and the European colonies, Communist activities in the West were not lessened. The policy of promoting war was never lost sight of, and the German situation was given special attention. There was a close relationship between the two countries and those who believe that Hitler, the National Socialist, came to power in Germany in the face of united and bitter opposition from the Communists have accepted uncritically one of the most successful of Communist propaganda hoaxes.
It is true that German Communists were not united on the question of bringing Hitler to power, but there is no doubt whatever that Stalin and his associates in Russia favoured Hitler simply because they felt that this was the correct tactic to advance Communist strategy. Events unfortunately proved Stalin correct.

Dr. Karl August Wittfogel, an authority on Russo-German relations who was in Russia in 1932 and discussing the German question with prominent Communist leaders, has stated: "I myself thought at first that Russian Communists were just dumb. Gradually I realised myself that this was a very big strategy to get one of the great wars of modern times going. This took some time, but it succeeded in 1939."

Wittfogel pointed out that the fight between the German Communists and the German Social Democrats was engineered by the Commitern in order to bring Hitler to power. The Communists "would have preferred a military conservative government", but "They took Hitler. He was the lesser evil."
(Hearings before the Sub-committee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, The Institute of Public Relations, Part 1 U.S. Congress. 1st Sess. Washington. D.C. Government Printers' Offices, 1951. pp. 323 ...)

At the appropriate time in 1939 Stalin signed his non-aggression pact with Hitler and thus played a decisive role in precipitating a war which the Communists confidently believed could be used to expand their revolutionary strategy. Events proved the Communists correct.
The Second World War accomplished most of what the Communist strategists planned. As Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese Communist leader, and recognised authority on Marxism-Leninism, says in his book, People's Democratic Dictatorship (Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1950, p.9), "It would be a great mistake to underestimate the significance of the (communist) victory of the second world war.' Mao pointed out, the war "resulted in the downfall of three great imperialist powers and the weakening of two others."


The Great Depression of the thirties was a godsend to the Communists for many reasons. It not only enabled the Communists to recruit an increased number of supporters into their ranks, and shattered the faith of many people in the traditionally free society, but it helped bring Hitler to power in Germany while in the U.S.A. Franklin D. Roosevelt was swept to office in 1933 primarily on a pledge to deal with the Depression.
The election of Roosevelt proved to be an event of tremendous historical importance, because it was the policies of Roosevelt and those surrounding him, both before and during the war, which are largely responsible for the present desperate plight of the world.

When John Kennedy won the 1960 American Presidential Elections, Khrushchev congratulated him and expressed the hope that there would be a return to the spirit of the Roosevelt era. Well might Khrushchev express such a wish, because no political leader in the West did more to help the Communist advance than did Roosevelt, a man whose real image has never been shown by those who create "world opinion". It is therefore to other sources that we must turn to gain an understanding of the real character of the man who gave Stalin practically all he demanded.

The real Roosevelt has been most completely revealed in The Roosevelt Myth (Devin-Adair, 1948, 1st edition), by the American writer and historian, John T. Flynn, who shows that Roosevelt was a very different kind of man from the one built up by propaganda. Flynn's study brings out the fact that modern mass propaganda can be used in a so-called democratic society as well as in a totalitarian one to create a completely false picture of a political leader. Roosevelt's whole career was one of broken promises and betrayals. He allowed all members of his family to blatantly commercialise his position. When his early New Deal legislation was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Roosevelt had no scruples about attempting to subvert the constitution by stacking the Court with political nominees.

The better men surrounding Roosevelt at the start of his Presidency progressively left him as they came to realise his true character. Roosevelt had no basic philosophy, but was a shrewd political manager prepared to accept any proposal which would maintain him in political power. The Communists in the U.S.A. soon realised that Roosevelt was an ideal man for their purposes and they played a prominent role in assisting Roosevelt in his Presidential campaigns.
One of Roosevelt's first major actions was to recognise Soviet Russia. All previous American Administrations had refused to grant recognition to the Communists. American recognition came at a critical time for the Communist regime in Russia, which was faced with growing internal problems resulting from the forced collectivisation of farming. It enabled direct American industrial assistance to be given. The manner in which politics are dominated by economics was demonstrated by the support which conservative business interests gave the recognition of Soviet Russia in order that they might solve some of their growing problems by exporting to Russia.
Basic Communist teaching emphasises how the "contradictions" in the capitalist economy inevitably help further the development of Communism.

No sooner had the Soviet leaders obtained Roosevelt's diplomatic recognition than they started to violate the solemn promise they gave not to interfere in America's internal affairs. They already had a small espionage system operating, but now they were able to expand it extensively. The numerous agencies established by the Roosevelt Administration to advance its New Deal program, were soon swarming with Communists, Socialists and other intellectuals who were starry-eyed about Soviet Russia. Many of the Communists were not known as Communists and it was these individuals who, by the time war started in 1939, were in influential positions in all parts of the Government.

After visiting the U.S.A. to study the New Deal in operation, one prominent British Socialist returned to Great Britain and reported that while the British Socialists were talking about Communism, the New Dealers and Communists were practicing it in the U.S.A. Roosevelt was strongly influenced by Mrs. Roosevelt, who in turn was always moving in Communist circles. It is hard to realise that during this period Mrs. Roosevelt had large numbers of known Communists staying at the White House, and that she often entertained Communist groups there. She was often described as the "Red Queen."

The Committee of Un-American Activities has listed no less than 56 Communist-front organisations with which Mrs. Roosevelt has been associated with since 1933. When the Dies Committee in the U.S.A. started investigating Communist activities in the U.S.A. prior to the outbreak of war, Roosevelt sent for Dies and told him to cease his work against Communists. When Dies refused to do so, he was smeared by tile Roosevelt Administration all over America.

During the war Roosevelt, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces permitted known Communists to hold Commissions. He was specifically warned by one of his top officials concerning Communist agents in the Administration, but told his official to "take a walk." Right up until the time of his death after the disastrous Yalta Conference of 1945, Roosevelt persisted with his policy of appeasing the Communists on every major issue.

The extent of Communist influence in the third Roosevelt Administration may be judged by one incident alone. In 1942 the Communists were able to extract from the American State Department a pledge that the U.S. would not oppose the Chinese Communists, that it would not support Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader, in civil war, and that it would work for unity in China. The pledge was given in written form to Earl Browder, general secretary of the Communist Party at that time, by Sumner Welles, Under-Secretary of State. Browder had the pledge published in the Communist Daily Worker of October 16, 1942. Here was American foreign policy being dictated by the Communists and openly announced through the Communist press.

As we proceed with our story, we will note other examples of the Roosevelt Administrations being used to advance Communist policies. Although the peoples of the British Empire have been told by those responsible for the Roosevelt myth, that Roosevelt was a great admirer of the British and brought a reluctant America into the war primarily to help the British, the truth is that Roosevelt was not only a trenchant critic of the British Empire, but right throughout the war exerted pressure to break up the Empire. He attempted to force the British to leave India during the war, and even went so far as to promise the Chinese that he would help get the British out of Hong Kong.

Roosevelt's eldest son, Elliott, in his frank revelations, As He Saw It, quotes many statements by his father concerning his persistent hatred of the British Empire.
In private Churchill complained to Roosevelt, "Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire", while in public he made his famous declaration. "We mean to hold our own. I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."

Roosevelt's attitude towards the British Empire was of great importance to the Communists' strategy. As the former Communist, D. Dallin, and other experts on Communism have pointed out, a strong British Empire was a barrier to Communist expansion right around the globe, and Communist strategy has always been primarily concerned with disintegrating the British Empire. There is no doubt that Roosevelt's war-time policy of consistently supporting the Communists against the British stemmed largely from his anti-British Empire attitude. There were, of course, commercial and other interests in the U.S.A. which were also keen to see the unity of the British world broken, an important aspect of the situation which the Communists fully understood.

It is unfortunate that many Americans, because of their history, readily accept Communist propaganda concerning the "evils of European colonialism", and have never considered this question realistically or examined it against the background of basic Communist strategy for conquering the world.
Roosevelt's anti-colonial bias was also shared by many of his associates, who demonstrated that they knew little or nothing about either colonialism or Communism. For example Cordell Hull, Roosevelt's Secretary of State, wrote in his Memoirs (p.1151), "We had definite ideas with respect to the future of the British Colonial Empire, on which we differed from the British."

Like the Communists, Roosevelt and many of his associates saw the war not merely as a campaign to destroy Hitler, but as one to obtain other objectives.
It is important that we bear this important fact in mind.

In his book, Crusade in Europe (pp. 473-74), Eisenhower also revealed quite clearly that he shared Roosevelt's delusions concerning the alleged similarities between the Russians and the Americans as opposed to the "imperialism" of the British. Eisenhower wrote that "in the past relations of America and Russia there was no cause to regard the future with pessimism".
He went on to say that both Russia and America were "free from the stigma of colonial empire building by force. "

The tragedy for Western Civilisation was that while Roosevelt and his associates were insistent that the war must not finish with the "wicked" British and other European "imperialists" regaining control of their colonies and continuing the work of civilising, in some cases, stone-age natives, they were prepared to allow the Communists to take control of Eastern European peoples with a long tradition of culture and civilisation.
The terrible results of this preference for Communist imperialism as compared with European colonisation, are now clear for all to see.


As two of the most important figures in this story are Harry Hopkins, a type of unofficial roving Ambassador for Roosevelt, and chief of Lease-Lend, and General George C. Marshall, American Chief of Staff during the war, and later American Secretary of State, and then Secretary of Defence, it is essential that we briefly examine the background of these two men who, time and time again, sided with Roosevelt on the side of the Communists.

Hopkins first made a name for himself as a big spender of various welfare funds and, although he had no training for the position, eventually established himself as one of Roosevelt's principal advisers. Roosevelt sent him to see Stalin after the Germans attacked and Hopkins came back preaching that Stalin was a "good guy''. His policy was one of giving Stalin everything demanded. Hopkins maintained his appeasement policy right throughout the war. In a memorandum written six months after the Yalta Conference when even the most gullible were becoming alarmed about the Communists' policies, Hopkins said: "We know or believe that Russian interests- ... do not afford an opportunity for a major difference between us in foreign affairs . . . The Russians undoubtedly like the American people . . . They trust the United States more than they trust any other power in the world - above all, they want to maintain friendly relations with us."

