|Home||Blog||Freedom Potentials||The Cross Roads||Veritas Books|
|OnTarget Archives||Newtimes Survey||Podcast Library||Video Library||PDF Library|
|Actionist Corner||YouTube Video Channel||BitChute Video Channel||Brighteon Video Channel||Social Credit Library|
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.
PREFACE TO FOURTH EDITION
PREFACE TO FIFTH EDITION
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.
WORLD COMMUNISM BY 1973?
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.
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.
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,
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.
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
REVOLUTION THROUGH WAR
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.
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.
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."
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 ROOSEVELT MYTH"
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.
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
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.
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
"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.
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.
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".
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 ROLE OF HARRY HOPKINS AND GENERAL MARSHALL
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.
We now turn to General Marshall.
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.
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".
PRELUDE TO WAR
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.
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 TRUTH 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.
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.
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.
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"!
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.
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:
Grew reported on October 1 that Konoye's proposals
had general political and military support, and observed that
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
JAPAN'S STRUGGLE TO END THE WAR
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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
STALIN DOMINATED THE QUEBEC CONFERENCES
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.
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:
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."
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."
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."
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.
THE TEHERAN CONFERENCE
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.
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.
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.
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. "
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.
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
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
"the attack on Southern Franch should precede Overlord (the cross Channel
invasion) by two months."
THE YALTA DISASTER
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."
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
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."
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."
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.
HOW THE COMMUNISTS EXPLOITED LEASE-LEND
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
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.
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.
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
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.
HOW CHINA PASSED UNDER COMMUNIST CONTROL
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.
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:
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.
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
"followed with incredulous satisfaction."
U.N.O. AND THE COMMUNIST TRAP
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|