Although Hopkins was most gullible about many matters, as many of his statements indicate, he was obviously a tool being used by someone. He had a craving to be near the source of power and in order to achieve his objective worked ceaselessly to become as close to Roosevelt as possible. But the true role of Hopkins cannot be assessed without knowing who paid him. Several penetrating commentators on Hopkins' career have drawn attention to the significant fact that in spite of the great power he wielded and the important work he did on behalf of the Roosevelt Administration, he was never at any time on an official salary. Hopkins had no money of his own and the question is, "Who was paying him?" The nearest anyone has come to answering this intriguing question, is to point out that Hopkins was a favourite of Bernard Mannes Baruch, the international financier who strongly supported Roosevelt.
Baruch gave Hopkins a lavish dinner early in the war at a time when he was urging Americans to adopt a more austere way of life. Hopkins was also a close friend of Mrs. Roosevelt's and was influenced by her.

We now turn to General Marshall.
A study of his record reveals a great cleavage between the myth concerning Marshall and fact. Marshall emerged from the war as a hero at whom no one could possibly throw any stones of criticism. But as time passed and American historians started to assess what has been aptly described as "America's Retreat from Victory", it was pointed out that there was a strange consistency concerning the pro-Communist policies supported by Marshall during and after the war.
Marshall's record is now clear and, whatever the reasons, a man generally believed to be a military genius, in spite of the fact that, like Eisenhower, he had practically no experience of handling combat troops, played a decisive role in helping the major Communist advances.

A brief survey of Marshall's background is essential in order to try and assess the role he played, first with the Roosevelt Administration, and then with Truman.
Marshall was a Captain with the American permanent forces after the first World War, was promoted by General Douglas MacArthur, then American Chief of Staff, in 1933, upon the intercession of a friend, but after being unsuccessfully tried as a Regimental Commander, MacArthur refused to recommend any further promotion and relieved him of his post. But six years later, in 1939, the unsuccessful Regimental Commander was appointed by Roosevelt as American Chief of Staff.
Roosevelt's appointment caused a tremendous stir in American military circles, as Marshall was advanced over the heads of 20 Major-Generals and 14 senior Brigadiers. Marshall's appointment was clearly a political one.
Both Harry Hopkins and Mrs. Roosevelt supported Marshall.

Any attempt to assess Marshall's role in the decisive events of the war, and the post-war years would be completely unrealistic if it did not take note of the fact that Marshall's high military position was obtained as the result of political patronage, and that those responsible for this patronage were also closely associated with a series of events all of which helped further the expansion of International Communism. Whatever the reasons for Marshall's policies, the truth is that they consistently fitted in with those of the Communists.

The record shows that on every major issue General Marshall's policy was opposed to that of other American military and naval leaders. He violently clashed with the British military leaders in 1942 when he strongly pressed for the immediate launching of a "Second Front" across the Channel at a time when the Germans were on the offensive everywhere, when the British pointed out that there was insufficient suitable craft, and before the American armies had been given battle experience. The "Second Front" campaign was, of course, promoted by the Communists everywhere. General Mark Clark, American Commander of all American forces in Great Britain, also opposed the "Second Front", but Marshall persisted to the point of threatening the British that if they would not agree "we will turn our back on them and take up the war with Japan."

Churchill observed that the proposal to launch a "Second Front" across the Channel in 1942 or 1943 might have proved "the only way in which we could have lost the war."

The very use of the term "Second Front" was misleading, because the British were heavily engaged with strong German armies in the North African campaign which was in fact a Second Front already in existence. The major contributions which Marshall made towards the expansion of International Communism will be related as we continue our story. It is significant that when Marshall's record started to be critically examined in the U.S.A., it was the Communists who were the loudest in attempting to defend Marshall. The Communist Daily Worker produced a stream of editorials lauding Marshall as a "great hero" and his critics as "fascists".


Ever since the Treaty of Versailles following the First World War, numerous authorities on European affairs had pointed out that the grave injustices imposed upon various minority groups in different countries, could eventually prove to be the seeds of another war. It was not surprising that Hitler, once strong enough, determined to deal with the question of the German minorities. One of the major German minority problems was in Poland, but, strangely enough, no real effort was made by the British and French to try to ensure that this and other problems were settled with justice and thus to deprive Hitler of excuses for further expansion.
There is no doubt that British and French diplomacy was to a great extent influenced from America, where the British had been strongly attacked for not going to war in 1938.
The Communists everywhere had also campaigned for war in 1938, although there was no real evidence that Soviet Russia was prepared to assist in any war on Germany.

The story about the Munich "appeasement" is a typical example of modern political myths.

All those urging that Great Britain go to war in 1938 over the German minorities in Czechoslovakia did not explain how the British, relatively unarmed, were going to fight Germany on the Continent at a time when there was no guarantee that the French Army would or could assist. War at this stage would almost certainly have been disastrous for Great Britain, which was what the Communists desired. Time and time again the Communist leaders had discussed the question of whether Germany could be used to weaken their major obstacle to world domination, the British Empire. The full story of what happened after Munich has not yet been told in detail. But we do know that the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, bitterly complained that the Americans had tricked him into the war. (Forrestal Diaries, pp. 121, 122.)

The Roosevelt administration applied pressure, gave assurances of support in various ways, and encouraged Chamberlain in his futile efforts to reach an agreement with Soviet Russia. The British guarantee to the Polish Government, announced in March of 1939, is one of the most astonishing in the history of British diplomacy. The issue of peace or war was virtually in the hands of the Polish Government, which immediately following the announcement of the British guarantee, initiated acts of the greatest provocation against the German minority in Poland. As the British and French leaders knew that their pledge to the Polish Government was useless in the sense that they would be unable to prevent Hitler from invading Poland if he was determined to do so, the only logical conclusion, and one which all the available evidence supports, is that they seriously believed that it was possible to reach a definite agreement with Soviet Russia in an endeavour to prevent war. But the Communists were determined to get the war started, and so while they continued to string the British representatives along in Moscow, high level secret negotiations were being finalised with the Germans. The announcement of the Russo-German pact in August, 1939, formally cleared the way for war - and time expansion of the Communist revolution.

Caught by their pledge to the Polish Government, the British and the French declared war on Germany only to find that not only Germany was invading Poland, but that the country was also being attacked by the Russians in accordance with their agreement with the Germans.

Needless to say, there was no suggestion from those pressing for war against Germany that it would now be logical to declare war on Russia also. Communist totalitarianism was accepted as preferable to Hitler's totalitarianism.

Having helped play a decisive role in starting the Second World War, the Communists then set in motion their revolutionary machinery to exploit it. The Communists systematically undermined French resistance, their defeatist propaganda being particularly effective in the French army facing the Germans. The Communist leaders welcomed the German defeat of France, convinced that it would prepare the way for subsequent revolutionary activities, and fulfilled all their promises to help Germany economically.

The Roosevelt Administration also welcomed the war, and also convinced powerful sections of the American community that they could profit from helping France and the British without the risk of America being involved. A drastic reduction in unemployment figures as war orders set the wheels of industry turning again helped solve Roosevelt's internal economic problems and played a vital part in ensuring his re-election as President in 1940.

Frederic R. Sanborn, the eminent American historian and authority on International Law, in his heavily-documented work, Design for War (Devin Adair, 1951) agrees with other American authorities that the collapse of the New Deal in 1937 was one of the decisive factors which either prompted Roosevelt, or enabled those surrounding him, to attempt to direct attention towards international affairs in an endeavour to avert domestic political disaster.

In his famous "Quarantine Speech" in Chicago in 1937, Roosevelt first openly revealed his intentions. Civilization was threatened by aggressors, he told the American people, but Soviet Russia was not mentioned as one of the aggressors. The attempt was to direct public opinion against Germany but no effort was made to explain how civilization was to be saved if Hitlerism was destroyed but Communism left in a stronger position than ever.

In any realistic examination of all the factors which helped precipitate the Second World War, it is essential that economics and financial policies be dealt with thoroughly. But we must content ourselves with briefly observing here that Roosevelt's policy of economic blockade against Germany played into the hands of those extremists inside Germany who insisted that Germany had to fight to obtain necessary raw materials for her economy. The economic factors which helped precipitate the war are dealt with in The Second World War by the eminent British military writer, Maj.-General J. F. C. Fuller.

It is also true that Hitler's barter trade agreements, instigated in an attempt to obtain raw materials from abroad, also provoked considerable antagonism amongst commercial and financial groups in other countries while his treatment of the Jewish people quite naturally aroused the violent opposition of World Jewry. Whether he was speaking as a financier or as a Jew is not clear, but before the outbreak of war Mr. Bernard Baruch, one of the most powerful men surrounding Roosevelt, insisted that "that fellow Hitler" was going to be "licked". He also said in a release of a report of an interview with Roosevelt in 1939, that, "If we keep our prices down, there is no reason why we shouldn't get the customers from the belligerent nations that they have had to drop because of the war. In that event Germany's barter system will he destroyed."

Mr. Baruch has never been quoted as saying that the Communists should be "licked". In fact we have the word of Mr. Khrushchev himself that he and his fellows have a high regard for Mr. Baruch. There were clearly various contributing factors, some of them complex, which were responsible for the war, but the important point to grasp is that the Communists consistently endeavoured to exploit all factors for their own advantage. Even apparently contradictory factors can be fitted into Leninist tactics. Consequently the Communist agents in the Roosevelt Administration welcomed the war, knowing that the arrangements between Hitler and Stalin was merely a temporary tactical move. The timing of the attack upon his Communist allies by Hitler in 1941 was undoubtedly a major shock to the Communist revolutionary program, but the international Communist apparatus was quickly set into motion and the war immediately changed from an "imperialistic" struggle into a holy war against Hitlerism.

The Communists everywhere led the demands for a greater war effort. And they were fortunate that Roosevelt was determined to bring America into the war, in spite of his repeated solemn promises before the 1940 Presidential Elections, that no American would be required to fight. Roosevelt's problem, and those surrounding him, was how to bring America into the war in face of an American public opinion which, as consistently revealed at Gallup Polls, was overwhelmingly against entering the struggle militarily.

Not long before Pearl Harbour in December, 1941, a public opinion poll showed that approximately 85 per cent. of the American people were opposed to entering the war. Those Americans with an understanding of the menace of International Communism, took the view that the two great totalitarian powers, Germany and Russia, should be left to exhaust themselves as a prelude to a saner Europe. This possibility was a serious one for the Communists as they reeled back in 1941 under the first blows of the German assault. It was therefore imperative from the Communist viewpoint that America enter the war as soon as possible as an active participant. We can therefore now turn to one of the most incredible stories of this century-the real story about Pearl Harbour.


The Japanese attack upon the American Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, was presented to the American people by Roosevelt and his associates as an unprovoked, surprise blow delivered by a treacherous enemy who had been pretending that he was seeking peace.

The Roosevelt version is still accepted by many people who are not aware that Pearl Harbour was in fact no real surprise to Roosevelt because the American President's policy was to force Japan to attack America in order that the reluctant American people could be brought into the war.

In the chapter, "The Russian Problem and the Pacific" of his book, The Decisive Battles of the Western World (Vol. III) Major-General Fuller outlines the major developments which led to Pearl Harbour.
As Fuller points out, the notorious Atlantic Declaration, or Charter, was probably "the biggest hoax in history." The issue of this Declaration, which was never a formal state paper, "but nothing more than a publicity hand out," masked the fact that the real question discussed at the Conference in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, between August 8 and 13, 1941, was how Roosevelt was to get the Americans into the war. Although Roosevelt had openly declared economic war upon Germany, Hitler refused to oblige Roosevelt with a suitable excuse for an open declaration of war.

Shortly before the Atlantic Conference Roosevelt told his son Elliott that Churchill "knows that without America, England can't stay in the war." Some sort of negotiated European peace would have been imperative, a prospect which the Communists must have found alarming. Roosevelt promised Churchill at the Atlantic Conference that the United States, "even if herself not attacked, would come into the war in the Far East." He also promised that upon his return to Washington he would send a provocative note to Admiral Nomura, the Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.A. This was done on August 17.

Secretary of War Stimson summed up at the attitude of Roosevelt and those associated with him, in the following record in his diary of November 25: "The question was how we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

In order to understand how Pearl Harbour was brought about, it is essential to stress the fact that Japanese leaders were far from united on the question of foreign policy. There was the extremist group, comprised of those military and civilian leaders who wanted to exploit the war in Europe to build a great Asiatic Empire under Japanese domination. But there were also influential leaders, with close associations with the Emperor, who were moderate in their outlook, desired to avert war and a break with the West, and who believed that Japan could support its growing population through industrial and commercial expansion. This policy required, of course, that Japan be permitted by the Western Powers to obtain access to essential raw materials.
Admiral Nomura, the Japanese Ambassador to the U.S.A. in 1941, was a member of the moderate Japanese group and desperately worked for peace between the U.S.A. and Japan.
Leader of the Japanese moderates in Japan was Prince Konoye, who was able to maintain his position as Prime Minister until American policy made his resignation inevitable. The major issue of disagreement between Japan and Washington was Japan's control of Manchuria and the war with China. But the moderate Japanese leaders made it clear that they were prepared to try to settle the China question if supported by Washington.

Proposals were put forward as the basis for negotiation which would have given the Chinese far more than they could reasonably expect to obtain by their own efforts. But Roosevelt and his advisers flatly refused to meet the Japanese moderates in any way. If the Japanese moderates were to have any chance of restraining those wanting war, it was essential that they persuade the Roosevelt Administration that it must ease the severe economic blockade imposed in July of 1941.
(How War Came, by Davis and Lindley, p.258.)

The first major step leading towards Pearl Harbour was taken by President Roosevelt on July 25, 1941, when he froze all Japanese assets in the United States. This was a policy of severe economic blockade and tantamount to a declaration of war. Roosevelt himself had admitted in a statement made just prior to the imposition of economic sanctions that any attempt to cut off Japan's oil supplies would have led to an attack on the Netherlands East Indies "and we would have had war"!
Although the real significance of Roosevelt's economic blockade was not understood by many in the U.S.A., including those campaigning to keep America out of the war, American naval leaders certainly knew what the blockade meant.

In a report drafted on July 19, the Navy's War Plans Division had expressed opposition to the policy of economic blockade, pointing out that Japan already had sufficient oil for eighteen months of war, and that the economic attack could only have the effect of precipitating war. But the precipitation of war was exactly what Roosevelt and his advisers sought.
As already mentioned, there was a cleavage between Japan's leaders in the critical period prior to Pearl Harbour.

If Roosevelt had genuinely desired peace in the Pacific, his diplomacy would have been directed towards supporting the pro-Western moderate elements in Japan and thus helping to sever Japan's loose ties with Germany and Italy. But Roosevelt's policy persistently refused to give any encouragement whatever to the Japanese moderates led by Prince Konoye. In spite of the refusal of Roosevelt to meet the offers of the Japanese moderate, Prince Konoye and his colleagues still worked desperately to avert war. Prince Konoye next offered to take a tremendous political and personal risk by traveling to meet Roosevelt on American soil. The experienced American Ambassador in Japan, Joseph C. Grew, strongly recommended the proposed meeting to the Roosevelt administration.

He made the following warning if the Konoye offer was rejected:
"The logical outcome of this will be the downfall of the Konoye Cabinet and the formation of a military dictatorship which will lack either the disposition or the temperament to avoid colliding head-on with the United States."

Grew reported on October 1 that Konoye's proposals had general political and military support, and observed that
"For a Prime Minister of Japan thus to shatter all precedent and tradition in this land of subservience to precedent and tradition, to wish to come hat in hand, so to speak, to meet the President of the United States on American soil, is a gauge of the determination of the Government to undo the vast harm already accomplished . . "
My Ten Years in Japan
, by Joseph Grew (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1942), pp.456-62.

Prince Konoye's offer placed Roosevelt in a difficult position, but, although it was never definitely rejected, it was skillfully sidestepped and left to die. Roosevelt was determined on war. When Konoye's last effort for peace failed, he resigned on October 16 and General Tojo took his place. The pace of events then quickened and war became progressively more certain as the American policy makers rigidly refused to accept any Japanese proposals to ease the situation. It is important to note that Owen Lattimore, at that time an American adviser to Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-shek, strongly urged that America refuse to have anything to do with Japan's proposals for a compromise peace in Asia in exchange for an easing of the American economic blockade of Japan.

It was not known at this time that Lattimore was a pro-Communist, if not a top Communist secret agent. Later Lattimore came out openly against Chiang Kai-shek and supported the Chinese Communists. Lattimore worked in collaboration with Mr. Lauchlan Currie, the President's assistant on Far Eastern Affairs.

In his book, The Twenty-Year Revolution from Roosevelt to Eisenhower (1954), Chesley Manly, the well-known American journalist, deals extensively with the large number of influential Communist agents in the Roosevelt Administration, and quotes the following evidence before the American Senate sub-committee on August 14, 1951: "I would say that our best ones (Communist agents) were Henry Dexter White and Lauchlan Currie . . . "

When Mr. Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State, worked out between November 22 and 25 a proposal for a suggested 90-day truce between Japan and the U.S.A., during which time America would resume economic relations if Japan undertook to make no further territorial conquests, this move was blocked by the action of Lattimore and Currie. The proposal was therefore never even presented to Admiral Nomura. The next move was the substitution of a ten-point proposal which, as revealed by William L. Langer and S. Everett Gleason in their quasi-official history, The Undeclared War, was the work of the Communist agent, Harry Dexter White. It was presented through Henry Morgenthau, and was an ultimatum to the Japanese which could only mean war.
The Japanese militarists immediately intensified their long-prepared plans for an attack upon the U.S.A.

In an address to the American Chamber of Commerce in London on June 20, 1944, a British Cabinet Minister, Oliver Lyttleton, summarised the question of how the Pacific War started as follows: "America provoked Japan to such an extent that the Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbour. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into war. "

Our story would be incomplete without a reference to the fact that the Communist conspiracy reached into the Japanese Government as well as the American.

The case of the German Soviet agent, Richard Sorge, who lived in Japan before and during the war, is one of the most amazing stories of Communist espionage activities. Sorge held a semi-official position with the German Embassy and was very friendly with the German Ambassador, Eugeb Ott. He was also closely associated with the top secret Japanese Communist, Hozumi Osaki, who was a key member of Prince Konoye's brain trust and thus in a position to vitally influence Japanese policy. Osaki also had two friends who were secretaries to the Japanese Cabinet. As told in his own story Sorge and his highly placed colleagues worked to prevent any possible Japanese attack upon Russia and to turn any expansionary movement southwards.
(Hearing before the Committee on Un-American Activities on American Aspects of the Richard Sorge Case.)
Government Printer, 1951).

Stalin co-operated with his non-aggression pact with the Japanese. Looking at events retrospectively, Prince Konoye came to doubt seriously "whether the whole series of events from the Manchurian incident (1931) to the present war have not been what they (the Communists) have purposefully planned". Konove referred to the "disguised activities of the Communists behind both the military and bureaucrats" in Japan. He said that some of the younger army officers had been flirting with Communism and that in his opinion these men brought about the Manchurian War to further Communist objectives.
(Japan's Struggle to End the War, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1946, p.22.

As a prelude to a brief examination of the Pearl Harbour disaster itself, it is necessary to point out that by a stroke of miraculous good fortune, American intelligence had, months before the Japanese attack, cracked the Japanese code concerning ship movements and the code used to advise Japanese diplomats throughout the world.
This placed Roosevelt and his associates in the position where they knew exactly what the Japanese were saying and planning amongst themselves. As Sanborn writes in his book, Design for War (p.277):
"If, therefore. American statesmen truly wanted peace, theirs was not a difficult task, particularly so because they were at all times fully acquainted with Japanese hopes and plans through the breaking of the Japanese code. On the other hand, if American statesmen either wanted war or at least welcomed it as a backdoor means of entry into the European war, their task was equally easy. Perhaps for the only known occasion in diplomatic history the Americans had everything at their finger-tips. It was a complete set up for them. And it eventuated in war."

But Roosevelt not only wanted war; he wanted it to come in such a way that America would be united immediately to fight. One of the most authoritative books on the Pearl Harbour disaster is The Final Secret of Pearl Harbour (Devin-Adair, 1954), by Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobold, one of the commanders of the American Fleet his Pearl Harbour at the time of the Japanese attack.
Rear Admiral Theobold shows conclusively that Roosevelt had not only persistently strived to force the Japanese to attack, but that he wanted to make certain that the attack would be of such a nature that he would have no difficulty in obtaining an immediate declaration of war from Congress.
He was afraid that even an attack on the Philippines would not bring America into the war. Against naval advice he therefore held the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour as a deliberate target for the Japanese to attack. Further, when the last Japanese messages to arrive in the U.S.A. on December 6 left little doubt about the time and place of the coming Japanese attack, this information was kept from the American Naval and Military Commanders at Pearl Harbour, with the result that they had no warning about the attack or any opportunity to prepare for counter-action. And so Roosevelt risked a major American naval disaster in order to achieve his objective.

General Marshall certainly knew of Roosevelt's cold-blooded tactics and helped further them by not making certain that the military and naval commanders at Pearl Harbour possessed the vital information obtained through the deciphered Japanese code messages.

In order to divert attention away from Roosevelt's role in the Pearl Harbour disaster for the American Navy, the local Commanders were made the scapegoats.

In his foreword to The Final Secret of Pearl Harbour, Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey bluntly states: "I have always considered Admiral Kimmel and General Short to be splendid officers who were thrown to the wolves as scapegoats for something over which they had no control . . . they are our outstanding military martyrs. "

It has, of course, been argued that, although there can today be no disputing the fact that Roosevelt and his advisers deliberately planned Pearl Harbour, this action was justified because it brought a united America into the war and led to the military defeat of the Axis Powers. But this is merely one more example of the age-old claim that sometimes the end justifes the means. But the end is always determined by the means used.
And so it proved in this case, because although Roosevelt made Manchuria and the China Question the fundamental reason for forcing Japan to war with America, he then proceeded to allow the Communists to take that for which it was claimed it was necessary to fight Japan.

At the Yalta Conference early in 1945, Roosevelt betrayed Chiang Kai-shek when he entered into a secret agreement to hand Manchuria over to the Communists. And so, just as the war in Europe, ostensibly started over the Polish issue, finished with the Communist expansion into Eastern Europe, the war in the Pacific, allegedly started because of Japan's control of Manchuria and penetration of China, finished with Communist expansion into the Far East.
The Communists therefore won the war in the Pacific as they won it in Europe.


Although the war in the Pacific could have been brought to an end long before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, the same influences responsible for prolongation of the war in Europe were successful in making certain that the Roosevelt and the Truman Administrations entered into no negotiations with the Japanese until the Russians had consolidated their position in Eastern Europe and Communist plans for Japan and the Far East were sufficiently advanced.

By the end of 1944 the moderate elements in Japan, including the Emperor himself, were convinced that the time had arrived to attempt to make peace overtures. In advance of an interview he had with the Japanese Emperor on February 14, 1945, Prince Konoye prepared a memorandum of his views in which he stated, "I think that there is no longer any doubt about our defeat."
Konoye expressed grave concern about the advance of Communism, pointing out that "there has been a notable ascendancy of Soviet Russia in world politics."
He was of the opinion that the longer the war continued, the greater the danger of Communism inside Japan, and that "we should therefore stop the war as soon as possible.
(United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Japan's Struggle To End the War, p.21)

Influential groups in Japan, with the support of the Emperor, were therefore in favour of attempting to end the Pacific War early in 1945, and made increasingly desperate efforts from then onwards to negotiate a cease-fire. But the Communists everywhere, particularly in the U.S.A., used their powerful influence to ensure that the Japanese peace offers were rejected.

Just before President Roosevelt left for the Yalta Conference, General MacArthur provided him with a forty-page message outlining five unofficial Japanese peace overtures. The Japanese overtures, which came from responsible Japanese in direct touch with Emperor Hirohito, accepted the principle of unconditional surrender with one reservation only: that the Emperor should be saved. All other demands on the Japanese would be met.
General MacArthur recommended that Roosevelt start negotiations on the basis of the Japanese overtures, but Roosevelt and his advisers rejected the suggestion. They were determined that the Russians must be brought into the Pacific War. It would have been a serious blow to Communist plans if the Pacific War had ended at this stage.

In his book, Secret Missions (Putman, New York, 1946) the American Navy expert on Japan, Captain Ellis M. Zacharias, whose broadcasts to Japan helped hasten the Japanese surrender, states that intelligence reports made it clear that the Japanese were prepared to surrender before the Yalta Conference began.
Admiral Leahy recorded the advice he gave just prior to the Yalta Conference: "I was of the firm opinion that our war against Japan had progressed to the point where her defeat was only a matter of time and attrition. Therefore, we did not need Stalin's help to defeat our enemy in the Pacific."
(I Was There, by Admiral Leahy, p.293)

Not only General MacArthur, but also the American Naval and Air Force leaders were convinced that Japan's position was hopeless before the Yalta Conference. The bulk of the Japanese fleet was at the bottom of the sea. Japanese opposition to bombing from both sea and the air of their homeland was practically useless. And the Japanese armed forces throughout the Pacific, thanks to MacArthur's strategy, were effectively isolated, cut off from supplies, and helpless.

General William J. Donovan's Office of Strategic Services was reporting that Japanese armies on the Asian mainland were dissipated and depleted. There was no way of returning them to Japan. The only prominent American military leader who insisted that Japan still had great capacity to fight on, supported Roosevelt's policy of refusing to consider surrender terms, and desired to bring Russia into the war, was General Marshall.
And so in order to bring Russia into a war already won, the Communists were handed at Yalta what could be the main key to a world victory for International Communism.

In examining Roosevelt's motives for bringing Russia into the Pacific War, Chester Wilmot observes that Roosevelt "was also actuated by the hope that Russia's intervention would enable the United States to strike the decisive blow at Japan, and compel her surrender, before the British, French or Dutch could regain possession of their colonies."
(The Struggle for Europe. pp.644-45.)

Wilmot also draws attention to another significant historical event which has generally been overlooked. " . . . the British were placed in the humiliating position of not being permitted to reoccupy their own colonies until the Japanese High Command had formally acknowledged defeat to an American General on an American battleship in Tokyo Bay. Although this particular manifestation of American anti-colonialism was not revealed until six months after Yalta, the attitude which inspired it was implicit in the policy Roosevelt pursued throughout the war."
(. Ibid, p.643. )

From Yalta onwards the Japanese peace efforts continued. The Japanese even made an approach through Russia, with whom they were still at peace. But, needless to say, the Communists did nothing about the matter. In the U.S.A., a crucial debate continued between those officials who wanted to negotiate with the Japanese concerning surrender terms, particularly with reference to the basic question of the future of the Emperor. The Communist agents and their dupes persistently supported a policy of making the Emperor a war criminal and of abolishing the Emperor as an institution in Japan, knowing full well that this policy would help prolong the war and also help the long-range proposals to Communise Japan after hostilities.
Fortunately, these proposals were subsequently defeated by General MacArthur when he took control in Japan and resisted all U.S. State Department directions.

With the dropping of the first atomic bomb the Communists declared war on Japan and almost without firing a shot, swept forward into the Far East to collect the great strategic prizes granted them at Yalta. And so the war in the Pacific, precipitated by the Roosevelt Administration ostensibly on the issue of Japan's position on the Asian mainland, and an alleged concern for China, concluded with the Communists being given that which it was originally claimed should belong to China.
And there was now even worse to follow.


Although Stalin was not present in person at either the first Quebec Conference, held late in 1943, or the second one, held late in 1944, he successfully dominated both of them through his secret agents in the Roosevelt Administration. The first Quebec Conference saw the fashioning of the whole Pro-Soviet policy which Roosevelt progressively advanced.
It was at this Conference that the first moves were made to ensure that the American and British drive up through Italy did not continue into Eastern Europe and so conflict with Stalin's plans.
It was also at the first Quebec conference that there was produced an astounding Memorandum entitled "Russia's Position", which laid the basis for the subsequent surrenders to the Communists at Teheran, Yalta and Pots-dam Conferences.

The full text of this Memorandum is given on pages 748-749 of Robert Sherwood's book, Roosevelt and Hopkins. Sherwood reveals that Hopkins took the document to the Quebec Conference. Many have speculated whether Marshall was the actual author of the Memorandum, but irrespective of whether he wrote it or not, Marshall joined with Hopkins in sanctioning it.

The Memorandum read:
Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces. It is true that Great Britain is building up a position in the Mediterranean vis-a-vis Russia that she may find useful in balancing power in Europe. However, even here she may not be able to oppose Russia unless she is otherwise supported.

The conclusions from the foregoing are obvious. 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.

Finally, the most important factor the United States has to consider in relation to Russia is the prosecution of the war in the Pacific. With Russia as an ally in the war against Japan, the war can be terminated in less time and at less expense in life and resources than if the reverse were the case. Should the war in the Pacific have to be carried on with an unfriendly or negative attitude on the part of Russia, the difficulties will be immeasurably increased and operations might become abortive.

The full significance of this Memorandum cannot be grasped without consideration of another amazing document presented and endorsed at the second Quebec Conference. This document outlined the infamous Morgenthau Plan for the complete post-war destruction of Germany. The Memorandum brought by Hopkins to the first Conference said in effect that because of the proposal to destroy Germany as a major European nation, Soviet Russia would be dominant in Europe and that therefore every effort must be made to placate the Communist leaders. This was also the excuse for the alleged necessity of bribing Stalin to enter the war against Japan.

Now, while the authorship of this treacherous Memorandum has never been definitely established, there is no doubt that the document relating to the Morgenthau Plan was prepared by the top secret Communist agent in the American Treasury, Harry Dexter White. White also played a leading role in the framing of the agreements which led to the establishment of the World Bank and The International Monetary Fund.

In spite of warnings by the F.B.I., President Truman and his advisers insisted upon appointing White to a key position in the International Monetary Fund. But eventually White's position became untenable and he allegedly committed suicide before he could be called upon to testify concerning his activities. There is a doubt whether White did in fact take his life. White belonged to a small set in Washington known as the Silvermaster group. Although both the F.B.I. and the Intelligence sections of both War and Navy reported that Nathan Gregory Silvermaster was an important under-cover Communist, his good friends, Harry Dexter White, at that time Assistant to the Treasury and later Assistant Treasurer, and Lauchlin Currie, a Presidential assistant, stood by him and nothing happened to Silvermaster. He merely quietly resigned from one official position to take up another.

White was not only a Communist agent, but his secretary, Sonia Gold, was also a Communist. In her book, Out of Bondage, the former Communist agent, Elizabeth Bentley tells of how early in 1944 Moscow sent instructions to the Silvermaster group concerning post-war plans for Germany. The instructions were to the effect that Germany must be completely destroyed as an industrial power.

Because of his close personal relationships with Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury, White was given the task of ensuring that Roosevelt was presented with a plan suitable to the Communists. When they heard the details of the Morgenthau Plan - or rather the Stalin Plan as presented by White - two members of Roosevelt's Cabinet, Hull and Stimson, protested strongly. The result was that Roosevelt took neither Hull nor Stimson his two senior Cabinet members, one Secretary of State and the other Secretary of War, to the second Quebec Conference in September of 1944. This was a most significant and serious step by Roosevelt.

At this Conference Morgenthau presented White's plan to Churchill and Roosevelt. Although Anthony Eden strongly opposed the plan, Churchill had already agreed to it before Eden arrived at the conference. Churchill said after the war that he was sorry he had endorsed the plan, but gave no explanation of why he agreed to it. There is no doubt that although Churchill first opposed the plan, he later withdrew his objections after a discussion with Morgenthau concerning a proposal of dollar credits totaling 6,500,000,000 dollars for Great Britain after the war.

The last paragraph of the Morgenthau Plan stated that immediately after the war the United States should remove all American troops from Germany, which was to be policed by Russian, Polish, Czechoslovakian, Yugoslavian, Greek, Belgium and French forces. If this proposal had been implemented, the whole of Germany would today be under Communist control. In fact the whole of Europe to the English Channel would probably be under Communist domination. Secretary of State Hull was amazed when he discovered what had been agreed to at the Quebec Conference.

Contemplating the fact that Churchill was to get 6,500,000,000 dollars, Hull wrote, "This might suggest to some the quid pro quo with which the Secretary of the Treasury was able to get Mr. Churchill's adherence to his cataclysmic plan."
(Memoirs of Cordell Hull, pp. 1613-1614)

In reply to Hull's protests, Roosevelt at first attempted to deny the agreement, but then admitted it saying he must have signed it without knowing what it was! The whole story would be incredible if it were not for the fact that both Hull and Stimson subsequently related in detail what had happened.

Although Stalin was not present in person at the Conference, he was present in the person of Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the American Treasury, who influenced Roosevelt and Churchill to accept a plan drafted by Harry Dexter White, Stalin's secret agent. The Conference was a major victory for International Communism in more ways than one. And the subsequent revelations concerning what took place provide irrefutable proof of the fact that the realities behind international politics are quite different from the façade presented to the general public.

Lord Brand's version of what took place provides further confirmation of the realities at the second Quebec Conference. Lord Brand, the prominent British banker, in an interview with the Sunday Times early in 1961, told of how he went to the Quebec Conference as the British Treasury's representative. Brand tried to stop this "lunatic idea", (the Morgenthau Plan) but like Eden, he was too late. He discovered that one of Churchill's closest advisers, Lord Cherwell, born Lindemann, excused the agreement to the Morgenthau Plan because "we very much wanted a loan from the United States, and Morgenthau wanted this document about Germany signed."
Dollar diplomacy was clearly used to ensure that Churchill agreed to endorse, along with Roosevelt, a plan for the eventual Communist enslavement of Germany.

As soon as the basic features of the Morgenthau Plan were published in the American press on September 24, 1944, Germany's propaganda chief Goebbels immediately seized upon the report as a propaganda gift of enormous value at a time when the German position was becoming desperate. He told all Germans that the Morgenthau Plan, together with the policy of "Unconditional Surrender" - another decision by Roosevelt's "advisers" - left them with no other option but to fight to the bitter finish. They had nothing to lose, as it was proposed to destroy them completely as a nation and to deprive them of the means of sustaining their economy.

News of the Morgenthau Plan in Germany coinciding with the German's defensive victories at Arnhem, Antwerp and Auchen, had a tremendous stiffening impact upon both civilian and military morale and played a vital part in helping to prolong the war. Every prolongation of the struggle was an advantage for the Communists, who wanted to ensure that their armies had advanced as far Westwards as possible before the war ended.

Captain Liddell Hart, the British Military writer, who interviewed the leading German Generals after the war, declares in his book, The German Generals' Talk, "All to whom I talked dealt on the effect of the Allies' 'unconditional surrender' policy in prolonging the war." It is not surprising therefore to find Elliott Roosevelt recording in his book the following statement by his father, "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have thought it up himself."
Whether or not he or his agents thought it up, "Uncle Joe" was careful not to endorse the "unconditional surrender" policy himself. In fact he persistently used the threat of a separate peace with Germany if he did not get his own way with his allies.

Although Stalin pressed at the Yalta Conference, held early in 1945, for severe penalties which would impoverish Germany politically and economically, the Morgenthau Plan was fortunately never fully implemented. But it did yield great dividends for the Communists, while those responsible for the Plan, together with their fellow-agents in America, were able to ensure that the war in Europe finished with the Communists deeply entrenched in the whole of Eastern Europe.


Although it was at the first Quebec Conference in 1943 that the whole disastrous future American policy concerning Russia was forecast, it was at the Teheran Conference, held in November and December of that year, that Stalin obtained his first major diplomatic victory when, with the aid of the American policy-makers, he finally defeated Churchill's attempt to extend the successful Italian campaign into the Balkans and then into Eastern Europe.
It was also at Teheran that the future of the Poles and other Eastern European peoples was sealed, although the subsequent Yalta and Potsdam Conferences confirmed the Communist victories.

In spite of their high-sounding phrases in the much publicised Atlantic Charter concerning the right of self-determination for all peoples, neither Churchill nor Roosevelt made any real effort at Teheran to ensure that Polish integrity, the alleged reason for the start of the war in Europe was upheld. The tragic story of how Poland was blatantly betrayed is told by the heroic Polish leader, Mikolajczyk, in his book, The Rape of Poland. It does not make pleasant reading.

The Big Three drastically re-adjusted Poland's boundaries, took away from the Poles land that was historically and ethnically Polish, and assigned to Poland land that was historically ethnically German. This was done without even consulting a representative of the Polish people.
Later, at the Yalta Conference, it is true that there were beautiful phrases about free elections and secret ballots for the Poles, but Stalin knew by this time that Poland, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, would be under the control of the Red Army, and that the Communists would get the type of Government they desired. This is exactly what happened.

Although Churchill collapsed on the Polish question, possibly because he felt nothing effective could be done about it - this view cannot, of course, be logically upheld - he did however, make an attempt to take action to prevent Soviet influence being extended into the Balkans. But once again Stalin, this time with the strong support of Roosevelt and General Marshall, defeated Churchill and made certain that nothing would halt the Communist advance Westward.

Stalin's objectives were clear and he was not going to permit them to be defeated by any invasion of the Balkans by the British and Americans. He therefore insisted that the proposed cross-channel invasion be the basis of all Western campaigning and that troops from the Italian campaign be used for an invasion of Southern France. Marshall supported the Russian viewpoint.
It is not surprising that, as related by Sherwood in his book, Stalin said in conversation with Roosevelt that
"no wiser or more reassuring choice" than Marshall could have been made for the post he held.
Harry Hopkins also supported the Russian viewpoint and helped persuade Roosevelt to turn down the British proposal for the penetration of Eastern Europe.

General Mark Clark, who bitterly opposed the depletion of his successful forces in Italy for the invasion of Southern France, wrote: "Stalin, it was evident throughout the Big Three meeting and negotiations at Teheran, was one of the strongest boosters of Southern France. He knew exactly what he wanted in a political as well as a military way: and the thing he wanted most was to keep us out of the Balkans, which he had staked out for the Red Army. If we switched our strength from Italy to France, it was obvious to Stalin . . . that we would turn away from central Europe. "
Anvil (the term used to describe the invasion of South France) led into a dead-end street."
(Calculated Risk, by General Mark Clark (Harrap, London, 1951), p. 368. )

Clark also observed that but "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."

It is significant that Marshall and the other American opponents of the policy to invade the Balkans consistently maintained that Churchill's insistence upon Mediterranean campaigning was only designed to protect British interests in the post-war world. This anti-British Empire theme was constantly used to try to influence those American political and military leaders who showed any tendency to resist the Stalin-Roosevelt strategy.

In spite of his defeat at Teheran, Churchill then suggested that some Mediterranean operations should continue while preparations were being made for the Channel crossing. Even this aroused bitter opposition from Marshall and his supporters. In fact Marshall went so far as to threaten that he would resign if the British were permitted to act.
(Roosevelt and Hopkins, by Robert E. Sherwood (Harper & Bros., New York, 1958), p. 848)

When the British did act decisively in Greece, thus barely saving this country from Communist domination, there was a howl of rage from those Americans who seemed to be determined to favour the Russians in preference to the British. In criticising the policy of dividing forces between Italy and Southern France, General Sir Henry Maitland Wilson, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Mediterranean theatre, said that preoccupation with capture of forts in Southern France seemed
"to imply a strategy aimed at defeating Germany during the first part of 1945 at the cost of an opportunity of defeating her before the end of 1944".

(Quoted by Wilmot in "The Struggle for Europe, p. 450.)

This was the strategy dictated by the Communists through the Roosevelt Administration. And Stalin took no risks of his strategy being upset. Shrewdly anticipating that Churchill would probably re-open the question of an invasion through the Balkans once a cross Channel attack had been successful, Stalin recommended that "the attack on Southern Franch should precede Overlord (the cross Channel invasion) by two months."
(Stalin's Memorandum, presented November 29, 1943. Quoted by Sherwood in Roosevelt and Hopkins) .


Numerous books have been written on the Yalta Conference, held in the Crimea early in 1945, but most of them add up to the conclusion that this conference was an even greater victory for International Communism than was the Teheran Conference. It was another important milestone on the Communists' route to world conquest.

As we have already seen, the Roosevelt regime made Manchuria one of the issues to force Japan into the war. But in spite of this fact, and the definite promise to the Chinese Nationalist leader, Chiang Kai-shek, at the Cairo Conference, held late in November, 1943, that China's rights in Manchuria would be upheld and protected, Roosevelt immediately forgot his promise and at the Yalta Conference agreed not only to grant the Communists a dominating role in Manchuria, the most industrialised part of China as a result of Japanese investments since 1931, but to give them the Kurile Islands to the north of Japan. This was done without even consulting Chiang Kai-shek or informing him.

At Stalin's insistence, the Communist leader's claims in Asia were put in writing and they contained the following decisive assurance: "The Heads of the three Great Powers have agreed that these claims of the Soviet Union shall be unquestioningly fulfilled after Japan has been defeated."
Former American Ambassador William C. Bullitt said later that "no more unnecessary, disgraceful and potentially disastrous document has ever been signed by a President of the United States."

At the Yalta Conference the American delegates were separated from the British by the Communists' arrangements. Stalin concentrated on Roosevelt, at that stage a sick and dying man, to get everything he wanted, both in Europe as well as in Asia. On both the Polish and the German questions, Stalin was completely victorious, only Churchill mildly protesting against some of the proposals.
When Stalin insisted that ""forced German labour outside Germany", agreed to in the Morgenthau Plan, be sanctioned on a large-scale source of reparations, Roosevelt. the originator of the great Atlantic Charter, never even raised a note of opposition to this inhuman policy. Worse than this, he agreed that the hundreds of thousands of Russian nationals who had taken the opportunity during the war of fleeing from Communist tyranny. and who wanted to stay in the West, should be compelled to return to Russia. Large numbers committed suicide rather than return to a certain living death in Siberia.

The basis for the establishment of the United Nations was established at Yalta, including Roosevelt's concession that Russia should have three votes - the two extra being for Bzelorussia and the Ukraine. This concession was kept a secret by Roosevelt when he returned to America. One of Roosevelt's top advisers at Yalta, Alger Hiss, was the only man present when Roosevelt surrendered to Stalin. Subsequently Alger Hiss was exposed as one of the most dangerous secret Communist agents in the U.S.A. When being investigated years later, Hiss made the significant statement that "it is an accurate and not immodest statement to say that I helped formulate the Yalta agreement to some extent."
(Seeds of Treason, by Ralph de Toledano and Victor Lasky (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1950), p. 108)

According to Robert E. Sherwood, "'the mood of the American delegates, including Roosevelt and Hopkins, could be described as one of supreme exultation as they left Yalta."
(Roosevelt and Hopkins, p. 869)

The chorus of praise for the Yalta Agreement by deluded Western politicians and newspaper editors, drowned out the stories of the scores of Polish soldiers in Italy who committed suicide in desperation when they heard of the betrayal of their country.


Lease-Lend was used by the Communists not only to ensure that Russia had adequate military equipment to help defeat Germany, but to stock-pile enormous quantities of non-strategic materials for post-war reconstruction. And once it was obvious that the Germans were retreating, a start was made to stock-pile materials for post-war reconstruction, the ultimate conquest of China, and for use in Korea.

Communist demands for an ever-growing flood of materials from the U.S.A. completely ignored the fact that some of the items they demanded were in very short supply in the U.S.A. The Communists bluntly refused to give any details concerning their demands for aluminium, nickel, copper-wire and similar strategic materials.
In his book, Strange Alliance, General Deane relates a remarkable conversation with Mikoyan, at that time head of the Russian Commissariat of Foreign Trade. Mikoyan "implied that his Purchasing Commission in Washington would have no trouble obtaining approval of the Russian requests regardless of what action I might take."
(Strange Alliance, pp. 97-98)
Deane found that Mikoyan was right.

Harry Hopkins insisted that there be no challenge to Communist demands, irrespective of what they were. But the British were bluntly told that their Lease-Lend requirements must be shown to be necessary for immediate war purposes. The manner in which the Communists used Lease-Lend for their long-term revolutionary policies has been graphically told by Major Racey Jordan, the American official in charge of Lend-Lease going to Russia via Alaska.
(From Major Jordan's Diaries (Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1952, 1st edition)

By sheer good luck Major Jordan decided to keep a detailed diary on his daily duties. In those days he had heard nothing about the development of the atomic bomb and it was not until after the war that he realised the terrible significance of some of his notes.
In 1942 the atomic bomb project was only being pioneered. But the following was one of Jordan's entries in his Diary during 1942:
Graphite: natural, flake, lump or chip, costing American taxpayers 812,437 dollars. Over thirteen million dollars' worth of aluminium tubes . . . We sent 834,989 pounds of cadmium metal for rods to control the intensity of an atomic pile; the cost was 781,472. The really secret material, thorium, finally showed up and started through immediately.

After his suspicions had been aroused concerning the actions of the Russian Colonel in charge at the transit site, Major Jordan made an unannounced and thorough inspection of the ""personal luggage" being taken off on one of the planes. Jordan was horrified to find copies of vital American defence documents. He saw State Department folders and noted in his Diary that one read '"From Hiss". Like most Americans, Jordan had at this time never heard of Alger Hiss.
There was also White House note paper and mention of Mikoyan. Testifying before the Un-American Activities Committee in 1950, Victor A. Kravchenko, the top Russian official who defected to the non-Communist world, said that Mikoyan was second assistant to Mr. Stalin during the war. Mikoyan was in charge of Lend-Lease and directed spies under his control in the U.S.A. to obtain secret information about the industrial development in the United States, and especially in the military industry".
As he read through the papers he had discovered, Jordan also noted the name of Harry Hopkins.

Major Jordan was a business man who knew little about politics or subversion. But his patriotism was such that he knew he had to do something about stopping the Communists getting access to volumes of security information with the obvious assistance of Harry Hopkins and from sending it out of America in ""diplomatic" suit cases loaded on to Lease-Lend planes. He therefore left his post at Great Falls in January, 1944, to report his unusual and disturbing discoveries to his seniors in Washington. But Major Jordan soon discovered that no one wanted to hear about his discoveries. It was made clear to him that ""officers who get too officious are likely to find themselves on an island somewhere in the South Seas."

Jordan made a second attempt to deal with the matter and this time approached the Army Counter-Intelligence, which thoroughly investigated the charges, recommended further investigation and recommended that the State Department be contacted in order that ""corrective measures be taken." But no real action was taken against the Communists, who continued their espionage activities with the obvious support of highly-placed officials in the Roosevelt and Truman regimes. It was only when the Communist spy rings in Canada were revealed by the defector Goukenko, and irrefutable evidence produced which indicated the extent of the war-time Communist espionage in both Canada and the U.S.A., that any effort was made at official level in the U.S.A. to bring it to an end.


Although the betrayal of Chiang Kai-shek at the Yalta Conference, with the handing of Manchuria to the Communists, was of tremendous value to the Communist strategists, their designs on China could still have been thwarted if the Americans had realised their errors and reversed their pro-Communist policies. But Communist influence was too strong in the U.S.A., where a completely false picture was given to the public and the Government of the real position in China. It was easy to point to the deficiencies of the Chiang Kai-shek Government, and to mention corruption, but no mention was made of the fact that since 1927, when the Communists under Maotse-tung had started to attack him, followed in 1932 by the Japanese invasion, Chiang Kai-shek had attempted to govern a country at war. Chiang Kai-shek therefore never ruled China in a period of peace. Whatever may be said about Chiang Kai-shek, the fact remains that he was a loyal war-time ally and, in spite of the fact that he had to contend with powerful Communist opposition within China, played an important role in helping to defeat Japan.

Right throughout the Pacific War the Chinese Communist armies spent more effort in fighting Chiang Kai-shek and preparing to seize power in China after the war, than they did in fighting the Japanese. And, as soon as the war against Japan was over, the Communists then intensified their attacks upon Chiang Kai-shek, while at the same time Communist agents in the U.S.A. were busy advocating that the only solution to the Chinese situation was a coalition Government in which both the Communists and Nationalists were represented.

Having been trained in Moscow, Chiang Kai-shek understood the Communists' tactics and refused to agree to a move which he knew could only have one end. He decided to fight.
In the autumn of 1945 General Hurley, the American Ambassador to China, resigned his post and publicly declared that the Communists in the State and Foreign Affairs Departments had sabotaged his work. President Truman attempted to smother up the scandal by immediately sending General Marshall to China as a special envoy. And it was in this role that Marshall, either consciously or unconsciously, made his final and perhaps major contribution to the Communist program for world conquest.

Although he had served as an officer in China in 1924-27, Marshall knew little of the China of twenty years later, and had to rely entirely upon the advice of the Communist agents in the State Department, or their dupes, who vigorously published the propaganda line that the Chinese Communists were not real Communists at all, but ""agrarian reformers", that Chiang Kai-shek's Government was completely "'reactionary", and that the only solution to the Chinese problem was a coalition Government in which the Communists were represented.

In a forthright article, How We Won the War and Lost the Peace, in the American journal Life on September 27, 1948, Mr. W. C. Bullitt, former American Ambassador to Russia, dealt with the truth about the Communist conquest of China. The following is a summary of that portion of article dealing with what happened with the arrival of Marshall in China:
Marshall's prestige was so great upon arriving in China that he succeeded in persuading Chiang Kia-shek to sign an armistice with the Communists on January 10, 1946. The armistice proved a godsend to Soviety policy. At that moment there were no Chinese Communists in Manchuria, which Russia occupied under the Yalta agreement. Russia therefore planned
(a) to send as many Chinese Communists as possible from North China to Manchuria to be armed with equipment and munitions taken from the Japanese:
(b) to retain its Russian army in Manchuria until it could he replaced by Chinese Communists properly equipped.

On April 14, 1946, Chinese Communists, well armed, broke the armistice and attacked Chang-chun in Manchuria. Marshall, furious, unable to touch the Communists, took it out on the Nationalists - he stopped all military supplies to Chiang's armies. At the beginning of the summer, 1946, endeavouring to force Chiang to admit Communists into his Government, he instructed the State Department to refuse further export licences for munitions to China.
From the summer, 1946, to February, 1948, the Chinese Government did not receive a single cartridge for its American arms, during which period the Communists got all they needed from Russia and were able to occupy vast tracts of territory.
In September, 1946, Marshall deliberately broke the American contract to furnish aircraft, munitions and supplies for a period of three years, since when neither bomber nor fighter has been delivered against the contract. Chiang, nevertheless, persisted in refusing to admit Communists into his Government.
It was upon his return to America that Marshall made his statement, "with one stroke of the pen I disarmed 29 Chinese divisions."

In a series of articles published in 1949, Lieut-Col. Griori A. Tokoev, a former Staff Officer of the Soviet Administration in Germany, and a defector to the non-Communist world, revealed how inside the Soviet Union Marshall's policy of trying to force Chiang Kai-shek to share power with the Chinese Communists was "followed with incredulous satisfaction."
The Communists had every reason for satisfaction; their conspiracy was successfully using the American Administration to gain the most important Communist victory since the Communist conquest of Russia in 1917.
With the Communist conquest of China, only made possible by both treachery and political ignorance in the Truman Administration, Lenin's strategy for conquering the world was taken another big step forward


The overwhelming majority of those idealists who think that the United Nations Organisation was created to avert world conflict and to advance ""the Brotherhood of Man" forget that this Organisation was in fact brought into existence with the active co-operation of the Soviet leaders. The Communists readily accepted the idea of a World Organisation, and definite arrangements were made at the Yalta Conference to launch the new body.

Considerable preliminary work had already been done. Alger Hiss, the secret Communist agent who played a decisive role in all the Promotional work associated with the United Nations, was the first Secretary-General and helped draft the Charter. In the book he wrote attempting to whitewash himself after he came out of prison, Hiss stated that his work which gave him the greatest pleasure to contemplate, was that connected with the creation of the United Nations.

Professor S. De Madariaga, the famous Spanish Liberal, has warned that ""The United Nations Charter is in the main a translation of the Russian system into an international idiom and its adaptation to an international community . . . UNO bore upon its brow from the very beginning the mark of Moscow."

Immediately the United Nations and subsidiary organisations like UNESCO were created, known American Communists and fellow-travellers flocked in to fill important posts in this new international bureaucracy. According to a report of an American Judiciary Subcommittee Hiss secretly recommended nearly 500 people for U.N. employment. Many of these were employed and later were exposed as Communists.
Numerous experts on Communism have testified that the Communists regard the United Nations as one of their major instruments for conquering the world. How can any organisation genuinely advance the cause of peace and justice when powerful members of that organisation are openly pledged to work for revolution and world tyranny?

Let us briefly examine the history of this organisation and see how it has consistently been used to advance International Communism: The first test came when the Political Zionists, with the active support of the Communists, first forced the British out of Palestine and then drove hundreds of thousands of Arabs from the country in which they had lived for thousands of years.

The United Nations not only was unable, or unwilling to attempt to prevent this aggression, but when the Zionists proclaimed the new State of Israel, the Communist delegates, together with the American delegates, voted to recognise Israel.
The United Nations not only endorsed aggression, but immediately strengthened anti-Western feeling amongst the Arabs, whom the Communists then proceeded to woo with dramatic success.

When the Korean War broke out, there was the remarkable spectacle of the United Nations allegedly being the instrument through which Communist aggression was being fought. Communist representation continued in the United Nations right throughout the Korean War, while Communist influence in the Truman Administration ensured that General MacArthur was not permitted to win. The story of the Korean War would be unbelievable if it were not for the fact that it has been fully told in official Government hearings in the U.S.A.
MacArthur was eventually removed from his position because he insisted on defeating the Chinese by striking at their bases. His subsequent revelations can be read by anyone sufficiently interested.

General Van Fleet also wrote of his experiences as Commander of the U.S. Eighth Army in Korea, claiming that time and time again he was prevented from winning when he had the enemy on the point of collapse. If a strong stand had been taken in Korea, it is highly probable that the Chinese Communists would have collapsed, because at that stage they had not consolidated their grip on the Chinese people.
The overwhelming majority of Chinese prisoners of war taken in the Korean War freely elected to go to Formosa rather than return to Communist China.

After over four years of warfare, the final result in Korea was an armistice which was in fact a tremendous propaganda victory for the Communists right throughout Asia. The Communists were the real victors in Korea, because of their subversive methods in the U.S.A. and the United Nations. We should at this point mention that when the Charter of the United Nations was being explained to the American Senate by one of the framers, the Russian-born Leo Pasvolsky (claimed by some to have been another secret Communist) no reference was made concerning the military establishment of the new organisation.
( Molotov and Hiss had made a ""deal" that the Head of the United Nations staff would always be a Communist)
(In The Cause of Peace p. 45, by Trygvie Lie, former Secretary-General of the United Nations)
Up until the present time there have been six such heads, five Russians and one Yugoslav.

During the period General MacArthur was in command of the United Nations forces in Korea, the Russians Sobelov and Zynchenko were heads of the U.N. Military Staff and therefore knew of instructions to MacArthur, which they undoubtedly passed immediately to the Communist commanders in North Korea.

It is true that when the Hungarian uprising of 1956 shook the Communist world, and threatened an internal collapse, the United Nations did pass a resolution condemning the aggression. But no real action was taken or even threatened. Eventually an excellent report was prepared, but primarily through the efforts of one man only, the Danish diplomat Bang-Jensen, who defeated attempts to include errors of fact which would have enabled the Communists to destroy the report. A large number of Hungarians gave Bang-Jensen information on the understanding that he would never reveal their names.
Immediately the report on the Hungarian uprising and its suppression by the Russians was published, the Communists set in motion a vicious smear campaign against Bang-Jensen.
The next step was a demand that Bang-Jensen hand over to the United Nations the names of the Hungarians who had supplied information. This meant handing over the names to the Communists in the various Departments in the United Nations. Bang-Jensen refused to break his word, eventually burning the paper containing the names on the roof of the United Nations.
Mr. Bang-Jensen was then removed from his position with the United Nations, without a trial, by the present Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjold, who talks a great deal about justice. Bang-Jensen tried to get redress, but the smear campaign against him was continued. Eventually his mind broke under the strain and he apparently committed suicide.

The attitude taken towards the British over the Suez incident in 1956 was in striking contrast to that adopted on the Hungarian question. The Eden Government's attempt to return to Suez was a desperate attempt to prevent growing Communist influence through Nasser in Egypt, and to stabilise the Middle East. The British attempt was defeated, not by force of arms, but by the threats of financial and economic sanctions from the policy makers in the U.S.A., whose actions were a godsend to the Communists. The final result was to leave the Suez under Nasser's control. Russian pilots have worked on the Suez ever since.

The defeat of the British on the Suez question was responsible for the Iraqi revolution. The pro-Western Government was wiped out and the Royal family murdered. This revolution was another major victory for the Communists who are now increasing their influence right throughout the Middle East. Their major objective is undoubtedly to deprive the Western European nations of vital oil supplies, thus producing a revolutionary situation.
The most dangerous development in the United Nations is the rapidly growing number of so-called new nations. Genuine self-government for peoples who are capable of governing themselves is a most desirable ideal, but premature independence under the pressure of ""world opinion" and subversive influences exploiting the idealism of many Americans, is not only putting the clock of civilization back in Africa and creating the chaos so loved by the Communists it is providing representation in the United Nations for new ""nations" which provide increasing votes for the Communists.

Even the much-publicised ""model democracy" in Ghana has become a corrupt dictatorship, with Dr. Nkrumah emerging as a willing stooge for the Communists. The full story of the tragedy of the Congo has yet to be told, but any suggestion that the United Nations has done anything to thwart Communist plans is contrary to the whole pattern of events since the Belgians, under pressure, left this vast African territory.

Communist threats to withdraw from the United Nations were splendid diversionary tactics. The Communists are not going to withdraw from an organisation which is serving their ends, and in which they will soon have the numbers to increase the pressure on other countries to modify their internal policies. Communist agents amongst the United Nations officials who have prepared reports on New Guinea, have been responsible for the pressure on Australia to grant ""independence" to peoples who as yet have no sense of nationhood and who in some areas are still eating one another.
We should record here that the first Premier of the new ""nation" of Gabon, formerly a French colony, is one Leon M'ba, who served four years in prison for eating his mother-in-law!

If the United Nations is going to be stacked with people like this, and if the Western European nations are going to accept and act upon decisions of this international organisation, then clearly it is only a very short time before Communist domination will be complete. They will be able to command the numbers.

Those who think that the premature withdrawal of the European Powers from their colonial territories is assisting in any way to halt the Communist advance, should ponder the significance of that part of the Moscow Declaration late in 1960 by 81 Communist Parties which hails the retreat of Western Colonialism as
"a development ranking second in historic importance only to the formation of the World Socialist System."

It is surely obvious now that, just as a number of people warned at the inception of the United Nations, this organisation is a Communist trap. Before the trap is sprung tight, the non-Communist nations of the West should withdraw from the United Nations and create their own alliances, based upon the genuine sovereignty of the nations concerned. The idea of international cooperation in many spheres of human activity is an excellent one, providing that it does not impinge upon the genuine independence of nations. But genuine co-operation is impossible with Communists because they only "co-operate" to destroy. This is a basic feature of Leninist teaching.

The Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States (1945) stated that "the course of peace and progress require the solidarity of all freedom-loving peoples and the continued and ever closer co-operation with the United Nations" (Italics supplied).

In 1957, this reference to the United Nations was expanded to read, "and the strengthening of the United Nations as a universal instrument of peace". Nothing could be clearer concerning Communist intentions.

As we have seen in this brief survey of the history of the Communist conspiracy since 1903, the grand strategy of the Communist leaders has never altered. Tactics only have been varied to meet immediate and local circumstances. Many have been misled on occasions because they knew nothing of Lenin's teaching that it is sometimes necessary to take one step backwards in order to take two steps forward. But all shifts and changes in tactics are designed to keep advancing the strategy of world conquest. That strategy has been outlined clearly for those prepared to take the trouble to read the authoritative Communist text-books such as The Problems of Leninism.

The final stages of the strategy have been successfully reached. The sands of time are fast running out for the non-Communist world. One of the greatest crises in the history of the human race is upon us, and a real understanding of the crisis and how it was developed, is urgently necessary if the time left for action is to be effectively used. It is essential for a more widespread understanding of the extent of the treachery within the non-Communist world, much of it in high places.

The evil that men do lives after them, wrote Shakespeare.

The truth of this has been strikingly demonstrated in the case of Alger Hiss, whose associates still continue to influence American policy making. In his book, Inside The State Department (Comet Press Books, New York, 1956) Bryton Barron, former senior official with the American State Department, analyses the long-term influence of Alger Hiss in the Department, showing how those he appointed have continued to wield considerable influence. He also shows from his vast experience over many years how minor officials in the State Department can subtly influence the policies of their seniors. Evidence of this was provided by Mr. Earl E. T. Smith, former U.S. Ambassador to Cuba during the period of Castro's rise to power, when he gave evidence before the American Senate Internal Security Committee on September 11, 1960.
Smith said that one of the major factors which brought Castro to power was the support he was given by the American State Department and other American agencies. Under questioning Smith supplied details of the type of help given to Castro.

It is a thought-provoking fact that it was only by chance that Alger Hiss was exposed publicly as a Communist agent; that today he could have been regarded generally as an eminent American citizen who had served his country loyally in important official positions. There are undoubtedly many undetected secret agents like Alger Hiss.

Those who suggest that with the exposure of men like Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Currie and others, the secret Communist apparatus has been weakened in key official positions in the West, are indulging in wishful thinking.

There was the case of the two British Foreign Office officials, Maclean and Burgess, who had sufficient influential support to enable them to escape to Russia from England when their activities were being closely investigated. The defection in 1960 of the two Americans Martin and Mitchell - from a vital sector of the American intelligence system, provided further evidence of just how deeply the Communist conspiracy penetrates into the non-Communist world. For every Communist agent discovered, or who has to reveal himself when ordered to defect, there are without doubt numerous others quietly going about their subversive activities, or perhaps merely waiting for a crisis when they can play a vital role in furthering world revolution.

The only thing that can be done to counter the secret Communist apparatus, as distinct from that which operates in the open, is for more people to be consciously aware of the problem, thus making it more difficult for the apparatus to operate and increasing the chances of detecting agents.

The menace of the secret Communists was again raised with the dramatic disclosure early in 1961 that one of the top officials in the British Foreign Office intelligence system, George Blake, had been a Communist agent for at least nine or ten years. Although Blake's relationships with the Communists while he was a prisoner in Korea were such that he should have been regarded as a security risk, the incredible fact is that he was able to carry on his treacherous activities for years in positions which enabled him to render useless practically the whole of the British Intelligence system in Western Europe and the Middle East.

Was Blake protected by the same influences which kept Burgess in the Foreign Office even after the Minister of State had been told that Burgess was a Communist agent?

The Blake case followed immediately after the Portland case in England, which resulted in five people being sent to prison for having engaged in espionage activities on behalf of Soviet Russia. It is significant that out of the five found guilty in the Portland case, Lonsdale and the two Krogers, three were Jews.

Although the Canadian Royal Commission Report on Communism drew attention to the fact that the majority of those involved in espionage in Canada were Jews and that the Communists regarded the Jews as being more amenable to enlistment as Communist agents; that the principals in the U.S.A. atomic-spy trials were Jews; and that Fuchs, who helped betray British atomic secrets was a Jew, there was apparently no notice taken of these facts by responsible people in England.

Although George Blake is an old British name, this traitor was not British-born but, like Fuchs, came to Great Britain as a Jewish refugee from the Nazis. His original name was Behar. A man with his background should never have been allowed to hold the positions he did.

In drawing attention to the relative prominence of Jews in the Communist espionage system, particularly atheistic Jews, it is not suggested, of course, that all Jews are bad security risks. Far from it. But when it is obvious, as the Canadian Royal Commission pointed out, that Jews are most susceptible to Communist ideology, this fact should be borne in mind by those responsible for security. The reasons why so many Jews have been prepared to act as espionage agents are understandable, but we need not go into this highly emotional subject in this story.

The depth of the Communist conspiracy in the U.S.A. has been commented upon by former leading Communists, men like Louis Budenz, former managing editor of the Communist, who in his book, The Cry Is Peace, shows how the Communist conspiracy, in spite of some defections, is stronger than ever. He instances Communist influence in the film industry, the Universities, the press and in the Churches, of the clever manipulation of flabby-minded "'liberals" as unconscious agents for the advancement of Communist strategy and tactics. Budenz also points out how the Communists deliberately create the impression that the typical Communist Party member is a representative of ""the masses" "'instead of the well-manicured influential gentleman on the type of Alger Hiss".

J. Edgar Hoover, head of the American F.B.I., bluntly warns that Communist influence in the U.S.A. is more dangerous than ever. The truth is that the Communists hold the initiative in every part of the world. Their propaganda and ideological offensive knows no geographical boundaries . It reaches into very home and every workshop. It saps the faith of men and women everywhere by creating fear. As Dr. Sargent, author of the important book, Brainwashing, has pointed out, confusion is deliberately created by Communist psycho-politics in order that a mentally exhausted people will clutch at any straw of apparent salvation thrown to them.

Day after day the peoples of the whole world are subjected to Communist brainwashing on a massive scale. The general failure to understand the true nature of Communism stems, to a very great extent, from the loss of understanding and belief in those fundamental spiritual and moral values upon which Western Civilization was created. Communism is not primarily a question of economics or politics. It concerns the nature and purpose of man, and the non-Communist world has no chance whatever of surviving the challenge of policies stemming from a philosophy of dialectical materialism by attempting to oppose Communism with policies which are also rooted in materialism.

Any anti-Communist program based upon moral principles would not, for example, even suggest that the plight of the victims of Communism, the Hungarians and other Eastern European peoples, should be forgotten in an attempt to gain some imagined agreement with the Communist leaders. There is no possible hope of salvation through any further betrayals of moral principles. A firm stand against Communism, based upon fundamental moral principles, would not only rally the peoples of the shrinking non-Communist world; it would restore faith and hope amongst millions of fellow human beings living under the Communist yoke.
But is there any possibility of a real stand being made on moral principles? Can the ever-increasing flood of world revolution be halted? Is it now too late?

Unless a miracle occurs, it is certain that the retreat of the non-Communist world will continue in the immediate years ahead and that crisis will follow crisis. But this does not mean that the end is certain; that the Communist conspiracy will completely triumph. The non-Communist world still possesses great spiritual and material reserves. If these reserves can be called upon and brought into effective use, then it is possible that the dawn can follow the storm. There is at least one understanding which the Communists share with the dedicated Christian; they know that the great danger to their program are those individuals who refuse to be dominated by fear, who do not accept the theory that man is but flotsam on the sea of history, but who believe that man is primarily spiritual and can, if possessed of sufficient faith, will and knowledge, use his spiritual power to change the course of events.

The salvation of Civilization must start with the salvation of the individual. Governments as such are comparatively helpless unless they are supported by resolute, informed public opinion. And informed public opinion depends upon sufficient informed individuals. In 1960 the Communists in Japan staged such successful public riots that a pro-Western Japanese Government felt compelled to humiliate President Eisenhower by withdrawing the invitation for Eisenhower to visit Japan as a guest of the Government. This event was a major diplomatic defeat for the U.S.A. right throughout Asia.

It is fatal for the individual to take the view that "the Government" is "sure to do something" about the situation while doing nothing to try to counter the poison seeping through every strata of society. Governments are powerless in a country whose people are confused by devilish propaganda. The individual who believes that he can do nothing is already defeated; he accepts the Communist and materialist view concerning the nature of man. But every individual can do something.
No matter how humble his position, he can wield some influence and make his contribution to the battle.

Many will agree that salvation must start with the individual, but then ask, "But just what can I do?"

Let us therefore conclude by briefly answering this question. The first thing the individual must do is to make himself familiar with the real nature of the Communist threat. He can do this by reading selected books and by subscribing to at least one journal which will keep him regularly informed on Communism and associated problems. Having started to inform himself, the individual can then start to inform his fellows, making use of books and journals to assist. He should ensure that different aspects of the subject are discussed by any organization, secular or religious, to which he belongs, and that anti-Communist speakers are invited to speak to members of the organization.
The individual should from time to time inform his Members of Parliament of his views concerning any policies related to Communism.

There are few individuals not capable of writing letters to the press. Even when not published, they can have some impact on editorial policy. The alert citizen should never neglect to protest when anyone, whether he be a radio commentator, or a clergyman, supports Communist policies. The individual who wants to join with others in action should become a member of organizations dealing with the Communist question. He can contribute financially to assist educational activities. Some individuals are, of course, so situated as to be able to be more influential than others. Some have more talents than their fellows. But such people have an even greater responsibility to make their contribution to the defence of their society.

The Christian should not need to be told that his whole being and substance should be given in the service of God. Every individual can make some contribution. And if sufficient individuals work with the same dedication as the Communists, then at least there is a reasonable chance that our children shall not be reared in a Communist hell.

It is the manifestation of the primacy of the spiritual over the material which alone can prevent the final triumph of International Communism. And spiritual activity is essentially individual activity. This explosive truth is something which the Communist always fears.

Let every individual hold fast to this truth in the grim struggle ahead and pledge himself to do that which he can best do.

The following words by Edward Everitt Hale summarise the spirit necessary for victory:
"I am only one, but I am one;
I cannot do everything But I can do something.
And what I can do That I ought to do;
And what I ought to do, By the Grace of God I will do."


The Roosevelt Myth, John T. Flynn. Devin-Adair, 1948. Pearl Harbour, George Morgenstern. Devin-Adair, 1947.

The Decisive Battles of The Western World, Vol. 3. Major-General J. F. Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., Eyre & Spotiswoode, 1956.

The Final Secret of Pearl Harbour, Rear-Admiral Robert A. Theobold. Devin-Adair, 1954.

America's Second Crusade, W. H. Chamberlin. Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, 1950.

As He Saw It, Elliott Roosevelt. Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York, 1946.

Roosevelt and Hopkins, Robert E. Sherwood. Harper Brothers, New York, 1948.

The Strange Alliance, John Deane. Viking Press, New York, 1947.

Memoirs Of Cordell Hull, Cordell Hull. Macmillan, New York, 1948. 2 vols.

I Was There, William D. Lealiy. Whittlesey House, New York, 1950.

The Enemy At His Back, Elizabeth Churchill Brown. Distributed by The Bookmailer, New York, 1956.

From Major Jordan's Diaries, George Racey Jordan. Harcourt, Brace and Company. New York, 1952. 1st Edition. .

The Struggle For Europe, Chester Wilmot. Collins, 1952.

Out of Bondage, Elizabeth Bentley. Devin-Adair, 1951.

The Rape of Poland, Stanislaw Mikolajczyk. Whittlesey House, New York, 1948.

The Second World War, J. F. C. Fuller. Eyre and Spotiswoode, London, 1948.

The Cry is Peace, Louis F. Burdenz. Regnery, Chicago, 1952.

The Lattimore Story, John T. Flynn. Devin-Adair.

Design For War, Frederic R. Sanborn. Devin-Adair.

A Century Of Conflict, Stephan T. Possony. Regnery, 1953.

The Yalta Betrayal, Felix Wittner. Thie Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho, 1954.

The Makers Of War, Francis Neilson. Nelson Publishing Co., Appleton, Wisconsin, 1950.

The Twenty-year Revolution, Chesley Manly. Regnery, Chicago, 1954.